A Johnson government could be a short run thing

Correct me if I’m wrong: 1

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on the 31st of October with No Deal and no Transition Period unless one of the following things happens.

A: What is called Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement is again brought before the House of Commons and is approved by a majority.

B:  The UK Government applies for another extension (or, as Remainers might put it, a stay of execution).

C:  The UK Government, with the approval of Parliament, revokes our application to leave the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

A: is unlikely. The Withdrawal Agreement has been repeatedly rejected by the House of Commons, in each case by a large majority, despite the Prime Minister’s strong commitment to it. Her successor will have no such commitment. It could be approved by the Commons only if all the Opposition Parties supported a Government approving what the House has hitherto rejected. No pigs have been seen flying over Westminster.

B: is possible. It would be sensible for the incoming Government at least to explore this option even though the EU has repeatedly said that there is no scope for further negotiations. Nevertheless, given that there is a Changing of the Guard in Brussels and Strasbourg, “No Today” doesn’t necessarily mean “No Tomorrow”.

C: is out of the question, given the present composition of the House of Commons, the commitment of the Tory Party to Brexit, the likely stance of Mrs May’s successor, and the strength of pro-Leave feeling and opinion in the country. Only a General Election and a change of Government might make C a possibility, but fear of the Brexit Party will deter any Tory Prime Minister from venturing on an Election without having secured our departure from the EU.

Conclusion: with things as they are or seem to be, leaving on the last day of October is probable, even if a sensible Government would at least explore the possibilities of B.

Correct me if I’m wrong: 2

1: There is a general assumption that the members of the Conservative & (still, if only just) Unionist Party are engaged in electing the next Prime Minister and that this will be Boris Johnson.

This assumption is probably well-founded.

Nevertheless: The Tory members are not actually electing a Prime Minister. They are electing the leader of their party.

Number 10 Downing Street is not yet vacant. Mrs May is still Prime Minister. Admittedly she has promised to resign when her party has a new Leader. But she could change her mind. She might say circumstances have changed. There is no constitutional requirement for the Prime Minister to be a Party Leader. Churchill wasn’t leader of the Conservative Party when he became Prime Minister in May 1940. Nor was Lloyd George Leader of the Liberal Party in 1916, or indeed throughout his six years as Prime Minister. Mrs May might show herself as the “bloody difficult woman” Ken Clarke and Sir Malcolm Rifkind agreed she was. She could attempt to reconstruct her Government, bring her Withdrawal Agreement before the Commons again, and declare she would resign only if the Commons rejected her Agreement again and declared “No Confidence” in her.

This would not be unconstitutional. Certainly it’s an improbable scenario, but in our feverish times, the improbable is not impossible.

2: Assuming however that Mrs May resigns as she has said she will, does this mean that the Tory members’ choice – Mr Johnson, as seems likely – is invited to Buckingham Palace and kisses the Queen’s hand?

It ain’t necessarily so.

The Queen might be advised to accept the verdict delivered by the Tory membership and offer him the seals of office without further ado. Alternatively she might be advised that the correct and wisest course was to invite Mr Johnson to see if he could form an administration.

This is what happened in 1963 when Harold Macmillan resigned. Then, having been given such an invitation, Lord Home, as he wrote in his memoirs, “expressed my gratitude, but explained to the Queen that I must ask leave to go away and see if I could form an administration. I was by no means sure, after the drama of the recent weeks, what the attitude of my colleagues might be…”

Autres temps, autres moeurs of course. It is doubtful if Mr Johnson would be as hesitant as Lord Home was then. But the circumstances are very different. Home had only to secure the backing of these colleagues (and rival candidates), notably Rab Butler, Reggie Maudling and Lord Hailsham. Once he had that, his position was assured: the Tories had a comfortable majority in the Commons.

There is no doubt that Mr Johnson could form an administration, but there is no such majority in the House today. The Tory majority is wafer-thin, five on a good day – and good days are few and far between. There are Tory MPs who distrust and dislike Mr Johnson, and this dislike and distrust will have been deepened and sharpened by his failure to support our Ambassador to the USA, Sir Kim Darroch, a failure rightly condemned as “squalid and disgraceful” by Iain Martin. There are patriotic Tories disgusted by the sight of a prospective British Prime Minister kowtowing to President Trump.

So it is far from certain that Mr Johnson could form an administration that would command a majority in the House of Commons. There are Tory MPs who might not support him if a motion of “No Confidence” was brought before the House. Some, like Ken Clarke, are not only principled, but have nothing to lose; this is his last Parliament anyway – how better to go out? Others are faced with deselection by their constituency association dominated by Brexiteers.

Of course it is probable that Mr Johnson will be Prime Minister. All the indications point that way, and it is probable that, come November, the UK will have left the EU with “No Deal”.

But how long will a Johnson Government last? These are interesting times, and in interesting times anything, or almost anything, can happen.

Let us know your view. Send a letter for publication to letters@reaction.life