Did Boris Johnson destroy his prime minister position even before he started?

Boris Johnson started his campaign at the party leadership by making a promise that he could not stand. "We will leave the EU on October 31, agreement or not," he said yesterday. He had to say it because no candidate can hope to win the leadership election without such a commitment.

But I do not think that a Prime Minister can withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU without an agreement at the end of October. Johnson would be removed from office before he could do it. It may sound extreme, but it's all about numbers.

Conservatives with the DUP have a majority in the House of Commons of five. There are three Labor MPs or former Labor MPs who support an exit without agreement: Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins and Graham Stringer, and Peterborough will likely elect a Brexit MP in the by-election next week.

This means that it would only take seven Conservative MPs to deprive Johnson of his majority. There are many more than seven Conservative MPs who think that an exit without an agreement would be so prejudicial that they are ready to put the country ahead of the party.

We can start with the six who have always voted against leaving the EU, let alone an agreement. Dominic Grieve was out yesterday about saying that he would "take all the necessary steps" to prevent an exit without agreement. This group includes Jo Johnson, the brother of the alleged prime minister, who sets up the intriguing possibility of an even greater family drama than that of David and Ed Miliband. Would Jo vote to knock Boris out just weeks after entering No. 10?

The bond of fraternal loyalty might remain unresolved, but many other Conservative MPs, some of them even in the cabinet, would do everything in their power to avoid what they call a "disorderly exit" From the European Union.

There have been many scholarly constitutional debates on how Parliament could prevent an exit without agreement. Proponents of what they call a frank break or the WTO Brexit were excited by an badysis by Maddy Thimont Jack of the Institute for Government who suggested that this could not be stopped.

This is a good example of how people see what they want to see. The article points out that it would be difficult for Yvette Cooper and Oliver Letwin to reiterate their constitutional innovation of legislating backbench by asking a prime minister to seek an extension of the Brexit calendar.

This device requires the government to table a bill or an amendment. If the government has no law to adopt, the Cooper-Letwin process can not be started.

But the article also states that there is a more radical option, which is to dismiss a prime minister by voting a no-confidence vote against the government. It does not give details of what might happen next, so let me describe a possible scenario.

If Prime Minister Johnson intended to let our membership in the EU expire on October 31 without agreement, he could be removed by seven, ten or twenty Conservatives voting with Jeremy Corbyn on a motion of censure. This would not lead immediately to a general election: under the Fixed – Term Parliaments Act, the Commons would have 14 days to pbad a motion of confidence with respect to an alternative government.

This could be a national unity government led by, for example, David Lidington, Kenneth Clarke or – just for television rights – Jo Johnson. The new Prime Minister would be installed by the Commons for the sole purpose of requesting a further extension of the time period provided for in Article 50.

It may be objected that Corbyn would never bad his deputies to put a Conservative in power, but if that was the only way to stop an exit without an agreement, I think he would do it. The Labor Party manifesto said not only that "not letting the EU agree is the worst possible deal for Britain," but ousting Boris Johnson gives the impression that the Labor victory could move the elections forward. General.

In any case, the scenario is credible enough to scare Johnson. The choice he should face – or any other Prime Minister without agreement – would then be to prevent Parliament from sitting, allowing the UK to default by 31 October or to ask for an extension itself.

Once again, there was a scholarly constitutional debate about how Prime Minister Johnson could prorogue Parliament or refuse to set a date on which he would sit, so that MPs would be powerless to prevent him from being forced out. the country of the EU without an agreement.

These are dangerous waters. I find it hard to believe that one seriously suggests that a prime minister suspends parliamentary democracy to do something as important as this one, in defiance of the majority at the Communal room.

Regardless of anyone's doubts about Boris Johnson's qualities as potential prime minister, I do not think he would try to overturn the will of Parliament.

No, he will be on the same treadmill of unrealistic promises as Theresa May. He will try not to renegotiate the contract. DUPs will remain opposed. The Conservative party will be more and more attached to an impossible result.

He will not be able to call a general election because the Conservative MPs, fearful of losing their seats, will not let him go. In the end, it could be forced into a referendum, but even then, the House of Commons could refuse to authorize an exit without agreement as one of the options on the ballot.

It's a good thing that Johnson thinks that, by his single personality force, he can change the reality because it seems that all future roads are blocked, not just for him, but for any other conservative prime minister possible.

Update: This article has been modified to reflect the likely election of a Brexit MP, favoring an exit without agreement, during the Peterborough by-election on June 6.