Sign up here to receive the daily news briefing in your inbox every morning with exclusive insight from the BrexitCentral team Supreme Court overrules High Court and declares prorogation of Parliament unlawful… Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled. Mr Johnson suspended – or prorogued – Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October. The PM said he would “respect the verdict”, but he “strongly disagrees”. Supreme Court president Lady Hale said “the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme.” A raft of MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign – Downing Street said it was “currently processing the verdict”. Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen’s Speech so he could outline his government’s new policies. But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary for a Queen’s Speech. – BBC News MPs and peers return after court rules shutdown unlawful – BBC News Boris Johnson speaks to Queen after Supreme Court defeat – Sky News …as Boris Johnson hits out at those who are ‘trying to frustrate Brexit’… Boris Johnson said he “strongly disagrees” with the ruling of the Supreme Court and threatened to prorogue Parliament again. The Prime Minister, who is currently in New York, hit back at findings from the justices, claiming there are a lot of people who want to “stop this country from leaving the EU”. In a pooled interview in New York, the Prime Minister said: “Obviously this is a verdict that we will respect and we respect the judicial process. I have to say that I strongly disagree with what the justices have found. I don’t think that it’s right but we will go ahead and of course parliament will come back.”The Prime Minister added: “I do think there’s a good case for getting on with a Queen’s Speech anyway and we will do that. “ – iNews > WATCH: Boris Johnson reacts to Supreme Court ruling …while Jacob Rees-Mogg reportedly blasts the ruling as a ‘constitutional coup’ Last night, in a Cabinet conference call, Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg accused Supreme Court judges of launching a ‘constitutional coup’ and ‘the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution’. He also accused the judges of making errors, saying ‘some elements of the judgment are factually inaccurate’. There is fury at the highest levels of government over the judgment. On the call, other senior ministers also raised questions about the ruling. Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, the government’s chief law officer, suggested that the ruling overturned decades of precedent. He told the phone call that he didn’t believe ‘any prorogation over the past 50-100 years would have survived today’s judgment.’ Mr Rees-Mogg is expected to make a statement to MPs on the ruling today. He was one of three Cabinet ministers who travelled to Balmoral to advise the Queen to prorogue. – Daily Mail Nigel Farage rages at the ‘worst political decision ever’… Nigel Farage has branded prorogation the “worst political decision ever” and called for Boris Johnson’s top aide to quit after the Supreme Court ruled the move unlawful. The Brexit Party leader erupted in fury at the government in the wake of the shock ruling, where a panel of 11 justices unanimously found the decision to send MPs home for five weeks was illegal. He called for the prime minister’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings to go, who is widely regarded as the brains behind the decision to prorogue parliament earlier this month. Mr Farage said: “The calling of a Queen’s Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever. Dominic Cummings must go.” His anger was shared by ex-Tory cabinet minister David Gauke, who said: “Strange times. I agree with Nigel.” – Independent …while EU officials celebrate the Supreme Court ruling The UK supreme court ruling against Boris Johnson has been celebrated as a sign of a healthy democracy by senior political figures in Brussels and other EU capitals but sparked fears of further Brexit chaos. As Lady Hale, the president of the UK’s highest court, read out its unanimous judgment, politicians, officials and diplomats involved in the Brexit talks spoke of their reassurance about the state of the rule of law in the UK. The decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny had already provoked criticism by senior politicians in the European parliament, and the court’s confirmation on Tuesday that Johnson’s move was unlawful was welcomed. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU parliament’s Brexit coordinator, tweeted: “At least one big relief in the Brexit saga: the rule of law in the UK is alive & kicking. The chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, Norbert Röttgen, who is a senior member of Angela Merkel’s CDU party, expressed his satisfaction at the judgment. He said: “It is not my place to comment on judicial proceedings in Britain. But as a fellow MP I do feel the need to express my joy and solidarity with British parliamentarians”. – Guardian Verhoftstadt tells Brexiteers they can never call EU anti-democratic again after Supreme Court ruling. – Telegraph (£) Geoffrey Cox and Dominic Cummings in the line of fire after prorogation legal advice is leaked Attorney General Geoffrey Cox is in the political firing line after his advice that it was lawful to prorogue parliament for five weeks was leaked to the media. Mr Cox insisted the plan was “within the constitution” during a conference call held to convince ministers to support the tactic after the Queen had already been asked to suspend the legislature. A note of the meeting was leaked to Sky News just hours after the Supreme Court ruled the prorogation was unlawful, prompting suggestions that Downing Street was setting up the Attorney General as the fall guy for the embarrassing defeat. A Number 10 source insisted the Attorney General had the backing of the Prime Minister, saying: “Everyone is fully supportive of Geoffrey Cox, he is doing an exceptional job and nobody is blaming him.” The pressure on Mr Cox – as well as other Downing Street figures involved in drawing up the plan – came as former Prime Minister Sir John Major called on the Number 10 incumbent to apologise. Mr Cummings also came in for severe criticism, with Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage saying: “The calling of a Queen’s Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever. Dominic Cummings must go.” Mr Farage found himself in rare agreement with former justice secretary David Gauke, who also suggested Mr Cummings should leave the government. – Telegraph (£) Steve Baker savages ‘nonsensical’ Remainers for showing utter ‘contempt for democracy’ Brexiteer Steve Baker attacked Remainers celebrating the Supreme Court ruling and insisted they are clearly showing they want to overturn Brexit. Tory MP Steve Baker argued that the UK needs to proceed in a way that delivers the Brexit referendum in 2016 regardless of the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision to rule that Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament was illegal was deemed to “deepen our political crisis” by Mr Baker. While on Sky News he said: “Where do we go from here, is a deepening political crisis. “That is what this Supreme Court judgement has given us. We ought to have a general election. I mean I have listened to some real nonsense from opposition politicians talking about Boris and his attitude to democracy. Well they are the ones treating democracy with contempt.” – Express Jeremy Corbyn says the Brexit crisis can only be settled with an election – but not yet… Jeremy Corbyn has used his Labour conference speech to repeat his call for “unelected” Boris Johnson to resign and become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. The Labour leader told party members that the UK faces an “extraordinary and precarious moment” following the Supreme Court’s ruling that Mr Johnson’s suspension of parliament was unlawful. Mr Corbyn’s keynote speech in Brighton was brought forward to Tuesday following the unanimous verdict of 11 judges at the UK’s highest court – as MPs are now going to be returning to Westminster on Wednesday. Addressing the ruling, which has sent shockwaves through UK politics, Mr Corbyn claimed the prime minister “will never shut down our democracy or silence the voices of the people”. As Labour members chanted “Johnson out”, the Labour leader said: “Boris Johnson has been found to have misled the country. This unelected prime minister should now resign.” Mr Corbyn declared the Brexit crisis at Westminster “can only be settled with a general election”, but stuck to his stance that the country should only go to the polls once a no-deal Brexit on 31 October has been prevented – and the UK’s exit from the EU has been delayed once again. – Sky News > WATCH: Jeremy Corbyn’s speech from Labour Conference, Brexit highlights …as Barry Gardiner breaks ranks with Corbyn to demand a referendum before an election The Shadow International Trade Secretary said there was a “logic” to letting voters have their say on a Tory Brexit deal. His remarks put him at odds with Jeremy Corbyn, who wants to win the next election, negotiate a new Brexit deal and then put that to voters in a referendum. Appearing on the BBC’s Politics Live programme, Mr Gardiner said: “There may be half of the country who feel they haven’t been listened to because they haven’t had their final say on the Brexit deal.” Asked if that meant there should be a referendum before an election, Mr Gardiner replied: “Yes indeed. There is a logic to holding a referendum to get the issue of Brexit done and dusted.” His remarks echo those of deputy Labour leader Tom Watson, who earlier this month said there should be a referendum before an election. – PoliticsHome Jeremy Hunt concedes that a no-deal Brexit could now be the only way forward Former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt argued that Boris Johnson has a mandate for Brexit, including a no deal, and should receive more credit for his Brexit efforts. Former Tory Leadership candidate Jeremy Hunt defended Boris Johnson’s attitude and decision making on Brexit. While on the BBC’s Today Programme Mr Hunt argued that Boris needs to deliver Brexit and if a no deal is the only way to do that, that is what may happen. He also defended his decision to remove the whip for Tory rebels citing that they stood on a platform that claimed a no deal Brexit was better than a bad deal. Mr Hunt concluded that Boris needs to get more credit for his Brexit determination and should receive support from the entire party before an election. On the Today Programme, Mr Hunt said: “Boris Johnson deserves great credit which I don’t think he gets. “He deserves credit for the fact that for the first time in two years we are talking about getting a majority at a general election. That is very important when you look at the chaos of the Labour Party conference this week.” – Express > LISTEN: Jeremy Hunt MP speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme Leave.EU’s Arron Banks cleared of Brexit wrongdoing Arron Banks has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing in the Brexit referendum by Britain’s National Crime Agency. The NCA said the controversial insurance executive was legally entitled to take a loan from one of his holding companies to contribute to Leave.EU, the pro-Brexit campaign group that he founded. It added that it found no evidence that Mr Banks or his companies had received funding from “any third party”, scotching speculation that Mr Banks’ contribution might have come from a foreign source, such as Russia. However, the agency left open the possibility that some of the businessman’s other activities might face scrutiny, refusing to confirm or deny that it was investigating allegations of criminal wrongdoing in relation to some of Mr Banks’ other business activities. The NCA’s statement draws a line under nearly two years of investigations into Mr Banks’ loans and contributions to Leave.EU, which waged a vigorous pro-Brexit campaign but failed to be recognised as the official group of those wanting to leave the EU. – FT(£) BBC upholds complaint against Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis over her ‘sneering’ at Rod Liddle over Brexit BBC presenter Emily Maitlis faced an internal investigation by the broadcaster after viewers complained she was ‘sneering and bullying’ towards Sun columnist and leave voter Rod Liddle. The executive complaints unit at The BBC determined that Maitlis had been too ‘persistent and personal’ during the Newsnight discussion on Brexit, July 15. Following the news segment with Liddle, associate editor at The Spectator and columnist for the Sun, and Tom Baldwin, director of communications for the People’s Vote campaign, Maitlis was accused of ‘failing to be even-handed’, reports Press Gazette. Viewers claimed the presenter’s attitude towards Liddle was systemic of the way the BBC has portrayed leave voters. While questioning Liddle on his book called the great betrayal, which covers ‘the true story of Brexit’, Maitlis said: ‘You’re not angry that we haven’t left, you say that the Remain argument was that all Leavers were basically racists and xenophobes…’ The presenter then went on to suggest that Liddle was seen by many as a racist. – MailOnline Liam Fox: Parliament has abandoned all moral claim to the role as sovereign over Brexit The debate in recent weeks, including today’s Supreme Court judgment, has centred around where power and authority lie in the 21st-century United Kingdom. It is clear from the judgment that it lies in a sovereign parliament, particularly in the elected House of Commons, which represents the democratically expressed will of the British people. That is as it should be. You do not have to be a republican to believe that there can be no powers exercised by a monarch unless specifically conferred by Parliament itself. This important principle, however, may be the limit of where there is political consensus following the Supreme Court’s unanimous judgment. For it does nothing to solve the essential dilemma in which we find ourselves over the current state of the Brexit debate. Essentially, we have a clash of two competing legitimacies resulting from the decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. In essence, the sovereign Parliament, whose democratic legitimacy is being celebrated today, decided that it could not or would not make a decision on membership of the European Union and that it should be contracted out to the British people in a referendum. – Liam Fox MP for the Telegraph (£) Iain Duncan Smith: This judgement will greatly assist Remainers in seizing control of government again There can be no question but that we are now in a genuine constitutional crisis. This has been coming ever since the referendum and Parliament’s refusal to act on the majority decision of the British people. Of course the opposition are already leaping up and down claiming that the Prime Minister should resign – but this is a hollow jibe. After all, they could have done that all along simply by calling a vote of confidence in the government. I was astonished that, when the Supreme Court made their judgement that they were acting to uphold Parliament’s rights against an over-mighty executive, they didn’t see fit to mention that Parliament could have stopped prorogation all along either by agreeing to an early election or by passing a vote of no-confidence in the Government. Languishing over ten points behind the Conservatives in the polls with an unpopular leader and a civil war erupting within the party over Brexit, Labour MPs wanted to avoid an election aided by Cameron’s ill-thought-through Fixed Term Parliament Act. That the party’s MPs chose, for reasons of political expediency, not to vote in favour of a general election does not undermine the point that they could have done so if they wished. Instead they left it to judges to do the work of challenging the executive for them. As Parliament is recalled, the question is to what degree does this judgement effect Brexit? At first pass I thought not much. After all, it does not make a huge difference to the parliamentary timetable. Nor is it as if the Government was planning to do anything significant while Parliament was prorogued anyway. The number one thing on Boris Johnson’s agenda, until yesterday at least, was securing a Brexit deal with the EU. There would have been plenty of time to debate any such agreement after Parliament returned. However, it then dawned on me that by giving them more sitting time at a crucial time, this judgement greatly assists the hard-core Remainers to seize control of government again, as they have twice before. – Iain Duncan Smith MP for the Telegraph (£) Nigel Farage: Rather than working with my Brexit Party to save democracy, Boris Johnson seems set to sell us out Iam disappointed that Boris Johnson has ruled out an electoral pact with the Brexit Party. My offer to him was made on the principle of putting country before party. Furthermore, it was a logical and winning formula which would have guaranteed killing two birds with one stone: delivering a clean break Brexit; and smashing the undemocratic Lib Dems and increasingly dangerous Labour Party. Yet he has turned up his nose at this opportunity. I think he has made a huge mistake. Over the last few weeks I have been touring the country and meeting large audiences in predominantly Labour areas. The passion shown by so many people in these places is extraordinary. They crave not just Brexit but a new kind of politics altogether. Trust in Labour and the Tories is at rock bottom. For them, only the Brexit Party can deliver. It is easy to see why. Since the referendum there have been too many broken promises. Many Leave-voting Labour heartlands have Remain MPs who refuse to recognise the democratic decision to honour Brexit. But these people will never vote Tory. This is what the prime minister refuses to understand. – Nigel farage MEP for the Telegraph (£) John Longworth: The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people For centuries there has been a battle between the Anglo Saxon view of what constitutes a liberal, democratic constitution, centred on the people and liberty and the continental, “statist”, state-centred view. The continent is now coalescing into a new supranational state, long Britain’s nightmare, and with the help of those colluding directly or indirectly with that continental, foreign power: Blair, Benn, Major, Heseltine, Grieve etc, the “has-beens”, we are facing the prospect of a fundamental shift in our constitutional arrangements, possibly forever and without the consent of the people. Is this surprising? Not at all, given that the “statist” view of the world, exemplified by the technocratic dictatorship of Brussels and the poorly developed democracies of many continental states, does not place the people as sovereign, at variance with the British tradition. Our tradition has developed, with the support of the common law, over centuries and its modern underpinnings date back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Crudely, the common law allows people to do what they like unless it is prohibited, while the continental, Roman or Napoleonic tradition codifies everything and prohibits people from doing anything, unless it is permitted. et us remind ourselves of the words of John Locke: Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people (NB liberty and democracy are the people’s property) or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power ( NB such as that exercised by the EU), they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence” The Establishment should think hard about the consequences of its actions, they are acting against the the constitution, the social contract, the traditions of Britain and its people. – John Longworth MEP for the Telegraph (£) Catherine Barnard: The Supreme Court has given Parliament real teeth, but its verdict does not mean the end of Brexit Parliament has acquired real teeth. It has taken the highest court in the land to make this clear. Parliament 1: The Executive 0. To carry on the sporting metaphors, it’s a slam dunk for Parliament. And Parliament must now rise to the occasion. The fundamental question was whether the Prime Minister acted unlawfully in advising (in practice telling) the Queen to prorogue (suspend) parliament for five weeks at the most constitutionally challenging times in our nation’s recent history. A unanimous and full court of eleven justices said a resounding and emphatic yes. So what now? This was the final point of the judgment. Gina Miller’s lawyers had asked for a declaration. The scope of that declaration was striking: the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next: they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. The Court concludes with a shot across the Prime Minister’s bows: ‘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.’ In other words, he must comply with the law. It has hard to think of a more damning judgment for the Prime Minister. On the most politically and sensitive issue of our time, he has been told by the highest Scottish court and now the highest Court of the United Kingdom that he has acted unlawfully. In normal times this would spell the end of any Prime Minister. It does not, however, mean the end of Brexit. The fundamentals remain the same. At the moment, the UK will leave the EU without a deal if the EU does not agree an extension. – Catherine Barnard for the Telegraph (£) Rob Wilson: Ousting Dominic Cummings over prorogation would be a terrible mistake Following the Supreme Court judgement, it took approximately 30 seconds for the first politician to call for the Prime Minister’s resignation and then only a few minutes more for the knives to appear for his most senior Downing Street adviser, Dominic Cummings. The pressure on both will be intense, and sadly but rather predictably, a small number of Tory MPs are briefing behind the scenes that Cummings must go. Usually in politics calling for advisers to be sacked is a displacement activity for not being able to force out the real target. We all know the real target for these few disgruntled Tory MPs is the Prime Minister. They realise, along with most MPs on both sides of the House of Commons, that Boris Johnson will probably win a general election against Jeremy Corbyn. Nothing from the Supreme Court changes that dynamic, indeed for Boris it merely adds to the list of establishment bodies trying to overturn the Referendum result and stop Brexit. The Prime Minister, probably to the surprise of the metropolitan remainiacs, is likely to come out of this unnecessary and over-reaching decision by the Court much strengthened. His credentials as a champion of the people are reinforced, so in the circumstances those Tory MPs whispering in dark corners would be wise to remain away from the light as it could prove more fatal for their career. Boris Johnson cannot and will not forsake Cummings because he knows that the normal rules of political engagement are gone, possibly forever. The Prime Minister needs the only adviser currently in Government who knows how to harness the chaos that exists thanks to Brexit and use it to their advantage. – Rob Wilson for the Telegraph (£) Peter Foster: Boris’s hardball strategy with EU appears to be spent – with both sides readying for bigger battle ahead For much of the last three months Europe has looked on at the UK’s gathering constitutional crisis and asked whether any British prime minister – Boris Johnson or whomever – would actually be in a position to strike a Brexit deal. Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling did nothing to alleviate concerns which pre-date the Johnson administration; after all Theresa May was no more capable of corralling a majority in Parliament for a Brexit deal than her successor now appears to be. All of which leaves the EU side deeply pessimistic about the prospects for a deal at this October’s European Council, which is now barely three weeks away. One EU diplomat used the adjective ‘bleak’ to describe the current view of Britain from the other side of the Channel. Technically speaking, EU officials are clear that the Supreme Court ruling makes little difference to the current negotiation. A deal still depends on Mr Johnson agreeing to a legally operable substitute for the Irish backstop. In summary, if there ever was sufficient leverage for Mr Johnson to force Dublin and Brussels to agree to a new trade border in Ireland, it now looks to have gone. Of course, Mr Johnson may yet choose to ‘pivot’ towards what the EU would find an acceptable solution to the border question – such as leaving Northern Ireland in the EU’s customs union and single market for goods – but even the chances of that look to have receded. EU officials and diplomats ask themselves why would Mr Johnson – facing the growing likelihood of defeat in Westminster – risk diluting his Brexit credentials ahead of an election that looks like it will be fought on the hard wings of Brexit and remain. So while Brexit talks will continue on Wednesday, after Tuesday’s seismic ruling, there is an unavoidable sense on both sides that we are now going through the motions, drawing strength for a bigger battle that still lies ahead. – Peter Foster for the Telegraph (£) Con Coughlin: We must get Brexit done to break free from the suffocating EU on the global stage Far away from the closeted world of Britain’s Supreme Court, important changes are taking place in the global landscape that are ultimately far more relevant to Britain’s future than legal arguments over Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament. While the main focus of political debate in this country is the impact yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling will have on the Prime Minister’s ability to deliver Brexit, elsewhere the attention of the world’s major powers is occupied by much bigger concerns, such as the threat Iranian aggression poses to the world’s energy supplies. Ever since US President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal last year, a dangerous split has emerged within the transatlantic alliance, one where the major European powers – Britain, France and Germany – seemed determined to resist Washington’s attempts to force Iran back to the negotiating table. Whether Mr Johnson is able to build on the exciting foundations he has laid in the US will depend on his ability to extricate Britain from the suffocating confines of the European Union. So long as British prime ministers are obliged to pay lip service to the EU’s delusions of being a major player on the world stage, their ability to promote a foreign policy agenda that secures Britain’s position as a leading power is constrained. But if Mr Johnson can achieve his ambition of leaving the EU by the end of next month, then the opportunities for Britain to shape its own destiny are limitless. – Con Coughlin for the Telegraph (£) Janet Daley: We need a general election to seize Brexit back from the lobbyists and lawyers There is only one way to settle this now. Not with an agonising, contentious reexamination of our constitutional arrangements – which would be conducted under whose auspices? Certainly not, God help us with the introduction of a written constitution which, created under these exceptionally divisive circumstances would be hopelessly skewed and almost immediately unfit for purpose. Not with endless further recrimination between elected politicians and unelected justices, or yet more intractable arguments about what constitutes, at any given moment, the “will of the people”. There is only one definitive way to arrive at a truly democratic outcome. We must have a general election as soon as is humanly possible. That is the traditional, historically unimpeachable, constitutionally agreed way to determine what the people wish to happen. And since, in this instance, the electoral choice would be far more clear and unambiguous than is generally the case –Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party being unequivocally in favour of leaving the EU, and all other opposition parties unequivocally opposed to it except Labour which refuses to say where it stands and will therefore become irrelevant in the public argument – this election would have the resounding effect of uttering a clear-cut judgment on the matter. An election is the only way that the people can get back into this argument which has now become the possession of lawyers, vested interests and professional lobbies. True, they had their say in that famous referendum which is now revered and despised in equal measure. – Janet Daley for the Telegraph (£) Telegraph: Our constitution is under scrutiny like never before – but we must not forget that Boris Johnson is merely trying to carry out the democratic will Boris Johnson returned from New York to London last night to confront the greatest crisis of his brief premiership after the Supreme Court ruled he had broken the law by advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks. The House of Commons will sit tomorrow after 11 justices unanimously quashed the Order in Council that was intended to suspend Parliament until October 14, the proposed date of the Queen’s Speech and the State Opening of a new session. To call this an awkward position for the Prime Minister is an understatement of historic proportions. Since he took office in July, he has lost his slender working majority, more than 20 Tories have had the party whip removed, his own brother has resigned and he has been defeated five times in the Commons. He has even had legislation imposed upon him requiring that he seek an extension to the UK’s membership if he has not secured a deal with the EU that can get through Parliament by October 19. It was in order to prevent MPs continuing to frustrate his plans to take Britain out of the EU, deal or no deal, on October 31 that he used what he imagined were the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers to prorogue Parliament. He was advised by the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, that such a move would be lawful. Moreover, the High Court in London stated that this was not a matter into which the judiciary should intrude. And yet in a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court decided otherwise. For most political leaders such a litany of woes would be fatal. Yet for Mr Johnson, seen as the champion of the people against an establishment determined to stop Brexit, it does not appear to have harmed his popularity, or at least not yet. – Telegraph (£) editorial Stewart Jackson: Boris must act boldly to snatch Brexit victory from the jaws of judicial defeat Stranded several thousand miles away in New York, the city of his birth, Boris Johnson might be forgiven for feeling battered, bruised and beleaguered by the bombshell news of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision finding his decision this morning to prorogue Parliament unlawful. I suspect however it was priced in a few days ago. It’s of course a significant blow but let’s be clear – Mr Johnson won’t be resigning any time soon and whilst he maintains the support of party members, the Parliamentary Conservative party and the Cabinet, he remains the Prime Minister and leads an administration committed to leaving the European Union on October 31. In that sense, the fundamentals haven’t changed. The Brexit mandate is bigger than even the decision of the highest court in the land. Furthermore, believe it or not, his plan remains intact. With the possible tweak of a further prorogation to allow for the holding of the Conservative Party conference in Manchester next week, which even the Supreme Court would surely not consider to be “extreme”, a Queen’s Speech the following week and a Budget thereafter, this legal imbroglio has essentially been centred on an extra week in which Parliament will now sit. – Stewart Jackson for the Telegraph (£) Patrick O’Flynn: Triumphant Remainers – be ashamed politics has reached this low ebb Of all the difficult days that have passed in our politics since that historic vote by the British people more than three years ago to leave the European Union, yesterday was perhaps the most traumatic for supporters of that great cause. When the United Kingdom failed to exit the EU on March 29 this year – despite departure being promised literally hundreds of times by the then prime minister – many of us Leave voters had seen it coming and were braced for the let-down. Likewise, we have become accustomed to the spectacle of MPs elected overwhelmingly on promises to honour the referendum verdict breaking their word with alacrity. We have even become inured to the repeated manipulation of parliamentary procedure by Remain-supporting Commons Speaker John Bercow in order to assist the Brexit-blocking antics of those so-called “honourable members”. But what we saw yesterday was a Prime Minister who is genuinely straining to deliver the referendum mandate – being ruthlessly boxed-in by political opponents who we now realise will do almost anything to deny the democratic outcome being implemented and have many weapons at their disposal. The decision of the Supreme Court that the proroguing of parliament by Boris Johnson was unlawful and must be reversed could have led to some dignified reflections by MPs as to how we have reached such a low ebb that a Prime Minister would feel the need to suspend Parliament in order to help deliver a long-overdue democratic outcome. They could have said they were sorry it had come to this, but now that Mr Johnson had been suitably admonished for what the judges identified as sharp practice, they all recognised their democratic duty to come together and help arrange a smooth departure on October 31. Instead what we saw was triumphalist Remainer politicos punching the air at being handed a victory in the senior court of law after so many successive defeats in the court of public opinion. – Patrick O’Flynn for the Express > Patrick O’Flynn on BrexitCentral today: The pro-Remain establishment’s efforts to block Brexit have reached new heights this month Stephen Laws: Why today’s Supreme Court ruling is a recipe for constitutional conflict I’m surprised and disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling today. In ordinary times, Parliament and Government have a relationship in which each is strong enough to look after itself, as Parliament for its part has amply demonstrated throughout the Brexit process. Political differences between them should properly be settled politically. That is how things normally work, and political solutions are preferable to legal solutions because they concentrate on finding the answer which attracts the widest support, rather than assuming there is a rule which will tell you the right answer and imposing it with an exercise of judicial authority. The Government did not, as the Supreme Court appear to suggest, seek to withdraw from this relationship. It announced the prorogation to MPs in advance and gave the Commons opportunities to respond, for example, with a vote of no confidence. The Government did not go ahead with plans to filibuster the Benn Bill and made sure that the length of the prorogation conformed to the requirements implied by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Act 2019. In acting this way, the Government demonstrated that it was sensitive to the need to confine itself to what it felt it could justify in political terms. It may have misjudged matters politically, but the right way to remedy that is through accountability, ultimately to the electorate. – Stephen Laws for ConservativeHome Dominic Walsh: Parliament has three extra weeks – how will it use them? Today’s Supreme Court ruling was another major flash point in the ongoing Brexit saga. The Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was not just unlawful, but “null and void.” In other words, prorogation is legally considered not to have happened, and Parliament will resume tomorrow without a new Queen’s Speech. The attempted prorogation was due to last five weeks, ending on 14 October. The Court’s ruling effectively gives Parliament three extra weeks which it would not otherwise have had. But what will MPs do with this extra time? What can they do in three weeks that they haven’t done in the last year? The Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer indicated earlier that Parliament could seek to force the Government to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice on prorogation, using a humble address motion (the same device they previously used to force the Government to publish its legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreement). However, the legal advice has since been leaked anyway – and indicates that the Attorney General told the Cabinet that prorogation was lawful, contrary to the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling. Nevertheless, MPs may still want to see the full, unredacted advice – and may also try to force the publication of other documents, such as further updates on the Government’s preparations for No Deal and progress in negotiating a deal with the EU. It is also possible that MPs might seek to take control of parliamentary time again, and we now know that they have both the numbers and the procedures in place to achieve this. What’s less clear is what the purpose of this would be, given that the Benn Act is already in law. In theory, they could seek to address any loopholes in the Benn Act, but it is not clear that such loopholes exist – the Act is very tightly drafted. If MPs are not prepared to back a vote of no confidence, it is not clear whether anything else they do in the extra three weeks will radically shift the dial on Brexit. – Dominic Walsh for The Article Brexit in Brief Political judges must face scrutiny after doing the bidding of braying Remainers – The Sun editorial Channel 4 host Jon Snow suggests there should be second Brexit vote as ‘a lot of people have died’ since 2016 – The Sun