tv BBC News at Ten BBC News September 24, 2019 10:00pm-10:41pm BST
the decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful, because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. tonight at ten, the highest court in the land delivers a crushing defeat for boris johnson and his decision to suspend parliament. 11 justices of the uk supreme court ruled unanimously that his decision was designed to prevent parliament from doing itsjob in the run—up to the brexit deadline. the effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. outside court, there was jubilation among supporters of the businesswoman gina miller,
one of those who brought the case. today's ruling confirms that we are a nation governed by the rule of law, laws that everyone, even the prime minister, is not above. across the atlantic in new york, the prime minister said that while he respected the court, he did not agree with its ruling. i have the highest respect, of course, for ourjudiciary and for the independence of our courts, but i must say, i strongly disagree with thisjudgment. in brighton, at the labour conference, jeremy corbyn said the prime minister wasn't fit to be in office. borisjohnson has been found to have misled the country. this unelected prime minister should now resign.
we'll be asking what difference today's ruling makes to the future of brexit as mps prepare to return to westminster tomorrow. also on the programme: following the collapse of thomas cook, thousands more british holiday—makers have been brought home today. and president trump now faces the real possibility of impeachment proceedings, as democrats demand an investigation into his links with ukraine. and coming up in the sport on bbc news, it's a busy night of league cup action. can southampton hold onto their lead in the derby against portsmouth?
good evening from westminster, where the highest court in the united kingdom has delivered a devastating ruling for borisjohnson and his government. 11 justices of the uk supreme court agreed unanimously that the prime minister's decision to ask the queen to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. the judges took the view that the suspension was designed to frustrate parliament from scrutinising the government as the brexit deadline approaches. and they declared that the suspension had had an extreme effect on our democracy. the house of commons will now resume its business tomorrow morning. borisjohnson, who's been in new york at the united nations, says he "strongly disagrees" with the ruling. his opponents, including labour'sjeremy corbyn, have called on him to resign. our political editor, laura kuenssberg, reports on today's hugely significant ruling by the supreme court. the storm burst, well and truly.
campaigners and lawyers gathering at the highest court in the land... do you think you've won? i really hope so. ..ready to pass judgment on the prime minister. when it came, the ruling was polite, but devastating too. borisjohnson broke the law. the decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful, because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. jubilation outside in the rain. cheering yes! it restores some kind of hope, doesn't it? who needs hard booze, right, when you've got a judgment like that? those outraged the prime minister had advised the queen to suspend or prorogue parliament for five weeks,
suspicious he'd done it to close down debate on brexit — which he denied. the effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. no justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. the conclusion — it was illegal, so it never happened at all. the prime minister's advice to her majesty was unlawful, void, and of no effect. parliament has not been prorogued. the government's lawyers a few weeks ago did not expect this. the courts traditionally allergic to politics and stay well away, but the other side's legal dream came true. the ruling today speaks volumes. this prime minister must open the doors of parliament tomorrow. mps must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account. thank you.
so what next? immediate calls to new york, 3,000 miles away, for the prime minister's audacious move condemned by the court... prime minister, are you going to resign? ..to be a reason to resign. for some of his allies, though, it's no emergency. there's been a court case in our country this morning, which i think some of you may have picked up on... another chance to suggest the establishment is trying to stop him. i have the highest respect, of course, for ourjudiciary and for the independence of our courts, but i must say i strongly disagree with thisjudgment. and we in the uk will not be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to come out of the eu on october the 31st. but one number ten source told me the supreme court has made
a serious mistake extending its reach into political matters. attacking the judiciary — when downing street and him are under attack themselves. back across the atlantic, every politician's trying to peer into the future. the opposition sniff opportunity. the supreme court has just announced its decision. cheering the labour leader's conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. and it shows that the prime minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament. it demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him. and i invite borisjohnson, in the historic words, to consider his position.
johnson out, johnson out... "johnson out," they chanted. one member of the government told the bbc the prime minister should quit, but that's far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats on the green benches themselves. there are still quite a few tourists in the chamber. i'm just talking to colleagues and trying to find out what exactly we are going to be doing, but we need to go back to holding the government to account. i'm just in a taxi going back to parliament, which should never have been suspended, it was not suspended, and therefore we should be back in there doing ourjobs, holding him to account. the official invitation on this crazy day was issued with customary formality — last—minute pomp in the rain. i have instructed the house authorities to prepare not for the recall — the prorogation was unlawful and is void — to prepare for the resumption of the business
of the house of commons, the house of commons sits tomorrow, and that it does so at 11:30am. but once mps have raced back here tomorrow, what will they actually do? the alliance of former tories, still rebels, might try to take control again after the government's approach went so wrong. that advice was clearly very poor, and i think some of his advisers are going to have to leave. they are still coordinating with the opposition parties. he does not want to be held to account, he doesn't want to have to answer questions about his disastrous brexit policy, and in doing so he was prepared to mislead the queen and indeed to mislead the whole country. if borisjohnson won't do the decent and honourable thing, then i think parliament has a duty to come together to force him out of office through a vote of confidence. there's no sign of that, though. i know him well, he's not going anywhere. and look who is
in boris johnson's corner. it's just another day at the office. well, tomorrow is another day in parliament... a place in power he might have dreamt of for years, but after only two months it's proving harder than perhaps he thought it looked. there was law it is with me now outside parliament, let's just reflect on what today is meant and the fact that it was a jaw-dropping moment in the supreme court. today's was a momentous decision, a real humiliation for a prime minister whose lawyers did not think of a few weeks ago that they would end up in this position, farfrom it. they knew, i think, this position, farfrom it. they knew, ithink, what this position, farfrom it. they knew, i think, what they hope to do, that the suspension of parliament might be politically controversial, but they thought it was watertight, and yet here we have the highest court in the land fighting against a serving prime minister. that is a huge moment, notjust
serving prime minister. that is a huge moment, not just for serving prime minister. that is a huge moment, notjust for boris johnson but for the country, we have never seen johnson but for the country, we have never seen anything like this happen before in recent times. but of course, when it comes to the politics, does it make a substantial difference immediately? the opposition does not want to push right now for a vote of no confidence, which would be their way of trying to get a match, and boris johnson still says he wants a general election, but the opposition parties are not going to back that at this point. when it comes to the big quagmire they are all in politically, how you sort out the brexit mess, it doesn't necessarily change that much either. will talk more about that later, laura, thank you very much, laura kuenssberg. more analysis a little later. by any measure, the ruling represents a crushing defeat for boris johnson, for his cabinet, and for those advisers who were in involved in the original decision. the supreme court was highly critical of the government's case. so what does this mean for the relationship between courts and government, and what impact could it have in the future?
our home editor, mark easton, reports. what you're watching never happened. it may look as though, in the small hours of september the 10th, the royal commissioners attended the house of lords to suspend or prorogue parliament, but today the most senior judges in the land said the ceremony was void and had no effect. ..to prorogue this present parliament. when the royal commissioners walked into the house of lords, it was as if they'd walked in with a blank sheet of paper. parliament has not been prorogued. this is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. this was a constitutional thwack on the nose of government, delivered by the judiciary on behalf of the uk parliament. thejustices made it clear this judgment was a one—off, but its implications will echo down british history. around parliament square in westminster, there are hidden power lines, a triangle of authority joining the houses of parliament, the government —
focused on 10 downing steet, and the judiciary and the supreme court. today the justices explained that a fundamental principle of british democracy is that the prime minister is accountable to parliament. they also stated that the courts had supervised the lawfulness of government for centuries. established in 2009 to replace the law lords as the uk's most seniorjudicial body, today saw the supreme court beginning to flex its constitutional muscles. this is probably the biggest day in the history of the supreme court so far. with this unanimous judgment, the judges have really set down a marker about their role as a constitutional court, as a check on government and as a defender of parliamentary sovereignty. and although this will have some repercussions for brexit, it's really much bigger than that. this is about how our parliamentary democracy works. booing traitor! the supreme court is crossing the line, meddling in politics,
downing street has suggested. but the justices were adamant they had a responsibility to question the motives of the prime minister, pointing out he'd failed to submit a witness statement to explain under oath his reasons for suspending parliament. the only evidence the supreme court says it's had was this memo sent by nikki da costa, boris johnson's adviser, recommending suspension. borisjohnson ticked yes. this was not a normal prorogation in the run—up to the queen's speech. this is a completely proper constitutional procedure. whenjacob rees—mogg, as leader of the house of commons, went to balmoral to advise the queen to suspend parliament — advice she was bound to accept — the process was unlawful, the justices said. and in a direct criticism of borisjohnson, thejudgment suggested he ignored constitutional responsibilities in favour of party political interest. nowhere is there a hint that the prime minister, in giving advice to her majesty, is more than simply
the leader of the government, seeking to promote its own policies, the justices said. 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. tomorrow morning, parliament will sit once more, its sovereign place in our democracy restored and enhanced. but it won't be a fresh dawn. today's judgment means it opens its doors as though the prime minster had never closed them. mark easton, bbc news, parliament square. our legal correspondent clive coleman is here. clive has been following this in great detail, let's talk about the importance of the process that led to today's ruling. wanting to say, this is not about the merits of brexit, but let's stand back and recognise the enormity of what it
is. this is a serving prime minister of the united kingdom who has been found unanimously by the highest court in the land to have unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend the sovereign body in our constitution, parliament, at a time of national crisis, with the effect that his government is not scrutinised during that period. the staff of far—fetched tv dramas perhaps, but it happened because of something called judicial review, a process whereby individuals, you or i. process whereby individuals, you or i, can go before a court and as independentjudges to rule on whether a decision of a public body, a minister, the prime minister, is lawful or not. and that points up a critical tension in our constitution between, on the one hand, a powerful executive, a government used to getting its way, but on the other hand macro a small group of independentjudges who, through the mechanism ofjudicial independentjudges who, through the mechanism of judicial review, independentjudges who, through the mechanism ofjudicial review, can hold the might of government in its tracks say a0 ministers have done is
unlawful. now, political decision—making by judges, that unlawful. now, political decision—making byjudges, that is what some people will say, but today isa what some people will say, but today is a very firm reminder that no—one is a very firm reminder that no—one is above the law. clive, thanks very much for that analysis. government officials confirmed tonight that the prime minister has spoken to the queen, following today's supreme court ruling, but they refused to say whether mrjohnson had apologised to her majesty. 0ur scotland correspondent lorna gordon is outside the queen's residence in balmoral. what is being said there this evening? yeah come well, we have had no comment from buckingham palace to that supreme court ruling, save to confirm that that conversation between boris johnson confirm that that conversation between borisjohnson and the queen did take place earlier today. we don't know the contents of that conversation, as you said, we don't know whether the prime minister apologised to the queen for putting her ina apologised to the queen for putting her in a tricky position which, frankly, kicked off four weeks ago tomorrow when those three privy
council members, led byjacob rees—mogg, came here to balmoral, interrupted the queen during her summer interrupted the queen during her summer holiday, and are devised here to prorogue parliament. you know, i think this ruling and the court cases that preceded it have shone a light on the relationship between the monarchy and her government, you know, the queen and her advisers have worked very hard over the many decades of her reign to keep her above politics, keep her neutral, and the whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that politicians do not do things that may embarrass the queen or expose her to criticism or question. and i think there will be many who feel that boris johnson's think there will be many who feel that borisjohnson's actions have put the monarchy this evening in a very uncomfortable position — at the very uncomfortable position — at the very least cast a shadow on the relationship between the monarchy and her government going forward. lorna gordon, thank you very much
come up with the latest at balmoral. so away from the tension and drama in westminster, what do voters in other parts of the uk make of what's happened? this week, bbc news has been reporting from stoke—on—trent, the city with highest leave vote in 2016. 0ur political correspondent alex forsyth has been getting views from there, and from altrincham, which voted remain. bbc radio stoke. wherever the phone—in, it seems there's a prevalent view — leave or remain, people are simply fed up with how brexit‘s been handled. ijust don't know any more, i've lost the will to live. ijust can't be bothered with the lot of it. local electrician gary is a regular radio caller who doesn't think today's ruling will change many minds. i don't think tojoe public it will make one iota of difference. the same people backing boris would back him now. i just think they should get on with it, like most people. in stoke, such frustration is rife.
more people here voted to leave than any other city in the uk, and as well as confusion about what happens now, there's as much anger at the slow wrangling in westminster as there is at boris johnson's actions. at least borisjohnson's trying to get something done. i think it's disgusting, what they're doing to him. i think he's a good prime minister. if the court says it's unlawful, it's unlawful, but the question now is where do we go from here? they should just back him and let him get on with it. even though the court said it's unlawful, he's effectively gone against the law? what he's done they've said is unlawful, but i think the guy has got the country at heart. he's trying to get us a deal and get us out of what we voted for. that's exactly the view number ten is counting on. their strategy is to win support in areas that voted leave, like here in the midlands and the north, places the tories will target if there's an election, and where they hope borisjohnson's do—or—die brexit attitude, even the fact he's pitting himself against parliament, will play well with voters. but that doesn't work everywhere.
in altrincham, most people voted to remain, and the prime minister's approach hasn't gone down well with some. i'm a conservative lifelong, and i haven't trusted the man for ever. so what we're getting is exactly what we deserved. we don't have a law in this country for nothing, you know? if he's done wrong, he should be punished for it. he definitely should reconsider his position and maybe change his tactics a little bit. back in stoke, these students attend staffordshire uni from across the country. all welcome today's court ruling but know parliament returning won't provide simple answers. parliament is split just like the country, it's split down the middle. we're in this situation, we need to come up with a solid solution that everyone's going to agree on. you need everyone across the board to work together. i know that's hard at the moment, with everybody at each other's necks, but again, what brexit is doing, it's tearing communities apart. split views on the government's actions don't, of course, depend on location, but frustration
at this whole brexit process seems to be cross—country. alex forsyth, bbc news, stoke—on—trent. so what might happen next? we do know that parliament will now resume tomorrow. the queen is then due to set out the government's future plans at the state opening of parliament on october iath. there are just three weeks before the prime minister is due to go to brussels for an eu summit on the october 17th. in that time, he says he's hoping to negotiate a new brexit deal with the eu. borisjohnson is still insisting the uk will leave the eu two weeks later on october 31st, come what may. but at the moment, if he doesn't get a brexit deal approved by parliament, by law, the government has to ask the eu for another brexit delay.
but it's probably fair to say that a lot could change between now and then. let's consider the reaction within the eu to today's ruling. 0ur europe editor, katya adler, is in brussels. what's the perspective there today and today's ruling in the supreme court and the way they see the brexit process being affected by it? well, the eu views the supreme court ruling as a domestic issue, so angela merkel and emmanuel macron have stayed silent. the european commission refused to comment. but a diplomat from a country close to the uk said today it was already looking difficult to get a revised brexit deal agreed by next month. things are now complicated by uk domestic politics and in the meantime, he says that clock is ticking down to the end of october, brexit deadline.
but if we want to stay upbeat, we can say this much has not changed. eu leaders still want a brexit deal very much. 0ne eu leaders still want a brexit deal very much. one could argue that borisjohnson now needs a brexit deal more than ever. so there will is there, it's just the way that nobody can quite see at the moment. low level technical talks resume tomorrow in brussels between the eu and the uk, but at the same time the eu's chief brexit negotiator is shouting from the rooftops that the uk ideas he has seen on how to replace an irish border backstop, he says are inadequate. if you push back at the eu and say, where will you compromise? the stock response in brussels is that the eu will only think about comprising when firstly, it receives realistic proposals from the uk, secondly, when it sees a guarantee that a new revised compromise brexit deal would definitely pass through the house of commons this time, and the eu says it is still waiting for those a nswe rs.
it is still waiting for those answers. katya adler, our europe editor. the labour leader, jeremy corbyn, has addressed his party's conference in brighton, a day earlier than scheduled in response to this morning's supreme court ruling. mr corbyn called on borisjohnson to resign as prime minister and insisted that labour was more than ready with a range of policies for government. 0ur chief political correspondent vicki young reports. # 0h, jeremy corbyn... he wants to be prime minister. they're desperate for him to be prime minister. and many here think that day has just come closer. it's been a difficult conference forjeremy corbyn, but today he got plenty of new material for his hastily rescheduled speech. tomorrow, parliament will return. cheering. the government will be held to account for what it has done. borisjohnson has been found
to have misled the country. this unelected prime minister should now resign. cheering. and there was more. he thinks he's above us all. he's part of an elite that disdains democracy. i will tell you this. i don't think he is fit to be prime minister. applause. so what is mr corbyn going to do next? he could hold a vote of no confidence in boris johnson, but for now, he's reluctant to act. this crisis can only be settled with a general election. that election needs to take place as soon as this government's threat of a disastrous no—deal is taken off the table. cheering. labour's disagreements over brexit have been on full display at this conference.
they agree they want a second referendum, but mr corbyn's top team is split over whether they should say now that they'll campaign for remain. labour will end the brexit crisis by taking the decision back to the people with a choice — a credible leave alongside remain. that is not complicated. labour is a democratic party that trusts the people. but it's policies mr corbyn wants to focus on. labour would scrap prescription charges and introduce free personal care in england. there would be a £10 living wage and a huge renationalisation programme, plus a new system to provide affordable drugs for the nhs. and we will create a new, publicly—owned generic drugs manufacturer to supply cheaper medicines to our nhs. mr corbyn said he wanted to put government on the side of the people. go forward to win an election for the people of this country. cheering.
things are going badly for the prime minister, but it's not been plain sailing for the labour leader either. here, the crowd absolutely adore him, but back in parliament he's a much more divisive figure. he can't unite the opposition parties behind him, and that makes getting rid of borisjohnson a whole lot harder. butjeremy corbyn's convinced there's an appetite for change. vicki young, bbc news, brighton. if you want to find out more about what today's judgment means, there's a special section answering your questions on the the bbc website, visit at bbc.co.uk/have your say. a major operation is continuing to bring more than 150,000 people back to the uk , after the collapse of the travel
operator thomas cook. according to the civil aviation authority, 0peration matterhorn has organised 7a flights today, repatriating around 16,000 passengers. flights will continue until the 6th of october, as our transport correspondent tom burridge reports. repatriating 150,000 repatriating150,000 people is complicated, but resilience at this turkish airport. the manchester ﬂight turkish airport. the manchester flight is full, right? still in her thomas cook uniform, unsure if she will be paid. but in kefalonia tonight, a long and miserable weight after a government run rescue flight was delayed and then cancelled. and people still on thomas cook holidays are having trouble too. hotels like this one are owed money by a company which has collapsed. last night, staff demanded that guests, who had already paid for their entire holiday, cover the unpaid bills.
caught up in it all, graham and claire. it wasn't a pleasant scene. there was a bit of aggression from one of the reception staff, demanding money. 0bviously, they are worried about not being paid themselves. government advice is not to pay because of cover from the atoll travel scheme, but in another pa rt atoll travel scheme, but in another part of spain, guests were locked out of their rooms until they did. we went out for dinner last night and came back to the hotel and we couldn't get into our room. so we had to go downstairs to the lobby and the lady said, basically, give us and the lady said, basically, give us 3a0 euros and you can get back into your room. so that was what we had to do. it's money she can claim back. but other customers gave money to staff out of work during one of the last thomas cook flights after a collection organised by a passenger.
it's now likely that thomas cook's german airline will be rescued by a loa n german airline will be rescued by a loan from the german government. but in britain, and entire operation is grand. there will be a probe into the compa ny‘s grand. there will be a probe into the company's demise. tom burridge, bbc news. heavy rain has led to six flood warnings across england, with more areas told to prepare for possible problems. in london the heavy rainfall affected a number of roads, with flooding also reported on roads in southampton, birmingham, and liverpool. in washington, democratic members of congress have launched an impeachment inquiry into president trump after he acknowledged withholding us aid to ukraine
and pushing the country to investigate joe biden, the frontrunner for the democratic presidential nomination next year. but president trump says the funds were not withheld in order to put pressure on ukraine. 0ur north america editor jon sopel has more. new york in september, when the leadership of the world converges on the un to speak. but one conversation is causing donald trump extreme difficulty, and the heat is intensifying. injuly, he phoned the newly elected ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky, and it's alleged donald trump demanded an investigation into his democratic presidential rival, joe biden, and his son's business dealings in the country as the price for receiving us military aid. no dirt, no aid, is the suggestion. the president denies wrongdoing, but his account of the call has changed continually as the questions have piled up. i think it's ridiculous, it's a witchhunt.
i am leading in the polls, they have no idea how they stop me. the only way they can try is through impeachment. this has never happened to a president before. there's never been a thing like this before. it's nonsense and when you see the call, when you see the readout of the call, which i assume you'll see at some point, you'll understand. that call was perfect. joe biden is the democratic party front runner. he is leading donald trump in the polls and says the president this time has gone too far. the president does not comply with such a request to the congress. he continues to obstruct congress and flaunt the law. donald trump will leave congress, in my view, no choice but to initiate impeachment. that would be a tragedy, but a tragedy of his own making. with the pressure on, donald trump has said he will declassify the phone call and release a full transcript, but too little, too late. it won't be enough to stop the democrats pressing the nuclear button and pushing for impeachment. as soon as we have
the facts, we are ready. now we have the facts, we're ready. for later today. laughter i should say that nancy pelosi in the last half hour has confirmed that impeachment proceedings will begin against donald trump, citing a betrayal of his oath of office and seriously violating the constitution. donald trump has tweeted furiously in response to this. what's clear, and it's a huge deal, is that a ball has been set rolling with uncertain consequences. the democrats will hope this will bring about donald trump's demise. but they also it could solidify support for him and just result in him winning the 2020 election. there is everything to play for. jon sopel is everything to play for. jon sopel, our north america correspondent, in new york. back to our main story tonight, and the decision of the uk supreme court, which has been widely described as one
of the most significant in british legal history. but how is it regarded by historians and constitutional experts with an eye to the historical and constitutional context? james robbins has been canvassing a range of views on what happened today. 0ver many centuries and across the broad sweep of english and british history, contests over power are nothing new. the power of parliament has been hard won, and the power of all the people to choose that parliament too. on a historical timeline, certain events like magna carta shout out as very important big moments — in 1215 the extraction of rights from the king by his barons, a charter still widely celebrated around the world. and no wonder the 17th century stands out too. there was first civil war in england, the beheading of a monarch, a republic, monarchy restored and in 1689, a ground—breaking bill of rights,
gradually accumulating power to parliament. so is today a big historical moment? at university college london, professor robert hazell tells me it certainly is. it's clearly a very big landmark case. but the court did reach back into history as far as the 1ath century and in particular the 17th century in reminding us about the fundamentals of our constitution, as they have always been. i don't expect that any future prime minister will dare, when the question of prorogation comes up, to prorogue parliament for more than a few days, or at the most a week or so. but in the 17th century, it was very few wealthy men who voted and made our laws. it took another 200 years and more of petition in protest before it took another 200 years and more of petition and protest before britain finally achieved universal suffrage with votes for women and limits to the unelected house of lords. so i turned to an oxford professor of history who is today back in her native canada for a view both
from inside and outside of britain. i think this is as major as the events before the civil war or the crisis before the first world war over the power of the house of lords. i think it is a huge moment and i think the fallout from this will be extraordinary for the next few years. both academics agree that today's judgment was not about brexit, but it was about the proper exercise of power at a time of profound historic division within britain. james robbins, bbc news. let's get a final thought tonight from our political editor laura kuenssberg. at 11.30 tomorrow morning, the house of commons will be in session. it's not a renewal, it's not coming back in the form away, the speaker was clear that it is a resumption of business. what will happen? opening the doors again will be extremely bumpy tomorrow for the prime
minister. not to put too fine a point on it, i think borisjohnson is probably going to take an absolute pasting when we see him at the dispatch box through the day tomorrow. 0pposition mps and the toys he kicked out of the party are going to do everything they can to put pressure on him and the government are going to demand all sorts of urgent answers about different bits of the brexit policy, what the government's plans are. but don't underestimate pushback that we may hear from the other side. in a confidential cabinet call tonight, it was suggested to me that the leader of the house of commons scrap this as being a constitutional coup. his team will not confirm or deny this tonight, but it is clear that parts of the tory party, as there may be in other parts of the country, a real anger at what has been done here. it is clear that number ten may try to choose to promote that idea that borisjohnson is standing up for people who wanted to vote for brexit, and the weight of the establishment is trying to get in his way. but to say that that isa high get in his way. but to say that that is a high wire act is the understatement of the year. this is
fraught with risk. however brazen you want to be as a politician, the fa ct you want to be as a politician, the fact that the supreme court has made this ruling does matter. what it does make an immediate difference to is the arithmetic of how things line up is the arithmetic of how things line up in the house of commons. the prime minister is determined to take it out of the eu by halloween, and a parliament that does not want to let that happen unless he can perform some kind of miracle and get a deal. so the court made history today, no question. but the politics haven't really shifted that much. we will talk again tomorrow. laura kuenssberg, our political editor. that's it from westminster on a day of great legal, constitutional and political significance after that supreme court ruling that the prime minister borisjohnson acted unlawfully in suspending parliament at a time of national crisis. now on bbc one, time for the news where you are. have a very good night.
hello and welcome to the bbc sport centre with me. a huge upset in the lea k centre with me. a huge upset in the leak up this evening. tottenham had been knocked out by the lowest ranked team left in the tournament. after normal time. the league 2 side progressed to a—3 on penalties after kristin erickson missed theirfor this verse. elsewhere, scoring twice, southhampton now in control. cedric added a third before nathan redman to finish things off and their a—0 went to reach the last 16. elsewhere, all the other premier league sites progressed. a big one for league 2, quality town. beating stoke on penalties. jordan is back