Latest Issue

Understanding what makes “Miller & Cherry” the most significant judicial statement on the constitution in over 200 years

Monday’s ruling explicated the logic of office-holding within a parliamentary democracy—and reinforced the structures which sustain political life

By Thomas Poole  

The Supreme Court in parliament square. Photo: SOPA Images/SIPA USA/PA Images

The Supreme Court decided in Miller & Cherry that parliament was not prorogued, since the prime minister’s advice to the Queen was unlawful. The temptation is to dissolve the case into Brexit politics. Brexit, combined with parliamentary arithmetic and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, produced the circumstances that triggered the case, a rupture between government and parliament that is rare within our system. Brexit also brings sharpness and intensity to questions about our political life. But seeing the case…

Register today to continue reading

You’ve hit your limit of three articles in the last 30 days. To get seven more, simply enter your email address below.

You’ll also receive our free e-book Prospect’s Top Thinkers 2020 and our newsletter with the best new writing on politics, economics, literature and the arts.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with newsletters, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to

More From Prospect