Comments:UK Supreme Court rules prorogation of parliament unlawful

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

The UK government has a much longer baseline of experience to draw on than the US, and the various archaic flourishes to their older government may provide deeper checks and balances; but an important factor in this situation may be that they've had time to watch what's been going on these past few years in the US.

At least the US doesn't have something as stupid as prorogation where the executive can suspend the legislature (at least the UK can't do it for whatever reason it wants after this), or dissolve the legislature. "Snap elections" are crazy, too, imho.

An early election might have ousted Donald Trump some time ago.

Perchance, but snap elections are for legislatures. I've never heard of one for a directly elected (electoral college notwithstanding) president of any country. They usually have fixed terms.

Indeed. One might almost believe that all existing systems are works in progress...

While the US system seems the most stagnant and devoid of evolution in 230+ years, I kind of like that one does not need to be a Lady or Lord to be a Supreme Court Justice.