Transcripts For BBCNEWS BBC News Special 20240714

By the court of session in scotland, which was fronted by the snp qc joanna cherry. 75 mps put their names to the challenge and one of them joins me now. You must be very happy with the judgment. What does it mean, do you think, constitutionally . It means the Prime Minister is not able to do this. We live within the rule of law. What the 11 judges found unanimously is that he worked against parliamentary democracy and had broken the law, and prorogued it for five weeks. Normally it would be five days. Is it a constitutional shift, this, or a restating of our unwritten constitution that parliament is sovereign, and it oversees the rule of the executive . Which underlines the fact that we do still at the moment live in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law. When borisjohnson says he disagrees, i mean, he isnt in a position to disagree. Ii he disagrees, i mean, he isnt in a position to disagree. 11 independent judges in our Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, have judged unanimously that he has acted illegally. He has. Do you think the Prime Ministers position is tenable . Not really, he should resign, but we all know Boris Johnson, he willjust keep on keeping on. He has demanded this arbitrary brexit date of the 31st of october. Do or die. Nobody voted for either of those things. We hope he will come forward with a deal, if such a deal emerges that, in my view, should be put to the people for a democratic vote to decide whether we remain in the eu or go with his last minute deal. Whether we remain in the eu or go with his lastminute deal. You have the power, because we have a zombie government, as we havejust heard, you could remove him, you could do that tomorrow. But we would need a new Government National unity to be agreed ina new Government National unity to be agreed in a short of time. He said that it would take a deal to get us out by the 31st of october. It is up to him to put that deal to the eu council. I believe if he has a reasonable deal then people will hold their noses and say, ok, we will go to the people with this, have a peoples vote, and if they wa nt have a peoples vote, and if they want it we will leave on those terms, otherwise we wont. My guess is he wont come out with anything better than theresa may, and its a botched deal. What he was trying to do was close down parliament, spend £100 million of taxpayers money, make a deal that wasnt ok, when we heard from operation yellowhammer it wont be. And he thought he would win an election on the back of a lot of propaganda. Whats happened today is that the rule of law has been enforced. Parliamentary democracy will be enlisted. And we will ensure there will be any scrutiny over any deal and hopefully it will be put to a public vote before a general election on a wider canvas. 0k, thanks very much indeed. Its worth reminding ourselves, as we discuss theseissues reminding ourselves, as we discuss these issues this evening, where the balance of power lies in the uk and how it is distributed. Parliament, the executive, and the Supreme Court, three pillars of power which sit barely within half a square mile of each other in westminster. But the ruling today re established a long held principle in our written constitution, that parliament is sovereign, even constitution, that parliament is sovereign, even over oui constitution, that parliament is sovereign, even over our government. Parliament is our lawmaker and our government serves the people through it. But what about the role of the court . Im joined by the director of the institute for the government and alison young, a professor of public law at cambridge university. Professor, can i just law at cambridge university. Professor, can ijust start law at cambridge university. Professor, can i just start with you. It seems that the court has set down a marker today that its prepared to take a role in upholding our unwritten constitution. prepared to take a role in upholding our unwritten constitution. I think thats absolutely right. They are clear statements in the judgment that the uks constitution isnt just based on legislation comments based on these common law principles and they direct two important principles, parliamentary sovereignty and the accountability of government. It showed that the court was willing to look carefully and say, well, if these are being restricted without a reasonable ground, then we are in a position to step in and say that its unlawful. The Prime Minister has said again today that he wants to take the country out on october the 31st. If hes going to stay within the law, which he says he will, how is he going to do that . Is best option is by getting a deal now. Its hard to see how he has any other options and still stick to that october 31 deadline. Because the next deadline from his point of view is october 19, when the act which was passed by parliament saying, it was said you must ask for an extension by that date if parliament hasnt either agreed a deal or agreed no deal. That date is coming fast. Really, his best option now is to go to the eu, take them up on their word that a great deal can be done if people are willing withinjust a great deal can be done if people are willing within just a few days to try and see if he can get a deal. Iimagine the to try and see if he can get a deal. I imagine the eu looking on at the chaos which prevails in our country, they might think, why would we negotiate with a Prime Minister who doesnt have a majority, and who might not be in power come tomorrow . Because they want a deal. They arent laughing. They are certainly watching. They have indicated a few areas where they might move a bit. I think the room for a fudge for a deal that are slightly immense theresa mays deal is fairly clear. Its about treating the island of ireland as one. It means some concessions from the dup but their moment has probably passed. They could be room for a deal there. As to why the eu want to do it, they wa nt to why the eu want to do it, they want this to end as much as anyone. Let me paint a scenario. Lets say he comes back from new york tomorrow, there is an emergency order in parliament, ministers there, there probably will be some guerrilla warfare in the house. But on friday he has a problem because the conservatives are going to their conference. It is legitimate to bring a queens speech. As Boris Johnson says, this is the longest Running Parliament since the english civil war. He could prorogue on friday, couldnt he . There is no stopping him. Does he want to vote ona stopping him. Does he want to vote on a recess . Recess is different from prorogation. The prorogation effectively didnt happen, so those pieces of legislation which fell because parliament was prorogued didnt fall, they are on the table. The court made it clear that its not every instance of prorogation which would be unlawful. It did recognise that prorogation for a normal, reasonable period of time to establish a new queens speech would be lawful. But we need to think carefully about setting those reasons clearly, making it clear, and making it fit with the normal pattern of a short period of prorogation if you are going to go down that line. Lets be clear, its legitimate for him to do that on friday. Bronwen maddox, what he could do, effectively, is called Jeremy Corbyns hand, he could force a vote of confidence in that queens speech if he called it two days after the tory Party Conference. Speech if he called it two days after the tory Party Conferencelj after the tory Party Conference. guess thats right. But then we are backin guess thats right. But then we are back in the deadlock we had before all of this. It still holds that labour doesnt for its own reason wa nt labour doesnt for its own reason want to have a vote of no confidence and a general election unless it has secured the extension from october 31. Inaudible and borisjohnson is clamouring now foran and borisjohnson is clamouring now for an election. We may still have that deadlock. The point i was making was that if he did put a queens speech before parliament he could force that vote of no confidence, even though Jeremy Corbyn doesnt want to bring it because he would have to vote on that queens speech, wouldnt he . He would, but its a question. In normal times it would count as a vote of no confidence. Its a of whether labour have stuck that that its a question of whether labour would have stuck to that position. But they would have to approve it, u nless but they would have to approve it, unless they want to bring him down. But it is recognising, there is a difference between these important votes, whether you win or lose on these votes, and a specific vote of no confidence through the Fix Parliament act. Weve seen this before. There was a very strong vote against the withdrawal agreement. Then there was a specific vote of confidence. And yet there was a vote of confidence in the then theresa may government. It is perfectly feasible to vote against the queens speech, because you dont agree with it, but then not want to go for a vote of no confidence. Because of the way the act works. And because if you do go down a vote of no confidence then youve got the problem of how do you time a general election without it clashing with all of these legal responsibilities, to go away, and seek a further extension. We are not used to. Quickly, we could have a vote against the queens speech because he is determined to bring that, yet he is determined to bring that, yet he could still be in power and without a majority . Yes, and because of the way the fixed term parliaments act works. We regulated in sucha parliaments act works. We regulated in such a way that you only have general elections if you go through the provisions of those acts, and thatis the provisions of those acts, and that is why there is disparity. Interesting. Thank you both very much for your time. The british Prime Minister says he will respect the desision of the Supreme Court. But he doesnt agree with it. And certainly there is no sense he is about to resign. Quite the reverse. Today he said his determination to deliver brexit by october 31st was undimmed. The Prime Minister is in new york for the United Nations General Assembly in new york, and the Supreme Court judgement was read out at about 5 30 his time. When he first addressed the media he repeated that he would take britain out of the eu at the end of october. Lets take a listen. Lets be absolutely clear, we respect the judiciary in our country, we respect the court. I disagree profoundly with what they had to say. I think it was entirely right to go ahead with a plan for a queens speech. This is the longest period we havent had a queens speech for 400 years. Weve got a dynamic domestic agenda we need to be getting on with. More police on the streets, investment in our National Health service, improving our education. We need to get on with that and frankly we need to get on with brexit. Thats the overwhelming view of the british people, whether they voted to leave or remain, they want to get this thing done by october 31st. And thats what were going to do. Our correspondent Laura Trevelyan is in new york. You had two men under enormous political pressure at home meeting to discuss brexit. Do you think they came to any conclusions about brexit first of all, laura . Boris johnson was careful to say that the nhs wasnt for sale. Thats very important to the audience in britain. The americans are looking their lips at the idea of a new trade deal with the uk, and that means trade deal with the uk, and that m ea ns a ccess trade deal with the uk, and that means access to the nhs, and more access to our defence industry. Those are the kinds of things they will be trying to talk about. But, yes, im presuming this is a Holding Pattern meeting, really, because borisjohnson is pattern meeting, really, because Boris Johnson is going pattern meeting, really, because borisjohnson is going to be flying back tonight, high drama, leaving the un. Back to britain. Appearing in front of parliament tomorrow. Things are not quite going as planned but nonetheless President Trump was very supportive in that bilateral, saying he was hoping to see progress in november, referring, of course, to that brexit deadline of course, to that brexit deadline of october the 31st. Its a bit of a conundrum, isnt it, for number ten and Boris Johnsons team conundrum, isnt it, for number ten and borisjohnsons team and how close they get to donald trump . There was some reporting today that it might blow up in theirface. There was a moment in the press briefing today where he chastised a reporterfor briefing today where he chastised a reporter for daring briefing today where he chastised a reporterfor daring to briefing today where he chastised a reporter for daring to ask a question. Thats right chuckles thats right. The president seemed very upset at the question that borisjohnson had very upset at the question that Boris Johnson had got. Very upset at the question that borisjohnson had got. Its tricky, isnt it . For all that borisjohnson seems to admire Donald Trumps unabashed populism and his habit of saying it like it is, and you can see borisjohnson copying that in his, lets just get on with it, but up, get on with brexit thing. Buck up. Then there is the issue of who donald trump likes to hang out with. There are aspects to President Trump which are very un british. Therefore it is unwise for Boris Johnson to align himself with him. And the talk about opening up british markets to what many people might think our predatory american companies. And opening up the nhs, thatis companies. And opening up the nhs, that is to give a borisjohnson to navigate, and he said our nhs is not for sale. Its a tricky moment for these two populists who have been riding high. But for both of them now, there are tricky issues, brexit for borisjohnson, now, there are tricky issues, brexit for Boris Johnson, and now, there are tricky issues, brexit for borisjohnson, and the possibility the democrats may try to impeach donald trump on the other. Picking up on that, weve seen a tweet from the president saying that he is going to publish the account that was put out by a. A whistle blower, its a transcript of the democrats have been pushing for. This was the conversation he had with the ukrainian president. The inference is that he withheld military aid to investigate his political rivaljoe biden. Things are moving pretty quickly towards impeachment in washington, ive heard. Yes, there is going to be a statement from the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, latertoday. It seems there will be a resolution on the floor of the house on thursday. The resolution seems to be aimed at getting hold of this whistle blower complaint, this whole story was sparked off by a whistle blower who a p pa re ntly sparked off by a whistle blower who apparently overheard donald trump or had apparently overheard donald trump or ha d a ccess apparently overheard donald trump or had access to his calls with the ukrainian president. Didnt like what they heard. Asked for a official complaint. And the whistle blower complaint is what the House Intelligence Committee wants to get its hands on. We are hearing that the senate Intelligence Committee may even be trying to hold a meeting with that whistle blower as early as friday. Things are moving very quickly. You can almost feel the speed at which its happening from 200 miles away here in new york. The democrats are barrelling towards impeachment now, the key being the seven freshmen democrats all with a National Security background who came out and said, if this is true that the president tried to use a foreign rival to investigate a political power that this is grounds for impeachment, whilst the republicans are trying to throw sand in the gears, they now want to air out the whistle blower complaint. Its all moving very quickly here. Thanks very much indeed. President trump has accused iran of violent and unprovoked aggression following the attack on saudi arabias oil facilities. Addressing the un General Assembly, he said hed imposed the highest level of sanctions on tehran, and he would the noose further unless they change course. He urged other countries to follow suit to prevent iran aquiring a nuclear weapon. Hoping to free itself from sanctions, the regime has escalated its violent and unprovoked aggression. In response to irans recent attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, we just impose the highest level of sanctions on Irans Central Bank and sovereign wealth fund. All nations have a duty to act. No responsible government should subsidise irans bloodlust. As long as irans menacing behaviour continues, sanctions will not be lifted. They will be tightened. But donald trump faces a domestic crisis of his own. There are serious questions over whether the president witheld military aid from ukraine, to try and force the ukrainian president to investigate his political rivaljoe biden and his son hunter who was a director for a ukrainian gas company. Lets go to washington and speak to lanhee chen, a formerForeign Policy advisor to mitt romney. Very good to have you with us this evening. I want to talk about the speech first. Donald trump, this afternoon, made it quite clear, he doesnt particularly like multilateral organisations. I dont know what he thought when you watched his speech but at times he sounded bored, it looked flat, low key, sounded bored, it looked flat, low key, what did you make of it . Sounded bored, it looked flat, low key, what did you make of mm was a mellow donald trump. Certainly a different one from the one we are used to seeing on the campaign trail and large rallies in the us. But i do think the vision and the president presented is pretty consistent with where he has been all along. It was an America First kind of speech. It was almost a justification for nationalism. It was an opportunity for the president to talk about his domestic agenda, the domestic economy, in front of an audience that maybe didnt care that much about that. But again i think the president was trying to be disciplined in his approach. It is an effort to convey domestic policy through a Foreign Policy lens. An effort to convey domestic policy through a foreignpolicy lens. Do you think he set out in his speech today what saudi arabia wanted him today what saudi arabia wanted him to set out . I was getting briefings last week saying that saudi arabia has talked a good game behind the scenes but its always been a little reticent to criticise iran publicly and to ratchet up the pressure. think the president used the most powerful International Stage possible to lay out his case for continuing the maximum Pressure Campaign the us has had on iran. It was a clear statement of where the us is and a clear statement also calling on other countries to come alongside the United States in its maximum Pressure Campaign. And i do think it was certainly appropriate, given the evidence that the United States appears to have, and that other European Countries have come alongside and said they may concur with, as well. I do think for the saudis it was a forceful statement. Now the question becomes, how far will this go, and how much will the president continue to carry this out, in light of the fact we are going into an Election Year in the us . Id like to talk about domestic politics. He used to work for mitt romney. He said on twitter the other day that the president pressured the ukrainian president to investigate his political rival. Do you think people in the senate are starting to question whether they need to investigate this president . question whether they need to investigate this president . I dont think the sentiment is more widely held amongst republicans. Trump creates these incidents for himself. Mitt romney is in a unique position. He isa mitt romney is in a unique position. He is a statesman. He is also somebody who has been willing to speak his mind on a variety of different issues even when it has run across the president. Other republicans have been more reticent because they feel much more tied to the president s political fortunes. They feel like they dont want to be on the other end of a president ial tweet. Mitt romney has indicated he does not much care about those factors. Other republicans are in a different position and as a result i think theyve been more reticent to criticise the president. Nancy pelosi making a statement tonight at five oclock. She is meeting senior democrats right now. Do you think there is now a sense of when and not if they impeach the president . Absolutely. It is a near certainty that democrats will continue to impeach the president. That will begina impeach the president. That will begin a process which probably wont end in the removal of the president but none will be a distraction for the president here. It is something democrats and progressive americans want. I think nancy pelosi and democrats are being responsive to the desires of their constituency. And they feel its good politics. Whether or not, we shall see. Grateful for your time this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Boris johnson did meet with donald trump today. The american president says they are working quickly to put together a magnificent trade deal, his words. But the Prime Minister also met with the irish taoisoch leo varadkar after his meeting with the European Council president donald tusk yesterday. Remember, we are just under three weeks away from the European Council summit in brussels, and still no sign the two sides are any closer to a deal. Lets go to katya adler, our europe editor in brussels. You said that with such a sigh know you are having to read the runes and find out what they make of it. Do they make of all this . Obviously, it was a big ruling by the Supreme Court today. Whereas privately eu contacts have described the ruling to me as humiliating for borisjohnson, the ruling to me as humiliating for Boris Johnson, an embarrassment for the Prime Minister in their eyes. Actually, on the ground, when it comes to negotiations, the ruling changes very little. It is seen by the eu as a domestic political matter. And what happens next in the uk. The eu is not a player in that. It prefers to concentrate on where it actually has a role to play, and thatis it actually has a role to play, and that is in negotiations. We had again today, just in case you were in any doubt, from the eu plus s chief brexit negotiator to say that the two sides, the eu and the uk, are very farfrom the two sides, the eu and the uk, are very far from one another when it comes to brexit talks. The eus chief brexit negotiator. The eu would be delighted if it were possible to have a brexit deal signed, sealed, and delivered by mid october, is Boris Johnson signed, sealed, and delivered by mid october, is borisjohnson would like. But they are extremely sceptical about that. The Supreme Court ruling today doesnt change that at all. That said, technical talks between the eu and the uk on brexit negotiations are continuing. As early as tomorrow. Despite whatever is going on in parliament in parallel when mps meet the Prime Minister once again. If they did get a deal, and i realise it is a big if, do you think they would tie it to, this is it, vote on this, no other offers, you know, if you dont vote for this then it is no deal and you are out . No. I heard that rumour, but it wasnt coming from eu sources at all. Basically, what they say is the uk has come forward with, sort of, the outlines of what could bea sort of, the outlines of what could be a proposal. And it says now that its the eus turn to make some kind of concessions to the uk. The eu is sticking to its position but it wont make concessions until there are concrete, detailed, technical, legally operable proposals on the table of how to replace that backstop guarantee for the irish border. It says the uks position so far falls far border. It says the uks position so farfalls far short of border. It says the uks position so far falls far short of that. There are no real negotiations taking place, as far as the eu is concerned, and as you pointed out there is only three weeks to go until the summit of eu leaders in brussels, by which time the Prime Minister says he wants to have a deal in place. The eu view is, that would be great, but we are nowhere near it now, and we would have to be rolling up our sleeves if we were to do it in three weeks time. The eu sees that as a false final date. The current brexit date, by law, is the 31st of october. Eu leaders think it is more likely a deal could be done by then but that it would take compromise from both sides. Even then would that deal get through parliament . The eu isnt convinced. Ido parliament . The eu isnt convinced. I do pick up these little things, i like you to set me straight. That is why are asked. Nice to see you. We run out of hyperbole for this brexit story, havent we . And the telling of it. But even by brexit standards, today was quite extraordinary so lets reflect on what it means, what the implications are for Boris Johnson. With me is helen thomas, who was formerly an adviesr for George Osborne when he was chancellor of the exchequer. Chuckles what does he do when he comes back, what does he say to his party . The thing is, this is all part of a strategy, strange as it might look, that we know that this eventual election will be portrayed as the people versus the establishment. And of course the ruling todayjust throws the judiciary into that bulk of the establishment. The question is whether his party continue to think that a good strategy or not. The public like Prime Ministers to dig in but they dont like chaos and there is a whiff of chaos around all of this. I suppose there is in a sense but so far its not really impacting the man on the street too much. It all looks like fuss and bother. Not if you have strong views. If you have a strong view either side, all this does is entrench that position, what has happened today. Is it a dangerous strategy . It is more divisive, isnt it . I know there was an electoral strategy behind it but it divides the country even further and it pulls the courts into it, as well. It is but i think deliberately so. As is predicated on the fact that this issue is so divisive that you must pick one side or the other. The labour party has got itself into all sorts of torturous positions by trying to look both ways. An understandable strategy still buy them. But i think what we must look at here, which is quite different about the world of politics for two, three decades, is that it isnt really about a Centre Ground when it isa really about a Centre Ground when it is a topic that is divided. If you think the electorate is polarising you have to pick a side. Some of the briefings, people who have talked to number ten sources have said he is furious behind the scenes, it could not have gone worse, then this end goal today. Will he be looking closely at his advisers . Everybody is worried about the advice he is getting from dominic cummings. But also the advice he got from the attorney general. Im sure there will be a lot of pressure on the circle around Boris Johnson. Will be a lot of pressure on the circle around borisjohnson. But it depends how committed he is to the strategy. I suspect he would not have started on this path if he wasnt committed to it. The key thing is, since that extension in march, april, both the labour party and conservative party plummeted in the polls. Another extension is no longer costless, electorally speaking. So, tough and difficult as this strategy might be and unpopular in many ways, there has to be some kind of resolution one way or the other, or both parties, frankly, go into a potential freefall. Im sure youre talking to people in the conservative party at the moment. What are they saying about the conference next week . Keir starmer said today that we are not going to vote for a recess, why should we. There is that but the lib dems and labour parties have managed to have theirs. So there is an element of, why would you deny the conservative party their chance to have it . Equally, you might rather relish the idea of that party being in the spotlight for a good couple of days if you are in the opposition. They might shorten it. And if they want to rally behind borisjohnson . Might shorten it. And if they want to rally behind borisjohnson7m depends on which way you think it will go. He has a mandate. That is what is interesting. 2 are saying he needs a different strategy to move back, bring people back into the party, but the membership is fully behind him. It is. And those who put him there in the first place are also behind him. The conference mood would rally behind that. But its not quite clear necessarily how all of his mps will follow. But i see david gawking saying if there was a vote of no confidence he would back the government. Lots of noise at the moment. But really not much action changing the picture as things stand. Not a lot of action not enough Decisive Action thank you for coming in. Do stay with us on bbc news as we continue to examine the repercussions of todays Supreme Court judgment and examine the repercussions of todays Supreme Courtjudgment and what it means for the uk parliament. They will be back tomorrow. They are sitting wednesday morning. Coming up in two hours time we will be hearing from nancy pelosi, as well, the House Speaker over in washington. She is meeting with senior democrats at the moment, talking about an impeachment process and whether they will begin that impeachment process against donald trump. Lots to talk about in the course of the next hour. Do stay with us. This is bbc news. 11 of the countrys most senior judges unanimously rule borisjohnsons decision to prorogue was wrong and say it stopped parliament carrying out its duties in the run up to the brexit deadline. The Prime Ministers advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. Mps will return to parliament tomorrow. Boris johnson says hell abide by the ruling but hes not happy about it. I have the highest respect of course fair judiciary i have the highest respect of course fairjudiciary and for the independence of our courts, but i must say, i strongly disagree with thisjudgment. The Prime Minister has been meeting with President Trump at the un well hear what they both have to say. In a momentous ruling, the british Supreme Court has ruled that the government broke the law when it suspended parliament. In a strongly worded and unanimous verdict, the 11 most seniorjudges in the uk concluded that the decision to Prorogue Parliament for five weeks was unlawful. The president of the Supreme Court lady hale said it had the effect of frustrating or preventing parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions. And that because it happened in the run up to the brexit deadline on october 31st it had an extreme effect on our democracy. The Prime Minister says while he disagrees with the ruling, he will abide by it but opposition leaders are calling on him to resign. Our Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg has this report on the Supreme Courts dramatic ruling and what it could mean for brexit. The storm burst well and truly. Campaigners and lawyers gathering at the highest court in the land. Ready to passjudgment the highest court in the land. Ready to pass judgment on the Prime Minister. When it came, the ruling was polite but devastating. Boris johnson broke the law. The decision to advise her majesty was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Jubilation outside in the rain. Restore some kind of hope, doesnt it . Who needs ha rd kind of hope, doesnt it . Who needs hard boos when you have got a judgment like that suspicious he had done it to close down debate on brexit, which he denied. The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. Nojustification on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The conclusion, it was illegal so it never happened at all. The Prime Ministers advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. The government lawyers a few weeks ago did not expect this. The courts traditionally allergic to politics and stay well away but the other sides legal dream came true. The ruling today speaks volumes. This Prime Minister must open the doors of parliament tomorrow. Mps must get back and be brave and bold in holding that unscrupulous government to account. Thank you. So what next . Immediate calls to new york 3000 miles away for the Prime Ministers audacious move condemned by the court to be a reason to resign. For some of his allies, its no emergency. There has been a court case in our country this morning which i think one of you may have picked up on. Another chance to suggest the establishment is trying to stop him. I have the highest respect of course furtherjudiciary and for the independence of our courts but i must say i strongly disagree with this judgment. Courts but i must say i strongly disagree with thisjudgment. And we in the uk will not be deterred from getting on and delivering on the well of the people to come out of the eu on october 31. But one number ten source told me the Supreme Court has made a serious mistake extending its reach into political matters. Attacking the judiciary when downing street and him are under attack themselves. Back across the atlantic, every politician is trying to peer into the future. The opposition snuff opportunity. The Supreme Court has Just Announced its decision. The labour leaders conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. And it shows that the Prime Minister has acted wrongly in the shutting down parliament. It demonstrates a co nte m pt parliament. It demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him and i invite Boris Johnson, and the historic words, to consider his position. Johnson out, they chanted. One member of the government told the bbc the Prime Minister should quit but it is far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. Instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats and the green benches themselves. There are still quite a few tourists in the chamberand still quite a few tourists in the chamberand i am still quite a few tourists in the chamber and i am talking to colleagues trying to find out what exactly we are going to be doing but we will have to get back to holding the government to account. we will have to get back to holding the government to account. I am in a taxi heading back to parliament, it should never have been suspended and we should be back in doing ourjobs. The official invitation on this crazy day was issued with customary formality. Last minute pump in the rain. I have instructed the house authorities to prepare a not for the recall, the prorogation was unlawful and void, to prepare for the resumption of the business of the house of commons. The house of commons sets tomorrow and that it does so at 11 30am. But once mps have raised back here tomorrow, but will they actually do . The alliance of former toadies, still rebels, might try to take control again after the government approach went so wrong. After the government approach went so wrong. The advice was clearly very poor and i think some of his advisers will have to leave. And they are still cooperating with the opposition parties. He does not want to be held to account or answer questions about his disastrous brexit policy and to do so he was prepared to mislead the queen and indeed the whole country. prepared to mislead the queen and indeed the whole country. If Boris Johnson would do the decent and honourable thing, parliament has a duty to come together to force him out of office through a vote of confidence. There is no sign of labour doing that yet and look who is in Boris Johnsons labour doing that yet and look who is in borisjohnsons corner. A place in power he might have dreamt of for years but after only two months it is proving harder than perhaps he thought it looked. Lets go to westminster now and our Political Correspondent jessica parker. Borisjohnson will fly home this evening after his speech, very late. No Prime Ministers questions tomorrow so what does he do it . Does he come to parliament or does he set about the inquest with a number ten . There might already have been something of an inquest going on this evening. We know there was a cabinet Conference Call at around 6pm. You imagine this difficult topic of the Supreme Court ruling will have been discussed but tomorrow borisjohnson will have been discussed but tomorrow Boris Johnson is will have been discussed but tomorrow borisjohnson is going to have to face the music one way or another. It is not yet clear whether he will come to the Commons Chamber ora he will come to the Commons Chamber or a Senior Member of his government, but i think what is clear is that mps from opposition parties, rebel tories as well, well use tomorrow to try to ask some difficult questions about what the government has been up to, as to whether it is to do with prorogation or its brexit strategy. But there be a vote of no confidence . It looks like parties are hesitant to go there yet. It is the same thing as before that we were talking about a couple of weeks ago. If they call a vote of no confidence and no other government is called, borisjohnson can set the date for november one and dissolve parliament. That makes mps nervous but a general election is lower in the corner and more a matter of when than f. Well, im joined in the studio by the constitutional expert, professor vernon bogdanor, whos professor of government at Kings College london. Can you think of a time previously where the advice given by a Prime Minister to a monarch has been questioned in law . This is the first occasion on which this has been done. But there have been many other occasions on which the discretion of the executive has been questioned in court, so it is not a hugejump of principle. Can we clear something up, the ruling did not explicitly say, and i have read this twice, as the Scottish Court that last week that it was done by borisjohnson foran that it was done by borisjohnson for an improper purpose. Was it inferred or did they set that aside . What the court said was that the reason given for the long prorogation was not sufficient and it was therefore unlawful, because it was therefore unlawful, because it would have the effect of undermining the chances of parliament to scrutinise the government. They made no comment about the motives of borisjohnson and therefore it would be quite wrong to infer that he misled the queen or lied to the queen and he made it clear that no one would know what passed between the queen and borisjohnson or other what passed between the queen and Boris Johnson or other ministers. Indeed, whether the queen asked for any reasons at all. So it would be quite wrong to infer anything about the motives but the unlawfulness was about the effects of the long prorogation. Just to expand that, that could have been a number of motives. Yes, maybe to stymie parliament as the court of session said, but also to get out the queens speech and an election platform. All of those things could have been true . Absolutely, and the court made no judgment about that. All they said was that the reasons given were not sufficient and the effect would be to undermine the chance of parliamentary scrutiny. And that is a fundamental function of british government, that it is accountable to parliament. Another problem is this, that parliament does not support the Prime Ministers strategy for obtaining brexit, under normal circumstances therefore parliament would either pass a vote of no confidence in the government or allow an election, and neither of those things are happening and that is the reason why we have a deadlock. Before the fixed term parliaments act, the Prime Minister and a Minority Parliament could simply go to the queen and an election might break the deadlock. I have heard a number of experts today say, yes, this is a significant constitutional shift and i have heard others say that this is thejudges i have heard others say that this is the judges restating the constitution, that parliament is sovereign and that it oversees the executive. Do you think it is a shift . Prorogation had been for six months, i think we would all agree that that would be unlawful and it would be right for the courts to intervene. Effort was for one or two days, we would all say perfectly reasonable. It comes into the intervening period in which differentjudgments are possible. It isa differentjudgments are possible. It is a complex legal case and the Court Unanimously has taken a decision that whether people agree with it or not is absolutely final. The Prime Minister says he doesnt agree with it but the ruling was emphatic. One is entitled not to agree with it and of course a lower court, the Divisional Court, which included the master of the rules and the lord chief justice included the master of the rules and the lord chiefjustice did say they thought it was lawful, and different views can be taken. Some academics think it is lawful, different views can be taken and we can argue for a long time about whether it is a good judgment or a bad judgment but in law it is the finaljudgment and ever must abide by it. This line of breaking news, the Prime Minister has spoken to the queen following the Supreme Court ruling, a Government Official has said. He has spoken to the queen. That might be an awkward conversation. Presumably the queen has taken legal advice herself and spoken to advisers about what has gone on. What do you think she would have been told . The queen was obliged in my opinion to follow the advice of her Prime Minister. It is not for her to consider whether that advice is legal or not. It is a matter for the courts and not for her to arbitrate between the Prime Minister and parliament, and it is then the case that if the queen acts on advice, it is a principle that served her well, if you dont like the decision you attack the Prime Minister, not the queen, so she preserves her neutrality and remains not only the head of state but the head of the nation. Thank you for coming and, very interesting thoughts. The decision by the Supreme Court is not only a bombshell but is far more strongly worded than many expected so strongly worded than many expected so what does it mean for the relationship between the courts and government and what could it mean in the future. Ealier our Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman sent this update. In terms of significance it doesnt get any bigger than this. This was a unanimous ruling by the highest court in the land that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend what is parliament, the sovereign body in our constitution, with the effect that the government could not be scrutinised. It just that the government could not be scrutinised. Itjust doesnt get any bigger than that. This is whats known as a judicial review. We have had them for a long time and they have grown exponentially from the early 1980s, and they allow a citizen, someone like gina mellor, to go before a court and ask independentjudges to review a decision or behaviour of a public authority, so it could be a minister or in this case the Prime Minister. And it gives the power to judges to determine whether those actions were lawful or not. It has been around for a long time but we have never had a case of the constitutional, political and legal significance of the case and the ruling that we have had today. So it is simply huge, the consequences are enormous, the political damage is very considerable, and many people will say this as a political decision by judges and certainly because of judicial review, judges can be asked to give a rule on almost any area of government policy and some people think that has dragged the courts into the realm of political decision making. Other people say this is a critical safeguard within our constitution for the judiciary to protect against the abuse of executive power by the government. So some people will be saying judges are now too political but what there certainly is is a very firm reminder that whoever you are, even the Prime Minister, youre not above the law. Im joined by drjoelle grogan a senior lecturer in law at Middlesex University london and robert craig who teaches constitutional law at the university of bristol, who will be with me tonight to discuss the days events in more detail. By by the end of the night we will know more about the Supreme Court and what its ruling means but good to have you here. Lets talk first of all about the reaction to today because of course in these divided times in which we live at the moment, people are conflating brexit and the ruling but actually the ruling was quite separate from brexit . Not only is that through but lady hale specifically raised that point at the beginning of the hearing and the judgment being delivered, and she emphasised time and again that the decision on this case had nothing to do with brexit per se but as to whether parliament would be prorogued for a longer or shorter period of time. And the other thing, there was one barrister who was making very general submissions to the court and judge afterjudge afterjudge submissions to the court and judge after judge after judge intervened to say, why are you talking about this in terms of Brexit Issues . One judge even said, can i point out to you that lots of people are watching the sun may come to the impression that that is what we are deciding. He took so much that he eventually sat down. That is so concerned the judges were to make sure they were not giving that impression. Judges were to make sure they were not giving that impressionm judges were to make sure they were not giving that impression. If you carry that forward and let set brexit aside, are we saying that every time a Prime Minister goes to parliament to prorogue, every time the there will be a legal challenge . I will the there will be a legal challenge . Iwilljump in the there will be a legal challenge . I willjump in and saying though. I will say that in the judgment that is in context and exceptional time and an exceptional prorogation. We will not see this happen again u nless will not see this happen again unless the next prorogation is set to be for a hundred years. Again, trying to push those boundaries and limitations. If the Prime Minister comes with a reasonable justification, there is no case. What about the attorney general . A lot of the speculation tonight is that he had said to the Prime Minister ahead of this challenge, dont worry, we are in safe legal ground. Is thatjust a risk that every attorney general takes . You can build a case and you might lose but that is the way it goes . Fundamentally that is correct and the attorney generals case is confidential so we dont know what he said, but dont forget, the Divisional Court took the opposite view to the Supreme Court. It had the lord chiefjustice, three of the most seniorjudges the lord chiefjustice, three of the most senior judges outside the lord chiefjustice, three of the most seniorjudges outside of the Supreme Court, and that alone justifies why the attorney general was entirely within his rights that might not within his rights but justify. Ijust mean in terms of hisjob because justify. Ijust mean in terms of his job because there will be pressure on him, but you are saying that he gave advice to the Prime Minister that he thought was right. He did not only think he was right but an extremely senior court, and the Supreme Court followed the approach of the Scottish Court. If we speculate that the government was at least if not safe than had strong arguments, that would have been couched in those terms. There is always a chance that courts can go ona always a chance that courts can go on a different direction. Litigation is always risky. Ijust want on a different direction. Litigation is always risky. I just want to bring people more of what has happened between borisjohnson and the queen. He has spoken to the queen, we are told by number ten in the last hour. Asked if he had been apologetic in that call, the official declined to comment on the conversation. We will never know because certainly the queen will never let knowing what her feelings are and never let knowing what her feelings are and i dare say borisjohnson will not tell us either. Anyway, lets talk about prorogation. There isa lets talk about prorogation. There is a fairly high chance that Boris Johnson might decide to prorogue again before october 31. We will probably see a few days to bring in that queen speech and the new legislative agenda that has promised and we are still expecting to see. One of the questions will then be, a lot of the judgment we saw today turned on the bills that had died on the floor, that didnt continue during the prorogation, and also a lot of the secondary legislation that was planned to be created by government and whether or not that voter turn and we will see that come back for consideration. It is very important because a lot of people will say, he will do it again after everything we have been through, but this is the Longest Parliament as he likes to say since the english civil war. It is quite legitimate to have a new queens speech. He could, prorogue to allow the conservative Party Conference next week, a couple of days and come back next week, could he do that . He could put a motion down from a recess which usually happens in september, so of the commons consents to recess for the commons consents to recess for the conservative conference, that would be a few days to a week, and nothing to do with prorogation. After that he might do what you call a standard prorogation in five days and then simply have the queens speech after that. There is a slight ankle because the last act that got royal assentjust at ankle because the last act that got royal assent just at the end of the prorogation process was actually given that royal assent during the process of prorogation. That means that that act is on the parliamentary role which according toa parliamentary role which according to a case that all first years in constitutional what will no means it is unchallengeable, meaning the royal assent that was granted this possibly void, and that makes it very difficult to know whether royal assent has to be granted again, are the fact it is on the parliamentary role means it is now immune. These are difficult questions created by the side effect of the judgment a quick question on lady hale who was ce ntre quick question on lady hale who was centre stage today. She has been very outspoken about getting women into thejudiciary very outspoken about getting women into the judiciary and diversity in the judiciary. There into the judiciary and diversity in thejudiciary. There she into the judiciary and diversity in the judiciary. There she was on centre stage and when we look back on this moment we will consider the judgment she passed down today. on this moment we will consider the judgment she passed down today. I am a huge lady hale fan and announce my prejudice immediately, i think she isa prejudice immediately, i think she is a legal superhero. It was incredible for not only seeing lady hale lead and be the president of the Supreme Court and she has done an incrediblejob the Supreme Court and she has done an incredible job as a judge, but what was really important to remember about this judgment as a whole, it was unanimous. 11 judges of the United Kingdom Supreme Court making a single judgment on the most foundational principles of our legal system. You have 11 judges seeing parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability are determinative of legal power. I cant think of anything more powerful, by an incredible, incredible judge, powerful, by an incredible, incrediblejudge, or by anyjudge in the uk. It is quite humbling how much expertise we have had in the studio this evening, but thank you for your insight. You are watching a bbc news special. Stay with us, lets just remind you what is going on in the United States this evening. Joe biden, i think we can show you some pictures. Joe biden is speaking at the moment in delaware where the democrats are obviously talking quite a lot about impeachment. I am sure he is going to be asked about that. There is the whistle blower report and all the focus on President Trump, what did he say to ukraine, that he withhold aid to put pressure on that man you are looking at . Lots going to happen tonight in washington away from this brexit story. Stay with us, youre watching bbc news. We have opted away our world viewers. Lets pick up away our world viewers. Lets pick up where we left off on the constitution. Jim cormack is a constitutional law expert at lawyers pinsent mason, hejoins me now from edinburgh. Lovely to have ufos. I was thinking today, when you listen to some in scotla nd today, when you listen to some in scotland to say this is the westminster parliament, scotland doesnt have any influence over it. Here you have the Supreme Court following the judgment of a high Scottish Court. You couldnt have any more influence on the way westminster is run . It is important to bear in mind that the Scottish Courts in these matters ofjudicial review have equal competence with the courts of Northern Ireland, england and wales, so it is another aspect of our constitution which applies through the three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, and it so happens that the United Kingdom Supreme Court is the Overall Court of appealfor all kingdom Supreme Court is the Overall Court of appeal for all three of those jurisdictions. I court of appeal for all three of thosejurisdictions. I hope it is not impudent to ask but i was just wondering what might have happened if the Supreme Court had set aside the court of sessions judgment and what that might have meant for the ties within their union. That would have been a legaljudgment rather than a political one, because the Supreme Court has been very careful to say that it is basing its decision on legal considerations, and as has happened in this case and often happens in cases, judgments get reversed on appeal in different courts ta ke get reversed on appeal in different courts take different views, and thatis courts take different views, and that is just a feature of our legal process. I dont think it would have caused any fundamental ramifications of that sort. The one thing they did set aside, i dont know if you heard our area guest, was thejudgment from the court of session that Boris Johnson had done this for an improper purpose. They didnt opine on that. They looked at it perhaps ina on that. They looked at it perhaps in a slightly different way, but coming back to the same essence of the point, which is that the issue of whether a prorogation of about five weeks at this time has a justification, and both courts have focused on that, both the Scottish Appeal Court and United Kingdom Supreme Court, have focused on that justification, albeit the uk Supreme Court focused on the effect on parliamentary functions of the prorogation and look that justification in that context. Fundamentally they were still looking at that justification for five weeks. I am afraid im going to have to leave it there but thank you for your time this evening. We are all feeling a little dry here in the studio. It was very wet this afternoon so lets have a look at the weather. We have seen a pretty disruptive area of low pleasure with localised flooding in places and the next sting in the tail, a spell of very windy weather across parts of south wales and south west england, along southern coastal counties of england. Through the night, gusts of 40 england. Through the night, gusts of a0 and 50 mph. Staying quite damp across the north and east of the uk, dry interludes across the north west. Generally, all the clouds and wind and rain, not going to be a cold night for every blue anyone. The remnants of the low pressure bringing wet and windy weather across the south and south east and then conditions improve with sunshine appearing. Rain easing away from central and southern scotland. Lighter winds and more sunshine, we could see 19, 20 celsius across the south. Remaining unsettled thanks to low pressure, wind and rain at times, the temperature around average and a bit cooler across the north. Hello, this is bbc news. The headlines eleven of the countrys most senior judges unanimously rule borisjohnsons decision to prorogue was wrong, and say it stopped parliament carrying out its duties in the run up to the brexit deadline. The Prime Ministers advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. Mps celebrate outside court and will go back to parliament tomorrow. Boris johnson says hell abide by the ruling but hes not happy about it. I have the highest respect for ourjudiciary in and for the independence of our courts, but i must say i strongly disagree with this judgement. The Prime Minister has been meeting with President Trump at the un well hear what they both have to say. Welcome to this bbc news special. The highest court in britain today ruled unanimously that the Prime Ministers decision, to ask the queen to suspend parliament for five weeks, was unlawful. Downing street has insisted that the Prime Minister will not resign. 11 judges said borisjohnson had failed to provide reasonable justification for his course of action. The ruling, which was unanimous, expressed concern that mps were being stopped from scrutinising government policy ahead of a potential exit from the European Union at the end of next month. We can speak to lord falconer, a barrister, formerjustice minister and the former lord chancellor in tony blairs government hejoins me via webcam. Ifi if i remember, it was you that set up if i remember, it was you that set up the Supreme Court in the blair government. It was the blair government. It was the blair government that that did. I was the lord chancellor at the time, yes. What do you make of the building today . A fairly young Supreme Court setting down a marker. An incredible marker. The first time anything like this has happened. It was the inevitable consequence of the Prime Minister asked the Supreme Court held unanimously. Seeking to undermine and stymie polymer to democracy. So it is incredibly clear 25 page unanimous judgement, delivered by the singular scottish and a singular english member of the Supreme Court. And it basically says thatis Supreme Court. And it basically says that is not lawful for a Supreme Court. And it basically says that is not lawfulfor a Prime Minister to do something which has the affect of excluding parliamentary accountability, due to the effect of the five week propagation being in effect closing down the parliamentary scrutiny since in no reason at been given for by the Prime Minister yet they put before the courts and they concluded that it did as shared news clip so the head of the Supreme Court set as a result, a prorogation is not in void. It is a stunning example of the courts being willing to move an extremist to protect parliamentary democracy. And that the event of the bully, do you think borisjohnson should resign . In the event of the ruling. That is a matterfor the politicians to decide. It is devastating for the Prime Minister for any Prime Minister to have been held and have done something to the effect of which is to undermine the fundamental of our constitution. I wonder whether or not people will think that person is safe as Prime Minister. The effect of the ruling in the senses like an electric shock for the Prime Minister. You cannot with the degree of content in casualness he has shown treat the constitution as it if it is something you can do with what you like. The whole weight has fallen on johnson. An effectively held him com pletely johnson. An effectively held him completely in the wrong. Sorry to interrupt. I was going to say we will never see their legal advice he was given by the attorney general but you have worked in that sort of capacity. Do you have some sympathy with the attorney general because he has told the Prime Minister that when he was doing was illegal and proper . I have sympathy with the attorney general. I have seen an extra ct of attorney general. I have seen an extract of advice that was given and made public this morning which said that the attorney general advised that the attorney general advised that it that the attorney general advised thatitis that the attorney general advised that it is lawful and those who said it was unlawful or motivated by political motives. The attorney general could perhaps be forgiven for getting it wrong because a Divisional Court, the court below in england, said it was lawful. There was a repetition overview as it was lawful. But i dont think any legal advice if you are the Prime Minister to be told to close parliament down from five weeks to stop it causing you trouble on brexit was not against the spirit of our constitution. The attorney general got it wrong but the person who really carried it down for this is the Prime Minister because he decided in order to stop the debate on brexit at the close parliament down. And the question is put aside the law, it was that an appropriate thing for the Prime Minister to do. It was not. As it happens, it was also unlawful. I have to pick you up on one thing he said. Not a man he said that people is this a ban that people will win as Prime Minister of our country, your party has the power to remove him. Quite easily. We couldnt remove him tomorrow. It depends on a book of no confidence. You could call that a vote of no confidence tomorrow. We could but the only way that it we could remove the only way that it we could remove the Prime Minister would be if the vote was one. And i noticed today that those 20 or 21. The minority government, 21 tories have lost the web, what happened they vote in favour of the Prime Minister . And i know david in amber rudd said they would. And many people would say in mind of what you just say it, and given thatJeremy Corbyn is accused forjohnson today to have a trump style power grab, that is the sort of person that labour should want to remove. It certainly is the sort of person labour should want to remove. But will we succeed in doing it within the current parliamentary arithmetic . I dont know the answer. Thank you very much. We were talking about the attorney general. Washington says he still has confidence in the attorney general despite the advice he was given. Borisjohnson says he still has competence. Jeffrey cox maintain the Prime Ministerfull confidence, the source at number ten, not the Prime Minister, he said yes the Prime Minister does have confidence in his attorney general. That coming from new york. Well to take a closer look at this with Michael Zander qc, emeritus professor of law at lse and writer for the new lanournal and im also joined byjemma slingo, a reporter for the law society gazette. Welcome to you both. Are you slightly gob smacked by what is happening today . slightly gob smacked by what is happening today . I was expecting it. I was actually expecting it. I predicted it some days ago. I originally before the case started i was not confident and i thought that lord sumter in his interview when he said the courts probably will go with the Divisional Courts and probably uphold what the Prime Minister did. Probably uphold what the Prime Ministerdid. I probably uphold what the Prime Minister did. I thought well maybe thatis minister did. I thought well maybe that is right but then, when i read the arguments that david penick put in his written brief statement, i change my mind and i thought this is power. And i think it might be persuasive. As a developed, i became more and more convinced that was probably going to be happening. The second time that the 11 justices have sat together. Were you surprised it was unanimous and do you think it is taking them a few days to come to that decision or . was very surprised actually indeed. Sort of the judgement as a whole was a great deal punchier than i was expecting. The fact all 11 judges sorted together in their decision, the remedy they came to as well, i think i was on decide that it would be ruled unlawful but the fact that it was so strongly worded, so unanimous, came as quite a shock and toa unanimous, came as quite a shock and to a lot of our lawyers we are speaking to as well. They share a similar view. Boy johnson said he doesnt agree with the judgement which is he entitled to do. Thats brucejohnsson said. Which is he entitled to do. Thats Bruce Johnsson said. Which is he entitled to do. Thats brucejohnsson said. Boris johnson. Thank you for sharing. It doesnt make anything third book. The law is the law. Nigel farage is also commenting today. Saying we have a Supreme Court which is a junior court. And we have taken our eye off of the constitution affect it has in that country and coming back to that in the weeks and months ahead. As we do that, do you think there is a chance that we start to move towards an american system where the politics of the justices i looked at more closely . Absolutely not. The whole system is against that. I think rightly so. Because the courts actually are not involved in politics at all. They are in legal questions, would sometimes broach onto political issues. But legal issues are legal issues. I dont think we want to know anything at all about, the political background of the judges extremely uninteresting. I dont think. You will know that obviously there was going to be a debate about who they are and whether they are setting against brexit. It is completed whether we like it or not. These are the times we live in. Nothing to do with brexit. Absolutely the idea this is a brexit issue is not correct. But there will be that argument. People come up with all sorts of silly arguments. That is where my fears, perhaps in a strange backwards way this plays into Boris Johnson posh hands because it could be feeding into the rhetoric of us versus them, the populist argument that somehow these judges are not representing the voice of the people and this judgement is representing the voice of the people and thisjudgement is one indication of that. It is generally a healthy thing that has happened in the last few weeks . And that we have had new experts on the panels over the last few days, we understand much more about our Supreme Court and the way the law works. That is a healthy thing. Very healthy. The viewing public for the preceding, it is been immense. Tens of thousands, not hundreds or thousands but millions of people have been involved watching. That is a very good thing. The law society gazette, explained to me how, this is heaven for you, just like this. Will you pour over and be full of the detail what it means . It was a busy day in the office. The Comment Section was quite lively. What do you take it . Well, you getting . There has been a very broad range of comments actually. Thats what comments are you getting. On the side of a passionate brexiteers saying this was a betrayal, to some very analytical looks at the judgement itself. And i think that is what we try to do at the gazette, really pour over the legal details, we are not lawyers obviously but to see the nuances and the potential future implications of such a judgement can half what do you think are those of future implications our do you think attorney general both will advise Prime Ministers into the future . And will look at the judgement in make very different decisions . will look at the judgement in make very different decisions . I dont know if they will make different decisions. But they will look at this decision with apprehension and worry as to whether they will not make it is so often a political position. We might not like the politics but at the prerogative of the executive to take the decisions. There is a fear. That suddenly you have a legal challenge and somebody like gina miller who says i dont agree and back in the courts. Like gina miller who says i dont agree and back in the courtsm like gina miller who says i dont agree and back in the courts. It is agree and back in the courts. It is a question of whether the legal challenge would be successful. If it would be successful, then you better not do it. Other work here, the Prime Minister advisers and the Prime Minister advisers and the Prime Minister advisers and the Prime Minister went over the top and went far beyond what was appropriate and the court has slapped it down and the court has slapped it down and said no. You cannot do this. So next time, i think the advice will bea next time, i think the advice will be a little bit more careful. Thank you both forjoining us. Maybe i need to pick up a copy of the gazette. I feel like an expert now. Lets hear a little more of thatjudgement in the uk Supreme Court. This is the moment the courts president lady hale announced its dramatic ruling this court has already concluded that the Prime Ministers advised to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it lead was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the house of lords, it was as if they had walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect, parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgement of all 11 justices. It is for parliament, and in particular the speaker and the lord speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, 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. Plenty a comment today about that fantastic broach. I read today they are even making t shirts with that approach on it. He im joined now by recent law graduates raza nazar and current law student alice bennett. Welcomed to you both. Which of you thought thejudgement welcomed to you both. Which of you thought the judgement would go this way . Personally, i didnt think it would go this way. Not as strongly as this. Not unanimous like this. As law students. In a semi gradually, did you study the High Court Ruling and did you follow closely . Any current law student. I think what ill say is i have to start back was that we didnt actively study but i watch this Supreme Courtjudgement life, which was brilliant, i never thought two years ago that would would be happening will stop you cant help but not watch it. This is compulsive viewing is it . I have to say, it was quite heavy for me. Compulsive viewing is it . I have to say, it was quite heavy for mem is better than netflix honestly. Just bbc news. It is thrilling. Being a law student, being able to use their knowledge and the information we are given in pressure public law, a module where youre able to understand the arguments that were being made to a certain degree, so it is fascinating. Many of our current and former teachers are now revising the syllabus as we speak. For the new students that are coming in fortheir share. Public law especially, looking at basic fundamental principles. Fascinating. We were saying all night that it is a historicjudgement. You think it will become part of the syllabus . Absolutely. Because it touches one of the most fundamental principles of the most fundamental principles of our public law. In that it is parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can make or unmake any law whatever. I think this pretty much goes to the question of Parliament Pass my capacity to make law. Because essentially what this ascension is is looking at we understand the basic principle that parliament can make law but this is also the question of what parliament suspended, the judiciary can come in and also say that yes, we will give them the capacity to make law. and also say that yes, we will give them the capacity to make law. I am not a law student. I say this with great hesitation. But i was not under the impression the prerogative was spelt out in law. The prerogative of the executive. Do you know whether that is the case and did they therefore create a statute today was mike know, the statute was not created today. The prerogative that exists in terms of the powers. The only question that was concerning i think, the key question was the scope of those powers. And in particular, whether the prerogative was set aside lawfully. That is the contentious bit which many of our students are commenting on. I think our lawyers get quite a few case notes for this decision. Absolutely. A lot of Student Engagement in this issue now more than ever it is a brilliant time to study law. Public law especially. Which is broken. Northern ireland . I am. The reason i ask is because what we have had some adjustments on the Court Session in a scotland in a judgement in Northern Ireland and what we have seen is there is a very diverse legal system within our United Kingdom. And it all came together in this a agreement. Yes. Do you think that it it strengthens the union that we have our national cause, Scottish Court, irish court, getting involved in the westminster issue . I think it is very important to realise that mps from Northern Ireland in the house of commons, absolutely, the court should be getting involved within the Supreme Court and it is great getting them altogether. Northern ireland, it is altogether. Northern ireland, it is a difficult place right now in a sense that only dup and mps are sitting in the house of commons with the exception of sylvia hermon, who is independent union snp fossa but i think it is important that Supreme Court took on what the Scottish Court said today. I have to ask you, not trying to freeze you out of our discussion. I have to ask you about lady hale. Somebody who aspires, i hope you aspire to be a qc or. What is the ambition . hope you aspire to be a qc or. What is the ambition . I suppose the ambition for this year is to finish my degree. Long term . Long term, yes to work in the law and i think to the point you are getting, seeing a female at the top there. Absolutely. Lady hale has spoken at lse last year. Ina lady hale has spoken at lse last year. In a public lecture. It was broken. To have somebody as a female at the top of the game that acts as an inspirational role model, i think it it inspires a lot a young woman to get more involved in the law. If you studied a lot and go for those top roles. Inspiring . Absolutely. Very inspiring to see this. And to play out. As students, for me, two or three years ago, we did public law and administrative law. Robert craig was on earlier. He was my tutor. To see that match over the few and follow it from the first significant cases in the last five or so years, significant cases in the last five or so years, the first case that came through in the sea that continuity in terms of development from public law, a lot has developed the past two years. I think this is one of those hallmark decisions that will be in the textbook for years to come. Fascinating talking to you both. Thank you both for coming in. Ididnt both. Thank you both for coming in. I didnt get to the end of my lob it in my degree. I had to drop out of it and went into communications. Thank you both. Lets bring you up to speed with washington. Very high power meetings on the democrat side. Nancy pelosi is meeting the Democratic Caucus at the moment. A number of democrats who are from swing states, freshman democrats have said they now want to investigate the president and is moving quickly towards impeachment and just reading care the House Speaker nancy pelosi says the house will vote on a wednesday on a resolution regarding the whistle blower complaint. A vote on the house for a wednesday in an appointed thing coming up on thursday. The acting director of intelligence is before the House Judiciary Committee and he will be grilled up no doubt on that whistle blower account and whether indeed it is released. Donald trump has said tonight that he will release that transcript. We will see whether it appears before that vote on wednesday. Donald trump and borisjohnson have been speaking to the press at the United Nations in new york. Mrjohnson was asked if he would resign following todays ruling by the Supreme Court. To be absolutely clear, we respect the judiciary in our country and we respect the court. I disagree profoundly with what they had to say. I think it was entirely right to go ahead with a plan for a queens speech. This is the longest period we have not had a queens speech for a00 years. We have a dynamic domestic agenda we need to be getting on with. Poilce, investing in our National Health service. Improving our education. We need to get on with that. And frankly, i think we need to get on with brexit. That is the overwhelming view of the british people. Whether they voted to leave or remain. They want to get this thing done. By october the 31st. That is what we are going to do. Ben wright has been out. They are saying the government will set up the business of the week tomorrow. Uk office has had the idea of another prorogation was not where we are at the moment. They also said the conservative Party Conference would be going ahead but it was not clear whether a recess motion would be required or not. Lets get a final thought from drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer in law at Middlesex University london, and robert craig, who teaches constitutional law at the university of bristol, whove been with me through the evening discussing the days events. Swell that out for us. We discussed earlier that it could or broke again. Spell that out. But what it might be easier to do it through a recess . Perot parliament again. One of the challenges and big judgements coming out and shifting things of how we look at parliament as we think that the extreme represents the common, the thing we have to remember is that prorogation isa have to remember is that prorogation is a very ordinary power. We had if iso is a very ordinary power. We had if i so long and is never been issue. It is an issue now by the larger context it is an issue now by the larger co ntext a nd it is an issue now by the larger context and the larger constitutional effect. We are not going to have situations of estes prorogation ok or if it is for a very reasonable justification. Like ending a session to get them ready for a new one. A few days. What is reasonable. What can happen is both. You can see a recess for the party co nfe re nce you can see a recess for the Party Conference which may or not get through parliament. The labour party is indicated they will vote against it. After all this effort to get to this point, why would the house of commons recess for a week to allow the conservative conference to take place. Who knows what will happen with that. But if they did get a recess, that doesnt stop them having a very brief prorogation afterwards. Which would be an extended length if you like and would lead to a five breakdown as well. It could be both. I dont know if this is outside of your expertise, but if the words of queen speaks, less paint that scenario. There have to be a vote on it. If there is a queens speech. Could we be in there is a queens speech. Could we beina there is a queens speech. Could we be in a place where the parliament votes against a queen speech, he has a minority only government come and get no election. Yes. This is something i happen to know about. I can answer this. Confidence is the central doctrine of the political constitution. If you formerly lose the confidence, you have an obligation historically before the fixed Parliament Act either to resign or to seek a general election through a dissolution of parliament. That is gone because the Parliament Act imposes a requirement that you either have to get a very, located set of things that it does but in this context, get a two thirds majority from the house of commons before a dissolution can occur. The Prime Minister technically lost come on the borderlines, made the bid to build a confidence issue, that meant that when the ban bill went through, technically, that was then could be argued that a lot the confidence of the comments but it wasnt a real vote in that sense. It is a borderline case. If he loses the queens speech, all a different order. One of the standards method when confidence is tested. If you lose that, you lose it. The next question is, whered you get the two thirds majority. Continue to have this paralysis we can have. Thank you very much. You are watching bbc news special. We wa nted we wanted to say goodbye to our well viewers who are with us. Lets pick up viewers who are with us. Lets pick up on that point. Our world viewers. This fixed term polymeric which people may not understand, they are going to have this again. The paralysis that we are in at the moment, extraordinary times with brexit, the paralysis we are in, he prevents what normally happens for decades in the british parliamentary system. This is what i will keep saying. Everybody can be sick at me saying. Everybody can be sick at me saying this. Brexit is exposing us to unprecedented questions. And time. I cannot think of any of the situation in which we wouldnt otherwise have been looking at the 2011 fixed time acting saying there are two clear path here, either a motion of no confidence or the Parliament Voting up to a general election. Previously weve always had the situation where the general election is the answer. Even in the hearing and very powerful statements. The general election he brings democracy back to the people. I cannot imagine again a situation like this. This really is another unprecedented moment. like this. This really is another unprecedented moment. I cannot agree more with that. Absolutely correct. The idea of historic, the 2011 act, no way that any of the opposition will vote against a two thirds vote. But in this amazing situation, twice now the party has or to find a calling and election. Has ministered not election. Look at what we are. Technically now, you can see a government losing confidence of the house of commons. And cannot get in the election. Refuses to resign. But if you are seeking in election, you dont have to resign. That is the rule. We have zombies like paralysis cost in great pa rt by zombies like paralysis cost in great part by the act. In all of this is going to compounded by the act of mandating the Prime Minister to extend by three months which is repeatedly said he will not do. He said he abased a lot so that means is only two choices. Either he resigns, or he sends a letter. No other options. That is another layer of complexion added to the situation. Sounds like it is a piece of legislation. All he needed a majority. Tory party had the last manifesto to repeal it. That is the only agenda. Thank you both for joining us this evening. Staring us through what sometimes are complex issues. Get to have you with us. Coming up, its outside source. Now its time for a look at the weather with stav danaos. Hello there. A pretty disruptive area of low pressure on tuesday bringing a spell a very wet weather with some localised flooding in places. And then the next staying in the tale, expel a very windy weather across parts of south wales in southwest england along southern coastal counties of england heading through the night. Gusts of 50 mph and further wet weather. It stays quite damp across parts of the north and east of the uk as well and a dry interludes. Generally, with all the cloud and rain, it will be a cold night. Heading into wednesday, the remnants of the low will continue to bring what and windy weather. Then conditions improve and sunshine appearing in which you see the rain easing away from central and southern scotland. Lighter winds, more sunshine and 19 or 20 degrees. As we headed to the end of the week, and into the is the start of the weekend, it remains unsettled, when in rainy times, temperatures around average, and a bit cooler. Hello, im Nuala Mcgovern and this is outside source. A unanimous verdict from the 11 judges of the Supreme Court they say the government acted unlawfully when it suspended parliament. The Prime Ministers advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. Mps celebrate outside court and will go back to parliament tomorrow. Boris johnson says hell abide by the ruling but hes not happy about it. I have the highest respect of course for ourjudiciary and for the independence of our courts, but i must say, i strongly disagree with thisjudgment