Steve PeersVerified account

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.

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".

You’re making stuff up. The court said nothing about minority governments having a more limited power to prorogue. It said nothing about the prospects of the Queen’s Speech motion passing being relevant. If you’re now arguing that the court was wrong, then why rely on it at all?