On 24 September 2019, in a unanimous judgment the UK Supreme Court ([2019] UKSC 41) ruled that the Prime Minister’s action to prorogue (suspend) Parliament for 5 weeks in the run-up to the 31-10-2019 deadline of the UK leaving the European Union, was unlawful and of no effect, as it prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Although the Court did not pronounce on the merits and demerits of Brexit, its decision delighted “Remainers” but appalled “Leavers”. The Court ruling epitomises the potency of constitutional review by an independent judiciary. The paper applies collective choice theory to analyse the ruling of the Supreme Court. This is accomplished by (a) examining the legal basis of the Court ruling; (b) reviewing arguments for judicial review and (c) exploring the effect of the Court as an additional player in the game of collective choice in a spatial decision model.

中文翻译：

---

英国最高法院是否会虚张声势议会？

2019年9月24日，英国最高法院（[2019] UKSC 41）一致裁定，总理的行动在议会的最后期限（2019年10月31日至2019年10月31日）之前将议会暂停（暂停）5周。英国离开欧盟是非法的，没有任何作用，因为它阻止议会在没有合理理由的情况下履行其宪法职能。尽管法院没有就英国退欧的优缺点发表任何意见，但法院的判决使“余民”感到高兴，但令“利弗斯”感到震惊。法院的裁决集中体现了独立司法机构对宪法进行审查的效力。本文运用集体选择理论来分析最高法院的裁决。这可以通过（a）审查法院裁决的法律依据来实现；