Efforts, and we had the hilary benn act designed to do that, to mandate borisjohnson to ask act designed to do that, to mandate Boris Johnson to ask for an extension to brexit, and i think we might see further manoeuvres to make sure that legislation is watertight, because there is nervousness the government could try and find a loophole, and i wouldnt rule out further court battles. We know a number of mps have lined up lawyers in case Boris Johnson number of mps have lined up lawyers in case borisjohnson tries to find a loophole around that law, designed to make him ask for an extension to brexit, if he hasnt managed to get a deal approved by parliament. In terms of court battles, mie we may yet see more of that to come at the end of october. A lot of this is somewhat speculative, but that is the territory we are in. Jessica parker, thank you. Lets discuss todays events in more detail now, with dr joelle grogan, a senior lecturer in law at Middlesex University london. How surprised where you buy the judgment . I was speechless for five minutes, which felt like five hours. I was sitting with a group of academics, and everybody else shouted at, but astonished. Why . Not necessarily unlawful, but that question of can this come to the court. Among my colleagues, which decided that the frame of the questions wed seen in the hearing was that the court seems to have seen that there are legal questions to be answered, that there are legal questions that should be asked to it, so the question of is this a question of law, not politics, we we re question of law, not politics, we were quite certain of. What was astonishing is not lawful, unlawful, but the leap at the court then took. We had expected that there would be a declaration of unlawfulness, a statement by the court if they found the advice to be unlawful, which they have. We expected a declaration of unlawfulness, saying, this is unlawful for these reasons, and of unlawfulness, saying, this is unlawfulfor these reasons, and this is how the power of prorogation works or doesnt work. Leaving it to parliament, most likely the government, to fix it. We didnt see that. We saw a new number this session a unanimous statement with a mandatory order, with a, this never happened. In law, prorogation never happened. In law, prorogation never happened. Put this into context, if you would. How unprecedented is it for the court to rule that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully . For the court to rule that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully7m for the court to rule that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully . It is, i think ive said the word unprecedented. I think i said that an unprecedented number of times today everything about this is unprecedented. It comes to the same point ive said. So many of the questions we are seeing are not questions we are seeing are not questions that we see in a court. We dont see these questions of, has the Prime Ministers advice to the queen, is that unlawful . Is this use ofa queen, is that unlawful . Is this use of a very ordinary power unlawful . I cant think of any situation in which we could have something comparable to it. Three years ago, i stood in front of my 200 or so students, saying, this is this constitutional case of your lifetime. We will never see another decision like this. We are now looking at it two or three weeks later, and im no doubt looking at it two or three weeks later, and im no doubt i will be saying the same thing to my students next week. Do you think this takes us next week. Do you think this takes usa next week. Do you think this takes us a step closer to the american system, where they are used to the Supreme Court taking political decisions . Its unlikely. Its tempting to say this is a political decision, but actually this was a very strong legal decision of legal principles, and the idea of the sovereignty of parliament, but parliament is the court lawmaker, the decider of our system, and that the decider of our system, and that the Supreme Court, in essence in the judgment, was saying two things. One, there is a limit to government power, but two, most importantly, the core of our system is power. That isnt so much a political decision is a legal statement of power. Looking at it a different way, is this a moment we will look back on as critical in the development of british constitutional law . I cant agree with you more other than to repeat what you just said is a statement why . This was a moment in which we had unanimously 11 judges stand up and say we have two, core, fundamental principles, parliamentary sovereignty, that parliamentary sovereignty, that parliament is the lawmaker, and parliamentary accountability, that those who act under law, those who use legal powers must be accountable to parliament. Those kind of state m e nts to parliament. Those kind of statements of the fundamentals of oui statements of the fundamentals of our system. Even the arguments weve heard over the last week, what does democracy mean, what does the rule of law mean, what does Parliament Mean in our system, these are incredible statements. I have no doubt that i, as an academic, will spend my career writing about these. One of the most powerful, wonderful things about this is it is far beyond academia and lawyers. Ordinary people are looking right 110w ordinary people are looking right now and thinking, what is parliament, what is the Supreme Court, what is law . On those momentous questions, we must leave it. Thank you. Mo hussein is the former special adviser to amber rudd as uk home secretary and former no 10 downing st chief press officer under david cameron. Hejoins me now. What, in your view, are the political implications of this ruling . Well, the government has massively overreached on this one, andi massively overreached on this one, and i think this is a really big own goalfor and i think this is a really big own goal for them. And i think this is a really big own goalfor them. And now we go back to a situation where parliament, yet again, will have to come to a decision. Thats always been the case. The answer has always laid within parliament, finding that parliamentary sweet spot, finding that majority for something. We know what parliament doesnt want, and 110w what parliament doesnt want, and now we need to hear to see than just words, actions on what parliament wa nts. Words, actions on what parliament wants. The people who already kind of subscribe to the Prime Minister possible provision of do or die probably wont have their minds swayed by this. This will probably entrench their views even further. I think the thing to watch now is the level of reaction from the government. There are some soundings already that this is about the remainer establishment against the people, which i think is a very dangerous path to go down, because it will just fuel further division, but i think trying to instil a culture war around this, which seems to be where the government is heading, is the wrong thing to do. Lets explore that a bit further, if we may. Youve worked at number ten. You give us an insight into what borisjohnson you give us an insight into what Boris Johnson and his you give us an insight into what borisjohnson and his advisers will be considering . I think all the options will have been wargamed. The reality is that there were some situations where the gap it would lose this, but probably people didnt expect the judgment of a language to be so strong, so all options will have been looked but the Prime Minister has blocked has boxed himself in with his language around do or die. While other mps would be looking around tomorrow to either secure a deal or ask for some kind of extension, i dont think the Prime Minister can 110w dont think the Prime Minister can now do that, because that would be an act of political suicide for him. So they will be looking at what they can do, and i think this leads back to number ten once again calling for an election and putting it back to the people. But, in this kind of colouring of parliament versus the people, or the remain establishment, in their view, versus the people. Very briefly, what a general election help solve the problem . dont think it would. Three years ago in the referendum, people didnt vote along Party Political lines. There were and still are mixed views in each party, and labour still cant make a decision on which way they would go, so i dont think an election would help anything but i think it would further add further chaos to what is already a chaotic and challenging decision. Former adviser to amber rudd and former chief executive press adviser. On this momentous day at westminster, where it is difficult to exaggerate, frankly, the importance of what happened at the highest court in the uk, we are now going tojoin my colleague andrew neil for a bbc news special. Politics in crisis. To have broken the law when he shut down parliament at a time of national crisis. The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise her majesty to Prorogue Parliament was unlawful. Mps celebrate outside court, and the speaker announces that the house will resume sitting tomorrow. Borisjohnson, meeting President Trump in new york today, says he strongly disagrees with the ruling but will respect it. Jeremy corbyn adds his voice to the calls for the Prime Minister to resign, but theres no sign of him tabling a vote of no confidence. So what happens now, and away from the drama at westminster,