"Putsch", "Surrender Act", "Zombie Parliament" - these are terms of struggle with which Boris Johnson and his people are currently attacking anyone who somehow gets in their way. The once so subtle political debate in Britain has become a wild word battle.
The prime minister has long since staged himself as a politician who implements the Brexit in the interests of the people - against the resistance of the supposed establishment. First, he sent Parliament into a five-week compulsory break to prevent MPs from cracking down on his radical Brexit course - a bill that made it difficult for him to leave the EU unregulated, but still prevailed.
When Britain's Supreme Court finally declared the suspension of the parliament illegal, the prime minister commented on this fierce defeat as follows: "We in the UK will not be deterred from implementing the will of the people."
What does all this do with Britain's institutions, with democracy? And can the opposition still stop the PM? An interview with the London constitutional lawyer Robert Hazell.
SPIEGEL: Boris Johnson staged a fight against anyone who claims to stop Brexit: the parliament, the other parties, now even the Supreme Court. What does this mean for the British institutions?
Robert Hazell: That's unfortunate and a step backwards. Ironically, the Conservative Party, which once stood for respect for courts, the monarchy, the parliament, now apparently systematically denigrates these institutions. This certainly ensures that confidence in politics and the judiciary continues to decline. I think all MPs are seriously looking for a way out of the Brexit quagmire. It certainly does not help if leading politicians, including the prime minister, use a hate speech. If the head of government really wants an EU deal, he needs cross-party support. But you can not shake hands if you offend each other.
SPIEGEL: The government insists that the now illegally declared compulsory break for parliament is only a matter for politics. Do you still consider the verdict appropriate?
Hazell: I stand firmly behind this verdict. The court relies on two principles of our democracy: parliamentary sovereignty, that is, the fact that Parliament can make laws that everyone must respect. And the accountability of the government to Parliament. For this to be effective, the judges believe that Parliament must be allowed to come together. The court merely reminded us of the constitutional foundations on which our system is based.
SPIEGEL: Some are now threatening that the Supreme Court will be occupied politically in the future.
Hazell: That's crazy talk and would not be a good idea. We can be glad that we have a neutral and impartial jurisdiction, whose staff is selected at all levels by an independent commission. Political considerations are irrelevant.
SPIEGEL: Many expect the court to intervene again - for example, if Johnson wants to avoid the recently passed law, which would force him in case of doubt, to apply for Brexit postponement. What is left for the PM?
Hazell: Formally, the so-called Benn law requires the government to ask for a deferral of the Brexit deadline if it fails to have an EU exit agreement by 19 October. So far, the Prime Minister has not made a clear commitment that he will respect the requirements of this law should we get to that point. No one knows what happens if we do not have a deal on October 19th.
SPIEGEL: Johnson says he wants to respect the law, but in any case quit the EU on October 31st.
Hazell: That's not compatible. I think the political pressure on him will be huge if he refuses to apply for a delay. I expect that there will be a vote of no confidence in this case and that the House of Commons will try to drop Johnson as Prime Minister. There could also be attempts to close loopholes in Benn's law.
SPIEGEL: What tactic is the government pursuing?
Hazell: They are preparing for new elections. And their motto is "people against parliament".
SPIEGEL: But they're too late for the Brexit appointment.
Hazell: Right. There is no chance for new elections before 31 October, but probably only in November. Although Johnson would have liked to have it different. He is now taking a political risk. If he does not deliver Brexit at the end of October, some of his supporters may be disappointed and support the Nigel Farage Brexit party instead.
SPIEGEL: The government no longer has a majority in the lower house. Would not the Queen have to intervene?
Hazell: Nobody knows how angry the Queen is or how ashamed she feels she has unlawfully suspended Parliament on the advice of the government. I suppose she was not pleased. But for a modern monarch it is unthinkable to engage politically, even when it comes to bringing people together across all parties for a compromise.
SPIEGEL: And if Johnson clings to his post despite a vote of no confidence?
Hazell: If the House of Commons makes it clear that it supports an alternative candidate and Johnson still does not want to leave, the Queen could dismiss him. She has this power.
SPIEGEL: Is Britain in a constitutional crisis?
Hazell: In any case, we are in a deep political crisis. We have a minority government that finds little support in the House of Commons for its policies. In particular, there is no majority for an EU exit without agreement. However, we have the real constitutional problem through the Brexit referendum itself. It is unclear what role referendums play in our system and what happens when there is tension between direct democracy and the institution of representative democracy.
SPIEGEL: Is it a problem that there is no written constitution?
Hazell: No. I think every European country that wants to leave the EU would be in such extraordinary political and constitutional difficulties. All democracies rely heavily on conventions. One result of the poisoning Brexit policy is that people are ready to overturn existing habits for a long time.
SPIEGEL: Is the office of the prime minister permanently damaged?
Hazell: It is the highest political office in the country and we expect our prime ministers to act responsibly and dignifiedly. Johnson did not do both with his reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. Instead, it undermines the legitimacy of parliament. This is a very dangerous way.