Historian critcises anti-Brexit campaigners for prorogation fury ‘Not matter for courts’

The Supreme Court is in the second day of its hearing into whether acted within the law in proroguing Parliament. Judges are hearing two separate appeals, one lodged by anti- businesswoman , and one by the Government appealing against the ruling by Scotland’s Court of Session that the original decision was unlawful.

However, Sheila Lawlor, director of Politeia, told Express.co.uk: “The decision about proroguing Parliament is a matter for the Government of the day, .

“We have an unwritten constitution in the UK and three separate powers, the executive or government, the legislature, or Parliament and the judiciary, or the courts.

“Prorogation is a job for the executive branch - it’s not a matter for the courts.”

Mrs Lawlor, a historian whose books included Churchill and the Politics of War, 1940-41, added: “There is life beyond Brexit and it is time for the Government to enact its full programme.

“In fact, the aberration was that did not Prorogue Parliament since 2017.

“It seems that those who lost the political battle in 2016 are bad losers, willing to undermine the British constitution’s separation of powers to fight the battle they lost all over again to stop Brexit.

JUST IN:

“People voted for a certain course in 2016. Parliament has obstructed the referendum decision being executed.

“It is odd that the courts are being invoked to support parliament against the authority of the ballot box in 2016 and 2017.

“The danger is that the Government which has been obstructed by , may find the courts weighing in on a matter which is properly for government/the executive.

“The High Court has explained why this is not a decision for the courts - it is a political question for political resolution.”

Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament is a political issue and not a matter for judges, a lawyer for the Prime Minister told the Supreme Court today as he sought to persuade the Supreme Court that the five-week shutdown was lawful.

to prorogue Parliament from September 10 until October 14, prompting accusations from opponents, who outlined their case yesterday, that he wanted to silence the legislature in the run-up to Britain’s exit from the European Union on October 31.

James Eadie, a lawyer for Mr Johnson, told that the ability to prorogue parliament was a matter of politics or “high policy” which was non-justiciable, meaning it was not something judges could rule on.

It was a matter for parliament to hold the government to account, not the courts, he said, arguing that lawmakers could hold a vote of no-confidence in the government if they wished.

He added: “These are political judgements.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Share on google plus
    Google Comments
    Facebook Comments

0 comments:

Post a Comment