Boris Johnson Takes the Reins: Brexit by October?

July 27, 2019

Boris Johnson’s ascent to UK Prime Minister reignites debates over Brexit strategy and its implications for the British economy.

On July 24, 2019, Boris Johnson was crowned the new leader of the Conservative Party and, by extension, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. His ascent to the highest office in the land was an event fraught with political tension and anticipation, with one key question hanging over the nation: would he deliver Brexit by October 31, 2019, as he had promised? Johnson’s leadership marked a dramatic shift in the country’s political landscape, particularly when it came to the protracted and divisive issue of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. As the deadline loomed, the British public, businesses, and politicians were left to ponder the consequences of his “do or die” rhetoric, which suggested a hard Brexit was all but inevitable.

Boris Johnson’s premiership was not simply about Brexit itself, but about the future of the UK’s economy and its position on the world stage. The Brexit process had already created economic uncertainty for years, and now, with Johnson at the helm, many wondered whether the United Kingdom could escape the quagmire that had come to define its political and economic discourse. To understand the enormity of the challenge, we need to turn to the past, where we can draw parallels with the trials of Shakespeare’s characters, whose grand ambitions often lead them into labyrinths of political intrigue, power struggles, and unforeseen consequences. One such figure comes to mind: Macbeth, whose desire for power and control ultimately leads to his downfall. Could Boris Johnson, like Macbeth, be led astray by ambition, with the promise of Brexit serving as his own ill-fated ambition?

The Brexit Dilemma: A Nation at a Crossroads

The question of what kind of Brexit the UK should pursue had dominated British politics since the 2016 referendum. The nation was split between Remainers, who sought to remain in the European Union, and Leavers, who believed the UK’s future lay outside the EU. Three years after the referendum, the political process was still deadlocked, with Parliament repeatedly rejecting former Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed deal. For many, the Brexit process had become an exercise in frustration, as promises of an orderly withdrawal were met with uncertainty, division, and the ever-looming threat of a no-deal scenario.

Boris Johnson, however, presented himself as the man who could break the deadlock. His vision for Brexit was clear: the UK would leave the EU by the end of October 2019, no matter the cost. This “do or die” approach resonated with those who felt that the country had already delayed Brexit for too long and needed to regain control of its destiny. Yet, as with many bold political promises, the reality of delivering on such an ambitious goal was fraught with complications.

The prospect of a no-deal Brexit sent shockwaves through the British economy. The country’s economic future seemed tethered to an unpredictable course, with businesses uncertain about the impact of new trade barriers, tariffs, and the disruption of established supply chains. In this climate of uncertainty, the role of the government was being questioned. As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the pigs’ manipulation of language and power serves to justify increasingly authoritarian actions, so too was Johnson’s rhetoric raising concerns about the extent to which he would wield his political influence in the pursuit of his goals. The economy, like the farm in Orwell’s allegory, was becoming a tool for political power, with little regard for the collateral damage to ordinary citizens.

The Economic Fallout: A Future Uncertain

If the UK were to leave the EU without a deal, the consequences for the British economy could be severe. Many economists predicted that a no-deal Brexit would lead to immediate disruptions in trade and supply chains, as well as a sharp depreciation of the pound. Companies that relied on EU markets for exports or imports could face tariffs, border delays, and new regulatory barriers, all of which would add costs and reduce efficiency. The uncertainty surrounding the UK’s future relationship with the EU was also likely to dampen investment, as businesses adopted a wait-and-see approach to see how the political situation unfolded.

However, for some Brexiteers, these potential economic disruptions were seen as the price of regaining control over the UK’s borders, laws, and trade agreements. They argued that in the long run, leaving the EU would allow the UK to forge new trade deals with countries around the world, free from the constraints of EU regulations. This optimistic view of Brexit aligned with the belief that the UK’s future success lay in its ability to navigate the world on its own terms.

Johnson, as the face of Brexit, echoed this sentiment, promising a “global Britain” that would thrive outside the EU. He frequently cited the potential for new trade deals with countries such as the United States, India, and Australia. Yet, the reality of negotiating these deals was far more complex. The UK would need to navigate the intricacies of global trade negotiations, which could take years to secure, and there was no guarantee that the deals would compensate for the losses incurred from leaving the EU’s single market and customs union.

In the face of this uncertainty, many businesses were calling for a clear and decisive resolution to the Brexit question. As in the works of Charles Dickens, particularly Hard Times, where characters are subjected to a harsh and utilitarian system that values profit over human well-being, so too was the British economy at risk of being shaped by cold, hard economic calculations that disregarded the social and political consequences. Johnson’s insistence on a hard Brexit, regardless of the economic fallout, was seen by some as a rejection of the nuanced, interconnected reality of modern global trade. The vision of a future “global Britain” felt as much like a dream as the utopian world Dickens critiqued in his novel.

Political Power and Public Opinion: The Macbeth Trap

Boris Johnson’s pursuit of Brexit by October 31 was not just an economic question; it was a political one. The UK’s future relationship with the EU would define Johnson’s legacy and shape the direction of British politics for decades to come. But Johnson’s approach was not without risks. Like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, whose ambition for power ultimately led him into a spiral of self-destruction, Johnson’s bold promises and rhetoric created high expectations, both among his supporters and his detractors.

The problem with such an approach is that it can easily backfire. If Johnson failed to deliver on his promise of Brexit by October 31, or if the economic consequences of a no-deal Brexit proved too severe, he risked losing public support. In this sense, the stakes for Johnson were incredibly high, as his political future seemed bound to the success or failure of his Brexit strategy. This put Johnson in the position of a tragic hero, whose ambition could either lead to his triumph or his downfall.

Furthermore, Johnson’s divisive style of leadership also risked further polarising the nation. The Brexit issue had already divided the country, with Remainers and Leavers at odds over the path forward. Johnson’s hard-line stance on Brexit seemed to deepen these divisions, creating an environment in which compromise appeared impossible. As in the works of Jane Austen, where characters often grapple with personal pride and societal expectations, Johnson’s political choices were increasingly constrained by the expectations of both his party and the broader public. The challenge of uniting a fractured nation under his leadership seemed daunting, if not impossible.

The Road Ahead: A Nation Divided

As we look to the future, the question of what kind of Brexit the UK will eventually achieve remains unresolved. Boris Johnson’s commitment to delivering Brexit by October 31 was a bold political statement, but the consequences of such a move were uncertain, both economically and politically. The road ahead was filled with peril, and the outcome of the Brexit saga would have far-reaching implications for the UK’s economy, political stability, and global standing.

Like the characters in the novels of the Brontë sisters, who must navigate the complexities of societal expectations and personal desires, the UK was at a crossroads, with Johnson’s leadership caught between the weight of historical decisions and the uncertainty of the future. The fate of Brexit, and by extension the future of the United Kingdom, was in the balance, and only time would tell whether Johnson’s vision for the nation would come to fruition or whether the consequences of his actions would echo through history like the tragic figures of literature.