John Lord

---

Boris Johnson suspended Parliament to stop MPs 'interference' in the UK's EU-exit, - said The Lawyer of former PM Sir John Major .

The three-day Supreme court, whether the decision to prorogue was unlawful has completed, his last day.

The President of the Supreme court, Lady Hale , said the would announce the judges, a decision by the beginning of next week.

The Government argues that the agreement is a matter for the courts, but critics say that the watch is trying to stop MPs questioning the Brexit policy.

In July , Sir John said he would be willing to try a judicial review of whether the new PM is trying to disrupt Parliament.

He later joined in the lawsuit by activists to avoid Gina Miller ", the court of the time".

In a submission to the court, the Government said that if the judge decided against The Clock , it would "either still open or not open, to check the Prime Minister , a further agreement".

If you'd asked, when he said to prorogue Parliament, the Prime Minister , he would wait "to see what comes out of it".

Through the Looking Glass

It feels like we are completely through the mirror.

We have a Prime Minister , the allegation of misleading the monarch and Parliament.

Come to help, the case against the current Prime Minister , the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major .

In a very bold and strong terms, he accused Boris Johnson have misled The Queen , and suggesting its true purpose was entirely political, in the sense that he wished he could shut down debate in Parliament.

There was a lot of criticism that it has not a testimony of the Government the adjustment of the real reasons for the agreement.

Sir John, The Lawyer of Mr Garnier said the ex-Prime Minister "believe that the documents provided to the court, the real reason for the agreement" and that "it would be reasonable to conclude for the court, his true intentions".

He is basically saying: "Look at The Evidence . It is extremely patchy. Draw your own conclusion. "

What happened today?

conclusion for the Government , Mr Sharp QC argued that the suspension of Parliament was a political matter.

He said the panel of 11 judges, the agreement was "forbidden territory, this is a matter between the Executive and the Parliament," and the deputies "had to change the tools," The Law , if they liked it.

Mr Keen added: "As in the context of the political minefield of the court system for the opine on the issue of the purposes or improper purposes [of the agreement], legitimate or illegitimate purpose. how are defined these terms, or applied?

"The applicant accepted the invitation of the judge in the forbidden area and an ill-defined minefield, and the courts are not equipped [to deal]. "

But Lord Pannick QC, summed up his complaint against the suspension of Parliament: the review of the deputies in the run-up to the Brexit period at the end of October was "of crucial importance".

He said that the length of the agreement "was motivated, or at least heavily influenced" by Mr Johnson, the conviction that the Parliament was "a threat to the implementation of its policy".

The cross-bench peer said the judge, the - make if they ruled against the Government ", a statement that the Prime Minister advising The Queen , [to prorogue Parliament] is illegal and a Declaration as soon as possible".

And, if the statement was made that Mr Johnson is reminiscent of the Parliament next week.

in the name of Sir John, Mr Garnier, QC, said there was evidence that the decision to suspend, was motivated by the Parliament "by a desire to prevent the Parliament with the Prime Minister the policy in this period".

He argued that the agreement only stop MPs from sitting in The House of Commons, but it prevents the implementation of other functions, such as the questions to the Minister.

Mr Garnier QC argued on behalf of Sir John Major at the Supreme court,

The court began hearing publications on behalf of the Scottish Government at 10:30 BST, followed by lawyers for the Northern Ireland victims campaigner Raymond McCord and the Welsh Government .

The Scottish Government , Lord advocate James Wolffe QC said the agreement was instead a "time-critical" period, when the Government 's decisions "monumental".

He said any decision to prorogue had to have, the "compelling justification".

In a written submission, the said Scottish Government , agreement would be "deeply Intrusive" effect on the Parliament.

Ronan Lavery QC, representing Mr McCord, urged the court on the meaning of the agreement on Northern Ireland . He said it was designed to "Run Down The Clock " would lead exit to be a no-deal-UK EU-to "the erection of The Border " on The Island of Ireland.

Supreme Court President Lady Hale said the court had "sole custody", with the lawfulnesss of the Prime Minister 's decision to prorogue Parliament, not the arguments about the nature of Brexit.

one Other justice, Mr. Wilson, later, Mr Lavery warned not to "abuse our courtesy and Lady Hale of patience", by the arguments about Brexit.

In a written submission, the shadow attorney General Baroness Chakrabarti said that if the Government disables the power has been left to prorogue Parliament "" MPs would "lead to deprived" of the ability of "their constitutional function".

What the court is to be taken into account?

The Supreme court will hear two appeals.

to throw The First led by business woman Ms Miller, the appeal against the English High Court decision in a challenge to the agreement.

The judge said the decision to suspend the Parliament, "the question," for the judiciary.

fighters Gina Miller and MP SNP-Joanna Cherry both have led cases against the agreement

the second comes from The Government , the appeal against Scotland the Court of Session decision, argued that the agreement was "unlawful" and to "stymie" the Parliament.

This is a challenge against the Government was brought to 75 parliamentarians, including the SNP-MP-Joanna Cherry .

What has happened so far?

Fight in the name of Mrs. Miller on The First day, Lord Pannick QC said there was "strong evidence" that wanted to watch "silence" of Parliament.

However, the Government attorney Mr Keen QC argues that the previous governments had prorogued Parliament to "pursue a specific political goal," and they were entitled "to do so".

On the second day of the court the Government lawyer, Sir James Eadie QC, said not heard, the question was a matter for the courts.

He also argued that the suspension had silenced the MPs, because they had already managed to pass a law, blocked a no-deal-UK to exit the EU, despite the agreement of the appointments.

In the afternoon session, Aidan O'neill, QC, said the decision had been made "in Bad Faith ", and "to an impermissible purpose".

What happens next?

Lady Hale , said the verdict would be delivered early next week.

A senior Government source, the BBC's political editor said, believed No 10, that the Supreme court judge that the agreement was a matter for the courts, and fire alarm recordings would be "how a Government should not close these to the Parliament illegally".

However, Laura Kuenssberg , said according to The Source , Not 10, not believe, the court would unravel their plan for a "Queen's Speech next month.

boris johnson, uk parliament, gina miller, unlawful parliament suspension, uk supreme court, brexit

Source of news: bbc.com