28 Britain The EconomistSeptember 14th 2019
2 Brexit, for three reasons. The first is that Mr
Johnson has added new demands. He
wants to drop promises to maintain a level
playing field for regulations and distance
Britain from future defence co-operation.
These promises are in the political declara-
tion about the future relationship, not the
withdrawal agreement, but backing away
from them still sends an unwelcome sig-
nal. The euis clear that, without level-play-
ing-field guarantees, it cannot offer a Cana-da-style free-trade deal to Britain for fear of
being competitively undercut.
Second is Mr Johnson’s loss of parlia-
mentary control. Just as with Mrs May ear-
lier this year, eunegotiators fret that any
concession they may offer will still see the
Brexit deal rejected in Westminster. They
have noticed that mps are better at saying
what they are against than what they are
for. They know many Tory mps oppose Mrs
May’s withdrawal agreement even withoutthe backstop. And they see a rising prospect
of an early election that Mr Johnson is by
no means certain to win.
Third is the law to force the prime min-
ister to seek an extension if no deal is
reached by October 19th. For all Mr John-
son’s threats to ignore it, euleaders expect
that, without an agreed deal, they will in-
deed be asked to extend the deadline. And
although many are fed up with Brexit and
would need a good reason for yet another
extension, nobody is likely to veto one, if
only because the euwants to avoid any
blame for no-deal. For the same reason,
suggestions that Mr Johnson might scup-
per an extension by threatening to behave
badly, refusing to nominate a commission-
er or asking a friendly leader to block one,
are unlikely to prove correct. If no-deal
happens, the euwants it to be clear that it is
by British choice, not by necessity.
A similar argument is heard against Mr
Johnson’s repeated claims that the euwill
give him what he wants only at the last mi-
nute if he credibly threatens no-deal. The
eudoes not function with a gun at its head,
says one diplomat, adding that in this case
the gun is anyway pointed at Mr Johnson
himself. It is true that nobody wants no-
deal, which would damage European ex-
porters as well as Britain. But euleaders
value even more the interests of Ireland,
the integrity of the single market and the
laws underpinning it, and the need not to
be seen giving in to bullying.
What will happen when the European
Council meets in Brussels on October 17th?
It seems clear that there will not be a British
election beforehand, so euleaders know
they will be facing Mr Johnson for the first
(and, some hope, last) time. Some dip-
lomats fear that he might produce a pro-
posal only at the meeting in hopes of
bouncing the summit into agreement rath-
er than risk a no-deal outcome. Yet without
proper preparation, summits are not good
places to conduct detailed negotiations.
Instead, the leaders are likely to offer to ex-
tend the October 31st deadline to the end of
January—and then wait for an election.
Mr Johnson’s team still insists Brexit
will happen on October 31st. Yet a deal is a
long way off. And Parliament’s interven-
tion means a no-deal Brexit then also looks
unlikely. The prime minister seems to
want to fight an election in which he styles
himself as the champion of the people
against an anti-Brexit establishment, a cat-
egory into which Brexiteers now lump the
courts, along with Parliament, the civil ser-
vice, the Bank of England and others.
He may win on such a platform, al-
though the polls are volatile. But if he does,
he will face the same demands in Brussels.
Only if he comes up with a credible, legal
alternative to the Irish backstop that can
pass in Westminster will he get a Brexit
deal. It will still be a tall order. 7J
ohn bercowwas tearful when he
announced his decision to retire on
October 31st, or at a general election if
that comes sooner. But as a connoisseur
of political theatre he must have relished
the rest of the day. mps spent much of it
singing his praises, sometimes in the
most unctuous terms. Then at 2.30am, as
Black Rod ceremonially prorogued Par-
liament, mps tried to pin Mr Bercow to
his chair, wielding placards saying “Si-
lenced”. The Speaker reluctantly went
along with the ceremony, but not before
denouncing the prorogation as a consti-
tutional abomination. Someone placed a
“Silenced” placard on his empty chair.
Mr Bercow has built up a following, at
home and abroad, in his ten years in the
Speaker’s chair, the longest stint since
the war. A diminutive figure, he nonethe-
less dominated the House of Commons
through force of personality and sheer
lung-power. He enjoyed elongating
words (“Orrrdurrr”), using Dickensian
phrases (“chuntering from a sedentary
position”) and calling on obscure mps
with odd names (“Mr Peter Bone!”).
But he has been a divisive Speaker as
well as a colourful one. He is accused of
bullying his underlings and then, last
year, frustrating an investigation into his
behaviour (he denies wrongdoing). He
has empowered mps, creating chances
for them to interrogate ministers; in his
farewell speech he described himself as
the “backbenchers’ backstop”. During the
recent Brexit frenzy he stopped the gov-
ernment ramming its policies through
the legislature. Yet his critics say he is an
anti-Brexit partisan, willing to tear up
precedent and ignore expert advice.
Almost all the mps who sang his praises
this week belonged to the opposition.
There is no doubt that Mr Bercow is a
Remainer. But the accusation of left-
wing bias is debatable. He was originally
elected as a Tory. The theme of his speak-
ership has been support for mps, not forLabour. Before the referendum he cham-
pioned the rights of pro-Brexit Tory
backbenchers. This week’s ruling by the
Scottish courts against proroguing Par-
liament lends independent support to
his view of the matter. The problem is
not Mr Bercow but the way the referen-
dum is testing all Britain’s institutions.
The Conservative Party is nonetheless
so fed up with Mr Bercow that it intended
to break with convention by contesting
his seat, Buckingham (a safe Tory con-
stituency), at the next election. His deci-
sion to retire not only deprives the Tories
of the pleasure of taking his scalp. It also
ensures that the job of appointing his
successor will fall to this parliament,
with its resurgent anti-government
alliance, rather than the next.
Nine candidates are vying to replace
him, including Sir Lindsay Hoyle, his
deputy, and Harriet Harman, the Mother
of the House. Whoever wins must deal
with the bullying and abuse that has
plagued the House for so long and which
Mr Bercow, for all his Brexit heroics,
failed to tackle.Speaker muted
ParliamentThe government at last unseats the Speaker who helped mps to foil its Brexit plansOusted from his sedentary position