The government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that it can to implement it. Brexit secretary david davis is due to make a statement later setting out how the government will respond. Good morning from the Supreme Court which today has made legal, constitutional and political history. With this judgment by eight to three, it is parliament that has to three, it is parliament that has to trigger article 50 to begin the formal process of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. It is a defeat for the government, which said that through its Prerogative Powers it could trigger article 50 alone. But that was the decision by eight to three of the Supreme Court justices as it was read out this morning here the Supreme Court by the president , lord neuberger. Today, by a majority of 8 3, the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an Act Of Parliament authorising it to do so. Book briefly, the reasons given in a judgment written by al
two people. the first one is, it is about using the private sector more, something we should be very comfortable with. the second quote is, people go as nhs patients to the private sector and we could do more of it. can i ask the japanese prime minister which quote is from the prime minister and which is from the prime minister and which is from the leader of the opposition? mr speaker, may ijust begin by saying generally how sorry i was to hear that the honourable lady will be standing down at the next election. she and ijoined these house at the same time. and i know she has contributed much to her party and to this place. i am sure she will wish tojoin me in celebrating his majesty king charles receiving the scottish regalia pretty much as we speak. there is always time for a dumbass keen conversion, mr speaker.
unnecessary, unsafe and unfair. it must stop. we have a long way still to go and we are not complacent. but unlike the benches opposite, we have a plan. we are delivering that plan and we will not rest until we stop the boats. to speaker, may ijust say before i finish, i want to offer my apology to the opposition for the late delivery of this statement? and with that, i commend this statement to the house. with that, i commend this statement to the house- to the house. secretary of state, yvette c00per- to the house. secretary of state, yvette cooper. thank to the house. secretary of state, yvette cooper. thank you, - to the house. secretary of state, yvette cooper. thank you, mr . yvette cooper. thank you, mr speaker. yvette cooper. thank you, mr speaker. for yvette cooper. thank you, mr speaker, for your yvette cooper. thank you, mr speaker, for your response i yvette cooper. thank you, mr. speaker, for your response and yvette cooper. thank you, mr - speaker, for your resp
the presence of ldrs is so important. let me bring you and, because i guess it didn t look like good pr there, did it? no, it s a really pr mess up i would say. i think it all comes down to the key thing, which is reputation. that is what pr is about. it is about establishing good reputations and then keeping them there. and what happens when somebody tries to duck an issue, particularly somebody who is in a publicly funded role, and it is all about accountability. when that is threatened, it makes people trying to manage the communication and trying to manage that narrative, it makes them look bad, doesn t it? and frankly it makes them look like they have something to hide. it is something we always say we media train some of our clients, and we say never duck the issue of a question because why would you do that? you can answer it in a very small way. it can be a really bland and boring answer, but you have to answer it.