Europe, beware. Unless the contest to succeed Theresa May springs a last-minute surprise, Britain’s new Conservative leader and prime minister will be a proven liar with no principles. In 1988, Boris Johnson was sacked as a journalist on the London Times for inventing a quotation. Sixteen years later, having become a member of Parliament (MP), he was sacked as a shadow minister for lying about his affair with his then mistress.
In between, he spent five years as Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph—then, as now, the unofficial bible for the Conservative Party. Johnson routinely invented or exaggerated stories designed to paint the European Union in a bad, usually ludicrous, light. Among many examples were his absurd predictions that the EU would introduce one-size “eurocoffins” and establish a “banana police force” to regulate the fruit’s shape. His stories helped fuel Euroskepticism on the right of British politics. He should not be surprised if, as prime minister, he is treated on his return to Brussels with less than total respect.
Harsh? Try this verdict, delivered on June 24 by Max Hastings, editor of the Daily Telegraph during Johnson’s time in Brussels:
There is room for debate about whether he is a scoundrel or mere rogue, but not much about his moral bankruptcy, rooted in a contempt for truth. His premiership will almost certainly reveal a contempt for rules, precedent, order and stability. . . . Yet his graver vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks most likely to please, heedless of the inevitability of its contradiction an hour later. Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him.
And yet, this dark cloud might have a silver lining. Johnson’s lack of principles can be rephrased as a refusal to be hemmed in by a rigid ideology. True, in the 2016 referendum on the UK’s EU membership he was one of the leading campaigners for Britain to leave the bloc; but he decided only at the last minute which side to back. He wrote two articles—one in favor of leaving, the other in favor of remaining—before choosing which to publish.
Thus, when he pledges to “do or die” in delivering Brexit by the deadline of October 31, one should allow for the possibility that he will neither do nor die, but instead preside over the UK’s continuing membership of the EU.
To understand why, let’s sketch out the likely course of events once Johnson becomes prime minister toward the end of July. He will seek to renegotiate the UK’s EU withdrawal agreement that May negotiated last year with the leaders of the other 27 member states. Above all, he will want changes to the backstop on the UK-Irish border—an insurance policy designed to ensure the frontier remains open. The EU will refuse to make any substantial changes, although it might agree to revise the political declaration that accompanies the main agreement and covers the long-term UK-EU relationship. However, any revisions will be too minor to secure a majority in Britain’s House of Commons.
At this point, probably in late September or early October, Johnson will declare his intention for the UK to leave the EU on October 31 without a deal. He will probably ask for the UK and the EU to continue trading as now, with no tariffs or border controls, pending further negotiations. The EU is unlikely to agree, not least because it is an institution governed by clear rules, which cannot simply be set aside on a political whim.
So, the chances are that by mid-October, the UK will be heading for an economically dangerous Brexit, unless steps are taken to avert this outcome. What might those steps be? The starting point is a law passed by Parliament in April. Under an amendment to the 2018 European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the UK will leave the EU on October 31 unless it amends or repeals that law.
Changing the law is possible but not easy unless the prime minister backs the change. Might Johnson swallow his “do or die” promise and do just that? Here is why he might. While Parliament cannot easily change the law without government support, it can make its view clear. And there is little doubt that come the imminent prospect of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal, it will do so.
Back in March, MPs voted by 312 to 308 to reject the UK leaving the EU without an agreement. Since then, opposition to a no-deal Brexit has hardened. Seven Conservative MPs who abstained on that vote have since made clear their support for blocking any attempt to leave the EU without an agreement.
Moreover, at least seven of May’s cabinet ministers, including David Lidington, May’s de facto deputy prime minister, and Philip Hammond, the chancellor of the exchequer, have warned publicly against a no-deal Brexit. As cabinet ministers, they voted against the March resolution; but under Johnson they are likely to leave the government and will then be free to vote for economic sanity.
By late October, then, Parliament could have made the political decision to oppose a no-deal Brexit but not taken the legal steps to stop it without Johnson’s agreement. Johnson will then face a stark choice: to defy Parliament or to accept that the UK will remain in the EU beyond October 31.
Defiance would be dangerous. Johnson might face, and lose, a vote of confidence. His tenure as prime minister would be the shortest ever (the current unenviable record of four months was set by George Canning in 1827). Johnson has not lied and plotted his way up the greasy pole to slide back down it after only three months.
His simplest way of keeping the job he has craved would be to accept Parliament’s position by revoking the UK’s decision to leave the EU. But that would undoubtedly split his party and could be another route to a no-confidence vote. One alternative would be to ask the EU for a further extension, and more talks. But this might be rejected unless Johnson can credibly show that, first, he accepts the EU’s redlines on such issues as the Irish backstop and, second, he could win parliamentary approval for such a deal. Neither looks likely; both together look impossible.
Johnson would have two other options. The first is to seek an extension pending a new general election. The EU would probably agree to this. However, Johnson might be unwilling to take the risk of holding an election with Brexit unresolved and the new Brexit Party on the rampage. The party won 31 percent of the vote in the European Parliament elections in May this year. That is most unlikely to be repeated in a general election, but even 10–15 percent, with the party’s votes coming mainly from the Conservatives, would ensure Johnson’s defeat. Without an electoral deal with the Brexit Party—occasionally mooted but in truth unlikely—an election would merely delay Johnson’s downfall by a few weeks.
The second, and final, option would be for Johnson to call a fresh referendum, in which voters have a choice of leaving the EU without a deal or remaining a member state after all. True, Johnson currently opposes this course of action; but breaking his word has become a theme of his career. Changing his mind would be an addition to an already impressive list, not a break with any personal tradition of principled consistency.
Before anyone reacts to this analysis by placing a large bet on a fresh referendum, that outcome is far from certain. Rather, it is one possible outcome, rooted in the logic of the impasse that the UK’s political system must confront in the coming weeks. Whether logic imposes itself on Johnson’s ego and Parliament’s judgement is just one uncertainty in a crisis that is greater than any the UK has faced since 1945.
Comments(12)
I think Peter you have taken an opinionated analysis here, Boris will be held into a no deal result by his political backers in the ERG and party as a whole. He will give the EU one last chance though to modify the deal by putting a time limit on the backstop. If he tries to squirm out of no deal by an extension he knows he is toast by his backers, who he will appoint to cabinet. Quite simply there is nowhere to turn against 31st of october, he has set this and his position as PM in stone it will be the political gamble of his career. Hunt appears now to be mirroring Boris an in some cases going further with his end of september negoitiations prenouncement. So my bet no matter what MPs try its no deal with an election before christmas after exit as a confidence vote will bring them down after the exit.
Unusually vituperative stuff from Kellner. As usual there is no mention of the stubborn and vengeful stand taken by the unelected leaders of the EU. Greates danger? I think Suez posed a greater danger. But lets see how it goes. Tha fat lady is gargling...
Stubborn and vengeful? We turned our backs on the Unionand then had the temerity to draw red lines and lay down conditions for leaving. Ha.!
stubborn and vengeful stand taken by the unelected leaders of the EU. There's nothing stubborn and vengeful in the EU stance. Simply thier interest opposed to UK's ones. There's no vengeance in protecting your home, your rules. But yeah, you Brits want the cake and eat just because you're the Great Great Britain. We call it the Perfidious Abion... Yes, Suez posed a great danger, your American cousins were ready to leave you in the hands of Stalin. This is in a way greater because it will transform UK in a global beggar in a desperate need of a FTA. You know that beggars don't choose, do you? So if you want an FTA with India, forget about VISA requirements for Indians. If you want an FTA with the States, kiss goodbye the NHS and food standards. If you want one with NZ kiss good bye your lamb farming. And on...
Any source for this assertion? Could be messy, but a high 20s for Conservatives could still give them a majority and a mandate. Especially after unrelenting attacks on EU during the summer. "but even 10–15 percent, with the party’s votes coming mainly from the Conservatives, would ensure Johnson’s defeat."
The conservatives lack a majority already and assuming a clearer Labour position it seems unlikely that a split conservative vote would yield them many constituencies currently held by Labour or LibDem. Given their current 313 seats they need to win at least 30 for a majority because for sure they would lose 14 -19 Scottish constituencies.
More balls from Kelner.
Well done Peter, spot on again. If only our leaders had one iota of your pragmatism the UK wouldn't be in the mess it is now. Sadly the defining feature of the Tory party with a few exceptions is precisely this; they live in a phantasmagoric Brexiteer dystopia which bears no resemblance to reality.
A typically sagacious article by Peter Kellner. I have myself been thinking along similar lines - that Boris would 'with great reluctance' have to sanction a second referendum, and then 'with a heavy heart' accept a result of Remain (if it be such - no guarantees, but hopefully a sufficient number of the British people will see rationality to get Remain over the line). Boris could then have a number of years as Prime Minister, having become the Houdini who got us out of Brexit. Only Nixon could go to China! So maybe it takes the election of an unprincipled chancer to find us a way out of Brexit....
From your timetable I fear that Johnson will get his Brexit. If a vote of No Confidence is not tabled before the middle of October (16th October at the very latest), there would be no time to replace the PM before Brexit kicks in automatically on Oct 31st. After that time, if a No Confidence motion passes, it would leave us without a functioning government immediately after Brexit, which would be an insane move (and more to the point, one that would not be forgiven by an electorate that had experienced the ensuing car-crash).
This discussion shows again that democracy is a two-way street. The EU is considered the apex of liberal democracy, and in this context a certain behavioral decorum is expected. It isn’t just Putin watching and offering unsolicited advice (payback for similar advice offered to Russia), it is also Rest (China, India). After all this system was touted as the end of history, but not in the sense of the end of the Western primacy over the world, through multidimensional collapse, following the loss of Empire. The euro coffins issue appears to be far worse, Johnson’s memory confused existing CoE regulation on international transfer of corpses (see BBC); even his expressed concerns on teabag recycling and EU age limits on blowing up balloons are incorrect and risible. The importance of a free press is self-evident, but the Daily Telegraph should have mechanisms to enforce clear delimitation between fact and fiction. If these mechanisms failed, an educated reader could do the homework and determine the credibility of the author. Even the Bible has interpretations, and so should the Daily Telegraph. The £350 million bus was a far more serious and verifiable claim, eventually upgraded to £438 million, still on NHS. In theory, a post Brexit prime minister Johnson could try to enforce this promise, a budgeting discussion. The author analyses the various scenarios confronting Johnson once becoming prime-minister. In theory Johnson would be the best positioned to enact a second referendum on Brexit, and that would be remarkable, not “breaking this word”, and would probably erase past sins. After all the EU lead candidate process died in front of our eyes. The reality is that nobody foresaw the Irish backstop issue; add the possibility of a second Scottish referendum, and the financial industry moving away, as well as other Project Fear objective facts. May insisted many times that delivering Brexit is a supreme democratic duty, but it is clear that not enough factual analysis preceded Cameron’s referendum. Assuming Johnson would display the courage needed for this second referendum, will the public spend now the time to truly analyze before casting an informed vote? Shouldn’t participation in this referendum be mandatory, democracy is also duty, not just freedom? Separate note, it is hard to understand how after decades of effective contributions the UK still has payments to made to the EU budget. The EU shouldn’t be a transfer union, or unidirectional movement of people.
Wholeheartedly agree, JOHNSON has only established throughout his so called career, that he is totally without principals and will change tack at any time to suit his advancement, and will happily lie to create the desired effect, ( possibly as a result of some genetic defect) I look forward to your suggestion that he will perform the famous Private Eye "reverse ferret " act at the last moment this October. I would love to know how to put a bet on this outcome
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.