Re: Were We Ever A Member Of The EU ?? Part Two
Originally Posted by
shropshiregirl
->
So basically, the difference is that if it had been 'An Act of Parliament'which prorogation alreadywas, the Supreme Court could not have ruled on it, but because Boris's extended period of prorogation was not an act of Parliament as such, so they were able to make a ruling on it? Sorry, but this is the only way I seem to understand it. Is that correct in my cack-handed way of taking it in?
The court distinguished between questions that are themselves political in nature (and thus not for courts) and questions that are legal in nature but which may have political ramifications. The issue in this case, said the court, fell into the latter category, on the ground that the court was being called upon to rule only upon the scope of the prorogation power. Questions about the scope of legal powers are, self-evidently, legal questions that are justiciable before courts of law. That the answer to that question might have political implications is beside that point.
The the court made the point that the government is accountable to parliament. Plainly, parliament’s core constitutional function of holding the government to account cannot be performed while parliament is prorogued. Parliament cannot hold the executive to account if the government could prorogue parliament whenever, and for whatever, they like.
The ruling of the court was that when the effect of prorogation is to frustrate or prevent parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions (i.e. compromising the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and/or executive accountability) prorogation is unlawful.
Boris acted like a tyrant, a despot if you like, and was put in his place by the court. Democratic rule was still strong enough to protect the representative of the people, your government.