E-Paper
Tory PM vs Tory ex-PM: UK top court to rule on Brexit row
The UK Supreme Court has not announced when its ruling will be delivered after the three-day hearing, streamed live, concludes on Thursday, but it is likely to influence the course of Brexit-related events ahead of the October 31 deadline to leave the European Union.
Former Prime Minister John Major took on Prime Minister Boris Johnson—both from the Conservative party—in the Supreme Court on Thursday, opposing the latter’s decision to prorogue parliament on the third day of the case expected to have a major bearing on Brexit-related politics in the near future.
The three-day hearing described as extraordinary at various levels witnessed leading barristers appearing on behalf of the contending parties: the Johnson government, Indian-origin campaigner Gina Miller, the Scottish government, MPs as well as Major.
Essentially, the government’s lawyers argue that the prorogation is a political issue, which is not a matter for the courts, adding that the prime minister is entitled to prorogue Parliament. But opposing lawyers argue that it undermines parliamentary sovereignty, and is designed to “silence” MPs.
In one of the forceful presentations, barrister Aidan O’Neill told the 11 judges: “What we have with this prorogation is the mother of parliaments closed down by the father of lies. Lies have consequences but the truth will set us free”.
“Rather than allow lies to triumph, this court should listen to the angels of its better nature and rule that this prorogation is an unlawful abuse of the power of prorogation which has been entrusted to the government”, O’Neill, appearing for a cross-party team of MPs, said.
Major, who was prime minister from 1990 to 1997, told the court in a 10-page written submission: “The current factual picture, on the material which is available and with regard to the absence of evidence which ought to be available but has not been provided, is deeply concerning”.
“The court is under no obligation to approach this case on the artificially naive basis that the handful of disclosed documents, the contents of which nobody has been prepared to verify with a statement of truth, should nevertheless be assumed to be entirely accurate and complete when even members of the cabinet do not appear to believe them”.
“It would also be wrong to proceed on that basis, because it would mean that the real issue that has arisen on the facts would not be resolved”.
The issue of prorogation has been decided differently in courts in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in recent days. The highest court in Scotland ruled that the prorogation is unlawful, while the other two courts said it is a matter of politics, not law.
The Supreme Court has not announced when its ruling will be delivered after the three-day hearing, streamed live, concludes on Thursday, but it is likely to influence the course of Brexit-related events ahead of the October 31 deadline to leave the European Union.
