Dear, oh dear.

This week was not a good one for the Leave voters of Britain.

Monday and Thursday were the huge news days.

Let’s begin with Thursday.

Brexit anniversary: so little done

June 23, 2023 marks the seventh anniversary of the Brexit referendum, the UK’s largest plebiscite. Since then, the percentages of 52% to 48% have been turning up with odd regularity in subsequent polls in this country: strange portents.

Moving on to the reality as to why so little in the way of re-establishing the UK as an independent world power has occurred since Boris Johnson’s stonking December 2019 victory with an 80-seat majority, Leave voters have cottoned on to the fact that our MPs prefer the EU days when they did not have to legislate. One could live high off the hog collecting an ample salary for doing, well, nothing except for micro-managing Britons’ lives: think smoking bans and sugar taxes.

Peter Ramsay, a Leave voter, who is Professor of Law at the London School of Economics and the co-author of Taking Control: Sovereignty and Democracy After Brexit, wrote about this torpor on Thursday, June 22 for UnHerd. Excerpts follow, emphases mine:

The EU is a profoundly undemocratic form of government, which is why I had voted to leave it. Seeing the result for the first time, I knew that the very principle of British political equality would now be on the line, because no referendum against the EU had ever previously been acted upon. I also knew that very few of my professional caste (academics) would fall in with the majority view, and help to make sure that Brexit was implemented, or even that it was properly understood.

Ramsay says that Leave voters were unknowingly upset just as much with Parliament as they were with the EU;

The institution was not, as many Leave campaigners presented it, a foreign superstate that ruled over Britain; it was the way in which the British political, business and professional elites ruled over Britain. It was British ministers and civil servants who made law and policy in the EU, in collaboration with the politicians and bureaucrats of other member states.

… The whole system is backed up by treaties that allow capital and labour to shift around at will, out of the control of particular nations or of their pesky electorates. If a particular consequence of this was unpopular — such as, say, mass migration — then “Europe” could be blamed.

The essence of the EU is this evasion of political responsibility within its member states, which explains why Britain’s political system has become so sclerotic and dysfunctional.

Leave voters saw the problem once we were out of the EU:

… the underlying problem was still going to be with us, in or out of the EU. That problem is a political class which is much more comfortable hobnobbing with the cosmopolitan elites of other states in intergovernmental forums, and finding its policy cues there, than it is with the less glamorous process of actually representing their citizens. How was national sovereignty going to solve this problem?

Leave voters were asking legislators to step up to the plate and work for us:

With Brexit, the electorate bowled balls that none of the major players in the political class have been able to play. All have been stumped, humiliated.

All the political parties are at fault:

First, the Labour Party paid the price for its unwillingness to respect the political equality of its poorest voters …

The Tories were next. They had a clear mandate to level up and to invest in deprived regions. They did neither. Instead, the pandemic hit and they trailed along with a globally inspired, technocratic suspension of civil liberties, imposing draconian rules that they chose to ignore while being unable to keep their hypocrisy secret. After Johnson was caught out, they next indulged the extraordinary farce of the Liz Truss government before retreating back to a centrist in Rishi Sunak. Bereft of new ideas, they blew a massive parliamentary majority managing to alienate both their 2019 gains from Labour in the North and their wealthier, more Europhile core in the South.

The SNP has now followed the Tories, its ersatz “independence” project falling into disarray once the security blanket of the UK’s single market membership was taken away. With the UK out of the EU, Scottish independence is just too demanding a prospect for the culture warriors in Holyrood who have survived its corruption chaos.

Prof Ramsay explains why the scandals of the Conservatives and Scotland’s SNP are taking centre stage:

those parties’ fundamental inability to deliver on the policies at the core of their mandates in the wake of Brexit.

I disagree with his explanation of exhaustion. I repeat that it is torpor:

As long as we were in the EU, they could carry on pretending and so could we, but Brexit has exposed their exhaustion. It was the first step on the road forward to national sovereignty, a clearing of the ground for a new project: the project of nation-building.

… For politics to function, in other words, voters must believe that parliament, and the government that is answerable to it, really represents us, so that we recognise its laws as our laws. And it is this which generates the real power of government to get anything useful done. Yet today, those with eyes to see — and that’s now most of us — know that our major parties can no longer sustain this kind of authority.

… They will limp along offering nothing too innovative: more green austerity, more culture wars, more censorship. They will stay close to the Single Market, relying on the strictures of the Northern Ireland Protocol, rather than trying to conjure up something new.

It’s too much effort for them. Yet, we are paying them to represent us.

Ramsay presents the positive aspects of nation-(re)building, which will strike a chord with Leave voters who are still waiting for MPs to get moving:

It allows us to identify the real obstacles in our domestic constitution to the revival of our collective public life, emphasising equal citizenship over narcissistic identity and ethnic or religious divides. And, crucially, nation-building is inherently internationalist — as opposed to cosmopolitan and intergovernmental. After all, respecting one’s national sovereignty includes, and even depends on, that of others’. Far from being isolationist, then, Brexit remains a huge opportunity to break free from the decaying structures of globalism and Atlanticism, and instead to make friends not only with the restive peoples of Europe, but also with the rising powers of the Global South.

At present, however, the following paragraph depicts a grim reality:

On the seventh anniversary of that great ballot box rebellion, the mainstream of British politics presents a terminally sad spectacle: obsessing over the foolish misdemeanours of failed leaders, while the government-in-waiting confirms its willingness simply to go back to following EU rules, only now without any say in the making of them. What few seem able to imagine is what was still obscure to me when I momentarily regretted being on the winning side that morning in 2016. The majority of voters were demanding that they too were represented at the feast. In so doing, they laid the basis for a new project of national sovereignty.

Ramsay concludes that Brexit can be properly done if only MPs have the gumption to do so:

It is by its nature a most invigorating project — if we are willing to embrace it.

Poll: Leave voters frustrated

Another Thursday news item was an article, accompanied with graphs, by UK Polling Report: ‘A Majority of Voters Think Brexit Has Gone Badly … That Doesn’t Mean They Want to Rejoin’:

To coincide with the seven year anniversary of the Brexit vote, UK in a Changing Europe have published polling taking a deep dive into the extent of Brexit regret. The pressure group has produced 537 pages of tables, if any committed readers fancy trawling through the data, with a full report set to be published soon.

Note the percentage here:

Amongst the headline findings are that just 10% of voters think Brexit has, so far, gone well. A slim majority, ironically of 52%, think Brexit has gone badly. Even Leave voters are more likely to think Brexit has, on the whole, turned out badly – by a margin of 4%.

However, those polled are more optimistic about Brexit in the long term:

The numbers for Brexit do get slightly better when voters are asked whether Brexit will go well in the long-run. A respectable 30% think Brexit will work out well, compared to 43% who disagree. A strong majority of leave voters, 61%, still, think Brexit will come good.

UK Polling Report’s conclusion rather ties in with what Prof Ramsay was expressing in his UnHerd article:

Although voters think it has, so far, gone badly, they are much more likely to believe it has undelivered promise.

Ultimately:

… although there is appetite for a second referendum, it isn’t quite a majority of voters. Nor would a majority vote to rejoin.

Guido Fawkes picked up on the poll. I prefer his graphics to UK Polling Report’s:

Guido sagely points out (red emphases his):

The figures get even more stark when “don’t know” responses are removed. A stonking 72% think Brexit will go well to just 14% predicting it will go badly.

BBC’s Question Time Brexit ‘Special’

Thursday night’s Question Time was billed as a Brexit ‘Special’.

Hours before the show even aired, the BBC received complaints from Remain voters:

The complainers needn’t have panicked.

As usual, Fiona Bruce or the BBC or the production company Mentorn won’t have more than two conservatives on at any one time. Last night’s were John Redwood MP and former Brexit Party MEP Ben Habib:

Someone commenting on Guido’s post wrote:

No thanks. 3 remainers and 2 Brexit supporters. The BBC stitch up is loading…

Indeed. Two hours later, Guido posted about the suspected BBC stitch-up:

Guido wrote about the change of Conservative panellists:

Guido hears the negotiations between the BBC and the government over this inevitable circus have been a disaster. According to Guido’s sources, Downing Street submitted Treasury PPS Anthony Mangnall to appear on the panel, with the show’s team agreeing to the booking this week and Mangnall clearing his diary to make way for an evening of shouting over Alastair Campbell. Only for the producers to later turn Mangnall down in favour of John Redwood, supposedly to take the show “in a different direction”…

The feeling amongst the Tories is the whole thing will be a “stitch-up” and “not serious“. Guido’s not sure if John Redwood is brave or foolish for being prepared to do it anyway. Apparently 30% of the audience will be composed of those who voted leave and have now regret it …

Guido’s readers were less than impressed. They took a decision on Question Time years ago. One wrote:

‘which will feature an audience exclusively of Leave voters’

of people who claim to be Leave voters – not quite the same thing, is it?

I could not agree more.

More bad news

Thursday had more bad news.

First, the Bank of England raised interest rates to 5%. It is the job of the Bank’s Governor, currently Andrew Bailey, to monitor interest rates and take action accordingly in a responsible way. Since the second half of 2022, rate rises have jumped, even though they are lower than 30+ years ago when interest rates were around 15%.

There is no way to force the Governor to resign, either, thanks to conditions that former Chancellor Gordon Brown put in under Tony Blair’s Labour government:

Guido tells us:

It’s the highest rise in fifteen years. The move comes after inflation remained stubbornly high in yesterday’s statistics – though the Bank does still expect “inflation to fall significantly” by year end. It’s the thirteenth rate rise in a row.

Hmm.

The aforementioned John Redwood tweeted that, since the pandemic, public spending has gone up by 45%. He rightly asks what Britons are getting in return for an extra £13,000 per household spend:

Then we have our Prime Minister whose biggest financial worry is how to pay for the electricity that heats his outdoor swimming pool. Oh, if only more of us could have married billionaires as he did:

But Rishi reassured us yesterday, telling us, as he would tell his young daughters, that everything ‘will be okay’:

Guido has the video and wrote:

In the wake of soaring interest rates, rising waiting lists, hundreds of boat crossings and sky-high inflation, Rishi Sunak rolled up his sleeves in Kent this afternoon and attempted to reassure everyone that “it is going to be okay“… somehow:

I’m here to tell you that I am totally 100% on it, and it is going to be okay, and we are going to get through this. And that is the most important thing that I wanted to let you know today. Now you should know, look I know this won’t make it any easier, but what we are grappling with here is something that many countries around the world are also grappling with at the same time…

Four out of his five pledges are looking increasingly unattainable – even growth is at 0.1%. At least he’s rolled up his sleeves…

Yes, well, I wish he would stop rolling up his sleeves when talking with ordinary Britons. You know he wouldn’t do that with the likes of Andrew Bailey, for example.

The last piece of bad news concerned Hamish Harding, the billionaire explorer who was still missing, thought to have been fighting for his life, in his Titanic expedition.

Harding was an alumnus of Cambridge University’s Pembroke College. It is vital to know that the name of the college is pronounced ‘Pem-brook’, not the way it is spelled. The other vital piece of information here is that May Week — a ten-day period when all the colleges’ annual balls are held — takes place in June.

The Telegraph‘s Tony Diver (!) and Catherine Lough posted ‘Hamish Harding’s Cambridge college hosts “unsettling” submarine-themed ball’. Timing is everything, but how were the organisers to have known what tragedy would befall the Titan crew and passengers?

Pembroke College students attended an “Into the Depths” ball, themed on under-sea exploration, and sang sea shanties on Wednesday night.

A second-year student, who asked not to be named, said they were “incredibly shocked” by the ball’s “unsettling” theme.

Dear, oh dear:

The college said that by the time the OceanGate Titanic expedition had become an international rescue mission, it was too late to change its theme.

Mr Harding, a billionaire British businessman, attended the college in the 1980s and is among five people believed to be trapped on a submersible craft in the Atlantic Ocean.

The expedition began on Sunday and planned to descend to 3,800 metres below sea level to visit the wreck of the Titanic.

But OceanGate staff in a control room lost contact with the submersible and have been unable to determine what has happened to its occupants.

An international rescue effort has so far been unable to locate the craft, with experts predicting the five passengers will use up all available oxygen by Thursday afternoon.

A statement on the Pembroke College Ball’s official website, which has since been deactivated, said the theme was “chosen many months ago,” adding: “If we could change it now, we would.”

The ball’s official Instagram page has also been set to “private”.

A source at the college confirmed the event had gone ahead as planned on Wednesday night, but Pembroke did not respond to a request for comment from The Telegraph.

Monday: Boris blown out of Parliament

However, Monday’s machinations of the Privileges Committee and MPs from all sides of the Commons saw the end of Boris Johnson, who had stood down the previous week in order to avoid a 90-day suspension over Partygate and a possible by-election.

On Friday, June 16, Boris had already filed his first weekly column for the Mail, something he was not allowed to do technically, as there is a waiting period between the time an MP stands down and the beginning of other paid employment. He wrote about the new injectable weight loss drug, which did not work for him after a few weeks:

The hormone is called semaglutide, and the proprietary name of the drug is Ozempic …

So for weeks I jabbed my stomach, and for weeks it worked. Effortlessly, I pushed aside the puddings and the second helpings. Wasn’t it amazing, I said to myself, how little food you really need.

I must have been losing four or five pounds a week — maybe more — when all at once it started to go wrong. I don’t know why, exactly. Maybe it was something to do with constantly flying around the world, and changing time zones, but I started to dread the injections, because they were making me feel ill.

One minute I would be fine, and the next minute I would be talking to Ralph on the big white phone; and I am afraid that I decided that I couldn’t go on.

For now I am back to exercise and willpower, but I look at my colleagues — leaner but not hungrier — and I hope that if science can do it for them, maybe one day it can help me, and everyone else.

Monday, June 19, was Boris’s birthday. He turned 59:

He was the 20th Prime Minister to have attended Eton and the third of three to have been born in June:

The Privileges Committee was rather cunning about delaying their report, as I wrote last week, and I later wondered if they were waiting for Boris’s birthday, at which point they could present the findings to Parliament via Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt in a debate, more about which below.

That post of mine from last week also discussed Sir Bernard Jenkin’s breaking of lockdown rules on the parliamentary estate. We did not find out about that until the Privileges Committee — of which he has been a vociferous anti-Boris member — had nearly completed their report.

Hmm.

On Friday, June 16, Lord Watson — Labour’s Tom Watson — wrote an article on his Substack newsletter about all of this, ‘Unravelling the Boris Johnson Decision: An Unsettling Perspective’:

The verdict on the investigation into Boris Johnson seems unequivocal, and, admittedly, the facts as presented appear to be an accurate portrayal of the events. Yet, there’s a gnawing disquiet that preoccupies my thoughts. In days past, I might have dismissed this as an adversary receiving his rightful comeuppance. But the gravity of a recent Prime Minister being ousted in such a manner warrants deeper scrutiny and a focus on due process.

The distraction comes from Boris Johnson’s eleventh-hour claim that Bernard Jenkin, a committee member who investigated him, had a conflict of interest due to his own actions. This last-minute revelation, presumably aimed at diverting media attention from Johnson’s behaviour, has raised serious concerns.

The allegation in question? That Jenkin knowingly attended an event – potentially violating Covid rules – and subsequently withheld this information from the Privileges committee and the House for an entire year. If this assertion is true, then despite its apparent spitefulness, it does present a plausible argument for Johnson’s perceived injustice.

Several MPs dismiss this concern, arguing that Jenkin was just one among seven members of the committee and that the decision was unanimous. However, I believe it’s more complex than a simple matter of votes. As arguably the most senior Conservative on the committee, Jenkin’s thoughts and opinions held substantial sway, shaping the report’s draft. If the accusations hold any weight, then, however reluctantly, one must acknowledge that Johnson may not have received fair treatment.

This viewpoint may elicit exasperation among MPs, but it remains my firmly held belief. This notion is corroborated by Johnson’s defence barrister, Lord Pannick, who in September 2022, cited Bernard Jenkin’s arguments in his legal opinion. Lord Pannick’s incisive logic and formidable intellect have been demonstrated time and again in the House of Lords …

Clearly, Jenkin’s views were significant in deciding the parameters of the inquiry …

In Rishi Sunak’s position, I would ascertain the facts before allowing Parliament to consign Boris Johnson to political oblivion come Monday. Their personal animosity should not cloud due process. Only Sunak can delay parliamentary proceedings to establish the facts and discuss potential alternatives if it transpires that Jenkin should have recused himself. And only Sunak can ensure an appeal process, should the facts dictate it. He should act today.

Rishi should have done something, but, not surprisingly, he didn’t. He’s not one who wants to get his hands dirty. He’s like the departmental or regional manager of a private enterprise who wants to make sure he is squeaky clean at all times. No controversies, please, including suspending an unfair process pending further investigation or voting on Boris’s future.

On Saturday, The Mail‘s front page story was about Bernard Jenkin: ‘Proof Boris Johnson’s accuser DID go to party in lockdown’:

Tory grandee Sir Bernard Jenkin, the most senior Conservative on the Commons Privileges Committee that so vehemently condemned the former Prime Minister last week, had denied breaking Covid rules at a Commons function …

When the bombshell allegations against Sir Bernard first emerged, Mr Johnson called for his resignation from the committee, accusing him of ‘flagrant and monstrous hypocrisy’. Hours later, the committee ruled that the former PM had deliberately misled the Commons over gatherings in Downing Street during the pandemic.

But an ally of Mr Johnson, who quit as an MP before the report was published, said The Mail on Sunday’s revelation ‘invalidates the findings’ of the 14-month investigation.

The gathering Sir Bernard attended was in Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor Laing’s office on December 8, 2020, when indoor socialising was banned in England. In her invitation, Baroness Jenkin offered ‘birthday drinks’ for ‘a few of our favourite people next Wednesday 8th 6.30 to 7.30 in Eleanor Laing’s conference room in [the] Commons’.

The message concluded ‘x anne.’

Although the invitation said the drinks would be ‘v small and socially distanced’, this newspaper has been told that at least ten people were in the room throughout, preventing effective social distancing. At the time, all indoor social gatherings were against the regulations …

One of the people who witnessed the event said they had made a formal complaint to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle yesterday – and were planning to offer their evidence to the police. Scotland Yard has so far only received a ‘third party’ complaint, rather than from someone claiming to have direct evidence of wrongdoing, and say they are ‘assessing’ it …

He [Jenkin] has refused to answer any more questions since, and neither he, his wife, nor Dame Eleanor would comment last night …

I was not best pleased to find that Miriam Cates MP had been there, too. I thought she was one of the good guys:

Two MPs said to have been present – former Cabinet Minister Maria Miller and backbencher Miriam Cates – did not respond to a request for comment last night.

Mr Johnson, who branded the inquiry into his conduct a ‘witch-hunt’, told the committee Sir Bernard should have recused himself as he could not be considered ‘a valid judge or investigator’. 

MPs will debate the report [on Monday] and are expected to approve it, including the recommendation Mr Johnson be denied the pass to the Palace of Westminster usually given to ex-MPs. To the relief of many Tories fearful of an angry reaction from grassroots members still loyal to Mr Johnson, the report may be approved without a formal vote.

During the investigation, headed by former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, Sir Bernard said: ‘The rules were clear, they were there for everyone, and no one is above the law’ and that ‘it’s only right that those in power should lead by example’.

Rishi could have done something. Here was his golden opportunity to suspend Monday’s proceedings. Rishi did nothing.

Early on Monday, a poll from YouGov for The Times appeared, indicating that Boris was still miles ahead of Rishi in the popularity stakes:

Guido put the poll’s results into sharper focus for us:

Guido pointed out:

Nearly half of Tories (47%) still think Boris was a good Prime Minister, while 34% say the same of Sunak today…

This might explain why Rishi is skipping the Privileges Committee vote in the Commons today, rather than voting for it. He hasn’t got the political capital to aggravate Boris’s supporters any more than he already has. 

UPDATE — On Friday, June 23, another poll had worse news for Rishi. His pizza slices of approval were getting thinner by the day:

Guido said:

Once “don’t know” responses are removed, over 90% of people think Rishi is failing in four of his five pledges. The worst part is, they’re not wrong…

A majority of 2019 Tories think Rishi is doing badly in all five of his pledges – with 80% saying he’s failing to stop the small boats. Rishi’s pledges were meant to be easy to achieve…

Anyway, returning to the beginning of the week, mid-morning on Monday, the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, asked Parliament’s Director of Security to liaise with the witness who spoke to The Mail:

Rishi did nothing.

This was Monday’s order paper for the Commons. ‘Privilege (Motion)’ related to Boris:

Some pundit said that the Privileges Committee debate would be brief. Hah!

In fact, it began at 4:19 and ended after 9:30 p.m. Everyone had to have his/her last chance to twist the knife into Boris’s back. The UK Tech Industry debate did not happen.

Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt thanked the kangaroo court for everything they had done:

Here’s the video:

Guido wrote:

She confirmed she’ll vote to support the findings and to ban Boris’s ex-MPs pass…

…We all owe the Committee a debt of gratitude to the work that they have done on our instruction. But it is for Members to decide whether their conclusions are correct or not… As the Member for Portsmouth North I will be voting to support the committee’s report and recommendations. But all members need to make up their own minds and others should leave them alone to do so.

True, but ugh for the most part.

Just before the debate went to a vote, Guido posted that London’s Metropolitan Police were investigating new allegations, i.e. those against Bernard Jenkin and others:

Guido has the Met’s full statement and ended his post with this:

Still nothing from Bernard Jenkin…

At 9:42 p.m., Guido posted the results of the vote:

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who is hardly ever present for an evening debate, read the result:

It was said earlier in the day that no Conservative MPs would agree to being the two tellers for the vote.

Interestingly, in what must be a rare occurrence, Labour MPs agreed to do the job — Sir Alan Campbell and Lilian Greenwood.

Six Conservatives voted against the motion. Good for them:

I do not know the identity of the seventh MP.

When Sir Lindsay read out that seven had voted against the motion, a handful of horrified Labour MPs went on a verbal rampage, crying out:

Who are you? Who are you?

On Wednesday, UK Polling Report told us that six in ten Britons were most unhappy at the way Rishi treated Boris over this ordeal:

Almost 60% of voters think Rishi Sunak handled the investigation and report into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament badly. According to new polling from YouGov, 32% of voters think the Prime Minister handled the Privileges Committee’s report “very badly”, with 25% saying the Prime Minister did “fairly badly”. Just 19% thought he did well.

These attitudes even extended to 2019 Conservative voters, where 20% more said Rishi Sunak handled the situation badly than well. It does provide some context to Labour’s latest polling resurgence…

I might have more on this next week, as I watched the debate and was thoroughly disgusted at the many sanctimonious, hypocritical MPs on both sides of the aisle.

How millions of us wish this had been done to Tony Blair over the Iraq War instead.