The Prorogation Court Case
I've been watching this with great interest on the news and heard most of Sir James Eadie's explanations on why the proroguing by the government was not unlawful.
Some key points I picked up were :
1. Parliament could have put a clause in the Benn Bill to prevent the proroguing of Parliament until after October 31st - they did not.
2.Parliament could have put forward a separate bill to prevent the government proroguing parliament until after October 31st - they did not
3. Parliament has had over 3 years to debate Brexit which is more than enough time and considerably longer than the prorogation period.
4. Parliamentary cannot be recalled when in recess (during the conference season) by the Prime Minister or anyone else - this is not the same as the House of Lords which was an incorrect accusation by Miller/Major on their side. It is effectively the same as prorogation and has the same restrictions.
5. If prorogation was done after the conference season, there would be less time for Parliament to sit than if it were done on September 9th (which is when it was done). It would mean Parliament would not sit until after the 19th October (after the 5 days of debate on the Queens Speech).
6. The Benn Bill was passed through Parliament and Royal Assent before the prorogation began so (the prorogation) was not used to prevent the bill from passing.
Just some of the points I've picked up on the case. I don't think Miller/Major have a cat in hells chance to win this and if they don't this could open the door to Boris to prorogue again from the 19th October until the 6th November.
On the Miller side, their argument is that the prorogation was deliberately used to run the clock down to reduce the time needed for parliamentary debate. The problem with this (as far as I can determine) is that this is not a legal question at all, it is a political one because there is no legislation in law that determines what "sufficient time" should be.
I guess we will see later but, even if the prorogation was lawful and the court rules that there was political gain by doing it, Parliament would not necessarily need to be "un-prorogued" as it would be only an advisory statement from the courts.
Interested in your thoughts.....