By Arun Srivastava
Senior allies of Boris Johnson have warned him of the threat of civil unrest on a major scale if he failed to deliver Brexit. This warning from the MPs came on Friday just after Johnson tried to incite hatred towards MPs.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence on second referendum has shaken the supporters of Johnson and also the Tory leaders. A senior cabinet minister warned that the country risked a “violent, popular uprising” if a second d referendum overturned the result of the first one. Lurking fear of Corbyn, strong votary of second referendum, grabbing the office of prime minister has turned them sceptical of their future.
Seven successive House defeat has turned Boris quite scared of his future. His supporters are apprehensive of a complete washout from the political scenario. His opponents and lawmakers accuse him of whipping up violence and division with his charged language about opponents of Brexit.
The mistrust and animosity have consumed British politics. After the first referendum on 2016 on Brexit, the politicians and Britain remain bitterly divided over how, or whether, to leave the EU, the 28-nation bloc.
Some lawmakers have even warned Johnson to be more cautious in his utterances citing the 2016 killing of lawmaker Jo Cox. The Labour member of Parliament, who campaigned to stay in the EU, was shot and stabbed a week before Britain’s EU membership referendum by a far-right attacker shouting, “Death to traitors!”
Since the Brexit referendum drove a wedge through British politics and society, several people have been convicted of threatening politicians, and a neo-Nazi was found guilty of plotting to kill a Labour legislator.
Quite interesting while Boris goes on abusing his opponents, his family members are opposed to him. His brother Jo Johnson quit the Conservative government this month, saying he had been “torn between family loyalty and the national interest. His threat to leave the EU on October 31 with or without a divorce deal with Brussels has put him on a collision course with MPs
The seventh defeat for Johnson has been most disgraceful. Last week Supreme Court ruled that Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful, as it had the effect of frustrating lawmakers ahead of the Brexit deadline. His inflammatory language drew accusations of stoking divisions in a country still split over the 2016 referendum vote for Brexit.
Tensions reached a high scale on Wednesday night during a combative, three-hour debate in which Johnson condemned the Supreme Court ruling and accused MPs of trying to undermine Brexit. He repeatedly slammed parliament for passing a “surrender act” requiring him to seek to delay Brexit.
There was also criticism from Brussels, where Britain’s most senior EU official, Commissioner Julian King said Johnson’s language was “crass and dangerous”. Shockingly Johnson has refused to apologise in the face of criticism that he is inciting hatred against MPs, as he briefed his cabinet on preparations for a populist election campaign.
The ruling means lawmakers are free to reconvene and can scrutinize Johnson’s Brexit preparations ahead of the U.K.’s October 31 deadline to leave the European Union. Parliament, the Supreme Court said, “has a right to a voice.” Supreme Court President Brenda Hale continued: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”
The Court obviously concluded that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue [suspend] Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
The judgment marks one of the most significant rulings in the U.K.’s constitutional history, marking a new precedent for the power the courts have to police squabbles between the government and parliamentarians.
The fact Johnson using hardline language is a tactical move to show to Britons that he is increasingly focused on fighting an election, amid pessimism in the government and Brussels about the chances of reaching a new EU withdrawal agreement at the October summit. With Labour refusing an election until no deal is off the table, Johnson is hell bent to achieve his demand that he will not have to seek an extension from the EU if he fails to reach a deal.
Johnson accused the court of siding with Remain campaigners to ‘frustrate Brexit’, although he was careful to say that he ‘respected’ the court’s judgment. There is little doubt that it is irresponsible for the Government to claim the ruling was ‘all about people trying to frustrate Brexit’ when the Government’s defence was that ‘prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit’.
Johnson’s obsession with the Brexit could be understood from the that he used the international forum of United Nations to justify his stand and accuse his opponents even the judiciary.Speaking in New York he said it was ‘perfectly normal’ for a government to prorogue Parliament in order to hold a Queen’s speech, which he had planned to stage on October 14.
He added: ‘Let’s be in no doubt, there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit. There are a lot of people who want to stop this country coming out of the EU.’ The Prime Minister said he had the ‘highest respect’ for the judiciary, but added: ‘I strongly disagree with this judgment.’
Supreme Court president Baroness Hale said that with the prorogation eating up five of the eight weeks of possible parliamentary time before Britain left the EU, ‘the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme’. (IPA Service)