I note the Telegraph has reported this morning that:
Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.
The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament's instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.
I would hope for some slightly better excuse for law breaking from our prime minister. All of us are only ‘in theory' obliged to comply with the law precisely because our free will permits us the opportunity to decide not to do so. Indeed, culpability is often (but not always) dependent upon evidence of that intent not to do so. In that case, of course the new law only applies to the Prime Minister ‘in theory'. But in practice, his stated intent to not comply also proves that in practice he would be culpable for not doing so.
What this claim does do is leave us in the most quite extraordinary position. We would have a Conservative Prime Minister wilfully breaking the law. It's not an attractive precedent: suggesting that it is up to a person to decide which laws they shall comply with is not a good example for anyone in authority to set.
And we will have a Prime Minister wilfully in contempt of Parliament.
Whilst what we most certainly will not have is a functioning government: the assumption on which Johnson was appointed only a few weeks ago, which was that he could command a majority in parliament, has clearly failed.
So what now?
We know that we will not get a general election at his behest, although we will undoubtedly have one before November is out.
So his only legal option is to resign if he is to avoid the obligations of office.
And then the Queen would have to invite Jeremy Corbyn to form an alternative government. She would have no choice.
But Johnson might of course choose to break the law.
Then we are in wholly uncharted territory.
To say that we are at risk of state failure is now to simply record a fact. It's not even speculation any more. The Tories have brought us to a point where it is apparent that constitutional failure, even within the vague parameters by which that has to be defined in our case, appears entirely possible. Quite literally the rule of law, including those of precedent on which we are so dependent, would have been broken. And then we join those other states in the world where this happens in being described as a failed state.
Will Johnson take us there? I think he might. This is uncharted territory. And dangerous beyond imagination, quite literally.
I am hoping he might see sense. But I am not optimistic.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think Johnson is bluffing. He knows perfectly well that the Conservatives are supposed to be the party of “law’n’order”, only the the completely crazed extreme right-wing Tory MPs or voters will follow him down this suicidal path. If he does try it on high court judges know their job and will convict him for breaking the law and it will be such that he would then be barred from office. He knows this, if he does not he must be far more than a twerp than he already displays with his behaviour so far.
If his “theory” is correct then Extinction Rebellion arrestees would have a perfect argument in their defence that they recognise obstruction laws in their case but can justify their actions for the grater good using the Prime Minister’s precedent as proof.
Sadly, whatever Boris Johnson does, he will have widespread support amongst the populace as his actions will be portrayed as the ‘will of the people’ especially from those diehard leavers and a large part of the main stream media who believe no deal means leaving the EU without a deal, whereas, in normal negotiations no deal means returning to the status quo, that is, the situation before negotiations commenced.
Rule breaking, the ‘stretching’ of truth, the denial of facts and the dismissive attitude to those who urge caution have led to this.
Civil disobedience does have its place in our society but surely not from our chief lawmaker?
Mr Johnson’s attitudes and actions over the weeks of him being our Prime Minister{and for a long time before then} show that he is totally unsuited for that office and so my hope is that it may cause a constitutional crisis, culminating in his resignation, and then more mature and wiser heads will prevail. Our current situation could then be re-assessed and a new direction taken. This could include a proper information campaign under the auspices, say, of the Electoral Commission, so that the people who are making the decisions have a duty to explain their actions, rather than relying on half truths and lies, and where they are properly held to account, which our MSM has, abjectly, failed to do. Idealistic, I know, but some good could come from this.
A very short term ‘hit’ for the country then, but following that, a solution to the Brexit conundrum, treating us all as adults, that puts the interests of the many first and denies the few, who have brainwashed so many as to the ‘benefits’ of Brexit which they will not in reality enjoy, the opportunity to trash our economy for their own financial advancement.
Richard & Others
Please note my comment carefully. I am not disparaging you.
I think that what Johnson does now or next is unimportant.
My focus is on what the opposition parties are thinking and planning next. I think that all Johnson is doing is creating mini-crises in order to cover up what his real intention is, which is to get Parliament right back to the situation it has been in for far too long: Totally Divided. As long as this situation exists, he can justify a recourse to the extreme executive action he is advocating. This is what the ERG want – the division of opposition so that ‘someone has to make a decision’.
There is only one way out of this, (and you know it) and that is for ALL of the opposition parties to form an alliance – a national Government.
So – this is why I am more interested in opposition behaviour. If HM Opposition think that they can resort to law or procedure, then so will the ERG led Government – they will both play games until the cows come home and if one of them makes a mistake……………..?
So:
F**k Johnson.
F**k the ERG.
I want to know just how badly HM Opposition parties do not want a No Brexit. If they want it that badly, and are willing to put aside tribalism (Labour) and the begetting of political credibility (the Con-Dems who not so long ago where dead in the water), then they will consort with each other to form a National Government.
If they do not – well………………..I will hold the opposition responsible – not Johnson, not the ERG. And then I will be done with politics for good.
My final comment is to do with the EU. What the EU should do is tell the UK Government that it can leave when it likes. Anytime. Get rid of any deadlines. The EU is ready. We are not. We never will be because we either never thought it would happen or our No Deal proponents do not care. So lose the imposition from the EU side. Johnson will then be more isolated and exposed.
Failed state or dysfunctional state.
I see where you’re coming from and, sure, there are many different types of ‘failed’ state, but maybe the term should be defined more or better.
Failed statehood CERTAINLY requires that a state’s framework, its laws and regulations, are considered non-obligatory. If a law applies “in theory” it applies in practice.
Sure, it can be questioned and interpreted but only by the courts, not an Executive or even the Legislator itself
The issue we are addressing at the moment is that this Executive threatens it “will not” implement Parliament’s legislated instructions
Is this a break-down of Statehood?
Not until the courts become involved and they fail to assert compliance and thus state functionality.
Technically a court has be involved to impose a legislator’s law on the executive when it choses not to respect it (not that it has before BoriDom Johnson), then, if the Executive still disregards the legislation, it could result in state failure. We are no-where near that yet.
Where we are is in the midst of a constitutional crises, a missive state-threatening constitutional crisis.
Accepted
Were Johnson to disobey the law so lately passed by Parliament, complete with the Royal Assent, the Monarch would have to sack him.
As they say, “end of”. There is no other alternative – even within the bendiest bits of the ‘U’ K’s ramshackle constitution. I believe that the Tower can still be used for prisoners condemned by Parliament.
It would be amonstrously foolish thing for any PM to do – but schadenfreude has rarely looked more enticing.
Yes, the shadenfreude would be delectible, and *entirely* the result of of our awful prime minister being “not above the law” or beyond its reach.
We’re in what would appear to be uncharted territory aren’t we? To shed some light on this particular issue I found David Allen Green’s strictly legal – as opposed to political- interpretation of interest: ‘What if the Prime Minister deliberately broke the law over extending Article 50?’ – https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/what-if-the-prime-minister-deliberately-broke-the-law-over-extending-article-50. Surely Johnson has professional lawyers advising him? Or, like Trump, does he just shoot from the hip and hope to deal with the consequences retrospectively? At least (as far as I know because I don’t routinely follow it) BoJo doesn’t (yet) do policy via the Twittersphere.
With apologies for yet another cross-post, this not unrelated piece on Dominic Cummings by Gian Volpicelli in ‘Wired’ may shed some light on the ‘rationale’ driving Johnson and hence his seemingly spontaneous but more likely strategic utterances: ‘If you want to understand Dominic Cummings, look to Silicon Valley’ – https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dominic-cummings-who-brexit-blog.
Scarily unpredictable times.
Thanks John
David Allen Green is very good
Is it not about time those bureaucrats who are advising Boris Johnson came out of the woodwork and explained themselves. Much is made of the ‘lack of democracy’ within the EU but Michel Barnier and Donald Tusk, for example, have made their understandings public but quite obviously have to defer to the opinion of member states. Dominic Cummings has said little in comparison except to exercise his capacity to sack other special advisers with which he disagrees. I have been told that the EU is run by bureaucrats. Where is the accountability in our supposed UK democracy when the decisions are being made by unelected bureaucrats, such as Cummings, to proceed with no deal, which enables Mr Johnson, who appointed him ,{100,000 votes in favour for Johnson, 47 million available votes having absolutely NO consideration at all} to make decisions which are being made by an individual with no real democratic mandate in one of the most important events ever which will impact well beyond my lifetime, to the disadvantage of many, making an illusion of that democracy that he proclaims he wants to respect.
Further to John D’s Wired link, an article by Carole Cadwalladr.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/smash-and-grab-dominic-cummings-democracy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
It’s good, as usual
I think it’s obvious at this point that without a significant change to the composition of the house of commons there is no chance that brexit is going to be resolved one way or another. We are at an impasse and have been since the substance of TM’s deal became known.
At the same time it’s obvious that Boris Johnson doesn’t have a majority for any other purposes really either because brexit is overwhelming everything else.
Therefore I believe Johnson and Cummings’s end goal is an election that results in a majority for Johnson and the opportunity to make radical changes via The Shock Doctrine. Brexit probably doesn’t actually matter that much other than as a means to that end.
Johnson has said himself in the past that he’s a pragmatist and not likely to tie himself to any idealogical masts and go down with any political ships.
So I think what they’re doing is this:
– plan a) try to get a GE mid October but failing that (as I think they fully expected…)
– plan b) make a Brexit martyr of Boris so he can return and win a GE after a caretaker government does its likely dithery, bickering thing for a few months.
Key point is Boris doesn’t actually have to stand down as leader of the conservatives just because he resigns as prime minister.
He can refuse to obey the law, resign his post and simply hand a poisoned chalice to Corbyn and his backbiting allies (and that’s just the Labour party lol) while massively increasing his standing among his brexiter base.
It’s probably checkmate for the remainer cause assuming two things that are yet to come to pass:
1) Corbyn fails to deal with Brexit in his temporary caretaker roll (likely since the same house of commons arithmetic will confound him as it confounded May (unless the EU bends)).
2) We go to a GE and the British public turn out not to have shifted from their positions at the referendum.
What I would be quite surprised to see is Boris Johnson actually break the law, stay in post and try to just ride the storm till we crash out. I don’t think this actually makes any sense from his perspective because it’s not sustainable (too extreme) and it runs counter to the whole thrust of his current campaign I..e. donning the cloak of democracy.
I believe Johnson and Cummings are seeking to engineer a situation where the remainer leaning opposition make themselves look like the antidemocratic bad guys so Boris can later ride to the rescue in a GE.
To be honest I think the alarmist remainer belief that “Borris is a proto-fascist looking to break the constitution and plunge us into an authoritarian dictatorship” is exactly what Cummings is relying on to ensure his opponents rush to do what he wants/expecte them to do.
I think remainers underestimate their opponents in the same way that the democrats underestimated and continue to underestimate Trump and I think it’ll end the same way.
I suggest we have an none binding, binary referendum with this question……
“Should Boris Johnson break the law by refusing to seek an extension to article 50……YES or NO.”
This seems perfectly reasonable because obviously a none binding referendum carries more weight than a legal act of parliament
I’d just add that feigning defeat to lure an opponent into a disastrous action is a tried and tested strategy.
Hannibal at the battle of Cannae springs to mind but William at Hastings is more geographically appropriate if slightly ironic.
William led a continental power conquering Britain whereas Boris is styling himself as a Briton freeing these isles from European domination.
Boris the Liberator perhaps? 😉
Without going into history from the 1950’s to keep this post short lets just concentrate on the EU referendums.
The first referendum took place under a LABOUR government (AFTER we had joined under a TORY government) which didn’t approve of the shenanigans of the US/UK/EU and promised a referendum in its manifesto in the 2nd election in a year! (that is what a government without a workable majority used to do)
The ‘question’ asked was:
“Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?”
Yes/No?
This tricky question got most people voting Yes of course by a significant margin
67% / 33%.
(with a 65% turnout)
The second referendum in 2016
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
Leave/Remain?
This tricky question got most people voting Leave of course by a narrow margin.
52% / 48%
(With a 72% turnout)
My Conclusions:
1. Both questions seemed designed to get the ‘correct’ answer. Why wasn’t the first question repeated with the same possibleanswers?
2. The turnout in 2016 seems suspiciously high.
3. The first referendum result was decisive unlike the second.
4. Since the late 50’s, the UK population has been ‘played’ over the EU, in order to achieve the Entry, and now the impending Exit.
5. DeGaulle was right about the ‘Perfidious Albion’ motives of the US/UK. Thats why he vetoed our entry.
6. Hard Brexit was the ONLY plan.
7. The resurrection of a traditional Labour party agenda has THROWN the Establishment. The controlled opposition is not there to carry on the same objective as has happened since the 70’s
8. The full spectrum propaganda and alt-right agitation is aimed at destroying the EU evolution and it’s increasing independence from the anglo imperial empire AND to stop a possibility of the current Labour party winning a general election with a workable majority.
The neoliberal project is capable of the worst abuse of our perception of democracy to protect its gains – we are at a dangerous moment but also possibly revolutionary.
The way things are going, I am thinking that at the EU October summit our prime minister may well be told the can is at the end of the road, and presented with the choice of the deal his predecessor negotiated or no deal – and after, assuming he chooses no deal, there will be a show down in Parliament, as (and hopefully not if) they realise the can has reached the end of the road and the choice is no deal or no Brexit, i.e. revocation of the Article 50 notification. To be made pretty much instantaneously, without another referendum, or even much of a debate.
Jeremy GH if there is a revocation by the end of October the November election could well see a massive rebound towards Boris campaigning for a no deal exit as the electorate puts two fingers up to both the EU and our current parliament. Perhaps the clutching victory from the jaws of defeat scenario outlined by Adam Sawyer.