icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm

Boris must resign v destruction of democracy: Opinion divided after Supreme Court rules BoJo’s suspension of parliament ‘unlawful’

Boris must resign v destruction of democracy: Opinion divided after Supreme Court rules BoJo’s suspension of parliament ‘unlawful’
The UK Supreme Court ruling that Boris Johnson acted “unlawfully’ when he suspended parliament has divided analysts over whether the British PM should quit and whether the judgement amounts to “constitutional vandalism.”

All 11 judges in London were unanimous in ruling on Tuesday that Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue (suspend) parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect.”

John Wight, a political analyst and journalist, told RT that Johnson’s position as PM is “surely untenable,” because it had been proven that he misled the monarch. He suggests this is just “a nice way of saying you lied” to the Queen.

Also on rt.com PM Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament was ‘unlawful’ - UK Supreme Court 

Wight believes that this is a “historic UK supreme court judgment” that exposes Johnson as undermining parliamentary sovereignty with his attempt at “a smash and grab Brexit.”

The UK government had argued that prorogation was not an issue for the courts, but critics claimed Johnson was trying to limit the amount of time lawmakers could have to scrutinize the PM’s Brexit policy.

Wight argues that no one person is “above the law,” including the UK prime minister and suggest this move was led by a group of “privileged” individuals hell bent on achieving their “own personal objectives."

This was about a clutch of old Etonian, privileged, entitled, very rich people, trying to use the suffering of the people who voted for Brexit in order to affect their own political objectives.

Political journalist and broadcaster Adel Darwish ostensibly disagreed with Wight’s assessment, telling RT that the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court was an act of “constitutional vandalism.”

Also on rt.com ‘Consider your position’: Corbyn urges Johnson to step down as PM after court loss

Darwish insists that the Supreme Court getting involved in what he sees as a “political” issue should never have happened, but that once you create an institution like this “it will cling to any straw of power.”

It’s a very serious precedent. It’s a constitutional way… of overseeing the destruction of British democracy because this is not a law ruling.

All the main UK opposition parties have called for Johnson to step down. Johnson, who is currently in New York where he is due to address the UN General Assembly, has responded to the judgment by insisting that he will “respect” ruling, even if he’s unhappy with it.

“We respect the judicial process. I have to say that I strongly disagree with what the justices have found. I don’t think that it’s right but we will go ahead and of course parliament will come back,” Johnson told reporters.

Johnson will travel back to London on Tuesday night after he’s chaired a meeting of his cabinet via phone.

Also on rt.com Boris Johnson ‘strongly disagrees’ with Supreme Court decision on prorogation

Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow has announced that Britain’s parliament will resume proceedings from 11.30am (local time) on Wednesday following the “unambiguous” ruling quashing prorogation.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.

Podcasts