Boris
Johnson's interview with Andrew Marr - Summary and analysis
Here are
the main points from Boris Johnson’s interview.
Boris
Johnson rejected claims that the language he was using against his Brexit
opponents would incite violence. (See 10.19am.)
He said he
was “sorry” if the Labour MP Paula Sherriff took his reply “humbug” in the
Commons last week to refer to the concerns she was raising about the safety of
MPs. That was not what he intended, he said. He explained:
My use of
the word humbug was in the context of people trying to prevent me - us - from
using the word ‘surrender’.
When Andrew
Marr pointed out that Sherriff’s question was very specific, Johnson replied:
In that
case, that was a total misunderstanding and that was wrong.
I can
certainly say sorry for the misunderstanding, but my intention was to refuse to
be crowded out from using the word ‘surrender’ to describe the Surrender Act.
You can
read Sherriff’s question to Johnson in full here. It is easy to see why MPs did
reasonably conclude the “humbug” comment was seen as a response to what she was
saying about threats.
Johnson
claimed that he had no interest to declare when he was London mayor in relation
to his friend Jennifer Arcuri’s firm getting sponsorship from a mayoral
organisation. (See 10.42am.)
He claimed
that the Arcuri allegations about him were politically motivated and driven by
critics opposed to Brexit. (See 10.42am.)
He said “of
course” it would be possible for the UK to leave the EU without a Brexit deal
on 31 October. Asked if this would be possible, despite the passing of the Benn
Act, which says the PM has to request an extension if there has been no deal
passed by 19 October and and no Commons vote for no deal, Johnson said “of
course”. Marr asked:
Can we
still leave the EU on October 31 without a deal?
Johnson
replied:
Of course
we can.
Johnson
dismissed suggestions that he might resign rather than request on article 50
extension. This would be one way of honouring his promise not to request an
extension in the event of no deal being agreed. But, asked if he would do this,
he replied:
I have
undertaken to lead the party and my country at a difficult time, and I’m going
to continue to do that. I believe it’s my responsibility to do that and I think
that it’s our job to get Brexit done on October 31 and to move the country on.
He refused
to say whether he had asked another EU country to veto an article 50 extension
as a means of ensuring the UK has to leave on 31 October. When asked if he had
done this, he replied:
I’m not
going to get into my discussions with any other EU head of state about the
negotiations, because they are extremely interesting but they are also
delicate.
Johnson
also refused to comment on whether the government was planning various other
strategies to get around the Benn Act: using EU law, using the Civil
Contingencies Act or getting someone to submit the extension request on his
behalf.
Johnson
claimed that other EU states did not want the UK to stay in. He said:
It is
certainly true that other EU countries also don’t want this thing to keep
dragging on. They don’t want the UK to remain in the EU, truculent and mutinous
and in a limbo, and not wishing to co-operate in the way that they would like.
He claimed
there was a “good chance” of getting a Brexit deal. But he did not explain what
it might entail.
He
described the supreme court ruling as “peculiar”, hinting it might lead to
pressure for the court to change. He said:
I think
that the judgment by the 11 justices was certainly novel and peculiar in the
sense that they went against the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice
in extending the remit of the court into what was, I think, obviously a political
question.
The
consequences of that decision are going to be working their way through for
quite some time.
You are now
already starting to see a backlash of people questioning the implications of
that decision.
In the
Sunday Telegraph this morning Johnson goes slightly further, hinting that there
could be a case for having justices approved by parliament. See 9am. We are
still a long way off from ministers saying the supreme court should contain an
equal number of remain-voting and leave-voting judges, but Johnson’s comments,
and the comments of Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general on this on Wednesday,
suggest that in time the argument might gain traction.
Johnson did
not deny a Sunday Times report saying he has apologised to the Queen. Asked about
this, he replied:“I’m not going to go into my conversations with Her Majesty.”
He ruled
out an electoral pact with the Brexit party. Asked about this, he said:
The
Conservative party is the oldest, greatest political party in the world, it’s a
big, broad church and we don’t do deals with other parties.
Presumably
he was referring to electoral pacts, not deals. Only this decade the
Conservative party has formed a coalition with one other party, and a
confidence and supply agreement with another. (In the past it has formed
electoral pacts too - for example, in 1918.)
He rejected
the suggestion that the claim he has announced plans to build 40 new hospitals
is misleading. Asked about this, he replied:
There is a
long-term infrastructure plan for 40 hospitals. There is going to be seed
funding for all 40. Six are going to start immediately ... that is all going
ahead and I’m incredibly proud of that - but there are then 34 more that are
coming down the track.
He claimed
that Labour’s plan to cut working hours announced last week would harm the
poor. He said:
They’ve
decided that they want a four-day [working] week which would hit the poorest.
Labour said
last week it would try to bring the average number of hours worked per week
down to 32 over a decade, without workers losing pay. Interestingly, there is
some evidence that the public do not accept this claim and will believe what
Johnson is saying about the plan. This is from a report in the Times (paywall)
on Saturday which wrote up the findings of a focus group in Stoke featuring
people who all voted Labour in 2015. It said:
Tony, who
works at B&Q, was concerned the plan to cut the working week could put jobs
at risk because it would increase costs to business. Sarah said that if she
worked fewer hours she would get less pay, which she couldn’t afford.
No one
thought the plan was a good idea but most thought it had been proposed simply
to win their votes. “It’s unworkable,” said one. “It’s just idealistic
nonsense, isn’t it? What Labour are trying to do is hit on the things that
bother people. If you work in a school, Ofsted bothers you so they say they’ll
get rid of it.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário