A SENIOR Tory minister has described Parliament as a “disgrace” and “dead” after MPs demanded he answer questions on Boris Johnson’s unlawful prorogation.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox launched a thunderous defence of his disgraced government, following yesterday’s damning ruling in the Supreme Court.
He also prompted speculation that ministers could soon ask MPs to vote for a third time on having a general election.
Yesterday, the highest court in the land stunned Downing Street when they said the Tory prorogation of parliament was unlawful, and therefore null and void.
That prompted Speaker John Bercow to call MPs back to Westminster to “resume” their work.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry was first up in the Commons, forcing the Tory law chief to come to the chamber to explain why he claimed the Prime Minister’s plot to suspend parliament was legal.
READ MORE: LIVE: MPs return to Westminster after Supreme Court victory
A furious Cox went on the attack, telling MPs that Parliament is "dead" and should no longer sit.
He said: "This Parliament has declined three times to pass a Withdrawal Act, to which the opposition, in relation to the withdrawal act, have absolutely no objection.
"Then we now have a wide number of this House setting its face against leaving at all, and when this Government draws the only logical inference from that position, which is we must leave therefore without any deal at all, it still sets its face, denying the electorate a chance of having its say in how this matter should be resolved.
"This Parliament is a dead Parliament, it should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches."
Cox's comments infuriated MPs.
After the Speaker intervened to request order be restored, Cox continued: "They don't like to hear it, Mr Speaker, twice they have been asked to make the electorate decide upon whether they should continue to sit in their seats while they block 17.4 million people's vote. This is a disgrace.
"Let me tell them the truth, they can vote no confidence at any time but they are too cowardly, they could agree to a motion to allow this House to dissolve but they are too cowardly.
"This Parliament should have the courage to face the electorate, but it won't, because so many of them are really all about preventing us leaving the European Union - but the time is coming, the time is coming, Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won't be able to prevent Christmas."
Cox said the Government accepted the court’s judgment, and “accepts that it lost the case”.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Attorney General is now fall guy for prorogue plan
But, he added, ministers had “acted in good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional”.
Cherry (pictured below), who was instrumental in taking the government to court over the prorogation, asked Cox for the advice given to the PM if not to the cabinet.
She added: “Because, Mr Speaker, 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?"
Cox replied: "I am particularly attracted by the tempting prospect that (she) dangles before me, but she will know that I am obliged by the convention to say that I am not permitted to disclose the advice that I may or may not have given to the Government, but I repeat the matter is under consideration."
Labour MP Hilary Benn asked if Cox agreed with Tory leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, that the Supreme Court judgement amounted to a "constitutional coup".
Cox said: "I do not believe that anybody does. These things can be said in the heat of rhetorical and poetical licence."
Cox defended High Court judges saying that while it is acceptable to be "robustly critical" of their decision, it is not acceptable to question whether they had any "improper" motives.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel