I’ll skip over the history a bit and pick it up where Michael Flynn had basically finished co-operation with Mueller (as far as it goes) and went into court expecting the leniency Mueller recommended.

Well, Emment Sullivan was having none of that and called Flynn a traitor to boot (he is actually). Then Flynn was like, oh, there is so much more I have to share and Judge Sullivan turned him back over to Mueller who really didn’t have any use for him.

Shortly after that Flynn fired his lawyers who got that sweet, sweet plea deal and hired Sidney Powell, a militant Trumpista and commentator on Faux Noise. Needless to say his strategy shifted from bragging about his contrition to slandering Mueller, not, I would think, a position designed to favorably influence the sentencing Judge.

Having reached the end of the agreed on grace period, Mueller’s team, what’s left of it, has now moved to proceed.

Prosecutors call for Flynn sentencing amid impasse with defense attorneys
By KYLE CHENEY, Politico
08/30/2019

Prosecutors said Friday they’re prepared for former national security adviser Michael Flynn to be sentenced as soon as October, nearly two years after he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

“The defendant’s cooperation has ended. The case is ready for sentencing, and the government proposes the following dates for a sentencing hearing: October 21-23, 2019, or November 1-15, 2019,” prosecutors wrote in a filing to the judge in Flynn’s case, Emmet Sullivan. “The government is not aware of any issues that require the Court’s resolution prior to sentencing.”

But the push to close Flynn’s case prompted the former Trump aide’s legal team to erupt, charging in a subsequent court filing that prosecutors — including those central to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election — had acted maliciously toward Flynn and withheld evidence.

The 19-page filing is the first direct push by Flynn to accuse prosecutors of targeting him for political reasons and breaking the rules to go after him.

In the filing, Flynn’s lawyers hearkened to the botched prosecution of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens — a case in which the same judge, Sullivan, found prosecutorial misconduct and excoriated federal attorney for their actions. Flynn’s team, aware of Sullivan’s history in this case, argued that Mueller’s prosecutors “engaged in even more malevolent conduct in the prosecution of Mr. Flynn.”

“They continued to hide that exculpatory information for months—in direct contravention of this Court’s Order—and they continue to suppress exculpatory information to this day,” Flynn’s attorneys argued.

It’s a remarkable, and remarkably late, accusation, coming just before Flynn’s anticipated sentencing and after he cooperated with prosecutors for nearly two years. It’s also the work of Flynn’s reshuffled legal team, helmed by Sidney Powell, a longtime lawyer who has become a prominent cable TV critic of the Mueller investigation.

The brief includes a laundry list of allegations of misconduct — many of which had percolated among Flynn’s allies for years and fed claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy inside the FBI.

Flynn’s team contends that Mueller’s top prosecutors had “illicit” relationships with Christopher Steele, the former British agent who compiled an anti-Trump dossier in 2016. The lawyers say Flynn was also deprived access to text messages between former FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok — whose anti-Trump text messages also fanned allegations of misconduct — until after those messages became public in 2018.

But Sullivan has already upbraided Flynn for his conducted, declaring at a December sentencing hearing — which was later postponed to give Flynn more time to complete his cooperation with the government — that Flynn had “arguably .. sold your country out.” It’s unclear if he’ll be receptive to Flynn’s new arguments about misconduct by the special counsel’s team.

The argument does, however, appear to align with many of the theories that Trump has promoted about misconduct and bias in the special counsel investigation — which he labeled as a “witch hunt” — and could be designed in part to make a play for a pardon. Trump has at times flirted with the idea of pardoning aides entangled in the Mueller probe but has insisted to date that he’s given no serious consideration of them yet.
…
During an aborted sentencing hearing in December 2018, Sullivan appeared to be prepared to sentence Flynn to jailtime despite Mueller’s team vouching for his cooperation and suggesting a light sentence.

Sullivan took issue with claims that Flynn had been “entrapped” into lying to FBI agents and noted that Flynn’s own sentencing filings didn’t address conduct he admitted to but was not included in his guilty plea — that he acted as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey. After scolding him, Sullivan agreed to give Flynn more time to complete his cooperation in the Kian case before rescheduling his sentencing.

Needless to say Flynn refused to cooperate during the Kian case (he was found Guilty anyway) and that abrogates whatever plea agreement Mueller and Flynn has. It is technically possible that the could reopen all the charges covered by that (which Flynn has confessed to) and add new ones.

Do I expect that to happen? No, but I do expect he will get hard time, and lots of it.

Artemis – Lindsey Stirling

Right Now – Fire From The Gods

Kiss & Tell – Angels & Airwaves

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

Britain’s Princess Diana killed in a Paris car crash; Poland’s Solidarity labor movement born; Jack the Ripper’s first victim found dead in London; Violinist Itzhak Perlman and singer Van Morrison born.

My Father had a profound influence on me. He was a lunatic.

Spike Milligan

Continue reading

Revolution haunts the air of Westminster.

More than 50 rebel MPs pledge to convene alternative parliament
by Jessica Elgot, The Guardian
Fri 30 Aug 2019

More than 50 MPs from the main parties have pledged to occupy an alternative House of Commons if the prime minister suspends parliament in September, saying they are determined to continue to debate Brexit policy over the five-week period.
…
In a letter to the Guardian coordinated by Best for Britain, backbenchers from the Conservatives, Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Change UK and Plaid Cymru said they would convene an alternative parliament should they be barred from the chamber.

Signatories include the Labour MP David Lammy, the current and former Lib Dem leaders Jo Swinson and Sir Vince Cable, the Green party MP Caroline Lucas and Conservative MPs Antoinette Sandbach and Guto Bebb.

“We cannot allow the government to avoid scrutiny at this time of national crisis,” the letter reads, saying MPs will convene “an alternative parliament to continue holding the government to account and fight this most damaging Brexit”.

“Those who voted to leave in 2016 were promised a negotiated deal by the Vote Leave campaign,” the letter reads.

“The prime minister has now announced that he will prorogue parliament in a bid to get a no-deal Brexit through. Such an unconstitutional coup risks compromising people’s jobs, security and living standards, not to mention the Good Friday agreement. Now Boris Johnson is jeopardising all this for the sake of his own personal polling.”

“It is clear that this has been done to stop MPs debating Brexit at our country’s most constitutionally charged time in recent history.”
…
“If Boris Johnson succeeds in this unconstitutional coup and locks the doors of the Palace of Westminster at this crucial time, that assembly should make its voice heard by coming together elsewhere.”

A number of other direct actions are planned for the coming week, ahead of MPs’ return to parliament on Tuesday and the prorogation, which is planned for the following week.

Leftwing grassroots group Momentum has urged members of the public to block roads and bridges in protest at the move, which has sparked a ferocious backlash from across the political spectrum.
…
The move to set up an alternative parliament follows a similar gathering in Church House last week by MPs who demanded the recall of parliament and said they would oppose prorogation.

The meeting, convened by the Labour MP Stephen Doughty and the independent MP Luciana Berger, resulted in a pledge to sit through prorogation signed by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell and the former Conservative MP Anna Soubry as well as Swinson and Lucas.

The Church House declaration said shutting down parliament would be “an undemocratic outrage at such a crucial moment for our country, and a historic constitutional crisis … Any attempt to prevent parliament [from] sitting, to force through a no-deal Brexit, will be met by strong and widespread democratic resistance.”

This is a silly idea and is doomed to failure.

But also-

Senior Tory rebels ready to back move against no-deal Brexit
by Jessica Elgot, The Guardian
Thu 29 Aug 2019

A growing number of senior Tory rebels have signalled they are now prepared to back urgent legislation to thwart a no-deal Brexit after Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament.

In an escalation of the civil war in the Tory party, David Gauke, the former justice secretary, became the latest senior Conservative to urge his colleagues to act immediately rather than wait to see if Johnson could deliver an alternative to the backstop in the 30-day period proffered by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said parliament would “legislate rapidly” on Tuesday next week to try to stop a no-deal Brexit and pledged to also launch an attempt to stop prorogation.

A significant number of Conservative MPs said on Thursday they were now prepared to back legislation in the Commons next week, which they may otherwise have viewed as premature.

Echoing earlier comments by the former chancellor Philip Hammond, Gauke said he believed Tory MPs could not afford to wait.

“It does look like next week is essentially the only opportunity parliament will have to maintain some control over this process and ensure that it has a say before we leave without a deal,” he said. “I don’t think one can rule out the possibility of parliament being able to find a way through this.”

Margot James, the former digital minister, said she had previously been minded to give Johnson time to negotiate. “I had wanted to give the PM until the third week of September – the 30 days he agreed with Merkel – to surprise us all with an alternative to the backstop that would be negotiable with the EU,” she said.
…
Jonathan Djanogly, one of the MPs who had backed Theresa May’s Brexit deal as well as efforts to stop no deal, said he was angered by the lack of opportunity for scrutiny of Johnson’s plans. “Legalities of shutting down parliament apart, no deal has no democratic backing, so stopping debate on the issue is morally wrong in my book,” he said.

“Even if you support a no-deal Brexit, surely you would want government no-deal preparations to be scrutinised. For instance, my own Brexit select committee will not be allowed to sit to question ministers on the adequacy of Project Yellowhammer [the preparations for no deal]. This is a big mistake.”

Guto Bebb, one of the handful of Conservatives who has backed the People’s Vote campaign, said: “As Conservatives we prize loyalty. But it has become increasingly clear that our loyalty must be to our party’s long-term values and not to the man who leads the party at this time.

“I will be using my vote in parliament next week to do that. I know many of my Conservative colleagues, many of whom have never before defied the official whip of the party leadership, will be doing the same.”

Ministers privately admit the battle to block anti-no-deal legislation in the Commons next week appears all but lost, but efforts to frustrate the rebels are focusing on the House of Lords.
…
In the Commons, several other no-deal sceptic Tories said they still wanted to give Johnson time to get a deal before they were prepared to vote against him. Victoria Prentis, one of the key backers of Rory Stewart’s leadership campaign, said: “I am still likely to give him [Johnson] the benefit of the doubt next week. He has promised that he will get a deal; I want to give him the time to get a deal.”

Some said they believed they would still have time to act before no deal, even in October. Gillian Keegan said: “I am very much against no deal but I also very much want to vote for a deal. We are in uncharted territory but I do believe we have time, even in the last week of October, to find a way to stop no deal if it really looks like that is where we are headed.”

Others who have said they will continue to back the prime minister include Nicholas Soames, Richard Benyon and Tobias Ellwood, all of whom have spoken out against no deal.

Labour said it intended to play a central role in any legislative fightback. Corbyn told Sky News: “We will be back in parliament on Tuesday to challenge Boris Johnson on what I think is a smash-and-grab raid against our democracy. He’s trying to suspend parliament in order to prevent a serious discussion and a serious debate to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

“What we’re going to do is try to politically stop him on Tuesday with a parliamentary process in order to legislate to prevent a no-deal Brexit and also to try to prevent him shutting down parliament during this utterly crucial period.”

Corbyn said he was confident there was enough time in parliament to introduce legislation. “We believe we can do it, otherwise we wouldn’t be trying to do it,” he said.

Labour later released a joint statement with the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Independent Group for Change and the Green party, saying: “It is our view that there is a majority in the House of Commons that does not support this prorogation, and we demand that the prime minister reverses this decision immediately or allows MPs to vote on whether there should be one.”

Even more piling on-

John Major to join legal fight to stop Johnson suspending parliament
by Jessica Elgot, The Guardian
Fri 30 Aug 2019

John Major has said he will seek the high court’s permission to join a legal fight to prevent the government from suspending parliament before the Brexit deadline, in an unprecedented legal battle that could pit a former prime minister against the incumbent.

And, hours after the news emerged, the shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabarti, was granted permission to join the case on behalf of the official opposition.

In addition, Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, has said he will seek to intervene in his role as an MP, while the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, said she too was seeking to join the case brought by the anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller aimed at preventing Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament from next week until mid-October.

Major, who has been a prominent critic of the government’s Brexit policy, had previously vowed he would mount a legal challenge if Johnson sought to prorogue parliament in order to curtail parliamentary debates or legislative efforts to stop no deal.

“I promised that, if the prime minister prorogued parliament in order to prevent members from opposing his Brexit plans, I would seek judicial review of his action,” Major said in a statement on Friday.

“In view of the imminence of the prorogation – and to avoid duplication of effort, and taking up the court’s time through repetition – I intend to seek the court’s permission to intervene in the claim already initiated by Gina Miller, rather than to commence separate proceedings.

“If granted permission to intervene, I intend to seek to assist the court from the perspective of having served in government as a minister and prime minister, and also in parliament for many years as a member of the House of Commons.”

I dunno, maybe the court case. I’m not encouraged by Corbyn’s reported strategy but he has until Tuesday to change his mind.

Straight ‘No Confidence’ on the suspension. Negotiate after you win.

My favorite is The Myth of Shareholder Democracy, but this is right up there.

Can we trust CEOs’ shock conversion to corporate benevolence?
by Joseph Stiglitz, The Guardian
Thu 29 Aug 2019

For four decades, the prevailing doctrine in the US has been that corporations should maximise shareholder value – meaning profits and share prices – here and now, come what may, regardless of the consequences to workers, customers, suppliers and communities. So the statement endorsing stakeholder capitalism, signed earlier this month by virtually all the members of the US Business Roundtable, has caused quite a stir. After all, these are the CEOs of the US’s most powerful corporations, telling Americans and the world that business is about more than the bottom line. That is quite an about-face. Or is it?

The free-market ideologue and Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman was influential not only in spreading the doctrine of shareholder primacy, but also in getting it written into US legislation. He went so far as to say: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”

The irony was that shortly after Friedman promulgated these ideas, and around the time they were popularised and then enshrined in corporate governance laws – as if they were based on sound economic theory – Sandy Grossman and I, in a series of papers in the late 1970s, showed that shareholder capitalism did not maximise societal welfare.

This is obviously true when there are important externalities such as climate change or when corporations poison the air we breathe or the water we drink. And it is obviously true when they push unhealthy products such as sugary drinks that contribute to childhood obesity or painkillers that unleash an opioid crisis, or when they exploit the unwary and vulnerable, like Trump University and so many other American for-profit higher education institutions. And it is true when they profit by exercising market power, as many banks and technology companies do.

It is even true more generally. The market can drive firms to be shortsighted and make insufficient investments in their workers and communities. So it is a relief that corporate leaders, who are supposed to have penetrating insight into the functioning of the economy, have finally seen the light and caught up with modern economics, even if it took them some 40 years to do so.

But do these corporate leaders really mean what they say or is their statement just a rhetorical gesture in the face of a popular backlash against widespread misbehaviour? There are reasons to believe that they are being more than a little disingenuous.

The first responsibility of corporations is to pay their taxes, yet among the signatories of the new corporate vision are the country’s leading tax avoiders, including Apple, which, according to all accounts, continues to use tax havens such as Jersey. Others supported the US president Donald Trump’s 2017 tax bill, which slashes taxes for corporations and billionaires, but, when fully implemented, will raise taxes on most middle-class households and lead to millions more losing their health insurance. This in a country with the highest level of inequality, the worst healthcare outcomes and the lowest life expectancy among major developed economies. And while these business leaders championed the claim that the tax cuts would lead to more investment and higher wages, workers have received only a pittance. Most of the money has been used not for investment but for share buybacks, which served merely to line the pockets of shareholders and the CEOs with stock-incentive schemes.

A genuine sense of broader responsibility would lead corporate leaders to welcome stronger regulations to protect the environment and enhance the health and safety of their employees. And a few car companies – Honda, Ford, BMW and Volkswagen – have done so, endorsing stronger regulations than those the Trump administration wants, as the president works to undo the former president Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. There are even soft-drink company executives who appear to feel bad about their role in childhood obesity, which they know often leads to diabetes.

But while many CEOs may want to do the right thing – or have family and friends who do – they know they have competitors who don’t. There must be a level playing field, ensuring that firms with a conscience aren’t undermined by those that don’t. That’s why many corporations want regulations against bribery as well as rules protecting the environment and workplace health and safety.

Unfortunately, many of the mega-banks, whose irresponsible behaviour brought on the 2008 global financial crisis, are not among them. No sooner was the ink dry on the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, which tightened regulations to make a recurrence of the crisis less likely, than the banks set to work to repeal key provisions. Among them was JPMorgan Chase, whose CEO is Jamie Dimon, the current president of the Business Roundtable. Not surprisingly, given America’s money-driven politics, banks have had considerable success. A decade after the crisis, some are still fighting lawsuits brought by those who were harmed by their irresponsible and fraudulent behaviour. Their deep pockets, they hope, will enable them to outlast the claimants.

The new stance of the most powerful CEOs in the US is, of course, welcome. But we will have to wait and see whether it’s another publicity stunt, or whether they really mean what they say. In the meantime, we need legislative reform. Friedman’s thinking not only handed greedy CEOs a perfect excuse for doing what they wanted to do all along but also led to corporate-governance laws that embedded shareholder capitalism in the US legal framework and that of many other countries. That must change, so that corporations are not just allowed but actually required to consider the effects of their behaviour on other stakeholders.

Something to consider in relation to Stiglitz’s essay.

Trump’s Methane Rule Rollback Divides Oil and Gas Industry
By Clifford Krauss, The New York Times
Aug. 29, 2019

Oil and gas producers might have been expected to welcome a decision to loosen regulations affecting their business. But their reaction to the Trump administration’s move to roll back methane-emissions rules revealed at least tactical divisions on climate policy.

Contradictory voices quickly emerged Thursday between those who supported the move as a boon to domestic energy production and others who viewed it as a counterproductive measure that would sully the reputation of natural gas as a clean fuel.

Global oil and gas companies generally distanced themselves from the administration decision, while smaller domestic companies that are struggling to make a profit at a time of low oil and gas prices said they supported the rollback.

The divide reflected differing visions of the industry’s future in light of growing concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.
…
Without constraints on harmful emissions, some in the industry feel they will be less effective in arguing that gas should replace coal in generating power. And that would strengthen the case for favoring sources like wind and solar energy rather than gas to control global warming.

“What some people in the industry do not get, but others are beginning to get, is that we are transitioning to a low-carbon economy,” said Mark Boling, former executive vice president of Southwestern Energy and a consultant to oil companies trying to monitor emissions in Colorado. “If natural gas is going to replace coal, we need to show the climate benefit.”
…
Under increasing pressure from shareholders, activists and their own employees, BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil and several other international oil companies have joined the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which is pledged to reduce gas emissions. It is one part of a growing acknowledgment in the industry that climate change and future regulation are a threat.

“Shell has long supported the direct regulation of methane when regulation is efficient, effective and encourages innovation,” said Gretchen Watkins, Shell’s president for U.S. operations. “While the law may change in this instance, our environmental commitments will stand.”

BP said Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate methane emissions from both new and existing energy sources. “We have to reduce methane emissions for natural gas to realize its full potential in our energy mix,” said Susan Dio, BP America’s chairman and president.

Truth is it’s a barrier to entry which is monopolistic, but it’s a social good so I’ll take it.

Why your Internet sucks (Part 2)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

The Civil War’s Second Battle of Bull Run ends; Thurgood Marshall confirmed as first black Supreme Court justice; First black astronaut blasts off; Ty Cobb’s baseball debut; David Letterman moves to CBS.

When it comes to idiots, America’s got more than its fair share. If idiots were energy, it would be a source that would never run out.

Lewis Black

Continue reading

And at the time (1283 CE) they were none too Happy about it. Today Wales is still very pro Brexit as are the Midlands.

Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament if unaltered limits debate over Brexit to a 2 week window just before the witching hour of October 31st. I say unaltered since there are several a strong court cases against it. It may perhaps be thwarted by an immediate call for a vote of “No Confidence” which Johnson might has a fighting chance at winning. Surprised?

Everyone treats Jeremy Corbyn like the second coming of Ulyanov only with leprosy and halitosis. Many, despite their understanding of the deep flaws of No Deal (Worldwide Recession, little things), fear that less than an Administration which would re-Nationalize the Railways (currently dysfunctional and losing money hand over fist

I must admit Corbyn hasn’t exactly shone. The Statesmanlike thing to do is find a reliable toady and then say- “Ok. Don’t like me? I back them.” and run the show from behind the curtain. So far he has demonstrated reluctance to put a motion on the Table without a pre-arranged Government featuring him. Makes him look petty, maybe he is.

The leader of the Scottish Tories (13 MP, Majority of 1) resigned from the cabinet today. Calls for Scotland to leave the UK grow by the day. The Democratic Unionist Party isn’t the only one in Northern Ireland, or even the biggest, and the likelyhood is that they will quit the Union to keep the open border with Ireland.

You might as well call it the United Kingdoms. Note the pointed plural. It denotes the fact it’s only the two of them, England and Wales, now. Well, and places like the Falklands and some of the Virgin Islands and a few other odds and ends.

The No Confidence motion must be made by the Leader of the Opposition almost immediately after Parliament is gaveled back into session.

Boris Johnson is trashing the democracy fought for with the blood of our ancestors
by Owen Jones, The Guardian
Wed 28 Aug 2019

Call the suspension of parliament what it is: a coup d’état by an unelected prime minister. Brexit, we were promised, was about restoring the sovereignty of the House of Commons and taking back control of our laws. That institution is now to be shut down, its ability to pass legislation neutered. Just days now remain for elected representatives to have any say over the greatest upheaval since the guns fell silent in the second world war. It must be, and will be, resisted.

Let us nail this perverse lie that forcing through no deal is honouring the referendum result. The official leave campaigns made it abundantly clear that Brexit would mean a deal, and an easily negotiated one too. Don’t believe me? Listen to the co-convenor of Vote Leave, Michael Gove himself: “But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.” For good measure, he added: “Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence.”

During that referendum campaign, Nigel Farage extolled the virtues of Norway as a nation prospering outside the stultifying confines of the EU; yet emulating that shining Nordic example is now dismissed as Brexit In Name Only. A year after the referendum, the British people had their democratic say once again. Some 54% of them voted for parties ruling out no deal. A majority of the elected representatives they voted for oppose no deal. Parliament is being shut down to drive through an extreme proposition – which will cause economic destruction and force Britain back to the negotiating table in an enfeebled state – for which there is zero democratic mandate.

Consider this thought experiment. Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister, despite never winning a general election. His party lacks a majority, and is dependent on the support of the Scottish National party, support he secured in exchange for bunging them a legal bribe. He wishes to impose a radical proposal which, by any objective measure, will result in a self-inflicted economic shock, damage the country’s social fabric and leave us internationally weakened. Knowing that parliament opposes such a measure, he simply suspends it. Imagine the hysteria, the cries of Venezuela, of communist tyranny. Where Johnson’s assault on democracy is normalised, if a Prime Minister Corbyn attempted it, the forces of the establishment would intervene to thwart it, whatever it took.

To prorogue is to “suspend parliamentary democracy”, and that “goes against everything that those men who waded on to those beaches fought and died for”. Dramatic words, you might think: they were uttered by Matt Hancock, now in Johnson’s cabinet, who – as a supine careerist devoid of principle – will likely now cheerfully champion this anti-democratic disgrace. But he was right. This is an attack on a democracy fought for through the blood and sacrifice of our ancestors. To allow a cabal of pampered public school hacks, whose only interest is the survival of the Conservative party and their own careers, and for whom this is all a rather droll and amusing game, to trash democracy like their Bullingdon Club once trashed restaurants in their tops and tails – it is intolerable.
…
The British people must now take to the streets, and deploy the tactic used by their ancestors to secure the rights of women, of workers, of minorities, of LGBTQ people: peaceful civil disobedience. If parliament is to be shut down, MPs must refuse to leave it. It should be occupied by the citizens it exists to serve. Other acts of peaceful civil disobedience – including the occupation of government offices across the country – should follow. If a general strike is necessary to defend democracy, then so be it

The prime minister – a self-professed champion of bankers who wishes to shower the rich with tax cuts, deregulate and attack workers’ rights – is farcically trying to portray himself as a tribune of the people against the elites. His latest manoeuvre must be exposed as an act of hubris by an unaccountable political elite with contempt for democracy. The protest movement that must now emerge must draw the true battle-lines ahead of an impending general election. It must not be simply be a contest defined by how we voted one summer’s day in 2016. It will be a fight between those who create the wealth and the elites who hoard it; between those who paid for the crash and those who caused it; between those who pay their taxes and those who dodge them.

However much the Conservative establishment dress themselves in revolutionary garb, they are the political representatives of those who fund them – not those who sleeplessly stare at ceilings in the early hours, panicking over unopened energy bills on kitchen tables, but the hedge fund managers, poverty-paying bosses and bankers who plunged Britain into the abyss, for whom this country is a playground in which to run riot, while others pick up the bill. If no deal happens, the Tories will look after their own – they always do – while the ex-mining and steel and industrial communities trashed by their predecessors will suffer a renewed kicking. But none of this is inevitable: and, just as our ancestors fought with determination and courage to win our rights, it now falls to us to defend them.

They’re coming for your children.

Seriously.