Boris Johnson is having none of it. In response to the release Thursday morning of the Commons Privileges Committee report examining whether he lied to Parliament in respect of  Partygate — spoiler alert, it says he did — the former prime minister was adamant: “This report is a charade.”

The report says that “I deliberately misled the House, and at the moment I spoke I was consciously concealing from the House my knowledge of illicit events.

“This is rubbish. It is a lie,” Mr. Johnson defended his reputation. “In order to reach this deranged conclusion, the committee is obliged to say a series of things that are patently absurd, or contradicted by the facts.”

The crux of the issue is whether Mr. Johnson intentionally misled Parliament when, in answer to questions regarding 10 Downing Street adherence to Covid guidance, he answered: “The Rules were followed at all times.”

Yet as a former minister, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, pressed the issue repeatedly in press interviews, when he was in Government, he was similarly briefed by officials and was told to reply as Mr. Johnson had done. 

When the ex-premier learned otherwise, that the rules were not followed as strictly as prescribed, he dutifully informed the House. To fall from power for the great sin of Downing Street conviviality would be contemptible, were it not for the fact that while more than a few MPs flouted the Covid lockdown-restriction rules, ordinary Britons who did likewise were hunted down by law enforcement and paid heavy fines in punishment. 

Worst, those who obeyed the draconian diktat were denied the right of association, many as aged family members faced their end of days, alone. Businesses were shuttered, schools closed, vital hospital visits and operations missed. For years to come the United Kingdom will be paying financially and socially for Boris Johnson’s cack-handed Covid regime.

Public sympathy for Mr. Johnson would be thin, therefore, were it not that in this report, the predominant mindset of the Westminster-Whitehall axis is made clear: “We are in charge.”

Having seen the preliminary report late last week, Mr. Johnson determined his political fate was sealed and rather than face certain censure in the Commons, he resigned his seat with immediate effect. Robbed of its opportunity to humiliate him in person, the Committee instead has done so in absentia.

Were he still an MP, he would face at least a 10-day suspension for “reckless behavior.” Such duration triggers a recall vote in his constituency, which Mr. Johnson short-circuited by preemptively resigning. So in retribution and for his published condemnation of the committee last Friday, the report recommended a suspension of 90-days — the Tory members outvoting the opposition demand for outright expulsion.

The worst that could happen now is for Boris to have his Member’s Pass permitting ex-MPs access to parliamentary property rescinded. That would  be the very definition of petty and vindictive.

Perhaps one of the Report’s more far-reaching effects is the indignation with which it views any person who has the temerity to criticize it. It serves as one of the charges against Mr. Johnson — and as a warning to other MPs.

A subsequent report is expected in future, outlining how this offense of free speech is to be punished. Recriminations will fall heavily on any who have the effrontery to question its objectivity in future, the Committee hints. 

Let us be clear. Parliament has the power “to police” its own members, but this has customarily been applied sparingly and only in those cases where great harm can result to the institution and its traditions. It would be wrong to conflate the Committee process with a Judicial function that would include due process — as Mr. Johnson can attest.

Instead, the Privileges Committee set out its own terms of “reckless behavior,” defined the appropriate punishments, and applied them to Boris Johnson — singled out for especial censure. “Bills of Attainder,” it will be remembered, fell out of favor in British practice due to public opprobrium, and were forbidden by  Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

In short, Boris Johnson has been subject to a political process — and its findings are wholly political. The Committee chairman, Harriet Harman, is vocal in her anti-Brexit views and was loquacious in her denunciations that the ex-premier was guilty, long before the first gavel fell. 

Yet Ms. Harman stood as chairman and prepared the Committee’s draft report. In retrospect, BoJo’s blasts against a stitch-up by a “kangaroo court” don’t appear so self-serving. For an American analogy, think of President Trump’s ongoing legal battles with the “Establishment.”

Both the former president and prime minister are imperfect politicians, who campaigned on the populist agenda then failed — sometimes spectacularly, in BoJo’s case — to fulfill the promise of maximal liberty and minimal government.

Yet for their audacity to simply articulate a vision in keeping with conservative principles, the respective “Deep State” or “The Blob” have deemed them worthy of total political destruction.

Witness this headline from the Guardian. “Brexit was Johnson and Johnson was Brexit. Now that he has gone, Britain must think again,” it reads. As if the connection were unclear, the editorial continues: “The disgraced former PM and our disastrous exit from the EU were umbilically linked. His fall presents a precious opportunity.”

The Committee report goes before the Commons early next week for a free vote on whether the House will accept its findings of guilt and its recommended sanctions. In itself, Mr. Johnson’s departure renders the vote a moot point; all he can lose is his Member’s Pass. Given how the chamber is constituted, the Report’s passage is well-nigh guaranteed.

No matter. What the vote really portends is an assessment of Boris’s legacy and, by extension, Brexit. In the next four days we can expect Conservative MPs to begin forming lines, Johnson loyalists vs. those who align with the Government.

Despite all the bafflegab that will be generated between now and Monday’s vote, don’t be distracted. The Privileges Committee report is simply smoke-and-mirrors to camouflage its disdain for Brexit. Do elected representatives stand for the freedom of the British people, or instead with the statist belief that the people are to obey “their betters”?

BrexitDiarist@gmail.com