Supreme Court - Day 3

Subject: Supreme Court day 3.

The day opened with a submission by an Northern Ireland  Barrister who's main thrust was that the proroguing of parliament effected the running of Northern Ireland, particularly in so far as the protestations of the dire consequences seen in the document named Yellow Hammer and the fears of unrest on the boarder which are foreseen if a hard border is erected. The Irish submitted a plea that depending on the decision of the court lay the condition of his country if Brexit were allowed to proceed. He was roundly criticised by the Law Lords for straying into the field of politics which was outside its realm of judicial responsibility. It was sad if not unreasonable that the Court felt it could not respond to his argument and in effect shut him down.
As an audience, people like myself, who need solutions to this Brexit mess, feel the solution slipping away through the strict use of legal president. It has to be so if the Powers are to remain separated. The rights and wrongs of an act by the Prime Minister can not be restrained unless he has tripped up on some legal trip wire. Judicial review has to limit its observations to the laws appertaining to the case before it, even if the PM is caught pick pocketing the nation, so long as his haul is political. The anguish of the Irish has no place in the courts review, they are blind to the outcome and can only identify the mechanics which were followed up until and even after the thief placed his hand in the nations pocket.
And so we have intense legal argument now being argued by a barrister who is holding the courts attention because he is challenging the legal instruments of which they are much more at home and in sympathy with. Arcane law and arcane detail is the substance on which common law stands. Inch by inch the Law creeps forward building on the exclamation marks of some pronouncement made years ago. There's is parallel universe to our own universe it's rewards are not in heaven but in an entry in a volume of Blacks.
Much depends on the definition of dissolving parliament versus proroguing parliament. 
Dissolving parliament is used if a parliament places before the executive government the claim that parliament has lost confidence, which in the pre the fixed time parliament act, made it necessary to have an election to elect a new government. The act of dissolving Parliament therefore hands back the power from the government to the people.
Proroguing parliament is a temporary power to formally bring parliament to an end for a limited time period, such as the Queens Speech, which draws a line under the business of the House of the last parliament and discusses the new business of the new parliament which is announced through the Queens Speech. The other occasion where proroguing is used  to break House proceedings is to allow Political Parties to hold their annual conferences. 
Unlike dissolving parliament, proroguing parliament allows the Government and the Prime Minister to retain power to make decisions whilst taking debate away from parliament about those decisions and is a far different proposition.
Their Lordships have risen to reflect over the weekend what they have head whilst we stand and wait. It was ever so. Boris is playing whilst Rome burns. He has put no alternative plan to paper, there is no trail as to what he has done if anything. It's a" farce which the Conservative party members, in the shires have brought upon us. We were cuckold from the moment they forced Mrs May out and the labour MPs were as much to blame for not recognising the danger. 
Monday will see what what their Lordships decide and meanwhile I'm off to Blackpool for a stick of rock and some candy floss.