The UK Judges are clearly in a mess over prorogation. The High Court was quite categorical. On 6 September 2019, the Court granted permission to bring the application for judicial review but in a unanimous decision, dismissed the claim.
So what would make Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament ‘improper’? Anne Twomey (University of Sydney) argues “that the Supreme Court should focus on the fact that the PM has lost the confidence of the Commons, which is a breach of constitutional principle, rather than on the political advantages he might secure by shutting down Parliament”.
But Tarunabh Khaitan, who is the Professor of Public Law and Legal Theory at Oxford, and a Future Fellow at the University of Melbourne disagrees. He wrote “Anne Twomey argued on LSE Brexit that the Supreme Court should focus on the fact that Boris Johnson has lost the confidence of the Commons. Given that he has not yet lost a vote of no confidence, Khaitan says this is a problematic approach. Instead, the Court should ask whether prorogation is likely to have the effect of frustrating Parliament in a matter where inaction will lead to a fait accompli”.
So some time soon, within days, 11 Supreme Court Judges will publish their decision. It won’t be unanimous, like the High Court. It will be a majority decision. The losers will be we the public, those who can’t speak to the Court, simply because we have no means to pay for it. But what will be wrong, is that a majority of the voting public who favour leaving the EU, still have nobody to deliver the decision.
Now, there are yet more idiotic glossy leaflets appearing on our doormats. “Let us be heard”, as if the biggest UK vote ever wasn’t “being heard”!