THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO

“Riots in the streets, protests across the UK, unrest at the border, rising food and fuel prices, declining drug supplies, closing down of some businesses, job losses...”

Almost a month ago, The Sunday Times published a five-page classified government document code-named Yellow Hammer. The above events were called the “baseline scenario” in the event of the UK withdrawal from the EU without an agreement. The government denied the allegations accusing the newspaper of overreacting.

The UK parliament decided to investigate the issue and demanded that the government publish the “correct” version of the Yellowhammer plan. The other day, a five-page document was made public, and most interestingly, it repeats verbatim the Sunday Times version. The only change was the title of the publication: not “basic” but “the worst-case” scenario. Perhaps it has been made so in order not to excite the public too much. Indeed, these forecasts strongly contrast with the statements of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who assures that nothing serious will happen from a sharp break in relations with the EU and the country is ready for it.

National interests

Johnson's tactic in negotiations with the EU was to threaten it saying that Britain would leave the union on October 31, as agreed, even without an agreement. However, his impulse was not understood and approved not only by opponents - Labor and liberal democrats, but also by many members of the same party. It became clear that parliament would not approve of leaving the EU without an agreement.

Then the prime minister decided to go all-in, suspending the parliament for as much as 5 weeks - from September 9 to October 14. The official version of the government - this time he needs to prepare the throne speech of Queen Elizabeth II, which he outlined on October 14. In fact, the suspension of parliament to prepare the "Queen's speech" is a common tradition in the UK, but this happens not earlier than a week, and in early spring. However, a request for approval of this decision was sent to the queen, and she, following tradition, signed it.

Johnson’s idea was simple: the opposition, being in the minority, will not be able to make any meaningful decision against the government during a week, as the parliament begins to work after the summer holidays on September 2. Also, after October 14, there will also be some time left until the hour “X”.

Apparently, Mr. Johnson's assessment was not a perfect one. This week parliament managed not only to pass a law banning “Hard Brexit” ratified by the lower house, the House of Lords, and signed by the queen, but also to reject the prime minister’s demand for early elections on October 15.

By the beginning of the autumn session, the Tories in parliament had only one vote superiority. But on the very first day, right before the start of the vote on Brexit, conservative Philip Lee defiantly joined the Liberal Democratic Party, depriving the Tories of the majority. As a result of the vote, it turned out that another 21 deputies from the Conservatives voted against their party. Johnson expelled them all from the conservative parliamentary faction, promising not to nominate them from the party in the next election. By the way, among the excluded Tories was Nicholas Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill, whom Johnson is trying hard to be like.

“This short-sighted exclusion of my colleagues deprived the party of broad views and loyal conservative deputies. I cannot support this act of political vandalism. This is an encroachment on decency and democracy,” Amber Rudd, the Minister of Labour and Pensions said adding that he was leaving not only the Johnson government, but also the party in protest. Joseph Johnson, the prime minister’s brother, who explained his decision in a rather harsh and frank manner, said that he made a choice between “devotion to the family and national interests” and also left the government. Many major Tory functionaries began to fear that Johnson's actions would lead to a split in the party.

What can queen do?

The prime minister’s direct request to Queen Elizabeth II to suspend the parliament’s work has caused a big commotion in British society. Opinions are divided. Some believe that the queen had no other choice but to approve the request, since this procedure is ordinary and her signature seems to be a tribute to traditions. Others say that tradition has nothing to do with it, because the future of the whole country is under question.

According to Robert Lacy, the royal historian, the queen did not have much choice in this matter. Tradition demands that she satisfies the request of the prime minister.

Since there is no written constitution in the country, the role of the queen and the meaning of her ceremonial powers are not clearly defined anywhere.

The last time the British monarch refused to follow the advice of the government was in 1936, when King Edward VIII wanted to marry an American Wallis Simpson, divorced from her first husband and seeking a divorce from the second. It ended with the monarch's abdication.

According to the same tradition, the consent of the queen is necessary to turn any bill into a valid law. After the proposed law passed through both houses of parliament, it is sent for "royal consent." The last British monarch who refused to grant royal consent was Queen Anne in 1708.

The queen previously had the power to dissolve parliament and call general elections, but the fixed-term parliamentary election law put an end to this in 2011. Now, two-thirds of the votes of the parliament are required to dissolve the House of Commons before the end of the five-year term.

However, lawyers who agree that the overwhelming majority of the queen’s prerogative powers have been delegated to the cabinet and parliament say that there is one exception that allows her to exercise her power. The traditions require that only during "a serious constitutional crisis" can a sovereign "act contrary to or without the advice of ministers." There is no such precedent in modern history.

At the same time, many admit that although the queen could and perhaps should have rejected Johnson’s request to suspend the parliament, she would provoke a constitutional crisis.

Disputes on this subject have heated the society to such an extent that the question arose about the need for Great Britain to have a written constitution. Remarkably, the opinions of many representatives of all parties represented in the parliament coincide in this matter. Thus, the traditions according to which the powers of state bodies, the principles of relations between government bodies and citizens are determined on the basis of adopted laws, precedents and constitutional customs, were suitable, perhaps, until the 19th century but they are not in the 21^st century. “We cannot rule such a country without a written constitution,” conservative deputy Rory Stewart said.

Although few are calling for an end of the monarchy, a written constitution may permanently deprive it of any authority retaining the decorative role of the crown only.

Growing hostilities

While there is a debate about the powers of the queen, confrontation between the executive and legislative powers of the UK is intensifying.

On the one hand, the prime minister says that he would rather “die in a ditch” than fulfil the parliament’s request to ask the EU for another postponement, this time until January 31, 2020. On the other hand, the deputies filed lawsuits against Johnson's decision to suspend the work of parliament.

Moreover, to save the queen from accusations, especially since the monarch in Britain may not be subject to court trial, the claims are formulated in such a way that the prime minister becomes the only culprit since he “misled the queen” and advised her to suspend the parliament. They argue that the prime minister lied telling the queen that a new government program was required, which had nothing to do with Brexit. The real background of his actions are allegedly to prevent the parliament from influencing the decision to withdraw from the EU without an agreement.

At the same time, British lawmakers are preparing lawsuits in case the prime minister tries not to comply with their decision.

Few options only

According to Britons, after the defeat in parliament, Boris Johnson has few options:

1. Ignore the law. Johnson said he would not follow parliament’s instructions to seek an extension of Article 50 of the EU Charter. Apparently, claims against him, appeals, court proceedings and so on can continue for a long time. But it will not take long until October 31 with a guaranteed exit without agreement. In this case, Johnson cannot guarantee a victory, but the conservative party will fall apart for sure.

2. Resign. Johnson may resign as prime minister with a tactical goal to allow potential interim successor Jeremy Corbin to travel to Brussels to request a deferment. Then he can win the snap election. But who can guarantee that the queen appoints Corbin as interim prime minister? Otherwise, this tactic may provide the opposition with additional benefits.

3. Veto of the EU. Boris Johnson is compelled to ask Brussels for an extension but comes to an agreement with one of the EU states to veto the voting. To make a decision, the consent of all 27 EU member states is required. But hardly anyone will agree to such an adventure.

4. The most desirable option for everyone is to agree mutually acceptable changes in the agreement with the EU in the remaining days. However, if the ruling party does not have a majority in parliament, it will be difficult for Johnson to convince Brussels that any possible concessions on their part will make at least some sense.

In short, political crisis in the UK will gain momentum in October apparently making the deal with the EU less important.