04/10/2019
We know he's lying, but this time we just don't know which lie he's told.
He has repeatedly said, in the House of Commons, that the UK would be leaving the EU on 31 October. However, government papers submitted to a Scottish court claim that Johnson will send a letter to the EU asking for a Brexit delay, if no deal is agreed by 19 October.
Downing Street have refused to comment on the ongoing legal case, but have reaffirmed that the UK would be leaving the EU on 31 October.
We already know that Johnson has no qualms about lying, whether it has been to bosses, his family, his fellow MPs or the British people. It is also fairly obvious that he lied to, or at the least deliberately misled, the Queen over the prorogation of parliament.
Johnson's calls for a early general election were believed by many, myself included, to be be a ploy to enable him to dissolve parliament, set a later date than proposed for the election and facilitate an automatic no-deal Brexit.
Fortunately, his opposition were wise to his suspected scheming and refused to take the bait.
I realise people frequently say that all politicians lie.
I actually believe this to be an exaggeration. Lies and deliberate misinformation may well be a political tool, but it is by no means used by all MPs.
I any event, we should not accept such behaviour as the norm.
Our politicians should be made to follow a code of conduct, which includes a mandatory requirement to communicate in a manner which is clear, fair and not misleading; that means no lies.
Our politicians should be expected to be 'fit and proper' and to be assessed as such on a regular basis.
The fit-and-proper-person test or director's test is a test aiming to prevent corrupt or untrustworthy people from serving on the board of certain organisations, as well as being a requirement for people who hold 'controlled functions' within the UK financial services industry. If we apply such tests to some company directors and to financial services professionals, it surely should be the case that we expect the same of our politicians.
It is imperative that a close watch is put on Johnson and that swift action is taken if he attempts to ignore parliament.
It is time the government realises that their claims to be acting on the will of the people are completely false. Just 37% of the eligible electorate (about 25% of the population) voted Leave in 2016 and they did so on the back of many lies and deliberately misleading campaign messages. Many thousands of British citizens, who were resident in other EU states, were denied their legal right to vote in 2016, even though the potential impact on their lives was massive.
There should be no doubt therefore, that 'the people' should be given the final say on any deal the Prime Minister negotiates with the EU and that the ballot paper should offer two options:
Leave the EU with the deal negotiated (or with no-deal, if a deal is not agreed); or
Remain in the EU, having seen the deal (or lack of a deal) on offer.
The electoral commission should agree with parliament what steps would be necessary for this second referendum to be 'binding' and therefore mandating action on the part of parliament. In considering this, both the electoral commission and the government should give consideration to the precedent set in the Scottish referendum of 1979.
The Scottish referendum of 1979 was used to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly among the Scottish electorate. This proposal was to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum.
The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal. However, the turnout was 64% and therefore the 'Yes' votes represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was repealed.
There are deep divisions within the country over the subject of Brexit. It is going to take a long time for the ill-feeling to subside and for the conflict to be eased. By having a 'binding' referendum on the final outcome of the negotiations with the EU, we will have a clear and explicit instruction based on what is actually on offer, rather than the undeliverable promises of the original referendum campaign.
Once this has been dealt with, we can work on building a harmonious United Kingdom; whether that is in or out of the EU.
Comments