Boris Johnson returns to UK to face Parliament after Supreme Court ruling

Our live coverage of Boris Johnson’s return to Parliament has now ended. Read a full analysis of the day’s events here.

The Prime Minister keeps referring to the “surrender act,” much to the anger of the opposition benches who are interrupting him by shouting “disgusting!” whenever he uses the term.

Johnson is referring to the law Parliament passed before the suspension, which requires him to seek an extension to Brexit if he can’t get a deal before late October.

It is officially known as European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, but most lawmakers refer to it as the Benn Act, after the MP who sponsored it.

It is designed to prevent the UK from crashing out of the European Union without a deal, a scenario economists, the Bank of England and the government itself say would damage the UK economy and hurt the poorest most.

Justine Greening, who was sacked from the Conservative Party for voting in favor of the law, said: “Continuing to call a bill this House has passed a ‘surrender bill’ is deeply disrespectful to this place.”

Johnson said he calls the law “surrender act” because it was “intended to damage this country’s negotiation position.”

The SNP’s Joanna Cherry has asked the Prime Minister whether he would allow another Scottish Independence referendum.

Scotland voted to stay in the European Union in the Brexit referendum and the SNP is arguing that “being dragged out of the EU” is a good enough reason to hold a new vote.

Scotland voted against independence in 2014. However, the SNP says Brexit presents “a significant and material change in the circumstances.”

The British Parliament has been back in business for less than a day and already the Brexit debate has reached a new and dizzying level of bizarreness.

Opposition MPs listen to the Prime Minister.

To people looking on from the UK and around the world, it all must have looked completely topsy-turvy. Johnson says he wants an election, but can’t make it happen. The opposition claims it wants an election, but won’t make it happen. British politics is in a deeply weird place. The government and the opposition each hold the keys to giving the other what they want, but?neither wants to be the one to release the lock.

Read the full analysis here.

Asked whether he has apologized to the Queen for giving her advice that the Supreme Court ruled unlawful, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he would not comment on his conversations with the monarch.

The Queen greets Boris Johnson at Buckingham Palace in July.

Johnson called the Queen from New York on Tuesday after the ruling.

Both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace confirmed the call happened, but sadly, neither would go into details about how the conversation went down.

Sam Gyimah, the former Conservative minister who defected to the Liberal Democrats earlier this month, said Parliament is putting the national interest first by trying to stop no-deal Brexit.

“Parliament has decided to focus on stopping No Deal. That’s not cowardly, that is putting the national interest first. Johnson has to suck it up,” he said.

Jeremy Corbyn says he will back an election as soon as the Prime Minister agrees to a Brexit extension.

He said the Prime Minister “thinks he is above the law.”

Boris Johnson keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.

The Prime Minister says he will obey the law that requires him to ask for a Brexit extension if he cannot secure a deal by late October.

But he also says the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on October 31 – “a deal or no deal.”

ˉ\_(ツ)_/ˉ

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is addressing Parliament.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has accused Prime Minister Boris Johnson of trying to obstruct parliamentary scrutiny of his actions.

“For the good of this country, he should go,” Corbyn said.

Rory Stewart, an MP who used to be a member of the Conservative Party (until Boris Johnson fired him for voting against the government), has called out the PM’s criticism of the Supreme Court as “wrong.”

Boris Johnson has just invited the opposition to call a no-confidence vote in his own government.

It’s a bit of a strange move … but there is some logic in it.

Johnson really wants an election. He has been cornered by Parliament and lost his majority in the House of Commons. He is hoping a new vote would result in more favorable parliamentary arithmetic.

But the opposition does not want to hold a general election, or at least not just yet. The Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and the SNP all indicated they wanted to make sure the risk of a no-deal Brexit is off the table before any election is called.

By inviting the opposition parties to call a no-confidence vote, Johnson has put them into a tricky situation.

Boris Johnson repeats he believes the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling that the decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks just before the scheduled Brexit date was unlawful.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United Kingdom. Its decision on Tuesday was unanimous.

The Prime Minister said the court shouldn’t have ruled on what was “a political decision.”

Boris Johnson opens his highly anticipated statement by accusing Parliament of wanting to stop Brexit.

He repeated he wants the United Kingdom to leave the European Union on October 31, with a deal if possible.

Reminder: Parliament has passed a law that requires Johnson to ask for an extension if he can’t get a deal by late October, to avoid a no-deal Brexit.

He also said Parliament is “sabotaging” his negotiations with Brussels.

Speaker John Bercow just said he wants the House of Commons to get to the next point on the agenda – statement by the Prime Minister – as close as possible to 6:30 p.m. local time.

That’s just over 20 minutes from now. Tic toc.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has left Downing Street and is heading to Parliament to address lawmakers.

It’s likely going to be an uncomfortable session for Johnson, who was forced to cut short his trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly after the UK Supreme Court ruled his decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful.

Michael Gove, the minister in charge of planning for a no-deal Brexit, was quizzed by lawmakers for more than two hours on the government’s preparations for the exit.

However, Gove’s answers were pretty thin on details, much to the frustration of the MPs.

Jeremy Corbyn backstage at this week's Labour Party conference

The vision of the United Kingdom laid out at the annual gathering of the country’s main opposition party this week sounded like a socialist utopia.

Britons would only work a four-day week.

A “Green New Deal” agenda would aim to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2030.

Elite private schools like Eton, incubator of 20 British prime ministers including the incumbent and his predecessor, would be abolished.

And many essential services would soon be free, including higher education, childcare, social care and medical prescriptions.

A slate of potentially vote-winning policies designed to attract voters ground down by years of austerity? An ambitious, radical government-in-waiting? A party fired up to tackle the burning issues of the day?

If only.

For all its progressive plans, Labour is unable to escape, nor even cut a clear path forward, on the single biggest issue facing the country.

Brexit hung like a metaphorical cloud over the conference, weighing it down alongside the decidedly non-metaphorical rain that lashed the seaside resort of Brighton where this year’s gathering took place.

Divisions over the issue – as well as more personal feuds that have simmered ever since veteran left-winger Jeremy Corbyn rose from the margins of the party to become leader in 2015 – seemed set to tear Labour apart, just as it laid out its bid to become Britain’s next government.

Read more of Eliza Mackintosh’s analysis here.

Michael Gove, the minister in charge of planning for a no-deal Brexit, is now taking questions from lawmakers about “Operation Yellowhammer” – the government document detailing what could happen if the UK leaves the European Union without an agreement.

He said the government’s committee in charge of preparing for Brexit has met 48 times since last July.

He added that “until recently the withdrawal agreement was sacrosanct,” but that now the EU has “acknowledged that it can be changed” – and cites “progress” towards a deal.

Here’s what Operation Yellowhammer said: The document warns of medicine shortages, severe delays at the Dover-Calais crossing and an increase in food prices.

The government was forced to disclose the document – which describes a “reasonable worst-case” scenario – by lawmakers.

The British Parliament has provided the backdrop to some extraordinary political drama in recent months, but as much as lawmakers enjoy the sound of their own voices, it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything they say matters

It makes great television, and those of us swept up in reporting it are guilty of dedicating too much time to it, but the simple fact is that only one date really matters in Brexit right now.

Or rather, all that matters is *how* we get to that date.

On October 17 and 18, EU leaders will meet at the EU Council Summit in Brussels. If the UK government requests an extension to the Brexit deadline, it is here that any such delay will be declined or approved.

In that time, Boris Johnson could stand down as PM and dare an alternative government to form and request that extension; the opposition could try to bring down Johnson’s government then appeal to the courts to demand that he – or someone on his behalf – requests that extension. We could see an election called. We could see Johnson try to prorogue parliament again.

But all that really matters is whether, by the time we get to that date, October 17, an extension has been requested.

If it has, then – despite certain EU member states suggesting that they are opposed to any further confusion – the consensus is that it will be approved.

At that point, Boris Johnson can kick off his people-versus-Parliament campaign.

If an extension isn’t requested – or is requested and declined – then the opposition will have to seriously up their activity.

There will be barely enough time to bring down the government, let alone set in motion the constitutional mechanisms to remove the PM from office. At that point, they will most likely have to turn to the courts to force the Prime Minister to request an extension.

Either way, October 17 is the date to keep your eyes on. Between now and then, there is going to be a lot of noise. After that point, all hell will break loose.

Geoffrey Cox appears to have let slip that the government will try again to force a snap general election later today.

After earlier criticizing Parliament for not approving an election and raising the alternative option of a bill overriding the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (which would require a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority), Cox responded to a question from a backbencher by saying this:

That seems to imply that Johnson will have another go at getting an early election – but even if he just needs a simple majority, it’s not clear he can achieve that.

What’s more, such a bill would be amendable – meaning the opposition could add any number of additions seeking to prevent a no-deal Brexit, or change the date of the vote that the government puts forward.

And if Johnson wants to avoid a poll after having to extend Brexit, he’s already too late – there must be at least 25 working days between an election being called and being held, which means that if one were approved tomorrow it would be held on October 30 at the earliest.

That’s a day before the Brexit deadline, but more than a week after the EU summit at which Johnson would have to ask for an extension.

Parliament is back and one thing is clear: The government knows it has suffered a bad loss. Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, began proceedings by defending Boris Johnson’s unilateral suspension of Parliament (which was done on the legal advice of a certain G. Cox).

He went on to speak glowingly about the independence of the judiciary, a day after the UK’s highest court ruled that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

But then he went on the attack. Cox called Parliament “dead” and a “disgrace”. He said that the opposition Labour party was too “cowardly” to call a vote of no confidence in the government.

Where did this onslaught come from? It’s easy to think that it is a case of attack being the best form of defense. But that’s not quite right.

Brexit is frozen. Both sides want an election, but can’t agree on when it should happen. Johnson asked Parliament twice for an early election, but the opposition said no.

What we might be seeing is the starting point of a brand-new government tactic: To goad the opposition into holding a vote of confidence and triggering a general election. It would be just as much of a risk for Labour as it would be for the Conservatives. But right now, it’s hard to see how Brexit moves on without someone, anyone, taking a leap into the unknown. The problem is, both sides want the other to take that leap.

Geoffrey Cox suddenly explodes into life, launching a furious and animated tirade at lawmakers, delivered in his trademark booming baritone.

“But the the time is coming when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas,” Cox says, to applause from the Government benches and jeers from the opposing side.

Boris Johnson is a winner like Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola, Michael Gove has claimed – despite the Prime Minister’s latest bruising defeat.

Gove, the minister in charge of planning for a no-deal Brexit, described Johnson as a “born winner” on radio station LBC Wednesday morning, adding: I think it is only fair to say that Boris is the Pep Guardiola of British politics.”?

But does the claim stack up? Here’s a head-to-head look at Guardiola’s record in the Premier League and Johnson’s record in his premiership.

Pep Guardiola (includes league games only):

Played: 120. Won: 91. Drew: 16. Lost: 13. Win percentage: 75.8%. Goal difference: +210

Boris Johnson (includes parliamentary votes and Supreme Court cases):

Played: 7. Won: 0. Drew: 0. Lost: 7. Win percentage: 0%. Majority: -32

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox says the Supreme Court’s judgement on prorogation should stand as a precedent for future governments.

Former Conservative MP and Father of the House Kenneth Clarke said if there were to be a Jeremy Corbyn-led government, “and if their government were to decide to suspend the House for a long period because there was a parliamentary majority against its principal policy … the Conservative Party would be likely to get very excited.”

“Can he reassure me that this Supreme Court judgement has settled this matter finally,” Clarke asks Cox, urging “that this kind of action can never be taken by any future government, and that parliamentary sovereignty therefore remains in tact.”

Cox agrees “it is important” that judgments “stand as precedents and principles for the future.”

“The principles they set apply to both sides,” he adds. “The government will abide by its ruling.”

Cox also said the judgment does not amount to a constitutional coup – a veiled criticism of remarks reportedly made by Jacob Rees-Mogg in the aftermath of the ruling.

“Welcome back to our place of work,” John Bercow says, as he opens Parliament a day after the Supreme Court ruled it had not been legally prorogued.

The Speaker of the House of Commons then throws to Joanna Cherry for her urgent question to the Attorney General on proroguing Parliament.

Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, says he “took a close interest in the case” at the Supreme Court.

“If every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign I probably would never had had a practice,” he jokes.

“The government accepts the judgement and accepts that it lost the case.”

“In all times, the government acted in good faith,” he goes on, to jeers from the opposition benches.

“These are complex matters, on which senior and distinguished lawyers will disagree,” he adds, accepting that the Government was “disappointed” with the decision.

Cox says he will consider in the coming days whether it is in the public interest to disclose the advice the Government received.

The first order of business in Parliament today will be an urgent question on Boris Johnson’s prorogation, tabled by Joanna Cherry – the lawmaker who successfully challenged his move in the courts.

Boris Johnson has stopped off at Downing Street, and will be making his way to Parliament later to address MPs.

The Labour Party whips’ office has tweeted out details of today’s proceedings in Parliament.

Three of the five oral statements will be of interest to Brexit-watchers:

Michael Gove, the minister in charge of planning for a no-deal split, will address the House on Operation Yellowhammer – the government’s internal planning document which was released earlier this month, and which warns of medicine shortages, severe delays at the Dover-Calais crossing and an increase in food prices after October 31.

Later, Boris Johnson will address the chamber after the humiliating Supreme Court verdict yesterday – expect plenty of pushback to whatever he has to say from those on the opposition benches.

The leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, will follow Johnson and will also face a grilling – it was Rees-Mogg who went to Balmoral to ask the Queen to shut down Parliament, a request which was subsequently deemed unlawful.

This list doesn’t include information on which urgent questions will be accepted by the Speaker, John Bercow. Those questions will allow backbenchers to grill Johnson or other ministers on more specific matters.

Boris Johnson has landed in London after his overnight flight from New York.

The PM is being whisked to Parliament, where he is likely to face a grilling from lawmakers.

The House of Commons session begins at 11:30 a.m. (6:30 a.m. ET), though there’s no requirement for Johnson to be there at the start.

Corbyn leaves his home on Wednesday morning.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, has suggested he won’t call a motion of no confidence in Boris Johnson’s government until after a no-deal Brexit has been taken off the table.

“Until it is very clear that the application will be made, per the legislation, to the EU to extend our membership to at least January, then we will continue pushing for that and that is our priority,” Corbyn told BBC Radio 4’s Today program.

“When that has been achieved we will then be ready with a motion of no confidence,” he added.

That might not happen until after the EU Summit in mid-October, which is where the Prime Minister has been instructed by a new law to ask for a Brexit delay – if, that is, he hasn’t struck a departure deal with the bloc by then.

Yesterday’s stunning Supreme Court decision predictably dominates front pages in the UK on Wednesday, which are artfully laid out on CNN’s carpet above.

But, depending on which paper you read, the judgement is either the death knell for an undemocratic Prime Minister or a judicial overreach designed to frustrate Brexit.

Johnson is unlikely to pick up a copy of the Daily Mirror at the airport on his way to Parliament. The left-leaning paper features Johnson’s picture alongside the shortest-serving British Prime Ministers, saying there’s a “special place in history” waiting for Johnson. He’ll need to survive another two months to avoid the ignominy of claiming the crown.

But the pro-Brexit Mail and Express both react with anger to the ruling, with the latter asking “What’s lawful about denying 17.4m Brexit!” Though it’s worth noting that, as both the government and the Supreme Court have insisted, the prorogation and the legal challenges it faced had nothing to do with Brexit.

In an unusually direct editorial, the Financial Times has delivered a scathing verdict of Johnson’s behavior. “Faced with such a damning judgement, any premier with a?shred of respect for British democracy and the responsibilities of his office would resign,” its leader reads.

Elsewhere, the Scotsman features a black-and-white, mugshot-esque image of Johnson with the headline “Unlawful,” while The Guardian states simply: “He misled the Queen, the people and Parliament.”

But the Telegraph, for which Johnson used to write, focuses on his response to the rulings, in which he said the people who brought about the case “want to frustrate Brexit.”

Johnson is expected to land in London shortly, after catching a red-eye flight from New York late last night.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, announced Tuesday that the House of Commons will resume from 11:30 a.m. local time (6:30 a.m. ET).

But Johnson won’t have to face Prime Minister’s Questions – where lawmakers are given the chance to put questions to the PM – which are normally held on Wednesdays.

Instead, Bercow said there will be “full scope” for urgent questions, ministerial statements and emergency debate applications.

Later on Wednesday, at 3 p.m. local time (10 a.m. ET), the House of Lords (the UK’s upper chamber) will also resume.

Good morning from a drizzly London – where lawmakers are rushing back to Parliament after a momentous decision by the Supreme Court allowed them to return to work.

As torrential rain lashed down on Tuesday, the country’s highest court unleashed a storm of Shakespearean proportions over Westminster by ruling that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had shut down Parliament unlawfully.

A unanimous (and extraordinary) decision by 11 justices was handed down by the court’s president, Lady Hale, who ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament was, in fact, null and void.

In the wake of the decision, critics were quick to call for Johnson to resign, but he was defiant.

Speaking in New York not long after the verdict, where he was attending the United Nations General Assembly, Johnson said that while he has “the utmost respect for our judiciary … I don’t agree with the verdict” and reiterated that his plan was to still ensure the UK leaves the EU on October 31, “come what may.”

But perhaps Tuesday was merely the calm before the storm.

Lawmakers will waste no time attempting to hold Johnson to account on Wednesday, and the possibility of a vote of no confidence in his leadership – which, if successful, would topple the government – remains a distinct possibility.