Jeremy Corbyn has called for Boris Johnson to apologise to the Queen and the country for unlawfully suspending parliament to stop scrutiny of his Brexit strategy.

The Labour leader said the prime minister had abused the powers he has of the use of the royal prerogative and this was a very, very serious matter.

Speaking on the BBC Today programme, Corbyn said it should have been obvious that it was a “pretty risky” decision to suspend parliament and reiterated his call for Johnson to resign.

“I think he should apologise to her [the Queen] for the advice he gave her and more importantly he should apologise to the British people for what he has done in trying to shut down our democracy at a crucial time when people are worried about what will happen on 31 October,” he said.

“Thanks to the supreme court, we now have parliament meeting again today and we will once again be able to question the government in what it is actually doing in taking us out of the EU without a deal, with all the damage that will do to people’s jobs and livelihoods,” he added.

Despite his calls for Johnson to resign, Corbyn said he would only move to a vote of no confidence in the prime minister when it was clear that a no-deal Brexit was off the table.

“Quite simply our first priority is to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October,” he said.

Michael Gove, the minister responsible for no-deal planning, took a defiant tone on the judgment on Tuesday morning, saying he respected the supreme court ruling but did not agree with it.

Play Video 'We respectfully disagree': Michael Gove on supreme court ruling – video

Asked whether the government had been wrong to prorogue parliament, Gove said: “I don’t think so.”

“I don’t think the government should apologise for having a strong domestic agenda or seeking to ring about or exit from the European Union,” he added.

Gove also denied widespread reports that Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, had in cabinet criticised the judgment as a “constitutional coup”, saying he did not recognise that language.

Elsewhere, the government was sending mixed messages on its response to the judgment, with a senior No 10 source briefing the view that judges had made a mistake, while Robert Buckland, the justice secretary, called for the independence of the judges to be respected.

Quick guide The six key paragraphs in the supreme court's verdict Show Hide That the court judgment was not about Brexit “It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the prime minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27 or 28 August, that parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9 and 12 September until 14 October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not.” That the court had the right to act “The first question is whether the lawfulness of the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.“ That the prorogation was not ‘normal’ “It prevented parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31 October. Proroguing parliament is quite different from parliament going into recess. While parliament is prorogued, neither house can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither house can debate government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of ministers or meet and take evidence in committees…This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on 31 October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.” That Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen was unlawful “The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that 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.“ That parliament has not been prorogued “This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.” What happens next? “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.” The full judgment and the summary judgment can be downloaded from the Supreme court website.

Parliament will reconvene at 11.30am on Wednesday, with all parties whipping their MPs to be there.

Opposition parties are likely to start making moves to hold the government to account through motions that would seek to gain control of the Commons order paper and possibly a motion or humble address to get publication of the attorney general’s legal advice on prorogation.

The government will shortly want to table a motion to secure a short recess for the Tory party conference but the vote may be lost by the government as Johnson no longer has a majority.

Corbyn said Labour would vote against parliament breaking up again at such a crucial time for Brexit.



