That’s been Pannick’s big point (actually his only point)

It’s quite a decent argument so I guess I might have a look at the English decision to see how they got round it. I suspect the answer might be that if you prorogued Parliament for 5 years you would not be operating a convention at all?

As for the Queen, it will all depend on the approach taken to the justiciability of the convention. If the decision to prorogue is not justiciable, then whether the reasons given to the Queen for proroguing were accurate or not becomes irrelevant, I think?

Posted By: Old Git, Sep 11, 13:25:57