Parliament Square

---

says most of The judges in the UK, the case surrounding Boris Johnson 's suspension of Parliament raises "a serious and difficult question of law".

Lady Hale and 10 other judges have to decide, whether he gave advice to The Queen on the agreement was lawful.

government lawyer Mr Keen QC, said the Prime Minister was acting "entitled" to, as he did, and the Problem was not with the courts.

Lord Pannick QC, for the campaigners against The Move , told the Supreme court it was done to "silence" MPs in front of Brexit.

Mr Johnson announced at the end of August that he intends to suspend - or prorogue - Parliament for five weeks.

He claimed that it was right to do so, in order to pave the way for a "Queen's Speech on 14. October to outline the government's plans presented for the coming year.

The Prime Minister insisted The Move had nothing to do with Escape, and his "do or die" pledge to the UK from the EU on the 31. October , with or without a Deal - But the opposition MPs and activists that dispute and have The Matter before the court.

The Supreme court will hear two appeals This Week about the decision After two lower courts conflicting decided.

After a challenge by a cross-party group of politicians.

the Edinburgh Court of Session", said the shutdown was designed to "stymie" the Deputy had led in advance of the Leaving time, and Mr. Johnson effectively misleading the The Queen the Prince the exercise of the privileges.

But The Following is a challenge to the agreement brought by business woman and fighter Gina Miller .

the judge said the suspension was "purely political" and therefore "not a matter" for the judiciary.

"Wider questions"

demonstrators from both sides of the Brexit debate gathered in front of the court from Parliament Square in Westminster, as the three-day hearing began.

Lady Hale , President of the Supreme court, said in her introductory statement: "this is a serious and difficult question, which is in the law, proves the fact that have reached three senior judges in Scotland, a different conclusion from three senior judges in England and Wales. "

said the court would seek to answer these questions, But not to determine the "broader policy issues" in relation to the Brexit process or have an impact on your timing.

SNP-MP-Joanna-Cherry - who was also one of the lawyers said in the Scottish case of the BBC, you can be "cautiously optimistic" the Supreme court, the ruling.

Otherwise, She Said , it would be "the assumption that it is possible. for the Prime Minister of a minority government shut down Parliament when it is always in His Way ".

Argue on behalf of the government on Tuesday, The Advocate -General for Scotland, Mr Keen said, the Supreme court held that in the Declaration of the agreement "invalid", the Scottish court had gone "where the court could not go".

He said if the judgment was given, instead, the Prime would Minister, "to fulfill all the necessary steps".

But , After , pushed by the judges, he said he would not comment on whether Mr Johnson try in retrospect, prorogue Parliament again.

Mr Keen said earlier prorogations of Parliament - including in the years of 1930 and 1948 - had, "busy", if the governments wanted to "pursue a specific political goal," and added: "you are entitled to do this. "

He said that if MPs don't want to, that the Parliament be suspended appropriate measures "and ways to stop it in its tracks, by passing new laws - with regard to the fact, to block that bill, a no-was passed to Deal Brexit, in just Two Days . would have"

Fight in the name of Mrs. Miller and against the English court decision - cross-bench peer Lord Pannick, said Mr Johnson suspended Parliament to avoid The Risk of MPs "frustrating or harmful" to be the UK's EU-exit plans.

It was, saw, Lord Pannick added, "strong evidence" that the PM, MPs "as an obstacle" and silence" you wanted to ".

He said he had "no quarrel" with the Prime Minister the right to prorogue Parliament , a "Queen's Speech.

However, he said the "extraordinary length" of this suspension, the "strong evidence of the Prime Minister was the motive to silence Parliament , because he sees Parliament as an obstacle".

Gina Miller is an appeal against an earlier decision in favor of the government

Lord Pannick, said the facts showed the PM instructed The Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks, "because he wants to avoid what he saw as The Risk that the Parliament in this period, would take measures to thwart, or damage to, the policy of its government".

He said, the effect of the suspension was the the Parliament "from The Game " a defining moment in British history, and he disagreed with The High Court judgment that the Problem is outside of the reach of the courts.

"The Answer is either Yes or no, But it is a Problem of the law and the rule of law, the court is demanding answers and say, "it is for us, and it is for the election of the Prime Minister '. "

in the Midst of the protests in front of the Supreme court, and the quiet, focused, however, legal debate within The First day of this potentially monumental constitutional battle were two questions.

Do the judges have to stop The Power to the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament ? And, if so, Boris Johnson acting illegally and mislead The Queen ?

Lord Pannick QC, for Gina Miller , hammered attack After the other.

Where is the Prime Minister of the stuff was show statement, he had an honest reason for the closure of Parliament ? How could prevent a Prime Minister who is accountable to Parliament , that it holds its feet to The Fire ?

Mr Keen QC, the government's top lawyer in Scotland, argued the judge could not even consider these questions.

It was a crucial moment of political intrigue, when the judge asked, what would do, Mr. Johnson, if he should lose.

But his lawyer could not say whether he will ask, perhaps, easy to open, The Queen , the Parliament , And Then shut down again.

Ms Miller is seeking a binding order, which would effectively remind The Power of the government, the Parliament , the legal BBC correspondent Clive Coleman said.

the opposition parties called for Parliament to be recalled But at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Mr Johnson told the Minister that he was "confident" that the government of the arguments.

He told the BBC on Monday he had the "greatest respect for the judiciary", and its independence, "one of The Glories of the UK".

Downing Street has refused to speculate about how the government might react, should they lose this case in court.

Pressed This Morning to say to the Minister of justice, Robert Buckland , rejected, whether the Parliament would be remembered, or whether the Prime Minister could try to suspend Parliament a second time.

Mr Buckland said any decision would depend on the exact wording of the court decision.

Nevertheless, the defeat would be a serious blow.

It would be the First Time in Modern History that a Prime Minister was to have addressed, misled Parliament .

And if you were a member recalled that Mr Johnson would almost certainly, in the face of the contempt of Parliament proceedings, indictments, he would have lied to The Queen , and the pressure to reveal more details about its negotiating strategy and its planning for the no Deal .

the defeat before the Supreme court would also make it much more difficult for the Prime Minister to defy MPs for a second time, as he has threatened to block the your account, a no-Deal -UK to exit the EU.

elsewhere on Tuesday, the Prime Minister has the issue of Brexit, in a telephone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel .

No 10 said afterwards: "The Prime Minister reiterated that the UK and the EU have agreed to accelerate the efforts to achieve a Deal , without a backstop that could support the British Parliament , and that we reach the work with energy and determination, this, in front of Brexit on the 31. October . "

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

Source of news: bbc.com