No Witness

---

The legal dispute over the suspension of Parliament has finished for a second day to the Supreme court.

The government's lawyer, Sir James Eadie QC, said it was not for the courts to "design a set of rules" about the agreement, as it was a political matter.

But Aidan O'neill QC, on behalf of the activists, said against the motion, it was "an improper purpose".

Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament earlier this month for five weeks.

The Prime Minister said it would allow him to hold a Queen's speech on 14. Outline of October, its new strategies for the coming year.

But critics say his intention was to silence the MPs and stop the review of its plans in the run-up to the Brexit deadline on December 31. October.

There are two appeals to be heard by the Supreme court over Three Days .

The First is an appeal, brought by the entrepreneur and fighter Gina Miller against the English High Court to take decision in a challenge to the agreement.

The second is an appeal, of the agreement by the government against a separate decision by the Edinburgh Court of Session, that is unlawful.

A senior government source believed to 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.

As we have here?

activists against the interruption, under the direction of Mrs. Miller, has launched a legal challenge in the English High Court earlier this month claiming the movement was "an unlawful abuse of Power ".

said Mr. Johnson, the decision was "purely political" and therefore "not a matter" for the judiciary.

But, you granted to Ms Miller and her team for an appeal to the Supreme court.

A group of cross-party MPs, including the SNP, Joanna Cherry , had also launched a similar case in Edinburgh Court of Session, which was earlier this year, and the result, when it came, very Different .

and for the "improper purpose of stymieing the Parliament ".

But the government was also an appeal against the judgment before the Supreme court.

Both of these remedies in Three Days by the Supreme court, 11 judges are to be heard, with Tuesday's focus on the appeal against the original judgments - Ms Miller and her team, and the government.

What happened on Wednesday?

Wednesday focused on the Two Sides , which had won its arguments in lower courts.

in The Morning , the representatives of the government, Sir James Eadie QC, argued in favour of the English court decision.

He said the agreement had exercised "a well-established constitutional function of the Executive", and decisions about them were directly "... within this policy, or political area".

Sir James argued, also adopted by Parliament laws, addressing aspects of the agreement, but there was no law for this specific case - that is, the courts could not intervene.

Asked about the need to maintain parliamentary sovereignty, Sir James said it was "a valuable principle," but urged caution "- this sentence is too far, or in General round about".

One of the judges, Lady Black, asked how the Parliament could apply, a check on the government, once it is "removed from the picture" by agreement.

But Sir James said it had always and inevitably have the effect of limiting the debate in Parliament , and the deputies were able to regain control, once the suspension was over.

It was not design to be appropriate for the courts, which should take a set of rules" about how long the suspension, he said.

The BBC's home Affairs correspondent, Dominic Casciani, said a key issue of the scope of parliamentary sovereignty.

Mr Wilson Sir James asked why No Witness statement were provided to explain to the minister why the agreement was made the decision.

Sir James said to the court that he would like a written statement explaining, what would the government do if he lost the case.

On Tuesday, advocate-General for Scotland, Mr Sharp, QC, on behalf of the government, assured the court that the Prime Minister would take "to meet all necessary steps", in this case, but would not comment on whether Mr Johnson try in retrospect, prorogue Parliament again.

The afternoon saw Aidan O'neill QC's argument in favour of the Scottish court against the agreement.

He said the decision had been made "in Bad Faith ", and "to an impermissible purpose".

He suggested the government should "not be adopted solely in the high politics rather than the low, unclean, Dirty Tricks ", but "in view of the attitude taken, his advisers and the Prime Minister , the idea of the rule of law", could.

Mr O'neill said one of the advantages of the decision from Edinburgh, had it "distance", and added: "A look at what is bubble all this heated debate, [and] political machinations looks like 400 Miles Away , far from The Fever and the excitement The Nation 's capital, [and] outside of Westminster. "

he said He's not calling for the court "to decide a new set of rules for the agreement can be used", but argues that it is "certainly for the province of the courts" to determine whether The Move was followed by the rule of law.

He added: "In The Present case, the Prime Minister ' s action, it seems... has the intent and the effect of avoiding Parliament . from the hold of the government's politically-account at a time when the government decisions of the constitutional court and irreversible impact on Our Country .

"it can't be a lawful use of The Power of agreement. "

He added: "We cannot have a situation in which there are no standards, in which the agreement can be used with impunity. "

It is not yet known when the judges will deliver their Verdict - it could be in the afternoon on Thursday.

Our home Affairs correspondent said The Feeling was, The Wait would not be long, given the importance of the problem.

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

Source of news: bbc.com