NON POSSUMUS ALIQUID ABIRE

I do not know for certain what has occurred in the lives of Boris Johnson’s current cabinet to make them so completely ignorant of the meaning of integrity. They appear to have no concept of truthfulness, trustworthiness, rectitude or credibility.  That some find it acceptable that breaking the law is not in breach of a ministerial code is baffling. The logic that an inadvertent or non-deliberate breach of the code is therefore not a breach, flies in the face of logic as well as the rule of law. Ignorance of the law may indeed, on occasion, be an excuse for certain kinds of behaviour, but when a legislator, in high office, who was instrumental in establishing the rules claims ignorance of the rules, then credibility is seriously in question, or perhaps the person’s mental capacity has become suspect.  

Either way, that person is objectively no longer capable of maintaining their position in that office. In addition, when they refuse to acknowledge the fault and seek to override the very rules of which they were in breach, that amounts to deliberate duplicity, and calls into question any alleged inadvertent or accidental behaviour. 

THEY ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE

As to the cabinet, they all came into adulthood during the 1980’s and 90’s. That would make them Thatcher’s Children, Margaret Thatcher having come to power in 1979 and remained there till November 1990. During that era, the idea of wholesale laissez faire capitalism, opportunism, populism and spin doctoring became the norm of British politics. Slowly but steadily notions of unimpeachable integrity and behaviour on the part of Parliamentarians began to ooze away into the ether, leading to the expenses scandal of 2009, following on from the financial crisis of 2007-2008 as a result of the serious risk-taking and greed which was born and matured during the 1980’s and 1990’s, the very years this current cabinet came to maturity. So is it any wonder they haven’t an inkling of integrity about them? They are the ‘loads a money’ generation and to hell with everyone else. We can get away with anything. Non possumus aliquid abire  is their mantra.

Their first reaction to any question is to proffer excuses for inadvertent, incompetent, ineffectual performance in their respective jobs. That they are allowed to get away with this miserable charade of government is the result of a gullible and inattentive electorate who have for too long accepted the very undemocratic system of voting for what they believe to be mother of democratic parliaments.

That the most important political office in the land is not directly elected by the populace is questionable. Voting for a political party on a first post the post basis is equally questionable. Relying on a minority elected party leader to carry a political party to power is most definitely problematic.

The notion that the more entertaining and allegedly charismatic performer should be elected as a party leader seems to be the way. The Ukrainians elected a professional comedian, which somehow, in a time of crisis, has worked out for them. The British have elected an amateur clown, which has been a catastrophic disappointment. The United States had previously elected a complete narcissistic television personality buffoon, which has left it with a potentially permanent divided and violent population. So it seemingly goes around the world, particularly with the likes of Putin, Orban and numbers of other previously mentioned national populists.

My thinking is prompted by Dominic Raab claiming that although the Prime Minister was fined for breaking the law, he had done so inadvertently or unintentionally and therefore had not breached the ministerial code of conduct. He does not say anything about misleading parliament, which was also done, apparently, unintentionally. Perhaps Boris being Prime Minister is unintentional or inadvertent. Dominic Raab is the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. That he should utter such an outrageous statement so completely contrary to the rule of law makes him even more unfit  for his office than Mr Johnson. His comments are deliberate and intended to excuse criminal behaviour. The tragedy is that he doesn’t even pretend to realise the gravity of his ignorance and duplicity.

The even greater tragedy is that he too will probably survive in office under the moto Non possumus aliquid abire. I fear the great British electorate hasn’t a clue what they have brought upon themselves despite a clamour of warning voices, which only a few like-minded souls are able to hear.