Destroyed Boris Johnson the British democracy? The sulphurous atmosphere
of adventurism and arson that blows over his Brexit policy works for most
German (and many English) viewers shocking. The hand-drawn suspension
Parliament, the uncertainty of whether the Prime Minister's legislation of the lower house
respecting an unregulated withdrawal from the European Union (No Deal) –
such violations of good political customs suggest the question of whether the country is still
is governed responsibly and lawfully. It's not just about one
British matter: A United Kingdom that is different from a constitutional one
Seriousness would say goodbye, no partner would be reasonable
Brexit negotiations and for a prosperous cooperation afterwards. It would become another
Risk factor for the whole of Europe and for the entire Western world.
In this situation, it is important to keep your mind in mind and language. Britain is not on its way to dictatorship. As soon as that lower house Reunited in mid-October, it can at any time deprive the head of government of confidence and bring a new prime minister into office (if the deputies are able to agree on a candidate). Likewise, it is by no means certain how long Johnson will retain the support of his party, the Tories. The normal mechanisms that limit government power are by no means overridden in Britain. At least not yet.
Above all, however, one must realize that good and evil in the fight between the prime minister and his opponents are not as clearly distributed as many commentators. The basic British problem is not the ruthlessness of the head of the government, but the fact that three years after a brief but clear referendum vote for the country United Kingdom and Gibraltar European Union membership referendum still not left the EU.
The responsibility lies primarily with the lower house. Opposition Labor MPs and Liberal Democrats, who are now fighting so hard against the no-deal threat, have had three opportunities to say goodbye to the deal Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, had negotiated with the EU. It does not take much populist genius to foment anti-parliamentary sentiments against this background. Nor is it a demagogic invention that is a hard core of EU friends in Great Britain The result of the referendum simply not accepted and in principle does not want to implement. This can be called undemocratic for a good reason.
None of this justifies a scorched constitutional earth tactic to finally enforce Brexit. But here, too, when it comes to the choice of political and institutional resources in the current conflict, it is worthwhile to take a closer look. One will find that Boris Johnson's adversaries are by no means as heroic as many believe. The law with which the lower house of the government has banned the no-deal-Brexit is constitutionally questionable, to say the least: The legislature wants to take over in fact the most important topic of the moment, the government of the country, which is the central task the executive is. The opposition's strategy of preventing Johnson from holding swift elections is hardly more convincing. How can you portray the Prime Minister as a dangerous arbitrary ruler, but at the same time refuse to let him get eliminated as quickly as possible?
All this does not mean that Boris Johnson's course is right or wise. The risk he is taking with his Brexit political aggressiveness is enormous: there is a threat of a transformation of the traditionally more relaxed British conservatism into a nationalist right full of resentment. The consequences for political culture, in the UK and possibly beyond, would be disastrous. This is the field on which to look for the confrontation with the government in London. But that Boris Johnson the democracy would ruin, is a legend.