Precedent justifies proroguing Parliament to ensure we leave EU on 31 October

If ever there was an example of why no one should entice judges into politics, it can be found in the words of Joylon Maughan QC, Director of the Good Law Project that is backing the Remain group which wants a Scottish court to prevent the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament in order for the UK to leave the EU on 31 October( scots man ,14 august ).

He claims a Johnson decision on prorogation would “cancel Parliament for fear it would stop him inflicting on an unwilling public an outcome they did not vote for and do not want. That’s certainly not democracy and I expect our courts to say it’s not law.”

First, prorogation does not “cancel” Parliament, it ends one session and sets a date for a new session. Second, prorogation to achieve a lawful act is not new: Attlee’s government used it to ensure the Lords could not obstruct a nationalisation act.

If Johnson uses it to ensure the Article 50 decision and the Withdrawal Act become effective, both having been enacted by Parliament, it will be in line with precedent. John Major prorogued Parliament in 1997 for 19 days, the second longest time in history, not to pursue the enactment of a lawful piece of legislation, but to suppress a report on Tory sleaze. If it was lawful for Attlee and Major, why would any judge, other than one politically motivated, declare it unlawful for Johnson?

On his claim of “not democracy” Mr Maughan, representing a Remain group, purports to know what I and the other 17.4 million Leave voters did not want. I cannot only speak for myself, but many others I have talked to. We voted to leave the EU customs union, single market, and out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ – all of which will be delivered on 31 October if we leave, operating UK-EU trade on the same WTO rules that applies to our trade with all other countries.

JIM SILLARS Grange Loan, Edinburgh

The EU has recently ratified trade deals with Japan and Mercosur, the South American trading bloc. Were they required to adopt the euro? Does it prevent Japan from seeking trade deals with anyone else on terms that they want? Does it require Argentina to pay billions in order to trade freely with the EU? Does it force Brazil to adopt thousands of regulations, Paraguay to collect taxes on behalf of Brussels or Uruguay to contribute military forces to a central EU army? Are European courts now to have supremacy to Japanese courts?

Brussels is demanding a trade deal only if it can control our laws. We must say no.

TOM WALKER Fountain Place, Loanhead