last night, groups of us were talking with joanna cherry, night, groups of us were talking withjoannaeene, former attorney general, and none of us thought the court would go so far as actually to quash the prorogation. parliament is not suspended, not even adjourned. effectively, we are still sitting and the sooner we get back into the chamber, the better. it is extraordinary. i have already contacted the speaker on behalf of all the opposition parties that are here, we have said we are willing and ready to get into the chamber to hold the government to account and ask the many questions we need to ask the many questions we need to ask of this prime minister. i don't know what is going to happen, i want a peoples vote. i think the only way through the crisis is back to the british people. i understand the speaker has contacted party leaders and has suggested a meeting this afternoon to decide what happens next. prorogation doesn't exist, thatis next. prorogation doesn't exist, that is the outcome of the court case. parliament is still sitting, let's go and resume, make that a practice

questions that we're likely to today as he said it's from joanna cherry the scottish national party m.p. who was involved in the legal cases that the court has been hearing she was asking geoffrey cox the conservative m.p. who is also the attorney general about the advice that the government's had received and given. all of queuing for prioritization now what geoffrey cox said was that all of this advice was set out. in the government legal case was set out in the hearing put before the supreme count so that he oversaw that legal counsel and the theory was called on to resign every time he lost the case then he would never have had any legal practice that's all he used to be a lawyer. he said that he was disappointed that the supreme court took a different view from the how the courts in the country but he accepted the decision but legally he said the matter is settled now what he did say was which was interesting was that a reconsider whether the public interest required any public disclosure of the advice that had been given to the governments on the matter he said this was under cons

we do have to speak to joanna cherry correspondent. speak to joanna cherry of the correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna cherry of the snp very soon, but right now, let's take a look at some other news. the government is to allow international students studying at uk universities to stay in the country for two years after graduating. the announcement by the home office reverses a decision made by theresa may as home secretary in 2012 which forced foreign students to leave the country within four months of completing their degree. figures from the uk council for international student affairs show that last year, more than 450,000 overseas students were studying in the uk. china sends significantly more students to the uk than any other nation — with 106,000 students from the country deciding to study here in the uk. and according to the university body university uk, overseas students contribute £26 billion to the uk economy. the business secretary andrea leadsom says giving overseas students more time to find jobs in the uk after g

that is joanna cherry from the job of scrutinising parliament. that isjoanna cherry from the snp.ersity of bristol law school. for academics like yourself, this sort of grey area between vellore and the unwritten constitution and politics is absolutely fascinating. you have been inside beryl morning. what do you make of what you have heard? it what do you make of what you have heard ? it is what do you make of what you have heard? it is purposeful. lord pannick is a silky advocate. he relied quite heavily on theoretical argument. he was pressed by another lord to move on from the academic theory, to the case law. he did move on eventually that it was interesting to see how much weight lord ten point had placed on academic opinion and comments. the central case, borisjohnson tried to silence parliament because he sees it as silence parliament because he sees itasa silence parliament because he sees it as a threat and an obstacle. —— lord pannick. to make the ii judges certain that was the motivation of the prime minister. what lord pannick said, in the absence of a witness statemen

—— joanna cherry.ernment has said it will appeal, that potentially goes to the supreme court on tuesday. what would you advise colleagues in parliament who don't like this suspension to do in the meantime? well, we think parliament should be recalled, for the time being, the highest court in the land that has ruled on the matter has said that prorogation is unlawful, so parliament should go back and get on with the job of scrutinising this government, looking at what they are up government, looking at what they are up to and preventing constituents from across the country, leave or remain, making sure they do not suffer the economic damage of a no—deal brexit, although the supreme court are due to hear this case, the english case, the northern ireland case, tuesday, wednesday, thursday next week, even if they were to issue... inaudible which is unlikely, it is a complex area of constitutional law, evenif complex area of constitutional law, even if they issued their decision immediately, we will have lo

speaking of which, order, urgent question, joanna cherry.majesty the queen to prorogue parliament. mr speaker, as the honourable lady now is the supreme court gave judgment on this issue yesterday to stop that judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to her majesty on the prorogation of parliament. the government was likely reviewed during the case was set out, and argued file before the supreme court. the hearing was streamed live at the government's rating case was and is available on the supreme court website. i took a close interest in the case. laughter. and i oversaw the government's team of counsel. i have to say, mr speaker, that if every time i lost a case i was called upon to resign, i probably would never have had a practice. and the government accepts thejudgment, practice. and the government accepts the judgment, and accepts that it was the case. and at all times, the government acted in good faith, and in the belief... and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional. t

who want the snp mp, joanna cherry who want the scottish court ruling which found that suspensionawful to be upheld. three days of absolutely critical hearings. let us consider what has been said already and what will be said today. i have got the barrister and legal commentatorjeremy brier with me and also professor alison young, professor of public law at cambridge university. good morning to you both. jeremy, first of all, what are we expecting today and how important will today be in these proceedings? today is an absolutely critical day, particularly for the government. they had a difficult time yesterday. lord pannick was on his feet yesterday morning for gina miller, putting that case against the government as to why fluoridation was unlawful and why it effectively stymied parliamentary solidarity. —— why prorogation. today i think they will start with the question of where can the court get involved and where does the court will draw the line and say, this is actually not a legal matter anymore, this is about politics and policy, and that will be the real ci’ux policy, and

supreme court one of the people who brought the case was scottish nationalist a member of parliament joanna cherry here's her reaction to today's ruling it is unlawful for parliament to be suspended the highest court in scotland has ruled that it is unlawful unanimously and. in this wonderful equal union which we're told so much about which is the united kingdom then the scottish court has jurisdiction over the basement department so where does this leave everything let's go to london safe correspond to mask social service mass welcome back it where does this leave the prime minister. well it does leave him indeed and has failed once again the has really succeeded in uniting the opposition against him and many m.p.'s not just the scottish nationalist but also other opposition m.p.'s are demanding that he recalled parliament immediately and also there are numerous opposition m.p.'s who are saying if this is really proven to be a case and the implication is that the prime minister would have misled the queen and calling for the suspension of parliament and not telling her the real reasons for that h

s was from joanna cherry scottish national party m.p. who was asking the attorney general geoffrey cos about the case that the government put to the monarch about prioritisation so he said the government believes still believes that they were acting lawfully and constitutionally they disagree with the supreme court decision but legally he said the matter is now samples they accept that verdict he went on to defend the judiciary saying that britain has one of the finest judiciaries in the world and its independence is sacrosanct now and that puts him in opposition to some members of the conservative party on his own bench who suggest that what the supreme court did was some kind of constitutional coups that you see geoffrey cox was damning though at hollins itself for the opposition particularly when he said this is a dead parliament it has no right to sit on these benches twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide while they block 17400000 people's votes this parliament he said is a disgrace well that's his view but it is pa

he was answering an urgent question from joanna cherry, a leading figure in the legal battle.sure the attorney general that i'm not going to call for his resignation yet. yesterday was a special day for scots law and the scottish legal tradition going back to the declaration of arbroath that the government is not above the law. documents showing geoffrey cox's and vice to the government stating that prorogation was legal have been leaked to the media. many of us believe that the attorney general is being offered up as a fall guy for the prime minister's botched plans. so does he not agree with me that to release the advice in its entirety will help him avoid being the scapegoat for a plan that was reamed up by the prime minister and his advisors, and will he give the undertaking that he has hinted that he is thinking of giving today? labour is also calling for the advice to be published. this government stands in shame. tendering illegal advice to our monarch and not even able to uphold the most basic but important of principles, abiding by the rule of law. on this attorney ge

he was answering an urgent question from joanna cherry, a leading figure in the legal battle.assuring the attorney—general that i'm not going to call for his resignation yet. mr speaker, yesterday... yesterday was a very special day for scots law and the scottish legal tradition going back to the declaration of arbroath that the government is not above the law. documents showing mr cox's advice to the government, stating that prorogation was legal, have been leaked to the media. many of us believe that the attorney—general is being offered up as a fall guy for the prime minister's botched plans. so, does he not agree with me that to release the advice in its entirety will help him avoid being the scapegoat for a plan that was dreamed up by the prime minister and his advisers? and will he give the undertaking that he has hinted that he's thinking of giving today? labour called for the advice to be published. this government stands in shame! tendering illegal advice to our monarch and not even able to uphold that most basic, the most important of principles — abiding by the rule

now with our correspondent is standing by for us in london hi prevaricate we heard there from joanna cherry she is a member of the scottish national party she was saying this is unlawful and the scottish court does have jurisdiction over the government in london what does this mean for the prime minister boris johnson well the scottish nationalists clearly digging their heels in and they are not alone day off united with other opposition parties they are basically demanding from the government to recall parliament to open the doors more or less immediately there are also numerous opposition politicians who have said if it's really true that boris johnson has misled the queen and this is the implication from this ruling in scotland then he should really resign so yet more pressure on boris johnson has so far really not been very lucky in being prime minister since he took over in july does this mean that parliament will stay on this that forced recess well we'll have to wait and see there are many politicians who really want to sit again they want to shape they want to influence the brics ap

politically the judges then heard from the lawyer representing the scottish national party and joanna cherry they won their case in a scottish court last week which found that the prime minister has acted unlawfully and then defending that. he said it's not important how many days parliament has been suspended for what's important is the intent and the effect and he accused the government of low dishonest. and also described suspension as the mother of parliaments be shot down by the father of lies now it's hard to tell where the judges stand at the moment on the issue but some did express their anger at the lack of evidence given for the reasons for the suspension they have minutes from a cabinet meeting which lay out a variety of reasons but no written statements to support that essentially no one saying this is the truth and they say that is highly unusual the lawyer representing the prime minister. argues otherwise. they were the law given including some from the former conservative prime minister john major will be giving evidence supporting the case against boris johnson who knows how

——joanna cherry. he is arguing for the supreme court to uphold that.ity and from the centre right think tank policy exchange. aidan o'neill very lyrical talking about kipling and oliver cromwell, macbeth, all sorts of things, robert burns but then he talked about how it wasn'tjust the intent of proroguement parliament, suspending parliament, it was the effect of suspending parliament and he said it was done with improper purpose and with bad faith. exactly, i think he was picking up on comments made on the first day, enquiring as to what exactly the difference would be between the intent of the prime minister when he chose to prorogued parliament and the effect, inviting those submissions and i think this is what has been picked up on today. the effect that parliament cannot scrutinise the brexit process, that's the argument. ultimately, parliament would be able to hold parliament would be able to hold parliament to account for all sorts of things, like statutory instruments and in the final insta nce instruments and in the final instance parliament co

joanna cherry they won their case in the scottish court last week found that the prime minister had acted on the fully and then defending that. he said it's not important how many days parliament has been suspended for what's important is the intent and the effect he accused the government of low dishonest. and also described suspension as the mother of parliaments. by the father of lies now it's hard to tell where the judges stand at the moment on the issue but some did express their anger at the lack of evidence given for the reasons for the suspension they have minutes from a cabinet meeting which lay out a variety of reasons but no written statements to support essentially no one saying this. is the truth and they say that is. the lawyer representing the prime minister argues otherwise. on thursday will tell more arguments including some from the former conservative prime minister john major will be giving evidence supporting the case against boris johnson he knows how that will influence this story. hundreds of demonstrators have taken part in a rolling one person protests outside ru

for ministerial statements and other business speaking of which colleagues order urgent question joanna cherry were. to ask the attorney general if he will make a statement by his legal opinion on the advice given to her majesty the queen to prove parliament's here and your neighbors general jeffrey talking here were. to speak here as the honorable lady whose the supreme court gave judgment on this issue yesterday and that judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to her majesty on the probably go should be part of the government's legal view during the case was set out and argued fully before the supreme court be hearing was streamed live and the government's written case was and it is available on the supreme court website i took a close interest in the case was. that i oversaw the government through the council. i have to say. after there was this figure that if every time i lost a case i was called upon to resign i probably would never have had a practice. i got over. it and the government i am the government except. the government accepts. the judgment

sebastian: big talk therefrom joanna cherry.re is talk around what boris johnson would do if you were to lose this case. they stopped short of saying parliament will be recalled immediately, but the have to give a written answer, so a bit of pressure on johnson and his legal team to get. vonnie: great reporting there. bloomberg's sebastian salek. guy: still with us, arend kapteyn, ubs global head of economic and strategy research. let's talk a bit about brexit. it seems to be increasingly the central case of many that i hard brexit is ultimately what we are going to get. we will wait and see exactly what happens. if that is the case and it is an acrimonious, hard brexit, walk me through the applications for the u.k. economy and the european economy. arend: it is very similar to a tariff shock, except that we also have nontariff barriers that are more expensive. upher than having tariffs go 3.5%, you have them up 10%, 15%. that is your first stock. we think you go down about 200 basis points in growth in the first year. half of t

m what we heard there on the steps of the court from joanna cherry?t, if they find in theirfavour, are was the supreme court, if they find in their favour, are as clear as possible about what they say should happen. i think they are worried that if the supreme court find it unlawful and don't go any further that the prime minister could just go back to parliament and read prorogue and just simply suspend parliament again. what they are calling for is for the court to be clear in terms of what it says should happen next. if they are absolutely clear, lord keane had been saying earlier on, be careful, to thejudges. you been saying earlier on, be careful, to the judges. you are entering a mine field, you are entering forbidden territory. how difficult would it be for those 11 supreme court justices? lady hale would it be for those 11 supreme courtjustices? lady hale saying none of this is easy. we began and now we end on the same point. it is for the supreme court to decide the most challenging issues of law. this is the most challenging political and le

obviously this was started in august byjoanna obviously this was started in august by joanna cherry obviously the case mounted initially, and there is another case in london, how do they feed into each other? in the sum of the scottish case was the first one, that is because the scottish courts meet in the summer, english courts don't. there will be an english case brought by gina miller, who brought the case surrounding article 50, withjohn major, the former prime minister, and there is a case being brought in northern ireland by victims‘ advocate there who is challenging the prorogation of parliament. today is the first one, the case in edinburgh. what are the arguments? essentially that the government endocrine‘s order is beyond the pale, it breaks the rule of law, it brea ks pale, it breaks the rule of law, it breaks the constitutional tradition of britain and it is an abuse of power, essentially. the argument against is that this is a political act, the government‘s advocate said last night it was an intensely political decision to prorogue parliament and basically such political decisio

this afternoon it was the turn of aidan o'neill, counsel for the group led by the snp mp joanna cherrythe ‘mother of parliaments had been shut down by the father of lies‘. and tomorrow, there will be interventions from the former prime minister sirjohn major, whose lawyers will makes his submission to the court. our home editor mark easton reports. at the supreme court, the power struggle between the united kingdom‘s government and its parliament has, for some, become an instagram moment, a photo opportunity. i was there. good morning. 11 justices are being asked to make the final legal call on whether borisjohnson‘s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was an unlawful ruse to get brexit done by halloween. the suggestion, ultimately, that the prime minister was concerned to stymie parliament — whatever on earth that means — is, we respectfully submit, untenable. the case hinges on what might be called westm i nster‘s triangle of power — the relationship between 10 downing st, the houses of parliament and the supreme court. sirjames eadie, the government‘s go—to barrister, argu

let me bring in joanna cherry, absolutely, i believe him. evin there, you will have heard other people say that this document is simply, really sensible planning for a worst—case scenario. simply, really sensible planning for a worst-case scenario. well, i heard kevin make a valiant attempt to try to explain what the document is about, but, of course, it is significant that the british government will not put anyone up to speak on your programme, to defend the document, as you pointed out yourself, this document sets out the consequences of something the british government is planning to inflict on its own people, which is in any view, a stupid thing to do, to shoot yourself in... not if it gets a deal. well, the fact of the matter is that for three years, when parliament was allowed to set "brexit", parliament took evidence from various select committees about the impact of a no—deal brexit and it showed that the impact on the economy of scotland and the whole of the united kingdom would be catastrophic. what these documents show, that have

urgent question, joanna cherry.the attorney general if he will make a statement about his legal opinion on the advice given to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament? the attorney general, the government's main legal adviser said... the government accepts the judgment and accepts that it lost the case and, at all times, the government acted in good faith and in the belief that... and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional. but, he added... this parliament is a dead parliament. it should no longer sit. it has no moral right to sit on these green benches. why? because... they're too cowardly! cheering this parliament should have the courage to face the electorate. but it won't. it won't, because so many of them are really all about preventing us leaving the european union at all. in response, take a look at this. no shame today, no shame at all. the fact that this government cynically manipulated the prorogation to shut down this house so that it couldn't work as a democratic assembly

the scottish nationalist pa rty‘s joanna cherry lodged the case in court. she was first to react.itish government are breaking the law. so we, as politicians, are calling for parliament to be recalled so that we can get on with scrutinising what this government is up to in relation to brexit. the case was heard in the court of session, in edinburgh. one of the threejudges was particularly scathing. lord brodie called the suspension an "an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities". in their ruling, thejudges concluded that the prime minister was motivated by an "improper purpose of stymieing parliament". and the prime minister's motivation is central to this. when he announced his intentions two weeks ago, he denied it had anything to do with brexit. prime minister, to do that queen's speech, you will need to prorogue parliament several days. your critics will say this is an insult to democracy and deny the mps the time they need to deliberate and possibly vote on brexit. well — that is completely untrue. if yo

do you remember when joanna cherry came out at the end of the hearing and said they want things to bet with no wiggle room for a parliament. it could be a declaration, if it is against the government, it could even be a quashing order, saying that parliament is recalled. in some senseis parliament is recalled. in some sense is huge pressure on the 11 supreme court justices. they sense is huge pressure on the 11 supreme courtjustices. they know the eyes of the country, the eyes of the eyes of the country, the eyes of the world even, are on them. the eyes of the country, the eyes of the world even, are on themlj the eyes of the country, the eyes of the world even, are on them. i think this is the first time i have heard the phrase binge watching supreme court tv. i thought that was just for a legal academics. court tv. i thought that was just for a legal academicslj court tv. i thought that was just for a legal academics. i heard someone for a legal academics. i heard someone in the supermarket say they had been watching the supreme court all week, which is something you don't normally

we heard from joanna cherry and indeed others who were involved in this case, how does this change theat it is fairto remind political landscape, given that it is fair to remind viewers again that the final decision will rest with the final decision will rest with the uk‘s supreme court next week. that‘s right. this will be appealed by the government to the supreme court who will make the final decision and, of course, there has been a different ruling in the court for england and wales, and this the supreme court who will need to work out who has got the law right here. although it is worth saying that the judges who made the decision you‘re in edinburgh today, this is an appeal court, so they do outrank the high court in london. number ten say they are going to appeal this and not do anything about bringing parliament back until that has been held by the supreme court because they say there the progression is legal and necessary. it was a surprise that the three judges at the supreme court found that the prime minister was acting unlawfully. i do not think anyone would want to take b

on the one hand you have 70 parliamentarians, led by joanna cherry, they brought that scottish actiono not know when a ruling will be made, it could be as early as tomorrow but thought to be unlikely. yesterday the court was told that the government will compliant with the court ruling. eu officials will debate the state of the brexit talks later today. all of these conversations are going on here but what is happening in the eu and what are they discussing today? today, in about an hour was time, we will hear from the president of the commission and the chief negotiator and they will be updating the latest. an opportunity for them to get more detail about that lunch they had with boris johnson in luxembourg. it goes the vague written statements we got after that happened on monday. meps will spend a couple of hours debating brexit and voting on a new motion they have tabled. a draft of that motion says the eu still thinks the best way for the eu to leave is with a deal. they will say it is incumbent on the uk to come forward with alternatives to the backstop into the withdrawal agree

tears from the lawyers of gina miller and joanna cherry.ng read out and that was maybe a hint as the justices came out all was not well on their side. there is one critical paragraph, lady hale in her judgment, which all of the 11 justices have agreed, it is impossible to include all the evidence —— that concluded the evidence —— that concluded the evidence that there was any reason, let alone good reason, that the queen would be advised to prorogue parliament for five weeks. that is a remarkable conclusion on this case because four days last week the government fought against any kind of suggestion from the court that they should look into the reasons and the effect of those, they have lost hands down on everything here. but also a really clear statement from the court on its constitutional role, its role in upholding the balance of power between parliament asa balance of power between parliament as a senior partner and government as a senior partner and government asa as a senior partner and government as a junior partner to be kept in ch

urgent question, joanna cherry.l if he will make a statement about his legal opinion on the advice given to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament? the attorney general, the government's main legal adviser said... the government accepts the judgment and accepts that it lost the case and at all times, the government acted in good faith and in the belief that... and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional. but, he added... this parliament is a dead parliament. it should no longer sit. it has no moral right to sit on these green benches. why? because... they're too cowardly! cheering. this parliament should have the courage to face the electorate. but it won't. it won't, because so many of them are really all about preventing us leaving the european union at all. in response, take a look at this. no shame today, no shame at all. the fact that this government cynically manipulated the prorogation to shut down this house so that it couldn't work as a democratic assembly. he knows that tha

he called on joanna cherry, one of the mps who brought the case to the government, talking about theheyhe judgment acted in good faith. francine: thank you so much, anna edwards in westminster. let's get to the single best chart. it is the spread between the three-month cable volatility and one month. it is the widest since the 2016 referendum. we are back with james sweeney and adam posen. if you look at this chart and wonder what the market is pricing in, are they pricing in no deal or are they fed up? james: a steady stream of information on no deal probability, the expectations of a no deal brexit have gone down substantially in the markets in the recent weeks. the general idea of brexit uncertainty weighing on business activity is certainly still there. we have seen in the data in the past year one of the main problems for the euro area is exports. when you look at where the exports are weak, it is places like the u.k. in turkey that have a substantial drag some of that trade weakness is related to political uncertainty and while hard brexit to have gone down, there is seemingly

upheld the ruling handed down by the court of session in scotland, which was fronted by the snp qc joanna cherry. 75 mps put their names to the challenge and one of them joins me now. you must be very happy with the judgment. what does it mean, do you think, constitutionally? it means the prime minister is not able to do this. we live within the rule of law. what the 11 judges found unanimously is that he worked against parliamentary democracy and had broken the law, and prorogued it for five weeks. normally it would be five days. is it a constitutional shift, this, or a restating of our unwritten constitution that parliament is sovereign, and it oversees the rule of the executive? which underlines the fact that we do still at the moment live in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law. when borisjohnson says he disagrees, i mean, he isn't in a position to disagree. ii he disagrees, i mean, he isn't in a position to disagree. 11 independent judges in our supreme court, the highest court of the land, have judged unanimously that he has acted illegally. he has. do you think the prime minist

supreme court where we are hearing from joanna cherry, the s&p lawmaker. -- smp lawmaker. lot of loopholes that boris johnson could foods -- force through no deal. tim: there are loopholes, there always are, but those can be blocked by parliament. if there is some new trick up their sleeve, parliament at the -- at has a no deal majority against no deal and if it is sitting, will be able to do anything about that trick. if thisry likely judgment makes a difference to the no deal scenario, there is not much boris johnson can do is -- that parliament can undo. francine: let's bring in andrew sheets and greg poodle -- boodle -- boutle. anthere a bias toward extension that could be wrong? what are the chances of a no deal brexit? it is still a significant risk. 31 is the risk of october going down a little bit, but you still have a key question that is unresolved. this was a striking and unanimous decision, and across assets there is more negativity around a brexit outcome priced into the pound rather than -- pricing in far less then a no deal probability. this is a notable sta

joanna cherry at the start of the summer.s all about prorogation and whether the courts might step into block prorogation of parliament. that is another aspect of what is unfolding today. away from westminster, it is significant and pertinent to what is happening here, and there are other legal moves later in the week, so lots of strands to get across today, and we will keep you updated throughout the rest of the day here in westminster. for now, i will hand you back to the studio for other news. at least 5 people are known to have died as hurricane dorian continues to cause catastrophic damage across the bahamas. some 13,000 houses are feared damaged or destroyed. dorian is expected to hit the eastern seaboard of america next as our north america correspondent, aleem maqbool, reports. overnight, life was changed in abaco in the bahamas by the strongest storm ever recorded there. large areas of these low—lying islands were totally submerged. winds reached more than 160 miles an hour with ocean surges recorded up to 23 feet hi

prorogation and the fact there is no witness statement from the prime minister, for gina miller and joanna cherrythank you both very much. we arejoined and stefan, thank you both very much. we are joined from oxford and stefan, thank you both very much. we arejoined from oxford by the barrister helen mountfield, who acted for gina miller in that case. that successful legal action which forced parliament to be consulted over the triggering of article 50. you took part in those proceedings. what do you have to do is an advocate and as an lawyer at the supreme court to really make your mark and persuade the judges that your case is the right one?” mark and persuade the judges that your case is the right one? i didn't actually represent gina miller, i represented the people's challenge group in that set of litigation, lord pannick... inaudible. we cannot get that line from helen mountfield. to sum up... lord pannick this morning, representing gina miller, said effectively that if boris johnson was trying to parliament because parliament represented a threat, then this afternoon we had the opposite si

joanna cherry.volvement led to further deaths this weekend? can i strongly welcome his statement from the dispatch box just now, that he agrees it is not appropriate for russia to rejoin the g7 and will he give full support to the members of the ukrainian parliament? i note the great interest my writable friend has taken in ukraine and the fortunes of that wonderful country. the president rang me before the g7, particularly to insist on his continued concerns about russian activities. i am sure those concerns are shared across this house. the prime minister‘s answer to the foreign miller —— former chancellor of the exchequer, he referred only to the rough shape of an alternative deal. does he have any detailed proposals? can he confirm he has not sent any detailed proposals to the eu? we have been in extensive talks, but as the right honourable lady will appreciate, doesn‘t make sense to negotiate in public. it has been clear from what i‘ve said already that the backstop is unacceptable and so is th