This morning, Scotland’s highest cvil court ruled that Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament is unlawful and in breach of Britain’s constitution. A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians, who were challenging Mr Johnson’s prorogation. The judges said the Prime Minister was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the Government to account ahead of Brexit.

The Government plans to appeal against the latest ruling to the Supreme Court.

At the appeal hearing on Friday, Aidan O’Neill QC, representing the parliamentarians, made their case, saying: “A decision to prorogue shuts down Parliament.

“It is in those circumstances an attack on democracy.

“It is an attack on the balance of the constitution and therefore it is unlawful.”

By “attack on the balance of the constitution”, MPs argue that prorogation would breach the unwritten rules and understandings that form Britain’s legal framework.

Unlike many European countries, the UK does not have a codified constitution as rather than in a single written document, it is contained in Acts of Parliament, treaties, principles and conventions.

This “unwritten” constitution rests on two central concepts – the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.

The former is the idea that the nation and the Government should be governed by law and the latter that Parliament is the country’s supreme law-making authority.

Therefore, parliamentarians argue that prorogation of Parliament goes against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

However, according to historian David Starkey, not respecting the vote of the 2016 referendum is also a violation of the constitution’s rules and understandings.

JUST IN: How Tom Watson mocked ‘Brexit deniers’ and vowed to respect referendum

Britain was originally supposed to leave on March 29, but as the House of Commons rejected every possible approach to resolving the crisis, the deadline was extended twice.

The delays have been widely unpopular among Britons and in an interview for Peter Whittle’s YouTube channel “So What You Are Saying Is”, Mr Starkey discussed the “sheer level of betrayal” the people who voted for Brexit must feel.

He accused pro-Remain MPs of being the ones who are undermining the fundamental principles of Britain’s constitution.

Drawing a parallel between Henry VIII’s marital troubles and Brexit, Mr Starkey said: “The break with the Roman Church is absolutely analogous to us separating ourselves from the EU. It is even fought over the same territory.

DON’T MISS: 
How Hammond joined ‘Cabinet coup’ to leave EU before Treasury bid [INSIGHT]
Three First Ministers back constitutional reform to save union [VIDEO]
How Commons betrayal mirrors Salvini collapse and could lead to Corbyn [ANALYSIS]

“Why does Henry have to break with Rome to get his divorce? Because England is subordinate to a European Court. What is the other ground of the conflict? The amount of money you pay.

“It goes into absolute detail the way Henry does it, it is by the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.”

Attacking pro-Remain lawmakers, the leading historian added: “The idea which is being pursued by the legions of Remainers headed by Centurion Bercow that parliamentary sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty – it is an absurd contradiction.

“Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense within the notion of the sovereign independent state.

“Otherwise, it’s meaningless verbiage.”

Mr Starkey concluded that the Brexit referendum brutally exposed this “great crisis” in Britain which is that “we have never worked out what the relationship between an idea of popular sovereignty and what parliamentary sovereignty is”.

Source: Read Full Article