This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-flies-to-uk-as-parliament-returns-after-court-ruling-politics-live

The article has changed 31 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Brexit: Corbyn says Boris Johnson should apologise as Gove claims PM did nothing wrong – live news Brexit: Boris Johnson to address MPs as minister brands parliament 'dead' with 'no moral right to sit' – live news
(about 2 hours later)
Boris Johnson is back in the UK after his trip to the UN in New York. His RAF Voyager touched down a few minutes ago, the Press Association reports. Phillip Lee, the Tory MP who defected to the Lib Dems, told Cox he should be showing more humility. He asks him if he can say if he has given Downing Street legal advice on bypassing the Benn Act.
Lord Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister, has criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, for describing the supreme court judgment as a “constitutional coup”. (See 10.08am.) He said Rees-Mogg used to be a “pillar of rectitude”. But in the last few weeks he has been seen lounging on the front bench, and criticising the supreme court, Heseltine said. He went on: Cox said that he was not allowed to say whether he had given legal advice on a topic or not. But he said Lee was not in a position to urge him to show more humility. Having been elected for one party, and now sitting for another without holding a byelection, Lee should be “on his knees” begging for forgiveness from his constituents, Cox said.
This is a Tory, this is someone who believes in the high principles of Conservatism, taking about a constitutional coup when he’s lost a legal case. If I’m arraigned on some sort of criminal charge in the courts, and I then said ‘Well, of course it’s a personal vendetta’, people would laugh. Yet we’ve got the leader of the House of Commons talking about the unanimous judgment of 11 judges, calling it a constitutional coup. Amber Rudd, the former Tory work and pensions secretary who now sits as an independent having resigned over Brexit, tells Cox she objects to him calling this a “dead” parliament. She says it was only elected in 2017. She says, if it is divided, that is because it reflects the divisions in Britain.
Heseltine is an arch-remainer, and so you would expect him to be critical of Rees-Mogg. But Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown, a Tory Brexiter, told the same programme that he also thought Rees-Mogg’s language was wrong. Clifton-Brown said: Cox replies:
I do think it’s a lapse of judgment on Jacob’s behalf. And, like Lord Heseltine, I’m surprised that he said that. As a result of 24 hours since the judgment, I think cooler minds will prevail. Michael Gove was very careful what he said this morning about criticising the supreme court. We are the party of law and order. We will accept and uphold the judgment. If I had not been driven to this language, I would not have used it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, reportedly described the supreme court judgment as a “constitutional coup” when cabinet ministers spoke on a conference call last night. But he was driven to use this language, he says. No one worked harder than he did to get a compromise deal through parliament, he says. He goes on:
This morning, in an interview on Sky News, Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister refused to deny the story. Sky’s Sarah-Jane Mee asked him three times if the reports about what Rees-Mogg were wrong, and each time Gove sidestepped the question. When she asked a fourth time, he replied: I have now reached a sad conclusion that this parliament is no longer worth sitting. It should be gone, for any good it is doing.
I don’t recognise that language at all. Here is a full version of what Geoffrey Cox said about parliament being a “disgrace” with “no moral right to sit”. He was responding to a question from Rory Stewart, the former international development secretary who lost the Tory whip after rebelling over Brexit. Cox said:
This sounds like a denial, but actually it isn’t. It is a formula frequently used by politicians at the moment when they want to sound as if they are denying a story but don’t feel comfortable saying it is untrue. I would agree with him that parliament has to determine the terms on which we leave, but this parliament has declined three times to pass a withdrawal act, with which the opposition – in relation to the withdrawal act – had absolutely no objection.
The justification for using the phrase is that the reality of what happened was rather different from the way it was reported. But that is true of almost any event reported second-hand as seen by someone who was involved in person. Then we now have a wide number of this house setting its face against leaving at all. And when this government draws the only logical inference from that position, which is that it must leave therefore without any deal at all, it still sets its face, denying the electorate the chance of having its say in how this matter should be resolved.
In his Today interview Jeremy Corbyn seemed to rule out Labour voting for a short Commons recess next week to allow the Conservative party conference in Manchester to go ahead. (See 8.41am.) But Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, told Sky’s All Out Politics that the shadow cabinet would be discussing this issue when it meets this morning. She suggested that the Labour party might agree to the Commons not sitting early next week. Asked whether Labour would let a mini conference recess go ahead, she replied: This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches ...
The Labour party is very benevolent and believes in fair play. So we’ll see what [the Conservatives] come forward with. But we want to be benevolent. They don’t like to hear it Mr Speaker. Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide upon whether they should be allowed to sit in their seats, while they block 17.4 million people’s vote. This parliament is a disgrace.
Normally, when the Conservative conference is on, the Commons is in recess for the whole week. The opposition parties will almost certainly want it to be sitting next Wednesday for PMQs, when Boris Johnson was meant to be delivering his party conference speech, but one option might be to agree for the Commons not to sit for a day or two at the start of the week, so a shortened conference could go ahead. Given the opportunity, since I am asked, let me tell them the truth: they could vote no confidence at any time, but they are too cowardly. They could agree to a motion to allow this house to dissolve but they are too cowardly.
We are likely to know more about what is happening by the end of the day. This parliament should have the courage to face the electorate. But it won’t, because so many of them are really all about preventing us leaving the European Union at all.
On the subject of who might head an interim government, if Boris Johnson were to lose a confidence vote and if the opposition parties were to unite behind someone else who could take over solely to negotiate a Brexit delay with the EU and then hold a general election, Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt says Margaret Beckett is a possible candidate. But the time is coming, the time is coming Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.
“...Once no-deal has been taken off the table, if it is taken off the table, they think [ex-Tory rebels] there may be the numbers for a caretaker PM. The name I’m hearing is Margaret Beckett, former deputy leader of the Labour Party.”- Political editor @nicholaswatt#Newsnight pic.twitter.com/XLFwuhsDiD Cox has just told MPs that in future it might make sense for appointments to the supreme court to be approved by parliament.
Beckett, a former foreign secretary and former leader of the Commons, is respected by MPs from all sides of the Commons. Unlike Hilary Benn, another Labour backbencher sometimes tipped as leader of an interim, cross-party anti-no-deal government, she would be more amenable to Jeremy Corbyn and his team. She would also be seen as someone with no ambition to hold on to the job beyond a general election. In response to a question about whether allowing MPs to confirm judicial appointments would be necessary if the courts became more political, he said MPs might have to “reflect” on that. He said Brexit would mean “we are going to have to look again at our constitutional arrangements”. As the UK left the EU, a “great gap” would open up in the law, he said.
Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Simon Murphy. One matter may very well be whether there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments in some manner.
Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, was on the Today programme earlier this morning and he said something potentially important about what might happen after a vote of no confidence in the Commons. But Cox said that he personally would not be “enthusiastic” about the idea.
One plan would be for the opposition parties to install an interim PM who could request a delay to Brexit and then hold a general election. In the past the SNP has been very negative about the idea of installing Jeremy Corbyn as PM. But this morning Blackford indicated that the SNP might support putting Corbyn into Downing Street on this interim PM basis. Asked whether he could support Corbyn taking over in those circumstances, Blackford said: Jacob Rees Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, is expected to lay out government business this afternoon. He is expected to request a short break for Conservative Party conference - a proposal which Jeremy Corbyn said they could oppose.
I’m less concerned about the individual. The Conservative party has indicated it will continue with conference, scheduled to take place in Manchester from Sunday to Wednesday next week, whatever is decided by Parliament. James Cleverly, the party’s co-chairman, has Tweeted that it will go ahead.
I think it is fair to say that, in such a scenario, the official leader of the opposition is the first point of contact as far as that is concerned. A debate could be held on any proposed break as early as Thursday. If the government loses that vote, it could give the Conservatives a real headache.
But we are only talking about putting someone in place in order to call an election. On that basis, I wouldn’t be opposed to that [Corbyn being interim PM]. Conference is a highly lucrative event for the party. If a break is not formally supported, it could force Tory ministers and MPs to return from conference events for votes.
Reaction here from some lobby journalists on Corbyn’s interview. One option for the government would be to table non-controversial bills for next week, which would take up most of the day. However, they might still have to return for major votes.
Quite impressed by Corbyn on Today. Sounds reasonable, measured and convincing. He should do these kinds of slots more often. It has also emerged that the government’s opponents in parliament could apply to the high court asking for a civil servant to go to Brussels if Boris Johnson has not brought back a deal by October 19th and refuses to request an article 50 extension.
Corbyn says he’s not scared of a GE. “I am very happy to have a GE when No Deal is taken off the table” > context: Corbyn also has worst approval ratings for any opposition leader in nearly 50 years according to recent poll It is understood that an application would be made at the Royal Courts of Justice to direct a high ranking civil servant, possibly the cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill, to carry out parliament’s duty.
And this, from the Times’ Matt Chorley, on a dig Corbyn made about what he considers to be unfair media coverage. The Queen’s speech, scheduled for October 14, is where the government will set out its agenda and forthcoming priorities.
Corbyn's complaints about how he doesn't get a fair hearing in the media outside election campaigns might carry more weight if he actually agreed to be interviewed more often A vote is scheduled to take place five days later on October 21, where MPs will debate the measures put forward by the government.
The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has already called on Boris Johnson to resign, says the prime minister should apologise to the Queen and the British people following the supreme court ruling. Nick Boles, the former Conservative who now sits as an independent, asked Cox if he could give MPs an assurance that the government would abide by the Benn Act in the event of the government not agreeing a Brexit deal. In those circumstances, the act says, the PM must request a three-month Brexit extension.
In a rare appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said Johnson abused his powers. Cox gave a clear answer: “Yes.”
I think he should apologise both to her [the Queen] for the advice he gave her [over suspending parliament] but, more importantly, apologise to the British people for what he’s done in trying to shut down our democracy at a very crucial time when people are very, very worried about what will happen on 31 October. Twice now Geoffrey Cox has challenged the opposition to agree to back an early general election by backing a one-line bill amending the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and allowing one.
Johnson did speak to the Queen yesterday after the supreme court ruling, although No 10 has refused to say whether he apologised. This mechanism could have been used in early September to hold a general election before 31 October. Although Labour said it wanted an early election, it argued that it could not risk this approach because it could not be sure that the PM would not change the date of the election, to hold it after 31 October.
"Our priority is to prevent a no deal exit and when that has been achieved... we will then be ready with a motion of no confidence," says @jeremycorbyn #r4Today https://t.co/L23wB5cHNF pic.twitter.com/zAkzBp14CW Cox seemed to be implying that the government would back a one-line bill that would specify a particular date for the election. But it is now too late. Under electoral law an election has to take place at least 25 working days after dissolution, and so even if parliament were to pass a law and dissolve today, it would be impossible to hold an election before 31 October.
In his interview Corbyn said his priority was to prevent a no-deal exit but he would not be bounced into a general election before that is secured. Attack is the best form of defence, they often say. And Geoffrey Cox, who has faced considerable criticism during this UQ, has just retaliated with remarkable attack on the opposition, and the authority of parliament.
Asked about accusations he is scared of holding a general election because of his party’s dire poll ratings, he replied: He said that parliament was “dead” and had “no moral right to sit”, but that the opposition were afraid of an election.
I’m very happy to have a general election when we’ve taken no deal off the table and the EU has granted that extension. This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches.
Pressed on his party’s poor polling, he claimed Labour had been a “very effective opposition”. This generated an uproar from the opposition. But Cox went on, saying the opposition did not like to hear what he had to say.
Corbyn also confirmed Labour will not vote for a short recess for Conservative party conference next week. Twice MPs have been asked to approve a general election, he said. But they would not allow one, he went on.
Reaction here from the editor of Politics Home, Kevin Schofield, to that Gove interview. This parliament is a disgrace ...
Michael Gove very rattled on #r4today, even more passive aggressive than normal. They could vote no confidence at any time. But they are too cowardly ...
Michael Gove denied the government did anything wrong by suspending parliament – despite the supreme court’s ruling yesterday. The Tory cabinet minister, who is in charge of no-deal planning, said he respected the court’s position but would not accept being at fault over prorogation. This parliament should have the courage to face the electorate. But it won’t because so many of them are about preventing us leaving the European Union. But the time is coming when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.
Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether the government did something wrong by proroguing parliament, Gove said: “I don’t believe so.” Here is LBC’s Theo Usherwood on Cox’s answer to Letwin. (See 12.09am.)
Accused of having a lack of humility during a testy interview, he replied: Oliver Letwin question could prove important. Asks A-G to rule out further prorogation. He doesn’t do that. There’s potentially a gap for the Government. Prorogue Parliament c 10/10. Queen’s Speech 14/10. It falls, government falls. General election. Poll post Brexit day.
I absolutely respect the integrity of the supreme court, I respect the judgment, the government will comply with it. That is the law. Sir Oliver Letwin, the former Tory Cabinet Office minister who lost the whip after rebelling over Brexit earlier this month, asks Cox for an assurance that there will be no further prorogation, other than a short one ahead of a possible Queen’s speech, before the end of October.
It is also the case that the principle of judicial review is a well-understood one, it has often been the case that government ministers have taken actions which they believed were right and then the courts, whether it’s been the high court or other courts, have said: ‘Actually, do you know what? Your exercise of your executive power or your prerogative power was wrong’. Cox says he can assure Letwin that the government will comply with the supreme court judgment.
Labour’s Angela Eagle asks Cox how Jacob Rees-Mogg can stay as leader of the Commons if he has accused the supreme court of a constitutional coup.
Cox says there is “nothing wrong with expressing robust, critical views about a judgment”.
But imputing improper motive is wrong, he says.
He says he thought Rees-Mogg’s remark, as he saw it reported, was just robust criticism.
Cox says it is acceptable to be critical of judgments. But it is not acceptable to attack the motives of judges, he says.
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, asked Cox if he agreed that the supreme court ruling was a constitutional coup. (See 10.26am.)
Cox implied that Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, did not really mean it when he used that phrase. Cox said:
I don’t think it was a constitutional coup ... I don’t think anybody does ... These things can be said in the heat of rhetorical and poetic licence.
In response to a question from Dominic Grieve, a former Tory who now sits as an independent, Cox says he would not have been able to support a decision to prorogue parliament until the end of October. If the PM had proposed that, Cox would have resigned, he suggests.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow solicitor general, says the supreme court judgment amounts to “the most damning judicial indictment of a government in modern times”.
He says the government “stands shamed – tendering illegal advice to Her Majesty”.
He says the legal advice should be published in full.
And he points out that, although Cox is saying he accepts the supreme court judgment, Michael Gove told the BBC this morning that the government still thought it had done nothing wrong. (See 8.09am.)
He says the government has already been found in contempt of parliament. Now it has been found in contempt of law.
Cox says there is nothing unusual about a lawyer having his opinion rejected by a court.
He says courts in Scotland and in England backed his view. If people think Cox should resign, should the lord chief justice and the master of the rolls (who both said prorogation was lawful) resign too?
He accuses Thomas-Symonds of a “shameless piece of cynical opportunism”.
He says his advice was sound at the time. The supreme court took a different view, he says. He says it was entitled to do that. But it was making new law.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry told Cox she was not calling for his resignation – yet.
But she asked him if he could confirm what Amber Rudd said – that cabinet ministers asked to see the prorogation legal advice, but that they were not shown it.
In reply, Cox repeated the point he had made about considering what more might be published, but he did not address the point about ministers being denied access to it.