The Observer - 11.08.2019

• The Observer
  Comment & Analysis 11.08.19 43

Only once since 1945 has a

British prime minister been evicted as a result of a

successful no-confi dence vote in parliament. That was

on 28 March 1979 , one of the most dramatic nights in

modern parliamentary history. After many months of

struggling for its life, Jim Callaghan’s battered minority

Labour government faced a confi dence vote brought

by the Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher. It was

nerve-shreddingly close. The Callaghan government

lost by just one vote. Once the tellers for each side had

marched up in front of the Speaker and read the result,

there was uproar, during which Tories cheered with

delight and some Labour left wingers sang The Red Flag.

Callaghan then got up to the dispatch box to make a

brief and dignifi ed statement in which he declared “we

shall take our case to the country” at an election that he

promised to hold “as soon as possible”. This would be an

election that Callaghan had concluded, rightly, that he

was going to lose.

In strict law, he didn’t have to do that. The requirement

that an election must be called by a government that

has lost a confi dence vote was “a fi rm convention”

rather than solid legislation , as are the understandings

that a government won’t unreasonably delay an

election and will not do anything contentious once a

campaign is under way. When people refer to the British

constitution, they are talking about a hotch-potch of

such conventions, combined with ancient charters,

precedents, international agreements, legislative bolt-

ons and unwritten understandings. The fabric of this

messy tapestry is held together by a crucial thread.

That is an underlying assumption that everyone can be

trusted to behave in a proper way. In the absence of a

formal constitution, British democracy is heavily reliant

on politicians acting with honour and playing fair.

What if they don’t? What happens then? We may be

about to fi nd out if Boris Johnson faces a no-confi dence

vote this autumn, loses, refuses to quit as prime minister

and barricades himself in Number 10 for long enough to

force through a no-deal Brexit before an election can take

place. This is a scenario so grotesque as to be scarcely

believable. That doesn’t make it an impossible one.

The suggestion that they could take this sensationally

reckless course seems to have originated with

Number 10’s de facto chief of staff, Dominic Cummings.

Some regard him as the second most powerful person

in this government and others suggest he is the most

powerful. I don’t know about that, but I do know that a

man who has been held in contempt of parliament is no

respecter of conventions. He reportedly told a meeting

of special advis ers that the mission of this government

is to take Britain out of the EU on 31 October “by any

means necessary ”. That’s a phrase loaded with menace

because it was made notorious by Malcolm X to suggest

that anything was justifi ed, including violence, in the

pursuit of justice for black Americans. I am sure Dom X

is not advocating violence of the physical variety, but it

does suggest that he might not be averse to infl icting

GBH on constitutional norms. This would apparently

include Boris Johnson refusing to leave Number 10 even

if his government lost a Commons no-confi dence vote,

and turning himself into the world’s most extraordinary

squatter in order to delay polling day until after

31 October. That would make it impossible to stop a

crash-out Brexit in the middle of an election campaign,

possibly even on election day itself, and even if the

country was about to vote for a different outcome.

Now it is possible that Dom X has put this out as a

piece of misdirection. It could be an elaborate feint from

a government composed of many bluffers. Putting this

threat into circulation might be intended to convince

MPs, especially dissident Tories, that it won’t get them

anywhere if they try to prevent a no-deal Brexit by

voting to collapse the Johnson government. It could also

be part of the scheme to convince European leaders

that they can’t rely on the British parliament being able

to stop a no-deal Brexit, so the y had better offer some

concessions if they want to prevent a crash-out that will

hurt them as well as Britain. Sham it could be, but it will

be best to prepare for the possibility that Mr Johnson

could try this one on and to remember that some threats

start out as a bluff, only to end up becoming a reality.

A calamity Brexit will be diffi cult. No one can say

with certainty whether it will be merely rough or

utterly catastrophic, but

even members of this

Brexiter-dominated

cabinet acknowledge that

there will be what they

coyly describe as “bumps

in the road”. It will be

astonishingly dangerous

if Britain is driven down

this perilous highway by

a prime minister installed

without reference to the

country, who has lost a

confi dence vote and timed

a no-deal Brexit for the

middle of an election campaign when senior politicians

will be on battle buses, the civil service parked in neutral

and the identity of the next government unknown.

How could such a hideous mockery of democracy even

be possible? Here we must take a deep breath and dive

into the murky waters of the Fixed-term Parliaments

Act of 2011. That title gives this legislation a patina of

solidity that is very misleading. This law, invented during

the coalition years as a mechanism to lock the Tories

and Lib Dems into their partnership, is full of voids and

ambiguities. It is a superb example of an important

constitutional change being improvised into existence

without thinking through all the potential consequences.

If a government loses a confi dence vote, the law allows 14

days for either the prime minister to regain a Commons

majority or for someone else to assemble one. If no one

can, there is then an election, the date of which is to

some extent set at the prime minister’s discretion. The

law is mute on whether Mr Johnson is entitled to hole

himself up at Number 10 during that fortnight and time

the election so that Britain will have crashed out of the

EU before the people get to vote. Labour has called this

“an abuse of power” and asked the cabinet secretary to

give an opinion. Sir Mark Sedwill is thought to agree that

it would be an abuse , but even if he did make that ruling,

it is not clear how he could enforce it.

John McDonnell has suggested that Jeremy Corbyn

will simply oust Mr Johnson by asserting a right to form

a Labour government. The shadow chancellor’s cunning

plan is to hail a taxi. “I would be sending Jeremy Corbyn

in a cab to Buckingham Palace to say ‘we’re taking over’.”

That would be a wasted fare. The Queen’s offi cials would

tell Mr Corbyn that, much as she enjoyed their last chat

about his allotment, he only becomes prime minister

in these circumstances if he can demonstrate that he

commands a majority in the Commons.

The other suggestion, on which

the Lib Dems are especially keen, is that some as yet

unidentifi ed senior MP should take over at the head of

a multi party “letter-writing government”. This would be

formed for the sole purpose of asking the EU to delay

Brexit until Britain has held an election. The EU would

almost certainly grant such a request since it has said

that there can be a postponement for “a democratic

event ”. The trouble with a “letter-writing” government

is that putting it together would be like trying to resolve

Rubik’s Cube while blindfolded. Before he advised her

to appoint a new prime minister, the Queen’s private

secretary would want to be utterly confi dent that the

chief letter-writer could command a Commons majority.

Labour is insistent that any alternative government

must have Mr Corbyn as its leader. There is no

conceivable parliamentary majority for installing him at

Number 10, even on a temporary basis. There are other

things MPs can do if they have the will and the numbers,

though none is easy and some would be political

dynamite. They could take control of parliament’s

agenda in order to declare a revocation of article 50.

They could rush through changes to the relevant laws to

ensure that an election happened before 31 October.

All possible solutions depend on there being

suffi cient Conservative MPs capable of remembering

that Britain’s democratic fabric relies not so much on

laws as assumptions that people will behave properly.

The word unprecedented is overused, but not in

this case. If Britain crashes out of the EU in the middle

of an election campaign deliberately delayed by a

prime minister with no mandate, it won’t just be the

constitution that will be plunged into the darkest crisis

of our modern history.

Andrew

Rawnsley

Mr Johnson’s plot to subvert democracy

is more dangerous than Brexit itself

(^) @andrewrawnsley
Dominic
Cummings:
‘I am sure he is
not advocating
violence of the
physical variety,
but he might
not be averse to
infl icting GBH
on constitutional
norms.’
ПОДГОТОВИЛА
ГРУППА
"What's News"
VK.COM/WSNWS