The disarray of Johnson’s government exposes a disdain for Britain’s rules
When Christopher Geidt joined the Royal Household in 2002, he could scarcely have imagined that he would, two decades later, be front-page news. Yet that is what happened last week: Lord Geidt’s resignation as independent adviser on ministers’ interests was the political story of the week, and its implications are still emerging.
What does it all mean? Let us take the official version first. According to his exchange of letters with the prime minister, Geidt resigned because he was asked to advise on measures “which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code”. Unable to countenance the government taking such action, he felt he had been placed in an “impossible and odious position”—that is fighting talk in Whitehall—and so resigned with immediate effect.
Boris Johnson’s response revealed that the government intended to overrule advice from the Trade Remedies Authority and continue to apply tariffs on steel, thereby breaking World Trade Organization obligations. This measure was what Geidt could “have no part of”.
The story does not wholly add up. Firstly, it is very unusual for such a decision to be referred to the independent adviser. One Whitehall source says that WTO obligations have been affected “every week since we left the EU”, and Geidt may not initially have been consulted on the current decision. There is no record of his being approached in writing, which means that there is no audit trail on this matter. All of this points to a distraction.
It also raises wider questions. Was this the first WTO-related decision referred to Geidt? It hardly seems a clear-cut case for the adviser on ethics. If he had been consulted previously, had he approved previous measures? If he had not been consulted, why now?
One gets the impression that Downing Street, like a spot-picking teenager, has brought the matter to a head deliberately.
But why? Why should the issue be forced at this point? It is certainly no coincidence that Lord Geidt gave evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week. His performance was hesitant and opaque: accused by Labour’s John McDonnell of representing a “tin of whitewash”, he seemed oddly pleased with the description, and remained distinctly low-key.
What does Downing Street’s apparent framing of this narrative achieve? The prime minister will hope that it transforms the embarrassing resignation of his ethics adviser (the second to take that step) into a story about him battling red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy to stand up for British industry. That is a perspective with which he will be comfortable. It reinforces his brand. Many of his latest fights, from refugees to Northern Ireland, have been spun as a bid to take back control. A message, we need no reminders, he is comfortable with.
But this decision has wider effects. Last week, Liz Truss published the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which seeks to disapply parts of the withdrawal deal agreed with the EU. It reinforces an impression of a government impatient with legal obligations and agreements. The Protocol doesn’t suit? Rip it up. WTO rules are too onerous? Ignore them.
This matters. Downing Street mavens might be content to buckle their swashes on the international stage, but the UK’s reputation as a bastion of the rule of law is precious. If we are to make “Global Britain” a reality, we need to be able to reassure other countries around the world that we are reliable, trustworthy partners. The prime minister is assuredly not, as the old phrase has it, someone you would go tiger-hunting with: his personal brand, widely viewed as toxic, is in danger of staining that of the UK.
The questions have to be asked. Why did Geidt resign now? Who benefited from it? And who had the power to choose the timing and the narrative? The evidence, or the dearth of it, points to stage management from Downing Street, an attempt to achieve several objectives at once. It is typical of the prime minister’s short-term, make-it-to-the-weekend instincts. And, as they have done so before, those instincts have eased his situation for the moment, but damaged UK interests more broadly. It needs to stop.