The highest court in the Uk has taken a historic decision: the Supreme Court dicatamina that was illegal, null and void and without effect, the decision of Johnson of to suspend the activity in the House of Commons.
The unanimous decision by the 11 judges of the court is a major blow to Johnson, who suspended sessions of the two legislative chambers for five weeks ensuring that it was a closing routine.
the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow , in response to the ruling, he said: "I Welcome the Supreme Court judgement that the suspension of the Parliament was illegal" "The judges have rejected the claim of the government that shut down Parliament for five weeks was simply a standard practice to allow a new Queen's speech".
For his part, the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn has asked Johnson to consider his position and calls for the holding of a general election "to choose a government that respects democracy, that respects the rule of law and return the power to the people".
In a special session during the congress, labour in Brighton (south), Corbyn said the government will ask the president of the House of Commons, John Bercow, that has as soon as the resumption of parliamentary sessions.
The "tories" argued that the suspension of the Parliament, "was not a matter of the court", but the opposition argued that Boris Johnson had intended to limit the scrutiny of the plans of the Brexit the prime minister.
Johnson had warned that does not rule out the re-closure of the Parliament.
The Parliament was to return to his activity on the 14th of October, and the Uk has planned to leave the European Union next October 31. Now, according to the decision of the high Court, the british Parliament will have to return to your activity.
The three-day hearing in the Supreme Court dealt with two appeals: one from activist and entrepreneur Gina Miller , and the second by the government.
Miller was appealing against the decision of the English high Court that the extension was "purely political" and it was not a matter of the courts.
For its part, the gobieno appealed against the judgment of the Court of Session of Scotland that the extension was "illegal" and that it had been used to "hinder" the Parliament.
these two positions are completely contradictory, we had to face the Supreme Court.
During the case of the Supreme Court, the attorney for the government Lord Keen , he said that it was "forbidden territory" for judges to intervene in political arguments on when and how to suspend the Parliament.
however, Lord Pannick , on behalf of Miller, argued that the "duration exceptional" of the extension was "strong evidence" that the reason the prime minister was "mute Parliament" , what he saw as an obstacle to their political objectives.
Boris Johnson defended that it was closing down the Parliament to celebrate a new speech of the Queen on the 14th of October to outline the legislative plans of government for the next year.
however, the time has been controversial because it reduced the amount of time that the Parliament had, before the deadline for the Brexit, as the mps could not ask questions to the ministers or to examine the legislation of the government during the suspension.Updated Date: 24 September 2019, 14:03