By Kuke Coffey
In the past four
years, Britons have voted in two general elections and one national referendum.
With another election on the cards for Dec. 12, the British people must be
tired of going to the polls.
However, it is clear to just about everyone that there is no other choice but
fresh elections to break the political deadlock in the House of Commons.
Ever since Boris Johnson became prime minister in July, the parliamentary
arithmetic has made it impossible for him to get his new Brexit deal approved,
much less push through any other meaningful legislation.
When he took over as prime minister, he inherited a minority government from
his predecessor. The Conservative Party was propped up by a small regional
party from Northern Ireland called the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), giving
him a tiny working majority.
Since then, the debate over Brexit has ripped the House of Commons apart.
Johnson has lost the support of the DUP, suffered political defections and
recently removed the party whip from 21 Tory MPs for failing to support the
government during a crucial Brexit vote. As a consequence, Johnson cannot get
most of his legislation passed and even holds the dubious record of being one of
the most outvoted prime ministers in British history.
Johnson realized weeks ago that an election was the only end to the
parliamentary gridlock, but calling for an election proved easier said than
done thanks to something called the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2010.
Coalition governments in the UK are unusual, so when the Conservative Party in
the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government in 2010 both parties were
worried about the other stabbing them in the back by withdrawing support and
causing a surprise election. To ease this fear, the act changed the rules to
require a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons before a prime minister
could call for an election.
In practice, the act meant that a prime minister no longer had the prerogative
to dissolve Parliament and call an early election — often considered a hallmark
of most parliamentary democracies. At the time, few could imagine the trouble
this act would cause in the future.
Johnson tried three times in the past month to cross the two-thirds threshold
and trigger an election, but failed because the opposition parties refused to
support one — perhaps a first in British political history. Finally, earlier
this week, on the fourth attempt, the House of Commons voted on and approved an
election for Dec. 12.
This could be the most decisive general election in a generation and it will
define Britain’s relations with the rest of the world for years to come.
The biggest impact resulting from the election will be the UK’s future
relationship with the EU. In many ways, this election will serve as an indirect
second referendum on the 2016 Brexit vote. Boris Johnson will campaign on a
pledge that, if he wins a majority, he will immediately pass the recent
withdraw agreement he got with the EU.
On the other hand, the opposition Labour Party has a convoluted EU policy of
negotiating a “better deal” with Brussels and then having another referendum
allowing voters to either choose that deal or remaining in the EU. This could
easily drag on the Brexit process for several more years. And it is ironic that
many of same people who are against Brexit because of the unpredictability it
could cause for international investors and the economy are the some of the
same people now calling for a policy that would bring more delay an confusion
to the process.
The outcome of the
upcoming election will also have an impact on the UK’s foreign policy. Boris
Johnson has supported an idea of “global Britain,” promoting free trade and
taking a global leadership role. But beyond the rhetoric of “global Britain,” a
Johnson premiership would mean a continuation of the status quo with British
foreign policy. This will mainly mean that the UK will continue to have a close
relationship with the US, be an active member of NATO, be a power in the Middle
East standing up against Iranian aggression and being firm with Russia.
Conversely, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the next prime minister, Britain’s foreign
policy is likely to undergo a radical shift. Corbyn, and those around him, are
well known for their fondness, if not admiration, of the communist regimes in
Cuba and Venezuela. As for the Middle East, a Corbyn premiership does not bode
well for regional security. He has invited members of Hamas and Hezbollah into
the Houses of Parliament. He is quick to appear on Iran’s Press TV but he is
unashamedly critical of important British partners in the Gulf region.
Make no mistake, whether it is at home or abroad, the outcome of the upcoming
election will determine what kind of country the UK will be heading into the
next decade. Perhaps most importantly, the election will finally bring some
closure to the Brexit question after years of delay, stalling and dithering.
For Boris Johnson, this election will determine if his political grit and
Brexit tenacity will pay off. For Corbyn, this election will be “do or die”
with his role as Labour’s leader. After all, this will be his third election as
leader and it seems impossible that the Labour Party’s rank and file will allow
him to hang around after yet another defeat.
If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that political polls
are increasingly unreliable. There is a long way to go between now and the
vote. But one thing is certain — the outcome of the election will be felt for
many years to come at home and abroad.
The author Luke Coffey is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @LukeDCoffey. Article courtesy Arab News)
