Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Boris Johnson should resign

397 replies

Cinammoncake · 24/09/2019 11:18

He's lied to the Queen and shut down parliament illegally. He's not fit to be PM and should resign now.

OP posts:
Iggly · 26/09/2019 08:06

So you’re saying that Boris wants an election before October 31st because he doesn’t want to be PM anymore and if the Tories are kicked out, then we’re more likely to remain

You make no sense. Unless of course you think that Boris cannot win a majority?

He’s forcing an election to try and prevent a deal being reached because there will be no time to get a deal. As it is he’s wasting time as it is.

Thatsenoughjuststopit · 26/09/2019 08:06

None of them are fit, the whole government has made a joke of Brexit. Whoever is doing the job has the odds stacked against them as the rest of the government will fight everything tooth and nail.

Yanbu only in the sense that Boris has tried to think outside the box to get this stalemate shifted. Risky game and it didn't work biting him on the arse. In some ways I knew he would try this and I admire him for that only.
Realistically thought the government will never resolve Brexit, the standoff will continue and the whole government needs a damn good kick up the arse for this mess.

Iggly · 26/09/2019 08:08

Yanbu only in the sense that Boris has tried to think outside the box to get this stalemate shifted. Risky game and it didn't work biting him on the arse. In some ways I knew he would try this and I admire him for that only

No he’s gunning for no deal. Everything he’s done (not said, but done) points to this.

Dongdingdong · 26/09/2019 08:10

He wants to call an election before the 31st, so he can set the election date for sometime in November, once we left the EU with no deal.

Well, quite. But when I said Boris was set on leaving the EU on October 31st with or without a deal, Iggly said I was being naive.

Perhaps Iggly was only referring to the first part of my sentence (ie, the “with a deal bit”), but their post wasn’t clear.

Iggly · 26/09/2019 08:13

Sorry Dongdingdong I missed the “with a deal” bit.

But I don’t believe Boris ever intended to get a deal from the EU 🤷🏻‍♀️

Dongdingdong · 26/09/2019 08:16

Fair enough. And I can see why you think that as his actions do give that impression.

Iggly · 26/09/2019 08:17

give that impression

I very much believe that it is his intention. Judge his actions.

Look at who his special advisor is - Dominic Cummings has no time for the EU and would be advising the prime minister to exit without a deal.

Helmetbymidnight · 26/09/2019 08:23

'Humbug' - He's an utter arsehole and is seeking to stir up division and hate (that he knows him and his U/C buddies are immune from).
Im staggered that people fall for his schtick.

Userzzzzz · 26/09/2019 08:25

For those defending him, do you really think:

  1. his approach (of lying and being unlawful) will endear him to international leaders with whom we will need to negotiate trade deals?

  2. will help to unite the country after a factious and difficult few years?

There needed to be a leader that could build concensus, tell the truth and rebuild trust in politicians and our institutions. The exchange between him and Rory Stewart made Stewart look statesman like and Boris like a blustering buffoon. Most people won’t have seen in it full though- just the edited news clips.

familycourtq · 26/09/2019 08:28

Could the Lib Dem’s do a deal with greens and if so could they win?

No chance of this even if they could get enough votes due our shitty FPTP electoral system. We badly need electoral reform.

familycourtq · 26/09/2019 08:32

Im staggered that people fall for his schtick.

The problem isn't that - it's the number of Tory automata who would vote for anything with a blue rosette.

Iggly · 26/09/2019 08:35

Im staggered that people fall for his schtick

He’s playing an act. He’s always done this. Pretend Buffon when he knows exactly what he is doing.

This is what he does. He pretends to be a bumbling Buffon, but how anyone can believe this is incredible. He’s oxford and Eton educated ffs.

MustardScreams · 26/09/2019 08:51

@Iggly you may have already seen this, but it’s an excellent example of how BJ perpetuates the ‘bumbling buffoon’ persona, written by Jeremy Vine:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/my-boris-story/

jacks11 · 26/09/2019 10:14

The point that many seek to have missed is that, regardless of your views on Brexit, or tories vs labour and so on- the issue is around our constitution and democracy. We have a representative democracy, with MPs there to represent their constituents and hold the executive (the government of the day) to account. Furthermore, Without a written constitution, much of what is allowed and the extent/practice of executive powers is set on precedent and tradition. If this government had been allowed to prorogue parliament on this basis- I believe that our PM was lying when he said it was nothing to do with Brexit and was simply trying to circumvent parliament- there would be nothing to stop a future government from shutting down parliament for their own ends as the precedent had been set. Even if you think parliament are failing on Brexit, even if you support the PM in his “do or die” stance, nobody should support his actions as the precedent it sets is dangerous.

Aderyn19 · 26/09/2019 10:55

So why was John Major allowed to do it when he wanted to bury certain issues until after a GE? It's either undemocratic or it's not.

MustardScreams · 26/09/2019 11:36

@Aderyn19 well because a) it was for 3 weeks, and prior to a general election when parliament is dissolve anyway. Although typically for around a week.
B) it was allegedly just to stop a report coming out regarding MPs taking bribes. NOT a five week break weeks before the most important political decision that the government have had to make in decades was due. Can you see the difference?

Cinammoncake · 26/09/2019 11:40

I believe that our PM was lying when he said it was nothing to do with Brexit and was simply trying to circumvent parliament

Yes and his first speech to the HoC yesterday was all about Brexit, so that would indicate he was contradicting what he said before

I totally agree with you jacks11 and it's so important. Will people get this message and fully understand the implications? I hope so but seeing the Daily Mail headline today makes me despair tbh

OP posts:
Aderyn19 · 26/09/2019 11:50

Honestly no. It's true the stakes are higher, but something is either acceptable behaviour or it isn't. Given that we have no written constitution and our system works on precedent, I can see the argument that if JM did it for his own political gain then BJ can also do it.
For the record, I don't believe parliament should be suspended so that any PM can hide information that the public has a right to know or to push through legislation.
But I also think the MPs have helped create this situation with their own behaviour.

LayLar360 · 26/09/2019 12:00

So far as I know, Major's prorogation wasn't challenged in the courts - had it been, perhaps it would have been found unlawful too.

MustardScreams · 26/09/2019 12:05

It was unlawful in 97, it’s just no one took it further. Now due to the precedent that has been set the government can be taken to court to rule if an extended prorogation is lawful or not. It’s growth and better understanding. Gina Miller was still in finance marketing when JM prorogued parliament 22 years ago.

By your argument you can never have new laws, can’t be arrested for something that was deemed illegal or unlawful in the future. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

WellButterMyArse · 26/09/2019 12:27

Nobody knows what would've happened if legal action had been taken against Major in 97 because nobody challenged him. Its not actually as simple as it's either illegal or it isn't, because sometimes people do things that are illegal but are never challenged. The courts don't get involved by themselves. A body or individual has to ask them to.

Aderyn19 · 26/09/2019 12:29

All I can see is that parliament changes the rules to suit itself. Something is perfectly legal when it suits parliament for it to be legal but the very same action is challenged in court when it doesn't.

I'd like to know exactly who is financing Gina Miller.

Aderyn19 · 26/09/2019 12:31

I'm not in favour of prorogation of parliament, but I think John Major had no business getting involved in this under the circumstances.

WellButterMyArse · 26/09/2019 12:32

No, Parliament isn't changing the rules. Someone other than Parliament challenged them this time and didnt in 97. And it wasn't Parliament that made the decision this week, it was the Supreme Court. They're different.

I contributed a tenner to the Cherry fund...

Iggly · 26/09/2019 16:31

All I can see is that parliament changes the rules to suit itself. Something is perfectly legal when it suits parliament for it to be legal but the very same action is challenged in court when it doesn't

Then you do not understand the rules 🤷🏻‍♀️

Gina Miller was crowd funded.

Swipe left for the next trending thread