The United Kingdom Prime Minister’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Boris Johnson suspended – or prorogued – Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31st October.
“The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification,” Lady Hale said.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale added that”the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme.”
The PM said he “profoundly disagreed” with the ruling but would “respect” it.
Now many MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign and some say they will attempt to force him out if he does not go of his accord.
Johnson insisted he wanted to outline his government’s policies in a Queen’s Speech on 14 October, and to do that, Parliament must be prorogued and a new session started.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary.
The court ruling does not prevent him from proroguing again in order to hold one, as long as it does not stop Parliament carrying out its duties “without reasonable justification”.
People within and close to 10 Downing street said that the Supreme Court had “made a serious mistake in extending its reach to these political matters”, and had “made it clear that its reasons [were] connected to the Parliamentary disputes over, and timetable for” Brexit.
However, Lady Hale emphasised in the ruling that the case was “not about when and on what terms” the UK left the EU – it was about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return “in light of the explicit judgement”, and he had “instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare… for the resumption of business” from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
He said prime minister’s questions would not go ahead, but there would be “full scope” for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.
Source : Various