50 Britain The EconomistOctober 5th 2019
2 plan, he will have no alternative but to
leave with no deal on October 31st. And al-
though that may be bad for Britain, it will
also hurt the eu, especially Ireland.
Yet in Brussels neither argument seems
convincing. The euknows that Mr Johnson
has no parliamentary majority. He cannot
rely even on his own Tory mps, since some
hardliners prefer no-deal to anything else.
This means he needs at least some Labour
backing to pass any deal. And although
there are Labour mps who share the Tories’
desire to “get Brexit done”, and many are
nervous about no-deal, few will want to
rescue a prime minister whom they mis-
trust as a populist popinjay.
As for no-deal, everyone is aware of Mr
Johnson’s repeated promises to take Brit-
ain out of the euon October 31st, “do or die”.
His ministers loyally repeated this pledge
in Manchester. Mr Johnson himself argued
forcefully against any further dither or de-
lay. Yet Brussels also understands the
terms of the Benn act that was passed by
Parliament last month. This requires the
prime minister to seek the agreement of
the euto a three-month extension of the
deadline if, by October 19th, he has neither
secured a deal nor won parliamentary ap-
proval for a no-deal Brexit.January is the new October
Mr Johnson says he will obey the law, but
he also insists that Britain will leave the eu
on October 31st, whatever happens. These
two positions are clearly in conflict. Hence
a favourite parlour game at the Tory confer-
ence: to hunt for loopholes in what Mr
Johnson likes to call the “Surrender Act”.
Some suggest he might formally ask for an
extension but secretly tell Brussels he does
not want one. Or he could invite other eu
governments to refuse an extension, so as
to exert more pressure on mps to accept a
deal. He might invoke an emergency under
the Civil Contingencies Act, to suspend the
law. Some ministers claimed there was a
secret wheeze to get round the Benn act,
but that it was confidential.
Yet one of the act’s authors, Dominic
Grieve, a former Tory attorney-general, in-
sists its drafting is legally watertight. He
characterises the suggested tricks to try to
get round it as “far-fetched and reputation-
ally catastrophic”. He and his supporters,
who have a majority in Parliament, are
ready to legislate again if need be. They
would go to court at the slightest hint that
Mr Johnson might flout their law. Some
even talk of passing a “humble address” to
invite the queen to sack her prime minister
in such circumstances.
Any extension of the October 31st dead-
line would be a humiliation for Mr John-
son, which is why some suggest he should
resign instead. Yet there could be ways to
turn matters to his advantage. One idea is
to attach a confirmatory referendum tosome version of a Brexit deal, which might
win over a majority of mps. But the prime
minister is averse to the notion of a second
vote. He would prefer a general election
which, after being forced against his will to
request an extension, he could fight under
the banner of backing the people who vot-
ed to leave the euagainst an establishment
determined to stand in their way.
The obstacle to this is the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act. This requires a two-
thirds majority of mps to vote in favour of
any early dissolution of Parliament. The ef-
fect has been to give the Labour opposition
a veto over the prime minister’s repeated
calls for an early general election. The iro-
ny that it was a Conservative-led govern-
ment, under David Cameron, that passed
this particular piece of legislation is surely
not lost on Mr Johnson. 7T
rueto form, Britain’stabloidnews-
papers have been revelling in the
Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s ten-day
tour of southern Africa, which came to
an end on October 2nd. The flattering
headlines—“Meg me smile”, “Royals
Duchy Feely in Africa” and “Tutu cute for
words” (after baby Archie high-fived
Archbishop Desmond Tutu)—came thick
and fast, alongside pictures of Meghan
meeting young fans. “She stunned in a
cream midi shirt dress and statement
heels,” gushed a typical account.
But the real stunner came from Prince
Harry. The day before the tour’s end he
launched an attack on the very same
tabloids, accusing them of waging a
“ruthless campaign” against Meghan
that threatened to repeat the tragedy of
his mother’s death. Princess Diana died
in a car crash in 1997, aged 36, after being
pursued by paparazzi. As for Meghan, “I
have been a silent witness to her private
suffering for too long,” Harry wrote.
Royal-watchers agree that the couple
have had a bad run of stories since their
wedding last year. Being skewered overthe£2.4m($3m)oftaxpayerfundsspent
renovating their house particularly
rankled. But the timing of Harry’s state-
ment, during their successful African
tour, was unwise, says Dickie Arbiter, a
former press secretary for the queen. It is
thought that the statement took the press
office at Buckingham Palace by surprise.
First among the accused newspapers
is the Mail on Sunday, which Meghan is
suing for copyright infringement, mis-
use of private information and violating
data-protection law. In February the
1.2m-circulation tabloid published ex-
cerpts from a handwritten letter to her
estranged father, Thomas Markle. Her
letter asked him to stop talking to the
media. But the reason the missive was
known about was that Meghan’s close
friends had talked about it to People, an
American celebrity magazine. Mr Markle
then shared the letter with the Mail.
The Sussexes might go all the way to
court, and win. English law decrees that
the author of a letter retains ownership
of its content, regardless of who pos-
sesses the piece of paper. Harry also
charges the Mail on Sundaywith selecting
from the missive to mislead readers. The
paper says it stands by its story and that it
will defend the case “vigorously”.
What worries tabloids more than the
copyright issue is that Meghan might
win on privacy grounds. That would be
important for all papers, “because every
two-bob celebrity would use that to
assert privacy rights against us,” says one
newspaper editor. Britain has no clear
privacy law, so precedent matters.
Not that the press is overly cowed by
Harry’s broadside. Editors say the Sus-
sexes are operating outside the royal
tradition of “never complain, never
explain”, and could be reined in. The case
may end up being settled out of court.
Meghan once played a paralegal in the
courtroom drama “Suits”, quips one
newspaper executive, “but does she want
to appear on the stand in real life?”Duke it out
Royals and the mediaPrince Harry accuses the tabloids of hounding his wife as they did his motherBattle royale