3 ms·
>> They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament. > They did not. The way I read it is that they decided that the _effect_ (prev
by andyjohnson0 7y ago
>> They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament.
> They did not.
The way I read it is that they decided that the _effect_ (preventing parliament from performing its constitutional role) of prorogation was unlawful, and therefore Johnson's motive was irrelevant.
- hogFeast 7y agoYes, and they said "without reasonable justification". The implication of that being that if "reasonable justification" existed then it would be lawful regardless of effect. Whilst I enjoy watching the mental gymnastics that other people go to on Brexit (I voted to Remain btw), it is utterly self-defeating. Just read something, try to stop your brain jumping in..."reasonable justification"...it doesn't need to be more complicated than that. This would be more obvious if more people actually followed the primary sources rather than journalists btw. In Scotland, there was a whole thing about getting emails, etc. This has no other purpose than examining motive.