On Monday 19 June the House of Commons will spend the whole day debating the report of the Privileges Committee that has concluded, after a long investigation, that Boris Johnson lied repeatedly and intentionally to the House of Commons (and to the committee) about parties held in 10 Downing Street during lockdowns when parties were against the very laws that Johnson announced to the public.
Now, it is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that the House of Commons hold the government to account, and that in order to do so ministers must never lie to the House. Indeed, MPs are forbidden by Parliamentary precedent to accuse a member of the House of lying because the Constitution assumes that all are, in the words of a contemporary historian, “good chaps”.
Johnson and his coterie have sought to dismiss and undermine the report, not by engaging with its evidence and the facts, but by denigrating the members of the committee; that the committee is unlawful and a “kangaroo court”; claiming that the enquiry was a ploy by Johnson’s enemies to remove him from politics; still worse a plot of Remainers (or Remoaners as they like to call them) regularly conjured up by Brexiters; unconstitutional and un-democratic; spiteful; and so on.
Let’s start with the denigration. The chair of the committee, the Labour MP Harriet Harman (the chair is by constitutional precedent a member of the largest opposition party), had once tweeted that if Johnson and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (now Prime Minister and loathed by Johnson’s followers) Rishi Sunak had admitted attending an illegal party in 10 Downing Street then they had misled the House of Commons. Johnsonites allege that this proves that Harman had already convicted him of the offence which has been the subject of the enquiry. This is not correct. Johnson was investigated not for misleading (since he had himself that he had misled, claiming to have done so unintentionally) but of doing so recklessly or intentionally. To hold a view that is self-evidently true can hardly be said to constitute bias.
The next problem is that four of the seven members of the committee are, like Johnson, members of the governing Conservative Party. How then to demonstrate that even Johnson’s own colleagues were not qualified to judge him? The answer was to accuse a Conservative committee member of attending an illegal party and then to argue that he was guilty of the same offence as Johnson. The fall guy was one Sir Bernard Jenkin, like Johnson a Brexiter (not therefore a scheming Remoaner), who, no sooner was the report published, than he was accused of illegally attending a birthday party for his wife. Now, in the first place Johnson has not been found guilty of attending illegal parties (an established fact) but of intentionally lying about parties. It seems that the “party” was a perfectly legal meeting, organized by the Deputy Speaker of the House after lockdown for political business (permitted by law) and in a suitably spaced environment, attended by Jenkin’s wife. Jenkin, apparently, collected her from the meeting (whether or not while doing so he was offered a drink is not known).
Not only have Johnson’s supporters resorted to denigration, they have also sought to take a spurious moral high ground as defenders of free speech. Formally speaking, criticism of the committee is a contempt of the House since the House appointed the committee to carry out its duties as representatives of the House. Now, MPs can be sanctioned for a contempt. This has been portrayed as suppression of free speech. I suppose that it is possible to exercise one’s right to free speech by spuriously denigrating a fellow MP, but there is a fine line between that and intimidation. The committee members have received threats since their integrity has been questioned. Moreover, some of Johnson’s supporters have gone further still and have suggested that any Conservative MP who votes in favour of the report might be deselected as candidate by their constituency party at the next election.
Concerning a plot concerted by Johnson’s enemies, the committee’s enquiry was voted for unanimously by MPs, including Boris Johnson himself and his parliamentary apologists. It is highly improbable that Johnson and his advisers were so naïve as to approve a committee of his enemies, or were somehow duped. Moreover, for the report to take effect a majority of the House has to vote to approve it. That would make the cohort of enemies improbably large.
The accusation that the committee and its process are unconstitutional and undemocratic rests on the argument that in the 2019 general election Johnson won “a huge personal mandate” by securing a majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons. Now, one of Johnson’s arch apologists, William Rees Mogg, is particularly fond of citing our Constitution and constitutional precedents, but in this case he and Johnson’s other apologists completely distort the meaning of the Constitution and of our electoral system. We do not directly elect an individual as Prime Minister. Instead, we simply elect an MP to represent us in our constituency. The King then invites an individual MP to be his Prime Minister and to form a government. By tradition and precedent this is the person who is the leader of the party that secures a majority or the largest number of the seats in the House. He (or she) does not hold office by dint of a personal mandate but only by the invitation of the King.
The situation in 2019 was clear: the Conservatives won a majority of seats, Johnson was leader of the Conservative Party, and so the King invited him to be Primer Minister. Any personal mandate was irrelevant. Thus, for example, Jim Callaghan was a minority Labour Prime Minister from 1976-1979 and there are several examples in the more distant past of minority government. Alternatively, the monarch can invite an MP to form a coalition government. In 2010 no party won a majority, although the Conservatives won more seats than any other party. The Queen could have invited either the Conservative David Cameron or the Labour leader Gordon Brown to form a majority by negotiating a coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party.
In short, it is a constitutional impossibility to claim a personal mandate for Johnson. Indeed, it would be a constitutional outrage were the House to find that a Prime minister had lied to the House and the liar were not sanctioned.
Concerning the accusation that the judgement of the committee is spiteful, that is in part a matter of opinion, but also a ploy to diminish the severity of Johnson’s offences. As part of the committee’ process, Johnson was sent in confidence the committee’s report before it was published so that he could correct any errors and refute any charges with which he disagreed. Instead, Johnson published a letter that in essence made the report public and thus breached the trust of the committee. The committee increased the penalty imposed on Johnson for breach of trust. [This is in character. Johnson resigned his seat earlier this week and promptly found himself employment as a columnist for the Daily Mail. Former Prime Ministers and ministers are supposed as “good chaps” to notify the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) so that the committee can advise whether a proposed appointment is proper. Johnson notified ACOBA 30 minutes before announcing his new role and declared that he had followed the proper process.]
The vote in the House is a big moment. We will discover which members of our Parliament have the integrity and understanding of their constitutional duty to defend our constitution, and which are beguiled (or bullied) into a betrayal of trust by a moral wretch who has been exposed for that he is. In short, it is time for good chaps to act.
No comments:
Post a Comment