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/24/brexit-supreme-court-latest-news-labour-conference-starmer-says-it-is-obvious-labour-will-back-remain-despite-conference-vote-live-news
The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Brexit: Bercow says parliament must meet 'without delay' as judges rule prorogation unlawful – live news | |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Here’s another call for Boris Johnson’s resignation, from Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party. This is from its leader at Westminster, Liz Saville Roberts. | |
| The supreme court has delivered a damming and unanimous verdict. Boris Johnson has broken the law for undermining the basic principles of democracy. The prime minister has shown himself to be no better than a tin-pot dictator, shutting down democracy to avoid scrutiny. | |
| There is no question, the prime minister must resign immediately and a crash-out Brexit stopped once and for all. | |
| In his short time in office Boris Johnson has proven himself to be a deeply dangerous and anti-democratic leader, with no respect for the rule of law. It would be a complete affront to civilised society if the prime minister did not resign after this historic ruling. | |
| The SNP’s Joanna Cherry has also called for Boris Johnson to resign. | |
| "Boris Johnson's position is untenable and he should have the guts to resign" says SNP spokesperson Joanna Cherry. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Prime Minister's suspension of parliament was unlawful. Follow live reaction here: https://t.co/aY7Nzaa1tQ pic.twitter.com/TA8PnLIIK8 | |
| At the Labour conference Jeremy Corbyn has taken to the stage. | |
| He says the supreme court judgment demonstrates Boris Johnson’s contempt for parliament. | |
| He says he will write to the Speaker demanding an urgent recall of parliament. | |
| He says a Labour government would want to be held to account. It would not bypass democracy. | |
| And he says Boris Johnson should “in the historic words, consider his position”. | |
| That means he thinks Johnson should resign. | |
| And that would make him “the shortest serving prime minister there has ever been”, he says. | |
| Here is the John Bercow statement in full. | |
| Bercow says Commons must "convene without delay" pic.twitter.com/1jdDSuCNgr | |
| From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg | |
| Bercow statement says Parliament must convene as a matter of urgency - he will consult party leaders ASAP | |
| Here is an extract from the summary of the judgment (pdf). | |
| This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on 31 October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. | |
| No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15 August. This explains why holding the Queen’s speech to open a new session of parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31 October. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. | |
| The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. | |
| The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the court should grant. The court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end. | |
| This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. | |
| It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. | |
| It follows that the advocate general’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case. | |
| Here is a summary of the judgment (pdf). | |
| And here is the full text (pdf). | |
| Hale says prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. | |
| Although it takes place in parliament, it is not their decision. It is something that has been imposed on them from outside. | |
| The PM’s advice to Her Majesty was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. | |
| That means the order in council was also “unlawful, void and of no effect”. | |
| That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect. | |
| Parliament has not been prorogued, she says. | |
| She says it is for the Speaker to decide what happens next. | |
| Hale says the court is “bound to conclude that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful”. | |
| Hale says the prorogation did impede parliament. | Hale says the prorogation did impede parliament. |
| The effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme. | |
| She says the government has not justified such a long prorogation. | She says the government has not justified such a long prorogation. |
| Hale says, once that principle is established, the next question is whether this prorogation stopped parliament carrying out its usual functions. | Hale says, once that principle is established, the next question is whether this prorogation stopped parliament carrying out its usual functions. |
| This “prolonged” prorogation was unusual, she says. | This “prolonged” prorogation was unusual, she says. |
| Hale says there are two issues with a prerogative power. | Hale says there are two issues with a prerogative power. |
| First, does the power exist? | First, does the power exist? |
| Second, is it subject to judicial review? | Second, is it subject to judicial review? |
| Hale says there is no doubt that the courts can review a prerogative power. All the parties accept that. What is at issue is what are the limits of this power. | Hale says there is no doubt that the courts can review a prerogative power. All the parties accept that. What is at issue is what are the limits of this power. |
| Hale says parliament must be able to make laws everyone can obey. | Hale says parliament must be able to make laws everyone can obey. |
| This principle would be undermined if the government could close parliament, she says. | This principle would be undermined if the government could close parliament, she says. |
| She says parliament must also be able to hold the executive to account. | She says parliament must also be able to hold the executive to account. |
| She says at the moment prorogation will be unlawful if it has the effect of preventing parliament form being able to carry out its constitutional functions. | She says at the moment prorogation will be unlawful if it has the effect of preventing parliament form being able to carry out its constitutional functions. |
| Hale says 11 justices heard the appeal. | Hale says 11 justices heard the appeal. |
| The judgment is unanimous, she says. | The judgment is unanimous, she says. |
| She says the matter is justiciable. | She says the matter is justiciable. |
| Hale says, after prorogation was announced, when parliament returned, MPs passed an act designed to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. | Hale says, after prorogation was announced, when parliament returned, MPs passed an act designed to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. |
| She says the high court in England threw out the legal challenge, saying this matter was not justiciable. But the Scottish court of session said this was justiciable. | She says the high court in England threw out the legal challenge, saying this matter was not justiciable. But the Scottish court of session said this was justiciable. |
| Hale says a cabinet meeting was held by conference call soon afterwards to bring the cabinet up to speed. Soon after that the decision was announced, and Boris Johnson wrote to MPs about it. | Hale says a cabinet meeting was held by conference call soon afterwards to bring the cabinet up to speed. Soon after that the decision was announced, and Boris Johnson wrote to MPs about it. |
| Hale says Gina Miller then launched a legal challenge. | Hale says Gina Miller then launched a legal challenge. |
| Hale is explaining the facts of the case. | Hale is explaining the facts of the case. |
| She describes the visit of three privy counsellors to the Queen at Balmoral. | She describes the visit of three privy counsellors to the Queen at Balmoral. |
| An order in council was made for parliament to be prorogued. | An order in council was made for parliament to be prorogued. |
| Lady Hale is giving her judgment now. | Lady Hale is giving her judgment now. |
| (But the sound quality from the feed we are watching is very poor.) | (But the sound quality from the feed we are watching is very poor.) |
| From the SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who brought the legal challenge against prorogation in Scotland. | From the SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who brought the legal challenge against prorogation in Scotland. |
| The @UKSupremeCourt will go live here https://t.co/uTeNiizKJJ shortly. Lady Hale will read a statement then the judgment & a press summary will be available immediately at https://t.co/YbCHPCX3zz #Cherrycase #Miller2 #Prorogation #Brexit | The @UKSupremeCourt will go live here https://t.co/uTeNiizKJJ shortly. Lady Hale will read a statement then the judgment & a press summary will be available immediately at https://t.co/YbCHPCX3zz #Cherrycase #Miller2 #Prorogation #Brexit |
| From my colleague Ben Quinn | From my colleague Ben Quinn |
| prorogation ruling expected shortly at Supreme CourtA few dozen Remain supporters outside .. handful of Brexit supporters with Far Right For Britain flags pic.twitter.com/DWB5k6WmZr | prorogation ruling expected shortly at Supreme CourtA few dozen Remain supporters outside .. handful of Brexit supporters with Far Right For Britain flags pic.twitter.com/DWB5k6WmZr |