Judge rejects temporary ban on Parliament shutdown ahead of full hearing – Nye Bevan News

A Scottish judge has refused to order a temporary halt to Boris Johnson’s plan to shut down the UK Parliament.

A group of 75 parliamentarians were seeking an interim interdict – similar to an injunction – at the Court of Session ahead of a full hearing.

Their request was declined by Lord Doherty, who said he was not satisfied there was a “cogent need” for an interdict.

However the full hearing will now be heard next Tuesday, rather than Friday.

Lord Doherty said this was because it was in the interests of justice, and in the public interest, for the case – which is opposed by the UK government – to proceed as quickly as possible.

But he said: “I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there is a need for an interim suspension or an interim interdict to be granted at this stage.”

More than 70 MPs and peers have brought the legal challenge, headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson, with support from the Good Law Project.


Source: Judge rejects temporary ban on Parliament shutdown ahead of full hearing – Nye Bevan News

One thought on “Judge rejects temporary ban on Parliament shutdown ahead of full hearing – Nye Bevan News

  1. So John Major is against proroguing Parliament, but was he when he did it 1997, a fact he has omitted to mention when he came out against the current proroguing of Parliament. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1162365/brexit-news-john-major-boris-johnson-eu-european-union-prorogue-parliament-spt, What Sir John failed to mention, is that he was actually accused of proroguing himself in 1997.

    As Prime Minister, he suppressed a “cash for questions” report that was catapulted to the heart of the year’s general election campaign.

    ‘If he thought it was right then why is it not now and why did he not mention it?

    Is it a case of ‘Do as I say, not what I did’

    Where were all the protestors in 1997?

    It said that the out cry is because this prooging is about ‘stopping No Deal, when it is in fact about ‘stopping Brexit, for John Major is an out and out Remainer and so is Jo Swinson and her LibDem party.

    Surely not abiding by the result of the 2016 Referendum is a serious breach by Parliament, for this is a Remain Parliament supposedly going a head with Brexit, but their main intention is not to leave the EU.

    Now is that not ‘Unconstitutional’?

    If that was so why did {arliament agree to have a referendum which cost at least £9 million just for the Remain information leaflet that was issued at the time, proporting to be a factual gudie to advise the electorate the reasons for and against, but the Leavers were not fooled.

    Not only did they do that but they agreed to trigger Article 50.

    Surely taking the above into account, is not Parliament unconstitutional itself?

    So the agressors on the Remain side have no need to talk


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.