,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The question that should be put by journalists to @michaelgove and every other government spokesperson “politely disagreeing” with the Supreme Court is:
Which part of the judgment is wrong?
Justiciability or lawfulness? [1/4]
Which part of the judgment is wrong?
Justiciability or lawfulness? [1/4]
If they say “justiciability”, they are saying that any government should be allowed to suspend Parliamentary scrutiny indefinitely, no matter how egregious the motive, purpose or effect. They are subjugating Parliamentary supremacy to Prime Ministerial diktat. [2/4] 
If they saw “lawfulness” - i.e there was a reasonable justification for prorogation, the Queen’s speech - ask why Mr Johnson refused to give a sworn witness statement confirming this. And why he has spent the past day briefing that the court’s decision “frustrates Brexit”. [3/4]
Simply stating “we disagree with the judgment”, as if that is the end of the enquiry, is not enough. Ministers should either apologise and recognise the government’s gross error, or explain, with reference to the judgment, why they feel they have done nothing wrong. [4/4]
