Scottish court rules against suspension
A Scottish court dealt another blow to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans yesterday, ruling that his decision to suspend Parliament less than two months before the UK is due to leave the European Union was an unlawful attempt to avoid democratic scrutiny.
The government immediately said it would appeal, as the political opposition demanded Johnson reverse the suspension and recall lawmakers to Parliament.
With Brexit due in 50 days, the court ruling deepened Britain’s political deadlock.
Johnson insists the country must leave the EU on October 31, with or without a divorce deal to smooth the way. But many lawmakers fear a no-deal Brexit would be economically devastating, and are determined to stop him.
Their case got a boost as the government gave in to a demand from lawmakers and published a document showing that a hard exit could lead to logjams for freight, shortages of some foods and medicines, major travel disruptions and possible rioting.
The document’s release was the day’s second setback for Johnson and followed the surprise judgment by Scotland’s highest civil court, which found that the government’s action suspending lawmakers was illegal ‘‘because it had the purpose of stymieing Parliament.’’
Johnson claims he shut down the legislature this week so that he can start afresh on his domestic agenda at a new session of Parliament next month. But the five-week suspension also gives him a respite from rebellious lawmakers.
But a panel of three Court of Session judges in Edinburgh said ‘‘the only inference that could be drawn was that the UK government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament.’’
One of the judges, Philip Brodie, said it appeared the suspension was intended ‘‘to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further parliamentary interference.’’
The judges declared the suspension ‘‘null and of no effect,’’ but said Britain’s Supreme Court must make the final decision at a hearing starting Tuesday.
Johnson denied he was being anti-democratic.
‘‘If opposition members of Parliament disagree with our approach, then it is always open to them to take up the offer that I’ve made twice now — twice! — that we should have an election,’’ he said in an online question-andanswer session.
‘‘There is nothing more democratic in this country than a general election.’’