Ugly battle looms in UK politics as Boris suspends parliament

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II on Wednesday acceded to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s push to suspend parliament—a move that seems calculated to bulldoze a path for the U.K.’s exit from the European Union, slated for Oct. 31, with or without a deal. The new schedule will limit the number of days legislators have left to change the country’s course before it crashes into the deadline.

And if they do manage to block or delay a no-deal Brexit, Johnson will be able to run an election campaign pitting “the people” against Parliament and attract supporters of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party by portraying himself as the only leader who can deliver Brexit—if they give his Conservative Party a larger majority in the House of Commons.

Why is the queen involved? In a procedure usually considered a formality, the queen must approve any request to prorogue Parliament. The five-week suspension is to be followed by a Queen’s Speech—a chance for the government to outline its agenda, eating up still more legislative time. It is highly unusual, however, for a new prime minister to suspend Parliament before winning a single vote in the House of Commons. Legal challenges have already been filed seeking to reverse the suspension. They will reportedly target Johnson’s request to the queen, rather than her decision to approve it.

How will the suspension affect Brexit? Before resigning, previous Prime Minister Theresa May thrice failed to push a Brexit plan through Parliament. Not wishing to share her fate, Johnson may have concluded that he would not get his way without a bold move to take matters into his own hands. Critics argue the decision violates the spirit of democratic governance—and quite possibly the letter of the law. It also led to the loss of an important Conservative Party colleague. Ruth Davidson, the leader credited with resurrecting the Scottish Tories and an opponent of no-deal Brexit, announced that she would step down on Thursday.

The new schedule could increase the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit, which economists say would damage the British economy. By doubling down on the possibility of leaving without a deal, Johnson may have bought himself some bargaining pressure to use in talks with European negotiators, who in seeking to avoid that outcome might capitulate on demands that would help smooth a potential deal’s course through a skeptical Parliament. Given the EU’s repeated insistence that it will not renegotiate the deal, that might not work.

Was it misguided or Machiavellian? Despite all the talk of Downing Street’s Machiavellian cunning, Johnson may have also strengthened his enemies’ hand by proroguing Parliament. After all, the famous Florentine was adamant that when it comes to adversaries, “If you’re going to wound them, make sure they end up dead—or with an injury so great that they can never seek revenge,” Garvan Walshe, who was an advisor to former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, notes in an essay for Foreign Policy.

“In dealing with his political enemies, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has failed the Prince’s test,” he argues. As a result of Johnson’s bombshell announcement, “Parliament is now more likely, not less, to pass legislation thwarting a no-deal exit on Oct. 31, so the government needs to escalate if it is to get out of this mess of its own making,” Walshe contends. Or it could be the first shot fired in an election campaign.

How would an election victory help Johnson? Provoking those who oppose him into “saving him from the near-certain catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit” may ultimately be his goal, Aleks Eror wrote earlier this month in FP. If Johnson wins an election with a comfortable majority he will then be able to disregard the views of the most extreme Brexiteers, including members of the hard-line Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, on whom he currently depends.

That would allow Johnson to disregard the DUP’s opposition to the Irish backstop, and clear the way for an agreed Brexit deal with the EU. “In trade terms, this would effectively move the border between the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland into the Irish Sea and result in customs checks on goods traveling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain,” Eror explains.

It would throw the DUP under the bus but would appeal to both wings of the Conservative Party, possibly allowing him to win a vote in Parliament and deliver Brexit democratically. “Brexit is, at its core, a manifestation of English nationalism, and its proponents would have few qualms about abandoning Northern Ireland to Brussels if it enables them to achieve their dreams of a buccaneering, post-Brexit England powered by the winds of deregulation and free trade,” Eror argues.