Don't bother sending the ruling 59, I've read it. There is no indication that Boris has broken any law, and there can't be because he hasn't. What I find extremely suspicious 59 is that these 11 judges were unanimous in their decision. This is astonishing, I've been reading various legal experts on this prorogation and most seemed to think it wasn't justiciable, there was some disagreement, but opinion was divided, there was certainly no unanimity on the subject. Yet these 11 all independently came to the same conclusion, that it was unlawful ? On a prorogation of which the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queens Bench Division, those last three sitting in the High Court, and Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, had all declared they were quite satisfied that it was perfectly lawful.
So I'm not arguing the case myself 59, I know nowt, but are all these eminent legal experts wrong as well, do they also know nowt ? Incidentally you were talking about the highest court in the land, but the Lord Chief Justice outranks every one of those eleven Supreme Court justices, and now they're telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about either. No wonder they were unanimous, they knew they were making an audacious power grab quite arbitrarily, simply because they could, and like mutineers on a ship, there could be no dissenters, they were working on the principal that if we don't stand together, we'll hang together.
"The question is why did Boris shut Parliament down for five weeks? At this critical time? You obviously disagree but the bloke is not to be trusted and if Parliament is shut down for no good reason, does it not raise suspicions?"
Of course I can't answer that 59, but I can have a guess. For a start it would normally be shut down in September anyway, so only four days would be lost, not five weeks, although the Supreme Court decided that those lost four days had an 'extreme' effect on Parliament's ability to do it's job, conveniently overlooking the fact they'd had three and a half years already to block Brexit, the Benn Bill had passed, and Parliament could bring down the government at any time of their choosing. But never mind that, I think it was threats by Remoan MPs to vote down the recess and keep Parliament in session that inspired the prorogation, and to a certain extent it has more or less succeeded.
"You ask what Parliament can do now. Well, they will be able to act if Boris tries any dodgy stuff"
That's illogical, if Parliament is prorogued Boris can't try any dodgy stuff, so you want an end to prorogation so you can stop him doing stuff he couldn't do if Parliament was prorogued. Sometimes I can see why you're a LibDem mon ami.