A prime minister’s job is to speak for the nation. And in his first speech in his new job, that is exactly what Boris Johnson pledged to do. But every action he has taken since entering Downing Street has made those words ring hollow. This is a man with no democratic mandate, who cannot command a majority in parliament, who has been found to have acted unlawfully by the supreme court. And yet he continues to undermine the institutions on which our liberal democracy depends by threatening to circumvent the law, all in the service of being able to force through a no-deal Brexit lacking in any mandate or popular support.

While Westminster has always had a reputation for yah-boo politics, our political discourse has generally taken place within a shared sense of acceptable parameters. That consensus has started to break down since 2016, but in the past week the government’s rhetoric reached fever pitch. Anonymous cabinet ministers have warned there will be riots, and even murders, if Brexit were not to happen, and, in the House of Commons, Johnson sought to politicise the assassination of Jo Cox MP by a far-right terrorist.

Threatening that there will be civil unrest if he does not have his way; setting himself up in opposition to parliament; acting as though he is above the law: these are the actions of an autocrat. But Britain is not an autocracy. The supreme court restated the fundamental constitutional principle of British liberal democracy in its landmark judgment: “The government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that.” MPs have the power to stop Johnson from delivering an illegitimate no-deal Brexit. And with any chance of agreeing and implementing a deal with the EU by 31 October now looking vanishingly small, they must use it.

Nothing is sacred to the Tory party



The past week was the most unedifying in British politics in living memory. A prime minister was unanimously found by 11 supreme court justices to have acted unlawfully in shutting down parliament at a moment of political crisis in order to frustrate attempts by MPs to hold the executive to account. There could be no clearer reminder that no one, not even the prime minister, is above the laws passed by our elected representatives in parliament.

But when Johnson went to answer to parliament for his actions, he showed not a shred of contrition. Instead, he repeatedly declared that the supreme court verdict was “wrong”, a statement that undermines the very rule of law that is a linchpin of our liberal democracy. As female MP after female MP implored him to moderate his emotive and offensive language that they say they have seen reflected back in death threats, he dismissed their concerns as “humbug”. Worst of all, in response to Tracy Brabin, who replaced Jo Cox as the MP for Batley and Spen after she was murdered, he said: “The best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox… would be, I think, to get Brexit done.” It was a rank attempt to politicise the assassination of an MP in front of those who knew her on both sides of the house.

The prime minister’s allies have rallied around him regardless. Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, told MPs “this parliament is a dead parliament” and that it has “no moral right to sit”. Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s senior adviser, has spoken about how much those in government “are enjoying this”. It all adds up to a government whose strategy is to whip up division in order and dissent in order to ram through Brexit come what may – simply to maximise Johnson’s short-term electoral prospects. It would appear nothing is sacred to the Conservative party: not the nation’s economic wellbeing; not the future of the union; not even the very institutions that safeguard our liberal democracy.

Words have consequences. This dangerous populism will have lasting ramifications: the week after Johnson wrote a prominent column that referred to veiled Muslim women as “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”, incidents of anti-Muslim abuse spiked by 375%. The day after his disgraceful remarks in parliament, a man – who has now been arrested – allegedly tried to smash the windows of Jess Phillips’s constituency office while shouting “fascist”.

What signal does it send to those who would see MPs trying to stop a no-deal Brexit as traitors, when their prime minister accuses parliament of surrender, betrayal and capitulation? What coded message is received when, instead of condemning violence as always wrong, unnamed cabinet ministers warn there is only one way to avert them, lending violence a sheen of legitimacy? Amber Rudd, who served in Johnson’s cabinet until three weeks ago, rightly warned on Friday that the prime minister’s language incites violence. How could her former colleagues disagree?

Amber Rudd has warned that the prime minister’s language incites violence. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/AFP/Getty Images

Divisive tactics to ram through no deal



These dangerous and irresponsible attempts to heighten an already febrile climate are about enabling Johnson to ram through a no-deal Brexit. He claims he wants Britain to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October. But any chance of that happening plummeted to virtually nil with his unilateral demand that the EU should drop the backstop that safeguards the need for no border in Ireland, and his government’s failure to suggest any workable alternatives in its place. His divisive tactics mean he has little chance of winning enough Labour MPs round to his deal. Even if he were to somehow agree a deal at the European council in mid-October, there is insufficient time for the necessary legislation to pass.

All this adds up to a prime minister whose strategy all along has been to go for a no-deal Brexit, followed immediately by an election before the huge economic costs have become apparent, in order to minimise the vote share of the Brexit party. It is not the first time that a Conservative prime minister has risked the national interest in order to see off the threat of Nigel Farage.

Johnson’s toxic behaviour was also intended as a distraction from the problems that have beset his nascent premiership: not just the fact that he has lost every single vote he has held in parliament, but the questions over his probity during his time in City Hall. In recent days, serious allegations have emerged of a conflict of interest with a US businesswoman while he was London mayor, and Johnson has been formally referred for official investigation.

A referendum before a general election



On the one hand, recent events show that the institutions of British democracy are working well. MPs have passed legislation to prevent Johnson from implementing the no-deal Brexit that has no democratic legitimacy. The supreme court has prevented Johnson from silencing parliament and shutting down scrutiny.

But this reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty over an imperious executive is what has driven Johnson to his populist attacks on our democratic institutions. It is dangerous and MPs cannot leave him to undermine our constitution using the official Downing Street seal any longer. Johnson should be given his chance to get a deal at the EU council on 17 October. In the unlikely scenario that he returns with a deal, MPs should agree to support it only on the condition that it is put to the country in a confirmatory referendum. But if he fails, opposition MPs must hold a vote of no confidence and rally around an alternative prime minister whose first task would be to request an extension from Brussels.

What next? The temptation will be to move straight to a general election to resolve the gridlock. But there are many reasons to be concerned about an election that would function as a quasi-referendum. Labour’s Brexit position remains ambiguous after its rancorous conference. Our first-past-the-post electoral system means it is entirely conceivable that the anti- or pro-Brexit parties could win more votes between them, but the other side win more seats. And current polling suggests that a likely outcome would be another hung parliament that would be no less gridlocked.

The Observer continues to believe that the best way forward for a temporary government would be to hold a referendum before a general election. The principled arguments for a referendum as a way of deciding this issue remain as strong as ever: no concrete proposal for leaving the EU was put before voters in 2016, let alone a no-deal Brexit. The current withdrawal agreement – or a variant of it – should be put to voters to decide between this and the status quo. There are, of course, risks to holding a referendum but it would not be any less divisive than moving immediately to a general election, or indeed, implementing a hard Tory Brexit that will sharpen the country’s inequalities.

Without a parliamentary majority, the prime minister has no mandate to govern. He knows that, and he believes that further undermining trust in our democratic institutions and forcing through a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of parliament is an acceptable price to pay if it could deliver him a majority in a general election. But parliament remains sovereign, and MPs have the power to stop him. They must act before it is too late.