Constitutional Crime: David Cameron Deliberately Misled Parliament

The Prime Minister has committed the highest constitutional crime by deliberately misleading parliament during his make-believe EU negotiations.

Under Britain’s constitution, misleading parliament is the knowing contempt of parliament and ministers are punished with expulsion from their post and party. In the 1960s the Profumo affair was instrumental in bringing down the government of Harold MacMillan.

READ FULL LEAKED SERCO SOAMES TO PM LETTER HERE

There is no trust in David Cameron any more, not among the people or the House.

The leaked Serco letter is proof that David Cameron not only misled the people during his little EU negotiation charade, but he also misled parliament by holding an EU Referendum whilst cynically making dodgy deals with corrupt business leaders behind everyone’s back.

Cameron’s EU renegotiation bid was ‘fiction’ as he had already decided to campaign for a remain vote.

The secret ‘mobilisation’ plan involved asking FTSE 500 companies to put in their annual reports warnings about the dangers of Brexit.

The strategy was discussed in a letter from Serco boss Rupert Soames to Mr Cameron 11 days before the latter’s renegotiation deal with the EU was complete. This followed a meeting a few days earlier.

The PM had been telling the Commons that he ‘ruled nothing out’ unless he won concessions from the EU.

There is no going back now in trust. David Cameron is in contempt of the constitution and parliament with his blatant lies and corrupt behaviour.

He only has one alternative now and that is to resign immediately pending a serious investigation into his misconduct.

“The procedure for expulsion is that a motion is moved, generally by the Leader of the House, “that … be expelled from this House”. It is customary, depending on the circumstances, that a Member be ordered to attend to offer an explanation. However, if it is apparent that no possible excuse could be given, then the order to attend is not made.

“Should the Member be already in prison for the offence, then the prison governor may be ordered to bring the Member before the House: however in the case of Mr Baker (see below) no order for attendance was made. An expelled Member may seek re-election to the House, even within the term of the same Parliament that elected him, a principle established in 1782 as a result of the case of John Wilkes, who was expelled three times and once had his return amended in favour of his defeated opponent.

“There have been three instances this century of expulsion: Horatio Bottomley (Independent, South Hackney), was expelled in August 1922, after being convicted of fraudulent conversion of property and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

“Garry Allighan (Labour, Gravesend) was expelled on 30 October 1947, for lying to a committee and for gross contempt of the House after publication of an article in the World’s Press News accusing Members of insobriety and of taking fees or bribes for the supply of information.

“Peter Baker (Conservative, South Norfolk) was expelled on 16 December 1954, after being sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for forgery. In this instance, the motion for expulsion need not have been moved: under the provisions then still in force of the Forfeiture Act 1870, he would have been automatically disqualified.

“These provisions were amended by the Criminal Law Act 1967. A person convicted of treason is disqualified for election to, or if already a Member of sitting and voting in, the House or its Committees. (Forfeiture Act 1870, amended by the Criminal Law Act 1967). This disqualification remains in force until either the sentence has expired or a pardon has been granted.

“The provisions of the Forfeiture Act have only once been invoked. In 1903 Arthur Lynch (Nationalist, Galway City) was convicted of high treason for fighting against the Crown in the Boer War. The House was advised by the then Attorney General (Sir Robert Findlay), that as Mr Lynch was automatically disqualified by the Forfeiture Act, it was not necessary for the House either to consider the judgement or move a motion for expulsion. Instead the House immediately proceeded to discuss and move a motion for a new writ for a by-election (see HC Deb, 4th Series, vol 118, c1121 1148, 2 March 1903). Lynch’s sentence to death was commuted to penal servitude for life. He was released on licence in 1904 and received a free pardon from the Crown in 1907. He returned to the House as Member for West Clare in 1909, until his retirement in 1918. He unsuccessfully contested Battersea South for Labour at the 1918 General Election.

“Members may of course be de-selected by their constituency or national party, or asked to resign immediately according to the practice of the parties concerned. The parliamentary party may withdraw the whip, which effectively isolates a Member from the party machinery within the House, or indeed expel the Member from the Party.

“The most recent occurrence of this was the expulsion of the Member for Brent East (Mr Ken Livingstone) from the Labour Party for standing as an independent in the election for London Mayor. A Member does not lose his or her seat as a result and continues to sit, either as an independent, or as a Member of a different political party if they so choose.”