Section:GDN 1J PaGe:2 Edition Date:190830 Edition:03 Zone: Sent at 29/8/2019 22:30 cYanmaGentaYellowbla
••• The Guardian Fr iday 30 Aug ust 20192
Opponents of no deal now have
precious few moves they can make.
I remain sceptical of parliament’s capacity,
even at this last ditch, to stop Johnson’s antics. Its past
handling of Brexit has been so casual, so half-hearted
and so mired in tribalism as to render it an inadequate
custodian of the national interest. Today’s MPs serve
merely as an electoral college of government, and a
poor one at that. As a collective, as a coherent political
force, MPs just do not exist.
Hence the opposition’s “legislative route” to blocking
no deal , much trumpeted last week, remains obscure.
Anyway, there is no time. The alternative path of a no
confi dence vote followed by a general election would
come too late to avert Brexit on 31 October. It would
probably lead to a hung parliament – not t o mention the
break-up of the UK – but by then, having crashed out
without a deal, the nation would be out of the EU and
the single market. Heaven knows what will ensue.
The truth is that only one person (or two people)
can avert a no -deal Brexit, and that is the Johnson-
Cummings duumvirate who have backed it as a
serious option for Britain’s future trade with the
outside world. Britain is, as the Tory politician Quintin
Hogg once remarked, an “ elective dictatorship ”. It has
traditionally relied on dictators honouring precedent,
dignity and proportionality. Most have. Johnson has
not, but he clearly does not care. There is a Gatsby
quality to him, of rich people having a good time as
they “ smashed up things and creatures ... and let other
people clean up the mess they had made”. That is
the fate of all nations that put their faith in unwritten
constitutions. They are vulnerable to rogues.T
he irony of the latest turn of events
is that, at the end of last week,
faint shafts of light were emerging
through the media miasma that
passes for accountability under
the Johnson-Cummings regime.
Downing Street let it be known that
May’s withdrawal agreement might
after all be acceptable, if only the open-ended Irish
backstop could be removed. Brussels in return let
it be known that Johnson’s new Whitehall sherpa,
David Frost, was in town , and that the backstop
was the issue under discussion.
Limiting the open-ended nature of the backstop
Johnson says is undemocratic would release him
from his red line. It could be replaced by a time-limited
one that crucially would be subject to parliamentary
veto, and thus rendered democratic. This would
enable the UK to withdraw in October on the basis
of May’s deal. It would of course mean kicking the
single-market issue down the road, but Brussels could
not dictate the road’s length as before. As for another
crisis two years ahead, we would at least be out of
the EU, and tempers might have cooled. There might
even be a new government.
Mooted alternatives – or add-ons – to a shift on the
backstop include short-term sectoral deals, notably
on agri-foods and medicines : a so-called standstill
agreement to ensure that nothing changes on 31
October. This would enable the Irish border to be
left open at least for now, rendering the backstop
unnecessary. Though it would curb the scope for third-
country deals involving these products, if Dublin’s
Leo Varadkar were happy, so might be Brussels. Again
Johnson could claim to have achieved Brexit with a
deal. Parliament would surely agree.
The best news of all was Nigel Farage’s response to
these rumours at the weekend. Farage has his spies, and
clearly saw warning lights ahead. He exploded with fury
at his London Emmanuel Centre rally. To enrage Farage
stands to Johnson’s credit, for the moment.
I still think the old withdrawal agreement is not
dead. I still regard it as an honourable referendum
compromise. The Irish backstop could be diluted. The
UK could leave the EU. The single market, however
battered, could survive to fi ght another day. Johnson
could claim a sort of victory and go into an election with
a nation traumatised but sane. But then I am a member
of the optimism party. Is Johnson?Boris Johnson has no public mandate and was chosen
to be Tory party leader by just 0.14% of Britain’s
population. A previous Tory politician, the former lord
chancellor Lord Hailsham, thought governments with
small majorities did not refl ect wide enough support
in the country and hence were undemocratic. His
phrase was “elective dictatorship ”. Mr Johnson hasn’t
even got that. He threatens an unelective dictatorship,
with a majority of one – which relies on 10 MPs from
Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist party.
The prime minister has been undeterred by this
democratic defi cit and his lack of parliamentary
strength, though his defence secretary was caught
on camera frankly conceding the weakness of the
government grip’s on power. However much he pretends
otherwise, Mr Johnson doesn’t have the votes for a “bold
and ambitious domestic legislative agenda” or for any
kind of Brexit bill. The UK’s “unwritten” constitution
relies heavily on self-regulation, on understandings
and assumptions more than hard rules. However, Mr
Johnson is playing the part of a populist politician, one
characterised not just by a lack of regard for the more
traditional conventions of the political system, but one
who aims to make a positive virtue out of this disdain.
Hence this week the prime minister exercised
royal prerogative powers to diminish parliamentary
sovereignty. These powers are not extraordinary but the
manner and the timing of their use are. A large part of
the power of the executive is its control of parliamentary
business, including the timing of a Queen’s speech. ButThe length of Hong Kong’s protests has become as
remarkable as their breadth of participation. As many
as one in four inhabitants ha ve taken to the streets and
this week – two and a half months after the movement
began – it became the longest-running political protest
since the handover. But the longer the demonstrations
go on, the harder it has become to see a way out.
This month, following the occupation of the airport,
both police and activists stepped down their tactics.
The resulting period of peace, which included a march
by 1.7 million people, gave authorities an opportunity
to look for a way out of the impasse. To no one’s great
surprise, they did not take it. Though most protest ers
still shun violence, escalation has resumed , with a
policeman fi ring a live round during clashes for the fi rst
time and some on the streets lobbing molotov cocktails.
A ban on what was expected to be another huge
march tomorrow has raised tensions further despite
hopes that a compromise could still be found.
Meanwhile, there are suggestions that authorities
might invoke the Emergency Regulations Ordinance ,
a colonial-era law giving the chief executive sweeping
powers of censorship, suppression of publications
and communications, arrests, deportations and
property seizures. Rumours suggest the government
may be testing the waters, with a view to specifi c actions
such as introducing internet censorship. The spectre
of a still grimmer outcome looms.
Activists have diversifi ed their approach to maintain
momentum. Last week saw a 30-mile human chain.in acting to prorogue parliament for fi ve weeks, Mr
Johnson removes the opportunity for parliament
to hold the government to account on the brink of a
momentous constitutional change. Brexit, if not done
in a constitutionally correct and refl ective manner,
risks undermining the relationship between the
component nations of the UK as well as irreparably
damaging the UK’s relationship with the European
Union. Mr Johnson says he aims to negotiate a new
deal at next month’s EU council, then introduce a
withdrawal agreement bill and secure its parliamentary
passage before 31 October. The prime minister is
fooling no one in claiming that he can do in two
months what Theresa May could not do in two years.
More plausible is that he’ll press ahead, if necessary,
with a no-deal Brexit against the express wishes of
the Commons. This is an aff ront to democracy.
The sovereignty of parliament ought to be upheld,
not least because it is the principle Brexiters said
they wanted to preserve. Mr Johnson’s move has
united his opponents in righteous indignation. Since
arriving in offi ce he has not shown he can command
a Commons majority. He ought to prove he can do so.
Perhaps he can. It would be hard for MPs to displace
the prime minister. If Mr Johnson lost a confi dence
motion, he could abandon no-deal to try to regain
MPs’ confi dence. Failing that, unless an alternative
government is formed, a general election would
follow. There are other options. Parliament could
legislate to require the government to seek and accept
a further extension to the article 50 period. The
government’s opponents have been committed – in
theory – to stopping no-deal by any parliamentary
means necessary. In practice, their opposition is often
found deep in the political long grass, kicked there by
a lack of enthusiasm for working across ideological
divides and party lines. To stop no-deal, MPs must
adopt some Johnsonian ruthlessness and be ready
to bring down the prime minister and put someone
else, probably Jeremy Corbyn, in his place.They hope to keep the pressure up with a class
boycott when schools and universities resume next
week and another mass event on the extremely
sensitive date of 1 October – when the Communist
party will celebrate the 70th anniversary of its rule.
But the durability of this movement owes at least
as much to its opponents as to its supporters. Despite
the unfounded accusations of foreign meddling, this
crisis was made in China. Authorities may have hoped
that a campaign of attrition would gradually wear
out protest ers. But Beijing’s threats, Carrie Lam’s
intransigence and tone-deaf public statements, and
police brutality have so far fi red up those already
involved and brought more into the fold.
A campaign triggered by the extradition bill
has become far broader. More than three-quarters
of the city’s population now oppose Ms Lam as
chief executive – a record low for a leader in its
post-colonial history. When campaigning for
the job she insisted that she would resign if the
mainstream view so dictated. Now she says it
is her responsibility to continue to hold the fort
which is disintegrating around her. She has made
no concessions since announcing the bill “dead”,
though even pro-establishment fi gures have urged
her to withdraw it formally and hold an independent
inquiry into the police handling of the unrest. The
assumption is that the choice is not hers to make.
Protest ers took vague proposals of dialogue as simply
a stalling tactic and she herself insists that she will
not budge on their demands.
The G7 was right to reaffi rm the importance of the
Sino-British joint declaration – which guaranteed
that Hong Kong’s way of life would be maintained
until 2047 – in its joint statement from the Biarritz
summit. Beijing reacted with predictable hostility ,
but other countries should not be deterred. The
risks are real and the people of Hong Kong have
very little on their side. They need the international
community’s attention and support. Continued from frontHong Kong’s protesters
are not giving up. Their
leaders are not giving way
China
Brexit
MPs must be able to check
an unelective dictatorship
at times of national crisis
Founded 1821 Independently owned by the Scott Trust No 53, 813
‘Comment is free... but facts are sacred’ CP Scott
Only one person can avert a
no-deal Brexit: Boris Johnson
Simon Jenkins
RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws