The Ruling that the government has not broken any law by its prorogation of parliament is in line with this blog’s position that this is a political, rather than a legal issue. An uncodified constitution which relies on convention, practice, precedent and some statutes, is hard to pin down in closely balanced disputes, of which this argument is clearly one. Which is why it is likely to end up in the UK Supreme Court.
Having seen my lay opinion vindicated in the first of several legal challenges, I nevertheless see the argument that the constitution provides for prorogation for a purpose, not for indiscriminate political maneuvering. Although on the face of it this government’s motives were genuine, in fact the object was to deny parliament the ability to scrutinise the government’s programme and halt a course of action being followed by the government, against which there is a clear majority in parliament.
The more we look into this government, now in terminal disarray, the more credible that argument becomes. So although lower courts may fear to tread here, the Supreme Court, if it is asked to adjudicate may arrive, perhaps by a quite narrow majority, at a different conclusion. So this is not the end of the legal story. By any means.