,
181 tweets,
19 min read
Read on Twitter
Very weird day in parliament kicks off in a couple of mins, you can follow here parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a1…
I'll cover as much as possible, but darting off to do a few media things and Remainiacs through the day.
Here's the hastily scribbled up order paper
It's basically the entirety of the news agenda channelled through urgent questions and ministerial statements.
Once upon a time people felt the Commons struggled to reflect the debates taking place more broadly. That's not a problem now.
Speaker John Bercow: "Colleagues, welcome back to our place of work." Cheers.
The item relating to the prorogation will be expunged, Bercow says, and it'll be recorded in the journal that the House was in fact adjourned.
EXPUNGED. He enjoyed saying that.
Kicks off with an urgent question from Joanna Cherry, who brought the case against the suspension of parliament, to the attorney general Geoffrey Cox on his legal opinion given to the Queen.
Cox up. "I took a close interest in the case." Much hilarity.
"If every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign I probably would never have had a practice. The govt accepts the judgement and accepts it lost the case. At all times the govt acted in good faith."
Cox says he'll consider whether public interest might require greater disclosure of legal evidence to govt.
Cherry: "I also took a close interest in the case." Says she won't call for his resignation "yet". The question is how this could ever have been allowed to happen.
She;s focusing on the release of COx's advice yesterday. She says his advice must have been more detailed and nuanced. Was a legal opinion made available to the PM or the Cabinet?
"To release the advice in its entirety will help avoid him being used as a scapegoat."
Cox says he is not permitted to disclose the advice he may or may not have given to the govt, but "the matter is under consideration".
Cox: "Judged are impartial and independent. The principled they set apply to both sides."
Labour's Nick Thomas Symonds: "The most damning judicial indictment of a govt in modern times. This govt stands in shame, tendering illegal advice to our monarch and not even able to uphold that most basic constitutional principle of abiding by the law."
Symonds asks which parts of the judgement the govt disagrees with. "On this att gen's watch this got has been found in contempt of parliament and now contempt of the law. Doesn't he just accept he hasn't a shed of credibility left."
Cox responds by saying that if he needed to resign, the courts which agreed with his advice would also need to go. That is a very weak agument. The circumstances are entirely different.
DOminic Grieve comes to Cox's defence. He's mindful of how hard Cox's work is and he's sorry the advice was leaked. But.... this wasn't just about "law, but propriety".
Cox says he got it wrong, but says it was a "respectable view". He says Supreme Court has made new law. From now on prorogation of parliament can now be subject to the courts.
Yvette Cooper asks if if he will tell the govt to abide by the content of the judgement - not just the conclusion - and accept it's wrong to suspend parliament for five weeks rather than a few days with no good reason.
Cox dodges. Simply insists govt will "abide by its ruling".
Sarah Wollaston: What message does Cox have for his colleagues in govt who are smearing Supreme Court judges?
COx says judges don't exist in a vacuum and rulings can be criticised, but that their motives should never be questioned. "With the judgement we can be robustly critical, with the motives we cannot." Fair answer.
Cox is told the leader of the House (Rees-Mogg) can't remain in his post if he says the ruling was a constitutional coup.
Cox counters saying it is a "question of wording and being careful with one's language", but he took it as a robust criticism of the judgement "and nothing more".
A friend writes from Malaysia, where apparently the news channels are showing the proceedings of parliament live. Such a weird time to be alive.
Cox will not rule out another prorogation before Oct 31st, just one that doesn't comply with the ruling. Not sure how much there is to learn from this though. Yday Johnson was clearly toying with the idea.
Cox: "This parliament is a dead parliament. I should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches."
I was just about to say that Cox was doing well, but that was abysmal.
Parliament was elected by the public until 2022. It is not its responsibility to come back with a decent deal or to support the PM. It is the PM's responsibility to do what he said he was going to do and get a deal.
Bloke looks like he's going to blow a gasket. "The time is coming when even these turkeys won't be able to prevent Christmas."
David Hanson (Lab): "I think the hon gen will find the moral right I have to sit in this House is due to an election."
The more you think about it, the more irritating that Cox attack was. And more irritating perhaps because I was starting to admire his manner towards the judgement.
But having advised the govt it was legal to suspend parliament, then have a court rule against it, he is now impugning the reputation of it, saying it has no "moral right" to sit. But it was elected, unlike the prime minister.
Barry Sherman, usually calm, is red-faced with outrage. "I came into the Chamber today thinking I felt sorry for the att gen. But every word he has uttered... no shame today, no shame at all."
Starts almost screaming. It's the angriest speech I think I've seen in the Chamber. "To come her with his barrister's bluster, to obfuscate the truth - for a man like him, a party like this, this PM to talk about morals and morality is a disgrace."
Nick Boles: Can Cox confirm that he and the govt will comply with the Benn Act (on extending Article 50 is no deal). Cox: "Yes."
Right, I've got to dash for a couple of hours. In the meantime best account for covering parliament when you don't have access to a telly is @PARLYapp
Right, well that was fun. This week's @RemainiacsCast is really bloody good. Have I missed anything particularly exciting or is it all the standard dreadfulness?
@RemainiacsCast Christ, Gove is so vigorously disingenuous.
@RemainiacsCast That's over, thank the Lord. Ah, and now it's Dominic Rabb.
@RemainiacsCast Fuck my life.
He's talking about recent activity by Iran. When you consider the reality of this - that Raab is in charge of the British response to the country - it becomes terrifying.
He hadn't quite understood this before but apparently Iran is an Islamic republic.
Honestly, it's like watching someone give a GCSE presentation to the class.
Emily Thornberry gets up to respond. She starts by apologising to the Lib Dems for her "crass throwaway Taliban remark in an interview last week."
"I'm sorry for what I said," she says, looking back at them. "I believe our politics is better when we can be honest and apologise for our mistakes, a lesson which her majesty's prime minister would be well placed to learn."
Really well judged from Thornberry, with the right tone.
Tory MPs cheer when Boris Johnson enters the Commons, ready for his statement in a moment.
Leaks suggest he'll call on opposition parties to table a vote of no-confidence in him. It's a nonsense thing to do, they can do it whenever they like. But that's where we are. It's all school yard tactics now.
Starts by calling it a "paralysed parliament".
Bangs on about how people "want Brexit done". Quite astonishingly inane. No-one is stopping him from doing it.
Lists all the things he was told would be impossible, like alternatives to the backstop or a new deal, and insists they are happening. On the basis of precisely what I have no idea.
"The people of this country can see perfectly clearly what is going on. They know this parliament will keep delaying, will keep sabotaging negotiations, because they don't want a deal."
Hard to find a single accurate statement in this speech.
"The Supreme Court was asked to intervene in this process for the first time ever and it is absolutely no disespect to the judiciary to say that I think the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question."
Pretty fucking shameless.
He looks shattered though. No oomph to the statement, weirdly pacing, visibly frustrated.
Nearly ever sentence is culture war. An attempt to portray parliament as against the people who elected it. Relentless tribalism about an attempt to "overrule the referendum result".
"We will not betray the people who sent us here." It's really grim.
There it is. To Corbyn: "Is he going to dodge a vote of no confidence in me as prime minister?"
It's designed to seem strong, but the fact he has to resort to this tactic is indicative of his weakness.
"They have until the House rises today to table a motion of no confidence in the govt. Come on. Come on, then."
Labour can table a vote of no-confidence anytime btw, unless I'm mistaken. So this is really just rhetoric.
Incredibly, Johnson talks about "healing the divisions of the referendum", after one of the most tribal, nakedly-cynical statements to the Commons I can remember.
Corbyn up. Uproar in the House.
Corbyn thanks the PM for his statement. "It was like his illegal shutting down of parliament: Null, of no effect and should be quashed."
"This was 10 minutes of bluster from a dangerous PM who thinks he is above the law, but in truth is not fit for the office which he holds."
"Yesterday's verdict represents an extraordinary and precarious moment in this country's history. The highest court in this land has found the PM broke the law when he tried to shut down our democratic accountability at a crucial moment in our public life."
"After yesterday;s ruling, the PM should have done the honourable thing and resigned." Cries of "resign" from across the opposition benches.
"Yet here he is, forced back to this House to face the scrutiny he tried to avoid, with no shred of remorse or humility, and of course no substance whatsoever."
This is good from Corbyn so far.
Corbyn asks if the PM agrees with the att gen that the govt got it wrong, or with the leader of the House that the Supreme Court committed a "constitutional coup".
Att gen also said govt would obey the rebel bill on extending Article 50. Will the PM confirm that?
Refers to Yellowhammer. Why did the govt describe them in Aug as out of date, when they were word for the word the same as the ones published this month?
"It's your paper. You wrote it. You tried to hide it."
Corbyn says Barnier stated yesterday there was no reason for optimism. Why does he have that view? Will the PM publish the govt's papers on alternatives to the backstop?
Now says Johnson faces questions about conduct in public office, allegations that he failed to declare interest in public money to close friend while Mayor. Addressing the growing scandal head on.
It was announced today that the culture department was reviewing the funds. Did the PM initiate that review? Will he fully cooperate with it and that of the London Assembly? Will he refer himself to the Cabinet secretary for investigation?
Good questions.
"He says he wants a general election. I want a general election. It;s very simple. If you want an election, get an extension and let;s have an election."
Johnson responding.
Says att gen said he disagreed. That did not answer the question. On the rebel bill, he says "we will obey the law and we will come out the EU on October 31st". Errrr.
On Yellowhammer: "Our preparations are very far advanced." Doesn't answer the question.On the negotiations, he says that has been made harder by the "surrender act that he passed". Doesn't answer the question.
On the story from when he was mayor: "I am very proud about everything I did as mayor of London." Doesn't answer the question.
Not a single answer. Not one.
When he finishes, Tories are encouraged to clap, so they start doing so. Desperate and bizarre.
But it is noticeable that they seem more behind him now than during his first appearances.
SNP's Ian Blackford: "Perhaps the PM might start to show some respect for the judiciary. You might have thought in that diatribe that we had that we might have heard some humility. Sorry is indeed the hardest word."
"Have you no shame prime minister?"
"How despicable that he refers to members of this House, doing their duty to protect their constituents, and he uses language such as 'surrender'. It is language which is not suitably for the prime minister of any country."
I usually find Blackford a bit mannered-bombastic. But given the moment we're in, the tone is perfectly suitable.
Blackford clearly more tempted by no-confidence. Suggests they should remove the prime minister and extend Article 50, then hold an election.
"We cannot trust this PM. His days of lying, of cheating..." Bercow forced to intervene. "I'm sure the rt hon gen will not state in this House that the prime minister has lied in this House. He must not do so."
Blackford accepts it, allowing him to keep going. Demands Johnson resigns.
Johnson attacks the "high taxing, fish-abandoning govt in Scotland." Does he have any idea how completely mad that sounds?
Jo Swinson. "He needs to understand that actions have consequences. Even my fie-year-old knows that if you do something wrong you have to say sorry."
"If my son can apologise for kicking a football indoors, surely the PM can have the humility to say sorry for misleading the Queen, misleading the country and illegally shutting down our democracy."
Jeremy Hunt exists. I forgot. He gets up from the backbenches. Says those who claim to defend parliamentary democracy are putting it at risk by giving people impression they want to block Brexit. Incredible.
You'd get more sense out of a wooden table and considerably more utility.
Hilary Benn: "Those of us who voted for the [rebel bill] make no apology whatsoever. The PM can shout as much as he likes, but he cannot hide the fact he has no mandate, no majority and no credibility."
Johnson insists on calling it the "surrender act". He really has no decency or moderation whatsoever. No basic standards. Every political choice he makes appears to be the most venal, most divisive, most irresponsible.
Antoinette Sandbach, former Tory: PM once said he;d try to seek consensus across the House. Those in Europe can't see how he'd deliver a majority in the House on a deal. "Can he update the House on the moves he is making to build consensus?"
Short blast of gibbering dogshit in return from the PM. Meaningless.
Yvette Cooper. The att gen didn't just say he'd respect the court's judgement. He also said 'we got it wrong'. "The PM has just said the opposite."
"Many of us had disagreements with his predecessors." She lists May, Cameron, Thatcher. "But none of them would have done this. None of them would have been so chaotic, none of them would have shown such disregard for the rule of law."
On the att gen, Johnson says "we are as one" on simultaneously accepting the result and thinking it is wrong. That was not what she asked.
There's no point in highlighting when he avoids the question is there. Maybe I should just note when he does.
Soubry points out that the govt didn't supply evidence to the case, which partly explains the ruling. "I'm pleased to see the PM is making a note, I hope he'll go an read the judgement, I hope he won;t be honing his pole dancing skills instead."
Tories try to shout her down. "They don't want to hear it," she says, "but they will hear it."
Asks if he will apologise to the Queen. Johnson: "I will not comment on my conversations with her majesty."
Dominic Grieve: "Whatever policy differences the PM may have with others, he has an absolute duty to uphold the rule of law. And whatever the self-justifications he may have advanced today, on the matter of proroging this House he failed to do that."
Bercow intervenes to shut up the Tories. "The rt hon gen will be heard. He won;t be shouted down by people of his own benches."
Grieve: Will PM assure the House that should the terms of the bill apply to him, "that he will observe those terms as he is duty bound to do?"
Johnson says the govt observes the law. In other words, he dodges the question.
Angela Eagle: "I have been a member of this House for 27 years and I ever thought I would be present to watch the benches opposite erupt in applause when a PM has had his political strategy torn to shreds by losing 11-0 in the Supreme Court."
"Why do we now find this PM leading a Conservative party that feel it is appropriate to applaud that?"
Jess Phillips: "I know the PM wants to appear as a strong man. But the strongest thing he could do would be to act with some contrition and humility. If the Labour party had done this, I would be ashamed."
"This looks horrendous to the public. It will look much better if the PM rises to his feet now and says 'I'm sorry, I got this wrong'."
Johnson says he "accepts the judgement". But says the "humblest and most responsible thing we can do as parliamentarians is to show that we respect the judgement of the people". There's no morality there to grasp, it's worthless even trying.
"Tempers have become very ragged across the country," Johnson says morosely, without any recognition of the hypocrisy that statement involves.
Justine Greening: "Continuing to call a bill this House has passed a 'surrender bill' is deeply disrespectful to this place."
Paula Sheriff: "I do not seek to stifle robust debate. But this evening the PM has continually used pejorative language to describe an Act of parliament passed by this House."
"We stand here under the shield of our departed friend (Jo Cox) with many of us in this place subject to death threats and abuse every day. They often quote his words: 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'."
"And I for one am sick of it. We must moderate our language. It has to come from the PM first. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself."
Incredible speech.
Labour MPs give her a standing ovation. Johnson: "I've never heard such humbug in all my life." Labour MPs screaming "shame".
I honestly don't think I have ever seen the Commons in an angrier, more toxic mood. Bercow struggling to maintain control.
Bercow: "I am keenly conscious of the fact that there are members on both sides of the House and both sides of the Brexit argument who have been personally threatened and whose families have been threatened."
"I would appeal to responsible colleagues in all parts of the House to weigh their words." Speaker trying to tone down the debate.
Caroline Lucas: "The tone of the PM's speech was truly shocking. Whipping up hatred, treating parliament with contempt and dividing our country still further. This populist rhetoric is not just unfitting for a PM, but it is genuinely seriously dangerous."
Rory Stewart: "If this great party stands for anything it stands for respect for parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.
"I would respectfully say my rt hon friend is tip-toeing onto a dangerous path. He's pitting Brexit against Remain, young against old, Scotland against England and people against parliament."
He's visibly angry. Says MPs should "speak with respect, with moderation, with compassion for our opponents, in order to provide a foundation which does not just appeal to a simple narrow faction but to every citizen and party in this great country."
Johnson replies that "juxtaposition is between democracy, which is what we're standing for, and the will of the people, and dither and delay, which is what party opposite is standing for. I know which side I'm on."
It can't be found. There's not a single moral insight within him.
He is being urged, over and over again, to stop exasperating division. And each time, he provides just more of it.
Karen Buck (Lab): "Tonight the Pm has made calculatedly inflammatory comments against parliamentarians and he will be accountable for the consequences of that language."
Says in last few hours there;s been an attack against the integrity of the judges. Will he distance himself specifically from Mogg's comments that the judgement was a coup?
Johnson refuses to do so, but does say he respects the judiciary.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (SNP) asks if the prime minister will agree to a public lie detector test on his reasons for prorogation.
Right, I have to do an interview, so going to duck out for a bit. In the mean time, here's a full report on what we've just seen.
No remorse, no contrition - only the culture war: Johnson returns to the Commons politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/09/…
As if to demonstrate his contempt, Johnson gets up as soon as the questions finish and starts to leave the Chamber. But a point of order was raised relating to his statement.
Bercow tells the PM it would be a "courtesy" to stay for it, given it relates to his statement. Johnson waves him away and storms out. MPs shout "booooo" as he goes.
The point of order is from John McDonnell. It relates to a question by Labour MP Ian Murray. He asked if the PM would seek an extension if he didn't get a deal through the House by Oct 19th, as demanded by the rebel legislation. The PM simply said: "No."
McDonnell: "Now I might have heard wrong, but I believe the answer was a single word: 'No'."
"My hon friend asked if all the conditions of the legislation were fulfilled would he then ensure the action from an active piece of legislation would be taken."
"We are moving into new territory, where a PM already found guilty of an unlawful act, is now refusing to abide by the law as passed by this House."
"We are moving into an extremely dangerous position with regard to accountability of a PM to this House and our democracy itself. "
"The Pm has left this House even though it is quite clear you indicated to him the Point of Order related to his behaviour." He wants the PM told to come back to the House to express that view again.
Bercow says the PM was here for 3 hours and 11 minutes and "he has chosen to leave". He says he has heard everything said on this and other matters and he did hear the PM "say explicitly that we will always obey the law".
He says he also heard what the PM said to that question and believed it related to the request for an extension. Says MPs should study the record and come to their own assessment of it. But adds that adherence to the law is non-negotiable.
What's happening here is that Johnson is saying two seemingly contradictory things: First, that he will obey the law as a general principle. And second that he will not ask for an extension.
But they're not completely contradictory, because he can of course resign, or it could be a statement of intent to get a deal. That slight gap is what allows Johnson to speak this way.
The clear innuendo, especially given his record and statements from No.10, is that he could disobey the law. But not enough, with enough certainty, for Bercow to be certain of it here.
Soubry raises a point of order on the abuse and threats she and her family get and how it's worsened by the PM's approach today.
Bercow: "The reality of the matter is, female members and members of our ethnic minority community have been disproportionately subject to that abuse and those threats."
"That is the fact. I know it. We've got to rise up against it and everybody has a pat to play including the holders of very high offices."
Jo Swinson says she today had to report a threat against her child. She says this was today dismissed as "humbug" (I think that;s a reference to one of Johnson's responses). Bercow says he would like meetings on this.
Point of order from Corbyn. He thanks Bercow "for what you've just said and the sincerity with which you've said it". Extraordinary atmosphere in the Commons, which seems quite startled by the way the PM behaved.
"We have a duty and responsibility to protect all our citizens from the kind of inflammatory language which has been used which is then meted out on the streets in the form of violence against individuals."
Bercow says he's "very open" to organising meetings with a view to a "House-wide public statement". Interesting.
SNP's Blackford commends Corbyn on his intervention. "We need to make sure we can navigate ourselves through the next few weeks. We need to show a very clear message from this House."
Lucy Powell (Lab): "Jo's murder did not happen in a vacuum. in happened in a context, a context that;s not dissimilar to the one we've found ourselves in today."
"I've heard from her family this evening. They've been very distressed from watching this place today." She says - rightly - that the language of "betrayal" and "humiliation" has actually came from one side of the House.
Bercow: "I don;t think any of us in this Chamber will ever forget or entirely overcome out horror, revulsion and distress at what happened to a wonderful human being and the most dedicated of public servants." He;s near tears.
"She was murdered for what she believed, the values she held and for her effectiveness in campaigning for them. We do not in any circumstances to witness a repeat of that."
Something potentially important happening here. A sense among MPs that the prime minister went over the line. That's mercurial. It's not a law that you can hold him to account on. But there is a clear sense of shock and outrage at the manner in which he conducted himself.
Jacob Rees-Mogg gets up to make a statement as leader of the House. Seems to back Bercow. Says "we all have a responsibility to be mild in our language and I'm afraid to say it is something on which all sides err from time to time".
The moves on to business for tomorrow: Motion for conference adjournment and then "a general debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate".
Amazing. I wonder how that debate on democracy will play into the words he just uttered.
Valerie Vaz says he could bring back the domestic violence bill instead. But apparently not.
She wants Mogg to clarify his comments on a "constitutional coup".
"Why did the leader of the House not protect parliamentary sovereignty?"
Mogg doing his usual I'm-so-polite thing. I'm starting to become quite irritated by the mock-politeness tbh. Mogg, like Gove, and to a lesser extent Johnson, use mock politeness to mask a thug operation in No.10.
Ok, I'm going to drop out. Knackered and I want to watch Succession. Yes, to relaxed I will watch a completely different set of bastards try to fuck each other over.
Night all. Don't let the bastards get you down.
