Skip to content

Resolve Brexit and restore confidence, challenges of the new ‘premier’

December 12, 2019

If Johnson achieves the forecasted majority, he will inherit conflicts in whose gestation had much to do


The resolution of the paralysis of Brexit and the reconstruction of the vilified trust in the British political and institutional fabric constitute the most immediate challenges awaiting the prime minister who will leave the generals in the United Kingdom, a momentous vote for the future of the second economy European that, however, has been marked by a discredit that synthesizes one of the most convulsive years of recent history.

The two challenges feed and share a common trunk. The activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on March 29, 2017 had marked the countdown of two years for the departure of the European Union, but the date arrived and the divorce had not materialized. For a sector of society, the delay, generated by the disagreement in Parliament, was a betrayal of the result of the 2016 referendum, while for the supporters of continuity in the block, it became the golden opportunity to stop the Brexit

The radicalization between the two became endemic and the fracture moved to all spheres of political and institutional life, manifesting itself in an especially virulent animosity against the system in general and Westminster in particular. The disaffection caused in the public has been evident in these elections, which have failed to arouse the budget enthusiasm for a vote that, essentially, means reopening the debate of the plebiscite of three and a half years ago.

Hence the task is now up to the government to throw the ballot boxes, especially if the polls are confirmed and the candidate for reelection, the conservative Boris Johnson, obtains the desired absolute majority. As a sponsor of a divorce he had decided to support when it was announced, in February 2016, the 'premier' is the moral godfather of a project that has kept the domestic agenda paralyzed and has yet to prove that it constitutes the panacea that his sponsors advocated .


Johnson also has much to say about the lack of credibility of citizens in his political class. His premise to summon the generals established that they were the only alternative to the blocking of Brexit by the House of Commons. The allegation, however, starts from a fallacy, since the deputies had approved in October, for the first time, an agreement to leave the EU, precisely that of the 'premier', the only thing they demanded was more time.

Nor does it help that he would have based his career towards conservative leadership and his first one hundred days in power on a promise, materialize the breakup at the end of October, which would end up breaking, or that during the campaign weeks he had pulled on December 31, 2020 as the new reference period in which you will have everything ready to start the journey alone.

His electoral ammunition, in fact, is based on a chain of questionable arguments. His mantra 'Materialize the Brexit' sells that on January 31, current date for departure, after three rejections, the process will be settled, when it will only go to a new phase, the most complicated: the establishment of the future relationship.

But the most doubtful is the repeated 'ad nauseam' guarantee that the process will be ready by the end of next year, an aspiration that both the EU and previous precedents have already taken charge of disputing. As a result, if he could keep himself in office, Johnson could see how the unfounded optimism with which he tried to encourage a disenchanted electorate turns against him at the most difficult juncture, since he would have exhausted the trick of electoral advancement as revulsive.


The vocation deployed in the little more than four months that has passed in the Number 10 before the division in the street could be merely the result of the precarious situation that had inherited, with a divided parliamentary and minority group. However, the pernicious rhetoric 'The People against the System' with which he faced the generals arouses suspicion about what 'premier' would want to be if citizens grant him the trust, the leader of an inclusive administration, or the fierce leader who aspires to internal homogeneity

The danger that Johnson seems to disregard is that this severe impairment of trust in the political and institutional fabric will affect anyone who acquires the right to remain on Downing Street for five years. The legacy of this opportunistic rhetoric with which in 2019 has tried to collect the maximum revenue at the polls could chronify the toxicity that has infected the electoral countdown and dictate the tonic of the next five years.

However, the campaign has surprised the resistance of the right, since after almost a decade of management characterized by austerity, conservatives have demonstrated the ability to move forward, instead of the inevitable erosion that generally causes the erosion of power. Regardless of whether the demography is right with hegemony, what is almost unquestionable is that this day will win, an outcome that forces us to analyze the ideological map of a country reformulated by the Brexit.

An absolute majority victory would allow Johnson to present his electoral leadership as a master coup, but the reality in recent weeks has shown indolence has been installed in a citizenry that is considered destined to choose between the least bad of two similarly disappointing options: the 'premier' does not particularly like, but his Labor rival, Jeremy Corbyn, is even less popular, which limits the dilemma to two openly questioned profiles that offer conflicting scenarios and that do not even imbue credibility.