Britain’s sovereignty resides in its Parliament, unlike countries like Spain or France, whose Constitution clearly states that it rests with the people. The House of Commons, with its debates mixing tavern undertones with the rhetoric of the Roman Senate, is the institution through which British politics revolves, and the idea that the Prime Minister was not right in his appearance before Westminster presupposes a very serious matter. fact. His former star adviser, Dominic Cummings, will testify under oath that Boris Johnson was warned against the illegality of throwing parties amid pandemic restrictions.

The prime minister appeared before deputies on January 12 to apologize for the banned parties held on Downing Street during the most difficult phase of confinement. In particular, he tried to expose his faults at a particular party he himself attended: on May 20, 2020. Which was summoned by his own private secretary, Martin Reynolds, by email that reached 100 people. The laughter of the opposition caucus was clear, but Johnson assured that he always thought it was a “work event” held in the gardens of the prime minister’s residence and workplace.

He left, he later explained to Kamar, to thank his team for the efforts put in during the difficult days of the pandemic; he wasn’t with them for more than 25 minutes, and then he retired to his office. “Looking back, I think I should have asked everyone to come back inside. I should have found another way to thank them. I should have realized that, even if the official recommendations were technically adhered to, millions of citizens would not be able to see it that way,” the prime minister lamented from his pulpit.

But Dominic Cummings, the Brexit mastermind and Johnson’s star adviser, has plotted a thorough revenge against his former boss. She walks into Downing Street with him, on a mission to turn 21st century England on her head, and walks out the back door in shame, having been defeated in a proxy war with the Prime Minister’s partner and current wife, Carrie Symonds. . Through his blog on the website substack, which allowed its authors to charge subscriptions for their publications, Cummings harassed and brought down Johnson at the will of the termites.

“Not only me, but also other witnesses who witnessed the moment, we are willing to affirm under oath that this is what happened,” Cummings wrote, referring to the multiple warnings Johnson and his secretary received about party discord. “Highly relevant authorities responded to Reynolds via email indicating that the invitation was against the rules,” he recalls on his blog. “PPS [secretario privado parlamentario, en sus siglas en inglés] he went to the man’s office to discuss the matter, and he refused to withdraw the invitation. I warned him myself that he was breaking the rules,” Cummings explained, implying that he overheard the discussion in person. But the warning kept rising, reaching Johnson himself. “I told the prime minister something like: ‘Martin invited the whole building for a drink. I think you should stop this madness,” wrote the former adviser who asked his boss. “The prime minister underestimated this issue,” he added.

The Cabinet Office deputy permanent secretary, Sue Gray, the senior official in charge of investigating Downing Street banned parties, will be able to access – if she has not already done so – the email exchange, as well as question all the officials involved and Johnson himself. And for Cummings himself, for he has come forward SkyNews. If evidence is gathered, the prime minister will have a hard time defending his claim that he did not lie to Parliament.

Underneath the mask, and in a somber tone that is so unusual at such an exuberant politician, the prime minister once again insisted on Tuesday that he never thought this was a party. “No one told me, no one told me it was against the rules, no one suggested to me that it was nothing more than a work event, because, otherwise, it is hard for me to imagine that it will continue. that”, Johnson explained to SkyNews.

What is revealed, however, is the controlled manner of a safety net in which two of his chief ministers have come out to defend him. Dominic Raab, head of Justice, places greater emphasis on the clarity of the Good Governance Code (Minister Code) about the consequences of lying to the DPR, rather than about the honesty of his boss’ explanation: “The rules are very clear. You can’t fool Parliament. Of course, you can’t do it on purpose and not fix it right away if you find different facts,” Raab explained on ITV television.

But more striking were the shrewd remarks by Rishi Sunak, the Treasury Secretary and the high hopes of many Conservatives to succeed Johnson. He confines himself to making sure that he accepts her explanation, and to asking for patience—as the Prime Minister himself has done—while waiting for Sue Gray’s explanation. When asked if his boss should resign, if it is proven that he lied to the deputies, Sunak replied: “I would not hypothesize, but the Code of Good Governance is very clear about this.” When reporters insisted on asking if he supported Johnson, the minister stood without even removing the microphone from his collar.

“Very important for ministers [y eso incluye al primer ministro] provide Parliament with accurate and truthful information, and correct unintentional errors as soon as possible. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to present their resignations to the Prime Minister,” reads the British Code of Good Governance, extended and signed by Johnson in August 2019.

Follow all international information on Facebook you Indonesia, o en our weekly newsletter.