Home » Posts tagged 'Prime Minister Boris Johnson' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Categories

Join 17,536 other followers

Brexit: Boris Johnson Welcomes the EU to The Last Chance Saloon

by John Brian Shannon

In an article penned by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and posted at The Sun website on October 5th, the Prime Minister invited EU leaders to sign-on to his Brexit deal that would allow all parties to move past the economic uncertainty plaguing Europe for the past 3.5-years.

Obviously, the Prime Minister is compelled to try to reach a deal with the EU because it’s in the interests of the UK, it’s economy, it’s people, and those UK businesses that depend on the EU market.

Not that the EU is the only game in town, mind you. There are other countries and blocs that want to trade with the UK in a post-Brexit world, but continental Europe happens to be conveniently located for the UK business community, and there will always be longstanding links between the UK and the continent. (Deal or No Deal)

Signing even a minimal Brexit deal would signify success for both sides which could help redeem those UK and EU politicians needing redemption after dragging 514-million Europeans through the (economic) mud over the past 3.5-years.

Boris’ plan is as good as any that would ever be proposed, so the logical thing for both sides to do is to sign and ratify the deal in their respective Parliaments so that millions of Europeans can get on with their lives.

But no matter how reasonable the Boris Brexit Plan is, my guess is that it won’t be signed — and even if it is, all it would take to tank the deal is for one of the EU27 Parliaments or the UK Parliament to fail to ratify the deal.

Which leaves a successful Boris Brexit Plan signing and ratification at 1-in-28 (that’s a 3.57% chance of a signed and ratified Brexit deal). Yikes.

So don’t get your hopes up. After all, these are the people who’ve done everything to deny the democratic will of the UK people, dithering and delaying Brexit since 2016 and thereby costing the UK economy £69.5 billion alone due to the accompanying economic uncertainty during that time.

FYI: Today marks 1200-days since the June 23, 2016 EU referendum

Let’s hope that EU27 leaders and UK Parliamentarians decide to grab the ring of destiny and end the present economic uncertainty for the benefit of 514-million Europeans.

In a Case Where No Clear Law Existed on Prorogation, the UK Supreme Court Finds the Government Guilty

by John Brian Shannon

 

Until today’s UK Supreme Court decision… there existed no law whatsoever in the United Kingdom (nor anywhere else in The Commonwealth of Nations) as to how long and under what conditions Parliament could be prorogued by a Prime Minister.

Of course, the UK Prime Minister doesn’t act alone when proroguing Parliament as (according to House of Commons rules) the PM can prorogue Parliament only when he or she is acting in concert with the Privy Council and in agreement with the UK Head of State (which position is presently held by ‘the Queen’).

As all Commonwealth of Nations countries are based on the Westminster parliamentary model, every country in The Commonwealth is now directly and measurably affected by this new precedent, and this case will have far-reaching implications in every country that practices Parliamentary democracy.

So how can it be that where there was no existing law (until today’s precedent-setting decision by the UK Supreme Court) that a British Prime Minister could have broken a law that didn’t (yet) exist?

It seems counter-intuitive to say the least.

And aren’t Supreme Court judges in parliamentary democracies placed in their highly-esteemed court to adjudicate existing laws only?

How can one be guilty of breaking a law, when there existed no law forbidding that action or practice beforehand?


OK, so the UK Supreme Court Judges Have Created a (New) Law: Can They Do That?

Apparently they can.

Yet, passing legislation (laws) is the primary remit of the House of Commons (definitely not the primary remit of the UK Supreme Court) and the government is charged with the task of drafting laws for the United Kingdom, to debate them in the House of Commons, and to forward formalized legislation to the House of Lords for their consideration.

Then, the House of Lords returns the approved legislation (sometimes with minor changes as determined by the Lords) to the Prime Minister so they can seek Royal Assent for the legislation, which is the final step before that legislation becomes law.

The reason legislation needs to be approved and signed by the Sovereign (a.k.a. ‘the Queen’) is that the Sovereign holds the post of the Head of State for the United Kingdom, its territories and possessions worldwide, etc., and ultimately, the Head of State more than any other person or level of government is personally responsible for the actions of his or her government, its military, and its citizens. (A rather important point that people easily forget!)

Only a Head of State can be held personally liable for the actions of his or her country; A Head of Government cannot; A Supreme Court Justice cannot.


What’s This Prime Minister To Do Now?

As the responsible person on behalf of the country the Queen must notify the Speaker of the House to order Parliament to resume sitting at their earliest convenience, which is tomorrow morning.

There can be no defying the UK Supreme Court (ever!) — and whether the UK Head of State, the UK Head of Government, or individual British MP’s or Lord’s agree or disagree with the Supreme Court is entirely irrelevant. The UK is a country of laws, and for now, the law says that proroguing the UK Parliament (at least in the manner it was done, and in the absence of any specific laws on the matter) was illegal.

And sadly, the endless and heretofore pointless debates on Brexit and General Elections must continue ad nauseam.

The so-called will of Parliament seems to be that the more debate and less decision-making the better. And another Brexit extension will simply ‘enable’ them to further duck their responsibilities, election promises, and party manifestos.

Yes, it’s a dysfunctional Parliament, I get that.


What is Advisable for PM Boris Johnson, Henceforth?

As the primary purpose of the Prime Minister and the government is to draft legislation (laws) for the country, I suggest he do exactly that — beginning with a new set of laws for proroguing Parliament (which might sound a little cheeky coming on the heels of the UK Supreme Court decision) but we got to this point by NOT having clearly written laws on the matter.

I humbly suggest that the government draft a new law to instruct how the Prime Minister, his Privy Council, and the Head of State must proceed when they next intend to prorogue Parliament.

  1. For prorogations of any amount of days fewer than 15-days, the UK Prime Minister should have the discretionary power to prorogue Parliament at any time, for any reason. He or she shouldn’t be required to provide any reason in cases where prorogation lasts less than 15-days. It’s important to note that future PM’s would be obligated to adhere to this legislation should it pass through the House of Commons, through the House of Lords, and receive Royal Assent from the UK Head of State. (This course of action is well within the government’s remit, and would merely set in place the clear laws on prorogation that should’ve always been on the books)
  2. For prorogations of longer than 15-days, the UK Prime Minister should present sound reasoning for his request to prorogue Parliament to the Privy Council, the Head of State, and the UK Supreme Court. Under no circumstances short of nuclear war hitting the UK or an asteroid wiping out half the Earth, should a UK Prime Minister be able to prorogue Parliament for longer than 15-days WITHOUT Privy Council approval, Head of State approval, and UK Supreme Court approval.

This way, a future Prime Minister won’t ever again find himself in the embarrassing position of having broken a law that didn’t exist. Which is exactly what’s occurred in this case.

So now, every enemy of the UK, every ‘frenemy’ of the UK, every Briton who wishes ill-will for the UK, and every mocker of Parliamentary democracy in the world will be certain to make good use of today’s ruling to embarrass the UK government.

In the largest possible context, the present situation has been enabled because the UK House of Commons and every successive government since the first British Parliament in the year 1215 — whether Whig, Tory, Labour or Conservative, failed to create the necessary legislation to enable the government to function properly as it relates to the prorogation of Parliament.

Which is why it needs to be corrected as soon as possible — notwithstanding Brexit, no Brexit, or delayed Brexit.

Has The Speaker of the UK House of Commons Overstepped His Authority?

by John Brian Shannon

According to all known laws, traditions and conventions under which the UK House of Commons operates, the Speaker of the House serves as the Sovereign’s representative to the Commons and the Speaker is to remain 100% neutral on all political matters.

This requirement forms part of the job description and includes times when the Speaker isn’t in Parliament, including all hours of the day and night when he or she is anywhere about the country or the world.

It’s a clear instruction set that all present and previous Speakers are obligated to observe at all times during their term(s) as Speaker of the UK House of Commons.

“Speakers must be politically impartial.” — PARLIAMENT.UK
“Once assembled after a General Election, MPs, led by the Father of the House, go to the House of Lords where they receive a message from the Queen (or King) asking them to elect a Speaker.” — PARLIAMENT.UK
“On the day following his or her election, the Speaker-elect goes to the House of Lords to receive the Queen’s (or King’s) approbation from a Royal Commission.” — PARLIAMENT.UK
“The Speaker of the House of Commons chairs debates in the Commons Chamber and the holder of this office is an MP who has been elected by other MPs.
“The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times. During debates the Speaker keeps order and calls MPs to speak.
“The Speaker also represents the Commons to the Monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission.” — PARLIAMENT.UK


What’s All This, Then?

John Bercow, the presently-serving Speaker of the House of Commons has inserted his opinion, viewpoints, and political leanings into the House of Commons narrative (he’s a confessed ‘Remainer’ — which, admitting even that point is against the rules for the Speaker of the House of Commons) and worse, Mr. Bercow has expounded on his political views to mainstream media and to politicians and negotiators from other countries. Tres gauche!






On ‘Majoritarian Dictatorships’ Led by (the supposedly) Impartial Speaker of the House

Harry Yorke of The Telegraph titled his recent piece: John Bercow accused of running a ‘majoritarian dictatorship’

“A senior Tory MP has accused John Bercow of running a “majoritarian dictatorship” in the House of Commons, as he proposed radical reforms to limit the Speaker’s powers. 

Sir Bernard Jenkin, a member of the Commons constitutional affairs committee, has warned that the office of the Speaker has become “irretrievably politicised and radicalised” on Mr Bercow’s watch. 

Hitting back at Mr Bercow, who on Thursday appeared to liken Boris Johnson to a bank robber, Sir Bernard claimed that MPs needed to reform the role to limit the Speaker’s “enormous power.” 

It comes after the Speaker used a speech in London to launch a personal attack on the Prime Minister, warning that Parliament would step in if he tried to bypass a law on seeking a Brexit extension.” — Harry Yorke


Watch UK Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt. Hon. John Bercow as he speaks at the Sixth Annual Bingham Lecture on September 12, 2019 (Begins at 42:00)


The Speaker Asks a Question

“What conceivable moral force do the people’s elected representatives have in seeking to […] disregard a law enacted by Parliament?” (John Bercow, paraphrased)

I hate to break it to the Rt. Hon. Speaker of the House, Mr. John Bercow, but the moral force that he seems in question of is that ‘The Will of The People’ trumps ‘The Will of the House of Commons’ by a significant margin.

In fact, ‘The Will of The People’ trumps Parliamentarians by such a large margin, IMHO, it’s almost as if he’s just arrived from a different universe.

MP’s on either side of the House of Commons are nothing more than the formalized ‘servants of The People’ and the Speaker is nothing more than the formalized ‘servant of the Head of State’ (a.k.a. ‘the Queen’) and whatever dithering goes on in the House of Commons, whatever grandiose verbosity is employed superfluously in the House of Commons, whatever grandstanding goes on in the House of Commons, and whatever arcane debates occur in the House of Commons, ‘The Will of The People’ is far and away more important.

Let me remind him just how badly the UK House of Commons has ‘duffed-up’ the twice-expressed will of the people and the (far less important) will of the House of Commons.

  1. On June 23, 2016 Britons voted to leave the EU in a legally-held and UK government approved referendum.
  2. On February 1, 2017 British MP’s voted to follow the instructions of UK voters, voting 498 to 114 to pass the European Union Bill (voting to leave the EU) by a healthy margin of 384 votes.
  3. On June 8, 2017 the incumbent Conservative Party won a General Election on a pledge to deliver Brexit in an election where all parties ran on a platform of delivering the Brexit that Britons voted for in the 2016 referendum.
  4. On three separate dates Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement was voted-down by British MP’s and no other deal has replaced it.
  5. On March 31, 2019 the UK House of Commons failed Britons by failing to deliver Brexit on by the promised date.
  6. On April 12, 2019 the UK House of Commons again failed Britons by failing to deliver Brexit on that promised date.
  7. Subsequent to the third failure of Theresa May’s WA and two missed Brexit deadlines the EU ruled that Brexit would be delayed until October 31, 2019. Pathetic!
  8. On July 23, 2019 former Prime Minister Theresa May lost her position as UK Prime Minister.
  9. On July 24, 2019 Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of the UK with a promise to deliver Brexit.
  10. On September 3, 2019 British MP’s voted to remove the right of the sitting government to choose policy and to offer legislation to the House of Commons for debate and consideration by the House, and give it to themselves — thereby giving themselves the power over how Brexit is to unfold. Unprecedented! Now the Brexit which they all promised their constituents (to get themselves re-elected in June 2017) cannot happen unless it meets one of their three criteria; 1) Unless the House votes to approve a No Deal Brexit, a No Deal Brexit is now illegal, 2) Brexit may only happen if a new Withdrawal Agreement is agreed prior to October 31, 2019 and the UK House of Commons and the EU Parliament approve it before that date, 3) A new Brexit date is set by the EU.

If they can’t agree a deal with the EU over the past 3-years, what makes them think they can get a deal approved by both countries by January 1, 2020? Hello!


Meanwhile, British Citizens Haven’t Done One Thing Wrong in All of This!

All these years later (1176-days, to be exact) Britons continue to wait for the Brexit they voted for, having done not one thing wrong and in the meantime, all the political meanderings, indecision, recriminations, grandstanding, showboating, one-upmanship and other political games played by British MP’s have cost the UK economy approximately £1 billion per month due to economic uncertainty, in addition to the average £10.5 billion annual net overpayment paid to the EU by UK taxpayers since June 2016 together totals an obscene £69.5 billion.

Heads should roll!

But quite unlike other professions, there’s no accountability.

Politicians talk about accountability and indeed, many MP’s do great work for their constituents and those MP’s are much to be admired!

But there are some to whom life is but a stage on which to hold forth and stroke their own egos, and those are the MP’s who’ve blown Brexit (so far) and are directly responsible for the loss of over £69.5 billion (and counting) since June 2016. To them, it’s all just a game, and those are just numbers on a page. Sickening!

There are real consequences for citizens in all this economic uncertainty which was/is caused by endless political dithering, arcane (and unimportant) political debates, and the ridiculous fixation on ‘getting a deal’ with the EU.

The People didn’t vote for or against a deal, they voted to Brexit.

And there is the fiduciary duty of politicians who run on a platform (to deliver Brexit) in a reasonable timeframe. And 3-years is not upholding their responsibilities to their constituents. Not even close.

What matters is MP’s delivering what they’ve promised in a reasonable timeframe. What matters not is the opinions of MP’s about Brexit nor the Speaker’s political musings.

MP’s need to understand that there’s no one else to blame for the obscene (and still accruing) £69.5 billion cost to the UK economy on account of their Brexit dithering.

MP’s need to understand that EU membership was never legal to begin with as (a previous UK Parliament) gave away (some amount of) sovereignty to a foreign country which clearly contradicts the UK’s constitutional framework and therefore the legal term ‘ab initio’ applies, which means that EU membership for the UK was always contrary to the UK’s constitutional documentation and therefore, the membership was never valid in the first place so MP’s should stop obsessing about how the UK could ‘legally’ leave the EU. (‘ab initio’ = as if it never happened)


Summary

According to the UK constitutional framework, the UK couldn’t legally join the EU, therefore, it was never really a member. So, just leave! You weren’t a real member anyway. Stop obsessing!

According to democratic process, leaving aside ‘ab initio’ for a moment — Britons voted for Brexit and British MP’s have a fiduciary duty to their constituents to deliver such service as they’ve been contracted to perform.

According to the economic impact to the country after 3-years of Brexit shenanigans and dithering, the shocking economic losses to the country (which I conservatively calculate at £69.5 billion, so far) should create enough guilt to motivate British MP’s to deliver the Brexit they’ve so often promised.

Remember; A promise is nothing but a lie until the promise is fulfilled.

And those living a lie don’t deserve their seats in the House of Commons and I fervently hope that any MP who worked to frustrate Brexit doesn’t win their seat in the next election, whenever that election may occur. And good riddance to them! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

The People have spoken. Everything else is mere commentary.


Related Articles:

  • Tories bid to depose Speaker Bercow after Commons revolt (BBC)
  • Commons Speaker John Bercow to stand down (BBC)
  • Hero or villain? Bercow’s notoriety is a consequence of parliament’s crisis – not its cause — (The Guardian)