Thread by @Staedtler

I know what the Supremes are going to say.
First of all they're going to say Boris Johnson misbehaved. Bet they enjoy saying that.

But the difficulty is identifying what point exactly did he transgress?
Accepted norms, certainly. There is no administrative justification for closing parliament for this length of time.

What's going to swing it for the government is the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
How, you will say, how is that decisive to the case?

If the government finds itself unable to govern, as this one has, but for its own reasons the opposition refuses to use its own prerogative power to bring a formal vote of no confidence, then the government ends up stuck.

Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act if the opposition refuses to vote for an election, and refuses to table a vote of no confidence, the government has only got one thing left. A Queen's speech.

If you take that power away, to bring a new Queen's speech, then the Prime Minister has no tools left to break the deadlock.
The prime minister must have SOMEthing available to break the deadlock.

Can't call an election, so bring a new Queen's Speech.

You've removed the power to call an election. If you remove the power to prorogue parliament as well, and present a new Queen's speech, then the prime minister would have to resign.

The problem we've got is that Boris Johnson is the fairly elected leader of the Conservative Party. He must surely have the right to present himself to the country in a general election.

But the opposition is being difficult. Say the opposition fears him at the ballot box. Just say. It can refuse him an election, and if he can't present a Queen's speech, he will have to resign.
But it's not for the opposition to choose the leader of another party.

No. There has to be a means for the prime minister to put himself to the country in a general election.
If the opposition refuses to allow it, refuses to bring a vote of no confidence, or can't win it, what then?

The only means for the prime minister to challenge parliament and test its confidence is by presenting a Queen's Speech.

Therefore it must be a prerogative power to prorogue the one session and present a new Queen's Speech.

That's what they're going to say. Prorogation and Queen's Speech must be prerogative in their initiation.

However - they will say - the duration that parliament is closed should not be open to abuse.

And that's all they're going to say. prorogation, yes. Prerogative, yes. But parliament should put a statutory limit on the duration between the prorogation and Queen's Speech.

And that's all they're going to say.

They won't even rule this one out of order, though they might drop a fairly heavy hint not to push it any further.