قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ World https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Suspension of Boris Johnson's Parliament was Unlawful, US Supreme Court Rules

Suspension of Boris Johnson's Parliament was Unlawful, US Supreme Court Rules



LONDON – The British Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally terminated parliament, striking him one more blow and pushing the nation's policies to further turmoil, just a month before Britain left the European Union.

The court unanimously held that the suspension of Parliament until 14 October was invalid and that legislators were still in session and could continue the debate on Brexit, which Mr Johnson had short-circuited when he asked the Queen to suspend or propose Parliament in for five weeks.

The ruling delivered legal and political unrest in Britain, where the courts have historically evaded politics and where, unlike the United States, there has been little precedent for judicial review of government decisions. This record has prompted political and legal analysts to speculate that the court may decide that it has no power to rule on the prime minister's actions or may take a mixed decision.

Instead, the judges made a landmark decision to enter into the midst of a fierce political clash and struck a stunning defeat for the prime minister and the unequivocal victory of his critics. Reporters and analysts at British news sites and broadcast channels used the word "unprecedented" over and over.

The president of the court, Lady Hale, spoke before the 11-judge panel hearing the case: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to proclaim Parliament is illegal, as it has led to the denial or obstruction of Parliament's ability to perform its constitutional functions without a reasonable justification. "

" The Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was illegal, invalid and had no effect, "she added. "Parliament has not been prophesied."

House Speaker John Berkov, who presides over the debate, said the House would meet on Wednesday – nearly three weeks earlier than the schedule Mr. Johnson had set. [19659002] While showing no indication that he had been punished by the governing, Mr Johnson did not rule out suspending Parliament again, but did not specify when. "I strongly disagree with this decision of the Supreme Court," he told reporters in New York, where he attended the United Nations General Assembly.

The judges "reaffirmed Parliament's right and obligation to convene at this crucial time to review the executive branch and to keep ministers accountable," Mr Berkov said. "As the epitome of our parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must be convened immediately."

Jeremy Corbin, leader of the opposition Labor Party, said the court had documented "contempt for democracy and abuse of power" by Mr Johnson , adding that "it will request the Parliament's withdrawal." At the party's annual conference, Mr. Corbin was due to deliver his big speech on Wednesday, but instead delivered it on Tuesday afternoon.

"This has not been selected. The Prime Minister must now resign," he told party members, urging Johnson's chants. "

The timing of Parliament's return is double bad for Mr Johnson, conservatives are scheduled to hold their annual conference early next week to show the party's politics ahead of any general elections. Unless the Prime Minister succeeds in gathering the unlikely majority to suspend Parliament again, this event may face parliamentary procedures.

Mr. Johnson will interrupt his trip to New York and fly back to London on Tuesday after meeting with his office by phone, government officials said.

As a practical matter, it was not clear how far the decision would immediately change the government's approach to Brexit. In the days before they were scattered, members of the House of Commons passed a law – because of the fierce opposition of the prime minister – to prohibit Mr Johnson from pursuing Brexit without a deal.

But in symbolic terms, the court's decision was a fierce reproach for the prime minister. He raised the question of whether he had misled Queen Elizabeth II, asking her to prophesy Parliament. And it added to the notion that his conservative government was guiding Britain's most sacred political conventions in its jealousy to pull the country out of Europe.

Mr. Johnson insisted he was trying to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Brussels. But opposition politicians and European Union officials say he is just going through the motives for attracting his support in Britain, preparing to blame the bloc when nothing has worked.

Twice this month, he asked Parliament to call a short election, and twice he was far from necessary for two-thirds approval. The Labor Party backed the election out of fear that Mr Johnson would schedule it before October 31, hoping to use a runoff victory to push Brexit without a deal.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Tuesday, which came after three days of televised oral argument, was eagerly awaited in the UK because of its political and legal implications.

"We're in uncharted territory," says James Grant, a senior law professor at King's College London.

p. Grant said he thought it would be dangerous for the Supreme Court to go to an English court. The break, he argues, clearly deprives the House of Commons of the responsibility to examine government policy on Brexit, a matter of critical national importance.

But other legal experts worry that sustaining the Scottish Government could set a worrying precedent, opening the door to a form of judicial control that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it. .

Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated the sovereign parliament as the supreme law of the land. After the courts enter the political sphere and begin to resolve Parliament's actions, some legal analysts say there is no going back


Source link