[makomk]

Yeah, though somehow the British press managed to omit that little fact from their regurgitations of John Major's claims about how dangerous and remarkable this action was. His prorogation seems much more clear-cut an example of frustrating Parliamentary scrutiny too; he completely blocked Parliament from sitting between the time he announced it and the election he was hoping to protect, unlike this case where Boris left windows for them to act both before and after the prorogation, and he didn't even have the justification that Boris did of doing it to end an over-long session and hold a Queen's Speech.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Not a few of Major's cabinet ended up in jail, for various reasons.

In fact there's a better precedent - Attlee's prorogation in 1948.

The difference is that both were done by a PM with a working majority, so it could be argued they were done with the consent of Parliament.

Johnson nuked his own majority from orbit, so there's absolutely no argument that he's acting with the confidence and approval of Parliament.

Which is part of the problem. Parliament will remove him with a No Confidence vote soon. But first it wants to make sure that he doesn't make any other attempt to game electoral or Parliamentary procedure to force through the mad Brexit agenda that his hedge-fund owning backers want to profit from.

[roywiggins]

The prorogation in 1948 was about creating a pro-forma session of Parliament just for the purpose of passing a law an extra time, so as to pass it over the objections of the Lords. It didn't actually prevent Parliament from having its say, which is the issue today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_King...

(BoJo's government still has the confidence of Parliament until it doesn't- that's not what the court ruled on)