A SCOTTISH judge will today decide if Boris Johnson’s plot to suspend Parliament ahead of the Halloween Brexit deadline is legal.
On Wednesday, the Queen approved an order to prorogue Parliament next month.
It will see the Commons effectively closed down for five weeks and leave MPs will little time to pass legislation to stop a No-Deal Brexit.
READ MORE: Ruth Davidson backs Boris Johnson in final press conference
On Thursday a cross-party group of 70 MPs and Lords asked Lord Doherty to issue an interim interdict to halt the order.
The parliamentarians had already filed a petition at Scotland’s highest civil court this summer, aiming to prevent the Tory government proroguing Parliament.
Johnson’s shock move on Tuesday forced them to speed up their efforts.
The UK Government’s lawyers called on the judge to reject the request, as the Queen has already prorogued Parliament and there is “no reason” to have an interim decision on such an important matter.
Aidan O’Neill QC, representing the petitioners – led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and LibDem leader Jo Swinson, and aided by Jo Maugham of the Good Law Project, said the prorogation was “unprecedented” and the petitioners are invoking the court’s “constitutional jurisdiction”.
He said the “Government, based on a parliamentary majority of one, is abusively seeking to entrench its power ... by suspending Parliament”.
He continued: “The political accountability of the Government is being eroded by proroguing Parliament.
“That’s their intention, that’s their aim. That is unconstitutional and this court should stop it.
“The powers of the executive are never unlimited or unfettered. We do not live in a totalitarian state.”
O’Neill also told the court that the Government is obliged to follow the 1689 Claim of Right.
READ MORE: David Pratt: This is a coup d'etat – and there may yet be violence
He said this legislation emerged in the aftermath of the English Civil War to stop a monarch overriding Parliament.
“In the words of the Claim of Right, ‘the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom is one of a legal limited monarchy in which the regal power may not be exercised in violation of the laws and liberties of the Kingdom and which constitution may not be altered into an arbitrary despotic power by the advice of Evil and wicked counsellors’.
“I hesitate to draw parallels between what happened yesterday with what happened in the 17th century but sometimes, my lord, it is too tempting.”
Lord Doherty asked if there was a more recent precedent.
O’Neill said none would match the gravity of the present situation.
He said the Prime Minister’s claim there would be plenty of time for Parliament to debate Brexit despite prorogation is “wrong”, adding: “He knows he’s wrong and he says it anyway. One might call that a lie.”
Roddy Dunlop QC, representing the UK Government, said petitioners had no case as prorogation has already been agreed and is protected from court action.
He said the petitioners are asking the judge to take actions which are “wholly unprecedented and go beyond any interference which the courts have ever been permitted”.
“It is this sort of approach ... that would be unconstitutional,” he added.
Lord Doherty is due to make his decision at 10am today.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel