The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2019 08:49, Brian Reay wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'.Â* It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

What drivel you talk. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the judgment.
There was plenty of precedent. Nothing on all fours with the present
case because nobody had yet challenged a modern prorogation of
Parliament but plenty of relevant precedent about challenging the Royal
Prerogative.


There is no precedent. No one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson when they
prorogued Parliament or any other PM.


You have misunderstood the concept of precedent.




So you are claiming if there is no precedent that doesnt mean there isnt
a precedent.

Do you realise just how stupid that is.


If no one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson that isn't a precedent that
says they couldn't or shouldn't be challenged. Maybe someone should have
applied to the court to challenge the prorogation in those cases.

Maybe but that isnt relevant. No one did so there is no precedent. Not
over those instances or any others.

Therefore precedent can not be claimed.