Liz Truss needs an exit strategy. Unless she can eke past Canning’s 119 days, the Prime Minister will go down in history as Britain’s shortest-serving premier. That ignominy will only be compounded by the absence of a legacy. Nothing is going to overshadow a fleeting and calamitous spell in No. 10, but there are scraps she can throw future historians searching for something, anything consequential to say about her tenure other than its brevity. Trexit will be hugely embarrassing but it need not be an unmitigated humiliation.

Time is not on her side, so whatever she does must be readily achievable while reflecting her political instincts and worldview. The most immediate way to go about this is by using the despatch box. A prime minister’s words carry a power of their own. There are a number of matters where we know Truss’s view and where a prime ministerial statement could prove significant.

We know, for instance, that she considers China’s treatment of the Uyghurs a genocide. Parliament has expressed the same view but Boris Johnson’s government refused to echo it, even after the Trump administration declared a ‘systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state’. With a brief statement to the Commons, Truss could do the same, defying the Foreign Office blob, putting her beliefs into action, and sticking a thumb in the eye of the Chinese Communist party.

While she’s at it, she could signal a shift in Britain’s stance on Taiwan, which we don’t recognise out of deference to Beijing. Given China’s growing belligerence and the strategic importance of Taiwan – it produces 63 per cent of the world’s computer chips – it is clear that appeasing Beijing is no longer viable. Establishing diplomatic relations with Taipei can’t be done overnight, but Truss could express a personal view that the Republic of China is sovereign, at least in regard to the island. She could then instruct the Foreign Secretary to begin a review of UK policy on Taiwan, with an eye towards forging diplomatic links.

We also know Truss is sympathetic to Israel and has already pledged a review into moving the UK’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. The civil service was always going to drag its heels on this, so she should simply go around them. Make a statement to parliament recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announcing that Britain’s consulate in Jerusalem will be re-designated an embassy and its embassy in Tel Aviv a consulate. Since the United States and Russia already recognise all or part of Jerusalem, Truss’s statement would tip the balance on the Security Council. For the first time, a majority of the permanent members would acknowledge Israel’s capital. Truss would have made history while strengthening a valuable ally and righting a historical wrong.

Another mechanism open to Truss is policy-making. This involves a process but announcing a change and beginning the necessary work will make it harder for her successor to walk it back.

As the equalities minister who halted Tory plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act, we can surmise that Truss is concerned about the gender identity ideology that has advanced through the institutions in recent years. To address this, she could commission a legal opinion from the Attorney General, for distribution to public bodies, stating that sex and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the Equality Act but not ‘gender identity’. She could also amend the relationship and sex education guidelines to require that, where appropriate, schools teach biological sex and gender dysphoria as facts but clearly label ‘gender identity’ as a contested belief system.

There are matters where Truss maybe be at odds with her party and where policy would prove difficult to change. One example is house building. In 2019, she called for the Tories to build one million homes on the Green Belt. There’s no time to change legislation or policy here but she could commission an inquiry into planning law and the Green Belt. Stack it with Yimbys and give it a remit that emphasises intergenerational justice and a property-owning democracy. Truss’s successor could disband or ignore the inquiry but not without political flak.

Most dramatic of all would be fast-tracked legislation. This would have to be on a matter where there is a broad consensus. A prime candidate is the Scotland Act, which now finds itself before the Supreme Court as the Scottish government tests whether the law prevents SNP ministers from holding an independence referendum without Westminster’s permission. The Scotland Act was never intended to confer such a power but if the justices find nothing in the legislation to block a unilateral referendum, it would plunge the UK into a constitutional crisis, with the state’s very existence suddenly in doubt.

Neither the Tories nor Sir Keir Starmer wants to preside over the dismantling of the UK, so there is every incentive for the government and the official opposition to cooperate. Truss could propose fast-track legislation to amend the Scotland Act, a simple tweak to specify that the only lawful means by which a referendum may be held is by securing the permission of the UK parliament. This would be clear enough to avert any unsanctioned referendum while being limited enough to win Labour’s support. Truss would have strengthened the constitutional integrity of the UK.

None of this will save her premiership or draw attention from its failings, but it would allow her to exit with a little more dignity and a modest legacy.