Not semantics at all:

Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as "not authorized by law, illegal." Illegal is defined as "forbidden by law, unlawful"

Since there is nothing on the statute books about prorogation, or what may be considered an acceptable period of prorogation, it cannot possibly be illegal.

Since what Boris has done has not broken any Law, and given that HM the Queen gave her assent to his actions,and HM the Queen being above the Law as she IS the Law, one actually wonders whether the Supreme Court's judgement in this matter is enforceable.

I think the reasoning is that as much as the first referendum could be seen as 'status quo' versus 'change', it could also be seen as 'reality' versus 'myth'.

Because there was no specificity to what leave would look like, it was campaigned on with vagueness and pomp, all about patriotism and control without spelling out what any of that actually meant.

It therefore seems fair to arrive at a choice where both scenarios are spelt out so that people can make a choice that's actually informed.

The problem in trying to have a "reasoned debate" with you is that no amount of reason seems to penetrate your fixed position. No matter when areas of agreement can be offered, or compromises suggested nothing changes. The post above could have been written 100 pages ago, minus the new target, the Judiciary.

I know my position also remains firm but mine is based on verifiable facts some of which have now been unanimously confirmed by the highest Court in the land.

I, nor I believe does anyone else, think those who hold your position are "w***ers" of the highest order". I just think you are mistaken about the way our democracy works and that your attitudes and frustrations all flow from that.

Unfortunately Johnson is reinforcing those attitudes, entirely for his own reasons, in his efforts to position this as "Boris and the Brexiteers defending the people against the elite", when the truth is that it's absolutely the very opposite. This is Parliament and the law defending the people against an elite.

The hard line Brexiteers are no more "the people" than Corbyn's hard liners are. Most of the 52% wouldn't have come from that group but were sucked in to that camp for a variety of reasons. Therefore to make the claims that he does, and you repeat, that the vote of the majority being betrayed is simply untrue.

The law is not meant to be involved in political decisions.

This is unprecedenced.

You can add three more - the Lord Chief Justice of
England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

Her Majesty walked right into this didn't she?

Can she sack Johnson?

She is involved now and its her own fault.

A written constitution would hopefully end the monarch's role in other than PR matters.

So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court?

I thought we’d given it to Brussels.

So you are literally advocating for parliament to be above the law?