Boris Johnson’s suspension of UK Parliament unlawful, Scottish court rules

In his so-called “People’s PMQs,” Boris Johnson failed to directly mention the big news of the day – that Scotland’s highest court had ruled his prorogation of Parliament unlawful. You can read more about that here.

The shock ruling sets up a showdown at the UK’s Supreme Court on Tuesday, where judges will decide whether to uphold or overrule the Scottish decision.

It’s a twist befitting of Britain’s chaotic Brexit saga, which has now spilled into the courts in dramatic fashion.

For now, we’re bringing our live coverage to an end. Thanks for following along today.

Boris Johnson is having a rough old time. The man who pledged to clean up the UK’s Brexit mess and finally leave the European Union – do or die, remember – has instead spent his first weeks in office being humiliated.

The decision by Scotland’s highest civil court is the latest disaster, even leading to accusations that his government deliberately misled the Queen.

That in itself might not be illegal. But lying to one of the most loved people in the country is hardly a great look for a Prime Minister already up to his neck.

The ruling itself doesn’t mean that Parliament will immediately be recalled. The UK’s Supreme Court will hear a final appeal next week that will resolve the issue.

But it turns up the heat in the pressure cooker – and provides Johnson’s opponents with more evidence of his weakness and vulnerability.

Read more of Luke McGee’s analysis here.

Johnson also answered a question on the current state of the Irish border backstop in Brexit negotiations with the EU.

“The backstop is going to be removed, I very much hope. Or, I insist,” Johnson said. “Because that’s then only way to get a deal.”

There’s “no way” Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement will be brought back, he added.

And he addressed reporting in the British press that his government could be considering a Northern Ireland-only backstop, saying: “We will not accept, either, a Northern Ireland only backstop.”

To a person who said they felt disenfranchised by the lack of progress over Brexit, Johnson said: “I’m on your side.

“We will work very hard for a deal .. we’re making great progress,” he added, citing talks with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar this week.

“The mood is changing .. there is movement under the keel of these talks,” he added.

And that’s it – Johnson took a few more questions on domestic policy, and then signed off.

Boris Johnson is answering questions on his Facebook page, but he’s so far avoided the elephant in the room: the Scottish court’s decision on Wednesday that his prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

His first question was on homelessness, with Johnson pledging to make the issue “one of the priorities of my government.”

The next query Johnson picked was about the NHS – giving him the chance to talk about another promised policy of his young government.

Then, Johnson turned to Brexit. He read out a question that asked: “Are you anti-democratic? … how do you explain to the British people that you are now the leader of an authoritarian regime.”

“I must respectfully disagree with you,” he said, adding he is trying to implement the result of the Brexit vote.

“The politicians, us, Parliament, has so far failed to implement the people’s will,” Johnson said. He called that the “real failure” of Britain’s democracy.

He adds that a Queen’s Speech is needed to “push on” with his domestic agenda. “That’s what the public, I think, want us to do.

“If opposition members of Parliament disagree with our approach then it is always open to them to take up the offer I made twice now … that we should have an election,” he added. He said they declined “for mysterious reasons” of their own.

Boris Johnson is answering questions on a Facebook Live video. You can watch it here or follow on this page.

Boris Johnson will be hosting a “People’s PMQs” Facebook Live video in the next hour, his official page has confirmed.

The Prime Minister used social media to answer questions from followers last month, and this is the second instalment.

The appearance will be especially interesting, given that Johnson could decide to discuss the Scottish courts’ decision that found his prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

We’ll be watching along in just under half an hour.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday.

Boris Johnson’s bullish Brexit strategy has already led to a civil war within his Conservative Party, from which nearly two dozen more moderate MPs have quit or been expelled in a matter of days.

But things aren’t much rosier in the opposition. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has long struggled to appease the Remain-backing will of most of his membership and lawmakers without causing fury in many of the party’s Brexit-voting heartlands.

Those divisions were laid bare on Wednesday, when Corbyn’s deputy, Tom Watson, said a second Brexit referendum should be held before a general election.

“Boris Johnson has already conceded that the Brexit crisis can only be solved by the British people,” Watson said in a speech to the Creative Industries Federation.

That flies in direct conflict with Corbyn’s message that there should be a general election as soon as a no-deal Brexit is taken off the table.

The position Labour would take in any second referendum is also anything but clear. Watson said the party should commit “unambiguously and unequivocally” to backing Remain, and several frontbenchers in the party have also made clear they would take that stance.

But Corbyn himself has not confirmed if he personally will campaign to remain, and confirmed in a speech on Tuesday that a Labour-forced second referendum would include a “credible” option for Leave on the ballot paper.

That credible option would likely be a Labour-negotiated deal, if the party were to win a snap election.

Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, attempted to downplay the divisions after Watson’s comment. “At the moment there is a good discussion going on but we are very united having that discussion; we don’t want to shut down discussion in our party,” he said, according to Britain’s PA news agency.

But it is difficult to ignore the bizarre optics that would likely unfold if Labour were to win a snap election: a Corbyn-led government agreeing a withdrawal deal with the EU, and then seeing several of its Cabinet members encouraging the public to reject that deal in a referendum in favor of the status quo.

A handful of opposition MPs are making their views clear on the closure of Parliament, by showing up to the empty chamber anyway.

Labour MP Jonathan Reynolds said he was “reporting for duty” in the House of Commons.

Earlier, his fellow backbencher Luke Pollard said he was making “a quiet statement about our democracy” by sitting in the Commons.

Nigel Farage at a Brexit Party rally last week.

Downing Street has dismissed speculation Boris Johnson could strike a non-aggression pact with the Brexit Party at the next general election.

Johnson “will not be doing a deal with Nigel Farage,” the leader of the Euroskeptic group, his spokesman told reporters on Wednesday.

Farage had offered not to stand Brexit Party candidates in seats held by Conservative MPs who had voted against Theresa May’s Brexit deal three times, and who back a no-deal split.

In return, he wanted Johnson’s party not to field candidates where they would be unlikely to win, but where the Brexit Party performed well at this year’s European elections.

Farage claimed the deal would prevent a “Remain Alliance” from keeping the Conservatives out of government.

But it would be extremely unusual for either of Britain’s two major parties – the ruling Conservatives or opposition Labour – to not stand candidates in virtually every seat at an election.

Boris Johnson on a visit to a school on Tuesday.

Conservative MP and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said Prime Minister Johnson must resign “and very swiftly” if the government is found to have misled the Queen regarding the reasons and motives for proroguing Parliament.

Speaking about a Scottish Court’s ruling on Wednesday that the government’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful, Grieve said he hoped the government “would now realize the extent of the crisis it has created, and recall Parliament immediately.”

In a later interview with CNN, Grieve said it would be “wise” for the government to suspend prorogation and have the House of Commons sit within the next 24 hours.

Grieve also said it was “perfectly obvious they (the government) decided to suspend us (parliament) in order to try to prevent us from scrutinizing them.”

Also speaking to CNN on Wednesday, Welsh Labour MP Stephen Doughty said the current situation is “extraordinary,” adding “how many more parts of our constitution do they (the government) want to rip apart?

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s spokesman on Wednesday said “there is absolute respect for the independence of the judiciary,” in an apparent reference to criticism following a tweet from a journalist saying Downing Street suggested that the Scottish judges’ ruling was politically biased.

“Sources in No10 now hitting back at the Scottish judges, suggesting they are politically biased,” The Sun’s Political Editor Tom Newton Dunn tweeted, quoting those unnamed sources as saying: “We note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful. The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason.”

“This is pitiful, pathetic and desperate from No. 10!” Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in a retweet.?

Former Justice Secretary David Gauke – one of the 21 Conservative MPs who were expelled from the party after voting against the government last week – also reacted on Twitter.

“It is neither responsible nor acceptable for ‘sources in No 10’ to accuse judges of political bias. Criticism of this type from within Government undermines the independence of the judiciary and, therefore, the rule of law,” Gauke said.

Earlier Wednesday, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the government’s advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful because its purpose was to stymy it.?

The UK Supreme Court.

A recently retired Supreme Court justice has said Boris Johnson’s prorogation is a political issue, not a legal one – but added that the decision was so “disgraceful” it could nonetheless lead to a change in the law when the Scottish courts’ decision is appealed next week.

Commenting on the Scottish ruling, Jonathan Sumption told BBC Radio 4: “What I think this illustrates is that if you, as a government, do something sufficiently outrageous – and politically the prorogation of Parliament was politically outrageous – you tempt judges to push the boundaries out, and it looks from the summary as if that is what the Scottish judges have done.”

He also noted that if the Supreme Court were to agree with the Scottish decision, it would be a significant change in how the British constitution is interpreted.

“I’m not going to give a prediction, but I think that if they were to decide that the Scottish judges were right, they would be making really quite significant changes to a correct understanding of our constitution because the issue is the propriety of the legal motives, and that seems to me to be a fundamentally political issue,” Sumption said.

But he added: “I have no doubt that politically this was a disgraceful thing to do and what tends to happen is that you change the law in response to a sufficiently appalling example of abuse.”

Labour MP Hilary Benn has helpfully tweeted out a page from Erskine May, the bible of parliamentary procedure.

Benn notes that when Parliament is prorogued, it must be brought back by a new royal proclamation, made by the Queen, which would overrule the previous proclamation she made to begin the prorogation.

This is different to a normal recess, which can be ended at short notice by a government request.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National Party leader, has added her voice to the ranks of opposition lawmakers calling for Parliament to be opened for business after Wednesday’s ruling.

The government’s Justice Secretary has tweeted that he is confident of the “independence” of the British courts “in every case.”

Here are the key lines from the summary of the ruling, posted by the Scottish Judiciary Office on Wednesday.

Translation: The court thinks Boris Johnson suspended Parliament for his own political benefit – to avoid proper scrutiny by lawmakers. And it says that is not a lawful reason to shut down Parliament.

Translation: The court unanimously agreed that it had the power to review the Prime Minister’s decision.

The Scottish court ruled that Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen that Parliament should be prorogued was unlawful.

Translation: The court says that while it’s not normally able to review a political decision, it’s doing so in this particular case because it raises issues of such great constitutional importance.

Translation: There is enough evidence to show that the Prime Minister concealed the real reason for suspending Parliament.

Translation: The court agrees that Boris Johnson suspended Parliament because it would make it easier for him to take the UK out of the European Union without a deal.

Translation: The order given to suspend Parliament has no basis in law.

Read the Scottish judges’ summary of their ruling

Gina Miller (center) talks to reporters after her challenge was rejected last week.

While the fallout from the Scottish decision ruling Boris Johnson’s prorogation unlawful dominates the agenda, the High Court has published its summary on the other major legal challenge to Johnson’s decision.

This is the challenge brought by anti-Brexit activist Gina Miller and former Prime Minister John Major, which was rejected last week. It’s now set to be appealed at the Supreme Court, alongside the successful Scottish challenge.

In relation to Miller’s challenge, the High Court deemed prorogation of Parliament a “purely political” matter, and therefore not one that can be challenged in the courts.

Elsewhere, the summary noted that “the refusal of the courts to review political questions is well-established.”

Some Labour MPs have gone to Parliament following the court’s ruling, demanding that the House of Commons be reopened immediately.

The Labour Party’s Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer has urged Boris Johnson to “immediately recall Parliament.”

Writing on Twitter, he said:

A question that has popped up repeatedly in the past week, especially since Parliament ordered Boris Johnson to seek a Brexit extension if he fails to get a new deal with the European Union before October 31:

Can the Prime Minister go to prison for defying Parliament and (or) the courts?

The short answer, according to Murray Hunt, the director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, a non-profit research institute, is yes, in theory, he could:

It is unclear whether Johnson is indeed planning to defy Parliament. The Prime Minister said in Parliament that he would “of course” follow the law.

However, some of his ministers gave more cagey answers.

“Of course this government will obey the law,” Chancellor Sajid Javid told the BBC on Sunday. But he added seconds later that Britain “will leave on October 31,” and that Johnson “absolutely will not” ask for an extension in October.

Week before that, another minister, Michael Gove, refused to confirm that the government would abide by any law preventing a no-deal Brexit.

In theory, Boris Johnson could be jailed for defying Parliament or the courts, according to one legal expert.

Murray Hunt, a lawyer and an expert in the matter, said the court’s ruling is significant, because it goes against a previous ruling made by a lower instance court, and because it said “the true reason for the prorogation was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.”

Protests for and against Brexit take place outside Parliament in Westminster, central London.

Hunt said Wednesday’s ruling means the Scottish court thinks the government’s decision can be reviewed:

Donald Trump said last week that Boris Johnson “knew how to win.”

On his first day as Prime Minister, Johnson promised a bold new Brexit deal, bashing the “doubters, doomsters, gloomsters” and the political class who he said had forgotten about the British people they serve. It was as if an upbeat attitude alone could be enough to overcome any adversity on the United Kingdom’s path to exiting the European Union.

But Johnson’s short premiership has been characterized by a terrible run of parliamentary defeats and mis-steps, culminating in Wednesday’s ruling in the Scottish highest court of appeal that his suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

On his first day as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson promised a bold new Brexit deal. Now he appears to be running short of options.

His move last month to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament, effectively shortening the time available to lawmakers to block a no-deal Brexit, jolted the fractured opposition parties into action. Divided on Brexit, they were united in their opposition to what they perceived as an all-out assault on British constitutional conventions.?

Since then, the blows have kept on coming – many of them self-inflicted.

Johnson has lost every one of his six votes in the House of Commons, an unprecedented record in the modern era. Undeterred, the Prime Minister purged 21 members of his parliamentary party who voted against him, blowing apart his majority.

His refusal to reinstate those 21 MPs, who included eight former cabinet ministers and the grandson of Winston Churchill, prompted Johnson’s own brother Jo to resign as a minister and as a member of Parliament.

The six votes included two attempts to secure a snap general election – with the goal of replacing the sacked lawmakers with a new slate of candidates more aligned with his hard-Brexit views. Both were scuppered when opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to play along.

Now there could be more bad news for Johnson on the way, if the UK Supreme Court upholds the Scottish high court’s ruling that his move to suspend Parliament is unlawful.

Read more about Boris Johnson’s terrible start to his premiership here.

A Scottish court has ruled that the government’s decision to suspend Parliament was “unlawful.”

Does this mean British lawmakers are about to head back to work? The short answer is no – not for now, anyway.

Murray Hunt, the director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, a non-profit research institute, said that until the UK Supreme Court makes a ruling in the case, Parliament will remain suspended.

The government has already said it will appeal the decision.

The ruling does not mean British lawmakers are heading back to work -- not yet, anyway.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced his intention to prorogue Parliament at the end of August, meaning Parliament won’t reopen until October 14.

For most of the five-week period, Parliament would not have been sitting anyway – it was due to be suspended for party conference season, returning in the second week of October. So Johnson’s prorogation would have only added a handful of days to the length of time MPs are away.?

The PM said the suspension was needed to make way for a new Queen’s Speech – the way in which a new session of Parliament begins. Normally, a Queen’s Speech takes place every year, and Parliament is always prorogued before it is reopened by the monarch.

Johnson’s opponents have claimed he is shutting down Parliament to stifle debate, and to allow the clock to run down on Brexit.

Speaker of the House John Bercow -- whose role is traditionally impartial -- criticized the suspension of Parliament.

“Shutting down Parliament would be an offense against the democratic process and the rights of Parliamentarians as the people’s elected representatives,” Bercow said in a statement.

Johnson has repeatedly insisted he will allow Britain to exit the EU with no deal on October 31 – but the majority of lawmakers are opposed to that idea, and have been working to block it.

A handful of legal attempts to overturn the prorogation have failed, allowing it to take place as planned.

Read more on why the prorogation of Parliament was so controversial here.

The decision by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to suspend – or prorogue – Parliament has drawn widespread condemnation from UK lawmakers.

Queen Elizabeth II granted Johnson’s request for the five-week suspension late last month – ostensibly so that the government could reset the parliamentary timetable and launch a new legislative program.?

But the plan to prorogue Parliament was widely seen as an attempt to limit the time for Johnson’s opponents to prevent a no-deal Brexit.?

Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said Wednesday the court ruling was “huge,” and proved that his opposition Labour Party’s attempt to prevent the suspension of Parliament was correct.

Opposition Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said: "It was obvious to everyone that shutting down Parliament at this crucial time was the wrong thing to do."

Starmer told the TUC conference in Brighton: “I need to get back to Parliament, to see if we can reopen the doors and hold Johnson to account.

“It was obvious to everyone that shutting down Parliament at this crucial time was the wrong thing to do.

“The Prime Minister was not telling the truth about why he was doing it. The idea of shutting down Parliament offended everyone across the country, and then they felt they were not being told the truth.”

Boris Johnson’s government said the court’s decision was disappointing. A spokesperson said:

Boris Johnson's attempt to suspend Parliament until October 14 has drawn widespread condemnation from UK lawmakers.

Three judges at Scotland’s highest court of appeal say the UK government’s decision to shut down Parliament is unlawful, the UK’s PA news agency reported on Wednesday.

It is unclear whether the ruling means that the suspension – also known as prorogation – of Parliament will be reversed.?

Scottish National Party member of Parliament Joanna Cherry QC, who was among the cross-party group of politicians who brought the action, tweeted: “All 3 judges in Scotland’s Highest court of appeal rule Prorogation unlawful!”

“Huge thanks to all our supporters & our fantastic legal team who have achieved the historic ruling that prorogation is unlawful,” she added in a second tweet.

This post has been updated.