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/oct/07/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-court-to-decide-if-boris-johnson-can-be-forced-to-sign-extension-letter-live-news

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Brexit: Boris Johnson claims EU has not explained in detail why it objects to his alternative backstop plan - live news Brexit: Boris Johnson claims EU has not explained in detail why it objects to his alternative backstop plan - as it happened
(about 1 year later)
A senior member of the Home Office’s drugs advisory panel has quit, claiming political interference is undermining its independence. Prof Alex Stevens, who worked on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), has posted a thread on Twitter explaining his decision, which was revealed by the Guardian. Downing Street has sought to deflect the blame for the Brexit impasse on to Britain’s EU counterparts, as Boris Johnson’s plans continue to meet a frosty reception. Johnson himself has claimed that the EU has not yet explained in detail what its objections to his plan are. (See 12.32pm.)
I have resigned from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Recent political vetting and exclusion of suitably qualified applicants to join means that the ACMD is losing its independence. A thread to explain follows… Anti-Brexit campaigners have failed in a legal bid to get a Scottish court to issue an order saying Johnson must seek a Brexit extension if he does not agree a deal with the EU, as the Benn Act requires. But they claimed that that case served a valuable function because, in evidence to the court, the government committed itself to complying with this legislation. In his judgment Lord Pentland effectively said he would take the government at its word and that, if Johnson broke his promise to the court, that would be “destructive” to the constitution. Pentland said:
Here is a Guardian video of the Extinction Rebellion protests around Westminster. If I may put the point another way, the government accepts that in executing its political policy it must comply with the 2019 Act. That being the government’s clearly stated position before the court, there is no need for coercive orders against it or against the prime minister to be pronounced. The court should not pronounce coercive orders (or decree for interdict) unless it has been established on the basis of cogent evidence that it is truly necessary for such orders to be granted. In my opinion, that has not been done in the present case.
This is from Neale Richmond, an Irish senator and Fine Gael Europe spokesperson, explaining for the benefit of Boris Johnson (see 12.32pm) what the EU thinks the problems are with the UK’s Brexit plan. I would add only this. I approach matters on the basis that it would be destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the crown for the prime minister or the government to renege on what they have assured the court that the prime minister intends to do.
1) Creates a Customs Border2) Only partial regulatory alignment3) Stormont veto (maj only needed in one community)4) No legal guarantees5) Technology isn’t in existence6) Contrary to Dec’17 declaration7) Far removed from backstop James Duddridge, a Brexit minister, has dismissed as “rubbish” and “not true” a claim that the government plans to lower employment and environmental standards after Brexit. (See 4.12pm.)
Bruno Bonnell, a French MP for Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche! party, told Emma Barnett on Radio 5 Live this morning that Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan was “almost like a joke”. He explained: Jennifer Arcuri, the American businesswoman at the centre of a conflict of interest row involving the prime minister confirmed she had a “very close bond” with Boris Johnson and refused to rule out claims they had an affair.
It’s not a final version - it’s almost like a joke. We don’t even understand it ... Far-right activists are exploiting community tensions by swooping into towns and cities and distorting the truth in an effort to turn residents against minorities, particularly Muslims, the government’s chief adviser on extremism has found.
This is not a genuine offer. This is clearly a political manipulation to put the responsibility of a no-deal Brexit on the EU’s side. The Labour MP Stephen Hepburn has been suspended from the party while officials investigate a complaint that he sexually harassed a female party member.
Explaining his objection to the proposal, he said: Families who launched a landmark legal challenge to the government’s funding of services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) have lost their high court case.
First of all, what he is suggesting right now is a very complex process, and even more complicated than what is proposed by the backstop. That’s all from me for today.
Secondly, it’s again a last-minute proposal, as if he wanted to force the issue and put the responsibility of a no-deal Brexit onto the EU’s shoulders. Thanks for the comments.
I mean we don’t want to pick and choose here. He is the one who refused the deal that was in place, that was proposed, that was negotiated. “Ulster says No,” is one of the historic cries of unionism. The DUP’s Sammy Wilson has inverted that in a statement - one of several we’ve had from the party recently - strongly criticising the Irish government for its stance on Brexit. Wilson said:
The European commission said it plans to “take stock” later this week in terms of making an assessment of the UK’s Brexit plan. At its regular, daily briefing, the commission’s chief spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said: It seems the ‘not an inch’ approach in Dublin will lead to no deal. How times have changed. Its now a case of ‘Dublin Says No’.
Talks will continue today and this week in order to give the UK the opportunity to present their proposals in more detail and then we will take stock with member states and the European parliament throughout the week. The DUP has worked with the prime minister to place a reasonable proposal on the table. It may not be perfect but it’s a fair deal. It recognises our unique situation and respects the referendum result ...
And, as we have said before, everyday counts in these talks. In every negotiation there must be give and take. The Irish prime minister must realise that we will not support Northern Ireland being held to ransom by either Dublin or Brussels.
I think we have said many times that we are available 24/7. In response to another urgent question Conor Burns, an international trade minister, has told MPs that the government will publish its plans for the tariffs that would apply in the event of a no-deal Brexit “shortly”. That may mean tomorrow.
Labour MP Stephen Hepburn has been suspended from the party following a complaint of sexual harassment, the Press Association reports. It is understood his case has been referred to the national constitutional committee and he has been suspended pending that process. Theresa May’s government published its own tariff schedule for no deal, but the new government will take a different approach.
Ian Jones from the Press Association has filed this, looking at four potential dates for the general election. In the Commons James Duddridge, the Brexit minister, has just said that his boss, the Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay, is going around Europe “whipping up support and enthusiasm” for the PM’s Brexit deal.
Time is running out for a general election to take place before the Christmas season. (If Barclay is supposed to be whipping up enthusiasm for the deal, there is precious little evidence so far that his mission is having any success.)
The earliest date for polling day is probably Thursday November 28. These are from Dale Vince, the businessman who took the case to the Scottish court of session calling for a ruling saying Boris Johnson would have to obey the Benn Act, along with Joanna Cherry and Jolyon Maugham.
By law, parliament has to be dissolved 25 working days before a general election. It might not look like it, but we won today. pic.twitter.com/9ecmWqRqmA
For an election on November 28, dissolution would need to take place on October 24. It was always my understanding that we couldn’t actually lose this case, because; either the court would issue the injunction obliging BJ to uphold the law - or he would give clear undertakings to the court that he would do so. That’s what happened today… 😎
This would give MPs time to debate and vote on the Queen’s Speech, which is taking place on October 14. In her question a few minutes ago Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, said the government’s refusal to publish the legal text would prompt fears that the government was prepared to lower standards. Surely the public had a right to know if the PM was prepared to sacrifice the quality of food on supermarket shelves, the rights of workers to take holiday and the rights of children to breath clean air?
It also avoids a clash with the EU summit of October 17/18. James Duddridge, the Brext minister, replied:
But MPs may want to wait until after October 31, the day on which the government says the UK will leave the EU, with or without a deal, before triggering an election. Quite frankly, that’s a load of rubbish.
Under this scenario, MPs could hold the trigger-vote on November 4 or 5, parliament would be dissolved on November 7, with polling day falling on December 12. That is not our intention. And our constituents, if they are worried and scared as a result of what the Liberal Democrats say, that is a terrible thing.
A dissolution any later than November 7 would push the election very close to Christmas. It just simply is not true.
A third scenario could see MPs try to fix polling day for as early as possible in the new year, probably on January 9. The Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi asked if the DUP had seen the full legal text. Why would it be right for them to see it, but not the other opposition parties.
This would mean dissolution on December 2, however, and it seems unlikely politicians would wish to spend the festive period campaigning. Duddridge said he would not comment. He said MPs who had been ministers would know that, in a negotiation, different people see different bits of text.
MPs may therefore decide to sit tight and wait until Christmas is out of the way before triggering an election, with dissolution potentially on January 9 followed by polling day on February 13. In the Commons Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, said something did not add up in relation to what James Duddridge said about there being no need for new infrastructure in Ireland. He said Boris Johnson told the BBC last week there would be a system of customs checks away from the border. But the plan published last week said customs checks would be carried out at traders’ premises, or other designated locations. And it said goods would be under customs supervision as they crossed the border. So how can you have customs checks with no customs infrastructure?
The Green party has proposed the legalisation of drug use in the UK and the establishment of a regulated market with tightly-controlled specialist pharmacies selling substances including cocaine and MDMA after safety consultations. Duddridge replied:
It appears to be the first time a UK political party has gone so far as to call for the radical change in drug policy, and it comes amid heightened concern over the exploitation of teenagers by county lines drug gangs and record drug-related deaths. Dr Alex Armitage, the Green party candidate for Hackney North and Stoke Newington who is leading on the policy told the Guardian: The government are looking for a tailored solution.
Our policy stems from the fact that we’re recognising more and more that the prohibition of drugs is a complete and utter failure, particularly for people marginalised in society. He said the sort of procedures mentioned in the plan were already being used in some places.
It doesn’t matter if you’re dealer recruited into organised crime group after being excluded from school, or a person who was abused as a child who uses heroin to numb the pain or whether you live in an affluent area and worry about your home being burgled by people who need to steal to enable their drug use. It’s an issue that affects everyone in society in one way or another. Duddridge is responding to Starmer.
Particularly in south America, where cocaine originates from, you have murder and disappearances on a mass scale, massive environmental destruction and visible corruption of government. Rather than having short term solution to problems we face, the Greens are taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. He says what the PM said in the Commons on Thursday last week about there being no need for any new infrastructure anywhere was correct.
All of this death, harm and destruction stems from the fact that drug use is illegal and unregulated. The only way to regulate drug use is to create a legal system. And he says the government is committed to upholding rights. That will become clear when the text is published, he says.
Under the proposals, closely regulated specialist pharmacies would be permitted to sell recreational drugs to adults at fixed doses and prices over the counter after a safety consultation. Starmer is responding.
“People would know exactly what they were taking,” Armitage said. “It solves the problem of drug dealers cutting drugs with unknown substances.” He says MPs have not seen the 44-page legal text. That means they have to guess, or, even worse, take the PM’s word for it.
Here is some Twitter comment on the Scottish court judgment. He says the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, says there is a contradiction between the plan and what Boris Johnson told MPs last week about there being no need for any new infrastructure in Northern Ireland.
From the law lecturer and Times journalist Raphael Hogarth He says Duddridge should clear this up.
The Court of Session holds there's no need for it to force the PM to comply with the Benn Act and seek an extension, given that his lawyers said he would. But it also fires a warning shot: the PM had better not renege and destroy "core principles of constitutional propriety". pic.twitter.com/c1ISLS0WdB Both Varadkar and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European commission, have called for the text to be published, he says. What is the government hiding?
From my colleague Severin Carrell He says, if it is true that workers’ and environmental rights will be protected, the full legal text should be published so people can be reassured.
Lord Pentland @JudgesScotland says the court has to trust @BorisJohnson and @GOVUK law officers are telling the truth: he will obey #BennAct #courtofsession pic.twitter.com/qhpHlddKsi Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has just asked his urgent question on when the government the legal text of its new Brexit plan
From David Anderson, the QC, crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terror legislation James Duddridge, the Brexit minister, is replying.
Key para of the Scottish judgment is here: there can be no doubt that PM accepts he must comply with Benn Act, and that he will not frustrate its purpose. https://t.co/CWdChBPGgd pic.twitter.com/3deOtPy1zV He says the government is “unconditionally committed” to finding a solution to the Irish border issue.
From the FT’s legal commentator David Allen Green It is committed to avoiding “infrastructure, checks or controls” at the border in Ireland.
Paragraph 43 looks like the important oneThe government's assurances are legally sufficient, so *no* order neededLooks like government has now boxed itself into making the application under the Benn Act in the event of No DealCase did well to get those promises, so bravo pic.twitter.com/KWmFqVO5xN He says the government published details of its new plan last week. At the same time it also shared a legal text of the proposed changed to the withdrawal agreement with the European commission, but on a confidential basis.
If the government now breaks the law, it also will be breaching these "clear and unequivocal" averments to the courtNot a Scots lawyer, but that looks like enough for an order to be made later this month, if need be He says the government will only publish this at a time when doing so would help it get a deal.
So, in essenceAs per my analysis a few days ago, No 10 headed off prospect of a court order by making express statements to the courtThat could not have been done lightly or without full legal adviceNo 10 Ten knew what it was committing to, even if it pretended otherwise The SNP has today announced it is setting up a social justice and fairness commission, which it says will show how Scotland could use independence to create a fairer society. It is intended to complement the work of the SNP’s sustainable growth commission, which reported last year. Shona Robison, the former Scottish government’s health secretary who will convene the commission, said:
Independence is fundamentally about creating a better Scotland.
The social justice and fairness commission will explore in detail how we can use the powers of independence to end poverty, tackle inequality and improve the lives of families across Scotland.
That’s a crucial task – both for persuading people of the case for independence, and for building a better country once we achieve it.
Here is the full list of commission members.
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @theSNP has announced the membership of a Social Justice and Fairness Commission to build the case for independence – showing how, with full powers, Scotland can tackle poverty and create a fairer society. pic.twitter.com/lDo7r0oTAS
Plaid Cymru has confirmed that it would support Jeremy Corbyn as leader of an interim administration to prevent a no-deal Brexit. A Plaid Cymru source said:
It’s not about who, but about how we stop a disastrous crash-out Brexit. This is about policies not personalities.
The focus now must be on ensuring that the anti-no deal legislation is enacted. We cannot afford to do anything to jeopardise that – that includes playing party political games over who should lead a caretaker administration.
Plaid Cymru has said we will work with anyone who can command a majority if a caretaker administration is needed to block a no-deal, secure an extension and deliver a referendum.
These are from ITV’s Robert Peston.
UK is leaving EU on 31 October without a deal, that EU is poised to reject Johnson’s offer. Without the EU state aid constraints, Treasury could pump money into any businesses affected by no deal that need temporary support
Here is a bit more detail about this. A statutory instrument confirming that the UK would keep the existing EU rules on state aid was supposed to be pushed through tomorrow. This has now been pulled by Downing Street. What is now being debated by ministers and officials is...
"whether and when to pull the existing state-aid statutory instrument and effectively have no state aid regime from 31 October" - which would not need primary legislation, says government official. As I said earlier, this would give Johnson maximum flexibility to help...
businesses damaged by a no-deal Brexit. And Labour is unlikely to kick up a stink, since Corbyn and McDonnell have always been iffy about EU state aid rules, which they see as limiting the freedom of a Labour government to run an interventionist industrial policy.
This is from the SNP MP Joanna Cherry, one of the people who brought the case to the Scottish court of session in an attempt to get a ruling that Boris Johnson must comply with the Benn Act. She said:
As a result of this important court action, we have forced the Tory government to concede that the prime minister will comply with the law, and promise to send a letter requesting a Brexit extension and not frustrate the purpose of the Benn Act.
However, given Boris Johnson’s slippery track record of acting unlawfully, and the contradictory statements issued by the UK government - we do not trust the Tory leader or believe he can be taken at his word to obey the letter and spirit of the law. As such, we will appeal the decision, and expect that appeal to be heard tomorrow.