Now, Boris Johnson is also threatening problems with the queen
| Reading time: 3 minutes
The highest court in Scotland ruled that the mandatory suspension of Boris Johnson was inadmissible for Parliament. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, the Prime Minister has submitted to the Queen a false legal position. The trust relationship would be destroyed.
reThe highest court in Scotland ruled Wednesday that the mandatory suspension imposed on Parliament by Boris Johnson was inadmissible. According to the judge, the Prime Minister stated that "the only possible conclusion to draw was that the British government and the head of the government wanted to restrict the Parliament". This is an "unprecedented case of manifest non-compliance with the generally accepted standards of behavior of public institutions".
Although the Edinburgh court has also announced that the final decision should be filed with the London Supreme Court next week. But the consequences for Johnson are already serious, as the Scottish court will state in an official letter that the prime minister's recommendation to Queen Elizabeth II was illegal and should not have been implemented.
Whether the judges' decision is upheld or not, it will cast a shadow over the head of state. Elizabeth II may have taken part in an illegal decision because she had signed the government's request to suspend Parliament ("prorogation") on August 28 in her summer residence in Balmoral, Scotland.
In case Johnson would have given the queen a false legal position for her mandatory leave, he lied to her, "he would find himself in an untenable position again," Conservative MP Dominic Grieve told the BBC on Wednesday.
Not only the opposition, but also the Conservative Party itself can not tolerate a prime minister who ignored the "essential relationship of trust between the prime minister and the sovereign". For Grieve, a member of the conservative rebels and expelled from faction and party last week, Johnson's resignation would be the consequence.
The lawsuit in Edinburgh was brought by Scottish MP and lawyer Joanna Cherry, as well as by 77 other MPs critical of Brexit for the vast majority. "We are asking that the adjournment of Parliament be lifted now," said Cherry in a first reaction. This request was joined by other members.
However, the Speaker of Parliament, John Bercow, said that the convening of Parliament was only possible for the government. This will not follow the request of Cherry and others. "We are disappointed with the decision today and are going to appeal to the Supreme Court," said a spokesman. The government must "promote a strong national legislative agenda." The prorogation of Parliament is the legitimate and necessary means for this. "
A three-day hearing is scheduled for September 17 at the London Supreme Court. This must then deal with two contradictory judgments. A few days before the Scottish court, the High Court of England dismissed a lawsuit against prorogation. England and Scotland have a separate legal system.
Whatever the final verdict, Wednesday's decision only exacerbated the Brexit crisis. Scotland's judgment, which lasts only seven weeks, is synonymous with another painful defeat, which provides additional ammunition to its detractors. At the same time, it triggers the gap between opponents and supporters of Brexit. The latter immediately accused the Scottish judges of having rendered a verdict motivated by political considerations. Scotland is known to be a stronghold of Brexit opponents.