tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
If the government believed, quite rightly at the time, that the courts had nothing to do with prorogation, why would they then provide evidence. Until the SC decided that the new principle was that they do have an imput and therefore changed the rules, the government didn’t have to do anything. If the SC changed the rules and announced it prior to making further judgement then the government could have do so, but the SC didn’t, so the government couldn’t, and once the judgement was read that was that, with no appeal.......
“If” is doing a lot of work there Pete.
Every action of the state is subject to judicial review, and the state must be able to explain why it has taken (or not taken) an action. Cox knows that, as do the rest of the Governments law officers.
.... and yet for some reason (possibly not unconnected with them talking for weeks beforehand about proroguing Parliament so that no deal could be forced through ) no one could be found to go under oath and say why.
Or to put it another way, they turned up to a divorce hearing with nothing, when their ex had reams and reams of evidence about how many times they’d been over the side, including having a kid with someone else.