The legal battle over the suspension of Parliament has finished for a second day at the Supreme Court.

The government’s lawyer, Sir James Eadie QC, said it was not for the courts to “design a set of rules” over prorogation as it was a political matter.

But Aidan O’Neill QC, on behalf of campaigners against the move, said it was used “for an improper purpose”.

Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament earlier this month for five weeks.

The prime minister said it would allow him to hold a Queen’s Speech on 14 October to outline his new policies for the coming year.

But critics say his intention was to silence MPs and stop them scrutinising his plans in the run-up to the Brexit deadline on 31 October.

Please subscribe HERE http://bit.ly/1rbfUog

source

37 COMMENTS

  1. I have a very uneasy feeling that this matter of proroguement was a mistake. However! It can be suspended by the situation of the national emergency over global warming and worsening conditions. Only on the condition that the cause of the national emergency is the only subject to be discussed. I think owing to that. Brexit is not the urgent matter – the matter of worsening conditions of the environment MUST be the priority issue.

  2. Hello your BBC lord.You add autosuggestions and give a man schizophrenia.Where is the victims wife and children?You give a man schizophrenia so answer the question you television industry rapists.Your psychologists psychiatrists are to answer this question in court amongst other questions about human exploitation.

  3. That Gina Miller women needs to piss-off, appointing herself chief suer of the government…Who does she think she is? I hear that the supreme court is on 1st name terms with her. She visits the supreme court so often, she has her own tea-mug in the kitchen! When the government makes moves towards leaving, the supreme court calls Gina Miller, she don't call them!

  4. Abolish Parliament.Give rule over the land to judges. It seems that this is what this judge is actually proposing. Parliament must never become subordinate to the opinions of judges in a particular instance of prorogation like this one. Major prorogued parliament over an episode of corrupt practice had been exposed just to end the debate on the issue. This case is about observing the result of a democratic exercise which opponents of the result are trying stymy, to use the word of Lord Carloway.

  5. Oh my popcorn time. this seem serious.
    I didn´t think this soap opera would have last 2 days.

    I thought it was respectful to speak to the people when you promised a press conference.
    And I thought he was very respectful.
    That BOJO is a coward is his problem.
    So typical British turn it around, the PM doesn´t fulfill his promise.
    Then blaim somebody else.

  6. STILL THE SAME bbc ??why are you not talking about us leaving the eu on the 29th march >>>BY LAW>>>>>you can report bs but not what the people voted for >>>none of this crap means anything >>>we left and we do not want a deal we will make some deal in our terms not there terms >>>its sad when the people had a vote and we are still in the same place as 3 years ago >>>>For all the traitors bring back the gallows and hang them ???ALSO I SAW THE 50 PEOPLE IN THE DEMO >>>WHAT ABOUT THE 17.4 MILLION WHO VOTED OUT>>>well done boris i would of walked away and left the scum shouting bs

  7. That Prime Minister of Luxembourg seems remorseful… I was not impressed with his antiques… However, People make mistakes… Hope He learned his lesson and wont do it again… This is not a game where one side is trying to win brownie points… This has dispatched 2 different British Prime ministers already….

  8. Anybody giving attention to businessmen who have put their bets for Britain economy downfall after brexit. Also these businessmen are the biggest backers of brexit. So is credit really about border security or just the biggest business deal.

  9. There have already been cases from Scotland DUP and English courts which confirmed it lawful
    therefore if the Supreme Courts now over rides their verdicts would mean they do not accept their
    findings, judgments of the lower courts so what's the point and expense of having them. It was also
    stated it was not for them to deal with cases from Parliament as they have their own laws which
    are different to the Supreme Court laws therefore not for them to deal with cases from Parliament
    If it goes against Boris I can see in future when an opposition party disagrees what the Government
    proposes they'll take them to court at every turn so be careful Supreme Court what you are letting
    yourselves in for.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here