,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
FWIW (not much) I think that the effect of the Scottish Decision is to make the advice a nullity: but since the “rule” that the Queen follows the advice is convention, not law, the prorogation remains effective (it is not *legally* dependent on the advice).
That makes the position here legally different from the position in the case relied on by the Miller team.
But if the Inner House decision stands, the PM would have to give fresh advice, complying with the law. And (by convention) the Queen would then act on it.
But as Paul says, there are (to public lawyers) delightful complexities here.
And if you think the underlying distribution of powers here is deeply unsatisfactory in a modern democracy, welcome to the club.
