The ironic thing

is that if BJ/Cox had stated the actual purpose of the prorogation, characterising it as a political step required to allow time and space in which to bring about the outcome voted for in the referendum and consequent upon notice under article 50 etc etc ... it would have been far more difficult for the Ct to intervene (tho it might still have done so). But they were fools, and insofar as they said anything, relied upon a reason that was plainly inadequate as a justification, and then put in no real evidence on the point - so the Ct could say that they had not been given any proper basis. Cox is either stupid or dishonest. Or maybe both.

Posted By: paulg, Sep 25, 21:26:58