Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

[JohntheBike]

We all know why it was prorogued, and what the Queen was told was the reason - and I suspect that als includes the Queen herself. I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament. ISTR there is actually some old statute out there that explicitly prevents that happening, although that may not apply in Scotland of course.

Even so, Scotland is a bit like the DUP - it's the "British" government when they disagree with it, but it's their governement when they need it, neatly ignoring the detail that they are all still part of Britain (or, before the pedants jump in, The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

It's ironic that many talk of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when Scotland and NI had different laws even before the devolved governments were created. Wales became part of England for legal purposes in the reign of Henry VIII, but Scotland and Ireland hadn't joined the Union by then and were allowed a certain level of autonomy as part of joining the Union.

[Platypus]

If Brexit is going to be so good for the country, why can’t the Brexiters sell it on its merits?

I believe they did, and won the argument, in 2016.

[Zigenare]

It's ironic that many talk of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when Scotland and NI had different laws even before the devolved governments were created. Wales became part of England for legal purposes in the reign of Henry VIII, but Scotland and Ireland hadn't joined the Union by then and were allowed a certain level of autonomy as part of joining the Union.

Really? How inneresting.

[meridian]

I believe they did, and won the argument, in 2016.

That would be the argument put forward by the official Leave campaign?

Tell me, how is that looking compared to the reality of the current situation?

[Paddy]

Live in UK or by proxy server or direct on Supreme Court Website

Supreme Court challenge over PM's Parliament suspension - BBC News

I must add, that as with other cases, the judges would have read all the documents prior to the Hearing. The Hearing is just the last formality for the judges' decision. Most Judges would already have the verdict in the back of their minds.

It’s now emerged that the prime minister has not made a witness statement explaining why he advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks.

Such a witness statement to court - had it emerged - would have been subject to the standard rules of being truthful - Lord Pannick notes that telling porkies in witness statements is an offence.

[Old Greg]

You mean the Prime Minister? (Parliament didn't prorogue itself.)

So, you think a Prime Minister should be able to prorogue Parliament for any reason, and duration, he/she deems appropriate?

Exactly.