Steve PeersVerified account

The judgment is really clear that ordinary prorogations, of a short time, for a Queen’s Speech, are overwhelmingly likely to be lawful.

Yes, overwhelmingly likely. But the point is that this is an exceptional case. If MPs think there is no significant hindrance from proroguing, that may be a factor. However, let's remember that the Government has already taken Parliamentary time for the unlawful prorogation.

I agree with Gabriel. I don't see how this is an issue. It couldn't be litigated in time anyway.

The courts could order the prorogation not go ahead during the case as it is the likely outcome, so time not an issue on that side.

It's not the likely outcome, for the reasons I pointed out.

How do we know that? Is a court likely to call such a prorogation "a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech" [Supreme Court, paragraph 56]? For a normal prorogation, the government has a working majority to carry out the programme.

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.