Fury as Boris Johnson says best way to honour Jo Cox is to deliver Brexit – as it happened

This from the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges:

And this from Tory MP Tobias Ellwood:

The sentiment that the increasingly irresponsible use of hazardous language is endangering MPs, judges and democracy itself has pervaded the evening and is even being uttered by Tory MPs now, here by cabinet minister Nicky Morgan:

Here my colleagues Heather Stewart and Kate Proctor with a summary of tonight’s Commons debate.

Boris Johnson addresses MPs after supreme court ruling and clashes with Corbyn – video

What a night it’s been.

Dominic Grieve told Peston he found the PM “terrifying” tonight, who received standing ovations from Conservative MPs for what Grieve describes as “total populism”.

Here a reaction from the former Labour leader Ed Miliband:

The Commons session has now been adjourned.

Boris Johnson has given ITV’s Peston a pre-recorded interview, which has aired at 10:45pm.

Here some excerpts from the transcript:

Boris Johnson: “60 days ago, nobody said that we could change the withdrawal agreement in the EU Treaty”

Robert Peston: “But you haven’t changed it”

BJ: “Nobody said everybody – on the contrary…Everybody around the EU. Now accepts that it must be changed”

RB: “But it may be changed. It hasn’t happened.”

BJ: “Nobody said that we could change the, uh, the backstop that is,”

RP: “But has it been done?”

BJ: “That is now under serious negotiation.”

RP: “t’s under discussion but when I talk to people in European capitals. They are very sceptical. You’ll get anything like what you want.”

BJ: “Well, it is certainly true, Robert, that uh, the British negotiating position has been undermined by the so-called surrender bill. Well not ‘so called’ It is a surrender bill. Uh, the, the, the bill that says that we’d have to rule out no deal. They’ve tried to wreck our negotiating position, but we’re not going to let them do it,

We’re going to get on and negotiate a deal if we possibly can. And if we can’t get up to you, then we’re going to come out of the EU on October the 31st come what may.”

RP: “But you did say something that I thought was very interesting to MPs, which is, that you believe now that EU are agreeing to some mechanism. You’ve got it, the principle of consent whereby whatever arrangements, if any arrangements to replace the backstop are agreed, they will be a way for Northern Ireland to get out of those arrangements. How would that work?”

BJ: “Well, I mean, this is, this is kind of where the rubber is hitting the road. Okay. The, the, the, the, the problem with the backstop is, is it, it’s the, it’s the arrangement, right?

Exactly. It’s the arrangement that keeps the UK locked in the, uh, EU’s legal order, the customs union and the single market with the EU having the say about our ability to exit. That’s the problem with it. And it’s just never going to go through the House of Commons. So we need to get rid of that.

RP: “But do you get any sense, you were saying to some MPs that you think the EU will move on that. Genuinely?”

BJ: “Yes, I do. And they already genuinely have moved in the sense that they’re willing to consider other ways that allow us to work with our Irish friends to accomplish several things. Number one, we need to avoid any kind of border checks.”

[...]

RP: “...the attorney general said today that you would abide by the so called Benn act, which says if you can’t get a deal, you’ve got to write to the EU requesting an extension. So you’re going to write this letter, are you?

BJ: “Well we’re going to go for a deal”

RP: “No! No! He said you would abide by this law, that means you would have to write the letter if there is no deal?”

BJ: “That of course only kicks in. If we fail to get a deal”

RP: “But you’re conceding there’s a reasonable prospect you’re not going to get a deal.”

BJ: “And under these circumstances, what I can say to you is that we will respect the law and we will come out on October the 31st”

RP: “But those two statements, many would say are completely incompatible”

BJ: “Well we will respect the law and we will come out on October 31st”

RP: “How?”

BJ: “Well. Obviously we’ve got some, some tough negotiations ahead and if you’ll forgive me, I don’t want to tip the hand of the UK government more than parliament is already required us to do so

RP: “The only reason I have the pleasure of seeing you here today is because you had to come back [inaudible]”

BJ: “No I was coming back anyway”

RP: [inaudible] many hours earlier than you would have expected.

BJ: “I fulfilled my commitments in New York.”

Rees-Mogg just promised “an exciting announcement” for tomorrow, and paraphrased the PM’s infamous “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” line - which originally referred to equal treatment of the Tory MPs who might vote down a new deal and the Tory rebels who lost their whip for defying the government a few weeks ago.

And here an interesting comment from Tim Bale, politics professor at Queen Mary, University of London:

While a somewhat deflated debate rumbles on about the PM’s conduct tonight and around the prorogation, I’m turning my attention briefly to this from Sky’s Beth Rigby:

Rees-Mogg now responds to a question by the shadow leader of the house Valerie Vaz, who quoted Rees-Mogg’s alleged remark about the Supreme Court ruling representing a “constitutional coup”. Rees-Mogg says this quote was attributed to him after a cabinet meeting, and that cabinet meetings are meant to be confidential, to much laughter.

He says it’s a reasonable thing to disagree with somebody while also respecting them, like it is the case with himself and Bercow, and repeats the PM’s stance that he believes the judgment was “wrong”.

This is what’s on tomorrow’s Common’s agenda:

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House, is now making his business statement.

He opens by picking up the topic of the evening: Language that can have dire consequences for members of the house and their families. Says while he personally has only been subjected to “minor” affronts, incidents relating to other members have been more severe.

A short while ago, Jeremy Cobyn called on the Speaker to get the leaders of all parties to issue a joint declaration “opposing any form of abusive language or threats”.

Rees-Mogg then congratulates Bercow for sitting in his chair for more than 10 hours.

Amidst the turmoil in parliament tonight, the Brexit shadow secretary, Matthew Pennycook MP, has resigned, citing his desire to focus his efforts on campaigning “unequivocally” for remain in a second referendum and the imminent arrival of his second child.

Anna Soubry is now speaking, again making the point that the use of inflammatory language in politics is vitally important to reflect on. She words such as “traitor”, “surrender” and “treason” are dangerous if deployed by politicians, and that the fact that MPs and their families are getting death threats because of such language could have grave consequences for parliamentary democracy.

Boris Johnson has now left the chambers, which has caused some opposition MPs to complain to the Speaker.

Bercow asked Johnson to stay and “sit down” on his way out, and told him it would be “courteous”, for him to stay, but then says he has been in the Commons for many hours and answered many, at times repetitive, questions, and that he does not think that the PM’s departure represents a breech of the stipulations set out by the Supreme Court ruling.

This from Brendan Cox, Jo Cox’ widower, on the PM’s remarks about his late wife tonight:

Boris Johnson is now answering questions from a half empty chambers, more than 3 hours after he first appeared at the despatch box to address the Commons.

Speaker John Bercow seems not bothered.

“The hour is still quite early,” he just told MPs.

Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse made Johnson a rather extraordinary offer in the Commons.

She said she will vote for his new deal, with the proviso that he promises to let the people make the ultimate decision in a second referendum.

This, she said, would “guarantee him” a majority.

Johnson’s response is that this remark shows the Lib Dems can’t be trusted, as party leader Jo Swinson pledged to revoke article 50 and scrap Brexit altogether.

Here a video of Paula Sherriff’s emotional speech about her friend Jo Cox, the Labour MP who was fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum. Cox was a passionate remain campaigner. Johnson’s response of “Humbug” to Sherriff’s speech is also being condemned.

This from Channel 4’s Ciaran Jenkins:

And this from the Spectator’s Isabel Hardman:

Outrage about the PM’s earlier suggestion that the best way to honour the murdered MP Jo Cox is to get Brexit done is widespread and growing.

Here Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon:

The Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson:

And this from Labour’s Jess Phillips:

Just a little reminder that it’s worth refreshing the blog every once in a while, as sometimes posts are added to or changed.

And here a true nugget of gold, courtesy of Boris Johnson, here reported by the Independent’s John Rentoul:

Boris Johnson just said, when pressed on whether he’ll go for a second prorogation, that the government will look closely at the provisions in the Supreme Court judgment to find a way forward.

If you thought parliament gave Theresa May a tough time, tune in and watch the sheer rage Boris Johnson is at the receiving end of tonight.

This from Labour MP Bridget Phillipson:

This from Labour’s Angela Rayner:

This from Green MP Caroline Lucas:

And this from my colleague Marina Hyde on tonight’s backlash against the PM’s tone:

This is the statement Lammy is referring to in the post below, here reported by the BBC’s Nick Eardley:

This from Labour MP David Lammy, on Downing Street’s announcement a little while ago that a second prorogation could be on the cards if the opposition does not table a no confidence vote tonight:

And this from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on the scenes that have played out in the Commons over the last hour or so.

This is a point well worth noting, in the words of SkyNews’ Lewis Goodall:

Labour MP Paula Sherriff just had a withering, tearful outburst in the Commons, saying Johnson should be “ashamed” of his conduct and that MPs had been threatened and put in danger, and should enjoy more respect from the prime minister. Sherriff reminded MPs of her friend Jo Cox’s fate, who was murdered by an extremist for standing publicly by her beliefs.

The PM rebuffed her remarks with blunt indifference.

This from the HuffPost’s Paul Waugh:

Justine Greening, who had the Conservative whip removed on 3 September and now sits as an independent politician, is now asking the PM whether, if he brings a deal back to the Commons and, if it is rejected, he will respect it.

She asks also whether he will respect the Benn bill and ask for an extension. She adds that it is “deeply disrespectful” of the PM to continue to call the Benn bill “surrender bill”.

Johnson responds by saying the “surrender act” has done great damage to what the government is trying to do, a clear and direct provocation. Adds that there will not be another extension.

The mood dips after this, with an almost eerie momentary silence falling over the Commons.

Anna Soubry, the leader of the Independent Group for Change, calls on Johnson to apologise to parliament and to the Queen.

The PM responds by bringing up John’s Major’s previous proroguing of parliament for 18 days, and adds that parliament still has enough time to debate Brexit and always had enough time.

Labour’s Jess Phillips says the biggest difference between her and the PM is that she’d be ashamed if the Labour party was responsible for the current mess.

She joins the chorus of MPs calling on Johnson to show remorse, apologise, and be honest.

This from the Labour MP Toby Perkins:

Yvette Cooper was next up, and brought up the incongruence between the attorney general’s concession from earlier that the government “got it wrong” in relation to prorogation of parliament, and the PM’s statement in the Commons a little while ago, in which he told MPs that the supreme court judgment was wrong.

Johnson responded by restating that the judgment “was wrong”.

The Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson, weighed in shortly after, and reminded the PM that “actions have consequences”.

“Even my five-year-old knows that if you do something wrong you have to say sorry,” she said.

Added that if her son can apologise for kicking a football indoors, the prime minster can have the humility to say sorry for “misleading the Queen and illegally shutting down” democracy.

Jeremy Hunt told Boris Johnson that he’s glad he’s not PM. He said that a large proportion of people are being “alienated” by attempts to block Brexit.

Hello everyone, I’m taking over from my colleague Andrew Sparrow now.

Ian Blackford, parliamentary leader of the SNP, is not beating around the bush tonight. “Has he no shame?” he asked about Boris Johnson in his speech in the Commons a little while ago.

Blackford said Johnson accuses MPs of running off to the courts, but has no reasonable justification for his actions, and called it “devastating” for a PM to have such judgment. That’s not leadership, he said.

He added that Johnson’s language was “despicable” and unsuitable for a PM, and that he is no longer tenable. He said the PM sought to silence parliament and fought the law, but the law won.

“The opposition must unite to trigger a vote of no confidence to bring this chaotic government down,” Blackford said.

He reiterated that the SNP’s priority is stopping no deal, and that doing nothing is no option anymore. The PM’s “time must be up”, he said.

The Speaker, John Bercow, reminded Blackford that he must not call on the prime minister to “end his lying”. Blackford conceded.

Johnson is replying to Corbyn.

He says he does respect the supreme court.

On the subject of the Benn Act, he says he will respect the law and come out of the EU on 31 October.

He says preparations for a no-deal Brexit are going well.

He says there is progress in the Brexit talks. But he says it has not been made any easier by the opposition, and the “surrender bill” (his term for the Benn Act).

He says he is sorry the Labour conference is over. He says he would have liked people to have heard more of Labour policies like abolishing private schools.

Johnson says he has heard that Corbyn wanted to announce an election in his conference speech. But he was censored by the “Stasi” in Labour, in the form of John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, he says. He says Corbyn is being held hostage by his party. “Free the Islington One,” he says.

He says: “This parliament must either stand aside and either let this government get Brexit done or bring a vote of confidence and finally face a day of reckoning with the voters.”

As he ends he gets a prolonged round of applause from Conservative MPs. This is unusual. MPs are not supposed to applaud, and when MPs do break the rules, it is more often SNP and Labour MPs who clap than Tories.

Corbyn says Johnson also has questions to ask about his conduct in public office.

He says the culture department is reviewing the awarding of a grant to a company run by his friend.

Did Johnson initiate that review? Will he report himself to the Cabinet Office for investigation.

Here is the Guardian’s latest story on this, from my colleagues Rajeev Syal and Matthew Weaver.

Corbyn says the Operation Yellowhammer document shows why a no-deal Brexit would be so serious.

Why did the government describe these documents when they were leaked as out-of-date? When it was published, it was exactly the same?

Corbyn says it talks of people going of without food and medicine.

He says Johnson has hardly put any progress into the Brexit talks. Any progress has been minimal. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said there had been very little support.

Corbyn says he has some questions for Johnson.

Does Johnson think the government got it wrong, or does he agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the supreme court committed a “constitutional coup”.

Can Johnson confirm that he will abide by the terms of the Benn Act?

Johnson says the opposition parties had a remedy at their disposal.

He says the opposition parties could have voted for an election.

In Brighton Labour members demanded one - even though they twice voted against it.

He says Jeremy Corbyn keeps changing his mind. He does not know whether John McDonnell has forced him to change his mind.

He asks if Corbyn will vote no confidence in Johnson as PM.

He asks if Corbyn even wants to be PM.

He says Corbyn wants him to go to Brussels on 17 October to negotiate a delay. But Corbyn won’t go himself. And even if he did want to go, his colleagues would not let him, because they don’t want him negotiating for Britain with people like Vladimir Putin.

Johnson says some MPs have been going to the courts to block Brexit.

He says it is no disrespect to say that while he respects the supreme court, he thinks its decision was wrong.

He says decisions about prorogation are political matters.

He says the Labour party is determined to say it knows best, and to thumb its noses at the people.

Jeremy Corbyn and his party do not trust the people, he says.

He says they do not care about the extra cost of staying in.

And they do not care about Brexit being delayed for months, he says.

He says he wants to move up a gear. But Labour wants to put on the handbrake.

He says he will not betray the people.

Johnson says the opposition parties are promising a second referendum.

But the idea that there could be a second referendum, with people respecting the result, is a fantasy, he says.

He says the public do not want a second referendum. They want the first one honoured, he says.

My colleague Heather Stewart has more on the plans for a vote tomorrow on a mini-recess to allow Tory MPs to attend their party conference in Manchester.

From the BBC’s Nick Eardley

John Bercow, the Speaker, has just confirmed that he wants Boris Johnson’s statement to MPs to start at 6.30pm.

My colleague Gwyn Topham has a wonderful story on the Grant Shapps Thomas Cook statement earlier. This is how it starts.

If there was a previous transport secretary that the incumbent, Grant Shapps, might hope not to imitate, it would surely be his notoriously calamity-stricken predecessor Chris Grayling.

But just a few months after his return to cabinet after several years out in the cold, Shapps appears to have followed Grayling’s example rather too closely – lifting sections of his speech to the House of Commons on the collapse of Thomas Cook from Grayling’s equivalent statement when Monarch Airlines went bust in 2017.

At the beginning of his statement, Shapps appears to have followed Grayling’s text almost to the letter, simply substituting Thomas Cook for Monarch and adjusting numbers. “With your permission, I would like to make a statement about the steps the government have been taking to support those affected by the collapse of Monarch Airlines, Thomas Cook, in particular the 110,000 150,000 passengers left abroad without a flight back to the UK and the almost 2,000 9,000 people who have lost their jobs.”

And here is the full story.

From the Daily Mirror’s Pippa Crerar

In the Commons Labour’s Justin Madders asks Gove if he has any plans to use the Civil Contingencies Act in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Gove says he has no plans to use it.

His statement is now over. John Bercow, the Speaker, says 87 backbenchers were able to ask questions.

The Gove statement is still going on – although the length of the statement is in inverse proportion to the quantity of information being revealed. Gove is doing a very professional job of sidestepping the awkward questions.

We have got a statement on Iran from the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, to come next. All this means that it will probably be 6.30pm at the earliest before Boris Johnson starts his statement.

In response to a question from the independent MP John Woodcock, Gove says it is impossible to tell if the food bill for an average low-income family will go up or down after Brexit.

Antoinette Sandbach, the former Tory now sitting as an independent, asks Gove if the government will now publish all version of the Operation Yellowhammer documents, as it is supposed to under the terms of the “humble address” motion.

Gove does not give that commitment. He just says the government is publishing a lot of detail about its no-deal planning.

Earlier Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, told the Commons that the automative industry was ready for a no-deal Brexit.

As the BBC’s Faisal Islam points out that, that is not what the industry’s trade body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said this week.

Labour’s Owen Smith asks Gove if he can assure police officers in Northern Ireland will not be asked to patrol the Irish border, putting their lives at risk.

Gove says the government has “absolutely no intention” of putting infrastructure at or near the border that might have to be policed.

Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, asks when the phrase “base case” in the Operation Yellowhammer document was changed to “worst case”. And he says, as chair of the intelligence and security committee, he wants to know what the mitigations are that will replace having access to the Schengen database.

Gove explains the difference between base case (agreed outcomes) and worst case, but he does not say when the wording was changed. And he refuses to say what the alternatives to the Schengen database will be.

Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, says even if Border Force officers get new powers, they will not have the information they need to check people in the event of a no-deal Brexit. She asks Gove why he is claiming the UK would be safer.

Gove says she has questioned people involved in national security and the Border Force. “Appropriate mitigations are in place,” he says, and new powers are available.

Sir David Lidington, the former Cabinet Office minister, asks what will happen in Northern Ireland if there is a no-deal Brexit. How will the civil service be able to manage if there is no functioning executive.

Gove says if there is still no power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland, the government would have to consider giving new powers to Northern Ireland civil service. That is because, under no deal, the civil servants running Northern Ireland would need to take decisions (in relation to matters like customs) going beyond the powers they currently have.

Tom Brake, the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman, asks how Britain will be safer than before when the police will not have access to EU crime and justice databases in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Because Border Force staff will have new powers, says Gove.

Damian Green, the former first secretary of state, asks if hauliers have done what is necessary to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. Green represents Ashford in Kent.

Gove says the government is contacting hauliers. But further steps need to be taken.

Gove is responding to Starmer.

He starts by welcoming Starmer back from Brighton, saying one thing about the House of Commons is that at least they record votes properly. That’s a reference to Labour deciding its new Brexit policy on a show of hands, despite calls for a card vote.

Gove repeats his point about the withdrawal agreement now being “in play” in the negotiations. And he says business is preparing for Brexit.

But Gove spends most of his time criticising Labour, and he ends by saying Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit policy is “as solid as a blancmange in a hurricane”.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is responding to Gove now.

He asks Gove to confirm that the four papers submitted to the EU about alternatives to the backstop are “non-papers”. And is it right they have not been shared with the EU27?

Starmer says he does not accept that businesses are well prepared. He sat with business leaders last week, and their main concern was about how ill-prepared businesses were.

He asks about the Commons vote earlier this month requiring the publication of all the Operation Yellowhammer documents. He says the government just published a short document (pdf). Nothing else has been disclosed.

Gove claimed it was a document from the last government. But it was dated 2 August, when Boris Johnson was PM, Starmer says

Gove claimed on the Marr Show was that this was an old document, and the worst-case scenario. Gove also claimed it was being updated, Starmer says.

He asks Gove to explain why, when it was leaked to the Sunday Times, it said it was a base case scenario. But when it was published it was described as worst-case scenario.

Referring to Gove’s comment on LBC this morning about Boris Johnson being a “born winner” (see 11am), Starmer says he is glad that Gove has not lost his sense of humour.

He says to leave the country unprepared for a no-deal Brexit is unforgivable.

From my colleague Daniel Boffey

From the Spectator’s James Forsyth

One theory is that the PM could resign, oblige the Queen to make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister, defeat the government on a no confidence motion and then wait for the election a few weeks later.

But there are two obvious problems with this tactic.

1) As PM Corbyn would have the authority to request an extension to article 50. That means Boris Johnson would be leading the opposition Tory party into a general election having failed to deliver his key pledge – taking the UK out of the EU by 31 October.

2) Incumbent prime minister have considerable advantages in electoral politics. Even with a government majority, they can exercise power and patronage and spend government money. And for Johnson the danger would be that, after having Corbyn as PM for a few months, the public might decide they like him a lot more.

David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary who had the whip withdrawn earlier this month after rebelling over Brexit, has called for Dominic Cummings, the PM’s chief of staff, to be sacked. Cummings is blamed for Boris Johnson’s decision to adopt a highly confrontational approach to parliament, including proroguing parliament for five weeks. “I think the prime minister needs a different strategy and a different strategist,” Gauke told the World at One.

A plan is in place to restrict holiday leave for police officers in Northern Ireland following Brexit. As the Press Association reports, a total of 10% of officers will be able to take time off for the first six weeks after the United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the European Union on 31 October. Police Service of Northern Ireland assistant chief constable George Clarke described it in an interview with the PA news agency as a “sensible operational contingency”, adding it would be kept under review.

MPs returning to parliament on Wednesday are discussing plans to force Boris Johnson to request a Brexit extension earlier than the current 19 October deadline, to avoid no deal, my colleague Kate Proctor reports.

In the Commons Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, is making a statement about Thomas Cook. He said that bailing out the company would have involved “throwing good money after bad”, but he said the government would legislate to ensure that in future airlines can be wound down in a more orderly way. He told MPs:

[Firms] need to be able to look after their customers and we need to be able to ensure their planes can keep flying in order that we don’t have to set up a shadow airline. This is where we will focus our efforts in the next couple of weeks. We will require primary legislation, and, dare I say it, a new session of parliament.

While all eyes are on the newly reconvened Commons, the Labour party’s autumn conference is still under way. Members this morning voted overwhelmingly to give full voting rights to all UK residents, urging the party to extend the franchise to millions of migrants.

As well as extending voting rights, the motion tabled by the Labour for Free Movement campaign calls on a future Labour government to close all immigration detention centres, ending “no recourse to public funds” policies, and to seeking to extend free movement rights.

The motion also opposed immigration systems based on a person’s income or “utility to big business” and any caps or targets on the numbers of people moving to the UK.

The fact that a motion passes at the Labour party’s conference does not necessarily mean it will end up in a future general election manifesto, though it contributes to the policy-making process.

Only British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens are able to vote in general elections, while citizens of EU countries can vote in local elections and European elections. Extending the vote to the 3 million EU nationals living in the UK would have a significant impact on any second referendum on the UK’s EU membership.

Ana Oppenheim, from the Labour Campaign for Free Movement and the leftwing pro-EU group Another Europe is Possible, said it was “a source of shame for many activists” that the party’s 2017 manifesto pledged to end free movement. She said:

Now we can move forward not only committed to defending free movement, but to giving migrants the vote. If we win, the next election will be the last election in which people like me are shut out of the democratic process.

Celebrating the success of the motion the Labour Campaign for Free Movement tweeted a photograph of the controversial “Controls on Immigration” mug, which was produced by the Labour party during the 2015 general election campaign. “Now officially in the bin,” the tweet read.

The motion said Labour should campaign for “free movement, equality and rights for migrants”. It also said:

Free movement, equality and rights for migrants, are socialist values and benefit us all.

Confronted with attacks on migrants – from the racist ‘hostile environment’ to the Conservatives’ immigration bill that plans to end free movement and strip the rights of working-class migrants – we stand for solidarity, equality and freedom.

Scapegoating, ending free movement and attacking migrants’ rights are attacks on all workers. They make migrant workers more precarious and vulnerable to hyperexploitation, pressing down wages and conditions for everyone.

They divide us, making it harder to unionise and push back.

At the 2017 election Labour’s manifesto said freedom of movement within the EU would end when the UK ceased to be a member. After Brexit Labour wants a close relationship with the single market, but it has not formally committed to keeping the UK in the single market – a move that would ensure EU free movement continued.

Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, told MPs earlier that the government would comply with the Benn Act that is intended to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. (See 12.34pm.) But ITV’s political editor Robert Peston has had a message from a government source implying that, although the PM would be willing to write a letter to the EU formally requesting an article 50 extension (in the event of there being no Brexit deal by 19 October), he would also send a second letter containing all sorts of arguments intended to ensure that the EU would say no.

Peston himself is not one of those people inclined to use capital letters in his tweets, and so I’m presuming that the angry, Trump-style capitalisation comes from an original message sent by his source.

Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader and shadow culture secretary, is speaking now.

He says it is hard to see how the grant to Hacker House was justified. It was awarded under a scheme intended to develop cyber-skills in the UK. But this company is headquartered in California, and its owner lives in the US, he says. And it refuses to say how many employees it has in the UK, or where they work.

Then he turns to Boris Johnson. Watson goes on:

The truth is our prime minister does reckless things. He is a man whose character rends him unfit for the office he holds.

Warman repeats his point about Johnson not being involved in the decision to award the grant to Hacker House. He criticises Watson for raising issues irrelevant to this issue.

Cox has just finished.

At this rate, Boris Johnson is unlikely to be starting his statement before 5pm.

Phillip Lee, the former Tory MP who defected to the Lib Dems, told Cox he should be showing more humility. He asks him if he can say if he has given Downing Street legal advice on bypassing the Benn Act.

Cox said that he was not allowed to say whether he had given legal advice on a topic or not. But he said Lee was not in a position to urge him to show more humility. Having been elected for one party, and now sitting for another without holding a byelection, Lee should be “on his knees” begging for forgiveness from his constituents, Cox said.

Amber Rudd, the former Tory work and pensions secretary who now sits as an independent having resigned over Brexit, tells Cox she objects to him calling this a “dead” parliament. She says it was only elected in 2017. She says, if it is divided, that is because it reflects the divisions in Britain.

I must raise my concerns about the attorney general constantly saying that this parliament is dead. This parliament was elected in 2017, it reflects the divisions in this country, the divisions in our communities and the divisions in our families.

The failure is that we have not yet reached a compromise, many of us long to leave the EU as we set out in the referendum but are frustrated by the fact that we have not been able to find a consensus amongst the different factions.

Cox replies:

If I had not been driven to this language, I would not have used it.

But he was driven to use this language, he says. No one worked harder than he did to get a compromise deal through parliament, he says. He goes on:

I have now reached a sad conclusion that this parliament is no longer worth sitting. It should be gone, for any good it is doing.

Jacob Rees Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, is expected to lay out government business this afternoon. He is expected to request a short break for Conservative Party conference - a proposal which Jeremy Corbyn said they could oppose.

The Conservative party has indicated it will continue with conference, scheduled to take place in Manchester from Sunday to Wednesday next week, whatever is decided by Parliament.

James Cleverly, the party’s co-chairman, has Tweeted that it will go ahead.

A debate could be held on any proposed break as early as Thursday. If the government loses that vote, it could give the Conservatives a real headache.

Conference is a highly lucrative event for the party. If a break is not formally supported, it could force Tory ministers and MPs to return from conference events for votes.

One option for the government would be to table non-controversial bills for next week, which would take up most of the day. However, they might still have to return for major votes.

It has also emerged that the government’s opponents in parliament could apply to the high court asking for a civil servant to go to Brussels if Boris Johnson has not brought back a deal by October 19th and refuses to request an article 50 extension.

It is understood that an application would be made at the Royal Courts of Justice to direct a high ranking civil servant, possibly the cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill, to carry out parliament’s duty.

The Queen’s speech, scheduled for October 14, is where the government will set out its agenda and forthcoming priorities.

A vote is scheduled to take place five days later on October 21, where MPs will debate the measures put forward by the government.

Twice now Geoffrey Cox has challenged the opposition to agree to back an early general election by backing a one-line bill amending the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and allowing one.

This mechanism could have been used in early September to hold a general election before 31 October. Although Labour said it wanted an early election, it argued that it could not risk this approach because it could not be sure that the PM would not change the date of the election, to hold it after 31 October.

Cox seemed to be implying that the government would back a one-line bill that would specify a particular date for the election. But it is now too late. Under electoral law an election has to take place at least 25 working days after dissolution, and so even if parliament were to pass a law and dissolve today, it would be impossible to hold an election before 31 October.

Here is LBC’s Theo Usherwood on Cox’s answer to Letwin. (See 12.09am.)

Sir Oliver Letwin, the former Tory Cabinet Office minister who lost the whip after rebelling over Brexit earlier this month, asks Cox for an assurance that there will be no further prorogation, other than a short one ahead of a possible Queen’s speech, before the end of October.

Cox says he can assure Letwin that the government will comply with the supreme court judgment.

Labour’s Angela Eagle asks Cox how Jacob Rees-Mogg can stay as leader of the Commons if he has accused the supreme court of a constitutional coup.

Cox says there is “nothing wrong with expressing robust, critical views about a judgment”.

There is nothing wrong with expressing robust critical views about a judgment, in so far as it imputes inappropriate or improper motive then it is wrong.

So, I think it’s a question of wording and of being careful with ones language but I took that remark in so far as I saw it reported simply to be a robust criticism of the judgment and nothing more.

Cox says it is acceptable to be critical of judgments. But it is not acceptable to attack the motives of judges, he says.

In response to a question from Dominic Grieve, a former Tory who now sits as an independent, Cox says he would not have been able to support a decision to prorogue parliament until the end of October. If the PM had proposed that, Cox would have resigned, he suggests.

Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow solicitor general, says the supreme court judgment amounts to “the most damning judicial indictment of a government in modern times”.

He says the government “stands shamed – tendering illegal advice to Her Majesty”.

He says the legal advice should be published in full.

And he points out that, although Cox is saying he accepts the supreme court judgment, Michael Gove told the BBC this morning that the government still thought it had done nothing wrong. (See 8.09am.)

He says the government has already been found in contempt of parliament. Now it has been found in contempt of law.

Cox says there is nothing unusual about a lawyer having his opinion rejected by a court.

He says courts in Scotland and in England backed his view. If people think Cox should resign, should the lord chief justice and the master of the rolls (who both said prorogation was lawful) resign too?

He accuses Thomas-Symonds of a “shameless piece of cynical opportunism”.

He says his advice was sound at the time. The supreme court took a different view, he says. He says it was entitled to do that. But it was making new law.

The SNP’s Joanna Cherry told Cox she was not calling for his resignation – yet.

But she asked him if he could confirm what Amber Rudd said – that cabinet ministers asked to see the prorogation legal advice, but that they were not shown it.

In reply, Cox repeated the point he had made about considering what more might be published, but he did not address the point about ministers being denied access to it.

Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, is speaking to the media outside Westminster now.

She says the Lib Dems want parliament to bring forward a mechanism that would stop the government trying to bypass the Benn Act, which is designed to stop the UK leaving the EU on 31 October without a deal.

Although the government says it will obey the law, Johnson also says repeatedly – as he did again yesterday – that the UK will definitely leave the EU on 31 October, implying that in the event of no deal he wants to ignore the act.

Labour has also said it wants to get further assurances to ensure that the Benn Act achieves what it is supposed to achieve. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are saying that, once they get those absolute guarantees, they will back a general election. But they have not said yet what parliament could do to make the act watertight.

We are also getting two urgent questions today.

UQs come first, so Joanna Cherry will be up at 11.30am.

Hacker House is the company which has Boris Johnson’s close friend, or former close friend, Jennifer Arcuri as a director. It received a £100,000 grant from the culture department. In normal circumstances this story would probably be dominating the news, but it is probably not Johnson’s primary worry at the moment.

This is from Robert Buckland, the justice secretary and lord chancellor. It may be a veiled dig at his cabinet colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg. (See 10.26am.)

Boris Johnson is a winner like the Manchester City boss, Pep Guardiola, Michael Gove has said. The Cabinet Office minister told LBC:

I think it is only fair to say that Boris is the Pep Guardiola of British politics.

Asked about the court “humiliation”, Gove also said:

Words like humiliation are good journalistic hyperbole.

In response to a question on whether the prime minister’s losing streak would be longer than Tottenham Hotspur’s, Gove said:

No, look, the prime minister is a born winner ... he was mayor of London twice, he beat Ken Livingstone twice.

Boris Johnson is expected to address parliament later now that he is back in the country, Sky’s Beth Rigby reports.

Boris Johnson is back in the UK after his trip to the UN in New York. His RAF Voyager touched down a few minutes ago, PA Media reports.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, reportedly described the supreme court judgment as a “constitutional coup” when cabinet ministers spoke on a conference call last night.

This morning, in an interview on Sky News, Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister refused to deny the story. Sky’s Sarah-Jane Mee asked him three times if the reports about what Rees-Mogg were wrong, and each time Gove sidestepped the question. When she asked a fourth time, he replied:

I don’t recognise that language at all.

This sounds like a denial, but actually it isn’t. It is a formula frequently used by politicians at the moment when they want to sound as if they are denying a story but don’t feel comfortable saying it is untrue.

The justification for using the phrase is that the reality of what happened was rather different from the way it was reported. But that is true of almost any event reported second-hand as seen by someone who was involved in person.

In his Today interview Jeremy Corbyn seemed to rule out Labour voting for a short Commons recess next week to allow the Conservative party conference in Manchester to go ahead. (See 8.41am.) But Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, told Sky’s All Out Politics that the shadow cabinet would be discussing this issue when it meets this morning. She suggested that the Labour party might agree to the Commons not sitting early next week. Asked whether Labour would let a mini conference recess go ahead, she replied:

The Labour party is very benevolent and believes in fair play. So we’ll see what [the Conservatives] come forward with. But we want to be benevolent.

Normally, when the Conservative conference is on, the Commons is in recess for the whole week. The opposition parties will almost certainly want it to be sitting next Wednesday for PMQs, when Boris Johnson was meant to be delivering his party conference speech, but one option might be to agree for the Commons not to sit for a day or two at the start of the week, so a shortened conference could go ahead.

We are likely to know more about what is happening by the end of the day.

On the subject of who might head an interim government, if Boris Johnson were to lose a confidence vote and if the opposition parties were to unite behind someone else who could take over solely to negotiate a Brexit delay with the EU and then hold a general election, Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt says Margaret Beckett is a possible candidate.

Beckett, a former foreign secretary and former leader of the Commons, is respected by MPs from all sides of the Commons. Unlike Hilary Benn, another Labour backbencher sometimes tipped as leader of an interim, cross-party anti-no-deal government, she would be more amenable to Jeremy Corbyn and his team. She would also be seen as someone with no ambition to hold on to the job beyond a general election.

Reaction here from some lobby journalists on Corbyn’s interview.

And this, from the Times’ Matt Chorley, on a dig Corbyn made about what he considers to be unfair media coverage.

Reaction here from the editor of Politics Home, Kevin Schofield, to that Gove interview.

Tory grandee Ken Clarke – who has been tipped as a potential caretaker prime minister – stops short of calling for Boris Johnson to resign but says the supreme court ruling “leaves us back in a more sensible constitutional position”.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

I think it just leaves us back in a more sensible constitutional position. The smash, bang, wallop approach to government of the country in the last few weeks was in danger of leaving us in an extraordinary situation. It was as if we were going to have President Trump but with no checks and balances, just a presidential system.

Asked about the next steps in parliament, he said:

The most important task is to decide as quickly as we can how we are going to move forward on Brexit. It’s not true, which is being repeated over and over again by ministers, that everybody who’s involved in parliament is just trying to stop Brexit, defy the people … I voted for Brexit three times with a deal on these three preliminary points. I think the best thing to do is to produce a majority in parliament on a cross-party basis – which people would normally approve of the parties co-operating – to actually have those three points disposed of, leave with that preliminary deal and then have an election and get a government that explains what its long-term negotiations are going to be.

He added:

You might have to add a referendum on whatever interim withdrawal agreement you reach. I’m not in favour of referendums. Having a referendum with such a simplistic question and answer for such a huge number of complex – they’re quite technical – issues has caused all the trouble. But if you had to have a referendum to validate the withdrawal agreement or to decide on what the alternatives are if you don’t, I might resign myself to that. Now, whether enough people would resign themselves to that to get a majority in parliament, I’m not sure.

According to the Financial Times’ economics editor, Chris Giles, his paper never calls for “heads to roll in editorials” but, in a thundering piece, it says today: “Faced with such a damning judgment, any premier with a shred of respect for British democracy and the responsibilities of his office would resign.”

Good morning, folks. Simon Murphy here taking the helm of the live blog ahead of parliament opening its doors to MPs this morning following the extraordinary supreme court ruling yesterday. Another big day of politics in store …

Quite a lot was made of Lady Hale’s remarkable spider brooch yesterday. There is a lovely piece of analysis from the Guardian’s senior fashion writer and senior social reporter here about what Hale might be telling us with her fashion choice, with a brief history of subversive brooches.

Since then, I’ve started seeing a few people adding a spider into their Twitter name. Trudy Harpham has done this and offers this explanation as to why.

Lord Adonis is up, he is angry and he is tweeting.

The Labour peer has called the Tories “a revolutionary rabble – with Eton accents”, published an imagined Queen’s speech, and tweeted a quote from a (real) speech from Margaret Thatcher, in which she asserts the importance of an independent judiciary whose decisions aren’t undermined for the rule of law.

From the Labour MP Kevin Brennan

Overnight, Boris Johnson delivered his inaugural speech to the UN General Assembly. It was, let’s just say, a remarkable speech.

My colleague Graham Russell pulled together a selection of quotes from the address, which was meant to be about the opportunities and challenges of technology, in which Johnson ranged from mattresses that can monitor your nightmares to a diet of “terrifying limbless chickens”. Enjoy.

1.

“In the future, voice connectivity will be in every room and almost every object: your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese.”

2.

“A future Alexa will pretend to take orders. But this Alexa will be watching you, clucking her tongue and stamping her foot.”

3.

“You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google.”

4.

“AI – what will it mean? Helpful robots washing and caring for an ageing population? Or pink-eyed terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race?”

5.

“What will synthetic biology stand for – restoring our livers and our eyes with miracle regeneration of the tissues, like some fantastic hangover cure? Or will it bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables?”

6.

“When Prometheus brought fire to mankind. In a tube of fennel, as you may remember, that Zeus punished him by chaining him to a Tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle. And every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again. And this went on forever – a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.”

Good morning and welcome to the politics live blog.

Yesterday was a fairly extraordinary day on both sides of the Atlantic. Just hours after the supreme court handed down its ruling declaring Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”, Nancy Pelosi announced an official impeachment inquiry into US president Donald Trump. Quite the day for brash, blonde world leaders.

The Supreme Court verdict has meant that Johnson has had to cut short his visit to New York, where he was attending the United Nations general assembly. He is due to arrive in London around lunchtime on Wednesday after an overnight flight.

Parliament will resume at 11:30am, with MPs returning to the House of Commons two weeks after it was suspended in chaotic scenes. A government official in New York with the prime minister said it was impossible to say whether Johnson would appear before the Commons.

“I would anticipate there would be statements to the house, I’m just not in a position to say what they will be on,” the official said.

Downing Street suggested the prime minister would continue to push for a snap general election, while opposition parties attempted to inflict maximum embarrassment on Johnson.

“In the coming days parliament is likely to be put on the spot to see if it will have an election or whether it will continue to keep the country in zombie-parliament stasis. The only way out is an election and they will be given another opportunity to let the public decide if and when we leave the EU,” said a No 10 source.

I’ll be at the helm of this blog in the early hours, before I hand it over to my brilliant colleagues. As always, you can get in touch via Twitter or email (kate.lyons@theguardian.com).

We don’t know what the day will bring, but it’s a fairly sure bet that it will bring drama, so buckle up and thanks for reading along.