@gazcon @PeregrineGoodf1 Nope. Try reading the judgment.

@JanStette @PeregrineGoodf1 The judgement says that the court gets to decide what is a "reasonable justification", which is another way of saying the court has judged Boris' perceived political motives. Says it right there in the section you quoted. More and better thinking required, I would suggest.

@gazcon

@gazcon @monks333 Indeed, although the SC have tried to limit how long he can prorogue parliament for. That is beyond their capability to do so.

@gazcon What I loved about what the court ruled is that, actually, it said it could not know the motives for BJ to prorrogue parliament, so it wasn't ruling on the motives, but on the consequences of proroguing parliament at this particular moment for this particular amount of time

@gazcon @MickGreenhough Proroguing does not happen every year.

@gazcon @kath21_field Nailed it! 👏👏👏

@gazcon @RosemaryKirk They need to #appeal to the #EuropeanCourtofJustice - and whilst it is being considered then #Parliament continues to be #Prorogued @10DowningStreet

@gazcon If it was illegal and unexpected then why did the Labour Party organise their party conference this week over a year ago.

@gazcon @Markable So which law has been broken?

@gazcon @BARSONMARS Agree with the sentiment here, although SC judges have ruled he broke the law. No one has managed to disclose which law he has broken.

@gazcon @kennjs1964 And.... its upside down world lol

@gazcon @Shy_Society Motive for or impact of? Big difference. Judgment not political at all. This from a leaver.

@gazcon 1. Just to be clear, you've totally misunderstood the unanimous decision from the Supreme Court. Proroguing is unlawful if it has the effect of frustrating the ability of Parliament to get on with its Constitutional function.

@gazcon

@gazcon @dizzidi67 It is only deemed illegal on the event. Other PMs can do it past and present but the supreme Court reckon not for Boris. This is all wrong. Furious