Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
Everyone knows it's to do with Brexit, but the court's ruling sidesteps it by looking purely at the government's given reasoning, which is to prepare a Queen's speech. It has never taken anywhere near 5 weeks in the past, and the evidence given by the government does not support taking this long. So using the government's own reasoning, the only explanation is that the government is stopping Parliament from its role of oversight. Which, unlike your hypothetical argument, is both real and current, and as great an abuse of power as it gets in our constitution. What the government has done is both unprecedented, and unsupported by law. To allow it is to tacitly support it. Thus the Supreme Court did not allow it. The government should follow convention, and if it breaks convention and lies about it, then its actions must be nullified, not allowed. Unless, of course, you take the view that the government is above law and not bound by it.
I'm afraid you've oversteppped here. Like the power to call elections at any time (prior to 2011) the power to Prorogue can, and has, been used for political ends.

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-8589

https://researchbriefings.parliament.../LLN-2019-0111

Prior to 1931 it was not unusual for Parliament to be prorogued for more than two months - the last lengthy prorogation NOT before a generation election was 87 days.