,
8 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Back in court in Gina Miller v PM Boris Johnson. Sir James Eadie for the PM is picking up where he left off. The decision that Mr Johnson took to prorogue Parliament is political in nature - so not a question for courts.
Government’s have the power to end a Parliamentary session so that they can manage their agenda and plans.
(Strictly speaking, it’s The Queen who prorogues Parliament on advice from the PM, but you see the point).
How is a court to judge whether a Parliament would wish to legislate rather than be prorogued? Is it because the newspapers report so? This is a political question, says Sir James. One that a court cannot answer as a matter of lawfulness.
Sir James Eadie for the PM is now attacking the allegation that the five-week prorogation is somehow illegal. He asks the judges whether they could ever rule - as a matter of law - how long a Parliament should sit for.
Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, tells the court he’s already read the no-deal-Brexit-blocking legislation passed by MPs last night. Begs the question: Do judges ever sleep???
(The important point being made by the PM’s legal team in turning to last night’s bill is that Parliament is not in fact being prevented from legislating by the five-week prorogation)
On Parliamentary sovereignty, Sir James Eadie says it means that MPs and Peers can enact legislation as they please - but there’s nothing to suggest that an aspect of the sovereignity requires the courts to intervene over when Parliament should sit.
