Sir John Major tells Supreme Court the Parliament shutdown is ‘utterly unacceptable’ and says he couldn’t not ‘stand idly by’ as Boris prevents MPs from ‘exercising their right to disagree’

Sir John Major tells Supreme Court the Parliament shutdown is ‘utterly unacceptable’ and says he couldn’t not ‘stand idly by’ as Boris prevents MPs from ‘exercising their right to disagree’

- in Usa News
47
0

SIR John Major has slammed Boris Johnson’s Parliament shutdown as “utterly unacceptable” and said the PM tried to prevent MPs from “exercising their right to disagree” with Brexit.

Lord Garnier, QC for Sir John, told the Supreme Court that Johnson’s reasons for proroguing Parliament “cannot be true” and in fact they were motivated by “political interest”.

PA:Press Association

Sir John Major will tell the Supreme Court Boris Johnson acted like a dishonest estate agent with “ulterior motives” as the battle over the Parliament shutdown reaches its final day[/caption]

Lord Edward Garnier, representing fromer British prime minister Sir John Major
EPA

MAJOR ATTACK

Sir John is supporting an appeal brought by Remainer lawyer Gina Miller – after their original case was thrown out by a judge at the High Court.

In a witness statement, Sir John, who was not present, said it was “utterly unacceptable” for the Government to “seek to bypass” Parliament because it does not agree with the proposed course of action on a certain policy.

The statement read: “I served in Parliament for over 20 years both as a backbench MP and as a Government minister at Cabinet and more junior levels.

“I was of course Prime Minister for nearly seven years and am very proud to have been in the Commons and a minister.

“I have huge admiration for our Parliament and am a keen supporter of its rights and duties.

“I cannot stand idly by and watch them set aside in this fashion.

I have huge admiration for our Parliament and am a keen supporter of its rights and duties. I cannot stand idly by and watch them set aside in this fashion.


Sir John Major

“I appreciate that this is not the Government’s stated intention for proroguing Parliament, but for the reasons set out in this statement, the inescapable inference to be drawn is that the prorogation is to prevent Parliament from exercising its right to disagree with the Government and to legislate as it sees fit.”

Lord Garnier, who served as solicitor general under David Cameron said the shutdown was to “deprive Parliament of a voice throughout the period of the prorogation.”

Lord Garnier said it remains “genuinely unclear” whether Mr Johnson disputes that he was motivated by political interest because no witness statements have been provided.

He added that the submissions made on the Prime Minister’s behalf at the High Court “studiously avoided committing to any clear position on the issue”.

BORIS BLAST

In a written submission, Sir John accused the PM of acting like a dishonest estate agent with “ulterior motives”.

The former PM will delivered a scathing rebuke claiming that Johnson’s move to stop MPs from sitting for five weeks was “unlawful”.

Remainer MPs allege that Boris shutdown Parliament to avoid scrutiny over Brexit and push through No Deal – but No10 say it was so they can deliver a new domestic legislative agenda in a Queen’s Speech.

However, in his submission Sir John states the government’s reason for proroguing “makes no sense and cannot be the true explanation”.

He adds the court would be “artificially naive” to accept the PM’s reasons for the shutdown, the Times reports.

The case is hearing at the highest court in Britain, in front of 11 justices, after judges in Scotland and England delivered contradictory decisions on the shutdown.

A cross party group of 70 MPs and anti-Brexit activists won an appeal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh – with judges deciding the PM’s shutdown was “unlawful”.

But a High Court judge had dismissed a similar challenge by Remainer lawyer Gina Miller and Sir John – leading to the case being brought to the Supreme Court this week.

DISHONEST ESTATE AGENT

In his submission Sir John cites a legal case where an estate agent was in “breach of fiduciary duty” after wrongly claiming a buyer wanted to live in a home when they wanted to sell it on.

He said: “It could hardly be suggested that the duties of the prime minister to the monarch are less than those of an estate agent to a homeowner.

“Accordingly, if the court is satisfied that the prime minister’s decision was materially influenced by something other than the stated justification, that decision must be unlawful.”

During the battle between two Tory grandees – Sir John’s lawyer Lord Garnier QC will argue against the government’s claim that the shutdown was political and the courts have “no jurisdiction”.

The inference was inescapable that the prime minister’s decision was motivated, or in any event substantially motivated, by his political interest.


Sir John Major

Lord Garnier will tell the court: “Its effect is to deprive parliament of a voice throughout the period of the prorogation.

“The inference was inescapable that the prime minister’s decision was motivated, or in any event substantially motivated, by his political interest in ensuring that there was no activity in parliament during the period leading up to the EU Council summit on 17-18 October.”

‘FATHER OF LIES’

Yesterday a Remainer lawyer told the court Boris Johnson “shut the Mother of Parliaments with the father of lies”.

Aidan O’Neill alleged that No10’s documents on the shutdown should not be taken as the “complete truth”.

“What we have with this prorogation is the mother of parliaments closed down by the father of lies,” declared O’Neill, who already won his claim in the Scottish courts.

“Lies have consequences but the truth will set us free.

“Rather than allow lies to triumph, this court should listen to the angels of its better nature and rule that this prorogation is an unlawful abuse of the power of prorogation which has been entrusted to the government.”

Mr O’Neill, who represents the cross party group of 70 MPs and anti-Brexit activists, said the government had proven itself “unworthy of trust” and said “enough is enough”.


But Sir James Eadie, for the government, insisted that decades of case law showed it was clear that the suspension was the PM’s prerogative, the business of politics and nothing to with the Supreme Court.

Sir James also said that opposition MPs had every opportunity to act on prorogation but chose not to use the “nuclear weapon” of a no confidence vote.

The case continues.

Remainer lawyer Gina Miller arrives at the Supreme Court
AFP or licensors
Lawyer for the government Sir James Eadie arrives at the Supreme Court
Reuters
Documents are wheeled into the Supreme Court ahead of the final day of the hearing
PA:Press Association

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at [email protected] or call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

You may also like

Christmas post chaos feared as Royal Mail staff vote to strike over festive season

POSTIES have voted to bring havoc to Christmas