‘A dead Parliament’ tests Britain's prime minister

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government tried to seize the offensive as the House of Commons resumed business Wednesday, a day after the Supreme Court ruled that Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

It took only minutes for the debate to reach a high volume and harsh tone, even by the barbed, raucous standards of the House of Commons. Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, the government’s chief lawyer, berated the opposition, his rumbling baritone growing steadily louder.

“This Parliament is a dead Parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no right to sit in these green benches,” he thundered. “This Parliament is a disgrace.”

Britain's Attorney General Geoffrey Cox is seen in Downing Street in London, Britain September 25, 2019. Reuters

He accused the opposition of fearing both an election and the prospect of the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, as prime minister — clearly relishing this terrain to any discussion of suspending, or proroguing, Parliament.

The only moral thing for the opposition to do is to seek an election, but instead it does nothing but obstruct, he said.

“The time is coming when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas,” he added.

That drew a furious response from Barry Sheerman, a Labour lawmaker.

“This government cynically manipulated the prorogation to shut down the house so that it couldn’t work as a democratic assembly,” Sheerman said.

Shouting and pointing across the chamber at Cox and the Conservative benches, he added, “for a man like him, a party like this, a leader like this, this prime minister, to talk about morals and morality is a disgrace.”

It may have been just a taste of combative days to come.

Lawmakers scramble for an unexpected return.

Britain’s Parliament had gathered for a sudden, unexpected return, rejoining the chaotic battle over Brexit after the landmark court ruling.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision Tuesday left lawmakers, who had not expected to reconvene until mid-October, scrambling to return. Johnson cut short a trip to the UN General Assembly in New York City, flying back to face a defiant Parliament, a looming Brexit deadline and a new threat of scandal over government funds directed to a woman he was close to.

Johnson has vowed to deliver Brexit as scheduled on Oct 31, even if he has not struck a deal with the European Union on Britain’s withdrawal by then. Parliament has voted, over his strenuous objections, to prohibit leaving without an agreement, which economists say would be economically damaging.

Determined to set the nation’s Brexit course, the prime minister had suspended Parliament for five weeks, until Oct 14, sharply limiting the ability of dissenting lawmakers to get in his way.

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is seen in Downing Street in London, Britain September 25, 2019. Reuters

Johnson dangled the possibility of another suspension of Parliament.

Even before lawmakers returned to London, Johnson was saying that he might try to send them away again.

He could have called a simple recess last time, but instead the prime minister asked Queen Elizabeth II to “prorogue” Parliament, ending its legislative session and scheduling a new session to begin next month with a speech by the Queen, laying out the government’s agenda.

The first several days of the new session would have been crowded with the formalities of a Queen’s speech and debate on the government’s proposals, leaving little room to address Brexit or anything else.

Proroguing Parliament and convening a new session with a Queen’s speech is commonplace. What is not standard is imposing a break five weeks long and erecting other barriers to Parliament doing its job while a high-stakes dispute is being resolved, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The judges swept aside those obstacles, stating that the previous session was still underway.

But Johnson said Tuesday that he still intended to call for a Queen’s speech, meaning that he would end one session of Parliament and start another. But he did not say when.

Any attempt to suspend Parliament again before the Oct 31 Brexit date would undoubtedly be greeted with fresh outrage, and accusations that the prime minister was flouting the Supreme Court’s decision and improperly forcing the queen into the centre of a political fight.

Britain's Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks during the Labour party annual conference in Brighton, Britain September 24, 2019. Reuters

With Parliament’s return, Labour sees a chance to weaken Johnson.

With lawmakers back in Westminster, the opposition put in motion its strategy of subjecting Johnson to a form of slow political torture, trying to weaken him and forcing him to break his promise to leave the European Union “do or die” on Oct 31.

As soon as the House of Commons convened Wednesday, opposition lawmakers demanded that the government release the legal advice that Cox had given to Johnson about suspending Parliament.

Cox said he could not reveal anything yet, but the government would consider “whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure.”

After almost two hours of back and forth with Cox, Labour politicians pivoted to demanding answers on a possible conflict of interest regarding Johnson’s relationship with an American businesswoman, Jennifer Arcuri.

The prime minister is facing new calls to resign in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, and though the Labour Party insists that it wants a general election, it will not push for one right away

Johnson has twice tried and failed to persuade Parliament to grant him an election he believes he would win. Labour’s position is that it will permit a general election only after Johnson has ruled out leaving the European Union without an agreement.

For now, opposition leaders want to leave Johnson in place — a wounded, enticing target they think they can weaken. In particular, Labour wants to force him to do the one thing he has vowed not to: go to Brussels and ask to postpone Brexit beyond Oct 31, at least until January 2020.

Conflicting goals and mandates leave Britain travelling a murky road.

Johnson insists that he wants to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with the European Union before leaving the bloc Oct 31. But if the prime minister cannot strike a deal with Brussels, it is not clear where that leaves Britain.

Earlier this year, the EU heads of government set Halloween as the day for Britain to leave. That date can only be changed by their unanimous agreement.

Parliament voted this month to require Johnson to ask for an extension rather than exit without a deal, which economists say would do serious economic harm. But there is no obvious way that lawmakers can make him comply.

That vote does not bind the European leaders, who have already granted two extensions this year; some of them are considering putting an end to the Brexit uncertainty and accepting the consequences, rather than approve another delay.

The prime minister insists that Britain will withdraw on Oct 31, with or without a deal, which analysts take to mean that he might try to defy the mandate to seek an extension. If Johnson is determined to go over the cliff, it is not clear that Parliament can stop him from taking the country with him.

His political foes and some European officials dismiss Johnson’s expressed hope for an accord as just a political posture for domestic consumption. The prime minister and his government are not serious about negotiating a deal, his critics say, and even if they were, there is not nearly enough time left.

FILE PHOTO: A protester stands outside the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom after the hearing on British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament ahead of Brexit, in London, Britain September 24, 2019. Reuters

Johnson faces problems unrelated to Parliament or the EU.

Beyond his Brexit troubles, Johnson is also fending off investigations related to his conduct as London mayor from 2008 to 2016.

The Sunday Times of London reported last weekend that Johnson helped direct tens of thousands of pounds in government money to Arcuri, a fledgling American entrepreneur and close friend whose apartment he often visited during working hours.

The London Assembly, a 25-member body elected to study policies and hold the mayor accountable, demanded this week that Johnson turn over details of all his contacts with Arcuri during his time as mayor, and an explanation of whether he had disclosed them while public money was being sent her way.

Len Duvall, chairman of the Greater London Assembly oversight committee, wrote a letter telling Johnson that he had two weeks to respond to the questions. The assembly has certain powers to oversee the London mayor, though it is not clear how those apply to a past officeholder, like Johnson.

Sadiq Khan, the current London mayor who belongs to the opposition Labour Party, also appointed a lawyer to investigate accusations that Johnson had hidden a conflict of interest.

Johnson initially refused to comment on the allegations, but later said he had acted with “complete propriety.”

Johnson’s UN speech conjured images of ‘limbless chickens' and ‘pink-eyed terminators.’

Johnson, in his inaugural address to the UN General Assembly in New York City on Tuesday, outlined the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology. But while his speech offered moments of hope, he also managed to paint a frightening picture of a dystopian future, rattling off a list of potential technological horrors.

“You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor — even your personal trainer — but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google,” he said. “And if that is true today, in future there may be nowhere to hide.”

Johnson went on to describe a world where “your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese.”

He then reflected on the potential for both positive developments and overreach as artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous.

“A.I. — what will it mean? Helpful robots washing and caring for an aging population?” he asked. “Or pink-eyed terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race?”

His speech was filled with images of a harrowing future, with synthetic biology that delivers “terrifying limbless chickens to our tables” and nanotechnology that could “leave tiny robots to replicate in the crevices of our cells.”

The world must, he said, “ensure that emerging technologies are designed from the outset for freedom, openness and pluralism, with the right safeguards in place to protect our peoples.”

The speech came late Tuesday, shortly before Johnson headed back home for what was sure to be a contentious return to Parliament.

c.2019 The New York Times Company