Boris Johnson's desire to join the fight against his old enemies could turn the UK into a pariah
The British Prime Minister spent most of this week arguing with the EU and quarreling with the European Court of Human Rights, writes a CNN columnist. At the same time, Johnson tried to hush up accusations of London's violation of the requirements of international law.
Luke McGee
On Monday, June 13, British Foreign Minister Liz Truss unveiled the long-awaited draft law on amendments to the Northern Ireland Protocol. If adopted, this bill will allow the British government to unilaterally ignore some points of the Brexit deal, which it agreed with the European Union in 2019.
Two days later, the European Union launched a trial against the United Kingdom, accusing it of failing to comply with a number of conditions prescribed in the protocol. Meanwhile, the Deputy Chairman of the European Commission, Maros Šefčovič, said that "there are no legal and political justifications for unilaterally changing the terms of an international agreement <...> Let's call a spade a spade: this is illegal."
In response, British government officials angrily stated that if adopted, this bill would be absolutely legal. Attorney General Suella Braverman, who gave the green light to the new bill, appeared on television to defend it. During the interview, she accused the BBC of trying to make the EU look like "good guys" and told ITV's political editor that his claim that the bill violates the law is "your own fantasies."
On Tuesday, Johnson's government was already cursing another European institution – the European Court of Human Rights, which canceled the departure of an airplane that was supposed to take refugees seeking asylum in the UK to Rwanda. In April, the United Kingdom authorities announced an agreement under which asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda, where they were to be granted asylum. Earlier, the UN Human Rights Office warned the UK that such actions could be illegal, since sending to Rwanda could endanger the lives of refugees.
This plan of the British authorities was severely criticized by human rights organizations, which managed to win in many separate cases of departure, but which failed in their attempt to get the flight canceled. But when the European Court of Human Rights intervened on Tuesday, saying that the last asylum seekers who were supposed to board this plane had not yet exhausted all legal possibilities in the United Kingdom, the flight had to be canceled.
Once again, government officials reacted to the court's decision by stating that their plan was perfectly legal. Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab has already announced that the United Kingdom will adopt its own Bill of Rights, which will actually allow it to ignore the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
On Saturday, Johnson said he was "convinced of the legality" of the plan to send migrants to Rwanda. "All the courts in our country have reported that they see no obstacles [to the implementation of this plan]. No one in our country, no court in our country has called this plan illegal, which was very encouraging," Johnson said in an interview with reporters.
The Prime Minister's willingness to arrange public quarrels with major international institutions seems quite understandable if you look at the events of the recent past. Both Johnson and his predecessor Theresa May clashed with the judiciary and with the European Union during the most difficult moments of Brexit. According to the theory popular among conservatives, this strengthened the positions of both leaders among their key supporters, since they criticized elitist institutions that prevented them from fulfilling the will of the people.
"Looking back, Boris has achieved quite impressive success in his attacks on major institutions such as the European Union and the courts," one former government minister told CNN. – And these were not artificially created conflicts. Both Rwanda and Northern Ireland represent important elements of Government policy. However, the rigidity with which we defend them suggests to me that Boris sees an additional benefit in this."
In a certain light, such logic is quite reasonable. Johnson is constantly at the center of scandals, and his personal approval rating has dropped dramatically – along with the rating of the Conservative Party.
He recently had to fight to stay on as leader of his own party, and on Thursday evening his ethics adviser Christopher Geidt resigned, saying that the Johnson government had put him in an "incredible and disgusting position."
Thus, disputes with the arrogant elite in Brussels and Strasbourg around such truly pressing issues as Brexit and immigration are perhaps exactly what Johnson needs now to put everything back in its place.
However, every time the government is fixated on domestic politics, it risks forgetting that its actions are being watched by enemies and friends around the world.
CNN reporters spoke with many Western diplomatic sources who admitted that the Johnson government had cast a dark shadow over their perception of the United Kingdom. According to one senior Western official who has been working closely with the UK since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, although the allies are still continuing to coordinate with the UK, the uneasy feeling that they are no longer understanding which version of Johnson they will see next has already become the norm.
"He's not Donald Trump, but he's so unpredictable that allies are already starting to think he looks like Donald Trump," said one Western diplomat.
In an interview with CNN, another European diplomat noted: "It is quite difficult to exaggerate the damage that has been done. Trust has been seriously damaged." Commenting on the issue of Northern Ireland, the sources said that "from our side, we know that there are solutions to the protocol issue. But these decisions should be based on trust. Why should we believe that he won't break any new agreement in the future?"
Western officials say – with some sadness – that immediately after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, there were moments when it seemed to them that Johnson could start behaving like a "stable and predictable" leader.
One European official confirmed this, saying that "there were moments when we looked at the UK with some admiration and thought that there were probably prospects. Ukraine seemed to be something more than our petty quarrels."
However, according to the official, this sense of optimism quickly faded – after Johnson compared Ukraine's struggle for freedom with Brexit.
Conservatives in Westminster give mixed assessments of how bad things are. Some are alarmed that Johnson's constant scandals and rhetoric are turning the UK into a pariah. Even worse, they fear that if a country like the United Kingdom – a traditional member of the norms–based international order - starts to take such liberties with the requirements of international law, it could become a terrible precedent, especially now that democracy is under threat in different regions of the world.
On the other hand, some members of parliament believe that Johnson's critics are winding themselves up because of such moments that ordinary people simply do not pay attention to. They claim – quite reasonably – that a member of the Group of Seven, a member of NATO, a permanent member of the UN Security Council – a country that in many senses has assumed the role of leader in the situation with Ukraine – is unlikely to turn out to be an outcast from which its allies will turn away.
Ultimately, Johnson's quarrels with international institutions are likely to affect the balance of power in the domestic political arena. Some will like that Johnson has taken a tough stance. Others will feel an increasing sense of shame that this person is their prime minister.
"If you were in Boris Johnson's place, you might also take up some issues with a vengeance. What does he have to lose? – one member of parliament from the Conservative Party said in an interview with CNN. – Either the situation is so bad that he is doomed to fail, no matter what he does, or he will be able to turn the situation around, and he has two whole years to do it. So why not come out and join the fight on our own field?"
This assessment looks very reasonable when you sit in Westminster and talk to people who spend a lot of time in Westminster. However, Johnson's decisions have a huge impact on the lives of people who have never been to Westminster and for whom this is not a game. Especially now that the UK is going through the most serious cost-of-living crisis in the last few decades.
Johnson will only find out if his game was worth the candle at the next national election – unless, of course, he is removed from office earlier. Undoubtedly, there will be people who will see him as the same Brexit street fighter who protects the UK from hooligans seeking to deal with it.
However, there will be a huge number of people who think that instead of quarreling with the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, Johnson should think about how to improve their quality of life.
