When Boris Johnson’s plane took off from Heathrow at 6pm last Sunday, No 10 officials seemed as relaxed as at any time since they entered Downing Street in late July. They were about to fly 3,500 miles away from the national crisis over Brexit to the UN general assembly in New York, hoping, no doubt, for some respite.
Happily for them, the centre of the Brexit storm had settled for the time being over Brighton, where Labour’s annual conference had opened disastrously. Allies of Jeremy Corbyn had mounted a coup attempt against his deputy, Tom Watson, only for Corbyn to have to call off the assassins as uproar among moderates ensued.
As if the failed plot to oust Watson – and the unsuccessful attempt to abolish his job – had not been messy enough as a curtain-raiser, Corbyn was then pitched into a battle with party members and key figures in his own shadow cabinet as they manoeuvred against him, trying to tie their leader to an explicitly pro-Remain Brexit policy, which Corbyn was opposing tooth and nail.
Throughout Sunday the talk in Brighton’s hotel bars was not about Johnson’s Brexit troubles and whether Labour could beat him in a general election, but of Labour’s own civil war and how much longer Corbyn could survive.
Not long into the flight, and just as delegates in Brighton were agreeing to force a vote aimed at defeating Corbyn on Brexit, the prime minister’s aides agreed to a request from journalists for an early on-board chat with the PM. Before dinner was served, Johnson emerged from the first-class section, clutching a glass of Diet Coke and with a cheery “How are you? Good to see you all”.
The question and answer session was by no means plain sailing. Johnson was grilled about whether his ministers could have done more to save the travel firm Thomas Cook from collapse. He also faced six questions – all which he declined to answer – on his links to the US tech entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri. But he relished discussion of Labour’s infighting, and ridiculed the party’s attack on private schools, such as his own alma mater, Eton. “It’s extraordinary they have excavated this from the crypt of what I thought had been long-buried socialist ideology,” he said. While his predecessor Theresa May disliked such encounters intensely and wanted to cut them short, Johnson wanted more, twice allowing reporters to extend the session, despite the mild protests of his officials.
The following afternoon, however, choruses of “Oh Jeremy Corbyn” rang out from the Brighton conference floor. Union leaders, including Unite’s Len McCluskey, were on their feet, applauding deliriously. A majority of Labour members, delegates and MPs might have wanted Labour to campaign for Remain – but Corbyn had just proved that his people still controlled the levers of power, the ones that run the party machine. With the Corbynites dominating the national executive committee, and with the help of key unions and Momentum, Corbyn had just seen off the biggest broad-based revolt in his time as leader. There were claims of a “stitch-up” from some in the Labour Remain camp, but Corbyn had won – and against the odds.
If his victories in three successive Brexit votes came as a huge fillip to Corbyn’s supporters, it was as nothing compared with the lift they would receive next morning. It was 5.30am New York time (10.30am UK time). Johnson was in his hotel room with his TV switched on and away from his officials, awaiting the ruling of 11 supreme court judges in London. They were about to pronounce on the lawfulness or otherwise of his decision to shut down parliament for five weeks from mid-September, a move Johnson had claimed was to allow time to prepare for a Queen’s speech, but which everyone knew was really to stop MPs trying to find ways to block a no-deal Brexit. Lady Hale, the court’s president, began slowly and, with every sentence, it became clearer where she was heading.
The judges in the highest court in the land were unanimous, she said. The government had not given adequate reasons, let alone good reasons, for shutting parliament down. Parliament existed to hold the executive to account but had been prevented from doing so without good cause. The Queen had been misled. “This court has … concluded that the prime minister’s advice to her majesty [to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect,” Hale said. “This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.”
She continued: “It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible.It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.”
As the media in New York pestered No 10 officials for a response, staff desperately prepared their lines and rearranged schedules.
Johnson was due to make a breakfast speech to business people at the Hudson Yards development in New York. But before doing so he appeared in a series of television interviews, striking a careful but defiant tone. “Let’s be absolutely clear that we respect the judiciary in our country and we respect the court. I disagree profoundly with what they had to say.” No 10 staff told the travelling UK journalists that they would still be allowed to watch the early-morning speech but issued stern warnings that there would be no questions.
After Johnson was ushered away for a hectic schedule of talks at the UN building, including a one-to-one with President Trump, his team worked on the logistics of an early return to the UK immediately after the prime minister had addressed the UN later that day. It was announced that parliament would resume the next day and that Johnson would address MPs.
Corbyn brought his conference speech forward to Tuesday afternoon. To loud cheers and calls of “Johnson out”, he raised the roof by calling on the prime minister to resign. “He thought he could do what he liked, just as he always does. He thinks he is above us all. He is part of an elite that disdains democracy. He is not fit to be prime minister.”
The Labour conference that had opened with the party in turmoil ended on a high with belief restored. On Johnson’s hurriedly rescheduled return flight to London there was a decidedly different atmosphere to the cheeriness of the outward journey, with no chat with the PM for journalists and the entire No 10 contingent staying at the front of the aircraft, well away from the press.
Colleagues, welcome back to our place of work,” declared Commons Speaker John Bercow at 11.30am on Wednesday as parliament was reopened. Bercow emphasised with evident glee that the item in the official journal of parliament relating to the prorogation had been “exxxxpunged”. MPs had returned to Westminster that morning asking themselves what on earth Johnson would do now. Would he resign? Or would he somehow try to turn the ruling of the supreme court to his and the Tories’ political advantage, by using it as evidence that it was not only parliament that was trying to block his path to delivering Brexit on time, but now the courts, too?
Whatever path he took, it was clear even to Tory MPs that the prorogation had backfired terribly as a way of trying to push through Brexit on 31 October. In the days before parliament was shut down earlier this month, MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit had reacted to the pending closure by rushing through legislation that would mandate the prime minister to ask for a Brexit extension if no deal had been reached with the EU by 19 October. Johnson, who had campaigned for the leadership of the Tory party on a promise not to delay, had reacted by saying that, despite the new law, the UK would leave at the end of next month, come what may. And No 10 officials briefed that they would attempt to find ways around the law.
But what now? Could Johnson really risk another confrontation with the courts by ignoring, or trying to circumvent, that legislation? Tensions at the highest levels of government over how to respond to the supreme court ruling were quickly exposed after the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, rose to his feet to make a statement on his legal opinion of the court’s judgment. Overnight, it had been reported that the leader of the house, Jacob Rees-Mogg, had described the court’s decision as a “constitutional coup”, a comment that Labour’s Hilary Benn raised with Cox. Did he agree? Was the government ready collectively to turn on the court? With Rees-Mogg sitting a few places away from him, Cox rapidly contradicted his cabinet colleague.
“I do not think that it was a constitutional coup. I know that the right honourable gentleman will know that I do not and I do not believe anybody does.” Rees-Mogg twitched his left eyebrow nervously. Cox’s tone, when speaking about the legal judgment, was reasoned and measured. But later he turned suddenly from eloquent lawyer into political rottweiler, revealing what was clearly going to be the government tactic. Cox turned on parliament, saying it was a “disgrace” that MPs had “blocked” the will of the 17.4 million people who had voted Leave. If as a lawyer he could not attack the courts, he seemed more than willing to go after MPs instead. “This parliament is a dead parliament,” Cox roared. “It should no longer sit, it has no moral authority to sit on these green benches.”
The temperature was rising. It was not only opposition MPs who were outraged. Cox’s former cabinet colleague Amber Rudd rose to protest at what she saw as dangerous language, condemning Cox and saying a Brexit solution should be sought above all else. “May I ask the attorney general to work with colleagues to try to find a compromise and to cease this language of pitting parliament against the people?”
By the time Johnson entered the Commons later that day, to a chorus of “resign” from the opposition, it was clear not only that he would do no such thing, but that the government was now bent on turning the country against parliament and, more subtly, the courts. Making only fleeting reference to the supreme court ruling, and refusing to apologise for misleading the Queen, Johnson instead attacked opposition MPs for threatening Brexit by passing what he called the “surrender act” – the legislation that would force him to seek an extension to the UK’s membership of the EU. His tone was contemptuous, his language often provocative and bellicose.
Labour’s Alison McGovern reminded the house of the murder by a rightwing extremist of her colleague Jo Cox during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 and said the PM’s use of words such as “surrender” and “capitulation” was dangerous and that the mood in the country was “getting toxic”. “Will he promise to change?” she asked. What reason would anyone have to respect the law if the prime minister could describe the supreme court as “wrong”, refuse to apologise and insult parliament, MPs asked.
Then Labour’s Paula Sherriff, whose Dewsbury seat is close to that of the late Jo Cox, rose to her feet, her face taut with rage. “We stand here, Mr Speaker, under the shield of our departed friend. Many of us in this place are subject to death threats and abuse every single day. Let me tell the prime minister that they often quote his words – surrender act, betrayal, traitor – and I, for one, am sick of it … he should be absolutely ashamed of himself.” Johnson was dismissive and unmoved. “I have to say I have never heard such humbug in all my life,” he declared, before being drowned out by cries of “Shame!”, prompting Bercow to intervene and call for calm.
The next day, Johnson’s sister, the journalist Rachel Johnson, joined those condemning the prime minister. “I think it was a very tasteless way of referring to the memory of a murdered MP, murdered by someone who said ‘Britain first,’” she said. “My brother is using words like surrender and capitulation as if the people standing in the way of the blessed will of the people as defined by 17.4 million votes in 2016 should be hung, drawn, quartered, tarred and feathered. I think that is highly reprehensible language to use.”
In the Commons, a vote was held on whether there should be a recess to cover this week’s Tory party conference in Manchester. MPs voted against, meaning parliament will sit throughout, but the Tories promised to go ahead with it nonetheless. Opposition leaders met at Westminster to decide what to do next. The SNP began to push the idea of holding a vote of confidence with the aim of ousting Johnson and installing a temporary government that would ask for the delay to Brexit, then call a general election. The Liberal Democrats and a number of former Tory MPs who were stripped of the whip by Johnson would need to back them for it to pass, but were very reluctant, believing they would not have the numbers to win.
On Friday, Johnson was formally referred for potential investigation to the police watchdog over whether he committed the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. He stands accused of failing to declare close personal links to Arcuri when she received thousands of pounds in public business funding and was granted places on official trade trips. Johnson has declined to comment in detail on the claims.
So a week that began with Labour in turmoil and Johnson’s team upbeat was ending with talk of opposition MPs striking back and exploring ways to depose him. Asked on Thursday why they were backing plans for a vote of confidence in Johnson’s government this week, a senior SNP MP said: “Because everyone agrees that we just have to get the bastard out.”
Five frantic days
Monday
Boris Johnson arrives in New York for the UN general assembly. During the trip, he meets Donald Trump, who says Johnson is “doing very well” and would get Brexit done. Johnson uses his assembly address to say some MPs are turning Brexit into an endless process like the torment of the Greek mythological figure Prometheus.
Tuesday
Baroness Hale, president of the supreme court, sends shockwaves around Westminster as she reveals the court has unanimously decided that Johnson’s prorogation of parliament was unlawful. Commons Speaker John Bercow rules that parliament should reopen the next day. MPs begin to return to Westminster.
Wednesday
MPs take their seats in the Commons. Labour’s Paula Sherriff refers to Jo Cox, the West Yorkshire MP murdered by a far-right terrorist in 2016, as she asks Johnson to stop using words like “surrender” in his criticisms of MPs opposed to his Brexit plans. Johnson provokes outrage in parliament and across the country after describing Sherriff’s request as “humbug” and continues to repeatedly use the term.
Thursday
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s senior adviser, makes a public appearance at a book launch and states that public anger was “not surprising” because of Westminster’s refusal to implement Brexit. He also describes Brexit as a “walk in the park”. “We are enjoying this,” he said. “We are going to leave and we are going to win.”
Friday
Johnson is referred for potential investigation into whether he committed misconduct in public office. The referral relates to allegations, which he denies, that he gave businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri favourable treatment due to their friendship.
Michael Savage
