Autocratic global leaders will be bolstered if Boris Johnson breaks law over Brexit, senior Tory...

[Soph0571]

...warns

Boris Johnson will bolster the world’s authoritarian leaders if he breaks the law by defying parliament over Brexit, a former Conservative deputy prime minister has warned.

David Lidington condemned hints that the prime minister will ignore cross-party legislation to block a crash-out from the EU – arguing it would “set a really dangerous precedent”.

And he went further by suggesting Mr Johnson would be helping the rise of strong-arm, populist leaders, who could seize on events in the UK to make the case for their abuses of democracy.

“It is very important at a time when, around the world, we are seeing people in other countries holding up alternatives to rule of law and democratic government, that British governments do always demonstrate that they comply with the law,” said Mr Lidington, who was sacked in July.

“Every government has rulings from courts that it disagrees with – you then try to change the law, not defy it.”

[link:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-prime-minister-parliament-david-lidington-conservative-party-a9095416.html|]

Exactly this. If the oldest modern democracy on the planet has law breakers leading it our standing is not only screwed but will enable democracy stealers across the planet.

[at140]

1. The oldest democracy on earth is United States of America

as far as I know. And the largest democracy (for 72 years) by population is India with nearly 1400 million people.

[Soph0571]

2. Sorry but that is not accurate

The Uk had a limited form of Parliamentary democracy before America as a colonising nation was formed..

[at140]

3. Can't dispute what you said,

but the US constitution was first of it's kind, and described in detail how exactly the people would have the power to elect leaders at specified intervals. To my knowledge, no such constitutional democracy existed in any significant country when George Washington was sworn in as president.

[Soph0571]

4. Ah there is lies the difference

We do not have a written constitution - rather conventions that have developed over centuries.. So we are both right

[at140]

5. Love your post! Enjoy the day...

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Very limited - before 1832, electors were far from representative

and even after that, you had to be male and distinctly middle class before you could vote. I wouldn't call it a democracy before 1832 so much as a consultative oligarchy.