THE Prime Minister could be about to prorogue Parliament for a second time despite the Supreme Court ruling the first suspension unlawful.
Earlier this week 11 judges unanimously decided Boris Johnson's government had acted unlawfully when it suspended Parliament for five weeks ahead of the Brexit deadline, deeming it null and void. MPs returned to the Commons yesterday instead of October 14 as had been originally planned.
Now, there are reports that the PM may ignore that judgement and seek another prorogation in order to hold a Queen's Speech and set out his domestic policies.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon blasts 'untrustworthy' Boris Johnson as MPs return
The Tory Government had said the first prorogation took place in order to prepare for a Queen's Speech, but as the Parliament has now been recalled it would have to be suspended once again for this to take place.
Asked when he could carry out this second prorogation, Johnson said: “I will be informing MPs as soon as we have assessed the meaning of the court’s ruling.”
The Prime Minister has been largely unmoved by the Supreme Court's historic judgement, repeating that he respects the ruling but disagrees with it.
Last night he told the Commons: “The court was wrong to pronounce on what [was] essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy.”
The PM has been widely condemned after, during a heated exchange in the Commons, he said the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox is "to get Brexit done".
READ MORE: Johnson pressed on indyref2 powers in heated Commons session
The comments came after female Labour MPs challenged his use of language such as "surrender" and "capitulation" to describe the legislation that would require the PM to request a Brexit extension.
The women said similar language was often used in aggressive threats towards them.
Johnson described their concerns as "humbug".
In response, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: "As of tonight, there’s a gaping moral vacuum where the office of Prime Minister used to be. I didn’t know Jo Cox but I’m certain this man is not fit to speak her name."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel