Now they’re talking about impeaching Boris Johnson
It was almost inevitable, wasn’t it?
The British left is taking a leaf from the US left, although impeachment is less common in Britain than it has been here:
British Members of Parliament are threatening to impeach Boris Johnson after reports their prime minister would sidestep the legislature with an eleventh-hour Supreme Court showdown to drive through Brexit.
The latest dramatic twists in the long-running saga prompted fresh speculation that the tousle-haired populist, who is frequently compared with Donald Trump, is following the American president’s playbook, right down to goading his opponents into trying to throw him out of office.
On Monday, opposition figures called for the prime minister to be impeached if he pushed ahead with a plan to ignore a new law demanding that he seek to delay Brexit. “No one is above the law,” said Liz Saville Roberts, Westminster leader of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party. “Boris Johnson shouldn’t risk finding that out the hard way.”
Impeachment remains on the statute book despite not having been used since 1806…
That’s all very interesting, but the article doesn’t illuminate the legal basis on which this “11th-hour Supreme Court showdown” would be brought, which is what interests me far more than the left’s “impeachment” cries. It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that the left would be applauding a leftist who used the methods Johnson is employing, but is flabbergasted and outraged when the right plays by those rules of engagement.
As happens here as well.
I figure—with the caveat, as always, that the workings of the British government are somewhat opaque to me—that a court challenge would have something to do with whether Parliament has the power to block what is supposed to be a move governed by some other branch of government or some other procedure.
I found this terse explanation in another article:
The U.K. government contends that a no-deal Brexit is the default outcome of the Article 50 process for a state leaving the EU, and so cannot be legally blocked.
Judge Bernard McCloskey said he would deliver his verdict Thursday. Whichever side loses will almost certainly appeal, with the case set to be heard with similar claims at the U.K. Supreme Court next week.
A lot of articles mention a legal challenge but don’t describe it in great detail. It seems that the Benn Bill, which attempts to force Johnson to delay any attempt to leave the EU, is the main issue. Since the UK doesn’t have a constitution, the Court won’t be deciding whether that is constitutional, but my guess is that the question will involve whether Parliament is allowed to tie Johnson’s hands like that under these particular circumstances.
I did find this older article, written before Benn was passed, but I confess that my eyes glazed over with typical “British government is impossible to understand” befuddlement as I read it. You are welcome to try to relate it to the present situation, or to state any other elucidation you might be able to offer.
One thing I do know is that Johnson seems determined to push Brexit through, and that the majority of people in the British Parliament—and the British press, as well as the EU—are at least equally determined to stop him.
The “Benn bill” is authored by the daughter of Tony Benn a Soviet agent while in Parliament.
Another possibility is the EU veto option.
Unanimity
The Council has to vote unanimously on a number of matters which the member states consider to be sensitive. For example:
common foreign and security policy (with the exception of certain clearly defined cases which require qualified majority, e.g. appointment of a special representative)
citizenship (the granting of new rights to EU citizens)
EU membership
harmonisation of national legislation on indirect taxation
EU finances (own resources, the multiannual financial framework)
certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.)
harmonisation of national legislation in the field of social security and social protection.
Trump may talk to Estonia and Latvia and ask them to vote no.
BREXIT happens !
Boris Johnson called for the impeachment of Blair. So couldn’t the “British Left” be taking a page from the “British Right”?
Blair’s actions like Obama’s, objectively justified impeachment.
Johnson’s actions like Trump’s do not objectively qualify as impeachable offenses.
But of course, your arguments reveal that in your view, “some animals are more equal than others”…
This is known as hypocrisy and proof of intellectual dishonesty.
Manju:
Of course, both sides call for impeachment at various times. Therefore, calling for impeachment is a leaf out of everyone’s book, depending on the time you’re talking about. In fact (as you no doubt know) some people on the right wanted to impeach Obama, and the most recent impeachment of a president was of Bill Clinton in the late 90s, mostly by the right. Nixon was almost impeached by both left and right in the 70s, and he resigned instead. And you can go back further and further.
But I am speaking not of history but of the current situation, in which the British left is taking a leaf from the book of the current American left, going to impeachment as an instant remedy.
Johnson called for Blair’s impeachment in 2004, over Iraq. At the time, I suppose you might say that Johnson was taking a leaf out of the American left’s book as well, because that’s what the left in America was doing at the time to George W. Bush. Here’s a book from 2003, forward by a US House member . The cries for impeachment over Iraq and other issues continued for most of Bush’s presidency.
Impeachment would be unnecessary if Labour and the Liberal Democrats would simply move a no-confidence resolution. They don’t want to do that because that would mean a general election, which they fear they’d lose.
I am having lunch with an English friend tomorrow. Perhaps he will be able to explain some of this maneuvering. I feel as I did when I arrived in India. Sitting in a hotel with little to do during the day, I watched an India-Pakistan cricket test match. I watched it and read the Times of India reports on it every day, and I was unable to understand who was winning. As it happens, nobody won after five days of play. This Brexit game reminds me of that. Who’s on first? I dunno.
Where’s Oliver Cromwell when you really need him?
The root of the problem seems to be that too many in the Parliament care more about global issues than the concerns of their own people and homeland.
“Where’s Oliver Cromwell when you really need him?” Beheading the Queen really wouldn’t help anybody. But the British elites have been globalized, so they no longer represent or even care much for their constituents.
” It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that the left would be applauding a leftist who used the methods Johnson is employing, but is flabbergasted and outraged when the right plays by those rules of engagement.” – Neo
The Left really, really doesn’t like anyone but themselves to have a pen and a phone.
After reading the post at Ace HQ that Neo linked on the John Bolton post, I cruised on to a previous article, and found this very apropos observation, about leftist judges in that case, but it is extendable.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383237.php
And again, on the dangers of changing the norms of governmental behavior:
(at the bottom of this post)
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383231.php
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/boris-johnson-can-still-salvage-brexit
(starts with lots of useful background on Parliamentary law and procedures; written by a Farage & Brexit supporter, Tim Worstall)
Claremont Review of Books 8/15 “Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened” by Christopher Caldwell. Gives a tremendous background on this life and death match between ordinary Britains and the elite.
There is no way the EU is going to let this happen but Boris May find a way.
Exciting reading.
If you think British government is hard to understand, try to understand the game Cricket…
The funny thing is, er, amongst the many funny things is this:
Boris can just resign.
Which might make socialist Corbyn PM, or might make a new election.
It seems hypocritical for a Parliament to make a law that requires the PM to do something that the PM doesn’t want to do, while refusing to have a “no confidence” vote. I’d guess the UK Supreme Court would rule that Parliament needs to vote him out, rather than “impeach” him, but it’s all clearly Brexit games.
Most UK voters understand that if there’s now a delay to Jan., no-deal Brexit will loom in Jan., since the EU is not going to offer any acceptable deal.