Ex-Premier Major beat Johnson for suspension of parliament
LONDON: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's reasons for suspending Parliament in recent weeks may not be true, a lawyer for the former Prime Minister John Major said the Supreme Court on Thursday.
Major, who comes from the Conservative Party of Johnson, believes that the Prime Minister acted solely in his own political interest to avoid control by MPs when the exit from the EU broke out on October 31, the lawyer said.
The Supreme Court hears the last of three days of heated arguments over whether Johnson's advice to Queen Elizabeth II to extend or suspend Parliament for five weeks until October 14 is lawful.
Johnson, who took office in July, insists that allowing his government to launch a new legislative program next month is routine.
But it triggered legal action in which he was accused of silencing the MEPs, who resisted his threat to leave the EU next month without any agreement.
In a dramatic attack by one former conservative leader on another, Major claimed that the reasons set out in the documents presented by the Prime Minister in court can not be upheld, according to his lawyer Edward Garnier said.
Major, who served as Prime Minister from 1990 to 1997, asked why Johnson would not explain his reasons in writing.
The only conceivable explanation is that the real reasons, if they are divulged, contradict his case, said Garnier in a written statement.
Major considers it unavoidable that Johnson's decision was motivated by his political interest in ensuring that there was no parliamentary activity ahead of a major EU summit on 17-18 October.
The lawyer added: It would be very easy for the prime minister or a senior official to sign a witness statement confirming that the decision has nothing to do with Brexit, if indeed it did, despite repeated requests No one has been willing to do this.
James Wolffe, representing the decentralized Scottish government, told the judges that no justification for a five-week suspension had been put forward.
"I invite the court to take the view that... no substantive justification has been advanced for that duration," he said.
Wolffe said that even if only seven meeting days were lost, as the suspension overlaps the party conference season, the agreement abolishes all of the legislator's accountability mechanisms.
In the week before the suspension of parliament, MPs rushed to legislate in which Johnson urged the EU to postpone Brexit if he did not agree to a divorce in time.
He's racing now to try to make a deal Brussels In order to meet its deadline of 31 October - although EU leaders say it has not put forward any formal proposals.
A lawyer from a Northern Ireland activist claimed on Thursday that a no-deal exit from the EU would lead to new border controls on the island of Ireland.
Supreme Court President Brenda Hale interrupted him to emphasize that judges could not make decisions about Brexit.
"We are solely concerned with the lawfulness or not of the prime minister's advice to Her Majesty to prorogue parliament for a period of five weeks," she said.
We are not concerned with when and how and under what conditions Britain leaves the country European Union .
Eleven of the twelve judges of the Supreme Court have appealed against two conflicting court decisions against Johnson involving several plaintiffs.
Scotland's highest civil court found the suspension unlawful, but the High Court in England said it was not up to the judges to intervene.
The case met with great public interest. On the first day of the court on Tuesday, 4.41 million connections to live streams of the court were made.
Some people went outside for five hours on Thursday to secure one of the 30 public places in courtroom 1.
The judges have not yet said when they will decide.