Can the Queen sack Prime Minister Boris Johnson?
Tory leader will reportedly ‘dare’ the monarch to fire him if he loses vote of no confidence
Boris Johnson is prepared to “squat” in Downing Street and “dare” the Queen to sack him if MPs try to unseat him in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit, according to government sources.
The row centres around the prime minister’s repeatedly stated intention of leaving the European Union with or without a deal on 31 October. If Brussels rejects his proposals for the Irish border, new legislation known as the Benn Act requires Johnson to ask for a three-month Article 50 extension by 19 October.
However, several government sources have told The Daily Telegraph that the PM “is willing to go to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid having to write a letter asking for a delay”.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
And senior Tory insiders have told The Times that Johnson would sit tight even if he were found in contempt of court, unless he were facing jail, in an attempt to drive through Brexit on time.
One senior figure said: “Unless the police turn up at the doors of 10 Downing Street with a warrant for the prime minister’s arrest, he won’t be leaving.”
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Get your first six issues free–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Meanwhile, the opposition would be likely to call a vote of no confidence and try to form an alternative cross-party government.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
But The Times says Johnson could also “refuse to resign or recommend the name of any successor to the Queen”.
Dominic Grieve - one of 21 Tory MPs whose whips were removed for backing the bid to block no-deal - said last week that the monarch would be forced to dismiss Johnson.
So can the Queen sack a PM?
“Yes, she can,” says Fleet Street Fox at the Daily Mirror - although the columnist notes that the “monarch’s powers of hiring and firing aren’t used often”. The last time was in 1834, when King William IV dismissed Lord Melbourne’s Whig government.
If the Government loses a no-confidence vote and an alternative government has the support of the House of Commons, “convention suggests that the PM should stand down”, says the BBC.
“Yet there is nothing clearly stated in law that says the prime minister must do so. Failing to step down would risk bringing the Queen into the Brexit dispute, as the monarch appoints PMs and, in theory, can dismiss one who behaves unconstitutionally,” the broadcaster adds.
Writing in the Financial Times, lawyer and journalist David Allen Green says a sacking by the Queen after the initial no-confidence vote is “possible in constitutional theory and not inconceivable in the strange politics of the moment”.
However, he continues, rather than firing the PM directly, the Queen is more likely to ask another political leader to see whether a new administration can be formed that could win the confidence of Parliament.
“The removal from office of the prime minister is implicit,” says Green. “This would not be an exercise of arbitrary power by the Crown: the scope and exercise of the power to appoint and dismiss prime ministers is determined entirely by what would be acceptable to the elected representatives in Parliament.”
-
7 mountain hotels perfect for a tranquil autumn or winter escapeThe Week Recommends Get (altitude) high and unwind
-
‘Deskilling’: a dangerous side effect of AI useThe explainer Workers are increasingly reliant on the new technology
-
The biggest sports betting scandals in historyIn Depth The recent indictments of professional athletes were the latest in a long line of scandals
-
Voting Rights Act: SCOTUS’s pivotal decisionFeature A Supreme Court ruling against the Voting Rights Act could allow Republicans to redraw districts and solidify control of the House
-
Supreme Court points to gutting Voting Rights Actspeed read States would no longer be required to consider race when drawing congressional maps
-
‘An exercise of the Republicans justifying their racist positions’instant opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Supreme Court: Judging 20 years of RobertsFeature Two decades after promising to “call balls and strikes,” Chief Justice John Roberts faces scrutiny for reshaping American democracy
-
Taking the low road: why the SNP is still standing strongTalking Point Party is on track for a fifth consecutive victory in May’s Holyrood election, despite controversies and plummeting support
-
Supreme Court rules for Fed’s Cook in Trump feudSpeed Read Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her role following Trump’s attempts to oust her
-
Is Britain turning into ‘Trump’s America’?Today’s Big Question Direction of UK politics reflects influence and funding from across the pond
-
Supreme Court to consider gutting agency autonomySpeed Read The court’s three liberals dissented