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.
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)
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:
Phillip Lee, the former Tory who defected to the Lib Dem, 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Cox replies:
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.
If I had not been driven to this language, I would not have used it.
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:
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:
I don’t recognise that language at all.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches ...
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.
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.
We are likely to know more about what is happening by the end of the day.
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.
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.
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.
“...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
But the time is coming, the time is coming Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.
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.
Cox has just told MPs that in future it might make sense for appointments to the supreme court to be approved by parliament.
Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Simon Murphy.
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.
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.
One matter may very well be whether there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments in some manner.
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:
But Cox said that he personally would not be “enthusiastic” about the idea.
I’m less concerned about the individual.
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 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.
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.
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].
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.
Reaction here from some lobby journalists on Corbyn’s interview.
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.
Quite impressed by Corbyn on Today. Sounds reasonable, measured and convincing. He should do these kinds of slots more often.
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.
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 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.
And this, from the Times’ Matt Chorley, on a dig Corbyn made about what he considers to be unfair media coverage.
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.
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
The Queen’s speech, scheduled for October 14, is where the government will set out its agenda and forthcoming priorities.
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.
A vote is scheduled to take place five days later on October 21, where MPs will debate the measures put forward by the government.
In a rare appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said Johnson abused his powers.
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.
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.
Cox gave a clear answer: “Yes.”
Johnson did speak to the Queen yesterday after the supreme court ruling, although No 10 has refused to say whether he apologised.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
Asked about accusations he is scared of holding a general election because of his party’s dire poll ratings, he replied:
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.
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.
He said that parliament was “dead” and had “no moral right to sit”, but that the opposition were afraid of an election.
Pressed on his party’s poor polling, he claimed Labour had been a “very effective opposition”.
This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches.
Corbyn also confirmed Labour will not vote for a short recess for Conservative party conference next week.
This generated an uproar from the opposition. But Cox went on, saying the opposition did not like to hear what he had to say.
Reaction here from the editor of Politics Home, Kevin Schofield, to that Gove interview.
Twice MPs have been asked to approve a general election, he said. But they would not allow one, he went on.
Michael Gove very rattled on #r4today, even more passive aggressive than normal.
This parliament is a disgrace ...
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.
They could vote no confidence at any time. But they are too cowardly ...
Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether the government did something wrong by proroguing parliament, Gove said: “I don’t believe so.”
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.
Accused of having a lack of humility during a testy interview, he replied:
Here is LBC’s Theo Usherwood on Cox’s answer to Letwin. (See 12.09am.)
I absolutely respect the integrity of the supreme court, I respect the judgment, the government will comply with it. That is the law.
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.
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’.
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.
Tory grandee Ken Clarke – who has been tipped as a potential caretaker prime minister – stops short of calling for Boris Johnson to resign but says the supreme court ruling “leaves us back in a more sensible constitutional position”.
Cox says he can assure Letwin that the government will comply with the supreme court judgment.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
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.
I think it just leaves us back in a more sensible constitutional position. The smash, bang, wallop approach to government of the country in the last few weeks was in danger of leaving us in an extraordinary situation. It was as if we were going to have President Trump but with no checks and balances, just a presidential system.
Cox says there is “nothing wrong with expressing robust, critical views about a judgment”.
Asked about the next steps in parliament, he said:
But imputing improper motive is wrong, he says.
The most important task is to decide as quickly as we can how we are going to move forward on Brexit. It’s not true, which is being repeated over and over again by ministers, that everybody who’s involved in parliament is just trying to stop Brexit, defy the people … I voted for Brexit three times with a deal on these three preliminary points. I think the best thing to do is to produce a majority in parliament on a cross-party basis – which people would normally approve of the parties co-operating – to actually have those three points disposed of, leave with that preliminary deal and then have an election and get a government that explains what its long-term negotiations are going to be.
He says he thought Rees-Mogg’s remark, as he saw it reported, was just robust criticism.
He added:
Cox says it is acceptable to be critical of judgments. But it is not acceptable to attack the motives of judges, he says.
You might have to add a referendum on whatever interim withdrawal agreement you reach. I’m not in favour of referendums. Having a referendum with such a simplistic question and answer for such a huge number of complex – they’re quite technical – issues has caused all the trouble. But if you had to have a referendum to validate the withdrawal agreement or to decide on what the alternatives are if you don’t, I might resign myself to that. Now, whether enough people would resign themselves to that to get a majority in parliament, I’m not sure.
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.)
According to the Financial Times’ economics editor, Chris Giles, his paper never calls for “heads to roll in editorials” but, in a thundering piece, it says today: “Faced with such a damning judgment, any premier with a shred of respect for British democracy and the responsibilities of his office would resign.”
Cox implied that Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, did not really mean it when he used that phrase. Cox said:
The @FinancialTimes never* calls for heads to roll in editorials. It is a policy*https://t.co/e5UGt4b7Uh* broken today pic.twitter.com/FAt3eSKTtw
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.
Good morning, folks. Simon Murphy here taking the helm of the live blog ahead of parliament opening its doors to MPs this morning following the extraordinary supreme court ruling yesterday. Another big day of politics in store …
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.
Quite a lot was made of Lady Hale’s remarkable spider brooch yesterday. There is a lovely piece of analysis from the Guardian’s senior fashion writer and senior social reporter here about what Hale might be telling us with her fashion choice, with a brief history of subversive brooches.
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”.
Since then, I’ve started seeing a few people adding a spider into their Twitter name. Trudy Harpham has done this and offers this explanation as to why.
He says the government “stands shamed – tendering illegal advice to Her Majesty”.
Hi Kate. Yes I did. Because I'm a Girly Swot (a UK Prof) too and I wanted to signal my admiration and respect fo Lady Hale. Her combination of intelligence, clarity, experience and- let's face it- elegant style is inspiring. Hope she becomes role model for many young women/girls.
He says the legal advice should be published in full.
Say it with a brooch: what message was Lady Hale's spider sending?
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.)
The stunning supreme court ruling, which found Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament “unlawful”, is unsurprisingly the lead on all the newspapers today, with very mixed takes on the news.
He says the government has already been found in contempt of parliament. Now it has been found in contempt of law.
The Guardian front page, Wednesday 25 September 2019: He misled the Queen,the people and parliament pic.twitter.com/4hdeHerzeN
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?
Wednesday’s i: Humiliated PM refuses to resign #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/l6s5Sjf13J
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.
Tomorrow's front page: There's a special place in history waiting for you, Prime Minister#TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/KtNG2EuMzg pic.twitter.com/ICEQwroAlq
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry told Cox she was not calling for his resignation – yet.
The Sun front page. pic.twitter.com/OUsc9Qatec
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.
Wednesday’s TIMES: PM flies back to chaos #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/cPBOcIQOoJ
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.
Wednesday’s FT: Johnson faces calls to resign as judges rule Parliament’a closure ‘unlawful’ #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/MPmhK0qHRz
Lord Adonis is up, he is angry and he is tweeting.
The Labour peer has called the Tories “a revolutionary rabble – with Eton accents”, published an imagined Queen’s speech, and tweeted a quote from a (real) speech from Margaret Thatcher, in which she asserts the importance of an independent judiciary whose decisions aren’t undermined for the rule of law.
The Tories are now a revolutionary rabble - with Eton accents https://t.co/FQOnevKEwv
What Johnson should have said in that phone call to the Queen: ‘I am extremely sorry. I should not have abused you & the constitution in this way. I have been found out. I resign immediately’
Margaret Thatcher on the rule of law requiring independent judges whose decisions aren’t undermined - & telling politicians in emerging democracies to ‘see what is happening in this country.’ Those were the days! h/t @nathlloyd pic.twitter.com/kUO0hEvvVE
‘One has been given a list of Bills to read out on education, health and life sentences for offences for which my prime minister merits multiple convictions. But as I’m told he said to a young lady who he took on a trade mission, they are all poppycock to try and win an election’
From the Labour MP Kevin Brennan
Travelling back to Westminster today as Parliament resumes - I said from the start that prorogation in this way was an abuse - effectively an executive coup - and it is right that we’ve been called back to the Commons
Overnight, Boris Johnson delivered his inaugural speech to the UN General Assembly. It was, let’s just say, a remarkable speech.
My colleague Graham Russell pulled together a selection of quotes from the address, which was meant to be about the opportunities and challenges of technology, in which Johnson ranged from mattresses that can monitor your nightmares to a diet of “terrifying limbless chickens”. Enjoy.
1.
“In the future, voice connectivity will be in every room and almost every object: your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese.”
2.
“A future Alexa will pretend to take orders. But this Alexa will be watching you, clucking her tongue and stamping her foot.”
3.
“You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google.”
4.
“AI – what will it mean? Helpful robots washing and caring for an ageing population? Or pink-eyed terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race?”
5.
“What will synthetic biology stand for – restoring our livers and our eyes with miracle regeneration of the tissues, like some fantastic hangover cure? Or will it bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables?”
6.
“When Prometheus brought fire to mankind. In a tube of fennel, as you may remember, that Zeus punished him by chaining him to a Tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle. And every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again. And this went on forever – a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.”
Martin Farrer has written this helpful guide to what happens next in parliament. The full guide is here, but here are the answers to a few key questions:
What’s happening with parliament on Wednesday?
The president of the UK’s highest court, Lady Hale, announced on Tuesday that “parliament has not been prorogued”. The unanimous judgment of all 11 justices was that it was for parliament - and particularly the speakers of both houses - to decide what to do next. Commons Speaker John Bercow has already said that parliament must be reconvened as a “matter of urgency”and that MPs will sit at 11.30am. The usual Wednesday session of prime minister’s questions would not take place, he said, although there would be opportunities for MPs to hold the Government to account.
What does it mean for Brexit?
Corbyn was meeting the leaders of the Scottish Nationalists, Lib Dems and other opposition parties last night to work out how to exert maximum pressure to achieve their number one goal: making sure Johnson cannot escape the legal obligation set out in the Benn-Burt bill to delay Brexit if he has not reached a deal of any description by 19 October. Johnson has always insisted he will not request an extension of article 50 and may be hoping that the EU summit on 17 October will provide a breakthrough.
Government ministers have repeatedly dodged questions about whether they think there are loopholes they could use to avoid complying with the Benn legislation. But it would risk another potentially humiliating legal battle with the courts if Johnson chose to go down that route. In a hint he could have another go at suspending parliament he said there was a “good case for getting on with a Queen’s speech”.
Does any of this make an election more likely?
Johnson would like to have an election as soon as possible, but he has failed to force the necessary legal instrument through parliament. As he put it, “we have a parliament that is unable to be prorogued” and “doesn’t want to have an election”. The opposition parties don’t want an election until Johnson has asked for the Brexit extension. Their calculation is that Johnson will be weakened by doing so because he has made delivering Brexit on 31 October “come what may” the totem of his prime ministership. They can therefore go to the country portraying him as someone who has failed to deliver his promises.
What happens next in parliament after supreme court ruling?
Good morning and welcome to the politics live blog.
Yesterday was a fairly extraordinary day on both sides of the Atlantic. Just hours after the supreme court handed down its ruling declaring Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”, Nancy Pelosi announced an official impeachment inquiry into US president Donald Trump. Quite the day for brash, blonde world leaders.
The Supreme Court verdict has meant that Johnson has had to cut short his visit to New York, where he was attending the United Nations general assembly. He is due to arrive in London around lunchtime on Wednesday after an overnight flight.
Parliament will resume at 11:30am, with MPs returning to the House of Commons two weeks after it was suspended in chaotic scenes. A government official in New York with the prime minister said it was impossible to say whether Johnson would appear before the Commons.
“I would anticipate there would be statements to the house, I’m just not in a position to say what they will be on,” the official said.
Downing Street suggested the prime minister would continue to push for a snap general election, while opposition parties attempted to inflict maximum embarrassment on Johnson.
“In the coming days parliament is likely to be put on the spot to see if it will have an election or whether it will continue to keep the country in zombie-parliament stasis. The only way out is an election and they will be given another opportunity to let the public decide if and when we leave the EU,” said a No 10 source.
I’ll be at the helm of this blog in the early hours, before I hand it over to my brilliant colleagues. As always, you can get in touch via Twitter or email (kate.lyons@theguardian.com).
We don’t know what the day will bring, but it’s a fairly sure bet that it will bring drama, so buckle up and thanks for reading along.
