On 25/09/2019 13:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , nightjar
wrote:

Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it, which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of
Rights.

Well it looks like the SC used what seems to be Art. 1 of the BoR, to
whit:

"the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by
regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;"

even though proroguing does not suspend or dispense with any laws,
merely the sitting of Parliament. Meanwhile I refer you to what seems
to be Art. 8:

"the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament;"

and note that prorogation is a proceeding of Parliament. And further,
Art. 12:

Her reasoning was that since prorogation involved being outside the
commons, (HoL and Her Maj.) it was not a 'proceeding in parliament'
And therefore it ought not to interfere with freedom of speech or
debates in parliament

Its about as weak and weaselly as it gets. In essence proroguing *for
any purpose* is now illegal as it always inetrfceres with debates in
parliament




"for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and
preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."

which provision has just been violated by the SC. Until this Parliament
is prorogued and a new Queens Speech made, no substantial bills can be
passed. So it seems that the SC, and the opposition parties, are
colluding in violating the BoR.

Indeed.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin