On Thursday, 26 September 2019 10:59:38 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
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. 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...

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.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake, even if
she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her. If a mistake is made and she has caused it by
not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

She isn't constitutionally bound to take any advice.