Its verdict fundamentally misunderstands Parliamentary Sovereignty – thus raising big questions about the future of the judiciary and the stability of our constitution.
There was a drilled, demeaning feel to the burst of clapping with which his backbenchers greeted him.
Cox fulminated against Opposition MPs for being frightened of voting for a general election.
Common law demands we pretend even the most surprising decision has always been the case – but this is fuelling demands for retroactive justice.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, he still has a fighting chance of gaining an election – and then winning it.
Class war was the tried and trusted theme. Yet the Labour leader has managed to come across as both weak and extreme.
The Labour Leader says that the Prime Minister should “consider his position…and have an election to elect a Government that respects democracy.”
“The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect.”
Lady Hale declared: “This was not a normal prorogation. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role.”
“Of course we’ll respect whatever the legal ruling from the Supreme Court is…there are different permutations to what the court may or may not decide.”
“Dignity, kindness, authority rather than bossiness, and I do believe that those things could be brought to the Chair by a woman.”
Over the past few decades our constitution has been so corroded that the likes of Powell, Benn, Crossman, and Foot would struggle to recognise it.
The essence of the Government’s take on the legality of its decision – which has seen action claiming otherwise in lower courts.
Lord Pannick sets out the core case of Gina Miller et al against the Government in today’s legal proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The Speaker has manipulated of the rules for a political objective, but the Government has been denied the opportunity to respond proportionately in kind.