It was extremely hard to believe that the Prime Minister of ‘The Mother’ of modern parliamentary democracy in the world, Britain, would try to dispense with the services of the Parliament to which he is answerable, as a member of a Cabinet of which he is merely ‘primusinter pares’ in such a blatant manner. Even more incredible was the notion that Boris Johnson would involve his Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, in his foray into the realms of totalitarian rule by getting her to ‘prorogue’ [suspend the sittings of] Parliament!
“You won’t allow me to take Britain out of the European Union, ‘deal or no deal’? Okay, all of you go home! By the time you come back, Britain would have ‘Brexited, whether Parliament liked the conditions of withdrawal or not! And there is nothing you can do about it!” Boris decreed, (like a bully of a ‘master’ in one or the posh educational establishments that taught him how to play war games on the laying pitch.)
But even some of his own ‘fags’ wouldn’t play ball. A score of Conservative MPs defied the party whip and were promptly told that the ‘whip’ had been withdrawn from them; in other words, they could no longer sit in Parliament as Conservatives.
Amazingly, reported The Guardian, “most of [Johnson’s} blond clan, who are all high-profile in politics or journalism” have repudiated his recent political tactics. His sister, a Sunday newspaper columnist called Rachel, has written in February 2019 that she was on “Team Boris – I always will be, blood is thicker than water – but in June, I’ll vote with Dave.” However, Rachel Johnson now says now that the recent behaviour of Boris had led her to conclude that “Perhaps if you put a man in front of the dispatch box, he becomes a completely different person. It becomes a sort of bully pulpit.”
Earlier, the younger brother of Boris, Jo, had resigned from his brother’s government, in which he was serving as Science Minister.
Brexit, Jo said, would “threaten the UK’s position as a “global innovation hub”.#
Outside “Clan Boris”, the situation had become so chaotic that people began wondering whether democracy itself would survive in Britain.
Cases were taken to the courts, both in England and Scotland, challenging the legality of the peremptory manner Parliament had been prorogued by Boris. Some courts said Boris had acted legally. Others said he had not. In the end, all the cases converged, on appeal, before Britain’s Supreme Court for a definitive judgement.23 September 2019 would be the Day of Judgment.
And what a day it was when it finally arrived! The older members of my readership would probably describe it as the day that British TV had its ‘WHO SHOT JR’ moment. Everyone who had the time and capability to watch as the frail-looking but extremely vocal president of the Supreme Court, lady adorned with a fetchingly large brooch, announce that AL ELEVEN members of the British Supreme Court panel had unanimously decided that Boris had acted illegally when he prorogued Parliament! They rubbed it on for Boris by pointing out that Boris had failed to give ANY reason for the prorogation.
It was as if the sky had fallen in for Boris. Fortunately for him, he was away in the US attending the United Nations General Assembly.
British reporters cornered him, however, to get his seek reaction, he said he would “obey the law.” But constitutional experts pointed out that Boris could argue that the judiciary had intervened in politics by reaching such a decision. If Boris took that line, how would matters end? If Boris said the judiciary had interfered in politics, his opponents would also say that the Prime Minster, a politician, had interfered in the affairs of the ‘independent’ judiciary, which formed the third tier of democracy in Britain (after the executive and parliament.) It seemed as if a constitutional crisis was rearing its head to turn the Brexit imbroglio into ‘a political nuclear meltdown’, no less. Well, Boris came back from the US ahead of schedule, with all eyes on him. As he drove towards Downing Street (with TV cameras covering the progress of his motorcade live — by helicopter) it was as if a Cup Final had just been fought at Wembley. The winners of the court case had been making triumphant noises, of course. The Speaker of Parliament had summoned MPs to come back to the House. Would Boris come back to the House with his tail between his legs or would he continue to be defiant?
He was at his ebullient best for nearly three hours, as he answered questions and debated the issues at stake with the members of the Opposition. So heated were the exchanges that the Speaker later described the atmosphere in the House as “toxic”. Indeed, the argumentation has now moved away from the immediate pros and cons of the Brexit debate to the ‘language’ employed by Boris and his supporters during the exchanges in the House. Words like ‘betray’ and ‘surrender’ had been uttered during the debate, as if a proper war were being fought in the country. Was this wise in a Parliament one of whose members, a lady called Mrs. Cox, had been brutally murdered by someone who did not like her opinions?
When Boris was reminded by another lady member about Mrs. Cox’s murder and told that the lady and others like her were being intimidated from coming to the House now to represent their constituents, Boris replied in an off-handed manner that he had not heard so much ‘humbug’ in his life.
This statement has been roundly condemned. Whether Boris, after is boorish behaviour, will last as Prime Minister, is anybody’s guess.
Certainly, a general election is looming in the UK.
www.cameronduodu.com
By Cameron Duodu