Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    UK: Boris Johnson to Defy Brexit Delay Bill Passed by Parliament

    UK: Boris Johnson to Defy Brexit Delay Bill Passed by Parliament

    PM Johnson to “make a second attempt to win the backing of MPs for an election on Oct 15.”

    British Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to defy the Brexit delay bill, London-based newspaper The Telegraph reported. The House of Lords, the unelected Upper House of the UK Parliament, passed a bill on Friday blocking a no-deal Brexit ahead of the October 31 deadline. The bill, expected to be signed into law by the Queen on Monday, aims to force the British government to delay Brexit if it fails to reach a deal with the European Union.

    “Boris Johnson set to defy the law rather than ask for Brexit delay,” The Telegraph disclosed late Friday, adding that the “Prime Minister said he ‘will not’ carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound ‘in theory’ by a law passed on Friday.”

    The Lords approved the bill two days after the UK Lower House passed a motion to delay the Brexit beyond October 31. The bill in the House of Commons was supported by the members from both the ruling Conservative and the opposition Labour party, winning by 327 votes to 299, a majority of 28.

    Prime Minister Johnson has long opposed such delay tactics on the part of the pro-EU lawmakers. “I would rather be dead in a ditch” than agree to an extension of Brexit, he had told reporters ahead of the Friday’s vote in the Upper House.

    The Telegraph reported Johnson’s response to the bill passed by the House of Lords:

    Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

    The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.

    Mr Johnson also ruled out the option of resigning to avoid asking for an extension, saying he would be staying in office to deliver Brexit and defeat Jeremy Corbyn.

    On Monday the Prime Minister will make a second attempt to win the backing of MPs for an election on Oct 15, in which he would hope to win a fresh mandate for leading the country out of the EU on Oct 31 with or without a deal.

    Prime Minister Johnson believes that pro-EU Member of Parliament (MPs) are working behind his back to sabotage Britain’s exit from the European bloc. “There’s a terrible collaboration, as it were, going on between people who think they can block Brexit in parliament and our European friends,” he said in a televised statement last month.

    The British Prime Minister is justified in disregarding the motions passed by lawmakers and in going ahead with the business of delivering on the mandate given by the 2016 EU referendum. By doing the EU’s bidding, the MPs in the elected Lower House are ‘selling out’ the voters they claim to represent, the British magazine Spectator rightly claims. “406 constituencies voted to Leave, 242 to Remain; and nine regions voted to Leave, and just three to Remain” in the referendum, the magazine points out.

    Prime Minister Johnson wants a snap election on October 15 to harness the anti-EU sentiment, particularly within his Conservative base. But as things stand today, he lacks the necessary vote on the floor of the parliament to trigger a general election. He will need the support of two-thirds of the MPs to force a snap election. The Prime Minister is expected to make a fresh push for a snap election on Monday despite Labour party’s opposition to the move.

    Johnson’s Conservatives face a bigger challenge in their own camp as Tory base migrates en masse to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. The newly-formed anti-EU party emerged as the largest force in the May’s EU election, winning 32 percent of the vote, compared to Conservative party’s measly 9 percent.

    Hoping to avoid a disaster in a possible snap election, the Conservative politicians are reaching out to their arch rival Nigel Farage in a bid to hammer out a pre-election deal. “Brexiteer Tories in the European Research Group (ERG) have discussed the possibility of an electoral pact with Nigel Farage,” The Telegraph disclosed in a separate report late Friday.

    The news of the Tory outreach comes after Farage vowed to “put country before party” and withdraw all Brexit Party candidates in favor of Tory contestants in a snap election scenario if Johnson sticks to delivering the Brexit. “If Boris Johnson decides that the right thing to do is go for a clean Brexit, then we would stand down” Farage promised last week.

    [Cover image YouTube]


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Subotai Bahadur | September 7, 2019 at 3:27 pm

    I am far from knowledgeable about British Constitutional law, in no small part because they cannot point to anything in their Constitution that is permanent and cannot be changed at whim by Parliament.

    If the Left and their Tory allies go directly against the expressed-in-ballots will of the people, what does that do to the concept of consent of the governed? In fact, in Britain, does consent of the governed matter a whit so long as the peasants do not revolt?

    I do not know if I am correct, but let us say that PM Johnson refuses to present the bill to the Queen [quite aside from the mayhem I have been hearing about the difference between Royal Assent and Queen’s Assent], would not the only recourse of Parliament be to either call for new elections [which Johnson wants and the Left does not, elections being something that allows the peasants to express their opinion on being ruled], OR to form another coalition between Labour and renegade Tories to create another government with Corbyn as PM? That would kind of make mockery of the concept of a legitimate government, at least to me. Brit? Who knows. Personally, it seems to me that if Corbyn becomes PM, that we will have the equivalent of Cromwell’s Protectorate for however many decades it takes to overthrow it, if it is overthrown.

    If it becomes clear that Britain is a wholly controlled satrapy of the EU which has accepted being conquered, does that not change what our relationship is?

    Sentimentality for Britain is all well and good, but the EU is essentially anti-American. What do we owe them in relationships? NATO, which is funded by us to protect them while they attack and hate us, should be re-evaluated based on our practical needs and reality. Would it be better to have bilateral treaties with those countries who are in fact our allies, and leave those who very much are not on their own?

    British Lord Ismay declared at the formation of NATO that its purposes were: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”. Current NATO leadership, which coincides with the EU as far as nation-states, WANTS the Russians in, WANTS the Americans out, and the Germans are running a 4th Reich.

    If Britain falls to that Reich, we need to re-examine our strategic and economic reasons for being engaged in Europe based on OUR needs, goals, and the cost/benefit ratio.

    Subotai Bahadur

      Tom Servo in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | September 7, 2019 at 4:48 pm

      I am far from knowledgeable about British Constitutional law, in no small part because they cannot point to anything in their Constitution that is permanent and cannot be changed at whim by Parliament.z’

      This is because the UK has no actual Constitution, never have had one. They like to pretend that they do, because it sounds nice, but they don’t. That’s why they don’t have a Bill of Rights, either. Any Parliament can change Anything anytime they want.

      “OR to form another coalition between Labour and renegade Tories to create another government with Corbyn as PM?”

      For that to happen, I believe the old PM has to resign, and the Queen has to ask the new groups to form a new government. However, if the old PM refuses to resign (as Boris will refuse), then the ONLY option is for the Parliament to vote for new elections. Oh I suppose there is one other option – the UK can limp along with a minority government that has no support and can’t pass anything but which still controls the bureaucracy, and the entire country can limp along in dysfunctional chaos for months and months. Until things get so bad that everyone agrees they need new elections.

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | September 8, 2019 at 2:39 am

        Not true. If the House votes no confidence in Johnson he must resign, or the Queen must fire him. If it votes confidence in Corbyn she must appoint him.

        As for Subotai’s question about the referendum result, the answer is exactly the same thing as it would be here in the USA: If Congress ordered a referendum on some subject, it would not be bound by the result, and would be free to vote against it. The consent of the governed is restricted to the choice in who is to govern; the governed do not get, and are not entitled to, a share in the actual governing. In fact here, with our Bill of Rights, even the governors and the governed can’t always get what they want. Even if a national referendum were to support banning guns, Congress would not be able to do it.

          artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | September 8, 2019 at 8:30 am

          The Queen must? She’s the Queen! She doesn’t even have to convene Parliament.

          I suppose we’ve gone along here for decades with her doing all these things (I wouldn’t know if there were some exceptions along the way) but … I think she’s still more than a figurehead.

            Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | September 8, 2019 at 10:23 am

            Yes, she must. Her power is extremely limited. Despite that being literally her title, she is not sovereign, Parliament is. She must, under all circumstances, act on the advice of her government, which in turn must have the confidence of the Commons.

            In her entire reign, the only independent decision she has been called on to make was to choose a successor to Anthony Eden, and that was only because the Tory Party had no procedure for doing so. Now that it has one, she doesn’t get to make that decision either. In the case of a hung parliament, if no majority coalition emerged immediately it would be up to her to decide whom to ask to try to form one; but that’s never happened yet, and is unlikely to happen.

            This is shaping up to be the sort of crisis where she might be called upon to act again. If her prime minister insisted on breaking the law, she might decide to fire him and appoint someone who would obey the law. But she would probably first sound out Parliament to see who could command its confidence. She can no longer dissolve Parliament, but once there is a vote of no confidence, there are only 14 days for a new government to gain confidence before an automatic election is triggered, so she’d want to have someone lined up who can get it done on the first try.

            artichoke in reply to artichoke. | September 11, 2019 at 9:04 am

            Oh, so an automatic election IS triggered if she does nothing.
            Then she doesn’t actually have to do anything, does she?

          Est La in reply to Milhouse. | September 19, 2019 at 3:51 pm

          not sure where your information regarding the queen came from. but it is incorrect. your statements contain contradiction. o, it aint mandatory for the pm to resign if loses a confidence or no confidence vote either. if/when the queen has/does express her wishes…. it gets done. is a constitutional monarchy btw……and then some lol

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | September 8, 2019 at 2:52 am

        There is also no difference between royal assent and the Queen’s assent. The Queen gives royal assent, at her government’s advice. So it’s up to the government, which has said it will advise assent, since if it refused that would bring on an immediate vote of no confidence.

          That has never been challenged. That is the opening for BoJo. It’s time to challenge the “national suicide” provisions of their laws. National suicide is NEVER enshrined in constitutions. Survival is not based on word games. Stop thinking like an American Republican. GOP defeatism is how the Dems always get their way here. REFUSE TO LOSE! For once.

            Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | September 8, 2019 at 4:23 pm

            It is not subject to challenge. The Queen must assent to whatever her government tells her to. It’s the government, not the Queen, that has decided to let this bill be enacted. And the reason is because if it refused there would be a no confidence vote the same day, which would pass, and Johnson would have to resign.

            Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | September 8, 2019 at 4:24 pm

            If you don’t give a sh*t about the law then you are the enemy.

    Extirpates | September 7, 2019 at 4:09 pm

    BoJo is going to do what the people want. the HoL[e] can plac their lips next to the outflow opening on his rear.

    MajorWood | September 7, 2019 at 5:27 pm

    Anyone watching “Yes, Minister” in the early 80’s saw all of this coming down the pike.

      artichoke in reply to MajorWood. | September 8, 2019 at 8:21 am

      I’ve watched a little of such British comedy, but I find the actual comedy of watching the Commons (and in this case, even the Lords, who are usually better than a sleeping pill) to be far more riveting.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 7, 2019 at 5:55 pm

    British Voters Take Down Remainer Politicians on Live TV

    Labor Party also promised to LEAVE the EU.

    Wow are these UK Patriots PO-ed!

    artichoke | September 7, 2019 at 11:28 pm

    1. So if BJ defies Parliament on what this bill instructs him to do, I suppose Parliament’s option is to declare no-confidence, right? But that means … a new election!

    2. But why does BJ think he can get a snap election by voting it again? Why would the result be any different? The last one wasn’t close to having enough votes from what I read.

    3. How could the Lords have passed the bill on Friday. They didn’t meet on Friday! Go to and try to find a meeting of either Commons or Lords on Friday, they aren’t there! I tried to watch them on Friday and there were no broadcasts.

    Or was this some secret meeting where they refused to be televised?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend