web analytics

BORIS MUST BE LOCKED UP

By Pete Moore On September 7th, 2019

I have a cunning plan.

We learn that this criminal parliament agreed the extension Bill with EU leaders before the vote in Parliament this week. As if we didn’t know it anyway, but this is collusion with a hostile, foreign power against the British people. I trust that MI5 is doing what we pay it to do. The great Brexit trials of 2020 will see the dock rammed.

The Prime Minister still maintains that he will not ask for that extension. This absurd law contains no provision to sanction the Prime Minister if he holds steady. So criminal MPs are ready to go to court to enforce the law. An EU peer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has said that the Prime Minister could ultimately be jailed if he does not comply.

Bring it on.

Downing Street has already started its “The People vs Parliament” election campaign. Regardless of what the Westminster bubble claims, Boris is quite liked in the country. His approval ratings are way out in front of other party leaders. Dragging him into court, let alone imprisoning him, will be the stupidest thing the EU group of MPs could do. Dragging him into court for daring to implement the result of the greatest act of democracy in our history will instantly make him The People’s Champion, the Robin Hood of Brexit, the folk hero of the people against an establishment which despises them. It’ll be Boris on the Cross, suffering for the people, against an establishment desperate to overturn our vote.

So please, lock up the Prime Minister. He went to Eton so prison will be a doddle anyway. The General Election will come soon and it’ll mean a guaranteed landslide.

 

 

61 Responses to “BORIS MUST BE LOCKED UP”

  1. Shouldn’t this post be titled ATW Comedy corner 2 ?

  2. Pete, it was the House of Lords that finally passed the No-No-Deal law yesterday. The HoL is, I believe you once said, the supreme authority in the land. It even gets to elect the Monarch, you said.

    So both chambers are against a no-deal, as is a large slice of the government party and indeed even several government ministers, as well as a majority of the British people, of course.

    So it’s Boris vs A Hell of a Lot.

    After just a few weeks, Boris has realised that being PM in times of Brexit isn’t as easy as it looked from the back benches. He’s already reached the stage it took Th May about two years to reach: so disoriented and hopelessly outmanoeuvred that you can’t help but feel sorry for him. Watching that disastrous “press conference” before a Trumpian array of police cadets in, I think, Yorkshire was painful: gone was the charming wit, the articulate entertainer, the dynamic speaker. It had dawned on Boris that Britain is not the US, and I honestly found myself wishing that poor man would get his Brexit just out of human pity.

  3. You don’t know how confusing all this is to us foreigners

    It would be like the residents of a normal country trying to understand the US healthcare problems

  4. Boris Johnson refusing to comply with the law would be the end of the rule of law in the UK. That Pete Moore is celebrating this shows how far he has fallen.

  5. Noel

    What you must understand is that a political act is not criminal or unconstitutional or a breach of Sovereignty according to any set of specific defined rules or traditions but according to whether Pete Moore approves of it or not.

  6. Speaking of the rule of law, it seems that pro Boris / pro Brexit supporters are again attacking / being aggressive to cops in London:

    https://twitter.com/RemainAlliance/status/1170348053317988352

    The is almost becoming a weekly occurance.

  7. ‘We’ve got a lamppost just for you’

    https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1170378258275287042

    What could the possibly be referring to?

  8. *they

  9. Surely as Pete keeps reliably informing ATW regulars the ‘fact’ that the vast majority of the nation is seething with anger at the ‘Remoaners’ evil plot to keep them under the EU heel you would have thought the Pro-Brexit march would have gathered more than a couple of hundred attendees No ?

  10. Noel –

    You misunderstand the basic fundamental here.

    So both chambers are against a no-deal

    No. Both houses are against our leaving the EU. With a deal, without a deal, it doesn’t matter. Neither house will countenance our leaving the EU in any circumstances. If you don’t understand that then you will always misread events.

    Seamus –

    Laws are not laws if they are illegitimate. This so-called law is illegitimate.

  11. Utter nonsense Pete. The law has passed. It will gain Royal Assent and then the courts will decide how it is applied and if it contradicts other powers. Not you.

  12. Colm –

    Why will the Bill gain Royal Assent? Why will Her Majesty sign it? She acts on the advice of her chief advisor, the Prime Minister …

  13. An EU peer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has said that the Prime Minister could ultimately be jailed if he does not comply.

    Of course, because if not it would mean that the PM is above the law in the way that Putin is above the law in Russia. It’s come to something when extreme Brexiters are actually urging Johnson to take this course. I actually hope he does, because it would be the end of the Tory party and would trigger big constitutional change, including a written constitution and a fair voting system. So bring it on.

  14. It’s come to something when extreme Brexiters are actually urging Johnson to take this course.

    That’s how desperate the situation is. The PM must martyr himself for democracy.

  15. No Pete, the rule of law comes first. If we lose that we lose everything. Your name-sake Sir Thomas Moore knew this in the 1530s:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

  16. Peter –

    Where am I disagreeing? I urge the PM to disobey the law, as illegitimate as it is, and take the consequences of doing so.

  17. OK Pete come back and say “ I told you so “ when the bill doesn’t get its Royal Assent.

  18. “If you look at this morning’s papers the Sun is talking about Boris resigning, the Telegraph is talking about Boris breaking the law and the FT is talking about Boris trying to push through May’s deal. And what that reveals is Boris hasn’t got a clue what to do.”

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1170243995458514944?s=20

  19. “Why will the Bill gain Royal Assent? Why will Her Majesty sign it? She acts on the advice of her chief advisor, the Prime Minister …”

    On legislation the Queen acts on the advice and consent of Parliament. If Boris tells her not to grant the legislation royal assent she will grant it anyway.

    “Laws are not laws if they are illegitimate. This so-called law is illegitimate.”

    Parliament’s laws cannot be illegitimate. It is the fundamental underpinning of the British constitution.

  20. The PM must martyr himself for democracy

    Like a male mirror image of saintly Di, he really is the people’s PM.

  21. The problem is the conflict between parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of the people as expressed in the referendum. Referendums have been rare in the UK but their results have always been respected as an expression of direct democracy.

    In 2016 Cameron promised that the result would be respected and that he would stay on to enact it, even if his Remain argument was rejected (LOL). The question was simply Leave or Remain, so in theory that could include a no-deal Leave. However, no-one on the Leave side (including Farage) ever suggested that a no-deal Leave would be the outcome. Instead we were promised “the easiest trade deal in history” and David Davis (remember him?) even claimed that it would be negotiated in Berlin rather than Brussels.

    So I think that the referendum result needs to be enacted, but given that the result was so close it would be good politics (never mind a moral imperative) to negotiate a deal to minimise economic disruption. The only deal on offer at the moment is May’s deal, which Johnson supported on its third vote. So maybe Johnson needs to swallow his pride and bring that deal back for a fourth vote, if necessary having re-negotiated it to its original form whereby the backstop only applies to Northern Ireland instead of the whole of the UK. That would almost certainly pass now with Labour votes. Then he could call an election which he would probably win.

  22. The result has been enacted. The UK has attempted to leave the European Union, triggered Article 50 etc… That should be enough to satisfy the referendum. The UK attempted to leave, it has turned out to be an appalling idea, and so the UK will not leave.

    It also highlights why referendums, in a representative democracy, are terrible ideas.

  23. Colm –

    Bercow said that the Bill doesn’t need Royal Assent. Another fucking new rule he pulled out of his hat!

    Peter –

    What that reveals is that the press hasn’t got a clue.

    Seamus –

    Get stuffed.

    The UK has attempted to leave the European Union, triggered Article 50 etc… That should be enough to satisfy the referendum.

    We voted to LEAVE! Not “attempt to leave”, or “give it a go and see what happens”. The choice was Remain or Leave. We chose Leave. So we leave, with a deal, without a deal, whatever, but leaving the EU is the bar.

    Why am I still explaining this three years later? FFS

  24. Peter, the only thing preventing the UK from leaving the EU is the UK and its Parliament.

    How would you suggest that the referendum result be enacted and how problamatic would it be for an already enormously fractionalised parliament?

  25. It also voted on the current iteration of Parliament. So the UK clearly can’t seem to make up its mind.

  26. Wow Pete and you accused that French bird of being hysterical 😉

  27. The result has been enacted. The UK has attempted to leave the European Union

    Presumably you mean that Article 50 should now be revoked in direct contravention of the referendum result.

    The referendum result stated that the UK should leave the EU, not attempt to leave the EU. I supported Leave and a no-deal Leave horrifies me, but less than a refusal to implement the referendum result. There could be an immediate general election after that in which Labour and other parties could campaign to re-join the EU and the voters could have their say on that. That would be democracy in action.

  28. If the democratic elected representatives of the people, elected more recently than the referendum result, choose to revoke Article 50 then that will have greater democratic weight that the referendum result.

  29. How would you suggest that the referendum result be enacted

    Paul

    I have already suggested a possible way out in my 9.13 PM comment. I assume you read it?

  30. If the democratic elected representatives of the people, elected more recently than the referendum result, choose to revoke Article 50 then that will have greater democratic weight that the referendum result.

    Sez you.

  31. Yes says me. As everything you have said is what you said.

  32. I assume you read it?

    I did Peter but that was only one of the two points in the question answered.

    So maybe Johnson needs to swallow his pride and bring that deal back for a fourth vote, if necessary having re-negotiated it to its original form whereby the backstop only applies to Northern Ireland instead of the whole of the UK.

    Regardless of how the DUP would react I think that in terms of Parliament that’s pretty much wishful thinking.

  33. Yawn. In the 2017 election campaign both the Tories and Labour promised to respect the referendum result.

    Maybe you missed that?

  34. “Maybe you missed that?”

    A lot has changed since then. Additionally the Labour Party’s manifesto committed them to oppose no deal. So it doesn’t commit them to an unconditional support for leaving the European Union.

    And the Tories don’t have a majority, or anything close to it.

  35. And if we are holding people to the commitments made during the campaign then the only version of Leave that has any legitimacy is one that makes absolutely no changes to the Irish border, one that allows the UK remain in the Single Market, etc…

    Because that is what was promised in the referendum campaign.

  36. Paul

    I have no doubt that Johnson will throw the DUP under the Brexit bus if it will secure him in Downing Street:

    “There remains another way out of this mess: pass Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement, with the backstop amended to apply only to Northern Ireland. Could the EU, at this stage, offer such a deal? It’s certainly being discussed in Dublin these days. Remember, the EU originally wanted the backstop to apply only to Northern Ireland; in the EU view, allowing the whole of the UK to have complete access to the single market without an obligation to accept the ‘four freedoms’ was a significant concession to May. Not that she ever actually explained this to colleagues or voters, of course, a failure that partly explains her downfall and Britain’s current nadir.

    There were two reasons May rejected an NI-only backstop. First, she needed the DUP’s support. Second, and more important to her, she believed it would jeopardise the Union to have Northern Ireland subject to different international rules to the rest of the UK. Neither condition applies to Prime Minister Johnson. First, having already thrown away his majority by purging his colleagues, the DUP are irrelevant to him: whether they support him or no, he can’t command the Commons. Second, he’s suggested at least once that he doesn’t think issues around Northern Ireland and its border with the Republic should be central to the Brexit decision. ‘Letting the tail wag the dog’ was how he once described Government policy relating to an integral part of the United Kingdom.

    The voters Johnson most cares about don’t care much about Northern Ireland either. One poll suggests that more than 80 per cent of Leave voters in England think unravelling the NI peace process is a price worth paying to get the UK out of the EU…”

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/could-boris-johnson-cut-northern-ireland-loose/

  37. Maybe you missed that?

    From Labour’s 2017 manifesto (P.24)

    We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market
    and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in
    Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first […]

    Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable
    option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the economy

    Seamus’ comment re unconditional support would be correct.

  38. Fair enough Paul, but “a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union” sounds a bit like having cake and eating it.

    My view remains that the UK should remain in the Customs Union or join EFTA, but free movement of labour was clearly a major issue in 2016 and cannot be retained if the referendum result is to be respected.

  39. The UK must leave the Single Market (to keep referendum commitments) but must also stay in the Single Market (to keep referendum commitments).

  40. Seamus,

    “It also highlights why referendums, in a representative democracy, are terrible ideas.”

    Or it highlights why not having referenda long before this was a terrible idea.

  41. Referendums should be held to endorse a specific proposal that has already been agreed in Parliament and then put to the electorate for endorsement or rejection. That way the referendum is the final decision that can automatically be implemented not the starting gun for a race that can become a crazy golf obstacle course !

  42. Referendums are harmful to accountability structures in a representative democracy. In a representative democracy we elect our representatives. They make decisions. If they make good decisions we re-elect them. If they make bad decisions we get rid of them and elect someone else. That is how the system works. It has an inbuilt accountability, and a desire (simply to get re-elected) for government to make good decisions.

    In referendums what do you do when a bad decision is made? You can’t get rid of the electorate and replace them with a new electorate. Thus there is no accountability. No movement towards good decision making.

    Referendums have their place in a direct democracy system. They have no place, in my opinion, in a representative democracy system.

  43. Seamus,

    “In referendums what do you do when a bad decision is made?”

    Same thing you do in life – you deal with the consequences and you make further decisions.

    “You can’t get rid of the electorate and replace them with a new electorate. Thus there is no accountability. No movement towards good decision making.”

    This just silly. The electorate changes all the time. The consequences of previous decisions are available to them to inform future ones. This is the source of all progress.

    And in any case exactly the same argument applies to electing the representatives! What if they elect the wrong representatives. We can’t replace the electorate…they aren’t accountable for it…etc.

    Also the idea of what is a ‘good decision’ is not objective and has to be decided by someone, and who is that if not the people.

  44. “Same thing you do in life – you deal with the consequences and you make further decisions.”

    Thus the decisions are unaccountable. Thus it is an inferior system to accountable representative democracy.

    “Also the idea of what is a ‘good decision’ is not objective and has to be decided by someone, and who is that if not the people.”

    It isn’t objective. However it is decided by the people themselves as to whether or not there have been good outcomes to government decision. Economy growing, safer, better healthcare etc… these are all measurable. And if they are all going up then overwhelmingly the chances are the government are going to be re-elected. And if they are all going down then overwhelmingly the chances are the government is not going to be re-elected.

  45. “And in any case exactly the same argument applies to electing the representatives! What if they elect the wrong representatives. We can’t replace the electorate…they aren’t accountable for it…etc.”

    Except we do it on a very regular basis. And it is the system with which we all operate in. As I said above referendums have their place in a direct democracy system. They cause nothing but confusion and difficulty in a representative democracy system.

  46. “However it is decided by the people themselves as to whether or not there have been good outcomes to government decision”

    Just as it would be decided by the people themselves as to whether or not there have been good outcomes to their own decisions. Which is exactly what you are calling ‘accountable’ when that decision is which representative to elect. In both cases the people can make mistakes and the people can later correct them.

    Of course this (either system) only works when the people themselves suffer or enjoy the consequences of their own decisions / their own election choices. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. Which is why (imo) not every question should be democratically decidable, there should be limits on what can be legitimately done even if the majority wants it. A vote to deny people’s human rights should not be legitimate for example. Not that there is any way to perfectly ensure this but it should be an aspiration.

  47. Frank

    Do you think the 2016 referendum was appropriately constructed or would you have organised it differently ?

  48. There is substantial evidence to suggest that people vote in a different, more mature, manner in general elections than they do in virtually any other election. It is rare to hear of protest votes in a general election. I’m sure they probably do happen (at least on local levels) but for the most part people vote on the basis of who they want in government. Not in protest to this or that. Local elections, by-elections, referendums, European elections etc… are all subjected to greater levels of protest votes. UKIP getting 27% in 2014 but then getting 13% a year later. One was a protest vote election, the other was a general election.

    How much of the AV vote in 2011 was anti-AV and how much of it was people didn’t like Nick Clegg? How much of the EU result was people didn’t like “the elites”? And on the other side of it how many people didn’t like Farage or Johnson etc…?

  49. Colm, negotiations and final outcomes of those negotiations prior to any vote so the electorate would know the exact consequences of what they were voting for?

  50. Paul

    Exactly what I suggested in my 1:12pm comment.

  51. Apologies. Missed it.

  52. That’s OK Paul. Great minds think alike 😄

  53. …..and fools seldom differ 🙂

  54. Interesting. Perhaps a deal is in the pipeline?

    https://twitter.com/NickKen99156276/status/1170699603311759361

  55. Absolutely riveting stuff going on.
    I recall voting “Leave” on 23/06/16 (Good God, over three years ago!) But I always kind of knew we’d wind up here. I remember thinking “even if “Leave” wins by 90% to 10% the EU diktatorat will never let us leave just like that….” and so it has come to pass.
    The dictatorial actions of the EU…sorry, ahem, “parliament” this week are EXACTLY what I voted to leave! I’m glad that they are being forced to reveal their true natures openly and explicitly so that many millions of Britons can now see the EU for exactly what it is. A complete and utter dictatorship, which has the utter gall to accuse Johnson of being the dictator!!
    Remainers: “This is a dictatorship! A Coup!”
    BJ: “Let’s have an election”.
    Remainers: “No! We won’t allow it! We will pass a Bill forcing you to stay in the EU….You … oooh, you dictator!”
    Basil Fawlty couldn’t have made this up.

    Hungary and Poland have already been there, so they know to resist all this now. We’ve never really seen it up close before. Perhaps we need to really get a taste of tryanny up our nostrils before we’ll begin to fight hard against it.

  56. Brexitannia

    Firstly tonight you get your Christians mixed up with your Muslims, now you can’t seem to tell the difference between Brussels and Westminster. Do you just see what your prejudices tell you or what is actually in front of your eyes.

  57. Colm old clap, I can tell the difference between Sovereignty and the EU posing as sovereignty. I know what you mean, the old “Parliament is sovereign” thing. Well let me ask you this:
    Imagine a sci-fi film in which Parliament was taken over by aliens from Mars, disguised as British MPs complete with bowler hats and London accents, and nobody knew about it. Parliament was supreme, and no-one questioned it until the aliens threw off their disgises and were revealed for what they were. Suddenly, would Parliament be supreme any more? Of course not! You see, the whole “parliament” argument rests upon the assumption that those MPs are in the first place actual Britons, and not imposters. What the EU has done is slowly, bit by bit, replace almost all of our institutions (such as Parliament) with traitors loyal to the EU and not to Britain. Therefore the whole “Parliament” thing is rendered void, for in the first place it has to be US, and not a “them” posing as “us”. There is ample written word in our constitution specifying that “parliament” means The British people and not just any old persons whose backsides happen to reside in the House of Commons.

  58. Let us also consider the faux hysteria that “leaving the EU “without a deal” would cause untold economic collapse and dystopia”. We are told that food and medicines will run out (as if Britain never even existed as an independent nation prior to 1971!!)
    Well let’s see: There may well be SOME economic upheaval, affecting SOME sectors, but Imagine if we were told that on leaving the EU, we would have to change our currency, and not merely from a base-10 currency (100 cents in the pound) to another, but to an entirely different numerical base! Seven filots equals one Chatre, and sixteen Chatres equal one Grebit, and everyone will have to learn how to count and add up their supermarket bills in this new currency. Just imagine how people would vote if that were a condition of leaving!
    Well, surprise surprise, that’s exactly what DID happen when we joined the EU, but strangely we survived. Generations were used to counting their money in shillings and pence, and from what my parents told me it was UTTER CHAOS for months afterwards. Yet we managed. And yet far inferior, indirect influences are now cited as reasons why leaving the EU would prove impossible. It’s garbage.

  59. Thanks for the entertainment Brex, just time to correct yet another false claim of yours. Decimalisation was nothing to do with joining the EEC as it then was. It happened in 1971 two years before we joined Europe in 1973 and for reasons that had nothing to with joining Europe.

  60. Your money used to be confusing to any foreigners

    Decimalisation would have been good for all your trade.

  61. Colm,

    “Do you think the 2016 referendum was appropriately constructed or would you have organised it differently ?”

    Sorry I missed this before.

    Well as I mentioned already I don’t think Irish nationals such as myself should have had a vote, that is one thing that should have been different.

    Otherwise it’s only in hindsight really that it is obvious it could have been done better. One thing I would have liked to have seen is the different options for leaving, and especially EFTA/EEA, put to the people, perhaps as a followup ref without the remain option. From polls at the time it seemed pretty clear that could have won, there was plenty of open water between that position and any other (i.e. most of remain plus some of leave likely = a clear majority for that). What has put a stop to that is a combination of Tory politics and a faction of Remain that still hopes to overturn the result – I think these would not have been able to stop a softer Brexit if put directly to the people. Since then people’s positions have hardened and the ongoing delay is pushing people to the extremes.

    I remember at the time there were various options for leaving put about such that seemed to me clearly mental and which I thought would never be taken seriously by a Tory government. I did not foresee at all that they would turn out to be more Brexity than Brexit McBrexitface. My mistake.

    Not that there is anything wrong at all with an outward looking free trade position etc, as a long term objective but you don’t do it overnight. Just because somewhere is a nice destination doesn’t mean you will enjoy being shot there out of a cannon.