 |
(…) "Declaração
de guerra"
O speaker
(presidente) do Parlamento, John Bercow, classificou a decisão de Johnson de
“afronta constitucional”. Já Dominic Grieve, deputado conservador e opositor do
“Brexit”, disse tratar-se de um “acto revoltante” e avisou que pode avançar com
uma moção de censura a Boris Johnson. “Este Governo vai cair”, avisou, citado
pela BBC.
“Boris Johnson
está a tentar usar a rainha para concentrar poder nas suas próprias mãos — isto
é uma forma profundamente perigosa e irresponsável de governar”, escreveu no
Twitter a deputada trabalhista Yvette Cooper.
O ex-ministro das
Finanças Philip Hammond, que abandonou o Governo quando May saiu, sem esperar
ser demitido por Boris Johnson, disse que se o Parlamento for impedido de
fiscalizar a actividade do Governo seria “um escândalo constitucional”. Hammond
tornou-se um activo opositor de uma saída do Reino Unido da UE sem acordo, e do
Governo de Johnson.
“Boris Johnson
acabou de desafiar a democracia parlamentar”, disse Tom Brake, porta-voz para o
“Brexit” dos Liberais Democratas. “A mãe de todos os parlamentos não vai
permitir fechar o Parlamento do povo perante a maior decisão que o nosso país
enfrenta. Esta declaração de guerra vai ser recebida com punho de ferro.”
Se houver uma
moção de censura ao Governo, no entanto, o executivo conservador pode avançar
para a dissolução do Parlamento e convocar eleições antecipadas, diz no Twitter
Sebastian Payne, jornalista do Financial Times, citando fonte governamental.
A
primeira-ministra escocesa alerta para a necessidade de uma reacção rápida. “Se
os deputados não se unirem para travá-lo na próxima semana, o dia de hoje ficará
na história como um dia negro para a democracia do Reino Unido”, escreveu
Nicola Sturgeon no Twitter.
A figura que está
a ser falada na imprensa britânica para suspender o Parlamento é a
“prorrogação”, um poder que pertence à rainha (que, por convenção, segue os
conselhos do primeiro-ministro). Segundo o Institute for Government, um think
tank britânico, esta não é usada desde 1948, quando foi usada para contornar a
oposição da Câmara dos Lordes a uma lei que diminuía os seus poderes.
No caso do “Brexit”,
a prorrogação tem sido referida como opção para avançar com um “Brexit” sem
acordo, o que potencialmente podia ser chumbado pelo Parlamento.
Boris Johnson
anunciou na semana passada ter uma alternativa ao ponto mais controverso do
acordo negociado por Theresa May, a cláusula de garantia de que, após a saída
do Reino Unido da União Europeia, não haverá uma fronteira física entre as duas
partes da Irlanda. A inexistência desta fronteira é também um ponto importante
do Acordo de Sexta-Feira Santa que pôs fim à violência sectária na Irlanda do
Norte. Na cimeira do G7, a UE fez saber estar disponível para ouvir as
propostas de Boris Johnson.
Ao mesmo tempo
que se está a evitar um novo chumbo do “Brexit” no Parlamento - antes da saída
de Theresa May os deputados não conseguiram chegar a qualquer acordo sobre como
a saída deve ser feita -, Johnson pressiona Bruxelas, a quem um “Brexit” sem
acordo também não interessa.
Boris
Johnson’s intention is clear: he wants a ‘people v parliament’ election
Tom Kibasi
The plan to
prorogue parliament is a nakedly populist move that Johnson hopes will lead to
a parliamentary majority
Wed 28 Aug
2019 12.47 BST Last modified on Wed 28 Aug 2019 15.21 BST
Boris
Johnson’s plan to prorogue parliament ahead of a Queen’s speech on 14 October
is intended to provoke parliamentarians into blocking a no-deal Brexit, or
triggering a general election through a vote of no confidence. Both are feasible
in the time available.
The last
time parliament stepped in to block no deal earlier in the year, the necessary
legislation was passed in just three days. Johnson has deliberately left enough
time for parliament to seize control again. That’s because Johnson’s real
objective is to use Brexit to win a general election, rather than use a general
election to secure Brexit. By forcing the hands of his opponents, he has
defined the terrain for a “people versus parliament” election. Expect him to
run on “Back Boris, Take Back Britain”. He will say that the only way to
definitely leave on 31 October is to give him a parliamentary majority to do
so. The man of Eton, Oxford and the Telegraph will position himself as the
leader of the people against the hated establishment and “remainer elite”.
Johnson’s
electoral strategy is simple: unite the Brexit-supporting right of politics
behind him while remainers are fractured across Labour, the SNP, Liberal
Democrats and Greens. Since the day he took office, Johnson has been acting to
consolidate the votes of leave supporters behind him. From Brexit party
supporters to leave-backing Labour voters, Johnson has sought to create a winning
electoral coalition.
The Tories
have spent recent weeks closing off predicted Labour attack lines. Sajid Javid
has announced a one-year spending review will take place on 4 September. After
nearly a decade of relentless reductions in spending, the public have plainly
tired of austerity. Waiting times in the NHS are longer; class sizes are
larger; and the police are no longer able to keep up with rising crime or keep
many communities safe. Johnson’s government has already promised more spending
in each of these areas.
But these
are very Tory announcements, with an added rightwing edge. So the leaked
proposal to invest in schools is to be accompanied by proposals to allow
teachers to use “reasonable force” against pupils, and the additional resources
for the police include proposals to allow all officers to carry Tasers. There
is no serious public policy discussion about precisely how much force grown
adults should use against children, just as the problem with knife crime is not
the police’s ability to pacify knife-wielding youths with Tasers. These plans
are red meat for the Tory base, designed to distract from rather than solve the
problems our society faces.
The
political logic is obvious. In 2017, Theresa May lost the slim Tory majority
she inherited from her predecessor in an election campaign that turned away
from Brexit and towards the state of the country at home. Labour’s clear
anti-austerity message resonated across the Brexit divide and paid electoral
dividends for the party. Johnson is aiming to prevent such a turn taking place
this time.
Yet the
public will be sceptical that the same people who needlessly degraded public
services are now prepared to invest in them. While Johnson is unconstrained by
principle or the shackles of ideology, he leads a cabinet of the hard right of
the Conservative party. For those who have dedicated a lifetime to hacking back
the state and severing Britain’s ties with the European Union, it seems
unlikely that they are on board with a project of investment in public
services. But they are certainly committed to a no-deal exit that is an
Atlanticist project rather than a unilateralist one – and to the aggressive tax
cuts that Johnson has promised. This is a government that intends to realign
Britain to the US and is set to govern just like US Republicans – cut taxes
first, then maintain spending to blow up the deficit before using that to
justify far deeper spending cuts.
So why
would the public believe what Johnson says? The real secret of populists, from
Donald Trump to Matteo Salvini to Johnson, is the conflation of transgression
with truthfulness. The willingness to engage in bigotry and violate hard-won
social norms against racist, homophobic or misogynistic language convinces
people that these politicians “speak their mind” and “say what they think”.
Paradoxically, their lack of virtue confirms their veracity.
Their
bigotry is the result of calculation rather than miscalculation – and the
predictable howls of outrage from critics only serves to amplify the message.
The upcoming election will turn on whether Johnson is found out for what he is:
Trump with a thesaurus, whose real agenda of a Brexit for the elite is disguised
behind the thin veneer of a few spending announcements that come after a
desperate decade of the degradation of Britain at home and abroad.
• Tom
Kibasi is director of the Institute for Public Policy Research. He
writes in a personal capacity
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário