If boris loses a vote of confidence, what would — and should — happen? | thearticle

The argument about what would happen if Boris Johnson were to lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons continues. The Prime Minister himself has so far said nothing on the matter.

According to his chief adviser Dominic Cummings, he would remain in office until a general election took place after Brexit. Others insist that this would be to flout the most sacred

principle of our constitution. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary, claims that Johnson would have to resign immediately, or risk the gravest constitutional crisis since the

Civil War. Cue  fantasies in the Remain camp about Boris losing his head — though it is unclear why the relevant historical parallel would be Charles I rather than Oliver Cromwell. Indeed,

Dominic Grieve — the former Attorney General, who is much given to invoking history to justify bringing down his own party — argues that it is the monarchy that should use its prerogative

powers against the elected Government: “The Queen is not a decorative extra. It’s true that she has sought to keep herself well away from the cut and thrust of politics but at the end of the

day there are residual powers and responsibilities that lie with her. She might have to dispense with [Boris Johnson’s] services herself.” If there is one thing of which we can be quite

sure, it is that Elizabeth II will not wish to be remembered as the monarch who sacked her Prime Minister for the high crime of giving effect to the largest popular vote in British history.

According to Cummings, “the Prime Minister believes that politicians don’t get to choose which votes they respect”. That goes for sovereigns no less than their subjects. Much more ominous

for the Queen are the reported comments of John McDonnell. The Shadow Chancellor told an audience at the Edinburgh Festival “I don’t want to drag the Queen into this” — but then proceeded to

do precisely that. “I would be sending Jeremy Corbyn in a cab to Buckingham Palace to say ‘we’re taking over’ to the Queen.” There is no sign here of respect for constitutional monarchy

from McDonnell — a lifelong republican who has never repudiated the cause of the Irish terrorists who murdered the Queen’s beloved mentor, Lord Mountbatten. She would be entirely within her

rights to instruct the guards at the Palace entrance to send Jeremy Corbyn back to his master. To be clear: the Leader of the Opposition does not have an automatic right to “take over” in

the event of the Prime Minister losing a vote of confidence. The most sensible contribution to the debate so far comes from Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former Cabinet Secretary. In a

letter to The Times (which, unlike TheArticle, is behind a paywall), he explains that Boris Johnson’s duty would be to hold discussions “to establish whether he or anyone else could win a

vote of confidence within 14 days. If the conclusion of these talks was that someone else could do so, it would be his duty to tender his resignation and advise the Queen to give that person

the opportunity of doing so.” In other words, the onus would be on the Leader of the Opposition to prove that he could win a vote of confidence. Corbyn has ruled out supporting any other

alternative candidate to be Prime Minister. Given that he commands a much smaller minority in the Commons, and that he is detested by the majority of MPs (including many in his own party),

who fear the consequences of installing him in Downing Street, it is inconceivable that he could win a vote of confidence. Far more likely that Boris Johnson himself could do so after a

fortnight’s cooling-off period. Back to Lord Butler: “If the conclusion were that neither [the Prime Minister] nor anyone else was likely to win such a vote of confidence, it would be his

duty to advise the Queen to dissolve Parliament so that a general election could be held. He would remain Prime Minister while that election was being held.” The final sentence is of

paramount significance. Not only would Boris Johnson remain in office; he would also make the decision about two important dates: the date of the election and the date of Brexit. Some have

suggested that the date of the election would have to be November 1, on the assumption that Brexit must take place on October 31. But that is merely the date when the EU’s latest extension

expires. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether to bring that date forward so that Britain would have left the EU before an election took place. If the vote of confidence were to

take place in early September, and Parliament were dissolved two weeks later, the election campaign would have to last about six weeks if the polling day were November 1. That is an

unusually long period, which could be challenged in the courts — although there is nothing unconstitutional about a six-week  election campaign. It is certainly not ideal to have an election

on the day after Brexit, but there is no law against that either. But what is to stop Boris from bringing the date of Brexit forward by, say, a fortnight? If Michael Gove and his team do

their work well, Britain would be ready to leave in good time. The election campaign would last only a month — hardly without precedent. Brexit would have taken place at least a week before

the election, so that voters could make up their minds about a fait accompli rather than a mere possibility. In that case, a new Government would quickly be in place to deal with the

inevitable disruption to trade. The conclusion must be that, while there are no easy options, Boris Johnson has the powers he needs to survive for long enough to make Brexit happen. And he

can do so without driving a coach and horses through the British constitution.