Joanna Cherry calls Scottish court ruling a ‘huge victory’
Sebastian Payne reports:
Joanna Cherry, the Scottish Nationalist party MP who led the legal case in Scotland against prorogation, has welcomed the ruling and called on Boris Johnson to bring back parliament (it is very unlikely he will listen):
Today’s ruling of the highest court in Scotland that Boris Johnson’s plans to shut down the UK Parliament ahead of Brexit are unlawful and unconstitutional is a huge victory and a vindication of our case. The prorogation must now be stopped.
The court agreed it is unlawful to suspend the UK Parliament for the specific purpose of preventing Parliament from scrutinising the Brexit process and holding this shambolic Tory government’s extreme Brexit plans to account.
We have uncovered more and more evidence that this was a plot by Boris Johnson and his cronies to prevent us from stopping them taking Scotland and the UK off a Brexit cliff edge by forcing through a damaging no-deal against the will of Parliament.
This ruling takes us one step closer to ensuring the UK government cancels their shameful prorogation and blatant plot to force through an extreme Brexit. Boris Johnson cannot be allowed to break the law with impunity.
Ruling a first in three decades of constitutional ‘geekery’, says David Allen Green
David Allen Green, a contributor to the Financial Times who specialises in law, says he has not seen such a court decision in 30 years of “constitutional geekery” and working on legal issues.
He points out that Scottish law is different to the law of England and Wales, which includes a different approach to constitutional law matters.
A matter that is unconstitutional can also be unlawful in Scotland, even if held to be lawful by the High Court, he says on Twitter. He puts the chances of the action succeeding in London as “zero”.
Take a read of what he wrote before the ruling:
FCA shelves study on markets’ use of data amid Brexit pressures
Away from the court action, Caroline Binham, the FT’s financial regulation correspondent, writes that the demands of Brexit on the City of London have meant the UK’s financial regulator has decided to shelve a study on markets’ use of data.
Firms, including ones outside the financial sector, were due to be asked this autumn to submit information to the Financial Conduct Authority’s study of how wholesale markets are using data.
But the FCA said in a statement that it had decided to postpone publication of the study to “allow firms to focus more time on EU Withdrawal”. It added that it was still committed to the topic and would undertake “diagnostic work” to try to understand any harm caused by firms’ new uses of data.
The statement reads:
“Innovation could increase barriers to access, including timely access, to data, and favour larger or incumbent firms, weakening competition. Some firms may be able to exploit market power as providers of critical data or data analytical tools.”
The FCA has previously warned that Brexit has meant it must strictly prioritise its workload. Meanwhile, the Treasury is reviewing the impact of financial regulation and is keen to reduce the burden on the City, particularly from multiple requests for information.
Scottish judgment ’embarrassing’ for Queen, think-tank says
The FT’s James Blitz writes:
Catherine Haddon, senior fellow at the Institute for Government, said: “This is very embarrassing for the Queen and for Buckingham palace. To have a judgment that the advice given to her by the prime minister was unlawful puts the Queen in a very awkward position.”
Dr Haddon said that MPs would have to wait until the Supreme Court judgment on September 17 to see whether parliament would continue to be prorogued.
“But if the Supreme Court upholds the Scottish decision, the Palace will very quickly be on to the prime minister saying: ‘What do you intend to do?’”
Sterling picks up speed after court ruling on parliament suspension
Sterling extended its gains after the Scottish court ruling, adding 0.3 per cent against the euro in early London trading.
The pound, which on Monday touched a low of €1.1090 against the single currency, has since risen 1.15 per cent. It was recently trading at €1.1212.
UK government ‘disappointed’ by Scottish court ruling
The FT’s Sebastian Payne writes:
A government spokesperson has confirmed that it will appeal the Scottish court decision in the UK Supreme Court:
We are disappointed by today’s decision, and will appeal to the UK Supreme Court. The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.
The hearing is expected to take place next week.
Labour’s Keir Starmer heads for London with call to ‘reopen the doors’ of parliament
News of the result broke while Keir Starmer, Labour’s Brexit spokesman, was speaking at the Trades Union Congress in Brighton and he was informed of the result after he finished speaking, writes the FT’s social policy correspondent, Robert Wright.
“I’ve got to get back to London,” Mr Starmer said before collecting his thoughts and giving an immediate response.
“It was obvious, I think, to everybody that not only was shutting down parliament at a crucial time the absolutely wrong thing to do – we should be sitting each and every day to resolve this crisis – but that the prime minister was not telling the truth about why he was doing it.”
It summed up Boris Johnson’s character that he had not told the truth about the reasons for the suspension, Mr Starmer added.
Mr Starmer, a former lawyer and director of public prosecutions, added he was surprised the court had made the decision.
“What we need to do is get back to parliament and see if we can reopen up those doors and get Boris Johnson back in parliament and hold him properly to account,” he said.
Lawyer who petitioned for case says prorogation should be lifted instantly
Jo Maugham, a lawyer who was one of the petitioners behind the case, told the Financial Times he believed the lifting of the prorogation should now be instant given the government has not applied to the Supreme Court to halt it, reports Jim Pickard.
Our understanding is that parliament is unprorogued, we think that in order for the effect of the judgment today to be suspended, the government has to make an application to have it suspended, the government has made no application.
Mr Maugham said MPs would be able to use the extra time to try to “break through the Gordian Knot” of Brexit in the coming weeks.
He described the judgment as a historic triumph.
If it were to be the law that the courts now could not get involved with a decision by the prime minister, a decision that parliament doesn’t get to vote on – to suspend parliament – we would now be living in a dictatorship where the prime minister could suspend parliament for four years if he felt like it.
Scotland’s highest court rules prorogation of parliament unlawful
Scotland’s highest court has ruled that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful, reports Mure Dickie from Edinburgh.
However, it said it will not seek to recall parliamentarians before the UK Supreme Court makes a final decision on the issue.
Colin Sutherland, Lord Carloway, Lord President of Edinburgh’s Court of Session, ruled in a case brought by more than 70 parliamentarians to stop prime minister Boris Johnson from suspending parliament.
The Edinburgh court’s lower outer house had ruled last week that the prorogation was a matter of “high policy and political judgment” and not something that courts could pass judgment on.
But Lord Carloway said the inner court’s judges had agreed it was unlawful.
A draft of the court ruling said the prime minister’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament was “unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying parliament”.
Welcome back
The latest twist in the Brexit saga has seen Scotland’s highest court rule that Boris Johnson’s move to prorogue parliament was unlawful.
Join us throughout the day as we bring you the latest news and insights from FT reporters on this developing drama.
