I recently wrote to Mims Davis, my Member of Parliament.
Today the court of session in Scotland found that "that Mr Johnson was
motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had
effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855). It seems then, if
they are correct, that the Prime Minister has lied to the Queen for the
"improper purpose of stymieing Parliament".
I would like to ask:
- Do you consider it proper for the head of government to lie to the
head of state to obtain a result he otherwise could not get?
- Should the UK Supreme Court next week agree with the Scottish
judges, and conclude that the PM purposefully misled the Queen for
improper purposes, will you continue to support the Prime Minister?
- Do you think that should the UK Supreme Court next week agree with
the Scottish judges, and conclude that the PM purposefully misled the
Queen for improper purposes, the Prime Minister should resign?
- Should he not resign under these circumstances, will you resign from
Her response was...
Thank you for taking the time to write to me.
I believe we need to wait and see what the decision of the UK Supreme Court reaches, particularly as the two cases so far have not agreed with one another.
Indeed, Lord Doherty, of the British Court, told the court earlier this month:
"In my view, the advice given in relation to the prorogation decision is a matter involving high policy and political judgement. This is political territory and decision making which cannot be measured against legal standards, but only by political judgements.
"Accountability for the advice is to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, and not to the courts."
I absolutely agree that accountability lies with voters, and not with the courts over this matter. Politicians should be judged at the ballot box, which is why the Prime Minister has now twice called for a General Election, which I have supported. It is disappointing that the Opposition have refused to support an election.
Nevertheless, the courts are independent, and therefore alongside all parliamentary colleagues, I await its judgement in this case.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did she answer any of my questions? This seems to be a problem with most MPs... they drone on with the party line and don't bother to actually engage with constituents.
Just think how outraged she'd be were it Jeremy Corbin peroging parliament in order to nationalise multiple industries, or Jo Swinson doing so to revoke the Article 50 notification.
Is there any way we can help Mims leave her Westminster bubble, and actually pay attention to her constituents?