The British government was back at the country's Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks just before the country is set to leave the European Union was neither improper nor illegal.
But the justices pushed back on the second day of the historic legal showdown, which pits the powers of Britain's legislature against those of its executive as the country's scheduled Brexit date of Oct. 31 looms over its political landscape and its economy.
They asked why the prime minister had refused to provide a sworn statement to the court about his reasons for the suspension.
"Isn't it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say: 'This is true. These are the true reasons for what was done'?" said one of the judges, Nicholas Wilson.
The government's lawyer, James Eadie, conceded that Johnson and his top officials had not made legally binding statements, but said other documents, including Cabinet minutes, had been submitted to the court.
Johnson sent lawmakers home on Sept. 9 until Oct. 14, which is barely two weeks before Britain's Oct. 31 departure from the EU. He claims the shutdown was a routine measure to enable his Conservative government to launch a fresh legislative agenda and was not related to Brexit.
Eadie argued that the decision to shut down Parliament was "inherently and fundamentally political in nature." He said if the court intervened it would violate the "fundamental constitutional principle" of the separation of powers between courts and the government.
More From This Section
"This is, we submit, the territory of political judgment, not legal standards," Eadie said.
The government's opponents argue that Johnson illegally shut down Parliament just weeks before the country is due to leave the 28-nation bloc for the "improper purpose" of dodging lawmakers' scrutiny of his Brexit plans. They also accuse Johnson of misleading Queen Elizabeth II, whose formal approval was needed to suspend the legislature.
Aidan O'Neill, lawyer for a group of lawmakers challenging the government, said the suspension had "the intent and effect of preventing Parliament, impeding Parliament, from holding the government politically to account at a time when the government is taking decisions which will have constitutional and irreversible impacts on our country."
Parliament's suspension spared Johnson further meddling by the House of Commons but sparked legal challenges, to which lower courts gave contradictory rulings. England's High Court said the move was a political rather than legal matter but Scottish court judges ruled Johnson acted illegally "to avoid democratic scrutiny."
"I asked the British prime minister to specify the alternative arrangements that he could envisage," Juncker told the European Parliament. "As long as such proposals are not made, I cannot tell you while looking you straight in the eye that progress is being made."
Juncker, who met with Johnson on Monday, told members of the EU legislature in Strasbourg, France, that a no-deal Brexit "might be the choice of the U.K., but it will never be ours."