There's no easy answer to that one. It comes back to an early question of how the public views the political system and the rules and the facts of the case. I think one unfortunate misunderstanding among many in the public is a very fractured notion of what the role of the House of Commons is in the political system.
A long succession of majority governments in the 20th century kind of established the notion that the government is completely in control and the House is there simply as a debating forum and to stamp the government's business. What we have in the 21st century are more minority governments, which are bringing home the issue that the government has a right to set the policy agenda, but the House of Commons must be in control of approving that business and deciding who has the legitimate right to govern, particularly following an election.
I think one step of reasserting the House's primacy in the political system would be to require the House's consent to prorogation, because it is a practical and a symbolic statement that the House is the one that's been elected by the people and the House should be ultimately in control of its affairs and the parliamentary process. The government of the day has a very important right to propose matters, but it's the House that actually disposes of how they will be approved or not, or changed.
My suggestion about trying to have some kind of statement in the regulation of prorogation is tied up in a belief that it is important to make some kind of visible and public reinstatement of the House of Commons in the political process.
I'm sorry. That's a very convoluted and torturous answer to what was a good question.