Johnson will lose if he pitches himself against the Queen

For an hour or two last Sunday night, a cluster of tweets assembled, voicing interest in the news that the Queen had allegedly asked legal advice about sacking Johnson. Context is everything. It turned out that this prodigious and unprecedented happening, if indeed it happened, dated from before the Supreme Court’s ruling on the lawfulness of Johnson’s prorogation. A little more damaging than a hand-on-thigh allegation, you might think (though not say).

This online murmuration had been caused by a finely crafted article about to appear in the The i, written by its star journalist, Ian Birrell. “One well-placed source” Birrell wrote “told me the Queen had, for the first time in her reign, sought advice on sacking a prime minister before the Supreme Court verdict… I have no idea if this is true – it would be denied by all concerned –” he said, “but the fact it was suggested by such a figure underscores the scale of Johnson’s difficulties”. It certainly does. Again context is everything, the opening of the Conservative Party Conference.

In the absence of any other “well-placed source” the rest of the press and BBC kept away from the story. Nor did the tweets continue. Despite Birrell’s prudent, professional caveats, you could easily imagine the concern in Balmoral: Johnson had projected the Queen into the public domain as a woman without agency, almost subordinate to the Prime Minister from whom alone she took advice, advice which she must follow even if it might turn out to be unlawful and wrong. The Queen, though meshed in the web of conventions surrounding constitutional monarchy, is not without agency, even if this agency has to be conducted in an oblique, sensitive and sophisticated manner. Wouldn’t you, in this position, be thinking ahead and wanting to know your legal position as a monarch in the light of a range of possible eventualities? Would you be that displeased if the country learnt you weren’t sitting on your hands while the unity of the kingdom was in peril? Parliament was prorogued from 9 September and Royal Assent  to the Benn Bill requiring Johnson to write a letter to the European Union asking for an extension beyond the 31 October date set for leaving was given the same day. What if Johnson simply refused to do so?

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve provided an answer in the Daily Mail. The Supreme Court, Grieve explained, would issue a mandamus (Latin has recently become contagious among parliamentarians) compelling the Prime Minister to comply. And if he doesn’t, says Grieve, he “will be out in five minutes. He will be dismissed”. And, yes, the Queen would step in – effectively sacking him – though this was a “hypothetical position”.

I wonder just how hypothetical. Perhaps the Queen was not being unduly anxious if, indeed, she had sought legal advice. There are two scenarios: the first is that Johnson whispers in the ear of key European leaders, not that quietly, that they shouldn’t grant another extension, that there would be no point because Parliament would be unable to get its act together and put everyone out of their misery, one way or another, by decisive action. The Prime Minister would then write the required extension letter and hope Macron dug in his heels and refused to agree. The second would be that Johnson became a Brexit martyr, refusing “on grounds of conscience” – italics necessary – to sign the letter, and thus be duly sacked, be cast very low only to be born aloft and back into power in a future election victory. Cummings, your choice.

One thing is clear: whatever happens next, Johnson will make sure “the people” are convinced it is not his fault if on 1 November we still remain in the European Union. There are dark warnings from Tory sources (read threats) of mob violence if we do. Eton Mess flung across the Mace in the Chamber and so on. The Prime Minister shall be blameless, “the people’s champion”. Many, though, will share the blame: Larry the Downing Street cat, all the Remain “traitors”, Gina Miller, Joanna Cherry, Lady Hale and, if as was murmured briefly in the twitter-sphere and things carry on the way they are going, Mrs Windsor herself. Then it will be Johnson and “the People” versus Parliament, the Supreme Court, over 16 million voters and possibly the Queen. No wonder Johnson has a problem with women.