MPs have accused Boris Johnson of lying to the Queen after the Supreme Court ruled his suspension of Parliament was “unlawful”.
The Prime Minister faced calls to apologise to the Queen after the ruling on Tuesday, with several opposition politicians claiming the verdict showed he had lied to her.
Labour Peer Andrew Adonis tweeted: “Johnson should apologise to the Queen - at the same time as he resigns.”
Labour MP David Lammy said: “Boris Johnson's behaviour as Prime Minister has been outrageous. A scandal.
Johnson should apologise to the Queen - at the same time as he resigns— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) September 24, 2019
“Lying to the Queen to unlawfully suspend Parliament is a disgrace. He's simply got to resign.”
But Tory peer Lord Ashcroft defended Mr Johnson, saying: “To all those who are claiming the Supreme Court judgment said Boris Johnson lied to the Queen are incorrect...they did not pass any such opinion...”
Delivering the court’s ruling on Tuesday, Lady Hale said "the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect".
John Gould, a Senior Partner at Russell-Cooke Solicitors, said although no explicit mention of Mr Johnson’s motives was made by Lady Hale - the decision of the court implied that he had lied to the Queen.
READ MORE FROM YAHOO NEWS UK:
“The court decided that it was impossible to conclude that there was any reason, let alone a good reason to prorogue parliament for as long,” Mr Gould told Yahoo News UK.
“The court did not speculate on what the true reasons may have been but implicitly found that the Prime Minister was acting simply as the leader of a Government promoting his own policies rather than discharging the constitutional responsibilities of his office.”
Mr Gould argued that the government had not provided a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, which is why the decision went against them.
He also said the stated purpose of preparing for a Queen’s speech “could not have been the reason”.
“If Parliament is to be prorogued for any period which affects its ability to discharge its constitutional role, it must be for a good reason,” he added.
“No good reason for such a period of prorogation had even been suggested by the Government.
“Preparation of a Queen’s speech could not be the reason for such a long prorogation.”
“His advice and the prorogation are unlawful,” Mr Gould concluded.
“It is as if the official walking into Parliament bearing the order of prorogation was showing a blank piece of paper”.
Asked on Thursday last week whether he had mislead the Queen Mr Johnson said: “Absolutely not. The High Court in England plainly agrees with us but the Supreme Court will have to decide.
“We need a Queen's Speech, we need to get on and do all sorts of things at a national level.”