Johnson was asked on Thursday if he had lied to the monarch, after a Scottish court ruled the day before that his government's advice to the Queen, which led to the five-week prorogation, was "unlawful."
"Absolutely not," Johnson replied. "The High Court in England plainly agrees with us but the Supreme Court will have to decide."
"We need a Queen's Speech, we need to get on and do all sorts of things at a national level," he added.
Johnson has always insisted that his decision was a routine device that allowed the government to start a new parliamentary session with a fresh legislative agenda. Critics describe it as an audacious move to reduce the amount of time available to the opposition to block a no-deal Brexit.
The Scottish judges disagreed with the government, saying Wednesday that the suspension was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament."
UK lawmakers are now not scheduled to return to Parliament until October 14, but Johnson said that MPs would have enough time to debate Brexit before and after the EU summit on October 17 and 18, where Johnson has said he hopes to secure a deal.
"I'm very hopeful that we will get a deal, as I say, at that crucial summit. We're working very hard -- I've been around the European capitals talking to our friends," he said.
"I think we can see the rough area of a landing space, of how you can do it -- it will be tough, it will be hard, but I think we can get there."
Government appeal
The three Scottish judges did not order the UK government to reconvene Parliament, noting that the High Court in London had come to a different conclusion in another case last week and that the UK Supreme Court would need to resolve the issue next week.
That led to intense debate on Wednesday over whether MPs could go back to the House of Commons, with opposition lawmakers demanding Parliament be recalled and some MPs returning to the chamber to protest.
The government will appeal at the UK Supreme Court against the ruling and an emergency hearing on both the Scottish and English cases has been scheduled for September 17.
Following Wednesday's ruling, Conservative minister Kwasi Kwarteng was widely criticized for saying that "many people" think judges are biased over Brexit, but the Prime Minister backed away from his minister's comments.
Johnson said he would not "quarrel or criticize" the Scottish judges, adding that the British judiciary was "one of the great glories of our constitution."
"They are independent," Johnson said. "Believe me, around the world people look at our judges with awe and admiration, so I'm not going to quarrel or criticize the judges.
"Clearly there are two different legal views -- the High Court in England had a very different opinion and the Supreme Court will have to adjudicate in the course of the next few days, and I think it's proper for politicians to let them get on and do that."
Johnson was asked on Thursday if he had lied to the monarch, after a Scottish court ruled the day before that his government's advice to the Queen, which led to the five-week prorogation, was "unlawful."
"Absolutely not," Johnson replied, according to the UK Press Association. "The High Court in England plainly agrees with us but the Supreme Court will have to decide."
"We need a Queen's Speech, we need to get on and do all sorts of things at a national level," Johnson added.
Johnson has always insisted that his decision was a routine device that allowed the government to start a new parliamentary session with a fresh legislative agenda. Critics describe it as an audacious move to reduce the amount of time available to the opposition to block a no-deal Brexit.
The Scottish judges disagreed with the government, saying Wednesday that the suspension was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament."
HONG KONG (Reuters) - This is a transcript of a talk given in late August by Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam to a group of businesspeople in the city. The transcript is taken from an audio recording of Lam’s remarks that was obtained by Reuters. Last week, Reuters published most of Lam’s remarks and is now able to publish them in full.
FILE PHOTO: Hong Kong's Chief Executive Carrie Lam addresses a news conference in Hong Kong, China September 5, 2019. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach
People who attended the talk say she spoke for about a half hour. The recording, which runs 24 minutes, captures the bulk of the event. Reuters has redacted the transcript in a few spots to remove names mentioned by Lam and questions asked by the audience.
CARRIE LAM:
In the last two years, one of the policy areas that I have spent most time in is innovation and technology. Now, I actually personally chair the steering committee.
In less than three months’ time, Hong Kong has been turned upside down, and my life has been turned upside down. But this is not the moment for self-pitifulness, although I shared with [name redacted] that nowadays it’s extremely difficult for me to go out. I have not been on the streets, not in the shopping malls, can’t go to a hair salon, can’t do anything because my whereabouts will be spread around the social media, the Telegram, the LIHKG, and you could expect a big crowd of black T-shirts and black-masked young people waiting for me.
I’m still brave enough to go and this afternoon, I’m still planning to go if my security guards tell me later on that I can still go. But it’s really, I don’t want to cause disruption, inconvenience to the organisers. But as I said, this is not the time for me to self-pity myself. This is a time I come here, and I do other closed-door sessions from time to time with people from all walks of life, and the two things I said is, it’s not about self-pityness, it’s about making a plea for forgiveness and then appeal for love.
I don’t want to spend your time, or waste your time, for you to ask me what went wrong, and why it went wrong. But for a chief executive to have caused this huge havoc to Hong Kong is unforgivable. It’s just unforgivable. If I have a choice, the first thing is to quit, having made a deep apology, is to step down. So I make a plea to you for your forgiveness.
This is something that no matter how well intended, I just want to put this message across. This is not something malicious. This is not something instructed, coerced by the central government. This is out of a good intention, myself and some of my key colleagues to try to plug legal loopholes in Hong Kong’s system, very much prompted by our compassion for a single case, and this has proven to be very unwise given the circumstances. And this huge degree of fear and anxiety amongst people of Hong Kong vis-a-vis the mainland of China, which we were not sensitive enough to feel and grasp. And, of course, it has been exaggerated and misrepresented through very effective propaganda, if I may say so.
Now I want to make an appeal for love. It’s not to pity me, or to sympathise with me, but love for Hong Kong. And I’m sure [name redacted] have that strong passion and love for Hong Kong.
Then the question we need to ask, each one of us, is how to fix it, how to fix it? I have to say that I have no sort of ready solutions, because the scene changes so quickly. A week ago, we thought - ‘we’ means the core group within the government with some of our advisers – we thought that we have a relatively peaceful weekend, perhaps that’s the time to start a dialogue with sincerity, with humility, and trying to get some of Hong Kong’s fundamental issues resolved. But, unfortunately, the last two days have again totally thrown that away and we are seeing escalated violence to the degree of being insane. If you look at some of these TV footage and videos of how policemen have been attacked and so on.
But, of course, I’m sure in your hearts you will feel, and I’m sure a large number of people feel that I do have a solution, that is a political one. But I have to tell you that this is where the crux of the matter lies. Once an issue has been elevated to the situation – I’m sure [name redacted] has a better feel of that – to a national level, to a sort of sovereignty and security level, let alone in the midst of this sort of unprecedented tension between the two big economies in the world. The room, the political room for the chief executive who, unfortunately, has to serve two masters by constitution, that is the central people’s government and the people of Hong Kong, that political room for maneuvering is very, very, very limited. Because we were not trained to have that sort of national perspectives, and I could only keep on putting in what I feel is the Hong Kong situation and the Hong Kong sentiments. But whether those Hong Kong sentiments could override the national perspective and the national sentiments? I’m sure you know that now 1.4 billion mainland people already have formed a view about what is happening in Hong Kong. So, without going into a lot more details, I can only share with you discreetly that the room for me to offer a political situation in order to relieve the tension, nor to reduce the pressure on my frontline police officers in order to at least respond, or pacify the large number of peaceful protesters who are so angry with the government, with me in particular, of absolutely dead silence despite repeated participation in the protests, is what causes me the biggest sadness.
So without that, what other means we have is Hong Kong’s core value, that is the rule of law. The rule of law takes several forms, of course law enforcement, our police officers who have been suffering tremendously this time, especially on an occasion when they are supposed to celebrate 175 years of police establishment, and especially at a time when they were so proud of the crime figures which are still coming down. In fact, the first half year we still saw a drop of four percent in total crimes in Hong Kong, and that was the best seen in Hong Kong since 1972. And also they have commissioned a survey to commemorate this occasion done not by a pro-establishment group but by [name redacted], which indicated that confidence in the police after Occupy Central has rebounced to a historic high. That was the sort of background to how much the police have suffered.
So the rule of law requires law enforcement, so we have to tackle this escalating violence by arresting those offenders and then put them through the justice system, whether it’s prosecution by the Department of Justice in an impartial manner without any interference from myself or from the Central People’s government, and then finally in the courts.
With a little bit of hope that may help because we are seeing the numbers reducing. We started off by an estimate of about one to two thousand protesters who are very violent. Or put it that way, they are very willing to resort to violence. They may not be violent by nature but they are very willing to resort to violence, so, as described by one expert, this is the, sort of, early signs of anarchism, that they don’t trust the establishment, they don’t mind destroying things even if they don’t know what destruction will bring.
And if you look at yesterday’s various protests, it’s not only in the Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung area, but then it spread to Tsim Sha Tsui, Sham Shui Po, Wong Tai Sin. Every spot of confrontations, we’re talking about 50 to 300 at least, and they, actually because they were flowing so there could be some duplicates, so we might be seeing a smaller number. Whether it’s because of the 700-plus arrests that we have made has a bit of deterrent effect, or removed some of these factions, we have not had a full analysis, but we hope that with those efforts we may be able, as I said, I’ll be very honest with you, it would be naïve for me to paint you a rosy picture, that things will be fine or I have a deadline. But I can assure you that Beijing does not have a deadline. They know this will ripple on. So we have made special arrangements and there will be a 1st of October National Day celebrations but still having a lot of disruptions. So we are going for a modest, but solemn type of celebrations on the 1st of October, which means that they and ourselves have no expectations that we could clear up this thing before the 1st of October.
Another thing I want to assure you, that is my own feeling the pulse and through discussions, CPG (Central People’s Government) has absolutely no plan to send in the PLA. They are now doing, sort of, acts which I’m sure you’re quite aware of amongst the Communist Party, they’re just quite scared now. Because they know that the price would be too huge to pay. Maybe they don’t care about Hong Kong, but they care about ‘one country, two systems.’ They care about the country’s international profile. It has taken China a long time to build up to that sort of international profile and to have some say, not only being a big economy but a responsible big economy, so to forsake all those positive developments is clearly not on their agenda. But they’re willing to play long, they are willing to play long, so you have no short-term solution, Hong Kong suffers, you lose tourism, economy, you lose your IPOs and so, but you can’t do much about it. But after everything has been settled the country will be there to help with maybe positive measures especially in the Greater Bay Area. So our work on the Greater Bay Area has actually not stopped. We are still putting in proposals to the Greater Bay Area, especially something markets would love to hear, is a major ecological conservation plan which was drawn up by [name redacted]. She has left the government, I have brought her in on a part-time basis to draw up this ecological conservation plan for the entire Greater Bay Area in terms of biodiversity, air standards, water and so on.
So what could [name redacted] help us. Of course, every one of you has your own circle, you have your own friends, you have your own connections, you have your business contacts, so try to impress upon them that we really need to put an end to the violence, this is totally alien to Hong Kong and try to, as I said, appeal for understanding and love. We love this place, we love the people here. People used to be very peaceful and inclusive and so on. Instead of taking a position on every issue, either your friend or your foe, and so on.
When the time comes, now Hong Kong has survived the death pronounced by some people before 1997. At this point in time, although I’m actually pessimistic, but Hong Kong is not dead yet. Maybe she is very, very sick but she is not dead yet. We still have fundamentals here, we still have the nation behind us. So Hong Kong will have to go through several stages. The first is stamping out the violence, maybe doing other things in time to come which at the moment are not very available. Having gone through this stage, the next stage will be, in accordance with the bible, would be resurrection. We will need to come back to life, some life. So thereafter we want a reborn Hong Kong and a relaunching of this Hong Kong brand. [name redacted]
After her talk, Lam answered questions.
In answer to a question about the impact of the protests on schools and universities, Lam said:
Well, thank you very much [name redacted]. We will continue to help the schools. I am meeting a group of school principals within this week together with the secretary for education. Let me just answer your question in a very general way. I know certain factions in society have the feeling that we are not firm and strong enough vis-a-vis these protesters. But the difficulty is, of course, is always coming up with an argument that in the light of the majority of the public views and the people’s sentiments, this anger and this fear and so on, too strong a position of the government could be counterproductive. Although our research into overseas experiences in combating riots did require that sort of forcefulness. For example, in 2011, in Tottenham riots 15,000 rioters involved, 2,000 were arrested, 1,000 put to prison following a very quick process. From start to finish is 5-6 weeks, through special courts, night courts, 24 hours. What would you imagine to be the Chief Justice’s reaction if I were to tell him, ‘could you have special courts, night courts, in order to clear all these cases?’ We have arrested 700-plus now. So there are solutions that will be readily deployed in other countries that cannot be used in Hong Kong.
The second factor is apart from the 30,000 men and women in the force we have nothing. Really. We have nothing. I have nothing. That’s something, is something we avoid. So that means that whatever we do we have to take into full account the police assessment and reactions, so to give them some powers which they could not enforce because they’re outnumbered. They’re outnumbered not necessarily just by the violent protesters, they’re outnumbered just by people, which makes enforcement extremely difficult in terms of crowd management and crowd dispersal. So I’m not saying that we are not thinking about some of those firmer measures but just to explain to you that in the Hong Kong situation it’s very difficult, especially with the media. And this is perhaps one of Hong Kong’s weakest links, or the government’s weakest links, that we don’t have a strong enough, sort of, I wouldn’t say propaganda, I dare not say government carries out propaganda, but at least in terms of dissemination of factual information we are very, very weak. If we survive this crisis, well there will be a large number of revamping that I need to do in order to leave behind a better situation for my successor because there are so many weak parts in the government, which we have not fully realized. We did realize a bit, but we did not fully realize that it could be that bad, when we are going into, or right into, a crisis.
In answer to a suggestion from the audience related to the government’s public relations efforts:
I’m not aware of that 120-page document [name redacted]. But what I have asked for, but that is a little bit overtaken by events, that was almost a month ago, when we optimistically thought that we would have some sort of peaceful moments, that we could start to think about relaunching Hong Kong. So we sent out something by the information services department and invited eight such global PR companies, but unfortunately four immediately declined because that would be a detriment to their reputation to support the Hong Kong SAR government now, and two subsequently also turned away a request for meetings. So we’re left with two. I’m happy to meet with these two remaining personally, to see what advice they have, but their advice will only be more relevant after we have gone through this period.
This is also a very difficult moment for us because people take sides, and people are very worried about what they call this ‘white terror,’ this harassment on them. The revealing of details [in Cantonese]. And so it’s not even very difficult for us to get a production house, a design studio to do things for us, so things have to be done in-house or in the mainland. In the mainland then this causes problems. The smart lamp posts, somebody discovered that the raw parts came from a Shanghai factory and then they made a big story out of it again. But when the time comes, I certainly take up your advice that we should remove some of this bureaucracy and start talking to the people who could help, if they are willing to help.
Transcript by James Pomfret and Greg Torode in Hong Kong. Edited by Peter Hirschberg.
John Bolton, the national security adviser, was ousted after fundamental disputes with President Trump over how to handle foreign policy challenges like Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. But the two men disagreed about how they parted ways.
[For an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on “The Daily” podcast come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Read the latest edition here.]
On today’s episode:
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times.
Image
John Bolton in the Oval Office in May. President Trump’s third national security adviser, he was in the post for about 17 months.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on Twitter: @mikiebarb. And if you’re interested in advertising with “The Daily,” write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.
“The Daily” is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Alexandra Leigh Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Adizah Eghan, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, Jazmín Aguilera, M.J. Davis Lin and Dan Powell. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Stella Tan and Julia Simon.
LONDON (Reuters) - Scotland’s highest court of appeal ruled on Wednesday that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful and should be annulled.
FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks after Britain’s parliament voted on whether to hold an early general election, in Parliament in London, Britain, September 10, 2019, in this still image taken from Parliament TV footage. Parliament TV via REUTERS
Parliament was prorogued, or suspended, on Monday until Oct. 14, a move opponents argued was designed to thwart their attempts to scrutinise his plans for leaving the European Union and allow him to push through a no-deal Brexit on Oct. 31.
“We are calling for parliament to be recalled immediately,” Scottish National Party lawmaker Joanna Cherry, who led the challenge, told Sky News after the verdict by Scotland’s Inner Court of Session.
“You cannot break the law with impunity, Boris Johnson. The rule of law will be upheld by Scotland’s courts and I hope also the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,” Cherry said.
Johnson’s office said the government would appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the United Kingdom. Jo Maugham, a lawyer involved in the Scottish case, said the government’s appeal would begin next Tuesday.
In the summary of their decision, the three Scottish judges concluded that the principal reason to prorogue parliament was to prevent it holding the executive to account over Brexit and to allow Johnson to pursue a no-deal Brexit policy.
“The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament,” the summary said one judge, Lord James Drummond Young, had concluded.
“The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM (Her Majesty) the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”
Johnson announced on Aug. 28 that parliament would be prorogued, saying the government wanted the suspension so it could then launch a new legislative agenda.
Opponents argued that the real reason was to shut down debate and challenges to his Brexit plans. The court was shown documents that showed Johnson was considering prorogation weeks before he asked Queen Elizabeth to suspend the legislature.
“The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda,” a government spokesman said in response to Wednesday’s ruling. “Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.”
On Friday, London’s High Court rejected a similar challenge by campaigners and an appeal in that case is due to be heard on Sept. 17 at the Supreme Court
Johnson, who took office in July, has promised to take Britain out of the EU on Oct. 31 with or without a withdrawal agreement.
Before parliament was suspended, lawmakers forced through legislation which forces the prime minister to seek a three-month delay to Brexit on Oct. 19 if no divorce agreement has been agreed to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
However, Johnson has ruled out asking the EU for any extension to the exit date.
Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by Kate Holton and Angus MacSwan
Palestinian and regional leaders have sharply denounced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's pledge to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank if he wins this week's snap election.
Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political life after an inconclusive vote in April, said on Tuesday Israel will "apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea immediately" if he secured a fifth term in the September 17 polls.
The Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea make up 30 percent of the West Bank. They lie in Area C, which means they are mostly under Israeli military and civil control.
Approximately 65,000 Palestinians and 11,000 Israelis residing in illegal settlements live in that area, according to Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. The main Palestinian city is Jericho, with about 28 villages and smaller Bedouin communities.
After Netanyahu's announcement, Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo called his election promise a "dangerous development and a new Israeli aggression by declaring the intention to violate the international law."
"The Arab League regards these statements as undermining the chances of any progress in the peace process and will torpedo all its foundations."
In a series of separate statements, Qatar criticised "Israel's continued contempt of international law"; Turkey slammed the annexation pledge as "racist"; Jordan called Netanyahu's plan a "serious escalation"; and Saudi Arabiacalled for an emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
The United Nations, meanwhile, warned that Netanyahu's plan would have "no international legal effect".
Palestinian reaction
During his televised announcement, Netanyahu also reaffirmed a pledge to annex all of the Jewish-only settlements Israel has established in the West Bank.
Some 650,000 Israeli Jews currently live in more than 100 settlements built since 1967. International law views both the West Bank and East Jerusalem as "occupied territories" and considers all Jewish settlement-building activity there as illegal.
Palestinians swiftly reacted to Netanyahu's statements by saying he was destroying any hopes of peace.
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, warned that all agreements signed with Israel would end if it annexed parts of the West Bank, noting that Netanyahu's announcement contradicts UN resolutions and international law.
Hanan Ashrawi, a senior official in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), wrote on Twitter that Netanyahu was seeking to impose a "greater Israel on all of historical Palestine and [carry] out an ethnic cleansing agenda".
"This announcement is a declaration of war against the Palestinian people's rights as well as the very foundations of the international rules-based order," she said in a separate statement.
'Complicity' with US administration
In his address, Netanyahu also said a long-awaited United States peace plan, the release of which has been delayed until after the election, represented "a historic and unique opportunity to apply our sovereignty over our settlements" in the West Bank and "other places key to our security, our heritage and our future".
White House senior adviser Jared Kushner said in early May that he hoped Israel would take a hard look at President Donald Trump's upcoming proposal before "proceeding with any plan" to annex West Bank settlements.
Abdulsattar Qassim, a political science professor at al-Najah University in Nablus, said Palestinians are not expecting anything from Trump, a staunch Netanyahu ally who has enacted a series of policies that support Israel's expansion, including the widely condemned decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
"From the way Trump has been behaving, we expect that he will support any kind of Israeli decision to annex parts of the West Bank," Qassem told Al Jazeera.
"Trump has shown great animosity towards the Palestinians. He has transferred the US embassy to Jerusalem, supported the annexation of the occupied Golan Heights, and cut the financial resources of UNRWA, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PA."
According to Qassem, Netanyahu's pledge to annex occupied Palestinian territories is hardly new within the arena of Israeli politics.
"This project is not exclusive to Netanyahu," he said. "All across the Israeli political spectrum, from Labour to the right-wing Likud party, Israelis have favoured the annexation of the West Bank."
