Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
I'm afraid that I won't biggie. The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that the Judiciary be separate from the Executive for the very reason that the former should be able to make judgements upon the actions of the latter without the suggestion of political bias or interference.

The legislator - Parliament - creates law and the Judiciary has to apply it (unless they declare it incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights). There is no statute law on prorogation and so the Supreme Court fell back on common law principles which provide that the exercise of prerogative power by the Executive (i.e government) must be exercised rationally and reasonably (for which you could substitute 'fairly').

I wouldn't like to speculate upon whether Parliament will legislate to curb the court's powers of judicial review. I think some clarity around the exercise of the power of prorogation would clearly be of value.
Kerr, has there ever been a situation like this in the history of Parliament? Prorogation is 100% a political matter by definition so how did the supreme court get anywhere close to being involved in it?

If you take a step back and look at it does it not seem like a ploy or tactic by remaoners to throw more spanners in the works?

Is parliament able to pass a law that would make prorogation wholly a political matter where this will never be allowed to happen again.