After a leadership contest in the British Conservative Party that seemed to move at a snail’s pace over the two months since Prime Minister Theresa May announced on May 24 that she would resign as party leader on June 6, events this week moved very rapidly after the party’s 1922 Committee announced on Tuesday that Boris Johnson had, as expected, defeated Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt in the vote of the party’s members.
On Wednesday, after delivering a short farewell speech in front of 10 Downing Street, Theresa May was driven to Buckingham Palace and offered the Queen her resignation, after which Johnson was driven to the palace and invited to form a new government. After delivering a short speech in front of 10 Downing Street notable for its unambiguous words in regard to Brexit, Johnson entered the building for the first time as prime minister and, over the course of the next several hours, appointed the new government. And yesterday, with all of the Cabinet positions as well as a number of other positions in the new government filled, Johnson addressed the House of Commons and made it clear, yet again, that the UK will leave the EU on Oct. 31, with or without an approved withdrawal agreement.
Johnson’s victory over Hunt was hardly a surprise. In the fifth and final ballot of Conservative MPs on June 20 that narrowed the number of candidates for party leader, initially 10, to the two from whom the party members would select the leader by postal vote, Johnson received 160 votes, Hunt 77 votes, and Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, 75 votes. By the rules of the party’s two-stage process for selecting a new leader, Gove was eliminated and the choice reduced to Johnson vs. Hunt. A YouGov poll of nearly 900 Conservative Party members conducted before the MPs began voting made it clear the members, like the MPs, would prefer Johnson. Asked whether they thought each candidate would or would not be a good party leader, 77 per cent thought Johnson would be a good leader compared to 56 per cent for Hunt, while 19 per cent thought he would be a bad leader compared to 37 per cent for Hunt. In the postal vote announced Tuesday, 138,809 of the 158,820 members, 87.4 per cent, voted. Of those voting, 92,153, 66.4 per cent, voted for Johnson while 46,656 voted for Hunt.
After returning from Buckingham Palace to 10 Downing Street, Johnson delivered his first speech as prime minister, and in it he again made his position on the issue that brought him to power abundantly clear. “We are,” he said, “going to fulfil the repeated promises of Parliament to the people and come out of the EU on October 31, no ifs or buts. And we will do a new deal, a better deal that will maximize the opportunities of Brexit while allowing us to develop a new and exciting partnership with the rest of Europe, based on free trade and mutual support.” Speaking of the Union Jack, he said, “It stands for freedom and free speech and habeas corpus and the rule of law, and above all it stands for democracy. And that is why we will come out of the EU on October 31. Because in the end, Brexit was a fundamental decision by the British people that they wanted their laws made by people that they can elect and they can remove from office. And we must now respect that decision, and create a new partnership with our European friends.” In fact, of course, it was a hardly a decision by “the British people;” it was a decision by 37 per cent of the electorate – the 52 per cent of the 72 per cent of the electorate who participated in the June 23, 2016 referendum and voted to leave the EU.
In regard to the Irish “backstop” – the language in the 183-page Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contained in the 585-page withdrawal agreement negotiated by the EU and UK that is meant to ensure in all future circumstances the avoidance of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that is, without a doubt, the reason why the House rejected the agreement on three occasions – he said, “I say to our friends in Ireland, and in Brussels and around the EU: I am convinced that we can do a deal without checks at the Irish border, because we refuse under any circumstances to have such checks and yet without that anti-democratic backstop.” But, he said, “it is of course vital at the same time that we prepare for the remote possibility that Brussels refuses any further to negotiate, and we are forced to come out with no deal, not because we want that outcome – of course not – but because it is only common sense to prepare.”
Several ministers in Theresa May’s government were opposed to the possibility of a no-deal exit in which the UK would leave the EU without an approved withdrawal agreement. They understood that anyone serving in Johnson’s government would have to agree to support his position in that regard and therefore decided to resign from the government prior to Theresa May’s resignation. Most notably, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had consistently warned of the severe economic consequences of a no-deal exit, announced in a televised interview he would resign before Theresa May went to the palace. Others who resigned included Sir Alan Duncan, the Minister of State in the Foreign Office for Europe and the Americas; David Gauke, the Secretary of State for Justice; Rory Stewart, the Secretary of State for International Development; Damian Hinds, the Secretary of State for Education; James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government; and Anne Melton, the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills. In addition, David Lidington, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, in effect, the deputy prime minister, decided to return to the backbenches. Jeremy Hunt indicated to Johnson that he would like to continue as Foreign Secretary but Johnson had someone else in mind for the position and offered him only the lesser portfolio of Defence, so he too decided to return to the backbenches.
With the possible exception of Hunt’s, those departures from the government were anticipated. What was not anticipated was the large number of ministers who were sacked – so many that one Tory MP referred to it as the “massacre on a summer’s day.” Among the more prominent ones were Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade; Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for Defence; Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland; and Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In all, roughly 20 members of Theresa May’s government left, either voluntarily or otherwise.
The new government appointed by Johnson consists, first and foremost, of those who support his position in regard to Brexit – which is to say, leaving the EU on Oct. 31, with or without an approved agreement. Sajid Javid, Theresa May’s Home Secretary, who had been a managing director of Deutsche Bank, served as economic secretary and then financial secretary to the Treasury as well as in other positions in recent governments, and who supported Johnson after being eliminated himself in the voting for party leader, was named Chancellor of the Exchequer. Priti Patel, who had previously served as exchequer secretary to the Treasury, minister of employment, and minister of international development until she was involved in unauthorized meetings with the Israeli government in 2017, was appointed Home Secretary. Dominic Raab, who had served previously as minister for courts and justice, minister for housing and planning, and from July 2018, after David Davis resigned in the wake of the famous all-day Cabinet meeting at Chequers to discuss Brexit, as Secretary of State for Exiting the EU until he too resigned last November, was appointed Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State, signaling his rank as the most senior of the secretaries of state. Stephen Barclay, who replaced Raab last November as Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, is one of the few ministers who will continue in Johnson’s government in the same office he held in May’s government. Matt Hancock, the minister for health; Amber Rudd, the minister for work and pensions and women and equalities; and Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, are three others who will continue in the same offices they held in Theresa May’s government. Michael Gove, who has served in a variety of ministerial positions including education, justice and, most recently, environment, food and rural affairs, and was the last candidate for party leader to be eliminated before the members were asked to choose between Johnson and Hunt, was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and minister responsible for the Cabinet Office. Liz Truss, who served most recently as chief secretary of the Treasury, will serve as Secretary of State for International Trade. And Andrea Leadsom, most recently the Leader of the House, will serve as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
All things considered – and obviously without endorsing Johnson’s position in regard to Brexit – one would have to say his government consists for the most part – at least at the level of the Cabinet – of individuals who come to their positions with considerable prior experience in government, including several individuals – most notably, Raab, Barclay and Cox – who have a good deal of experience in dealing with the EU in regard to Brexit, and several others – most notably, Javid, Patel, Truss, and Leadsom – who have considerable ministerial experience in dealing with economic policy. Perhaps the only somewhat bizarre appointment is that of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the president of the European Research Group of the hardline backbench Brexiters whose mannerisms and style of speech once led someone to refer to him as the “Honorable Member for the 18th century,” as the Leader of the House. But although he has no prior ministerial experience, his appointment nevertheless makes some sense; how better to keep the hardline Brexiteers who made life so difficult for Theresa May and ultimately drove her out of office on board than by bringing their leader into the Cabinet and giving him the task of organizing the work of the House – and making sure the party’s MPs support the government?
Yesterday, in his first speech as prime minister in the House of Commons – a speech filled with hyperbole about making the UK “the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe” by 2050 – Johnson repeated what he had said the day before in Downing Street – that the first step is “to restore trust in our democracy and fulfil the repeated promises of Parliament to the people by coming out of the European Union – and doing so on October 31st. I and all ministers in this government are committed to leaving on this date, whatever the circumstances…I would prefer us to leave the EU with a deal. I would much prefer it. I believe that is still possible even at this late stage and I will work flat out to make it happen. But certain things need to be clear. The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by my predecessor has been three time rejected by this House. Its terms are unacceptable to this Parliament and to this country. No country that values its independence and indeed its self-respect could agree to a Treaty which signed away our economic independence and self-government as this backstop does. A time limit is not enough. If an agreement is to be reached it must be clearly understood that the way to the deal goes by way of the abolition of the backstop. For our part we are ready to negotiate in good faith an alternative, with provisions to ensure that the Irish border issues are dealt with where they should always have been: in the negotiations on the future agreement between the UK and the EU…. I, my team, and my Right Honorable Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union are ready to meet and to talk on this basis to the Commission or other EU colleagues whenever they are ready to do so.”
There are only two problems with Johnson’s plan to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement and remove the Irish backstop or, failing that, leave the EU without a deal on Oct. 31. For one thing, the EU has made it very clear, on any number of occasions, that the 585-page withdrawal agreement that includes within it the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol can’t be renegotiated. The EU has said, on many occasions, that it would be quite willing to reopen discussion and negotiation of the 26-page non-binding political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, and it is at least theoretically possible that language could be included in it that would make it clear that the Irish backstop will never come into play. But there is no reason to think the EU will reopen negotiation of the withdrawal agreement and eliminate the unambiguous commitment, conveyed by the backstop, to ensure that the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic remains open in all future circumstances. And if it does not, Johnson would have no alternative, given his frequently-repeated promise to leave on Oct. 31 with or without an agreement, to leave without one.
But attempting to leave without an approved agreement would present a second problem – the fact that, if the EU refuses to reopen the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement and amend or remove the backstop and the government decides to leave on Oct. 31 without an approved agreement, the Parliament will undoubtedly prevent that from happening. During the course of the three debates and votes on the agreement this spring, it became apparent that there is a clear majority in the House of Commons that is opposed to leaving without an approved agreement. And lest one think that problem could be finessed, as some Conservatives have suggested, by proroguing the Parliament – that is, terminating the session of Parliament in order to prevent a vote blocking a no-deal exit – as became apparent in a vote in the House last week, there is also a majority opposed to prorogation.
And notwithstanding all the hyperbole in Johnson’s speech yesterday about creating a country that is “the greatest place on earth” and will have “the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe” by 2050, the fact remains that he not only presides over a minority government but one that, even with its confidence and supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, will have, after next Thursday’s by-election in Brecon and Radnorshire, a working majority in the House of zero! There are currently 311 Conservative MPs and 10 DUP MPs in the 650-seat House. The seven Sinn Féin MPs do not participate and the Speaker does not vote, and there is one vacant seat - the one for Brecon and Radnorshire previously held by a Conservative MP who was dismissed after a successful recall petition in the wake of his guilty plea to charges of claiming false expenses. Jane Dodds, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Wales, is running for the seat with the support of the Plaid Cymru, Greens, and Change UK group and is expected to win by a large margin. If that happens, the Conservatives will have a working majority in the House of zero (321 Conservatives and DUP MPs; 321 all other MPs minus the seven Sinn Féin and the Speaker). The notion that Johnson’s government would prevail in a vote to leave without a deal is illusory, given the absence of a working majority and the significant number of Tories who would vote against that.
So what is likely to happen? Confronted by the EU’s continued refusal to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement, the government could, of course, decide to leave the EU on Oct. 31 without a deal. But that decision would be opposed and defeated in the House and probably provoke a vote of confidence and lead to a new election in which the Conservatives would be soundly defeated. Confronted by the prospect that a majority in the House would block a no-deal exit, the government could, of course, decide to prorogue the House. But that decision would create a constitutional crisis and would surely trigger a vote of no confidence and a new election with a similar outcome. Faute de mieux, as Rees-Mogg would say, the best – indeed, perhaps only – alternative at this point may be to take up the EU’s offer to discuss and renegotiate the non-binding political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and UK and hope that, through artful prose, the backstop issue can be finessed and, with that, the hardline Brexiters can be persuaded to support the withdrawal agreement and enable the UK to leave the EU on Oct. 31, as Johnson promised, and, even better, to leave with an approved agreement.
As distasteful as the latter alternative may be to some hardline Brexiters, it has one significant advantage. It would in all likelihood enable Johnson to subsequently call an election in which he and the Conservatives, having delivered on their promise to leave the EU and having done so with an approved withdrawal agreement rather than a no-deal exit, would enjoy a sweeping victory that would secure for them a safe majority in the House for years to come.
David R. Cameron is a professor of political science and the director of the Yale Program in European Union Studies.