Jeremy Corbyn has called on the Cabinet Secretary to rule that Boris Johnson cannot force through a no-deal Brexit in the middle of a general election campaign.
The Labour leader has written to Sir Mark Sedwill warning it would be an “anti-democratic abuse of power” if the Prime Minister was to deny voters a choice on Britain’s EU future in an election campaign.
The move comes amid reports Mr Johnson could seek to hang on long enough to ensure Britain is out of the EU before going to the polls if he is defeated in a vote of confidence when MPs return in September.
As it stands – under the latest extension to the Article 50 withdrawal process by the EU – Britain is due to leave on October 31.
But with a wafer-thin Commons majority of just one, Mr Johnson is vulnerable to defeat if, as expected, Labour table a no-confidence motion early next month.
If that happened, under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, he would have 14 days to win another vote of confidence or, if no other government could be formed, face a general election.
His top adviser Dominic Cummings is said to have argued that would still allow him to set an election date after October 31, by which time the UK would be out of the EU with nothing a new government could do to stop it.
In his letter to Sir Mark, Mr Corbyn said such a course of action would be “unprecedented” and “unconstitutional”.
He said the Cabinet Office’s election “purdah” rules make it clear that policy decisions on which a new government “might be expected to want to take a different view” should be postponed until after polling day.
He asked Sir Mark to confirm that if the UK is due to leave the EU without a deal while an election is under way, the Government should seek another time-limited extension to Article 50 to allow the voters to decide.
“Forcing through no-deal against a decision of Parliament, and denying the choice to the voters in a general election already under way, would be an unprecedented, unconstitutional and anti-democratic abuse of power by a Prime Minister elected not by the public but by a small number of unrepresentative Conservative Party members,” he wrote.
“A Labour government will never support a no-deal exit, so would of course ‘want the opportunity to take a different view’.”
But Brexiteers argue Parliament has already voted to leave the EU, voting to trigger the Article 50 process and passing legislation setting Britain’s withdrawal date for October 31.
Officials said that Sir Mark would be replying to Mr Corbyn, but senior Tories dismissed the Labour leader’s letter as a “political stunt”.
A senior Conservative source said: “Jeremy Corbyn will do anything to get his hand on the keys to number 10. No amount of letter-writing political stunts will change the fact that politicians don’t get to choose which public votes they respect.”
Parliament must stop party leaders performing their sharades for the exclusive benefit of an ignorant public. Politicians on both sides of the Brexit argument have been taking advantage of the confusion generated in the public making opposite demands on them to believe that they and ther icontry would hugely benefit from leaving/remaining in the EU – pending on what side of the argument this or that politician chose to support. public,
The fact that major players in this political game ended up switching side at some point or other in the Brexit debate can be taken as a clear indication that the choice that the British public was asked to make was not a straightforward one. In the event There were many factors that our politicians must consider before coming to an informed decision – whether the best interest of the UK laid within or without the EU.
So many that our politician failed to give proper consideration to their implications until after the referendum took place; or until Article 50 was evoked . Eventually however the truth could no longer denied – that the only Leaving Agreement that our PM and the EU could sign without falling in contempt of international law was the Leaving Agreement that May did sign on behalf of the UK
the only agreement that was, as matters stood then, both parties could sign without becoming accomplices in a serious breach of international law.
Much has been said about the misinformstion campaign run by Boris Johnson and his supporters to influence the referendum . Their lies – with which Boris Johnson styled Brexiters persuaded a small majority of English voters that the UK would do much better economically as a close ally of the USA than it did now as a member of the EU and the single market -opened a new page in British history, a sad tail of whoes with no happy ending in sight.
It could be argued that it was irresponsible of our politicians to turn into law THE ADVICE provided by those WHO OPTED to take part in the Brexit referendum, WHO WERE NOT BRITISH NATIONAL LEAVING IN THE EU, as the latter were expressly excluded from taking part in the Brexit referendum . This in spite of the fact or perhaps because of the fact that unlike the majority of UK residents they had direct knowledge of the many advantages enjoyed by British people – whether students, tourists or resident in another EU country at present, some of which if not all would bu lost to them if the UK left the EU.
It was argued that in the light of the defamatory campaign run by rabid Brexit against the EU the results of the referendum must be considered null and void and a second referendum carried out now that so many of the Brexiters lies had already been exposed and people had had a chance to reach an independent opinion, whether leaving the EU would be in their best interest and that of their country.
Although all these arguments had merit their would prove unhelpful and inconclusive because allegations would be answered with lies and lies with lies and more allegations; the greatest offenders, posing as the true paladins of the truth, would assume aggressive postures to intimidate anyone who did not have their appetite for dirty games and was not prepared fo return insult with insult.
The only argument that could be used to foster the cause of those who did not wish the UK to leave the EU, or did not wish to leave it without a deal in place, was to point out just how many MPs felt it necessary to change their stand on Brexit as time went on and the issues and consequences of Brexit became better defined. After 3 years of inconclusive talks that saw British politicians seriously engaged in a game of musical chairs, it would only be fair to make the same opportunities available to the British public running a more inclusive referendum that extended the vote to British national living abroad also
This exercise would also prove pointless unless parliament came clean on what options must be included in the ballot paper this time round
1. Pass the leaving agreement signed by May in his last and final version
2. Promote the union of Northen Ireland with Ireland and on successful annexation of the same leave the EU and the single market under the term agreed y the two parties in the interim
3 revoke article 50 and elect a new PM that enjoyed the confidence and respect t of the EU to patch up our relationship
Parliament was aware at the time whe May persuaded parliament to evoke article 50 that these were the only choices that were before us, and should have had the courage to stand its ground. Instead he chose to humour the PM who in turn chose to implement the policies that would cause the least damage to her party, regardless of the damage that they would cause the country that she had sworn to serve AT THE BEST OF HER ABILITIES.
Parliament thought of cautioning itself against May making any more self serving choices by demandin and obtaining that no agreement signed by the PM on their behalf became law that did not meet with Parliament approval.
It is a fact that fostering the union of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland would be very popular with some and above all with the USA, whoever it would alienate the Government the good will of the DUP who’s support the government needed to promote any bill.
All matters remaining equal the physical presence of a British territory iin the heart of a sovereign state member of the EU made it compulsive for the UK to remain in the single market, to prevent their province from suffering the unacceptable consequences of a tiny region surrounded by a heavenly patrolled hard border on all sides. Parliament was proven right, when it reserved itself the right to reject the deal that May predictably came up with, that as they put it represented the worse of both choices – require the UK to deal exclusively with the EU and through the EU, but voluntarily renouncing to have any saying in the d the EU business and administration, imposition of standard and tariffs and so on.
When Parliameng was given an opportunity to put forward alternative proposals to May’s, that Parliament had already rejected 4 times, three years had already been wasted and it was already hight time that parliament came clean, acknowledged that there were only two options open to the UK to leave the EU with a deal in place and unless Parlament was happy to vote through one of them, Parliament had no choice but to revoke article 50 without further ado.
That did not happen then and is not happening now.
Parliament has not the courage of its belief, it refuses to see the clear paths that lays before them that they must now follows and waste it’s time and energy looking for means and way to prevent Boris Johnson resolving the impasse de facto, assuming dictatorial role that no one has as yet successfully contested him. No one , however, has suggested how long an extension the Queen or the interim Prime Minister should beg for this time fhat may long enough for the to UK to come up with a better alternative to Johnson no deal.