The Guardian view on the Tories and no deal: choosing rogue government

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/the-guardian-view-on-the-tories-and-no-deal-choosing-rogue-government

Version 0 of 1.

All 10 candidates running in the race to be Conservative leader have sat around the cabinet table. Six are serving ministers. Naturally, none voted in parliament on Wednesday for an opposition motion designed to obstruct the path to a no-deal Brexit.

Even in the disturbed climate of British politics it would be bizarre if applicants to the job of party leader defied that party’s whip mid-contest. (Although Rory Stewart, the boldest and most pro-European of the contenders, briefly hinted that he might.) The motion was defeated by 11 votes, meaning that a chaotic Brexit remains the default setting on 31 October, if the next prime minister is unable to achieve what Theresa May failed to do – persuade a majority of MPs to endorse the negotiated EU withdrawal agreement.

It is no longer surprising that Conservatives have accepted no deal as a normal item on the menu of Brexit outcomes, but it should never cease to be shocking. There are Tory MPs who grasp how destructive it would be but are afraid to spell it out. A leadership candidate who did so with sufficient clarity as to capture the truth of the matter would surrender all prospect of victory.

Yet all of the contenders have served in the upper echelons of government. Ignorance of the risks is not available as an excuse. The extraordinary conclusion is that knowledge and experience gained as a minister – potential qualities of seriousness, responsibility, judgment, pragmatism – are not considered paramount virtues when courting support in the Conservative party in 2019. They might be useful, but do not set a qualifying threshold for a potential Tory prime minister.

If they did, Boris Johnson would not be the frontrunner. It is the enthusiasm of grassroots Tories for Mr Johnson that has forced his parliamentary colleagues to disregard questions of competence and professionalism. Ordinarily, a candidate’s frontbench record would be important data in a leadership race. For Mr Johnson’s sake that metric has been discarded.

At his campaign launch on Wednesday the former foreign secretary barely mentioned the period he spent in a great office of state. There is no mystery in the reasons Mr Johnson might want to airbrush out his Foreign Office years. He was an abject failure. When Britain most needed deft diplomacy, it had a crass provocateur as ambassador-in-chief. His grasp of international sensibilities extended just far enough to reach the greatest offence with the fewest words. His lazy, cavalier approach did lasting, human damage. Mr Johnson bolstered Iranian arguments for the detention of a British citizen through ill-informed bluster in parliament. He did the exact opposite of what his brief required because he had no conception of ethical obligations attached to the role.

There is no reason to believe he would weigh the duties of a prime minister more seriously. Mr Johnson promises to take the UK out of the EU by the end of October with or without a deal. His method for impressing Brussels is threatening to renege on financial commitments made by his predecessor. He intends to secure a treaty by showing contempt for treaties. He thinks he will be taken seriously in the EU by confirming their view that he is a reprobate.

Mr Johnson is not the only candidate prepared to follow the no-deal path, but he is the one who has most thoroughly demonstrated disregard for Britain’s international reputation, suggesting he is qualified to carry out the threat.

A stable stint in government is no guarantee of readiness for Downing Street. Mrs May’s six years as home secretary persuaded colleagues that she had a safe pair of hands, yet she fumbled Brexit. But that is not a reason to abandon scrutiny of ministerial performance altogether. The leading candidate to replace Mrs May is a man who squandered the best opportunity he had to prove himself capable of wielding power responsibly. He was given the job of representing the UK on the world stage and subverted the role into a parody of what diplomacy is meant to accomplish. Tory MPs might now choose to avert their eyes from that record, but they will not be able to plead ignorance if he ends up applying the same wrecking, roguish ethos in No 10.