On being told that the 2016 EU Referendum isn’t legally binding, that begs the question “But it is the same as the referendum on membership of the Common Market in 1975”?
That’s political reality? It’s bound us legally for 44 years?
Now, reaction from knowledgeable bloggers suggests “I think BJ has outplayed them all! He has now got a legal decision that defines what DOES make a proroguing lawful – and it does not require much! As far as I can see ALL it requires to make it lawful is to present a ‘reasonable explanation’ for proroguing Parliament”.
“In fact the Supreme Court’s judgement has ‘forced’ @BorisJohnson to prorogue again to deliver a Queen’s Speech What a shame? Eh?”
“#SupremeCourt also used the 1688 Bill of Rights to base their judgement – massive precedent! & brilliant for freedom in the future. This in fact brilliant news – the Supreme Court has just increased the power of the Executive!”
“The SC have presented him with a box ticking exercise of does and don’ts should they decide to prorogue again, I’m almost of the opinion Boris and his team have deliberately let this happen in order for the SC to do all the work for them essentially”.
“BJ’s decision to NOT present an explanation to the 3 courts was made for a reason. So I conclude he had an intention/purpose, exciting times to wait and see what that intention/purpose is”.