A lot has happened in British politics since my last post. We have a new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, dubbed by some as ‘Britain’s Trump’. Johnson was elected on 24 July (by the Conservative Party faithful) on a hard line ‘Brexit do or die’ platform. The hope of Brexiteers was that he would be able to force the EU back to the negotiating table, thrash out a more acceptable deal and push it through Parliament. Failing that, Britain would leave without a deal. In either case, Britain would leave the EU on 31 October 2019 ‘no ifs no buts’ as the Prime Minister is fond of saying. It’s fair to say things haven’t gone completely according to plan, with the Supreme Court ruling that the government’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful only the latest in a string of punishing setbacks.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
The “Honeymoon”
It’s usual for a new PM to have a honeymoon period, a boost in popularity and some space and time before people make up their minds about them. Johnson’s honeymoon was the shortest imaginable, blink and you would have missed it. In two short months he’s managed to lose every vote the government has brought in the House of Commons (this isn’t normal). He’s withdrawn the whip from 21 Conservative MPs after they rebelled on a crucial vote, meaning they no longer officially sit as Conservatives; they remain MPs but sit in the House as Independents and are prohibited from standing in future elections as Conservative candidates. This includes Ken Clarke (the ‘father of the House’ as he is the longest serving MP), former senior cabinet ministers, and even Winston Churchill’s grandson. Johnson has twice called for an election but lost those votes, forcing his increasingly minority government to have to continue to limp on. Most importantly, Parliament (the legislature) was able to seize control of the business of the House from the government (the executive) and pass an Act requiring the Prime Minister to request a Brexit extension from the EU if he is unable to negotiate a new deal and pass it through the House. Asking for an extension is something Johnson has categorically refused to do, and continues to refuse to do, even though he is now required to do so by law. Which of course begs the obvious question – will he defy the law and crash the UK out of the EU without a deal?
Lawbreaker?
The question whether the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom might choose to defy the law is not a situation which has often been faced by Parliament, if ever. To be fair, the government insist they will obey the law but continue to insist Britain will leave the EU on 31 October without providing an explanation how they intend to square that circle. This is not a government, or a Prime Minister, that commands a great deal of trust from wider MPs or large swathes of the public. Johnson is seen as economical with the truth, as the saying goes, and willing to say or do anything to achieve his aims.
His hiring decisions haven’t helped to allay these concerns. He has appointed Dominic Cummings as his special political adviser. Cummings is best known for masterminding the successful Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum in 2016 and was memorably portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch in the film of the events Brexit: The Uncivil War. He is known for ruthlessness coupled with a talent for strategy and winning at all costs, along with a disdain for the political establishment. Not to mention a permanently scruffy appearance. It’s hard not to draw parallels with a certain Steve Bannon….
Cummings is credited as the mastermind behind perhaps Johnson’s most controversial move so far. Following the lengthy summer recess, the Government announced a prorogation of Parliament from 10 September through to 14 October. Prorogation is a perfectly standard parliamentary process. It ends the current session of Parliament and is usually followed by a short break and then a new Queen’s Speech. While the Queen makes the speech (as part of a flurry of pomp and ceremony specifically designed to befuddle and bemuse any Americans who may be paying attention), the speech is actually written by the government and sets out its legislative agenda for the session ahead. So on the face of it, a perfectly normal thing to do. But in the words of John Bercow, Speaker of the House, ‘this is not a normal prorogation’.
The move was met with fury by MPs opposed to a no deal Brexit who saw it as a tactic to prevent Parliament debating Brexit at a crucial time, thereby helping the Government to force through a no deal Brexit against the wishes of the majority of MPs. They cited the timing of prorogation and the fact that it was the longest prorogation since 1945 – most are just a few days. The government claimed it was nothing of the kind, and they merely wanted to get on with the business of government. As justification they noted that Parliament was due to go into recess anyway to allow the political parties to hold their annual conferences so it was only adding a few days to the break. They also pointed out that the current session of Parliament was extraordinarily long – the longest in fact since the English Civil War (1642-51). Sessions normally last a year or so, the current session was extended to allow Brexit to be delivered (a cunning plan which has proven depressingly difficult to realise) and has lasted over 2 years.
Legal challenge
Protest and anger over the prorogation led to two rapid legal challenges – one through the English courts and a second through the Scottish courts. These cases quickly passed through the respective systems and concluded very different things. The English High Court decided that the matter was not one to be decided by the courts as the timing of prorogation was a political decision. The Scottish Appeals Court disagreed, and said that the prorogation was unlawful ‘because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.’ This set up a dramatic showdown as the case moved to the Supreme Court.
As background, the British Supreme Court is fairly new as it was established in 2009 replacing the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called “Law Lords”), the 12 judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the British Supreme Court hears cases of greatest public or constitutional importance. The crucial difference of course is the lack of a written constitution in Britain which in some ways gives the Court greater latitude in its decision making.
On 24 September, after 3 days of hearings, the Supreme Court issued its verdict and it couldn’t have been more explosive. All 11 sitting Justices unanimously found that the government had acted unlawfully and declared the prorogation null and void, effectively stating that the parliamentary session had never officially ended. The decision hinged on whether the reasons offered by the government were reasonable; much like the recent US Supreme Court case about adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, the court ruled the reasons offered by the government for their decision were insufficient. This loss in court is another massive blow to the Prime Minister and hugely embarrassing.
It is actually the Queen who officially prorogues Parliament, on the advice of her ministers. So the Government misled the Monarch and Johnson was forced to call the Queen to explain himself, embroiling the Queen in an ongoing political crisis, something the Royal Family and politicians of all sides strenuously work to avoid.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Political differences
On 25 September Parliament resumed the interrupted session with furious and acrimonious debate on the crisis. The Government was bullish, claiming they acted in good faith and accusing the opposition of running scared by avoiding an election. Given his defeats in the House and the loss of his majority, Johnson has twice brought votes before the House calling for a General Election which extraordinarily were opposed by all the opposition parties who claimed that Johnson couldn’t be trusted not to push the election date back beyond 31 October and therefore allow the UK to crash out of the EU by default.
In reality, the opposition parties might have more on their mind than not trusting Johnson to observe election norms. If they can force Johnson to go to the EU and ask for an extension, despite his ‘do or die’ rhetoric, it will be hugely damaging to him politically and help them in the eventual election. It is relevant to note here that, despite the chaos and failures of the Conservative government, the Tories are still ahead in the polls. The failure of the opposition to capitalise on Johnson’s woes reflects both the unpopularity of the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and the inherent weaknesses of their official position on Brexit. Labour’s position is to attempt to negotiate a better deal and put that deal to a second referendum, asking the British public to choose between the new deal and remaining in the EU. Labour, however, say they won’t decide whether they will campaign in favour of their own deal or for Remain until they have the deal in hand. That position is muddled at best and self-contradictory at worst.
In contrast, the Conservatives have an unambiguous pro-Brexit stance and the other main opposition parties (the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats) are unambiguously for Remain. Labour’s fence-sitting has resulted in them losing Remain support to the Liberal Democrats, thereby splitting the Remain vote to the benefit of the Conservatives.
What’s next?
Yet again we are faced with a complete lack of clarity on what happens next, although there is a certain end game feel about current proceedings. The government insists they are still negotiating with the EU for a deal although the EU denies any credible proposals have been forthcoming. There are strenuous calls for Johnson to resign (making him the shortest PM in history) but he remains defiant. The law still says that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October but that the government must seek an extension to avoid no deal, and it is looking increasingly unlikely that Johnson and Cummings will now try to thwart the intent of the law given how they have been burned over prorogation. The only certainty is that an election is coming, probably in November, and given the strength of frustration and anger in the country it’s impossible to predict how that election will go. And then – more negotiation or no deal as the Conservatives advocate? A second referendum as the Labour Party wants? Or straight up revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit entirely, as the Liberal Democrats espouse? Or, as is a distinct possibility, another divided Parliament with no clear mandate for any course of action and yet more stalemate.
Keep watching, it ain’t over yet!