If PM lost confidence vote and refused to resign, Queen could dismiss him – but experts think it unlikely

As the Queen’s powers have been cited in the no-deal Brexit debate, constitutional experts are divided on whether she could intervene to dismiss Boris Johnson and invite a new prime minister to form a government should he lose a vote of no confidence and schedule an election for after the Halloween exit date.

“Short answer: the Queen could dismiss Boris Johnson if he lost a vote of no confidence and refused to resign,” said Robert Hazell, professor of government and constitution at University College London.

“But she would only do so if the House of Commons indicated clearly who should be appointed as prime minister in his place.”

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 there is 14-day window after a vote of no confidence in which to find an alternative government capable of securing the confidence of the Commons. Any election would be held 25 working days after the dissolution of parliament.

In those 14 days, parliament could try to agree on a single candidate to put forward to the Queen. “Then the Queen would be able, and would feel able, to dismiss Johnson if he was not willing himself to resign, and to appoint that new person as prime minister.

The fight over no-deal Brexit: how might the crisis pan out? Read more

“But if the House does pass such a resolution, then I fully expect Johnson would offer his resignation and advise the Queen to appoint the new person as prime minister. Because he would know that if he didn’t do that, if he didn’t do the right thing, he would be dismissed [by the Queen],” said Hazell.

Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London, said he could see no circumstances in which it was likely the Queen would dismiss Johnson.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act also states dissolution need not follow immediately after closure of that 14-day window as it was for the prime minister to recommend a suitable election date to the Queen, and only when he has done so was the date of dissolution determined, he said.

There was nothing to stop Johnson “playing out time”. Though he could be accused of acting unconstitutionally, it would not be unlawful, and therefore not for the Queen to intervene, he added.

No-deal Brexit 'legally possible even after no-confidence vote' Read more

Parliament could pass a motion requiring him to resign. The only circumstances in which the Queen could dismiss him would be if, in those 14 days, there was cast-iron evidence an alternative government and alternative prime minister was available, he said.

“It’s not for the Queen to use any discretionary power. And during her reign she has acted throughout on the advice of her prime minister and it has proved a good rule. If parliament is unhappy with anything, it is for parliament to take the relevant actions,” he said.

“The Queen’s powers rest on convention. She’s got quite wide legal powers but in a constitutional monarchy she shouldn’t use them except in very extreme circumstances, which I don’t think these would be.”

Thomas Eason, doctoral researcher at Nottingham University’s school of politics and international relations, said the theory Johnson could lose a vote of no confidence but refuse to resign, thereby preventing the Queen from asking someone else to form a new government, “assumes that the Queen could not simply sack the former PM”.

“There is some debate over whether the Queen has the power to sack a prime minister, in part driven by the cabinet manual claiming that ‘prime ministers hold office unless and until they resign’. But my own belief is that the Queen still has the reserve power to do this, and I think this is a dominant view among other experts,” he said.

“Obviously, for this to happen, it would need to be clear to the Queen who to call upon, and that could be tricky.” He added: “Whatever medium is used, it would need to be clear who should replace Johnson before the Queen would be in a position to sack him.”