,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@aroberts_andrew is a very good historian. But this is hopeless as a piece of legal or political reasoning.
Leave aside the comparison of Brexit with great freedom struggles of the past. I think the comparison is silly and fatuous, but that isn’t my point.
The simple error is this. Johnson is, unlike any of the other examples, both (a) head of government and (b) under our constitution (which Andrew passionately supports) is head of government only because the House of Commons allows him to be.
If the HoC had declared that it would have confidence in Johnson if and only if he wrote a letter in the terms of the Act on 19 October, Andrew could have no coherent legal or constitutional objection.
The effect would be that the Johnson would have to write the letter or be sacked.
Instead, Parliament has passed a law requiring the PM on 19/10 (whoever he is) to write that letter. Writing that letter is now simply part of the job description of a PM on that day.
The effect is that (assuming that the statutory conditions - no deal and no HoC consent to me deal - apply) Johnson has to resign or write the letter.
The effect of each course of action is the same. If Johnson wants to remain PM, he has to write the letter.
Yet, though Andrew has to accept the legal and constitutional force of the first, he has a fit of the vapours at the second, as being, we are told, a legal and constitutional outrage.
That is not a coherent or defensible position.
In addition, as others have pointed out, the article is probably incitement to commit the offence of misconduct in public office. Though any sane prosecutor would hold fire.
And Andrew might well be able to invoke the Human Rights Act in his support. An irony I’m sure he’d appreciate.
Andrew should stick to history. Where he has interesting things to say.
Though, as @redhistorian says, as a historian he should be able to spot both the inanity and the danger of what he is saying.
And this is an excellent demolition of @aroberts_andrew’s historical claim. A case of Homer nods (or couldn’t let historical accuracy get in the way of his prejudices).
