Leader comment: Change of leadership will not, in itself, end the Brexit stand-off

Nobody was entitled to demand the presence of Boris Johnson at last night’s televised debate between contenders to become the next leader of the Conservative Party and - by extension - Prime Minister but we are all entitled to draw our own conclusions from his absence.

(left to right) Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Sajid Javid, Dominic Raab and Rory Stewart during the live television debate on Channel 4. Picture: PA

The spin, yesterday, from supporters of Mr Johnson - the clear favourite among the 160,000 Tory members who will select the next incumbent of 10 Downing Street - was that the debate shown on Channel 4 was a waste of time. That Mr Johnson is on record as having, in the past, been fully supportive of such events seemed not to matter.

Those who have followed the career of the former Mayor of London will find this inconsistency entirely unsurprising. Mr Johnson is, it seems, a man who will say whatever he believes is necessary to advance his own interests but refuses ever to take responsibility for his words.

Mr Johnson’s refusal to participate in the televised debate was entirely in keeping with the cynical strategy of his campaign team which has, as far as possible, kept him away from the spotlight because he cannot be trusted to open his mouth without causing offence.

The remaining contenders - Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Sajid Javid, Dominic Raab, and Rory Stewart - hardly represented the face of a diverse United Kingdom but there was certainly a diversity of opinion on how the challenges facing the UK might be approached.

The Scotsman believes that Mr Raab’s refusal to rule out the option of proroguing parliament in order to force through a version of Brexit that has been rejected by a majority of MPs should rule him out of the running. This would be a deeply undemocratic act that would set a terrifying precedent.

Mr Gove, Mr Javid, and Mr Hunt sought to persuade viewers that they could, somehow, renegotiate the withdrawal agreement struck by Theresa May and her EU counterparts. This may appeal to those who like their politics with a dollop on machismo on top but it completely ignores the fact that the EU has made it abundantly clear that no alternative agreement is available.

Mr Stewart stood out among the candidates - as he has done throughout the early stages of this campaign - for his insistence on taking into account reality when discussing Brexit. His position - that No Deal must be ruled out and that negotiations with the EU cannot be rerun - is credible.

However, despite Mr Stewart’s recognition of these facts, it is not clear how he would make good on his promise to deliver Brexit, on the terms available, where Theresa May failed. His suggestion of a Citizens’ Assembly has the whiff of a gimmick about it. If a divided parliament cannot agree a way forward, we are not at all sure how a divided group of members of the public will do so.

None of the candidates - including the reclusive Mr Johnson - is willing to countenance the idea of a second referendum. This, we believe, is a mistake. A change of leadership in Government will not, in itself, end the Brexit stand-off.

Nonetheless, The Scotsman hopes that Tory MPs and - ultimately - party members will select as our next Prime Minister a man who rejects cheap populism and considers bravado an inadequate replacement for thoughtful consideration.

Last night five of those who wish to lead the United Kingdom through these times of great division and uncertainty set out their cases. Though the final decision rests with Conservative Party members, they allowed the rest of us a chance to better assess their fitness for the role.

By his refusal, yet again, to put himself forward for scrutiny, Boris Johnson performed the same service.