Because of his refusal to resign .. What are the scenarios for the dismissal of Boris Johnson?

LONDON

- British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is fiercely defending his position, declaring his defiance of all calls to resign, against the backdrop of suspicions that he has breached the rules of the comprehensive closure, and organizing parties at the Prime Minister's Residence at the height of the closing days.

Despite being surrounded by many evidence showing that the Prime Minister's headquarters was the scene of a number of parties attended by dozens of people and broke the rules of closure, including a party attended by Johnson personally, the latter still insisted that he did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the law.

The British were surprised how Johnson, who was dictating the rules of closure on a daily basis, did not know that the gathering of 100 people in one place was a violation of the law.

An independent commission of inquiry continues its work, and it can convict Johnson or acquit him of the accusation of violating the quarantine rules, but in view of Johnson's intransigence in resigning, the question has become who has the right to dismiss him?

Does the Queen have the power to impeach?

The monarchy in Britain is a parliamentary constitutional, and the Queen has symbolic as well as political powers, but they are controlled and restricted by the need for the Queen to remain neutral on political issues.

The British constitution gives the Queen the right to appoint the prime minister who is voted on by the British Parliament, and she delivers the opening speech of Parliament every year, and receives the prime minister almost weekly for consultation and guidance, but public policies remain within the competence of the government and Parliament.

The Queen avoids interfering in political affairs in order to maintain impartiality. Even during the most difficult political moments, such as the Brexit period or the Scottish independence referendum, the Queen did not express any position on these two decisive events in the country's history.

Have similar events occurred?

The last time a king dismissed a prime minister was two centuries ago, specifically in 1834, when King William IV dismissed the then prime minister, "Lord Melbourne", who was leading a majority government from a party called the Whig Party.

The king's justification at the time was that this government was taking extreme decisions, and that it violated the principles of the constitution, so he had to dismiss this government.

What does the law say?

Many jurists and constitutional jurists rule out the Queen's intervention in order to dismiss Boris Johnson, and consider that the nature of the British political system, excludes that the Queen's entry on the line in this crisis is a complicated matter.

On the other hand, there is a legal fatwa previously announced by Dominic Grieve, the former British Attorney General, as well as the legal advisor to a number of previous British governments, which confirmed that the Queen could “expel Johnson from office within 5 minutes.”

This legal opinion was in the context of Boris Johnson's refusal in 2019 to implement a parliament's decision to postpone withdrawal from the European Union until an agreement is reached, but the situation is currently a little different, as there is no decision from Parliament regarding the dismissal of Johnson.

Are there other solutions?

The solution to withdraw confidence remains the closest solution to the investigation in the event that Boris Johnson continues to be intransigent and refuses to resign. The process of withdrawing confidence from the government is carried out through Parliament’s vote on this proposal, and if it obtains a majority, the government will be overthrown.

After that, the majority party must announce the formation of a new government within a maximum of 14 days, and if it fails to do so, early elections will be called.

The Liberal Democratic Party has previously announced its intention to submit a motion to withdraw confidence from Johnson's government, but it fears that parliamentarians will not respond to this proposal, especially since the Conservative Party has an absolute majority in Parliament.

Is there evidence of Johnson's conviction?

The investigation committee is still looking into the fact that Johnson attended parties at the Prime Minister's Residence during the days of general closure, and whether Johnson actually knew that these parties were organized.

However, Dominic Cummings, Johnson's former chief adviser, detonated a heavy bomb when he announced his willingness to take the oath before the British Parliament, to confirm that he had told Boris Johnson that attending these parties at the Prime Minister's Residence was against the law.

And if this testimony is accepted, it means that Johnson will lose his last card in his defense, which is that he was not declaring that his attendance at these parties on closing days is against the law.