Boris Johnson will get Brexit done

The argument

Supporters who preferred Boris Johnson to Keir Starmer argued that he was the leader who could finally deliver Brexit and end the years of paralysis that had followed the 2016 referendum. Johnson had been a leading figure in the Leave campaign, and on becoming prime minister he made 'Get Brexit Done' his central pledge at a moment when the country's departure from the European Union had stalled in a deadlocked Parliament. To his supporters, the protracted failure to enact the referendum result had become a source of national frustration and political dysfunction, and Johnson represented the decisiveness needed to break the impasse and honour the democratic decision. The argument held that Johnson did what others could not. He renegotiated the withdrawal terms, won a decisive general election victory in 2019 on the promise to complete Brexit, and then took the United Kingdom out of the European Union, ending the constitutional limbo that had consumed British politics for years. Proponents argued that respecting the outcome of the largest democratic vote in the country's history was a matter of basic democratic legitimacy, and that a prime minister who delivered on that mandate had demonstrated both resolve and respect for the will of the people, where his predecessors had floundered. From this standpoint, the ability to resolve the defining political question of the era — and to do so in line with how the country had voted — was a decisive qualification. A leader who could cut through the deadlock and deliver a clear result was, proponents argued, what the country needed after years of indecision. Because Boris Johnson would get Brexit done, having championed and delivered it, this argument holds, he would make the better prime minister.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics and Starmer's supporters reply that "getting Brexit done" describes completing one policy, not doing it well. They argue the terms secured brought economic costs and the fraught Northern Ireland Protocol, so delivery is not self-evidently a mark of the better premier; honouring the referendum settled a democratic question without settling whether the outcome served the country. They add that competence on a single issue says little about governing overall. Later controversies during Johnson's tenure — over standards and lockdown conduct — are cited as evidence that decisiveness on Brexit did not translate into good government, which is the broader quality a prime minister is judged on.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Completing Brexit is a fact about finishing one policy; critics argue its economic effects and the Northern Ireland Protocol mean "done" is not the same as "done well." [Rejecting P3] Respecting the referendum result speaks to democratic legitimacy on one question, not to the general competence and integrity required across a whole premiership.