Media Hub

The Government has insisted it will not be rushed by the EU into revealing its hand.

Ministers have sparked a fresh war of words with the EU by insisting they will not be rushed into revealing their plans for replacing the Irish backstop.

A spokesperson for the Government said they would not be forced to show their hand by "an articificial deadline" put forward by Brussels.

The slapdown came after Antti Rinne, the prime minister of Finland, said the UK only had 11 days to bring forward its proposals for maintaining an open border in Ireland after Brexit or else the chances of agreeing a new deal were "over".

Speaking after holding talks with French president Emmanuel Macron, he said: "We need to know what the UK is proposing. The UK should make its possible own proposals very soon if they would like them to be discussed.

"We both agreed that it is now time for Boris Johnson to produce his own proposals in writing — if they exist. If no proposals are received by the end of September, then it’s over."

The UK government spokesperson said they had submitted "non-papers" to the EU setting out ideas for replacing the backstop.

However, sources also insisted that they did not necessarily represent the Government's actual position.

The spokesperson said: "We have been having detailed discussions with the Commission’s Taskforce 50 in recent weeks. We have now shared in written form a series of confidential technical non-papers which reflect the ideas the UK has been putting forward.

"We will table formal written solutions when we are ready, not according to an artificial deadline, and when the EU is clear that it will engage constructively on them as a replacement for the backstop."

The row comes after Mr Johnson was told to stop “pretending to negotiate” by Michel Barnier, the EU's top Brexit negotiator.

Meanwhile, Luxembourg’s PM Xavier Bettel said it was time for the Prime Minister to “stop speaking, but act” following talks earlier this week.

In response the Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay claimed Mr Johnson had shown he was willing to be "creative and flexible", and suggested it was now the EU’s turn to shift its stance.

Speaking in Spain, the Cabinet minister said: "A rigid approach now at this point is no way to progress a deal and the responsibility sits with both sides to find a solution."

He added: "We are committed to carving out a landing zone and we stand ready to share relevant texts. But it must be in the spirit of negotiation with flexibility and with a negotiating partner that itself is willing to compromise."

Sadiq Khan pushed back at Mr Corbyn's neutral stance

Sadiq Khan has questioned Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to stay neutral in a second referendum saying Labour is “a remain party”.

The London mayor insisted they should campaign to stay in the EU, a day after the Labour leader said he wouldn’t pick a side if there was another vote on the UK’s membership.

Mr Corbyn wrote in the Guardian: “A Labour government would secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections. 

"We would then put that to a public vote alongside Remain. I pledge to carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister."

But asked on Thursday whether he supported Mr Corbyn’s comments, Mr Khan told Sky News: “I’m quite clear the Labour party that I belong to, the Labour party I’m proud to be a Labour mayor of, we should be a Remain party.

“What we should be doing is giving the British public a final say, do you accept the terms of exit from the EU that’s been negotiated by the Government or do you want to remain in the European Union.

“I can’t think of anything more democratic that giving the British public a say, and I think we should if there’s a referendum, a public vote, campaign to remain.”

Mr Khan’s pushback comes a week after he called for the party to move its position on Brexit, and that he personally backed “removing” Article 50.

A string of frontbenchers including Emily Thornberry, Tom Watson and John McDonnell have already made clear that they would campaign to Remain if a fresh public vote was called.

Jeremy Corbyn has already committed Labour to holding a referendum on any Brexit deal agreed by the Commons, with the option of staying in the bloc on the ballot paper.

The party is expected to host heated debate over whether to adopt a pro-EU stance in a second referendum at its annual conference in Manchester this week.

Speaking to the Andrew Marr Show last week, Mr Khan added: “Whether it's a no-deal Brexit, whether it's the deal negotiated by Theresa May, whether it's an improvement that a Labour government may achieve - that is far less favourable than the option of staying in the EU. 

“And once we've got the public vote we should campaign to remain in the EU."

 

The Commons Leader said his bid to get comfy had not been worth "distracting from the importance of what was going on".

Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted it was a "mistake" to recline on the frontbench of the House of Commons during a major clash over Brexit.

The Leader of the House of Commons sparked an angry backlash earlier this month as he lay back on the green benches while MPs debated the Government's plans to leave the European Union.

But, asked on Wednesday night if his behaviour was acceptable, Mr Rees-Mogg told an event organised by The Telegraph: "In hindsight I think not."

While the Cabinet minister said he had been "restoring an ancient tradition" of ministers resting their feet during debates, he added: "I do accept it was a mistake."

And Mr Rees-Mogg said his bid to get comfortable had not been  worth "distracting from the importance of what was going on".

The Commons Leader was accused by Green MP Caroline Lucas of being "contemptuous of this house and of the people" over the move, while Labour's Anna Turley branded him the "physical embodiment of arrogance, entitlement, disrespect and contempt for our parliament".

His comments on the row came as he heaped praise on Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage and urged Tory voters who had abandoned the party to return to the fold.

He told the Telegraph event that Eurosceptics owed the former Ukip chief "a great debt", and said both Conservatives and Brexit Party voters "want the same thing".

"I respect Nigel Farage," Mr Rees-Mogg said. "He is a very distinguished political figure and important to what has happened in this country.”

But the Commons Leader, whose sister Annunziata is a Brexit Party MEP, said: "I want my sister to come back to the Conservative Party."

The former Prime Minister will be represented by his barrister in court on Wednesday.

Boris Johnson suspended Parliament to deprive MPs of "a voice" over Brexit, Sir John Major is to tell the Supreme Court.

The Tory ex-leader will make his intervention on the third and final day of the landmark case.

In a written submission to the court, Sir John - who will be represented by his barrister - warned that if the judges did not rule against the Government, nothing could prevent a future Prime Minister from using prorogation "in any circumstances" - including to scrap the Army if they wished to.

And he argued that Number 10's claim that prorogation was necessary to prepare for a Queen's Speech on 14 October "makes no sense and cannot be the true explanation".

The Supreme Court is hearing appeals on two different rulings from courts in England and Scotland over the parliamentary shutdown.

The High Court in London has said the issue is not a matter for the courts - but the Court of Session in Edinburgh found that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful, following a case brought by 75 MPs.

Citing a previous legal case in which an estate agent was found to be in breach of the law over advice to clients, Sir John said: "It could hardly be suggested that the duties of the Prime Minister to the monarch are less than those of an estate agent to a homeowner. Accordingly, if the court is satisfied that the Prime Minister’s decision was materially influenced by something other than the stated justification, that decision must be unlawful."

And he challenged the Government's claim that the courts cannot rule on the issue of prorogation, arguing: "If that conclusion were correct, the consequence would be that there is nothing in law to prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing parliament in any circumstances or for any reason." 

Sir John said that would leave the door open to a Prime Minister “opposed to the idea of a standing army" proroguing Parliament and doing away with the armed forces completely.

The former Prime Minister added: "In any event, one of the central points of the present case — and the reason why these proceedings are necessary at all — is that the power of prorogation subverts the possibility of control by political means.

"Its effect is to deprive Parliament of a voice throughout the period of the prorogation. The inference was inescapable that the prime minister’s decision was motivated, or in any event substantially motivated, by his political interest in ensuring that there was no activity in Parliament during the period leading up to the EU Council summit on 17-18 October."

'FATHER OF LIES'

Sir John's intervention comes after Aidan O'Neill QC - representing the group of MPs and campaigners challenging the Prime Minister's decision - accused Mr Johnson of an "abuse of power" and branded him the "father of lies".

Referencing an infamous US supreme court case which ruled that black people could not be American citizens, he said: “I say to this court, don’t let this case be your Dred Scott moment.

“Instead stand up for the truth, stand up for reason, stand up for unity in diversity, stand up for Parliament, stand up for democracy by dismissing this government’s appeal and uphold a constitution governed by laws and not the passing whims of men.

“We’ve got here the mother of parliaments being shut down by the father of lies.”

But Sir James Eadie QC, acting for the Government, said prorogation was "a well-established constitutional function exercised by the executive".

And he said such decisions “are inherently and fundamentally political in nature”, arguing it was not for the courts to intervene in the decision.

The judges are expected to deliver their ruling next week.

The effective 13-year real-terms freeze will still represent an unprecedented period without growth, the IFS has said

A massive hike in school funding announced by the Government is not enough to turn around more than a decade of cuts, experts have warned.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the £4.3bn announced for schools by 2022 in the Chancellor’s spending review would “just about reverse” the cuts of 8% in spending per pupil since 2009.

The additional cash unveiled by Sajid Javid earlier this month represents a 7.4% increase in spending per pupil.

However they added that the lack of real growth amounted to an “unprecedented” 13-year real-terms freeze.

The group’s report found that while the £300m earmarked for further education in 2020-21 represented a 4% real-terms increase in spending per student, it remained 7% down on 2010.

It adds that fully reversing cuts to 16-18 year olds education, which includes sixth form colleges, since 2010–11 would cost £1.1bn on top of current plans.

Luke Sibieta, co-author of the report and a Research Fellow at the IFS, said: "The 2019 Spending Round provided genuinely substantial increases in school funding, enough to more or less offset all cuts since 2009.

"Of course, that still means no real growth in spending per pupil over a 13-year period.

"The extra £300 million for further education and sixth forms provides for a small rise in 2020, but at least a further £1.1 billion would be required to fully reverse cuts since 2010.

He added that the higher sector faced coming under further pressure from likely Government reforms following an independent review commissioned by Theresa May, when she was Prime Minister.

"The higher education sector faces yet more uncertainty given the potential for another radical shake-up proposed by the Augar Review or even the abolition of tuition fees proposed by Labour," he added.

Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, said: “The Tories have cut money for our schools while slashing taxes for the super-rich.

"After more than a decade of cuts, by 2022-23 our schools still won’t even get the same funding that they received 10 years ago, let alone the investment they need to give all our children a world-class education.

"As the IFS report makes clear, even after huge cuts to sixth form and further education colleges and adult education, yet more cuts are on the way for post-16 education.

Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges, David Hughes, said: “The consequences of the decline in spending and real term freezes has meant fewer adult learners, squeezed budgets and lack of resource to provide the skills the country needs. 

“While the Chancellor’s recent spending announcement of £400 million for sixth forms and colleges was welcome and a further £100 million for teachers’ pensions a step in the right direction it must be followed by long-term investment to reverse ten years of continuous cuts and reform.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: "We recently announced a £14billion investment in schools - the biggest cash boost for a decade, which the independent IFS has said will restore schools’ funding to previous levels in real terms per pupil by 2022-23.

"Alongside this, we announced a significant real terms increase in funding for 16 to 19 year olds in 2020-21 to make sure we can continue to develop world class education to rival countries on the continent. We also provided £700 million extra for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.

"Together this package will give all young people the same opportunities to succeed and access the education that’s right for them regardless of where they grow up."

Michel Barnier has sent a message to Boris Johnson

Michel Barnier has told Boris Johnson to stop “pretending to negotiate” over a new Brexit deal.

Speaking in the European Parliament, the EU’s chief negotiator said that Brussels prepared to work “day and night” to come up with a new agreement which could win the backing of MPs.

But he insisted that time was running out for a deal to be struck ahead of the 31 October Brexit deadline.

Downing Street sources have insisted that the EU has been shown the Government's alternatives to the Northern Ireland backstop, which the Prime Minister has said must be scrapped for a deal to be done.

Mr Barnier told MEPs: “Almost three years after the UK referendum, I don’t think we should be spending time pretending to negotiate.

“I think we need to move forward with determination.”

He added: “If the UK leaves without a deal, I would recall that these questions don’t just disappear.

“They have been regulated in the withdrawal agreement, they have been covered – but they still remain. Whether we’re talking about the peace in Ireland, citizens’ rights, budgetary issues, they would all need to be settled.”

The UK government has insisted a “landing zone” for a deal is in sight, but will leave on 31 October regardless of whether an agreement is in place.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker - who held talks in Luxembourg with Mr Johnson earlier this week - also told MEPs: “I said to Prime Minister Johnson that I have no emotional attachment to the backstop, but I stand by the objectives it’s designed to achieve.

“I called on the PM to come forward with operational proposals in writing for practical steps which would allow us to achieve those objectives.”

US Ambassador Woody Johnson said Brits didn't 'need a lecture from anybody on how to run their country'.

Donald Trump's ambassador to the United Kingdom has accused the prime minister of Luxembourg of trying to "set up" Boris Johnson, amid a bitter row over Brexit. 

US ambassador Woody Johnson said his country would "stand with the people of the UK" as he argued that the treatment of Mr Johnson by Xavier Bettel during a trip this week showed why they had voted to leave the European Union in the first place.

Mr Bettel on Monday pushed ahead with a press conference as he stood next to an empty podium meant for the UK Prime Minister following talks on Brexit.

Number 10 said Luxembourg had refused requests for the event to be moved inside to avoid being drowned out by a noisy protest.

The Luxembourg PM then tore into the UK's handling of Brexit and said European leaders would not accept any responsibility "for the mess we are in at the moment".

But The Telegraph reports that Ambassador Johnson hit back at the Mr Bettel in a speech to the Carlton Club on Tuesday.

He said: "The people who built the greatest empire, the people who held off the Nazis, who contributed so much to the progress of mankind, you can go down a long list - they don’t need a lecture from anybody on how to run their country, and that includes Brussels."

Backing the UK Prime Minister's handling of the Luxembourg trip, Ambassador Johnson added: "He knew this was a set up. Of course he knew, but he’s British. He said: ‘What the hell. I can do this’."

And the top diplomat said: "I thought the people in Luxembourg accomplished something that maybe even Boris couldn’t accomplish - show this is not where (the British) want to be, over there, when they treat us like that - your Prime Minister."

Ambassador Johnson has been one of the loudest cheerleaders for a post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the US, and reportedly told the Carlton Club that the President Trump "cannot wait to do a deal" once Britain quits the EU.

"The minute the UK is out, America is in," he added.

"This is the real deal. So if you want it, you’re going to get it and you’re going to get a good one."

The Labour leader said he would "carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister".

Jeremy Corbyn has risked a fresh Labour row by signalling that he would stay neutral in a second Brexit referendum.

The Labour leader has been urged by senior figures in the party to explicitly back staying in the EU in its next general election manifesto.

Party members are also expected to launch a fresh attempt to shift its Brexit policy to an explicitly pro-Remain stance at next week's annual conference in Brighton.

But, writing in The Guardian, Mr Corbyn dropped his clearest hint yet that he would stay above the fray in a second referendum. 

"A Labour government would secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections,” he said. 

"We would then put that to a public vote alongside Remain. I pledge to carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister."

The stance puts him at odds with members of the Shadow Cabinet including deputy leader Tom Watson, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, chief whip Nick Brown and Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, last weekend described Labour as a "party of Remain" that should back staying in the EU in any second referendum.

But, in a dig at the Government as well as the explicitly anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats, Mr Corbyn said Labour was now the "only UK-wide party ready to put our trust in the people of Britain to make the decision".

He said: "Johnson wants to crash out with no deal. That is something opposed by business, industry, the trade unions and most of the public – and even by the Vote Leave campaign’s co-convener, Michael Gove, who said earlier this year: ‘We didn’t vote to leave without a deal.’

"And now the Liberal Democrats want MPs to overturn the referendum result by revoking article 50 in a parliamentary stitch-up. It is simply undemocratic to override the decision of a majority of the voters without going back to the people.

"Labour is the only party determined to bring people together. Only a vote for Labour will deliver a public vote on Brexit. Only a Labour government will put the power back into the hands of the people. Let’s stop a no-deal Brexit – and let the people decide."

'CANCEL THE 2016 REFERENDUM'

The comments were quickly seized on by the Conservatives, with Tory Party chairman James Cleverly claiming Labour wanted to "ignore the largest democratic vote in our country’s history and cancel the referendum result".

“They had the chance to let the public decide how to resolve Brexit via a general election – but Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t trust the people," he added.

Mr Corbyn's intervention risks angering pro-Remain supporters and comes after analysis by the left-wing Another Europe is Possible group revealed that 81 of the 90 conference motions sent in by constituency branches about Brexit urge the party to back staying in the EU in a second referendum.

The group said that not a single motion submitted to conference so far supports Brexit, with that figure matching polling among Labour members, "which shows that more than 90% support Remain".

Shadow minister Marsha de Cordova - who backs the group - said of the findings: "There is no middle ground when it comes to campaigning in an EU referendum.

“We tried to fudge our line before and failed dramatically. Our members and activists won’t forgive us if we do that again.

"It’s time to take a side and expose Brexit as the completely destructive Tory project it is."

Members of the media and protesters outside the Supreme Court in London

Boris Johnson suspended Parliament in order to “silence” MPs who he believed would try to disrupt his Brexit plans, the Supreme Court has been told.

Lawyers challenging the Prime Minister’s decision to “prorogue” Parliament for five weeks said there was "strong evidence" that he saw the Commons as "as an obstacle" to his plans to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October.

The move is being challenged in the highest court in the land after Scottish and English courts gave contradictory judgments on the issue earlier this month.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh found the move to have been “unlawful”, days after the High Court in London dismissed a challenge against it as a “political” issue that was not for the court to decide.

The Government has insisted that its decision to suspend Parliament until the Queen’s Speech on 14 October was so that ministers could introduce a fresh legislative agenda.

But Lord Pannick, on behalf of campaigner Gina Miller, who is appealing against the High Court ruling, said: "The exceptional length of the prorogation in this case is strong evidence that the Prime Minister’s motive was to silence Parliament for that period because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims."

The QC’s remarks came on the first day of the Supreme Court hearing, which is scheduled to last for up to three days and is being heard by 11 judges.

He added that it was "remarkable" that the PM had not made a witness statement explaining "why he decided to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a period as long as five weeks and there is no evidence from the Cabinet Secretary or any other official explaining that".

He continued: “Parliament will be silenced for a substantial part of the period leading up to the deadline of 31 October, when issues of grave national importance are being addressed - or not addressed - by the Government...

"The evidence shows that the Prime Minister at best improperly regards Parliament as an irrelevance.”

Opening proceedings, Lady Hale, the president of the Supreme Court, said the judges faced “serious and difficult questions”, given that "three senior judges in Scotland have reached a different conclusion to three senior judges in England and Wales".

Lord Keen, acting on behalf of the Government, later argued against the claim that the progogation amounted to five weeks given Parliament would not have sat during the Autumn party conference period.

He said: "Although the planned prorogation will be 34 days, the expected conference recess of three weeks would mean that only one to three days would be lost in the week commencing 9 September and four in the week commencing 7 October.

"A total of seven days and yet later in his opinion he expresses his opinion about the extraordinary length of the prorogation on the basis that its five weeks rather than seven days.

"It was in reality seven sitting days that were going to be lost, not five weeks of sitting days.”

When asked what the practical reason was for losing seven days, he responded: "Why should it not be seven? Why should it one day, 14 days, how is the court going to judge what is an appropriate period for a prorogation determined by the executive in exercise of the royal prerogative?"

Lord Keen also told the court that the Government would take "all necessary steps to comply with any declaration" if the Prime Minister's decision was found to be unlawful in the final ruling.

The Government's appeal over the prorogation will be heard by the Supreme Court

Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has refused to rule out the possibility of the Government proroguing Parliament for a second time next month.

He said it was "idle" to speculate on the possibility of MPs being sent home again in the run-up to Brexit day on 31 October.

Parliament is currently prorogued until 14 October, when the Queen's Speech will set out the Government's legislative agenda.

Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson's top adviser, raised the possibility of a second suspension at a meeting of government advisers last week.

Asked on Radio Four's Today programme whether it could happen again, Mr Buckland said: "Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics, it seems like an hour is a long time in politics at the moment.

"For me to sit here and imagine what might happen at the end of October, I think, is idle.

"What I do know, if we are able to, we will have a Queen’s Speech in mid-October, there will be debate during that time and a vote as well, and perhaps a series of votes.

"Parliament has already shown its power it had a week in September where it made pretty significant legislation. I think the idea that somehow Parliament has been prevented from having its voice doesn’t seem to be borne out by events frankly."

Last week, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the prorogation was unlawful and had been a "tactic to frustrate Parliament" over Brexit.

The Supreme Court started hearing the Government's appeal against the judgement on Tuesday.

Sir John Major is due to speak for 20 minutes at the Supreme Court.

Sir John Major is to publicly argue that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully by suspending Parliament.

The former Prime Minister is due to speak for 20 minutes at the Supreme Court, which is hearing two appeals over Mr Johnson's controversial decision.

The court hearing will begin on Tuesday and could run until Thursday, meaning the judgement may not be released until next week.

At the Court of Session in Edinburgh last week, judges ruled that the PM had effectively broken the law by recommending to the Queen that Parliament be prorogued until 14 October.

Ministers have insisted it was a routine move ahead of a Queen's Speech on that date setting out the Government's legislative agenda.

But the Scottish judges said the true motive was to "stymie" MPs' opportunity to debate Brexit in the run-up to the UK's scheduled departure from the EU on 31 October.

The Supreme Court will hear the Government's appeal against the ruling, as well as an appeal on a separate case by anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller, backed by Sir John Major.

At the High Court in London last week, judges rejected Ms Miller's case, insisting that the row was a matter for politicians to consider rather than lawyers.

Speaking last month, Sir John said: "I intend to seek to assist the Court from the perspective of having served in Government as a Minister and Prime Minister, and also in Parliament for many years as a Member of the House of Commons.”

However, critics have pointed out that Sir John himself prorogued Parliament earlier than necessary ahead of the 1997 general election, thereby dodging a Commons debate on the cash for questions controversy.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has told the BBC he will "wait and see what the judges say" before deciding to recall Parliament early.

Downing Street officials have already stated that MPs will return to the Commons if the Supreme Court rules against the Government.

Jeremy Corbyn campaigning for Remain during the 2016 referendum.

Labour should follow the Lib Dems by calling for Article 50 to be revoked, says Neil Coyle MP.

Forty-seven 47 Labour MPs did not vote to trigger Article 50 in 2017, including me. I remain proud of that vote.

The damage done to the UK since justifies that position on a daily basis. Jobs lost, the economy damaged, the pound hit, investment falling in crucial sectors, and a Government trying to subvert democracy by unlawfully suspending Parliament. No MP should be proud of contributing to that dreadful reality.

Theresa May was forced to give MPs a vote on Article 50 by the courts. She called it with no plan, no agreement drafted, with no detailed discussions with EU partners underway, and with no agreement within her own Cabinet, let alone one that could possibly carry her ERG backbenches. She twice had to seek an extension to Article 50. The EU provided the last extension on condition the UK ‘use the time wisely’. No one can seriously suggest this has happened.

A handful of Labour colleagues, including Stephen Kinnock, have suggested May’s deal should be brought back with tweaks. That solves nothing; it would be defeated a fourth time unless it guaranteed a confirmatory referendum. Kinnock’s small grouping claims everyone wants a deal now, ignoring the six million people who signed the ‘Revoke Article 50’ petition. He also worryingly parrots the ‘biggest democratic exercise’ myth about the 2016 referendum, aiding Banks and Farage’s narrative whilst ignoring the undermining of democracy in the corrupt funding, deceit, and law-breaking involved in the Leave campaign. It is also the case that more people voted in the 1992 general election but perhaps that bit of democracy is understandably deleted from the collective Kinnock family memory. 

It is astonishing to see a small number of Labour colleagues pretending that an agreement would be anything other than a downgrade for their constituents and the wider UK compared to full EU membership. May’s agreement ignored 80% of the economy in the service sector and would harm my London constituency as well as huge swathes outside the capital. Manufacturing has already been dealt a hammer blow and May’s plan was simply not enough to guarantee jobs for the future. Re-hashing those proposals is no solution and repeated extensions of Article 50 whilst jobs are lost and investment plummets is not a serious Labour alternative.

Revoking Article 50 allows us the potential of staying in, but also forces those still seeking to deliver Brexit to come up with a viable agreement; one which does not risk the Good Friday Agreement and could command a Commons majority. If they are able to find such a proposal, Article 50 could then be re-triggered. Those unlikely circumstances seem unattainable, but it would be a better and more rational step to pause and try to identify such an approach than either catastrophically crashing out or fudging a ‘holding’ deal in the interests of an artificial deadline which is already damaging the country.

Voters need clarity. Labour’s constructive ambiguity should have ended long before the EU elections. I support revoking Article 50 and have run my re-selection campaign advocating that approach, winning the backing of members.

I am jealous of the clarity the Lib Dems now have on this crucial issue despite the fact their latest recruits, including Umunna, Wollaston and Gyimah, all voted to trigger Article 50 and kickstart the chaos.

Neil Coyle is the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
 

SNP MP Joanna Cherry and pro-EU businesswoman Gina Miller

On Tuesday, Supreme Court justices will begin to examine if Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks in the run-up to the Brexit deadline was legal. Here's what you need to know.

HOW WILL IT PLAY OUT?

The case at the highest court in the land will last three days - and follows separate cases against the Government over the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to "prorogue" Parliament until 14 October - one of the longest periods in modern history.

While the act of prorogation, which tees up a Queen's Speech to introduce a new legislative period, is not controversial in itself, opponents have said the timing in the run-up to the Brexit deadline has been used to shut out MPs.

As the final court of appeal, the Supreme Court panel will decide whether to back the Scottish Court of Sessions's ruling that prorogation was unlawful, or the separate judgment in England that said it was a political issue, and not for the courts to interfere.

WHAT DID THE COURT OF SESSION RULE?

The Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh last week found that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful, following a case brought by 75 MPs.

That came a week after a judge at the Court of Session rejected an attempt by a cross-party group of politicians to have the suspension declared as such.

A Government spokesman said the suspension was “necessary” to allow a new legislative agenda to be proposed.

But the three judges ruled that “its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution.”

They said: "The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to Her Majesty the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law."

If the Supreme Court upholds that judgment, the Commons could be forced to reconvene immediately, sparking a fresh round of Parliamentary drama as Boris Johnson faces extra scrutiny Number 10 was not banking on.

Furthermore, if the Court decides that, because it was unlawful, Parliament was never in fact prorogued, the passage of bills from the last session could continue as before.

Raphael Hogarth, an associate at the Institute for Government, said: “If the Supreme Court rules next week that the prorogation was unlawful, then I’d expect Parliament to be sitting again in very short order.

“The mechanics of that depend on what the court says. The court might say that Parliament was never prorogued at all in the eyes of the law and so is actually still sitting after all. Or, the Government might need to recall Parliament immediately.”

WHAT DID THE HIGH COURT FOR ENGLAND AND WALES RULE?

A separate challenge to the prorogation, brought forward by pro-EU activist Gina Miller, was quashed by the High Court of England and Wales earlier this month on the grounds that the issue was “political” and therefore a “non-justiciable exercise of prerogative power” - effectively arguing that the courts did not have a role in sorting this one out.

In their judgment, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said: "We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable (capable of challenge). It is not a matter for the courts."

They added: "The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political.

"They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."

They said it was "impossible for the court to make a legal assessment of whether the duration of the prorogation was excessive by reference to any measure".

Ms Miller’s team had argued that it was an "unlawful abuse of power" and one that breached the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Her QC, Lord Pannick, said the PM's decision was "extraordinary" - both because of the "exceptional length" of the suspension and because Parliament would be "silenced" in the crucial weeks up until the deadline.

WHAT HAPPENED IN NORTHERN IRELAND?

Still with us? How about another case just to complicate things?

A judge at the High Court in Belfast last week threw out claims that a no-deal Brexit would breach the Good Friday Agreement.

The case was brought forward by Raymond McCord, a campaigner whose son was killed by loyalist paramilitaries, and two others.

Last week Lord Justice Bernard McCloskey dismissed the argument against prorogation within the case, given it was already at the centre of the cases in England and Scotland.

On that concerning the impact on the peace process, Lord Justice McCloskey said: “I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

"Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national."

SO HOW MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULE?

The Institute for Government has said that while the Supreme Court will "probably" try to render English and Scottish law as consistent - it could "in theory agree with both the English High Court and the Scottish Court of Session, and rule that the prorogation was lawful under English law but not under Scottish law. In that case, the prorogation would be unlawful in the UK overall."

Ministers have said they will abide by the Supreme Court's ruling - although quite how such an unprecedented constitutional moment will play out is anybody's guess.

Alternatively, if the Government's move is found to be lawful, the prorogation will continue as planned, in what will be seen as a major boost for Number 10.

Boris Johnson arrives for talks with Xavier Bettel.

Luxembourg’s Prime Minister has torn into Boris Johnson over his approach to Brexit negotiations after protesters forced him to duck a press conference.

Xavier Bettel accused the Prime Minister of failing to come up with concrete proposals for replacing the Irish backstop - the UK's key demand in the ongoing talks.

Speaking after talks between the pair, he said he and fellow European leaders will not accept any responsibility “for the mess we are in at the moment”.

Mr Bettel's rant came as he stood next to an empty podium when Mr Johnson was supposed to be standing for a joint-press conference.

But Mr Johnson refused to take part in the outdoor event because of the presence of noisy protesters nearby.

Downing Street sources said they had asked for the press conference to take place inside, but had been rebuffed by their hosts.

Hitting out at the lack of detailed alternatives to the backstop being provided by the UK, Mr Bettel said: "I won't give an agreement to ideas. We need written proposals and the time is ticking. So stop speaking, but act."

Asked about comments by Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay suggesting a post-Brexit transition period between the UK and EU could be extended until 2022, the Luxembourg PM said: "People want clarity and as soon as possible. To speak of new delays just to postpone things is not in the interests of our citizens.

"The fact is our citizens want to have certainty. As long as they don't know what is going to happen they don't know what will be their own future.

"So even we say it's for one year or more, or two years and this time will be needed to find new decisions.

"This is a nightmare."

'USE YOUR TIME WISELY'

Criticising MPs for repeatedly rejecting the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May, Mr Bettel said: "Don’t make it like the European Union would be the bad guy not accepting decisions that the UK proposes.

“They accepted it and it is not under my responsibility if they are not able to find a United Kingdom back in London and in the House of Commons.”

He added: "So now it's on Mr Johnson. He holds the future of all EU citizens and every EU citizen living in the UK in his hands.”

Gesturing towards the empty podium where the PM would have been, Mr Bettel said: “It's his responsibility. Your people, our people, count on you. But the clock is ticking.

“Use your time wisely."

Mr Johnson - who had earlier had lunch with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker - said he had chosen not to appear at the press conference because his “points might have been drowned out”.

Asked whether proposals have been made to the EU on the backstop, after Mr Juncker said Brussels was still waiting for them, he said “papers have been shared”.

“But we are now in the stage where we have to really start accelerating," he said. "that was the agreement today.”

The PM said he could “see the shape” of a deal emerging, but it would require the “system by which the EU can control the UK after we leave, the so-called backstop, to go”.

And he said: "I think we've got actually just the right amount of time to do a deal between now and October 17-18.

“But if we can't do it by then we will make sure we can come out on October 31 - deal or no deal."

Boris Johnson and Jean-Claude Juncker had lunch in Luxembourg.

Jean-Claude Juncker has accused Boris Johnson of failing to come up with any alternatives to the Irish backstop, just weeks before the UK is due to leave the EU.

The European Commission president spoke out after having lunch with the Prime Minister in Luxembourg.

Mr Johnson has insisted that the backstop - the mechanism to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland - must be removed if a new Brexit deal is to be struck.

According to Number 10, the Government has come up with "a number of workable solutions" to break the deadlock.

But in a statement following the lunch, the Commission said: "President Juncker recalled that it is the UK's responsibility to come forward with legally operational solutions that are compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement.

"President Juncker underlined the Commission's continued willingness and openness to examine whether such proposals meet the objectives of the backstop. Such proposals have not yet been made."

Earlier, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said: "We have been having detailed discussions with European counterparts. We’ve brought to the table a number of areas where workable solutions can be found to remove the backstop.

"The UK has also presented ideas in the areas of customs and manufactured goods and issues related to the political declaration.

"The Prime Minister has said that in terms of publishing those proposals, it’s not helpful to negotiate in public in that way."

Downing Street insisted the lunch, which was also attended by Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay and EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier, had been "constructive" and revealed that negotiations will now be ramped up as the clock ticks down to the 31 October deadline.

A spokesperson said: "The Prime Minister reconfirmed his commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and his determination to reach a deal with the backstop removed, that UK parliamentarians could support.

"The Prime Minister also reiterated that he would not request an extension and would take the UK out of the EU on 31 October.

"The leaders agreed that the discussions needed to intensify and that meetings would soon take place on a daily basis.

"It was agreed that talks should also take place at a political level between Michel Barnier and the Brexit Secretary, and conversations would also continue between President Juncker and the Prime Minister."

Labour are set to have another row over their Brexit stance at the party conference in Brighton.

Labour are set for a fresh showdown on Brexit as it emerged the the vast majority of motions submitted for its party conference urge it to wholeheartedly back staying in the EU.

Ahead of their annual get together in Brighton next week, analysis reveals of the 90 motions sent in by constituency branches about EU policy, 81 urge Jeremy Corbyn to support remain in a second referendum. 

Shadow minister Marsha de Cordova is among those backing the call for Labour to harden its stance - saying the party has tried to “fudge our line before and failed dramatically”.

So far Mr Corbyn has said if Labour gets in to power they would offer people another vote on EU membership, with a “credible option to leave” on the ballot paper alongside remain.

But members want the party leader to go further and make it official policy to support staying in, a stance supported by prominent frontbenchers John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer and Diane Abbott.

Mr Corbyn has not said which side, if any, Labour would officially back in such a campaign.

And campaign group Another Europe is Possible have warned against “backroom manoeuvres” being used to stop this being debated and voted on, saying it “will be a disaster for morale and for Labour’s prospects”.

They say not a single motion submitted to conference so far supports Brexit, which “matches polling among Labour members, which shows that more than 90% support Remain”. 

One of their supporters, the Battersea MP Ms de Cordova, said: “There is no middle ground when it comes to campaigning in an EU referendum.

“We tried to fudge our line before and failed dramatically. Our members and activists won’t forgive us if we do that again.

“It’s time to take a side and expose Brexit as the completely destructive Tory project it is.”

And Michael Chessum, national organiser for Another Europe is Possible, said: “Support for an explicit Remain stance is evidently overwhelming.

“If backroom manoeuvres are deployed to stop this being debated on conference floor will be a disaster for morale and for Labour’s prospects.

“We need a debate and a vote at conference.”

PoliticsHome revealed last week the party's Brexit stance dominated a meeting of trade union bosses, Mr McDonnell, Mr Corbyn and senior Labour aides at the TUC's annual conference.

It is understood Unite general secretary Len McCluskey made it clear to the Labour leader the party must not commit to backing Remain if it wins an election.

One source said: "Len dominated the whole thing, with nobody else putting up any real fight.

"He said we should be clear that we will negotiate a Labour version of Brexit and there will be no attempt to advocate Remain in the referendum."

The Labour Party have been contacted for comment.

Boris Johnson's office distanced itself from the suggestion of a longer transition period floated by Stephen Barclay.

Downing Street has distanced itself from a suggestion by Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay that the UK could still be following EU rules in 2022.

Number 10 made clear that Boris Johnson was "not going to" extend the current Brexit transition period, which is due to run until the end of 2020 if a fresh divorce deal is agreed with Brussels.

Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement thrashed out by Theresa May, Britain would maintain close ties with the EU until December next year, despite no longer being a member.

The point of the "implementation period" is to allow businesses to fully prepare for life outside the bloc.

But Mr Barclay said on Sunday that Britain could stay in the transition arrangement until the end of 2022 to allow ministers to restore power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

He said: “It is the case that operationally these issues do not apply until the end of the implementation period, which is December 2020 or one or two years later by mutual agreement."

But that idea was rapidly shot down by Boris Johnson's official spokesman on Monday, as Number 10 made clear that the Prime Minister would not seek an extension to the 2020 deadline.

"We are not extending the implementation period, in the event of a deal, beyond December 2020," he said.

He added: "It would require the Prime Minister to request an extension to the implementation period and he's not going to do that."

If the UK leaves the EU on 31 October, that would leave just 14 months for alternative arrangements to the Northern Ireland backstop to be up and running for 1 January, 2021.

But an interim report published by the Alternative Arrangements Commission - backed by MPs Nicky Morgan and Greg Hands - in June said replacements for the plan to avoid a hard Irish could take up to three years to finalise.

'REJECT ANY DELAY'

The rebuke for Mr Barclay came as Mr Johnson began his first face-to-face talks with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

Speaking ahead of the meeting in Luxembourg, a Downing Street source said Mr Johnson would tell Mr Juncker that he will "reject any delay offered" and take Britain out of the bloc without a deal at the end of next month if no fresh agreement is reached.

The move comes in spite of MPs passing a law ordering him to extend Article 50 - the formal process which began Britain's EU exit - if he cannot reach a deal by mid-October.

Mr Johnson meanwhile wrote in the Telegraph: "If we can make enough progress in the next few days, I intend to go to that crucial summit on Oct 17, and finalise an agreement that will protect the interests of business and citizens on both sides of the Channel, and on both sides of the border in Ireland.

"I believe passionately that we can do it, and I believe that such an agreement is in the interests not just of the UK but also of our European friends."

Dominic Raab insisted the Government was committed to leave the EU by 31 October

Dominic Raab has dropped a fresh hint that Boris Johnson could defy a cross-party extension law designed to block the UK crashing out of the EU.

The Foreign Secretary said the legislation - which he described as “very flawed” - needed to be looked at carefully, even as he insisted the Government still planned to leave the EU by 31 October.

MPs this month rushed a bill through Parliament which requires the Prime Minister to request an extention to Article 50 - the formal process that triggered the Brexit process - if he cannot agree a deal with the EU by mid-October.

Speaking to the Today programme, Mr Raab said: “I think the precise implication of the legislation needs to be looked at very carefully, we’re doing that, but the Prime Minister is very clear he wants to lead us out of the EU at the end of October and he’s focused on getting a deal.”

Pressed on whether the Government would defy the law, he added: “We’ve been clear, we’ll comply with the law but the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear we need to bring this process to some finality.

“So we’ll go for the deal, that’s why he’s out in Luxembourg, the Prime Minister, talking to the President Jean-Claude Juncker.

“But we’re also going to be very clear with our EU partners that we leave at the end of October.”

The comments came as Mr Johnson is expected to tell European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker that he will “reject any delay offered” and take the UK out of the bloc on 31 October if no further deal is reached as they hold their first face-to-face meetings on Monday.

Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Johnson meanwhile dismissed the cross-party act as "completely contrary to the UK’s interest" and said it had given the impression "that the UK is no longer either fully able or determined to leave on Oct 31".

But he warned: "In so far as that impression has been given, it is wrong. We will leave by that date - deal or no deal. Yes, it may now be harder to get a deal, since MPs seem set on tying the Government’s hand behind its back. But we are working flat out to get one."

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Mr Johnson also raised eyebrows as he compared the UK’s plight to the Incredible Hulk ahead of his trip to the continent, stressing that Britain will break out of its EU “manacles” on 31 October.

However, speaking to the Today programme on Monday, former justice secretary David Gauke warned the Prime Minister: “Maybe the Incredible Hulk doesn't have to comply with the law, but the British government does."

Jo Swinson addresses the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth.

The Liberal Democrats will revoke Article 50 to stop Brexit if they win the next election, its members have agreed.

In a significant ramping up of the party's anti-EU opposition, members at its annual conference in Bournemouth on Sunday overwhelmingly backed a motion which orders the Lib Dems to formally pull the plug on Britain's EU membership in the event they can form a majority government.

The motion says the party will "campaign to Stop Brexit in a General Election, with the election of a Liberal Democrat majority government to be recognised as an unequivocal mandate to revoke Article 50 and for the UK to stay in the EU".

The move comes after years of campaigning for a second Brexit referendum, which the party has said it will continue to do unless it secures a majority at the next election.

Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said: "The Liberal Democrats are crystal clear: if we win the next election, we will stop Brexit by revoking article 50 and remaining in the European Union.

"People deserve better than Boris Johnson’s No Deal Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Brexit. At the next election, voters can instead choose the Liberal Democrats, and our clear and unequivocal policy to Stop Brexit.

"Before an election is called, the Lib Dems will continue to work cross-party to prevent a dangerous No Deal Brexit, and support a People’s Vote, with the option to remain. We will do all we can to fight for our place in Europe, and to stop Brexit altogether."

Ex-Labour MP Chuka Umunna, giving his first conference speech since joining the Liberal Democrats, said the move would "stop this national embarrassment and enable us to focus on the things that really matter".

But former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes spoke out against the motion, warning it would "take the focus away" from securing a second referendum.

The move meanwhile comes after initial caution from the Lib Dem top team over a pledge to revoke Article 50, the formal  mechanism under the EU's Lisbon Treaty which kicked off Britain's exit from the bloc.

Speaking in May, then-leader Sir Vince Cable rejected calls from the Change UK group of MPs for Parliament to revoke Article 50.

"It wouldn't be outrageous but it would be unsatisfactory," he said. 

"We got into this mess as a result of having a referendum in the first place and that's the only satisfactory way out of it."

But, speaking on Sunday, Lib Dem Europe spokesperson Tom Brake said: "Liberal Democrats have been fighting to stop Brexit for over three years. We are the biggest, strongest party for Remainers across the UK.

"This Brexit policy makes it completely clear that a Liberal Democrat majority government, with Jo Swinson as Prime Minister, would revoke Article 50 and keep the UK in the EU."

Michael Gove and Boris Johnson on the 2016 campaign trail.

Boris Johnson questioned Michael Gove's state of mind after his former Vote Leave ally abandoned him during the 2016 Tory leadership race, David Cameron has said.

Mr Johnson asked whether Mr Gove was "a bit cracked" after he pulled his support for the then-frontrunner's leadership bid and launched his own ill-fated push for the top Conservative job.

The claim is contained in Mr Cameron's memoirs, which are being serialised in The Times, and which have already seen the former Prime Minister train his fire on key figures in the 2016 campaign to take Britain out of the European Union.

The ex-Tory leader reveals that he texted Mr Johnson on the day of Mr Gove's move, saying: "You should have stuck with me, mate."

Mr Johnson replied: "Blimey, is he [Michael] a bit cracked? Great speech last night, everyone watched and thought we’d all gone insane to lose you and people were looking at me as if I was a leper, but you had eleven hard years of party leadership and six superbly as PM, more than I will ever do. Boris."

According to the former PM, Mr Johnson also said he was "absolutely miserable" that the success of the Vote Leave campaign had driven Mr Cameron from office in the days after the vote - while Mr Gove was said to be "more shocked than anyone" about the outcome.

Then-Chancellor George Osborne also felt that Mr Gove's move to kill off Mr Johnson's campaign was "great news" because it would leave both candidates "dead in the water", according to the ex-Tory leader.

Mr Cameron writes: "George sat there beaming at the TV. 'We have taken Boris out. Now on to Port Stanley!' he said, meaning it was Michael’s turn to fall next."

The former Prime Minister's latest revelations come after Home Secretary Priti Patel shrugged off his volley of attacks on the 2016 Brexit campaign.

Mr Cameron accused Brexiteers of behaving "appallingly" in the run-up to the vote, and said he had wanted to sack Ms Patel, the then-employment minister, but feared making her a "martyr" to the anti-EU cause. 

But Ms Patel shot back: "We've all moved on. And the fact of the matter is we're now working to deliver that referendum mandate. That is so important. There is no point going over the past."

Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay meanwhile paid tribute to Mr Cameron's record on the economy. But he added: "There’s a book to sell."