Trying to impeach Boris would be an unmitigated catastrophe
Rumours are swirling in Westminster of a plot to impeach Boris Johnson.
The news broke over the weekend that, inspired perhaps by the US Democrats’ move against Donald Trump, opposition parties are considering moving to strip the Prime Minister of his position.
This is foolish and dangerous.
For a start, it is entirely unclear if it can happen. Some readers may be surprised to hear that the process exists in the UK at all. There was once a power to impeach an MP or minister, but it may not have survived the advent of modern parliamentary democracy.
Of the 60 or so impeachments that have ever happened in this country, more than a quarter occurred in the run-up to the civil war.
No motion of impeachment has been debated in the Commons since 1848, when Lord Palmerston was accused of making a secret treaty with Russia. Both the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and former clerks of the House of Commons have advised that the process is “obsolete”.
A motion was tabled against Tony Blair over Iraq (sponsored, by among others, Johnson himself), but was never debated.
But even if the impeachment process can be revived in 2019, it would be an unedifying spectacle, diminishing parliament in the eyes of the people. Pulling a constitutional trick from the back of the drawer of forgotten procedures would be bad enough, but the next stages would be worse.
First, the speaker would have to decide whether to allow the motion to stand – itself controversial, especially given the individual who currently holds the office.
Then the House of Commons would have to vote on whether to begin the impeachment.
Should Johnson lose, the rules dictate that he would be taken into custody by Black Rod and detained in the Elizabeth Tower. If he wished to be bailed, he would have to plead for it at the Bar of the House of Lords. The upper chamber would then decide whether the Prime Minister would be allowed to leave parliament before his trial.
This would only be act one. Once the Commons has agreed to impeach, a trial must take place, again before the House of Lords.
Convened in a special form as the Court of the Lord High Steward, all peers except for bishops would sit in judgment of the Prime Minister. His prosecutors would be members of the Commons – most likely distinguished barristers from that House (step forward, Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke?) – and he would be defended by lawyers of his own.
The trial would mirror any court trial, with the PM and any other witnesses put to proof on their evidence. Finally, the Lords would vote. Were Johnson to be found guilty, he would forfeit his office and be subject to any other lawful punishment the Lords thought fit to assign.
It is hard to imagine a spectacle which would more suit this Prime Minister and his narrative. If the next election is to be about the people versus parliament, the sight of Johnson defending his actions before 750 robed peers would become iconic. He would be a very visible martyr for the hopes of the referendum mandate, frustrated and curtailed by an unelected House.
It is also hard to see how he could actually be convicted. The law requires him to be found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanours” – a high bar, which has normally meant taking arms against the crown or embezzlement of public funds. His prorogation of parliament, declared wrong in law after the fact, is not enough. If it were, a minister might face impeachment every time they lost a judicial review.
Impeachment is the nuclear option of the Westminster parliament. Like Trident, it is best displayed and not deployed. It should stand to discourage the most egregious behaviour of our ministers, when their conduct has gone far beyond the acceptable. Were proceedings to be launched, it would bolster Johnson and be cast as a Remainer trick. And it probably wouldn’t even work.
If the Commons wants to bring down this Prime Minister, they can use a vote of no confidence, or have an election – both of which MPs have so far rejected.
One final note: those proposing impeachment would be wise to consider the trial of Queen Catherine.
The wife of George IV was put on trial by a similar process to deprive her of the rights of Queen due to her alleged adultery. The proceedings captured the public’s imagination, and the Queen their sympathies. She was convicted, but the public saw her as an innocent woman bullied by parliamentary proceedings. The Commons dared not uphold the charge. The government withdrew its bill, leading to celebrations in the streets.
An obsolete procedure and an arcane spectacle will not solve Brexit. Rather, it will damage our political system and bolster the Prime Minister. Impeachment would then be absorbed into the normal box of tools used to harass the executive, and become too politicised to be a real check on abuses of power – as it arguably already has in the US.
Whether Boris is sent to the Tower or carried aloft by his supporters after acquittal, we would all lose from impeachment proceedings.
Main image credit: Getty