Philip Johnston:

Why would the opposition parties give the PM an election, even after forcing him to extend Article 50?

Shortly after 11am next Monday, the Queen will leave Buckingham Palace in the State Coach for the short journey along the Mall and down Whitehall for the umpteenth time in her long and illustrious reign to open a new session of Parliament. This is assuming that the climate change “crusties”, as Boris Johnson called them, have been cleared away from the route. Perhaps the approaching rumble of the Household Cavalry’s Sovereign’s Escort will encourage them to move aside if the police have not already broken up their camp by then. It also assumes that the Government is even in office next Monday.

With everything else that is going on – Brexit unresolved, a critical EU summit looming, the Prime Minister under siege and without a majority in Parliament – her Majesty would be entitled to ask herself along the way “what is the point of this?” and turn back. She won’t, of course, because it is her duty to open Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister.

But this is the first time since 1924 that the monarch has been asked to read out a government’s policy programme in the expectation that it will be voted down or amended. In fact, even in 1924, Stanley Baldwin, the Conservative prime minister who had lost his majority in the general election a few weeks earlier, thought the Liberals might support him because the alternative was a Left-wing Labour government led by Ramsay Macdonald.

Given this was just a few years after the Russian Revolution and Macdonald was considered a dangerous Bolshevik, Baldwin thought this was a risk the opposition would not take. But as the Liberal deputy leader Sir John Simon told the Commons in the debate on the King’s Speech, he was prepared to find out “whether the advent of the Labour government, without a Labour majority in the House, really does mean steering for ‘red ruin and the breaking up of laws.’”

The Liberals accordingly defeated the King’s Speech and Baldwin resigned, whereupon Macdonald became prime minister in charge of a minority Labour administration which was prevented from doing anything because it could not get its policies through the House. It was brought down later in the year and the Conservatives won a landslide majority in the subsequent election.

History repeats itself. The Queen’s Speech vote is likely to be held on October 21, just days after whatever deal Mr Johnson achieves at the EU summit in Brussels on October 18 must be put to MPS. After yesterday’s acrimonious cross-channel exchanges, the chances are receding but it still cannot be ruled out. This is the brinkmanship you would expect in the final stages of negotiations where one side or the other has to give way if an agreement is to be reached. If he gets a deal, Parliament will be under massive pressure to agree and end this torment.

But let us assume there isn’t one. In that case Mr Johnson must request an extension to the UK’S membership until January 31. The law requires this and the Government has given an unambiguous undertaking that it will be obeyed. Some MPS say the so-called Benn Act is unconstitutional because it was rushed through Parliament. But it was given Royal Assent on September 9. La Reyne le Veult. It is the law whatever they say.

Moreover, it is not possible under a constitutional convention known as the Padfield principle for the Government to try to get round it and wilfully subvert Parliament’s wishes by, for instance, sending another letter undermining the first.

Unlike the Supreme Court ruling on prorogation, this involves the executive refusing to abide by the provisions of a statute. The law here is clear. Mr Johnson could refuse to request an extension but the courts would insist that he does. But perhaps it suits his purpose if the judges force his hand and feed the People v Establishment narrative he has nurtured.

Whatever the rationale, unless he resigns, Mr Johnson must do something he has said he would rather die in a ditch to avoid and keep the UK in the EU after October 31. Straight after that, the Queen’s Speech will be put to a vote which his own ministers expect to lose.

Then what? Is there a plan for these circumstances? Insofar as one can be divined, the assumption is that an election will be triggered, Mr Johnson will go to the country blaming everyone from Brussels to the courts and Parliament for thwarting the will of the people, and will be propelled to victory on a tidal wave of popular frustration with a broken political system and armed with a mandate to leave the EU without a deal. The Queen’s Speech is essentially the opening shot in the domestic campaign, with policies on social care, post-brexit economic regeneration and a boost to the incomes of low-paid workers expected to feature prominently.

But what if there isn’t an early election? It is no longer in the Prime Minister’s gift to call one and the decision is in the opposition’s hands. Mr Johnson needs two-thirds of MPS to vote for one and they have twice rejected it. He could be brought down by a vote of confidence but as the opposition parties cannot agree on who would be the prime minister, after 14 days they would end up with an election they don’t want to be held on a date of Mr Johnson’s choosing.

The big danger is that after he is forced to agree an extension he remains incarcerated inside No 10, unable to leave the EU, powerless to legislate and denied the election he craves. His best hope is that he has so irritated the EU that they just wash their hands of the UK and force us out with no agreement, ushering in years of diplomatic froideur which will benefit no one, so they won’t.

Or he could resign as Prime Minister, at which point Mr Corbyn would be invited to form a government. Let him do the dirty work on Brexit and take the consequences. Mr Johnson is adamant he will not do anything that will put the Labour leader into No 10. His aides insist he won’t resign even if he does lose a vote on the Address. He could be trapped for months, Parliament’s prisoner, while they plot to hold another referendum.