By Tony O'Riley-
The outcome of two opposing court rulings was effectively in the dock today, as both the British government and campaigners against Boris Johnson’s controversial decision to prorogue parliament battled it out at the Supreme Court.
Sir James on behalf of the government argued that prorogation was “a well-established constitutional function exercised by the executive” and decisions about it were “squarely within that political or high policy area”. He further argued that Parliament had previously passed laws addressing aspects of prorogation, but no legal provision existed for obstructing it, leaving it outside the remit of the courts .
Sir James Eadie QC said the suspension is a political judgement and that the inevitable limitation it has on parliamentary debate is temporary, lasting only for the duration of such suspension. He argued that it was not appropriate for the courts to “design a set of rules” about how long a suspension should last, he said.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
BAD FAITH
On the side of the Scottish ruling that proroguing was unlawful, Aidan O’Neill QC said the decision had been carried out “in bad faith”, and “for an improper purpose”. He suggested that the government was engaging “solely in high politics rather than low, dishonest, dirty tricks”, but “given the attitude that has been taken by its advisers and the prime minister to the notion of the rule of law” that could not be assumed.
Mr O’Neill said one of the advantages of the ruling from Edinburgh was it had “distance”, adding: “A view of what all of this heated debate [and] political machinations looks like 400 miles away, far from the fever and excitement of the nation’s capital, [and] outside the Westminster bubble.”
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Aidan O’Neill QC said he was not calling for the court to “decide a whole new set of rules for how prorogation can be used”, but argued it was “most certainly for the province of the courts” to determine whether the actions of the government were in line with constitutional principles.
He added: “In the present case, it appears the prime minister’s action… has had the intent and effect of preventing Parliament… from holding the government politically to account at a time when the government is taking decisions that will have constitutional and irreversible impact on our country.
“That cannot be a lawful use of the power of prorogation.”
He added: “We cannot have a situation in which there are no standards, in which prorogation can be used with impunity.”
The case has one more day to go before a final ruling on it.
Image:youtube.com
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar