Westministenders: The Only Election That Matters - The Tory One

[RedToothBrush]

Fallout from the Euro Elections makes for interesting reading for the leadership hopefuls.

Its not a clear cut as some make out. There is still a case for a deal. The trouble is passing it through parliament. And there is no time to do that. Nor no will.

Any new leader's priority isn't going to be a deal. Its going to be avoiding a General Election. And thats going to be hard.

We are also realistically facing the prospect of another extension which France is likely to block leading to no deal or no deal.

Or a 2nd Referendum.

A 2nd Referendum might be the only way to avoid a General Election. And that will still have no deal on the ballot. Of that you can be sure.

Peter Foster of the Telegraph remarked this morning that in fact the only way to a deal now, might well be via no deal, because of all the routes we have exhausted through incompetence. And that will come at a very high price.

Anyone know why Boris in particular has been singled out for litigation there were numerous politicians of all shades involved in ‘busgate’ ?

Gove, Farage ?

Ooh, I got it wrong. They only plea for a Mags or either way (Mags or Crown - you can choose to be 'sent up' to be tried in front of a jury) case, apparently.

Here's the step by step process (this is an indictable crime): www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/crown-court/

In other news I notice Sabine Weyand has been made Director General for trade EU.

We have Liam Fox.

I can imagine how that’s going to pan out.......

No uncomfortable resonances there?

Not really - Johnson is accused of breaking the law and we are hoping he gets his legal comeuppance - as anyone who has broken the law should. We're not chanting - we're hoping to see well deserved consequences.
Just because one very dangerous person coined a phrase against a political opponent does not mean that we should let all politicians get away scot free with various crimes for fear of being likened to Trump.
That's straight out of the gas lighting tyrants playbook - a bad person said something similar once, so if you say this then you are a bad person, same as them.

We all know what Boris did (amongst others - and it would be unfair just to go for him). It has been found that there is a case to answer to. We want him to answer - and we want the punishment to be commensurate with the level of damage he's done. That would be justice we're wanting - a corner stone of democracy.

woman so they are essentially saying that we know he is a wrong’un but he’s the president, so you know, shit happens you lot decide

I was replying to DGR's Nixon quote, about the presidency and law, with what Mueller has just restated.

It's a fair argument that in Britain the law is not always the most successful tool to win a political battle, which is what David Allen Green has often said.

I don't know enough to know what the right answer is.

Oh now, this is interesting:

“It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence. The conduct cannot be considered in a vacuum: the consequences likely to follow from it, viewed subjectively … will often influence the decision as to whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of the public's trust in the officer. (Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003).”

Obviously the consequence of this particular lie was pretty massive. 🤔🤔

Here's the CPS description / explanation in full: www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office

It's genuinely fascinating!

This thread explains it a bit more.

@redhistorian
While I abhor Boris Johnson, this is a dangerous step. Like so much else in British politics, it's happening because the mechanisms by which we hold politicians to account are breaking down. But the remedy lies in the ballot box, not in court. [Thread]

twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1133729688818507776

In such turbulent political times though, I'm not sure which side is right.

Thanks for all the links fluffy - I'm going to get reading.

I find it really interesting, pretzels. Though I had no interest in going into criminal litigation at all, I do enjoy reading about it!

My personal view is that he's going to struggle against this. Even if he claims to have made a mistake, being reckless as to the facts will also find you guilty!

I can just imagine the cross-examination now. I'd bloody love to go to that Trial.

Maybe you should Fluff, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands

Bearing in mind it's been a judicial decision to summons him, is that likely to happen (i.e. it's not a CPS-led charge)? Also, does this happen in the U.K.?

Judges can strike out cases for all sorts of reasons. And such decisions can then be appealed. There is an ultimate (and political) option of "not in the public interest", along with a doctrine of "least mischief". I'm particularly aware of the latter, as the psychoactive substances act of 2016 made church incense illegal, and relies on a judicial doctrine of "mischief" to evade prosecution. Speaking for myself, I'm not a fan of "if it's Monday laws". They can lead to the rather surreal possibility of the author of a law being told to shut up in a case trying that law when they try to explain it to a jury. As happened to the late Roy Jenkins when he was called for the defence in the Lady Chatterly trial (the point being he actually drafted the 1959 Obscene Publications Act which the case was bought under)

Anyone know why Boris in particular has been singled out for litigation there were numerous politicians of all shades involved in ‘busgate’ ? Gove, Farage ?

As I recall, Farage put a few light years between him and that bus almost immediately. Which allows him a potential defence of "well, as soon as I discovered it wasn't the case ..."

Not so sure about Gove.

A lot hinges on Boris' actual relationship with the Leave campaign and that bus.

Ultimately though, it matters not a jot. English law specifically has never had a defence of "boo hoo it's so unfair". So if Gove and Farage are just as guilty, but BoJo has to carry the can .... well ain't that a shame.

(btw, to @1tisILeClerc, I'm not a lawyer, just a very fast reader used to debugging shit )

Maybe you should Fluff, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands

What? Whatever gives you that impression?

woman I saw that thread too. Just find it odd no other politicians have ever been tried before and why is he the only one up before the beak this time lots of others also stood by that bus they are all equally culpable which I guess is the point his defence will try to make.

As the prosecution is crowd funded I suppose his defence will drag it out as long as possible until prosecutions money runs out or it gets to a point in the trial where if they lose Boris could go for costs which would cripple them.

I suppose at least it puts Leave Campaigns lies back in the media.

DAG on there being a case to answer;

@davidallengreen
Am instinctively against such "political" prosecutions.

But: the detailed reasoning of the judge's decision does, on the face of it, make out the elements of the offence.

Johnson's defence lawyers had better now move up a few gears.

@JudiciaryUK
Decision of District Judge Margot Coleman in Ball v Boris Johnson delivered at Westminster MC today bit.ly/2EGjgxP

@Steven_Swinford
Source close to Boris Johnson:

'This prosecution is nothing less than a politically motivated attempt to reverse Brexit and crush the will of the people

'The decision to issue a summons is extraordinary and flies in the face of hundreds of years of British democratic tradition'

@redhistorian
It's tempting, but what that means in practice is a body who can say to the electorate "You are not allowed to elect this person to Parliament". Once you have done that, you have established a higher authority than democracy

Legal precedent of judicial decision on fitness for political office would be well dodgy.

DGR, won't public interest have been taken into account already though?

I genuinely know bugger all about the intricacies of criminal law. I think I will ask my CPS friend as she'll definitely know what's what!

I was replying to DGR's Nixon quote, about the presidency and law, with what Mueller has just restated.

Er, the whole point was that Nixon was wrong. Being president is not a license to break the law and indeed would violate the entire point not only of American law, but America itself. A country that has made a fetish of it's violent struggle to throw off the yoke of (British) tyranny. As a read of the declaration of independence will reveal. It's basically a long grumble about how shit the King has treated them.

The rule of law is the antidote to tyranny. They are mutually exclusive.

It's worth researching the history of the word tyrant - as a classicist I( am sure Boris is more than aware of it, and tyrants in general. Rome being a good case study ....

If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, he'd have done jail time for sure.

Boris de Pfeffel Johnson?!?!

But the remedy lies in the ballot box, not in court.

Not if elections are only every five years, and you cannot unseat an MP any other way.

If nothing else, the innovation of being able to recall an MP - limited though it may be - is one good thing to emerge from the expenses scandal.

Boris de Pfeffel Johnson?!?

Did you not know ? Born in New York.

I'm not sure I agree with that thread woman ... he states 'the courts are not the solution' but doesn't really explain why they're not or what the solution in such a case is (because in a one off referendum, there isn't a solution via the ballot box after the fact!). It seems to me if misconduct in public office is a criminal office that existed prior to Johnson being accused of it - then it is perfectly acceptable for it to go to court. Otherwise what is the point of having it as a law?

I also don't think the answer to breaking the law in politics lies in the ballot box. The answer to doing a bad job or breaking promises lies in the ballot box. The answer to breaking the law - in every case, no matter what sphere - lies in the legal process. Otherwise MPs are above the law and the only thing that happens when they break it is they don't get reelected. That isn't going to protect democracy.
In order to have honest politicians and a functioning democracy we have to have a legal system with teeth to which they are beholden, same as everyone else.

Politicians are frequently dishonest because they know from bitter experience that there's nothing the electorate does not want to hear more than the truth.

Even when they are honest, their opponents can deliberately misrepresent them, see the 1992 General Election when Labour did everything right and still lost.

Lying is another matter. One thing to make a false statement about the future, such as Cameron's promise to end the deficit by 2015, or the promise to cut net migration.

Making false statements about reality as it exists right now is supposed to be a No-No, and the lying bus crossed a line.

Johnson and others blustered and attempted to defend the claim that the verb 'send' meant allocate to a budgetary process which would give much of it back and not take some more of it in the first place. This was still "Brussels" deciding, where that word means the EU which includes the UK (still) and decides these matters by unanimity.

In BJ's defence there will be Lord Denning's "Fare's Fair" judgement on Ken Livingstone's GLC promise to cut bus fares, which Denning said was a manifesto promise and so not a promise at all, and so the Tory Govt. could block it.

Against him will be the numbers, and the 'reasonable person' test.

And even if he gets a suspended sentence, the prospect of recall beckons. People of Uxbridge, Your Country Needs You....

DGR, won't public interest have been taken into account already though?

Not at the Magistrates court - they'll leave it to the Crown Court ...

I think I will ask my CPS friend as she'll definitely know what's what!

Unlikely. At this level, you are really into specialism - something which counts against Boris, as there won't really be much expertise in this area. Luckily since Goves declaration that we are sick of experts that won't be a problem.

The rule of law is the antidote to tyranny
In theory, but which tyrants have been brought down by judges DGR?

petition about an enquiry into #deniedmyvote

chng.it/srJFbWLpbk

Fair points, pretzels and mockers
Politically and legally this case is too important to lose. Hopefully it will turn out well.