On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
...
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it,

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

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the judgment
opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice, if she had
grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to do?

Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.