> This was important because no-one has been able to come up with a convincing argument for how exactly this particular prorogation would stop Parliamentary scr

> This was important because no-one has been able to come up with a convincing argument for how exactly this particular prorogation would stop Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. I know that the judgment is very recent but I suggest that you read it in full when you get a chance. The court specifically noted that a substantial amount of delegated legislation related to Brexit was scheduled to be handled by parliamentary committees in the period (under provisions in the European Withdrawal Act), and that parliamentary committees continue to sit during recess. They specifically rejected the Government’s claim that a recess period is equivalent to a prorogation, noting that during a recess parliamentary questions can still be asked (and answered) and committees continue to sit. The prorogation is unlawful not because it prevents debate on the floor of the houses, but because it shuts down all activity in parliament in way that recess does not, and that no reasonable explanation was given to do this.