Britain's political drama has intensified with Prime Minister Boris Johnson facing calls to reverse his suspension of Parliament after a Scottish court ruled it illegal. With the government appealing against the ruling, Parliament remains closed until the Supreme Court decides on the matter. The legal challenge to the proroguing of Parliament is part of an attempt to prevent Whitehall, the seat of executive power, from usurping the functions of Westminster, the site of British parliamentary democracy. The suspension of Parliament is normal procedure to allow the government to launch a new legislative agenda. However, the timing and its duration till Oct 14, in the critical lead-up to the existing Brexit date of Oct 31, have raised suspicions that Mr Johnson is trying to circumvent parliamentarians opposed to his plan to leave the European Union on that date even if he has not agreed on exit terms.

This test of wills between Whitehall and Westminster, now transferred to the courts, attests to the gravity of the situation in which Britain finds itself. Before it was suspended, the House of Commons enacted legislation to oblige Mr Johnson to delay Brexit if there is no deal by an EU summit on Oct 17. A no-deal Brexit would pose substantial challenges, by the government's own account. Official documents have warned that it could lead to shortages of food and medicine and even to civil unrest. Worse, preparations for such eventualities are at a low level, with logjams at some ports portending an impact on supplies. Although described as what could take place in a reasonable worst-case scenario, and not a prediction of what is most likely to occur, the fact that this worst-case scenario is believed to be reasonable should spur on the government to relook its assumptions about the consequences of a no-deal exit and about its necessity in the first place.