The EconomistSeptember 14th 2019 271I
t is unusualfor European diplomats to
become obsessed with British constitu-
tional niceties. But recently they have
watched Westminster with rare atten-
tion—and growing concern. Some gloat
over the chaos of Boris Johnson’s govern-
ment, after it lost six Commons votes, its
parliamentary majority, a clutch of Tory
mps and two ministers. Yet many are also
alarmed by Mr Johnson’s bullheaded insis-
tence on leaving the euon October 31st, “do
or die”, meaning deal or no-deal.
One example concerns the new law re-
quiring Mr Johnson to seek the eu’s agree-
ment to extend the Brexit deadline rather
than accept no-deal. His claim that he
would rather be “dead in a ditch” than do
this is seen as a threat to the rule of law. A
second is the early suspension of Parlia-
ment, which many believe was done solely
to avoid further scrutiny of the government
by the legislature. On September 9th Scot-
land’s highest court seemed to endorse this
view by ruling that Mr Johnson’s advice to
the queen to suspend Parliament so that he
could prepare a new legislative agenda was
unlawful—in effect, accusing the primeminister of misleading the monarch.
The government is appealing against
the judgment to the Supreme Court, which
will hear the case next week with appeals
from similar cases in England and North-
ern Ireland. The English judgment was that
suspension was a political not a justiciable
issue, and the Supreme Court may well
agree. Some lawyers suggest it could even
endorse both judgments, because Scottish
law differs from English law.
Claims that Mr Johnson has misled the
queen reverberate in Brussels. Next weekmarks 30 days since Mr Johnson met Ger-
many’s Angela Merkel, who seemed to set
this deadline for finding an alternative to
the Irish backstop that the prime minister
wants to excise from Theresa May’s with-
drawal agreement. Yet no British proposal
has been made.
When Mr Johnson met Leo Varadkar in
Dublin this week, he claimed to be working
for a deal and called no-deal a “failure of
statecraft”. His government’s “Yellowham-
mer” analysis of no-deal, published on
September 11th, talks of possible food, fuel
and medicine shortages, lorry tailbacks
and the risk of civil disorder. But the taoi-
seach insisted that no backstop would
mean no-deal, adding that it was impossi-
ble to replace a legal guarantee of no hard
border in Ireland with a mere promise.
Diplomats report that twice-weekly
talks are now taking place with Mr John-
son’s euadviser, David Frost. In late August
there was even talk of adjusting the back-
stop by narrowing it to agrifoods or setting
a time limit. The euwould also happily ap-
ply the backstop only to Northern Ireland,
not the whole uk. A Northern Ireland-only
backstop was originally in Mrs May’s deal.
It was replaced by a uk-wide backstop be-
cause the Democratic Unionist Party,
which propped up her majority, insisted on
no new border checks in the Irish Sea. Since
Mr Johnson now has no parliamentary ma-
jority, the dup is in a weaker position.
Some of Mr Johnson’s advisers want to re-
vert to a Northern Ireland-only backstop.
Yet the euhas hardened its position onHow Europe sees BrexitWatchers in the dark
BRUSSELS AND LONDON
As Britain ties itself in constitutional knots, the European Union considers how
to avoid blame if the outcome is no-dealBritain
28 The Speaker quits
29 British Airways v pilots31 Ministerial churn29 Foreign students’ visas
30 Political pacts31 Interest rates after no-deal
32 Bagehot: Two tribes go to lunchAlso in this section