Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament probed in Supreme Court: Live updates – CNN International, CNN

James Eadie has wrapped up the government case, and the court has taken a break for lunch.

They’ll be back at 2 p.m. (9 am ET) to hear Aidan O’Neill make the case for the group led by SNP lawmaker Joanna Cherry, arguing that the suspension was unlawful.

In the meantime, you have just under an hour to grab a sandwich and put the kettle on.

Three judges have pressed the government lawyer James Eadie over why no one from the government has gone on the record asserting that its position in the case is true.

Lord Wilson said the government documents and evidence was simply “floating around” without a witness statement saying that the purpose of the prorogation wasnotto stymie Parliament.

“You have the witness statement you have,” Eadie replied. “You don’t have a witness statement of the kind that you traditionally would do,” he accepted.

A second judge raised the question of whether Boris Johnson himself could have submitted an affidavit and been subject to a cross-examination.

“I’ve never been involved in a judicial review in which the minister who made a decision has actually given a witness statement . ” Eadie responded. “Civil servants often do,” he acknowledges.

And then Lord Kerr picked up the same line of questioning. “There was no explanation as to why a conventional course was not followed” with regards to providing witness statements, he said.

Eadie argued that “the court can operate … on the basis of the underlying documents” that have been produced. Those documents show that the suggestion Johnson suspended Parliament in order to stymie it is “untenable,” he added.

The European Parliament has voted in favor of supporting a third Article 50 extension if there was a reason to do so, a spokesman for the body tells CNN.

The vote came in at 554 in favor and 126 against, he confirmed.

The resolution lists such reasons and purposes as “to avoid a ‘no-deal exit’, to hold a general election or a referendum, to revoke Article 50, or to approve a withdrawal agreement ”. It also notes that an extension would only be granted if “the work and functioning of the EU institutions is not adversely affected.”

The vote can be read as a statement of intent from the European Parliament, outlining the things it will and won’t support, as the European Commission continues negotiations with Britain on a withdrawal agreement. It was drafted by the main political parties in the Parliament.

If it asks for one, the UK can only be granted an extension if all 27 EU member state leaders agree to it at the European Council on October 18 and 19.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than ask for an extension, but a law passed this month instructs him to do just that if he cannot agree to a deal with the bloc in the coming weeks.

Other points in the resolution include a “grave concern that recent and conflicting announcements by the Home Office in relation to free movement after (October 2019 have generated very unhelpful uncertainty for EU citizens resident in the UK, with the risk that those announcements may exacerbate the hostile environment towards them as well as impacting negatively on their ability to enforce their rights. ”

Also included is a warning that there will be no trade deal if the UK goes back on paying its es timated $ 50 billion “divorce bill” to the EU.

Nigel Farage, the Brexit Party leader, told the European Parliament earlier that Luxembourg’s Prime Minister set out to “ritually humiliate” Boris Johnson on Monday, by holding a news conference next to an empty podium after the British PM refused to take part.

“I would suggest that events across Europe this week would not suggest that good faith exists,” Farage told MEPs.

Johnson’s team had wanted the presser to be moved indoors to avoid noisy anti-Brexit protesters nearby, but Luxembourg’s leader Xavier Bettel went ahead with it anyway and officials did not remove Johnson’s podium.

Farage continued that kee ping Britain “trapped inside” the customs union was the objective of Michel Barnier from the start.

He said that the EU’s ” fear “is that the EU breaks out of the customs union and single market rules and” we become more competitive and we become more much wealthier outside the European Union than within it. “

“Mr. Verhofstadt – I want no part of your European empire, “Farage said, referring to the European Parliament’s Brexit negotiator.

” The only way forward to deliver on the referendum now is a clean break Brexit, once we’ve done that with we will have a grown-up conversation about trade and about the way forward. ”

Proceedings at the Supreme Court take a detour into another intriguing area: The question of how much power the Queen has on the issue of prorogation.

James Eadie is asked what the government position on the issue is. It’s a relevant question, one judge points out, because it gets to the heart of whether there are conventional (if not practical) checks and balances on the role of the executive in proroguing Parliament.

But Eadie won’t get drawn on the issue. He says it’s a matter of “significant uncertainty” whether the Queen has any personal prerogative on the issue.

The barrister is also pressed on a comment by the government Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said after Parliament was suspended that the Queen was “obliged” to approve the request.

Eadie again insists that the question of whether the Queen could have said no is a matter of “academic debate and uncertainty.”

Later, Lord Sales asks: “If there are constitutional principles that are required to be policed, isn’t it more appropriate for the court to do it, rather than for the Queen to be sucked in ?

Some context:Parliament can only be prorogued if the monarch allows it. But the Queen or King must also stay above politics and act on the advice of her ministers – so when Rees-Mogg went to Balmoral to ask her to prorogue Parliament, it was a given that she would agree.

Is this an issue for the courts anyway?The government written case also addresses the issue, insisting that it has never taken the position that the Queen had no choice but to agree.

It also adds, however, that the question is moot – because whether or not the Queen had prerogative power is not an issue for the court.

The written case says: “Contrary to the suggestion at §8 of the Appellant’s written case, it is not (and never has been) asserted that Her Majesty enjoys no personal prerogative in this context or that she is obliged to accept the advice of the Prime Minister. , this is not an issue which arises for determination on the present appeal. Nor is it a matter for the court. Whether Her Majesty enjoys a personal prerogative in any particular case is a question of constitutional convention, not law. “

The Government’s barrister, James Eadie is asked by Lord Reed, one of the judges, if he accepts there are limits to the government prerogative powers, and whether suspending Parliamen t has the potential to “undermine” the ability of MPs to scrutinize the executive.

He says he does – and he also agrees that it is within the “purpose and role of the courts” to look at whether those constraints on the government have been exceeded.

But he adds: “Despite those features, this is a well-established constitutional function, exercisable and to be exercised by the executive. “

He also suggests that the courts themselves must ensure they do not overstep, questioning” whether it is appropriate for those controls to be exercised by the courts “as opposed to Parliament. “My submission is that these are political judgments,” he stresses again.

James Eadie has started making the case for Boris Johnson’s government before the Supreme Court.

He began by returning straight to the issue of justiciability, which was so central to Tuesday’s proceedings. Eadie says the issue ofsuspending Parliament is purely up to the government, and is not something that can be ruled on by the courts.

“We are dealing with a prerogative power,” says Eadie. “It is a prerogative power that has been expressly preserved by Parliament.”

This is essentially the government most important and strongest point , so Eadie is laying down the gauntlet early on.

He also listed a number of previous cases which he says support his position , including the High Court’s decision earlier this month which dismissed Gina Miller’s case on the grounds of justiciability.

The court’s president, Lady Hale, interrupts to deliver a bombshell announcement: her computer isn’t working. Hale suggests she is having trouble keeping up with documents Eadie is citing (which, given the boxes stuffed with paperwork surrounding Eadie, could be an issue.)

We’ll be hearing plenty of legal jargon as day two of the Supreme Court hearing continues. Here’s a guide to a few of the key terms:

Justiciability:Whether the court has the capability or right to make a ruling in a particular case.

Prerogative powers, or the royal prerogative:Powers that can be exercised without the consent of Parliament. By convention, the UK monarch only ever exercises these powers on the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister. The power to suspend parliament is one such prerogative power.

The “divisional” court:Otherwise known as the High Court. Short for the divisional court of the Queen’s bench. Commonly known as the High Court in London.

Inner / Outer House:The two main chambers of the Court of Session – Scotland’s civil court. The Outer House hears civil cases when they first come to court. The Inner House is the appeal court, and is the highest civil court in Scotland.

The Advocate General:Scotland’s senior law officer – the post is currently held by Lord Keen. On Tuesday he put forward the UK government’s position in the Scottish case.

And they’re off … The second day of the Supreme Court hearing into Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament has begun.

First up today is the UK government barristerJames Eadie, who is responding to the Gina Miller case.

That’s the case that the governmentwonin London’s High Court – it found thatprorogation of Parliament is a political decision, and not one that can be decided by the courts.

But Eadie will likely refer also to the Scottish case, which found theprorogation was unlawful.