Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

But isn’t the prorogation of Parliament only for a few days? A recess of 3 weeks would happen for the party conference season.

No UG. That is exactly the point. When parliament is in recess parliament still has control. Parliament was expected, if they voted to do it, to be in recess from mid-September to early October. During this time many parts of Parliament continue; it is not shut down and Parliament could sit if necessary.

Proroguing is the shutting down of parliament completely with no control by parliament. This is usually for about four days before a Queen's speech. Johnson has prorogued for five weeks during which time parliament has lost its power to its junior partner, the executive (government). Is there a justifiable reason for Johnson doing this? We shall find out what the court thinks soon.

Welsh presentation very focussed!
Garnier (former solicitor general) for Major seems to be presenting a forceful case based on BJ' s "ulterior motives".
I did in fact miss part of O'Neill's contribution yesterday and must try to find it. Thank you.

twitter.com/BBCDomC

Government's submission to the Supreme Court tells judges that if the they rule against Boris Johnson and quash prorogation he may just go and do it again.

John Major certainly had ulterior motives in 1997 ie, perverting the outcome of a pending General Election! Don't do as I do etc comes to mind! Such hypocrisy!!

And what Brexit Central article have you got that one from, Jabberwok?

Would that excuse Mr Johnson from doing it too? ("But Mum, all my friends are allowed to do that! It isn't fair that you don't let me do it")

MCEM. I agree, very clear in both cases.

Jabberwok, have you actually been watching? The court is addressing this particular case and the legality of it. Perhaps you would like to comment on what has been said this morning.

Jabberwok is quite correct....John Major did it to avoid the
Cash for questions scandal before a GE.

I don’t think the Scottish QC did himself any favours yesterday taking such an abrasive attitude with the judges!

Am sure that the legality of what Major did is ‘acceptable’ to a court, just as (probably )it is this time.
The only difference is that we didn’t have Brexit looming then so nobody outside Parliament was interested, and the cash for Questions MPs were no doubt relieved.

I wonder just how much everyone who posts on the politics threads (me included) had understood that the executive (the government) is the junior partner to the senior partner - parliament.

It's worth mulling over.

I knew it, GGMK3 I expect most other Politics graduates should have known it. too. Also, knowing about why the English Civil war was fought helps a great deal...

P.S. Which is why I have banged on about the 'tyranny' of the Executive on several occasions in the past. May's government went very close to the wire (but nowhere near as close as this one)

And BJ must know that too but chooses to ignore it, hoping that in his usual bullish way he can simply push people aside, ignore the facts and hulk lie his way out of a situation that isn't to his liking.
Entitled, stubborn and childish!

GGmk2 a refreshingly honest post.
If only some of our more dyed-in-the-wool brexit fanatics would take a few moments to reflect!

QC for the Government does seem to be on top form! Gina Miller looks a put out ....

I am quite correct. Read all about it , even the Guardian can't deny it! Ok in 1997, but not now! J.M would do better to keep quiet about this event so similar to the one orchestrated by his own good (??) self! I wonder how he justifies his own behaviour, while criticising others! Double think? or as David Starkey says, just not very bright!!!!

Are you actually watching? That was raised and the point was made that the focus has to be on the potential severity of the consequences.
No comparison there!

Pannick QC seems to have gone too far. Lady Hale has just shot him down telling him to ‘make no assumptions’.

Jabberwok from a legal point of view what you are trying to say is simply not relevant.

Come on GGmk2 since when did relevance (or fact) feature in the posts of our brexit
advocates?

I like Lord Pannicks suggestion, that if the Lords find the prorogation illegal, then it should be up to the two speakers to decide the way forward.

mcem

Counsel for Sir John Major described Boris Johnson as being like a "dodgy estate agent".

What an insult to estate agents!

It seems are five possible outcomes of the Supreme Court hearing:

One: The court upholds the High Court’s findings and decides that prorogation is a “purely political” matter in which courts have no role. Parliament stays suspended until Oct 14.

Two: The court decides it has the right to intervene – establishing a precedent – but that the Prime Minister did nothing wrong on this occasion. Parliament stays suspended.

Three: The Prime Minister is found to have acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament, but the period of prorogation is not in itself unreasonable. He could then simply prorogue Parliament again, making sure this time it was lawful.

Four: The Prime Minister acted unlawfully in his reasons for proroguing and also suspended Parliament for an unreasonably long time, leaving no legal option but to recall Parliament as early as next week.

Five: The prorogation was not carried out lawfully and therefore never happened, meaning Parliament is still in session. No 10 indicated that the Prime Minister would prorogue for a second time, making sure his actions were watertight.