On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2019 12:30, Pancho wrote:
On 24/09/2019 12:19, nightjar wrote:
...
It implies that he wrongly advised the Queen. That means he should
now resign as PM.

Why?
...

Because one of the cornerstones of our system of constitutional
monarchy is that the monarch must be able to rely absolutely on the
advice given by the PM. This judgment provides the basis for the
constitutionally dangerous precedent that the monarch might have to
reject that advice. The only way to avoid that is for any PM who
wrongly advises the monarch to step down from office immediately it
is determined that has happened.

That's fanciful. Liz isnt a fool, she is quite capable of deciding if
the PM advice makes any sense.

Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his advice.
Now, she could choose to ignore it,

I think not. She is still bound constitutionally to follow the advice
of the Prime Minister. She cannot take it into her own hands to second
guess what the courts might decide if they become involved.

which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of Rights.

Which is why it won't happen of course.