[ad_1]
Was the prolonged suspension of parliament requested by Boris Johnson from Queen Elizabeth II illegal? On Tuesday, September 24, the Supreme Court ruled that yes, as it prevented British parliamentarians from controlling the government. The decision was taken unanimously by 11 judges. British Supreme Court President Brenda Hale said the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prolong the Parliament for five weeks is "illegal, empty and without effect". That is, according to the Supreme Court, given the illegality, it is as if the decision to suspend – which was currently in progress – had not taken place.
Hale also said that there is no "justification" for a prolonged suspension – greater than in previous years – and that "the effects on the foundations of democracy [britânica] they were extreme. "" It was not a normal extension, "he said, arguing that this decision prevented Parliament from fulfilling its democratic duties at a critical time in the UK removal process from the European Union.
There were also doubts as to whether this was a case that could be tried in court, which the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed. The decision explains that the problem goes beyond the limits of Parliament's power to extend: the sovereignty of Parliament to decide on its functioning and the responsibility of parliamentarians towards the government or various issues.
Boris Johnson does not rule out new suspensions
Before the Supreme Court sentence was made public, the British Prime Minister refused to exclude a scenario in which he suspended Parliament again. Boris Johnson also excludes resignation if the court's decision was against the executive's action.
The case had already passed through other UK courts, with different results. An English court argued that it was not competent to rule on a matter that it considered political.
However, in Scotland, a court found that Parliament's prolonged suspension (beyond the "normal" period of British policy) was "illegal". The British government has decided to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court.
(News in update)
[ad_2]
Source link
