A ‘government of national unity’ would stand for vanity, cowardice and delay | thearticle

A gnu is a type of antelope found in Africa. They herd together and communicate through sight and smell, but are also very vocal. Another meaning for GNU is as an acronym, standing for

Government of National Unity. Some Remainer MPs feel that if they could find a way to come together as a herd, making a lot of noise in the process, they could use their majority in the

House of Commons to form a GNU. There are a number of problems. First of all, it is much easier to get a majority of MPs to be against something than for something. A majority are for

delaying Brexit, rather than for Britain leaving with no-deal. But there is probably no majority for a second referendum, nor for cancelling Brexit by revoking Article 50. Nor is there

necessarily a majority for any deal — at least, not one that the EU would also agree to. Similarly, we have a majority of MPs against Boris Johnson being Prime Minister — but not necessarily

a majority favouring Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone else either. Secondly, even if this problem could be overcome, the exasperation of their electorate would rapidly increase. A lot of MPs are

looking to secure a change of government without holding a general election, because opinion polling suggests that an election would result in a Conservative victory. But further delay in

delivering Brexit is not a formula to placate those who feel there has already been too much delay. The broadcasters, hitherto sympathetic to Remainers, would become more acerbic. Postponing

the day of reckoning at the ballot box might well make it all the more ferocious when it finally comes. Thirdly, as is already painfully apparent, it is not as though any such ragtag

coalition would really be a Government of National Unity. The big division of the moment, to any that hadn’t noticed, is between Remainers and Leavers. This Government would not even try to

unify these two groups. Indeed, it’s whole point would be that it was anti-Brexit. Nor would it include the Conservatives, the largest political party in the House of Commons. It could

certainly have some ex-Conservative MPs — but that would only increase the antagonism of their former colleagues. So a GNU is not a credible proposition. That is not quite the same as saying

it won’t happen. There is never a shortage of elder statesman, befuddled with vanity, waiting for “the call” to return. Ken Clarke has made clear he would love to finally get the job he has

been working for decades to achieve — and which he had rather given up on. But he would by no means be the first grand old man to feel that his country needs him. In 1976 there was a call

from Harold Macmillan for “a Government of National Unity” to resolve the economic crisis. When he was asked who could lead such the new coalition, he replied: “Mr Gladstone formed his last

Government when he was 83. I’m only 82.” Clarke is a mere 79. But if ageism was the difficulty, an alternative being put forward is John Bercow. The “most divisive Speaker in history”, as

Daniel Johnson calls him in today’s leading article, might be prevailed upon to respond to the call of duty and become our next Prime Minister. Really? The British tradition has always been

for robust, adversarial democracy. In time of war it is different. The “Ministry of All the Talents” was a national unity government led by Lord Grenville, formed in 1806 after the death in

office of Pitt the Younger, when Britain faced the Napoleonic menace. That GNU failed to defeat the French, though it did abolish the slave trade. In the last century we had coalition

governments during the First and Second World Wars. To a varying degree, for a particular time, there was a sense that party divisions be put aside. Even then it was messy: Lloyd George

ousted Asquith and Churchill replaced Chamberlain. But the symbolism was powerful. It was of courage and resolution in adversity. A GNU set up now would be characterised by cowardice and

delay. Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, put the point strongly when he spoke in Parliament a fortnight ago, after the recall at the behest of the Supreme Court. Some Labour MPs were

expecting him to be downcast and defensive. But he came out fighting. “This Parliament is a dead Parliament,” thundered Cox. “It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these

green benches. Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide whether they should continue to sit in their seats, while they block 17.4 million people’s votes. This Parliament is a

disgrace. They could vote no confidence at any time, but they are too cowardly to give it a go. This Parliament should have the courage to face the electorate, but it won’t, because so many

of them are really all about preventing us from leaving the European Union at all. But the time is coming, Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.” My hunch

is that we will have a general election before Christmas. Forming a “Government of National Unity” would be transparently a craven exercise by MPs facing defeat to keep their salaries going

for a few more months. Would it be worth all the taunting and mockery that would ensue? I predict they will decide that it is not. But with the current batch of MPs, it is difficult to

predict how low they will sink.