,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The theme of this piece is that, in the Westminster system, the check on abusive prorogation should be the Queen (or Governor General/President) rather than the court. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/20/ste…
That raises the interesting question of whether part of our difficulty is that the Queen is in a much weaker position to be a constitutional actor than an appointed Governor General or elected/appointed President precisely because she is a hereditary monarch.
It seems to me that there is a strong case that she is in a much weaker position: but given the complete secrecy about the extent to which she exercises her role in such matters, it’s hard to be sure.
