Few commentators expected that the UK Supreme Court would deliver a unanimous and unequivocal reply to the arguments which Gina Miller, Joanna Cherry and others brought against the decision by Boris Johnson, the prime minister, to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament. For constitutional lawyers, it was indeed exciting to see Brenda Hale, the president of the court, lay down the building blocks upon which a decision of great significance was established. One-word descriptions of the UK constitution as being essentially “legal” or “political” do not bring out the significance of history in our national life. And if our system of democratic government is the result of history, then it is clear that the development has never ceased.
很少有评论家认为，最高法院会对吉娜•米勒（Gina Miller）、乔安娜•切里（Joanna Cherry）等反对首相鲍里斯•约翰逊（Boris Johnson）建议女王暂休议会的人所提出的论点，作出一致和明确的答复。对于宪法律师来说，看到最高法院院长布伦达•黑尔（Brenda Hale）奠定了一项具有重大意义的决定的基础，着实令人激动。仅用一词来形容英国宪法本质上是“法律”或“政治”的，并不能揭示历史在我们国家生活中的意义。如果我们的民主政府制度是历史的结果，那么很明显，这一发展从未停止过。