You are reading a single comment by @c00ps and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I agree, it didn't seem like a strong argument to my uneducated ears either - coupled with the lack of witness statements submitted - it's almost as if they knew it themselves and thought it was worth the punt, as they were already pot-committed.
Tongue firmly in cheek also with the above comment, as many, many others far better versed in legalese (not difficult) didn't know which way it would go.
c00ps
tbh I hadn't really followed the arguments put fwd before watching and reading the judgement. So I was surprised that (as I understand it) the Govt's case was that prorogation was a decision taken by parliament rather than the executive.
Not that I know anything, but on the face of it, it didn't seem like a very strong argument.