Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters
Afternoon summary
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Here is my colleague Severin Carrell’s story on the Scottish court of session postponing a decision on whether to intervene to force Boris Johnson to comply with the Benn act requiring him to request a Brexit delay in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The full text of the judgment is here.
The Opinion of the Court in DALE VINCE AND OTHERS against the Advocate General is now available at https://t.co/8Xz8aEfrta
— Courtsandtribunals (@SCTScourtstribs) October 9, 2019
These are from the lawyer Jolyon Maugham, one of the people who took the issue to court.
There's a very real tension in the Inner House's decision: if there really was no reasonable apprehension that the Prime Minister would break the law why would you need to hold over our two cases until the 21st? 1/2
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) October 9, 2019
What this tension - which won't have escaped the Court's attention - really demonstrates is not that the Court has got it wrong. What it really demonstrates is how far the Courts feel obliged to go to try and defuse conflict between themselves and the Executive.
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) October 9, 2019
Worrying. 2/2
And this is from the SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who took these cases to court alongside Maugham and the businessman Dale Vince. Cherry said:
This decision is a victory for the petitioners and everyone who wants the Tory government to obey the law, and call for an extension, so we can avoid a devastating no-deal Brexit.
As a result of this vital court action, the Tory government has been forced to concede the prime minister will comply with the law, and promise to send a letter requesting a Brexit extension. Crucially, he has also had to admit that he will not frustrate the purpose of the Benn act.
The court’s decision is a clear signal it will keep a watch on Boris Johnson’s actions – and is holding a sword of Damocles over him in case he breaks his promise.
The Tory prime minister must obey the law and call for an extension, or face the consequences – including the ability for Scotland’s supreme court to force a request for an extension.
Updated
A YouGov analysis of 300 surveys shows firm evidence that Britain has turned against Brexit since 2016, according to a report by Nicholas Cecil in the Evening Standard. Cecil says:
One of the most striking findings is that 204 out of 226 polls since July 2017 have shown remain ahead, with just seven for leave, and 15 ties.
So far this year, just one poll in the series has put Leave ahead, compared to 74 for staying in the EU.
Earlier I referred to today’s Sun story quoting unnamed No 10 sources (them again) saying that Boris Johnson thought there was a reason why he would be able to stay PM, even if he lost a confidence vote in the Commons and MPs wanted someone else to head a government. (See 12.38pm.)
If you are interested in the rights and wrongs of this argument, there is a good Twitter thread on this from Philippe Lagassé, a professor at a Canadian university and a specialist in Westminster politics. It starts here.
A thread on how the PM might make a case to the Queen that he should be allowed to stay on following an FTPA section 2(4) vote of non confidence, despite the presence of a viable alternative government.
— Philippe Lagassé (@PhilippeLagasse) October 9, 2019
And here is his conclusion.
In closing, there are ambiguities in the FTPA and the Cabinet Manual that could be used by the PM to make his case, albeit one that depends on very hardball tactics.
— Philippe Lagassé (@PhilippeLagasse) October 9, 2019
If you want to know more about the origins of the Lascelles principles (named after Sir Alan Lascelles, private secretary to George VI, who set them out in a letter to the Times using the pseudonym Senex, this thread, by Catherine Haddon from the Institute for Government, is worth reading.
Colleagues are asking what the Senex letter actually is.
— Dr Catherine Haddon (@cath_haddon) October 9, 2019
In March 1950 Attlee feared he might lose his majority in a King's speech defeat. This led to a flurry of activity in both Cabinet Office and in letters pages of Times discussing what should happen and role of Monarch.
Boris Johnson tells Tory MPs if Brexit delayed he would not fight election on no-deal platform
Boris Johnson has promised centrist Conservative MPs he will not go into an election arguing for a no-deal Brexit and would never make a pact with Nigel Farage.
Damian Green, the leader of the One Nation group of 80 Tory MPs, told the Guardian that Johnson “looked [him] in the eye” as he pledged that he party will not shift to endorsing a no-deal Brexit as the Conservatives’ central policy.
Green said he believed Johnson’s reassurances, after he and Gillian Keegan, James Brokenshire and Victoria Prentis all met the prime minister in Downing Street to deliver the message that large numbers of Tory MPs would find a no-deal policy “unacceptable”. Green said:
We went in to say that no deal as the prime aim of government policy would be unacceptable in a manifesto and we were reassured that wasn’t the prime minister’s aim, that he still wants to get a deal now and still thinks that would be the best outcome. He has no intention of putting a no-deal policy in a manifesto.
This arose from a meeting of the one nation caucus earlier in the week. It was the principle point and we also wanted to be assured again that the Conservative party wouldn’t do a deal with the Brexit party.
We looked each other in the eye. I accept and believe the reassurances.
We accept that no deal has to be a possibility and the one nation caucus has by and large always been supportive of the government’s policy. What we want is for that to continue.
Centrist Tory MPs are worried about what would happen if the party had to fight an election before Brexit has happened, after being forced into a three-month extension by the Benn act.
Publicly, Johnson will not concede this is a possibility because he insists Brexit will happen on 31 October but most MPs think this is the most likely scenario – that his government will have to submit to the delay, possibly following a court order, and then he will immediately challenge Labour to an election to be held in late November.
Updated
In the debate in the European parliament the Brexit party MEP Belinda de Lucy strongly criticised David Sassoli, the European parliament’s president, for discussing Brexit with John Bercow, the Commons Speaker. (See 3.53pm.) She said that this showed Sassoli was directly intervening in the UK’s domestic politics and that he was trying to stop Brexit. “It is immoral - shame on you,” she said.
Brexit Party MEP Belinda de Lucy @BelindadeLucy
— Brexit Party MEPs (@BrexitMeps) October 9, 2019
'You confirm to us that every day it was right to LEAVE' pic.twitter.com/4psqXcV1VI
Guy Verfhofstadt, the liberal MEP and former Belgian PM who chairs the European parliament’s Brexit steering group, told De Lucy that it was ridiculous for her accuse MEPs of being undemocratic when her own party was not represented in the UK parliament.
He also criticised Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan, saying:
I will be less diplomatic than Michel Barnier. I think that the proposal that Boris Johnson has put forward was not serious at all. Not serious at all because it was in fact a virtual proposal. It was not a real proposal. It gives a veto to the DUP in a number of issues. It is putting customs facilities, not on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, but in all the other parts of the island of Ireland that we don’t know yet.
And finally the proposal is to downgrade the political declaration on the future relationship by undercutting, by making a Singapore-at-the-sea, at the North Sea, like the [Brexit party], by in fact destroying the ecological social and labour standards.
Updated
Opening of European parliament debate - Highlights
Here are some of the key quotes from the European parliament hearing.
- Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European commission, criticised the UK government for engaging in a “blame game”. He said Brexit was the choice of the British people. He went on:
Although we are respecting that choice. As it stands, we will remain in discussion with the United Kingdom on the terms of its departure.
And, personally, I don’t exclude a deal. We are, Michel [Barnier] and myself, working on a deal.
And we are not accepting this blame game, which started in London.
- Juncker said the British should not forget the need for the European parliament to agree any Brexit deal.
I would like to repeat, to the attention of our British friends, that there is not only a parliament in Westminster which has to agree, there is a parliament here.
- Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said an agreement was not currently possible. He said:
To put things very frankly, though, and to try and be objective, this particular point, we are not really in a position where we are able to find an agreement.
- David Sassoli, president of the European parliament, said that any Brexit extension should be to allow the British public to express their views - either through an election, or a referendum. He also revealed that he had discussed Brexit with the Commons Speaker, John Bercow. (See 2.45pm.)
Updated
This is from my colleague Rowena Mason.
Damian Green, leader of the One Nation caucus of MPs, says Boris Johnson told him at meeting:
— Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) October 9, 2019
- he will not go into election promising no deal Brexit
- he will not make a pact with Nigel Farage.
"We looked each other in the eye. I accept and believe the reassurances," says Green
Obviously, this does not mean Boris Johnson has given up trying to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October.
It means that, if Brexit does get extended against his wishes, and he has to fight an election, he says he will not campaign on a Brexit party-style no-deal platform, as an unnamed No 10 insider (almost universally assumed to be Dominic Cummings) told the Spectator earlier this week.
Updated
Michel Barnier has now finished. Here is some comment on what he had to say.
From the BBC’s Adam Fleming
The UK's proposals for an alternative backstop have just been absolutely TRASHED by @MichelBarnier in the European Parliament but he did confirm the two sides are looking at "a more important role" for the Northern Irish political institutions.
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) October 9, 2019
From Mail Online’s James Tapsfield
As always, the more you listen to Michel Barnier speak, the less likely a deal sounds
— James Tapsfield (@JamesTapsfield) October 9, 2019
From RTE’s Tony Connelly
BREAKING: Michel Barnier: To put things frankly, we are not really in a position where we can find an agreement
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) October 9, 2019
Barnier says there are other issues dividing the two sides, including what to put in the political declaration.
He says there is a risk of having just a very basic free trade agreement. That might involve tax dumping and social regulation dumping (ie, the UK trying to undercut the EU.)
He says the EU wants a fair and level playing field.
He says, when Brexit happens, it will be long term.
He says it is creating serious and specific problems. We need operational, legally-binding solutions – today, not tomorrow.
He says the EU will remain calm, vigilant and constructive. And he says it will be respectful of the UK and its leaders.
He says he will be available 24/7 in the coming days to try to reach an agreement.
He will respect his mandate, he says.
He says it might be “very difficult”. But, he goes on:
If there is goodwill on both sides, I think an agreement is still possible.
Updated
Barnier turns to his third point - the consent mechanism.
He says the EU wants a more important role for the Northern Irish institutions.
He says the UK plan would involve a unilateral decision being taken by the Northern Irish authorities. That means they could unilaterally decide not to introduce these arrangements.
Barnier turns to the second issue.
There must be operational solutions, he says.
He says the UK plan does not give the same security as the backstop, because it relies on ideas being worked out during the transition.
The UK proposes having a joint committee to find solutions during the transition. But what happens if it can’t?
The UK or the EU would then have to impose unilateral checks. But what would happen if the UK did not enforce any checks?
Updated
He says the UK plan has led to three concerns.
First, the border issue. Boris Johnson has rejected the backstop, a safety net agreed with Theresa May, he says.
He says the UK and the EU agree on regulatory alignment for goods in Northern Ireland. But there is a dispute about customs. The EU wanted a backstop to avoid border checks. But the UK is asking the EU to accept a system that has not been properly tested, relying on exemptions and derogations and technology that has not been properly tested.
He says the EU needs the integrity of the single market and customs union, and proper checks. There must be credible controls, he says. The single market must be credible to consumers and companies.
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, is speaking now.
He says the UK have a competent and professional negotiating team.
But he says the two sides are not in a position to reach an agreement.
Time is pressing, he says.
Juncker accuses UK government of engaging in a 'blame game'
Juncker turns to Brexit.
He says it was the choice of the UK.
He says he is not ruling out a deal.
And he does not accept this blame game, “which started in London”.
He says he would like to repeat, for the sake of the British, that the European parliament would have to approve a Brexit deal, as well as the UK parliament.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, is speaking now.
He starts with non-Brexit issues. He is currently talking about EU enlargement (the opposite of Brexit).
No-deal Brexit a 'dangerously realistic' scenario, says EU minister
Tuppurainen says the UK crashing out of the EU is a “dangerously realistic” scenario, she says.
She says EU leaders will have to take stock at the summit.
Updated
Tytti Tuppurainen, the Finnish Europe minister, is speaking now. Finland has the rotating presidency of the EU.
She is covering the non-Brexit issues coming up at the summit.
And she says the UK plans do not yet provide a basis for an agreement. But the EU will continue to work with UK to get an agreement, she says.
Updated
Any Brexit delay should be for referendum or election, European parliament president says
Sassoli says MEPs do not want to see no deal.
And MEPs want to uphold the rights of citizens.
He says he spoke to John Bercow, the Speaker, today. He says any request for an extension should allow the British people to give their views – either in an election or a referendum.
He says he and Bercow agreed on the importance of parliament.
Updated
European parliament president says he told Johnson UK Brexit plan not acceptable
David Sassoli, the president of the European parliament, starts by telling MEPs about his talks with Boris Johnson yesterday.
He says “not much progress” has been made since the European parliament last debated this.
He says the parliament’s approach is simple; it thinks an orderly exit is the best outcome.
But the parliament “will not accept an agreement at any cost”.
It will not accept anything that threatens the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, and the integrity of the single market.
He says he told Johnson that the UK plans were not seen by MEPs as “a basis that would allow us to reach an agreement”.
MEPs wanted “operable” ideas, he says.
After some preliminary business, the European parliament is now starting to talk about next week’s EU summit.
David Sassoli, the president of the European parliament, is opening the session now.
The European parliament’s plenary session is about to start.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, and Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, are there. They will be updating MEPs on Brexit.
There is a live feed here.
Here are two stories about splits in the Conservative party around today that are worth flagging up.
Scores of Tory MPs oppose the idea and some are considering running on a softer individual Brexit platform or even standing aside as a Conservative candidate.
One minister predicted that “at least 50 colleagues could not back no-deal, including several in the cabinet”. Another said: “So much depends on the language but for me there has to be at least a nod to getting a deal.”
Those MPs who would find a manifesto containing a purely no-deal Brexit policy problematic to support include culture secretary Nicky Morgan, justice secretary Robert Buckland and Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith.
Damian Green, leader of the One Nation caucus of approximately 60 moderate Tory MPs, is due to lead a delegation to meet Boris Johnson on Wednesday. They are expected to tell the prime mister they cannot support a manifesto based on pursuing a no-deal Brexit.
This reaction was prompted by the anonymous No 10 briefing to the Spectator on Monday night saying the Tories would fight the next election on a no-deal platform.
The key dividing line is between the Vote Leave grouping which sees leaving the EU as the end goal and is willing to achieve it by any means necessary, and a group of advisers led by [Edward] Lister who see Johnson’s administration as a long-term project beyond Brexit, multiple government sources told BuzzFeed News.
The Cummings faction – which crucially retains the support of the prime minister and forms his inner circle – is determined to secure an election and produce a hardline pitch to leave voters which seeks to nullify Nigel Farage’s Brexit party and blame the EU for the breakdown in negotiations, if it cannot agree a deal with Brussels or keep the PM’s promise to deliver Brexit by 31 October.
The Vote Leavers hope that an uncompromising Brexit pitch would deliver a majority and that Johnson could then take the UK out of the EU without a deal, or offer Brussels new terms less attractive than his current proposal.
A Tory election campaign against the Brexit party would have to harden its position on any future agreement with the EU, offering a reduced Brexit bill and rejecting European court of justice involvement overseeing citizens’ rights, as well as no compromise on the backstop, a government official said.
Updated
Corbyn says he should be next PM if Boris Johnson loses confidence vote
Jeremy Corbyn has said the opposition might try to legislate again to ensure that Boris Johnson complies with the Benn act requiring him to request a Brexit extension in the event of no deal. Responding to the news that Johnson intends to hold a sitting of parliament on Saturday 19 October, Corbyn said:
The prime minister has an opportunity on the 19th to announce that he has obeyed the law, signed the letter, and sent it off to Brussels to ask for the extension which will give us time to work out a sensible relationship with Europe.
The idea that the prime minister will break the law yet again is something that needs to be borne in mind here.
We will do everything we can in parliament, including legislating if necessary, to ensure that parliament makes that application to obey the EU No 2 Act [ie, the Benn act], which is the one that prevents us going into a no-deal crash-out on 31 October.
Corbyn also said that in the event of Boris Johnson losing a confidence vote, he should be the person invited to form a government. He said:
A caretaker government would be one appointed on the basis that the government has collapsed and the leader of the opposition is invited to form an administration.
When this government collapses I will accept that invitation and form an administration solely for the purposes of preventing a crash-out.
There is no process other than the leader of the opposition being invited to form that government and that’s what we will follow.
Corbyn was speaking to the media on a visit to a wind turbine plant in Southampton, where he was promoting Labour’s plans to create 70,000 offshore windfarm jobs.
Updated
And this is what Leo Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach (PM), told the Irish parliament about the anonymous briefing from Number 10 criticising him. He said:
To be honest, I don’t want to give much response to anonymous briefings of that nature. I don’t think much of an anonymous briefing whether they come from Downing Street or if they come from my own ranks, quite frankly.
Updated
Sammy Wilson, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman, has said that his party would not accept the proposal floated in the Times today (see 11.41am) for a change to the consent mechanism applying to the new version of the Northern Ireland backstop. Under the government’s plans these arrangements would only come into force if the Northern Ireland assembly voted in favour, which in practice would give the DUP a veto. Under an alternative plan reportedly being considered by the EU, the arrangements would apply unless both factions in the assembly – unionists and nationalists – voted to end them.
Wilson said this proposal was not surprising, but that it had already been rejected by the UK government.
Parliament has been clear that such proposals would never be approved. It is not a serious proposal and should not be treated as such. It is a non-runner.
Whilst the United Kingdom government has put forward sensible and realistic proposals, it is disappointing that the European Union has retreated to its previous failed plans.
This proposal not only rewrites but actually turns the Belfast agreement’s consent mechanism on its head.
The United Kingdom must leave the European Union as one country and any decision to enter into regulatory alignment must have the consent of both unionists and nationalists.
Updated
Leo Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach (PM) has told the Irish parliament that the British government’s Brexit stance is causing “great difficulty”. He explained:
Part of the difficulty at the moment is the position of the UK government, that Northern Ireland must leave the EU customs union and must be part of the UK customs union no matter what the people of Northern Ireland think.
That’s their position at the moment and that’s one that is a great difficulty for us because the position of the British government is that the UK must leave the European Union and Northern Ireland must come out of the customs union, whether they like it or not.
That creates huge difficulties for us because we want there to be a deal that respects the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the people in this republic too.
Updated
Here is the Press Association story about the hustings held at Westminster earlier today for the candidates who want to replace John Bercow as Speaker.
John Bercow has been described as a “playground bully” by an MP running to replace him as Commons speaker.
Shailesh Vara said he believe Bercow has “tarnished the role of Speaker with his biasness” and said he insults and demeans his colleagues.
The nine MPs who have put themselves forward to replace Bercow as Speaker took part in a hustings event in Westminster.
Vara was joined by Sir Henry Bellingham, Chris Bryant, Harriet Harman, Meg Hillier, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Dame Eleanor Laing, Sir Edward Leigh and Rosie Winterton.
Candidates were asked about Bercow and impartiality, and Vara said: “No, Speaker Bercow has not been impartial.
“And frankly speaking, I think he’s tarnished the role of the Speaker with his biasness.”
He added: “I would say one other thing that recently we’ve had a lot of debate about the standards of MPs in the Commons.
“And given that Speaker Bercow has at times behaved like a verbal playground bully in the way that he treats his colleagues, he insults them, demeans them.
“I hope that he loses all authority to lecture to MPs as to how they should behave when his own behaviour is in question.
“So I think that the Speaker should always be courteous and polite, authoritative, yes, but not demeaning to his colleagues.”
Bellingham said he thought Bercow had been a “fantastic” Speaker, but added: “The problem with John Bercow is that many of the excellent work he’s done has been impaired by, A, having favourites, I think, in some ways.
“And, B, too often grandstanding remarks that frankly are a waste of space and time.”
Bryant, who wants to be “an umpire, not a player”, said of the Speaker role: “I think having an impartial Speaker is absolutely essential to the good functioning of our democracy.”
Harman said the role was to be the “champion of parliament in our parliamentary democracy”, adding: “And that’s not them being neutral or impartial, it’s being absolutely a champion of parliament.”
Leigh said Bercow is “perceived by a large part of the nation not to be impartial” and said the next Speaker needs to be “more in the mould” of former speaker Betty Boothroyd.
The election of the next Commons speaker will take place on 4 November, after Bercow, who has held the office since 2009, takes the chair for the final time on 31 October.
Updated
UK will still owe money to EU even if it leaves with no deal, says budget commissioner
Britain would still have to pay into the EU budget until the end of next year even if it leaves without a deal on 31 October, Günther Oettinger, the EU budget commissioner, has said. Speaking at a news conference in Brussels he said the UK was fully signed up to the EU budget for 2020 - its final year of EU contributions.
Even if the UK refused to pay up immediately, the EU would recover its money “at a later stage”, he said. He explained:
In the 2020 draft budget, the UK is a full partner with all rights and obligations in terms of monies paid and monies received and that is how we understand the law.
If the British are not prepared to pay, we are sure we will get the money at a later stage but not immediately.
Boris Johnson has often said that if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal, it would no longer have to pay the £39bn owed under the withdrawal agreement. But even though the exact formula used to decide the UK’s legal obligations in that agreement would no longer be agreed between the two parties, British government officials admit that the UK would still owe a very considerable sum to the EU.
Updated
There has been some interesting speculation in the comments about what might happen at the emergency Saturday sitting of parliament planned for 19 October.
Here are two of the more intriguing questions, with my replies.
Could Boris Johnson use the sitting to hold a confidence vote?
Yes, he could.
But even if he won a confidence vote, and argued that that vote effectively overturned the Benn Act (and it is almost impossible to imagine him winning a vote on that basis), the Benn Act would still be law. Until it gets repealed or amended, it still stands.
If he lost the confidence vote, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act MPs would have 14 days to pass a confidence motion in another administration. If that did not happen, there would be an election - with polling day after 31 October.
But the Benn Act would still stand - and so there would be no guarantee of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
And Johnson would also be taking the risk that parliament would choose an alternative PM during that 14-day period. The Sun today is running a story saying some in No 10 think that, even in these circumstances, Johnson could remain in office. But experts are extremely sceptical. These are from Charlie Falconer, the former Labour lord chancellor.
The Lascelles Principles dealt with the circumstances in which the monarch could refuse the PM a dissolution, and have been overtaken by the Fixed Term Parl Act. https://t.co/MLvVe2qPtx
— Charlie Falconer (@LordCFalconer) October 8, 2019
If there is no alternative PM who could command a majority after BJ loses a vote of no confidence then there will be nobody for who HMQ can send to form a govt. But if there is such an alternative, then BJ will have to vacate DS.
— Charlie Falconer (@LordCFalconer) October 8, 2019
Could Johnson resign as PM?
*Andrew*
Nobody seems to be discussing this:
What if the government resigns on the 19th after losing a vote on their election manifesto aka Queen's Speech?
There will be no PM to write to Brussels by the end of the day.
The Queen would call on Corbyn to try and form a government, and I guess Swinson would have to back him - on the condition of an immediate election after he, not Johnson, 'surrenders' to Brussels by asking for the electoral poison of an extension.
Johnson - or the effective unelected PM Cummings - thinks he can then win a 'They Stopped Us' election...
And I fear he may be right.
As for Nodeal, I'd expect Johndon, whose only goal is Power at any price, would then shaft the Nodealers who voted for him by tweaking May's deal and getting it passed.
This is a possibility. People do not normally give up the office of PM voluntarily, but precedent has long since ceased to a reliable guide to what might happen in the Brexit saga.
One option would be to resign as a government, and to invite the Queen to make Jeremy Corbyn, or someone else prime minister, on the assumption that Johnson could then get back into power after an election fought on a “Brexit betrayal” platform. But this would be extraordinary risky. Even a PM without a majority has considerable power at his or her disposal (particularly over spending and patronage), and it is quite possible that Corbyn could negotiate a Brexit outcome more acceptable to the public than Johnson’s.
Another option would be to resign as prime minister on the basis that another Tory willing to request an article 50 extension (Dominic Raab? Michael Gove?) might take over. That way Johnson could keep his promise about not requesting an article 50 extension himself. But presumably he would only do this if he were confident that the replacement PM would stand aside for him again at some point in the future. That might also be a very risky assumption. Once people get appointed PM, they tend to want to stay.
The People’s Vote campaign, which wants a second referendum, says an emergency Saturday sitting on 19 October would give supporters even more of a reason to attend its march in London on the same day. It is put out this statement from the Labour MP Jess Phillips, who backs the campaign. She said:
The 19th of October was already set to be a historic day, with hundreds of thousands of people coming to London to demand that the final decision on Brexit is not made by Boris Johnson but by all of us.
With the news that Boris Johnson is planning an emergency session of parliament on the same day, there could not be a more important moment for everyone who cares about our country and our future to march, and to insist that we are all given the final say.
Updated
Barnier says getting Brexit deal 'very difficult, but possible'
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, will be giving MEPs an update on the Brexit talks this afternoon alongside Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission. Speaking to Sky News this morning, Barnier said he thought a deal would be “very difficult, but possible”.
He confirmed that the technical talks were carrying on and that he would be having a working lunch with Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, tomorrow.
In what seemed a dig at London, and the unattributable briefings hostile to Angela Merkel that were coming out of Downing Street yesterday, he said:
The EU will remain calm, vigilant, respectful - respectful - and constructive.
Asked if a deal was still possible, he replied:
I think the deal is possible and very difficult, but possible.
Updated
The leader of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland has said that reports that the EU would replace a Stormont veto on future Brexit arrangements was a non-starter.
Michelle O’Neill told Sky News that the devolved assembly should not have any role in the final deal whether the voting system allowed for a veto or not.
“Let’s just rule that out. It’s never going to happen,” she said.
She added there was “no situation” in which the local assembly can have the final say. Such decisions on constitutional matters had to be taken by governments, not regional assemblies she said.
Under Boris Johnson’s proposal Stormont would have the final say on this next year and every four years thereafter.
But because of a particular voting mechanism in Stormont designed to ensure no one community can vote for something that would be harmful to another, there was concern that this could hand a de factor veto to the Democratic Unionist party.
According to the Times (paywall), the EU is now suggesting eliminating concerns by creating a new requirement that there would have to be a “double majority” in Stormont - ie both Sinn Fein and the DUP would have to agree to future arrangements.
Sinn Fein’s objection is that such a role for Stormont would plunge Northern Ireland into a unwelcome constitutional crisis every four years. One source said:
The institutions are already fragile and to add this into the mix is unwelcome and will destabilise the institutions further and threaten the Good Friday Agreement. They are just not plausible.
Other parties including the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party made the same point to Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith in face-to-face meetings on Friday.
UUP leader Robin Swann said on Friday:
Northern Ireland would be locked into continual political debates about Brexit and alignment with the rest of the UK or EU. They would set the theme of every Assembly and Westminster election.
It plunges Northern Ireland into a referendum in the Assembly Chamber every four years with high stakes consequences for our people. It will keep our businesses and agri-food sector in a perpetual cycle of uncertainty.
An emergency sitting of parliament on Saturday 19 October would coincide with what is expected to be a large People’s Vote rally in London, Anna Soubry, the leader of the Independent Group for Change MPs, points out.
.@bbclaurak reports deal or no deal Parliament will sit on Saturday October 19 for critical votes.
— Anna Soubry MP (@Anna_Soubry) October 9, 2019
That’s also when 100,000’s of us will be in London marching for @peoplesvote_uk #FinalSay
Come and join us - a confirmatory referendum is the only way out of the #Brexit crisis
In a blog for the Good Law Project’s website, the lawyer Jolyon Maugham has published a clear summary of what has happened in the Scottish court of session hearing about the Benn Act. The court was considering two cases. Here is an excerpt.
The first case was commenced in the outer house of the court of session for orders obliging the prime minister to comply with his duties under the Benn Act (a) to send a letter asking for an extension and (b) not to frustrate the Act by e.g. asking other member states to veto the UK’s request for an extension.
On Monday the outer house said that Boris Johnson: “is subject to the obligations of the [Benn] Act; (b) in the event of neither of the conditions in section 1(1) or (2) being satisfied, the first respondent will comply with section 1(4) no later than 19 October 2019; and (c) that he will not frustrate the purpose of the [Benn] Act or the purpose of any of its provisions. In other words, there can be no doubt that the first respondent now accepts that he must comply with the requirements of the [Benn] Act and has affirmed that he intends to do so.”
If Boris Johnson adheres to these statements the entire purpose of the litigation – that a man elected from 160,000 members of the Conservative party should comply with a law enacted by 46 million elected – will be satisfied.
The second case was commenced in the inner house asking the court, if the prime minister (a) fails to send (as required by section 1 of the Benn Act) the letter asking for an extension or (b) fails to agree an extension offered by the EU (as required by section 3 of the Benn Act), to complete those acts itself.
And earlier this morning the inner house held the cases over to 21 October – the first working day after the prime minister’s obligation to send the Benn Act letter expires. So if the facts do require it, it can make appropriate orders against the prime minister.
Scottish court postpones decision on whether to intervene to force Boris Johnson to comply with Benn Act
The Press Association has just snapped this.
Judges at Scotland’s highest civil court will not rule on a legal bid aimed at forcing the prime minister to send a letter requesting a Brexit extension if no withdrawal deal is reached by October 19 until after that date.
The proportion of live births in England and Wales to women born outside the UK has fallen for the first time in nearly three decades, the Press Association reports. Some 28.2% of births in 2018 were to women not born in the UK, down slightly on 28.4% in 2017. It is the first year-on-year decrease since 1990, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
In total, just over a third (33.8%) of babies born in England and Wales in 2018 had at least one parent who was born outside the UK, the Press Association reports. This was also a small decrease on the previous year.
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, will be in Brussels tomorrow for a meeting with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Downing Street has announced. It is being described as more of a stocktaking exercise than as a sign that progress is being made.
Two million people have asked to stay in the UK after Brexit under the government’s EU settlement scheme, my colleague Lisa O’Carroll reports. Here full story is here.
And here is the Home Office report (pdf) with the figures.
Thank you to all of those who responded to my question about the 1949 Saturday sitting. I have updated the post at 9.39am to include some of them. To get the update to appear, you may need to refresh the page.
Five reasons why Boris Johnson might regret holding emergency Saturday sitting of parliament after EU summit
If you want to know what Boris Johnson’s message to parliament would be on Saturday 19 October, in the event of the UK and the EU failing to agree a Brexit deal at the summit ending the day before, this probably sums it up quite well.
It’s time to get Brexit done and get on with delivering on Britain’s priorities: safer streets, better hospitals and improved schools 🇬🇧 #LeaveOct31st pic.twitter.com/KKEq1UYa2u
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) October 9, 2019
But there do seem to be quite a few problems with the notion that an emergency Saturday sitting of parliament on 19 October could give Johnson a means of resolving this crisis. Here are five for starters.
1) MPs would have to vote for the Saturday session to go ahead in the first place. The government has been wary of scheduling timetable votes because, unless they have opposition agreement, they tend to lose (which is why the Commons sat during the Tory conference), and it is possible that the Speaker could allow any vote to be hijacked by a move allowing backbenchers control of the Commons timetable.
2) If Johnson wants to force MPs to choose between delaying Brexit and a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, he is likely to find that they take the same decision they did when the passed the Benn Act, which effectively ruled out the no-deal option. That passed its second reading by a majority of 29.
3) Any other attempt to get MPs to make a forced choice could fail - because parliamentary procedure does not work like that. According to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg (see 9.14am), Johnson is interested in the idea of forcing MPs to make a choice - perhaps between a no-deal Brexit and revoking article 50 (ie, cancelling Brexit). But parliament does not have a system for allowing MPs to vote either/or on a proposition. MPs just vote on motions, which they either pass or reject. In practice, MPs would almost certainly vote against no deal, and against revoking article 50.
4) Forcing MPs to make a choice could lead to them uniting behind an alternative PM. Johnson does not have a majority in the Commons, but he has not been replaced because opposition MPs and rebel Tories (who now sit as independents) cannot agree on who could lead an interim government in his place. This seems unlikely to change, although under pressure anything is possible. It is very, very hard to imagine Labour backing anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn as leader of an interim government, but Corbyn himself has not explicitly ruled this out.
5) Johnson insists he will not ask for a Brexit delay, even though the Benn Act would require him to, but he also claims he would obey the law. He has failed to explain how he would resolve this contradiction. His advisers seem to think that the authority of the referendum somehow overrides the authority of parliament, but by summoning parliament to meet on Saturday 19 October, possibly only a few days ahead of a supreme court hearing about the Benn Act, it might make it harder for Johnson to argue that he can legitimately bypass what parliament wants.
According to the House of Commons website, the Commons has only sat on Saturdays four times since 1939.
Three of those sittings were prompted by way or military conflict: 2 September 1939 (the day before Britain declared war on Germany); 3 November 1956 (the Suez crisis); and 3 April 1982 (the invasion of the Falklands).
The other took place on 30 July 1949, when the last sitting before the summer recess was on a Saturday. (Anyone know why?)
UPDATE: Thank you to all those of you who responded to my question about the 1949 sitting. You can read the Hansard of the day here. And here are some of the replies.
Andrew asks about why the House sat on Saturday in 1949. This is the business statement about this the previous week. From this there does not seem to have been a special reason, I can only guess that there was a lot of business to finish off the session and it was simpler to sit on Saturday rather than come back for one day the following week.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1949/jul/21/business-of-the-house
Morning Andrew, to answer your question about the Saturday sitting in 1949, it looks from https://t.co/GWKP4SKlcC like they just had some royal assent notifications to read out and didn't want to come back on Monday
— Bob Smith (@BobSmith220) October 9, 2019
@AndrewSparrow It seems that the 30 July 1949 Saturday hearing was for technical reasons - to allow a number of bills to gain Royal Assent before recess. https://t.co/2UhgDTfsbr pic.twitter.com/vTX1jYzm8M
— Timothy Phillips (@TSJPhillips) October 9, 2019
Updated
These are from Chris White, a former Tory special adviser in the chief whip’s office and the leader of the Commons’ office, on the plan for a Saturday sitting of parliament on 19 October.
Will be interesting to see what the business will be on this day. Options could be:
— Chris White (@cgwOMT) October 9, 2019
▫️Meaningful Vote
▫️No confidence motion
▫️Emergency legislation (anti no deal MPs)
Will require a motion to sit on Saturday 19, which may provide opportunities for MPs to hijack the day. https://t.co/MfcVI9NXid
An addition - possible that Govt could move QS vote to Saturday 19th . Only convention that QS debate lasts 6 days, and could be shortened
— Chris White (@cgwOMT) October 9, 2019
Boris Johnson plans emergency Saturday sitting of parliament on 19 October after EU summit
This week has been seen as the effective deadline for a Brexit deal because, in practice, for an agreement to be signed, the framework would have to be in place by the weekend or early next week ahead of the EU summit starting on Thursday 17 October. The crucial decisions at these summits tend to get taken over dinner in the evening, with talks sometimes going on into the early hours. The summit is due to end on Friday. And this morning the BBC is reporting that Boris Johnson is now considering holding an emergency sitting of parliament on Saturday 19 October to allow MPs to decide the next step forward.
Whatever happens, deal or no deal, govt will call MPs to Westminster for a special sitting on Saturday Oct 19th - could be decisive day in Parliament in aftermath of EU summit
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) October 9, 2019
On the Today programme Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC’s political editor, said this sitting could be used to allow MPs to approve a deal reached at the summit, in the very unlikely event that the UK and the EU do come to an agreement.
In the more probable event of there being no deal, Johnson would use the sitting to reveal how he would try to take the UK out of the EU by 31 October, despite the Benn Act, Kuenssberg said. She also said he would use the session to try to force parliament to take a decision, possibly making MPs to choose between no deal and an extension, or no deal and revoking article 50.
Downing Street are confirming that this is a plan, although it would be subject to the usual conditions, ie MPs would have to vote for the sitting on the Saturday to go ahead in the first place.
There seems to be at least one very obvious flaw in this proposal; parliament has already expressed a view on no deal versus delaying Brexit. It would prefer to delay Brexit, which is why it passed the Benn Act. It is hard to see what Johnson could do to reverse this vote, although doubtless some ingenious ideas are being kicked around in Dominic Cummings office.
More on this shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Home Office publishes EU settlement scheme figures.
10am: Candidates to replace John Bercow as Commons Speaker take part in a press gallery hustings. The candidates are; Sir Henry Bellingham, Chris Bryant, Harriet Harman, Meg Hillier, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Dame Eleanor Laing, Sir Edward Leigh, Shailesh Vara and Rosie Winterton.
11am: The Scottish court of session is due to deliver its judgment in the appeal against the ruling saying there was no need to issue an order compelling Boris Johnson to comply with the Benn Act.
1.35pm: Matt Hancock, the health secretary, speaks at at NHS Providers conference.
2pm: The European parliament hears an update from the European commission and council ahead of next week’s EU summit.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, although I will be focusing mostly on Brexit. I plan to publish a summary when I wrap up.
You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe roundup of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
Andrew, how about this for a plan to bypass the Benn/Surrender Act:
On 19th Oct, Boris states he won't send the requisite letter, and calls an immediate confidence vote. If he wins, Parliament will effectively be approving his actions, thereby effectively cancelling the Benn/Surrender Act. If he loses, he is no longer PM, so isn't bound by the Act. Parliament then has 7 days to agree an alternative PM before a GE is called, during which we legally exit the EU...