Or at least, it may be consistent with the judgment. I've argued elsewhere that the court failed to spell out this important safeguard properly.
-
No, that’s not what the Court meant (obviously). They were contrasting the unlawful prorogation - which was abnormal in its length. If they meant that the majority status of the government was key, they would have said so.
Indeed. Minority governments have held short prorogations, and the judgment makes no reference to a minority government here. We're at the stage of making stuff up, which is never an impressive argument. See also paras 45 and 51.
-
-
Yes, paragraph 45 is much more convincing than paragraph 56. I was responding after 56 was cited. But that doesn't mean the court was right, if it meant all short prorogations are lawful. I suggest you justify or withdraw the comment about "making stuff up".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.