By the court of session in scotland, which was fronted by the snp qc joanna cherry. 75 mps put their names to the challenge and one of them joins me now. You must be very happy with the judgment. What does it mean, do you think, constitutionally . It means the Prime Minister is not able to do this. We live within the rule of law. What the 11 judges found unanimously is that he worked against parliamentary democracy and had broken the law, and prorogued it for five weeks. Normally it would be five days. Is it a constitutional shift, this, or a restating of our unwritten constitution that parliament is sovereign, and it oversees the rule of the executive . Which underlines the fact that we do still at the moment live in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law. When borisjohnson says he disagrees, i mean, he isnt in a position to disagree. Ii he disagrees, i mean, he isnt in a position to disagree. 11 independent judges in our Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, have jud
Obviously, this is a verdict which we will respect, in charge and i think, going forward, who do you trust . I know, and we respect the judicial process. John, you have very strong opinions on this today. What do you make of i have to say, i strongly disagree the ruling . It is concerning that with what the justices have found. The ruling . It is concerning that the Prime Minister has felt like he i dont think that its right. Can get away with something so clearly unlawful. It is good it has and i invite borisjohnson, been proven unlawful. Because i get in the historic words, to consider his position. Parliament has its opinions, that cheering may be something that the prime mp5 will now return minister is getting in the way of to Parliament Tomorrow morning the process of brexit, but silencing at 11 30am and get back to work. Them is not the way about it, especially when you preach i have instructed the house democracy, which i get as an authorities to prepare not for the recall the p
So lets think about some real world use cases. So, i am in the Counter Terrorism business and i know that there are five individuals in central london, where were sitting right now, that want to do harm on a massive scale to the public. Would you have public support to use facial recognition to try to intercept that group of individuals before they could do harm . I would suggest almost categorically that you would. An opposite example now. An individual is being kicked out of the pub for drinking too much on a saturday night. The pub has taken a photo of that individual. Should that individual be prevented from getting into that establishment and other establishments because of that incident . I think you would have very little public consent for that example. Do you support it . And we have more news of a nursery nurse who has been released from jail after serving ten years. That news is breaking now. Hello. Welcome to the programme. Were live until am this morning. What do you think
Including how most effectively to secure the government of the days political and legislative objectives and agenda with all of the aspects that that brings including modern presentation. Whether and when it might be appropriate to terminate or interrupt existing business, including the prevention of bills in the courts of passage, and the setting of a new legislative agenda at the queen speech. The interval between parliamentary sessions and whether that period should be extended, whether a new queens speech with a new differently focused national and parliamentary end legislative agenda should be set. And how long would be needed and desirable. That is we submit both the government of the day and the opposition presuming its proper function in challenging government, and their own political agendas, their own perceptions of what will and will not operate. And the ultimate weaponry of course remains in the hands of parliament, motions of no confidence, two thirds voting foran of no co
Is causing huge problems, so, yes, oui is causing huge problems, so, yes, our constitution is being stress tested by the necessity to proceed with brexit. Do you agree with that, alison, and if it is being tested, almost to destruction, what do we need to do about that . Is that something the Supreme Court is going to address this week, potentially . |i do to address this week, potentially . do accept that it is being tested, andi do accept that it is being tested, and i think it is because you are in and i think it is because you are in a very difficult situation, you have an issue that is very divisive, very strong opinions on both sides, and you have a strict time limit set out by the legal requirements of the European Union, so i can see the pressure, but at the same time if you are going to start thinking about a new written constitution, you need to think very carefully about what those principles should be and how they should work, and i dont think that is a job for the Supreme