Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments, including day one of the supreme court hearing to decide on claims that the suspension of parliament was unlawful

Boris Johnson likely to lose supreme court case, says Labour

Andrew Sparrow

2m ago10:44

Pannick says the government has argued that there are legislative provisions that relate to parliamentary sittings, such as the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act.

He says these provisions do not invalid that point that parliament should not be prorogued for an improper motive.

FacebookTwitter

3m ago10:43

Pannick turns to three arguments advanced by the government.

The government is arguing that there are no legal rules relating to prorogation, only conventions.

Pannick says he is not arguing that prorogation has to last for a maximum amount of time.

He says what matters here is intention. And in this case the length of the prorogation suggests that the PM’s motive was to “silence period” during this period.

FacebookTwitter

5m ago10:41

Lord Pannick QC is now speaking.

He is speaking on behalf of Gina Miller.

He says he wants to make three main arguments.

First, he says, he is arguing that the prime minister opted for a five-week prorogation to limit the opportunity of parliament to frustrate his government’s policies.

Second, he says, he is arguing that it is “elementary in public law” that a power can only be used for its proper purpose. That applies to prerogative powers as well, he says.

He says for the executive to use a prerogative power to evade the scrutiny of parliament stands the principles of constitutional law on its head.

He says he will argue that the government is arguing the “constitutional novelty” that the powers of the legislature to scrutinise the executive are subject to powers exercised by the executive.

And, third, he says, he will argue that the high court was wrong to argue that the decision to prorogue was not justiciable (subject to adjudication by the courts). He says he is not arguing how long prorogation should be.

FacebookTwitter

12m ago10:34

Lady Hale, the president of the supreme court, starts.

She says this is a difficult case because senior judges in England and Scotland have reached different conclusions.

She says this case will not decide how and when the UK leaves the EU.

She says these appeals have been heard at very short notice.

Updated at 10.37am BST

FacebookTwitter

12m ago10:34

Unlike many news organisations, we chose an approach that means all our reporting is free and available for everyone. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable.

For as little as €1 you can support us – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. Make a contribution – The Guardian

14m ago10:32

The 11 supreme court judges hearing the case are now taking their seats.

That means all but one of the 12 judges on the court are here – an indication of how important this case is seen.

FacebookTwitter

19m ago10:27

Supreme court hearing

The supreme court hearing is about to start.

There is a live feed at the top of the blog.

FacebookTwitter

25m ago10:21

You can tell the supreme court hearing is important because David Dimbleby has turned up. According to the Press Association, the broadcasting veteran has been speaking to those queuing to get into the court hearing. Dimbleby told PA:

I lived through Suez, the miners’ strike, I lived through the poll tax debate and the trouble then. I lived through the Iraq demonstrations – I’ve never seen the country so divided as this …

The prime minister is accused of lying to the Queen – let’s put it bluntly – and getting parliament suspended without good reason and that’s big potatoes, it has to be.

Updated at 10.38am BST

FacebookTwitter

40m ago10:07

Supreme court hearing – What you need to know

To make sense of any court hearing, you need to have the relevant paperwork to hand. Here is a guide to the background information you need to make sense of today’s proceedings.

A good starting point is my colleague Owen Bowcott’s guide to the issues at stake.

Judgments from the lower courts

Courts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have already ruled on prorogation and Brexit.

Last week the Scottish court of session ruled that prorogation was unlawful. What is really at issue today is whether the supreme court backs this decision or overturns it.

Here is a summary of the Scottish judgment. And here is the 68-page full judgment (pdf).

But the high court in London rejected a very similar claim, on the grounds that prorogation was a political matter and that it was not for the courts to decide whether or not it was proper. Here is a summary of that high court judgment (pdf). And here is the full judgment (pdf).

On Thursday, the high court in Belfast also found in favour of the government, but on a challenge claiming a no-deal Brexit would breach the Good Friday agreement. You can read that judgment here (pdf), but it is not central to the supreme court case.

Timetable

ITV’s Robert Peston has posted on Twitter a guide to what will be happening when during the three-day supreme court hearing.

Robert Peston

✔@Peston

 · 16h

On Thursday we will witness something for which I can find no precedent, namely an ex Tory prime minister Sir John Major arguing in the highest court of the land that the exercise of the prerogative by the current Tory prime minister, Boris Johnson, in suspending parliament…

Robert Peston

✔@Peston

was unlawful. See attached for the details of this legal and constitutional blockbuster

506

6:48 PM – Sep 16, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

195 people are talking about this

There is a bit more detail on the court sittings page on the supreme court’s website.

Written submissions

The supreme court has also published the written submissions from the parties.

Here is the 25-page one from Gina Miller (pdf).

Here is the 93-page one from Joanna Cherry (pdf).

Here is the 46-page one for the prime minister and the advocate general for Scotland (pdf).

Updated at 10.40am BST

FacebookTwitter

1h ago09:43

Lisa O’Carroll

A revived Stormont assembly could be part of the Brexit solution, the Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith has said.

In Dublin where he met the deputy prime minister Simon Coveney and a delegation from Sinn Fein, he was asked if Stormont would have a say on regulatory alignment on both sides of the border if Brexit talks collapsed. He replied:

I think it would be very helpful if the assembly was back up and running. I think there are opportunities through the consent mechanisms from the Good Friday agreement and I think the assembly and executive up and running could be part of that.

However he declined to say whether the mechanism would require consensus from Stormont or a majority veto, which raises concerns that the DUP could block regulatory alignment. He went on:

I think you are now drawing me into an area which I am not responsible for. The Brexit negotiations are being led by the prime minister.

The Irish government has said a veto for any Stormont party would not be acceptable to the EU. It has also warned that a deal centring on agri-food alignment only would be doomed to failure as it only accounts for 30% of border trade and does not address other political and cultural issues in the backstop.

FacebookTwitter

1h ago09:40

Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP who led the legal challenge against prorogation at the Scottish court of session, told BBC Radio Scotland this morning that she was “cautiously optimistic” about winning at the supreme court. She said:

I’m cautiously optimistic that [the Scottish ruling] will stand.

I think that Scotland’s supreme court reached the right decision here for the right reasons and I’m cautiously optimistic that at least a majority of the UK supreme court justices will follow.

I think Scotland does have a unique constitutional tradition but I think the way in which Scotland’s supreme court decided this case could easily be followed by the UK supreme court and I think the heart of the matter was set out very well by Lord Drummond Young in Scotland when he said it’s not the job of the courts to subject government to political scrutiny, that’s the job of parliament, but where government prevents parliament from doing that job of scrutiny, the courts can step in to make sure that parliamentary democracy is restored.

I think that’s the heart of the Scottish judgment and I think that sets out the constitutional position as it should be and as I believe it is across the UK and that’s why I’m cautiously optimistic that the UK judges will follow the Scottish courts.

FacebookTwitter

1h ago09:36

Gina Miller, the businesswoman and campaigner who brought one of the cases being decided by the supreme court, has issued this statement ahead of today’s hearing.

As with my first case, my supreme court case is about pushing back against what is clearly a dramatic overreach of executive power.

This is an issue that cuts across the political divides – and the arguments about the EU – and it has united remainers and leavers and people of all political complexions and none in opposition to it.

The precedent [Boris] Johnson will set – if this is allowed to stand – is terrifying: any prime minister trying to push through a policy that is unpopular in the House and in the country at large would from now on simply be able to resort to prorogation.

No one could ever have envisaged it being used in this way: this is a classic power-grab.

The reason given for the prorogation was patently untrue and, since then, the refusal to come clean or provide any of the disclosures we have asked for has compounded the deception.

It is my view – and the view of a great many others – that Mr Johnson has gone too far and put our parliamentary sovereignty and democracy in grave danger by his actions.

FacebookTwitter

1h ago09:25

Here are some pictures from outside the supreme court.

FacebookTwitter

2h ago09:10

Given the wider context, Downing Street might have thought twice before deciding today was the day to send Robert Buckland, the attorney general, out into the studios to promote a plan for longer jail sentences for people who break the law. But that is what he was doing on the Today programme when he refused to rule out Boris Johnson suspending parliament for a second time before the Brexit deadline on 31 October. Asked if it was even “remotely conceivable” that Johnson might suspend (prorogue, to use the technical term) parliament again (it is due to return on 14 October), Buckland did not say no. Instead he replied:

Well, you know – it feels in politics, Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics, it seems like an hour is a long time in politics at the moment. For me to sit here and imagine what might happen at the end of October, I think, is idle. What I do know is, if we are able to, we will have a Queen’s speech in mid-October, there will be debate during that time, and a vote as well, perhaps a series of votes.

In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg yesterday, Johnson himself also refused to rule out suspending parliament again when asked directly to do so.

As Joe Moor, director of legislative affairs at Downing Street when Theresa May was prime minister, explained in an article in the Sunday Telegraph two days ago (paywall), if the government wins the supreme court case starting today, it would be possible for Johnson to suspend parliament again after it returns on 14 October, at least until 6 November. It would have to be sitting on those two days because of an amendment passed to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act, Moor explained.

All of which is why today’s supreme court hearing is so important.

Here is my colleague Owen Bowcott’s overnight preview story.

And here is his analysis of the issues at stake.

There is a live feed of the hearing, and so I will be covering it in detail. Undoubtedly, it is likely to be heavy going – the supreme court is not the Old Bailey, and if you are not interested in arcane points of constitutional law, it might be a day to tune into the Lib Dem conference instead – but this is a case that could reset the boundaries between parliament and the executive, and curtail or expand Johnson’s Brexit options, so it is clearly of the utmost importance.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Boris Johnson chairs cabinet.

10.30am: The supreme court begins the three-day hearing to decide whether Boris Johnson’s lengthy suspension (prorogation, to use the technical term) of parliament was unlawful.

2.10pm: Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leaders, winds up her party conference with her keynote speech.

As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, although I will mostly be focusing on the supreme court hearing. I plan to publish a summary when I wrap up.

You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe roundup of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Updated at 9.17am BST

Sorgente: Brexit: Supreme court begins hearing legal challenges over Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament – live news | Politics | The Guardian

Please follow and like us:

0

0

20

20