Wake up, Labour, as bumptious Boris’ days numbered at No 10
Will the opposition parties at Westminster be able to stop Boris Johnson delivering a no-deal Brexit, even if he is defeated in a motion of no confidence, asks chief reporter Martin Shipton
SINCE last weekend the details of Boris Johnson’s scheme for taking the UK out of the EU has been emerging.
What’s being planned by him and his senior advisers like former Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings is unprecedented in the democratic era.
The intention is that Mr Johnson would squat in 10 Downing Street even if opposition parties and Tory rebels managed to assemble the numbers to defeat him in a motion of no confidence.
Such a thought would not have entered the heads of previous Prime Ministers.
In 1979 Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan lost a confidence vote and immediately called a general election. He had no thought of carrying on, instinctively accepting that the game was up for his government.
Since then, of course, the Fixedterm Parliaments Act has come in, ostensibly for the purpose of allowing elected governments to run a full five-year term, and taking some power away from the incumbent Prime Minister.
Outside the five-year cycle, elections can only be held if two-thirds of MPs voting agree, or if a motion of no confidence is passed in the government.
Once such a motion has been passed, there is a period of 14 days during which attempts can be made to form a new government.
The idea has been mooted that a so-called government of national unity could be put together under a figure who would be able to command a majority in the House of Commons.
This could involve the likes of former Labour Cabinet ministers Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn, or the veteran former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke.
Such names have been mentioned rather than that of Jeremy Corbyn, because it would be seen as very
unlikely that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would be prepared to back him.
The reaction of Labour’s Shadow Cabinet to the idea of such a national unity government has not been encouraging.
Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey rather puzzlingly described the idea as a “get-out-ofjail” card for Mr Johnson.
Only after watching carefully her interview with Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman did it become apparent that Ms Long-Bailey thought such a cross-party government would have to include Mr Johnson.
She didn’t seem to realise that the whole purpose of setting up such a government would be to get Mr Johnson out of Downing Street – not to bolster his position there.
At this point it’s worth pausing to examine what would happen before any question of forming such a national unity government came into play. Unlike Mr Callaghan 40 years ago, Mr Johnson would aim to sit tight even if a motion of no confidence was passed.
According to Mr Cummings, who in another unprecedented feature of this situation appears to have permission to give on-the-record comments in his own right to journalists, there would be no reason for Mr Johnson to resign. Instead, he would be able to advise the Queen to let him call a general election for after October 31. When voting took place, the UK would already be outside the EU.
But Mr Cummings and his boss don’t necessarily have the constitution on their side, according to former Attorney General and leading Tory Remainer Dominic Grieve. For Mr Grieve, the thought that Mr Johnson could stay in Downing Street after a defeat on a no-confidence motion is inconceivable.
The point of allowing no-confidence motions is to allow Parliament to dismiss a Prime Minister and government if they no longer have majority support in the Commons.
With a stark binary choice between removing Mr Johnson and a no-deal Brexit, it is likely that most MPs would opt for the former.
In terms of precedent, he would be expected to go at once. If he refuses to go in such circumstances, Mr Grieve suggests that the Queen should sack him.
Politicians are almost invariably opposed to involving the Queen in political controversy, but Mr Grieve makes the point that the UK is a constitutional monarchy and that the monarch’s role is not purely decorative. If Mr Johnson refuses to quit, the Queen – prompted by advice from constitutional experts – could gently suggest to him that he should do so. It’s difficult to imagine him turning down such a request.
Once the hurdle of Mr Johnson’s intransigence has been demolished, the opposition forces would have 14 days in which to put together a new government. Pragmatically, the best way forward would be for such a government to be headed by a parliamentarian widely respected across the parties. The new government would have a limited mandate: to call a referendum or an election with the agreement of the EU. There is little doubt that a further extension to Article 50 would be acceptable to the EU if it was pegged to one of those two options.
The Labour leadership, however, seems inclined to oppose a government of national unity. Instead it wants Mr Corbyn to lead it: he is, after all, the official leader of the opposition.
Labour needs to wake up and smell the Nicaraguan Fair Trade Coffee. This is a crisis that requires the removal of the incumbent Prime Minister because he is threatening a no-deal Brexit with all its calamitous consequences. If Labour is on the wrong side of the argument, and helps enable such an outcome, it will not be forgiven quickly – or possibly at all.