FEBRUARY 2016

21st February 2016 - Boris Johnson releases statement in vote leave pamphlet with Michael Gove

I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe – the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor – with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23.

And it is important to remember: it isn’t we in this country who have changed. It is the European Union. In the 28 years since I first started writing for this paper about the Common Market – as it was then still known – the project has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisable, rather as the vast new Euro palaces of glass and steel now lour over the little cobbled streets in the heart of the Belgian capital.

When I went to Brussels in 1989, I found well-meaning officials (many of them British) trying to break down barriers to trade with a new procedure – agreed by Margaret Thatcher – called Qualified Majority Voting. The efforts at harmonisation were occasionally comical, and I informed readers about euro-condoms and the great war against the British prawn cocktail flavour crisp. And then came German reunification, and the panicked efforts of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand to “lock” Germany into Europe with the euro; and since then the pace of integration has never really slackened.

As new countries have joined, we have seen a hurried expansion in the areas for Qualified Majority Voting, so that Britain can be overruled more and more often (as has happened in the past five years). We have had not just the Maastricht Treaty, but Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon, every one of them representing an extension of EU authority and a centralisation in Brussels. According to the House of Commons library, anything between 15 and 50 per cent of UK legislation now comes from the EU; and remember that this type of legislation is very special.

It is unstoppable, and it is irreversible – since it can only be repealed by the EU itself. Ask how much EU legislation the Commission has actually taken back under its various programmes for streamlining bureaucracy. The answer is none. That is why EU law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards. We are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy. Then – and this is the key point – the EU acquires supremacy in any field that it touches; because it is one of the planks of Britain’s membership, agreed in 1972, that any question involving the EU must go to Luxembourg, to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.

It was one thing when that court contented itself with the single market, and ensuring that there was free and fair trade across the EU. We are now way beyond that stage. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the court has taken on the ability to vindicate people’s rights under the 55-clause “Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”, including such peculiar entitlements as the right to found a school, or the right to “pursue a freely chosen occupation” anywhere in the EU, or the right to start a business.

These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced. Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter.

Alas, that opt-out has not proved legally durable, and there are real fears among British jurists about the activism of the court. The more the EU does, the less room there is for national decision-making. Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.

Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians – as with immigration. That enrages them; not so much the numbers as the lack of control. That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty – the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives. We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are “all the same” and can change nothing, and to the rise of extremist parties.

Democracy matters; and I find it deeply worrying that the Greeks are effectively being told what to do with their budgets and public spending, in spite of huge suffering among the population. And now the EU wants to go further. There is a document floating around Brussels called “The Five Presidents Report”, in which the leaders of the various EU institutions map out ways to save the euro. It all involves more integration: a social union, a political union, a budgetary union. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected.

David Cameron has done his very best, and he has achieved more than many expected. There is some useful language about stopping “ever-closer union” from applying to the UK, about protecting the euro outs from the euro ins, and about competition and deregulation.

There is an excellent forthcoming Bill that will assert the sovereignty of Parliament, the fruit of heroic intellectual labour by Oliver Letwin, which may well exercise a chilling effect on some of the more federalist flights of fancy of the court and the Commission. It is good, and right, but it cannot stop the machine; at best it can put a temporary and occasional spoke in the ratchet.

There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share. They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not.

It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.

I also accept there is a risk that a vote to Leave the EU, as it currently stands, will cause fresh tensions in the union between England and Scotland. On the other hand, most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the Scots will vote on roughly the same lines as the English.

We will be told that a Brexit would embolden Putin, though it seems to me he is more likely to be emboldened, for instance, by the West’s relative passivity in Syria.

Above all, we will be told that whatever the democratic deficiencies, we would be better off remaining in because of the “influence” we have. This is less and less persuasive to me. Only 4 per cent of people running the Commission are UK nationals, when Britain contains 12 per cent of the EU population. It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service. Are we really unable to do trade deals? We will have at least two years in which the existing treaties will be in force.

The real risk is to the general morale of Europe, and to the prestige of the EU project. We should take that seriously.

We should remember that this federalist vision is not an ignoble idea. It was born of the highest motives – to keep the peace in Europe. The people who run the various EU institutions – whom we like to ply with crass abuse – are, in my experience, principled and thoughtful officials. They have done some very good things: I think of the work of Sir Leon Brittan, for instance, as Competition Commissioner, and his fight against state aid.

They just have a different view of the way Europe should be constructed. I would hope they would see a vote to leave as a challenge, not just to strike a new and harmonious relationship with Britain (in which those benefits could be retained) but to recover some of the competitiveness that the continent has lost in the last decades.

Whatever happens, Britain needs to be supportive of its friends and allies – but on the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interested, associated, but not absorbed; with Europe – but not comprised. We have spent 500 years trying to stop continental European powers uniting against us. There is no reason (if everyone is sensible) why that should happen now, and every reason for friendliness.

For many Conservatives, this has already been a pretty agonising business. Many of us are deeply internally divided, and we are divided between us. We know that we do not agree on the substance, but I hope we can all agree to concentrate on the arguments; to play the ball and not the man.

At the end of it all, we want to get a result, and then get on and unite around David Cameron – continuing to deliver better jobs, better housing, better health, education and a better quality of life for our constituents for whom (let’s be frank) the EU is not always the number one issue.

It is entirely thanks to the Prime Minister, his bravery and energy, and the fact that he won a majority Conservative government, that we are having a referendum at all. Never forget that if it were down to Jeremy Corbyn and the so-called People’s Party, the people would be completely frozen out.

This is the right moment to have a referendum, because as Europe changes, Britain is changing too. This is a truly great country that is now going places at extraordinary speed. We are the European, if not the world, leaders in so many sectors of the 21st-century economy; not just financial services, but business services, the media, biosciences, universities, the arts, technology of all kinds (of the 40 EU technology companies worth more than $1bn, 17 are British); and we still have a dizzyingly fertile manufacturing sector.

Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets beyond. This is a moment to be brave, to reach out – not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else.

We have given so much to the world, in ideas and culture, but the most valuable British export and the one for which we are most famous is the one that is now increasingly in question: parliamentary democracy – the way the people express their power.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote for real change in Britain’s relations with Europe. This is the only opportunity we will ever have to show that we care about self-rule. A vote to Remain will be taken in Brussels as a green light for more federalism, and for the erosion of democracy.

In the next few weeks, the views of people like me will matter less and less, because the choice belongs to those who are really sovereign – the people of the UK. And in the matter of their own sovereignty the people, by definition, will get it right.”

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620221832/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statements_by_secretary_of_state_michael_gove_mp_and_mayor_of_london_boris_johnson_mp

And

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/746/attachments/original/1456999674/VL_pocket_booklet_AW_SPR.pdf?1456999674

[top]

21st February 2016 - Interviewed outside his residence, announcing his position on the leave campaign

Boris: I thought I’d better come out and say something ’cos I can see you were all, you were all in in a great mass here. I apologise for being slow with comi- I know you wanna ask my views on Europe don’t you? Lemme tell you, lemme tell you where I’ve got to which is, that I am - I am, I’ve made up my mind. And I wanna stress that - we can see lots of people we have a huge crowd here - this is not about whether you love Europe - act- I love Brussels, I used to live in Brussels, fantastic city, wonderful place and I love European culture and civilisation I consider it to be the greatest civilisation this planet has ever produced and we are all products - well most of us here are products of that civilisation and it is a fantastic thing.

But there should be no confusion between the wonders of Europe and the holidays of Europe and food and friendship and whatever else you get from Europe with a political project that is basically being going on now for decades which Britain has been a member of since 1975 and I now think is in real danger of getting out of proper democratic control. That is- that is my view and it is a view I’ve held for a long time I’ve written a huge number of articles about it. And when people talk of sovereignty this is not something that is possessed by politicians. Sovereignty is people’s ability, the ability of the public to control their lives and to make sure that the people they elect are able to pass the laws that matter to them and the trouble is with Europe that that is being very greatly eroded and you’re seeing it more and more over employment, over border controls, over human rights, over all sorts of stuff and you’ve got a supreme judicial body, in the European court of justice that projects down on this entire 500 million people territory a single unified judicial order of which there is absolutely no recourse and no comebacks and in my view that has been getting out of control. There’s too much judicial activism, there’s too much legislation coming from the EU.

And so, I look at what the prime minister achieved the other day - and I have to say given the time he had he did fantastically well, I think everyone should pay tribute to David Cameron for what he pulled off in a very short space of time. But I don’t think that anybody could realistically claim that this is fundamental reform of the EU or of Britain’s relationship with the EU and its my view that after 30 years of writing about this we have a chance, actually, to do something - I have a chance actually to do something, I would like to see a new relationship based more on trade, cooperation but as I say with much less of this supernational element.

So that’s where I’m coming from and that’s why I decided after a huge amount of heartache I didn’t want to do anything, the last thing I wanted was to go against David Cameron and the government but after a great deal of heartache- I don’t think there’s anything I can do- I will be advocating Vote Leave or whatever the team is called. I understand there are many of them [unintelligible] as I understand them - because I want a better deal for the people of this country, to save them money and to take back control that’s really I think what this is all, what this is all about.

What I won’t do and I just stress, what I won’t do is take part in loads of blimming TV debates against other members of my party. And - I heard - I was told about what the PM [prime minister] had to say about not sharing platforms with George Galloway and other individuals I won’t do that either. If I am asked my views and you are kind enough to come in considerable numbers to ask my views I will give my views because that’s what they are.

Reporter: Boris if that’s really what you thought all along why have you kept your party waiting for such a long time?

Boris: Because- the truth is it has been agonisingly difficult and I think the truth is for many of us, what I’ve said over many years - well couple of years now - is I would like to be in a reformed EU [European Union] and that’s my hope. An EU that’s based more on free trade and fundamental treaty change. I don’t think I don’t think that has really been offered so that’s where I am.

Reporter: Is this just a calculated, cynical play for leadership of the Tory party?

Boris: On the contrary, on the contrary, I think that really and truly it would be the best thing possible for the people who are listening to this debate, who are wondering genuinely in their minds which way to go. A lot of people are undecided about this I so- it’s so important if we focus on the question at hand: is it better for Britain to remain in Europe as it currently is or is there a way that we could actually get a better deal that was- did more for British democracy, that restored some control for people in this country?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRjl4biSmZ4

[top]

22nd February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking as mayor of London to the London assembly

Len Duvall AM: Thank you very much, chair. Mr mayor, part of your European policy here in City Hall could be described as status quo. You had argued for change but status quo. Yesterday afternoon you changed that position in your role as executive mayor.

In your article today, most of it is spent on structural and political implications. Very little is spent on the impact of leaving the European Union on the economy and jobs, as well as the financial sector.

There have been comments today in the papers and it is a question that needs to be put to you today. Are you really sacrificing London’s economy and its future - the issue of the financial centre - on the basis of your personal ambition?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. It is very important to be reasonable about this because this, obviously, will be a debate that is heard many times. When you look at the business at hand, which is the GLAbudget, and you contrast that with the European budget, there is a clear difference in financial management and, clearly, we are losing out at a European level in waste of money. One of the arguments I would make is that huge sums go from the United Kingdom to the EU that we do not really see again and in many cases are misspent. I suppose that might be the relevance to your point to this conversation.

Len Duvall AM: Thank you, Mr mayor --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): If you are asking a wider question about the City of London and our membership of the EU, there will be arguments both ways. You will certainly hear in the next few months all sorts of scaremongering and you will hear people saying that we cannot survive outside. You will hear quite a lot of “Angloscepticism”. I saw somebody use that word yesterday in The Sunday Times. There are people who do not think that Britain could stand on our own two feet and all the rest of it.

I have to say that that is profoundly wrong. The people who make these arguments are the same as the people who warned that we should not leave the European exchange rate mechanism, which turned out to be the salvation of the UK economy. They are the same people who said that we had to join the euro, which turned out to be a catastrophic mistake and a very unfortunate enterprise. Therefore, I am inclined to take those views with a pinch of salt. I hear all sorts of prognostications from the City. I read plenty of people who think actually that the British economy could prosper outside the EU and not just the British economy but London and the City of London, too.

You say that there has been a change in the attitude of City Hall. Actually, the interesting thing that you may have forgotten but perhaps you did not read it, Len, is that Gerard Lyons, my economic advisor, produced a report at least 18 months ago that set out very clearly, in his view as the former leading economic Director at the Standard Chartered bank, why Britain could prosper outside the EU.

Len Duvall AM: Mr mayor, he says that of course we could leave the EU and that there are issues, but he also says that we are better off in the EU in that report. There are lines in there that say that.

London First has said that leaving the EU would cost the capital £13.9bn a year and 75,000 jobs from the London economy by 2030. City UK has said that the links between the financial markets in the UK and the EU are extensive and are fundamental to the prosperity of the whole of the region. HSBC recently said it would ship around 1,000 investment jobs to Paris as a result of Brexit.

Are you saying that they are all wrong? No one disputes that this country could leave the EU. The question that I am asking you is about the implications. Are you prepared to risk the implications of that “leap in the dark”, as your prime minister has said, in terms of the economy and in terms of living standards in this country by leaving the EU?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I genuinely think that those fears are wildly exaggerated. Those are the arguments that we have heard time and time again. We heard it before. I remember hearing it in 2008 when the financial markets crashed and everybody said that the banks were all going to leave London. I remember vividly hearing it in the run-up to the decision on whether or not to go into the euro. People said that if we did not join the euro Throgmorton Street would crack and yaw and great mutant rats would gnaw the faces of the last bankers and all of this sort of nonsense. It did not turn out to be true. On the contrary, the City of London is overwhelmingly the preponderant financial centre here in this part of the world. Indeed, it is the biggest on earth and it has a conglomeration of skills and a huge range of talents --

Len Duvall AM: That you want to put at risk.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- that I do not think would be jeopardised at all. I am quite interested by the commentary that I have read. In any case like this, there will always be people who say that we should stick with the status quo, but the trouble with the status quo is that it is formidably bureaucratic. It is producing more and more legislation over which neither our parliament nor any parliament in Europe has any control. That is, ultimately, the issue. The issue for the British people in the next few months is whether they really think when they look at what is happening in Europe now and they look at the extension of power and of authority into every aspect --

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Mr mayor --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I have been asked about this. Forgive me- I have been asked about an issue that is not to do with the budget but I am going to answer the question. When they look at the extension of EU authority into areas that we never dreamed of when we joined in 1972, do they really think that this is the same organisation --

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): assembly member Duvall?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- as it was on that day when parliament gave primacy to the EU?

Len Duvall AM: chair, under Standing Orders, there is an issue about the repetition. I would like some time back because he has eaten into our time. It is really interesting stuff --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Sorry, if you are going to ask about --

Len Duvall AM: -- but there is an element of repetition in answering my questions to the mayor, chair.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Yes. OK. No --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am perfectly happy to talk about Europe if he wants to talk about Europe.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): No --

Len Duvall AM: I am happy to talk about it in your time. You stay extra and we can have the debate.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Mr Duvall, you will be interested to hear what I have just said. I asked for the clock to be stopped --

Len Duvall AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): -- because it was clear that the mayor was actually talking about the EU in general in his answer at the last part. It is reasonable for every member to put to you questions about London in Europe in terms of the economy and the GLA spend.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That is reasonable if --

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): It is not reasonable for you to use this as another platform for your Brexit purposes.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I see. Fair enough. It is reasonable for him to attack me, but it is not reasonable for me to put the other case? Fine!

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): No, because you have had all of yesterday.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): What about democracy?

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): You are all over the place.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That is what it is all about.

Len Duvall AM: Talk to London.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): No, members will be under the same regime. Can I have questions now. It is going to be specifically about the mayor’s position and whatever action he has taken in the last 24 hours in relation to London and its budget and its future.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Fine.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Dismore?

Andrew Dismore AM: Thank you, chair. Perhaps I can ask you, Mr mayor, what your hero, Churchill [Sir Winston Churchill, former British prime minister], might have thought about all of this business about London in Europe and so forth. He wrote to Anthony Eden [former British foreign secretary] in October 1942, “I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised” --

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. Sorry --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, you cannot beat me on that one, mate. I have written a book on it.

Andrew Dismore AM: Let us see, shall we?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You are totally wrong. Just go away. This is rubbish.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. No. Assembly member Dismore --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Choose another line of attack.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Dismore, that was totally my fault. You should not have been called.

Andrew Dismore AM: That is a bit much. I was just warming up!

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): No, you had an unfair start. Put it like this. I am so sorry.

Andrew Dismore AM: I was just warming up.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Can I call upon assembly member Bacon to put his question on behalf of the GLA Conservative group.

Gareth Bacon AM: Madam chair, I am going to defer that to assembly member Badenoch.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): You can do anything you like. Can we have the question?

Kemi Badenoch AM: Yes, thank you, chair. My question is for the mayor regarding the funding for male rape charities. The Conservative Group thoroughly welcomes your commitment to continue the funding for charities that support the victims of male rape and sexual assault, as does the chief executive officer of Survivors UK, Keith Best, who said that he was very grateful and delighted for this funding.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Keith Vaz [member of parliament (MP) for Leicester East]?

Kemi Badenoch AM: Keith Best.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Keith Best? Sorry.

Kemi Badenoch AM: Definitely not Keith Vaz. My question to you is: could you tell us a little bit more about the impact that you think this additional funding will have?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): This is something that is not widely enough known about. This is a problem and a phenomenon that people sometimes find it difficult to accept. People can be very blinkered about this. I am very grateful to the GLA Conservatives for the way they have championed this. You, Kemi [Kemi Badenoch AM], and Andrew [Andrew Boff AM] have been very hot and tough on this. I am grateful that some money is going to be put into this. It is appropriate that this particular evil should be treated in a particular way. It requires particular sensitivities and it is right that the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [MOPAC] should be funding it in the way that it is.

Kemi Badenoch AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. That is all the opening questions from Groups. I now have a list of members who have indicated that they have questions. I have assembly member Dismore.

Andrew Dismore AM: Thank you, chair. I was asking the mayor about Churchill. I have plenty more about Churchill but he does not want to engage on that one. Well, perhaps one. In 1948, Churchill said that he looked forward with confidence to the day when the union would be achieved.

Perhaps I could ask about Napoleon, then, and the continental system. You are about to achieve what Napoleon 200 years ago could not do by cutting London’s trade off from Europe with the continental system. He could not do it. You are about to do it, are you not? You believe in what The Times said in 1857, “Fog in [English] Channel; continent cut off”.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Budget-related questions please.

Andrew Dismore AM: You are about to cut London off from the continent, are you not?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. On the contrary, we are about to --

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Budget-related questions.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- if I can use --

Andrew Dismore AM: It is London-related, chair.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): London’s trade.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We are going to save Britain by our exertions and Europe by our example. That is what we are going to do, if I can quote the man who defeated Napoleon.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): assembly member McCartney ?

Andrew Dismore AM: I have not finished, chair.

Tony Arbour AM (Deputy chairman): Yes, you have.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Yes, you have. I will come back to you later on. assembly member McCartney?

Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you, chair. Mr mayor, this is one of the last meetings we are going to have with you. Last week, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary [HMIC] judged that the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] on your watch requires improvement. It said that it was failing to investigate crime adequately and to keep people safe. It pointed to the fact that some boroughs lacked basic equipment such as digital cameras to take crime-scene photographs, that there were insufficient detectives and that staff shortages in monitoring offenders were reducing the capacity of the MPS to prevent reoffending. Are you leaving a legacy that is not to be proud of?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do not agree with that at all, obviously. I would have to look at what the HMIC has said in detail but I think it would recognise that actually --

Joanne McCartney AM: The MPS has recognised and accepted the recommendations.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): If I can just finish, there has been massive progress under the MPS and I congratulate every man and woman in our fantastic police service for what they are doing. Confidence in the police is up. I am very pleased with that. It has been tough but confidence is rising. It is crucial that Londoners should be confident in their police. We have a MPS that looks more like London in the sense that we have been able to recruit from black and minority ethnic groups.

Joanne McCartney AM: They are lacking basic equipment to do their job, Mr mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We have the largest rollout of body-worn video technology anywhere in the world. This is a huge programme that is now going on. We are going to have 22,000 body- worn cameras, which will make a huge difference to confidence, to policing and also to judicial effectiveness because --

Joanne McCartney AM: Are you going buy them some cameras to take crime-scene photographs, too?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- you are a lawyer, Joanne. You know that so often the issues are evidentiary. Body-worn cameras will make a real difference in building up people’s trust that the police are going to behave well and also in enabling the police to secure convictions. That is the way to go.

Joanne McCartney AM: OK. You have not read the report yet?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am telling you about what we have done. You asked about cameras. I am telling you --

Joanne McCartney AM: You have not answered my questions about the lack of detectives, the lack of basic equipment such as digital cameras for crime-scene photographs and staff shortages in reoffending teams, which is hampering the MPS’s ability to prevent reoffending.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am happy to look at whatever --

Joanne McCartney AM: The MPS has accepted all three of those criticisms. You are telling me that you have not read the report?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): What I am telling you is that it would be pretty churlish of anybody not to see that we have put more funding into the MPS as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement than anybody expected - certainly much more than you expected - at the time. We are going to be able to keep officer numbers up at around 32,000, which nobody thought we would be able to do. That is, as you know, in spite of huge financial pressures all around. We have been able to ensure that MOPAC’s funding has increased by £46m for 2016/17.

The points that you make about shortages of equipment and cameras for photographing evidence I will certainly look at. I am not familiar with the particular problem that you raise but I am sure we have the funds to sort it out.

Joanne McCartney AM: Mr mayor, as you are the police and crime commissioner, I am appalled that you have not read this important report.

My final question to you is that you said you want to leave the EU. The home Secretary, Theresa May, has come to a different decision. She has said that remaining in the EU for reasons of national security will protect against crime and terrorism and that it is in the national interest to remain. Is she wrong?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, we have to be clear about this. There are advantages to European cooperation. That is absolutely true. Nobody can conceivably deny that. Procedures such as the European arrest warrant - which, I have to say, many years ago I was dubious about - now do make sense. We want people rapidly extradited to this country. If we proceed with the --

Joanne McCartney AM: You will put that at risk.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, you do not because all of those arrangements can be done intergovernmentally. They do not need the supranational judicial authority of the European court of justice. They simply do not. It is this constant intrusion.

You as a barrister and a lawyer should understand. I am sure you appreciate that there is now a voluminous body of new legislation that is coming from the EU and it is touching areas of life that we never expected in 1972. Because of the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU treaties at Lisbon, the European court of justice is now able to adjudicate on questions that we never imagined would be things for the EU. That is simply going too far.

Joanne McCartney AM: This is going into security issues.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): My answer is that the European arrest warrant and that type of thing all used to be done intergovernmentally and there is no reason why they cannot be done by intergovernmental cooperation. We do not need to create a supranational federal structure to do.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. Assembly member Knight?

Stephen Knight AM: Mr mayor, your budget before us this morning - and this is a budget meeting, after all - allocates £77.5m to the London Enterprise Panel. The London Enterprise Panel, which you chair,Mr mayor, has as its core “An Agenda for Jobs and Growth”, which was approved at a meeting that you chaired. We were told in this very chamber, Mr mayor, that this document was approved by consensus and that you did not object to the fact that the central core of your jobs and growth agenda is around London and the UK’s relationship with Europe. It is listed as the key challenges facing London in the future in your own strategy first of all competition from other cities and, secondly, I will read this to you because you might have not read your own strategy

“Second, national public opinion and hence UK government policy could put pressure on some of the critical underpinnings of London’s leadership, in particular its openness to immigration and its relationship with the European Union.”

Mr mayor, are you going to use the last few weeks of your mayoralty to undermine your own jobs and growth agenda for London? It would appear that that is exactly what you are doing.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): On the contrary, we will remain an open, free-trading and dynamic economy under any circumstances. It is really illusory to think that London would somehow wither away and die if it were not for our membership of the EU. On the contrary, there are opportunities. We should be confident --

Stephen Knight AM: Why, Mr mayor, does your own strategy list as the second key threat to London’s jobs and growth the risk to our relationship with Europe?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Under any circumstances, we will remain open and friendly and free-trading with the EU. It is simply inconceivable to imagine that they would want to cut us off. After all, we are massive net buyers of their goods. There is every reason for them to want to cut us a deal that will be extremely favourable - to go back to what I was saying to Joanne [Joanne McCarthy AM] - without that need for quite so much supranational regulation and intrusion into every aspect of British public policy. That is the problem with the EU at the moment.

Stephen Knight AM: Mr mayor, with all due respect, you cannot on the one hand sit there and adopt a strategy that says that the future of London’s growth and jobs relies on the UK’s relationship with Europe --

Gareth Bacon AM: That is not what it says.

Stephen Knight AM: That is what the strategy says that was adopted. You then say, “Of course, we can leave the EU and none of these things will be affected”. You are--

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Under any circumstances, Stephen, we are going to have a fantastic relationship with the EU.

Stephen Knight AM: Even if we have left the EU, we are going to have a fantastic relationship with the EU?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, of course.

Stephen Knight AM: Obviously we will have to wait and see, but some of us might find it odd --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Why on earth --

Stephen Knight AM: Mr mayor --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): If you were Germany and you were a massive net exporter of BMWs and Mercedes and all the other goods that they send to us, why on earth would you cut off your nose to spite your face and not do a great deal for the UK?

Stephen Knight AM: Why is it, Mr mayor, that you are funding to the tune in this budget of £77.5m a strategy that relies on remaining in Europe at the same time as campaigning to leave Europe?

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: It makes no sense.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Can I just inform you? There is no way --

Stephen Knight AM: How are we supposed to understand the inherent conflict in your position, Mr mayor?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, there is no conflict whatsoever. Unless you tow Britain out into the middle of the Atlantic and try to sink it with a battleship, Britain is going to be a part of Europe.

Stephen Knight AM: Harvey McGrath [Sir Harvey McGrath], your own Deputy chair of the London Enterprise Panel, was very clear when he was before this chamber, Mr mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We are a part of Europe. We are a great European country and a great European civilisation. We love Europe. It is very important to stress in wanting to have a different relationship with the political project that the EU has become that it in no way diminishes our attachment, our love and our desire for friendship, intensified trade and an intensified partnership --

Stephen Knight AM: Come on, Mr mayor. This is about putting your future above the future of London, is it not?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- with the EU. That, by the way, is what our strategy involves.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Knight, your Group is out of time. Thank you. Assembly member deputy mayor Evans?

Richard Tracey AM: You are aware, are you not, that so many cities of Europe, which we have been talking about somewhat this morning, already have driverless trains?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): They do.

Darren Johnson AM: And strikes as well.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): They do have strikes, as my cousin, Darren [Darren Johnson AM], points out. You can even strike when you have driverless trains. That is perfectly correct. You always have to negotiate.

What people have to understand is that this is a massive period of investment in the tube and in TfL. People who work in our transport networks have great jobs and there are fantastic opportunities there. There is no reason to fear new technology. We will go forward with driverless trains. We have a very old system. We were the first. That is why it is slow to modernise.

Richard Tracey AM: Another thing that we have talked about quite a bit during the budget process when talking to TfL is the matter of extending TfL’s control particularly of the metro railway services within the GLA boundaries. When, realistically, do you think that that is going to happen?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): There will be progress on that over the next year or so. As the franchises come up, you are going to see more and more devolution to London and that is entirely right. I think that many people would say that the service they get on the suburban rail services is not good enough.

We believe TfL that has done an amazing job in the suburban railway in London. The Overground is a fantastic service. It is amazingly popular. The stations are good. They are well lit. The trains look good and run well.

Obviously, we will be on our honour. We will be on our mettle. We will have to deliver for London. I have said this to TfL. If we are going to take on these franchises, as we have on the West Anglia and elsewhere, we have to show Londoners and the world that we can do it better, but I am absolutely sure that we can.

Richard Tracey AM: The last thing is that of course one thing that you have not created during your eight years - but there is a prospect that somebody might in the next few years - is a black hole in TfL’s budget.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We had not mentioned that black hole, no.

Richard Tracey AM: We have now.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Sorry, you have. That is right. There could be nothing more fatal to our ambitions and indeed to confidence in our city - far more damaging than any question about leaving the EU - than the suggestion that there might be a £2bn black hole in TfL’s finances. I really cannot recommend that to Londoners. It just is not the way forward for our city.

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you.

Murad Qureshi AM: Thank you, Mr mayor, for that. Every time you quote those figures, you sound very much like a Volkswagen executive to me for the simple reason that these are computer-generated figures rather than real figures and this has been told to you time and time again.

My real concern, though, as a supplementary question is that very often when we have had peak pollution here in London, you have always said that it has been wafting in from the Continent. If we were to leave the EU, how would a future mayor deal with the impact of European smog on London?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Are you saying that our membership of --

Murad Qureshi AM: You have been making this excuse many a time.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That is a very good point. Tell me how our --

Murad Qureshi AM: You have been making this excuse many a time.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We have now been members of the EU since 1975 or whenever it was that we had the referendum. Is there a ‘common European windmill policy’ that enables us to puff this air back across? No, there is not. I am afraid that the climatic conditions of --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): My friend Mr Malthouse [Kit Malthouse AM MP] offers a very helpful intervention, which is that what we could do is join the Arab League or join the Maghreb countries from where we get so much of the Saharan dust.

Murad Qureshi AM: The important thing here --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, obviously, these are big international problems --

Murad Qureshi AM: Yes, they are transnational. How are you going to deal with them?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): They are transnational problems, but at the root it comes back to the same basic philosophical question that we have been asking all morning. In order to tackle that problem, do we really need to have these measures enforced by a European court of justice? You may say that we do and that is a perfectly respectable point of view. As it happens, most other European countries do not observe these fines when they get them. We are extremely punctilious. One of the problems we have in our relationships with Europe is that we take such an extremely humble and subservient approach to the implementation of EU rules and regulations.

Murad Qureshi AM: Indeed. I am --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We use Brussels as the great boss telling us what to do. Other countries take a very different approach and that is one of the disasters of the whole system.

Murad Qureshi AM: Mr mayor, I am very grateful for the targets that the EU sets. You should listen to the pearls of wisdom of Mr Johnson senior [Stanley Johnson] of Environmentalists for Europe, who sees that as one of the benefits of remaining in the EU, as he said on the radio this morning.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, my father did many fantastic things. I remember him pumping through incredible directives across Europe that had an extraordinary effect and did a lot of good for the environment, such as the Habitats Directive, for instance.

My only question is: do you need to have this continually enforced at a European level and is it not something that individual national government could do?

Murad Qureshi AM: No, they are transnational --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): If you say that these national governments would not do it, then, in my view, you are undermining national democracy. That is the core of the whole conundrum.

Murad Qureshi AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): I will just say to members that we have agreed that this section of the meeting will take an hour. The Conservatives, if you are still with that agreement, there are 10 minutes for two questions from you. You have 10 minutes on your time. Assembly member Bacon?

Gareth Bacon AM: Thank you very much, chair. Mr mayor, we have had lots of questions about your views on the EU this morning, which is perhaps understandable given the weekend’s events. We have had a few questions on your actual budget as well, which has been good.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Unlike an EU budget in that it is actually going to be signed off by the auditors --

Gareth Bacon AM: Indeed.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- which has not happened with an EU budget for 20 years.

Gareth Bacon AM: Thank you for that. I was trying not to harken back to --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Sorry, I was a bit Farage on that, was I not? Never mind.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. Assembly ember Dismore?

Andrew Dismore AM: Going back to where we were, I was going to ask you why you are now impersonating Bismarck and his efforts to isolate Britain from Europe and whether you agree --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We saw him off, too.

Andrew Dismore AM: -- that those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat them. Yes, you can see his pointy helmet, can you not?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Are you “Dismarck”?

Andrew Dismore AM: I would like to move on to the fire brigade. Incidentally, I assume you are aware that the EU has given the London fire brigade €1m for next week’s exercise, which no doubt we will not have had, had you had your way.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Andrew, I am always grateful for funds that return to London out of the billions, effectively, that London contributes to the EU. As you know, we are net contributors to the tune of about £8.6bn a year and rising. One of the main --

Andrew Dismore AM: Anyway, I want to ask you about the fire brigade cuts.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): As you know, one of the main reasons why the cable car is a project in London that will --

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/b13898/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%202%20-%20Transcript%20of%20Item%204b%20Monday%2022-Feb-2016%2009.00%20London%20Assembly%20mayors%20Que.pdf?T=9

[top]

22nd February 2016: Appears in parliament as mayor of London, asks PM David Cameron a question

“Can I ask my - can I ask my right honourable friend the prime minister to explain to the house and, and to the country in exactly what way this deal returns sovereignty over any field of law making to these Houses of parliament?”

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hex78gJebOo

[top]

22nd February 2016: Tweets out a link to a Facebook post and Telegraph article

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote for real change in Britain’s relations with Europe.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/701715937037262848

[top]

22nd February 2016: Boris Johnson writes a Facebook post (the same text as in the Vote Leave Pamphlet on 21st February, and which becomes a Telegraph article dated 16th March) - “Boris Johnson exclusive: There is only one way to get the change we want – vote to leave the EU”

These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced. Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter.

We will be told that a Brexit would embolden Putin, though it seems to me he is more likely to be emboldened, for instance, by the West’s relative passivity in Syria.

The real risk is to the general morale of Europe, and to the prestige of the EU project. We should take that seriously.

This is the right moment to have a referendum, because as Europe changes, Britain is changing too. This is a truly great country that is now going places at extraordinary speed. We are the European, if not the world, leaders in so many sectors of the 21st-century economy; not just financial services, but business services, the media, biosciences, universities, the arts, technology of all kinds (of the 40 EU technology companies worth more than $1 billion, 17 are British); and we still have a dizzyingly fertile manufacturing sector.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153498932666317

And

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/16/boris-johnson-exclusive-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change/

[top]

22nd February 2016: Tweet sent out from Boris Johnson’s account praising Nadhim Zahawi MP, linking to:

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/02/nadhim-zahawi-mp-why-i-have-decided-to-vote-for-britain-to-leave-the-eu.html: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/701816925161127936

“Brilliant piece by my friend @nadhimzawahi”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/701816925161127936

[top]

23rd February 2016: Boris Johnson attends HM the Queen’s visit to the Elizabeth Line

“Crossrail is already proving a huge success for the UK economy, and as we move closer to bringing this transformative new railway into service, I think it’s truly wonderful that such a significant line for our capital, will carry such a significant name from our country. As well as radically improving travel right across our city, the Elizabeth Line will provide a lasting tribute to our longest-serving monarch.”

Source: https://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-to-become-the-elizabeth-line-in-honour-of-her-majesty-the-queen

[top]

24th February 2016: Boris Johnson. speaking to reporters, echoes Michael Gove stating the Brussels agreement is not legally enforceable

“I think the crucial thing is that people should focus on the issues before them. We’ve got Michael Gove made an extremely important point this morning which is that the agreement in Brussels, although it’s an international agreement amongst heads of government, is not legally enforceable by the European court of justice yet because its not in the treaties and even, here’s the key thing, even if it were to be in the treaties, recent judgments by that European court of justice have shown that they are willing to ignore heads of state and government. In other words you have got a federalist, centralising force there in the European court that is now willing to override not just parliament, not just the UK courts but also the leaders themselves the heads of states and government. The court is supposed to be the creature of the treaties but it’s actually overriding the treaties. Thanks a lot.”

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/647102/Brexit-scaremongering-military-letter-General-Sir-Michael-Rose-EU-referendum

[top]

25th February 2016: mayor Boris Johnson on the new Spurs stadium, as reported by the BBC

“The stadium will also be the focal point of a major drive to regenerate Tottenham, breathing new life into the area, creating jobs and boosting growth.“

“White Hart Lane is already an iconic stadium, steeped in history, and the new venue will not only almost double its capacity, but provide world-class facilities to watch Premier League football, international sports events and concerts in the heart of the capital.”

Sources: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35663964and https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-approves-spurs-stadium-plans

[top]

25th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaks in capacity as London mayor

“Alcohol-fuelled crimes put a huge strain on frontline services, costing the taxpayer billions of pounds each year. From assault to drink-driving, to theft and criminal damage, this innovative technology is driving down reoffending and proving rehabilitation does not have to mean prison. After such a success in south London, it’s time to roll out these tags to the rest of the capital and rid our streets of these crimes, by helping even more offenders stay off the booze and get back on the right track.”

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/crackdown-against-alcohol-related-crime

[top]

26th February 2016: Interview with the Telegraph

[cabinet ministers backing remain should] “think again” [David Cameron’s] “emergency brake” [on migrant benefits will do nothing to reduce the numbers of foreigners coming to the UK]
In his first detailed comments since announcing that he was backing a “Brexit”, the mayor of London hailed the “extraordinary“ response of Eurosceptic MPs and said he will try to encourage ministers to change their mind and back the out campaign.
“What have we got? About 150 MPs now? That’s extraordinary. I would [encourage ministers to think again]. People should look at the arguments. I have huge respect for what the prime minister is saying. But people I think should think about the arguments.”
[Will Mr Cameron’s] “emergency brake” [on migrant benefits] “work and reduce the numbers”] “It seems unlikely frankly.”
“This is about control. People feel a sense of alienation and frustration because the politicians have no control.”
[he is] “massively pro-migrants“ [but concerned about the] “massive pressure“ [they are putting on housing and public services]
“I am massively pro-migrants and believe in their ability to transform their lives and the society they arrive in. I am proud to be mayor of the most diverse city in the world. But you have got to be fair to local communities and people who have to provide for them. The numbers coming in puts massive pressure on housing and other provisions such as social services and education. What we need is managed immigration.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12175376/Boris-Johnson-urges-Cabinet-ministers-who-backed-In-campaign-to-think-again.html

[top]

27th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking to the Times, “Out is out”

Britain should agree] “a better series of arrangements” [rather than seek a new deal to stay]
[On another referendum] “No. Out is out. What I want is to get out and then negotiate a series of trade arrangements around the world.” Pressed on whether he had given up on the idea of a second referendum he said: “I don’t think it would be necessary. I think it’s my job to try to explain to people why I feel as I do and to do my absolute best to dismiss project fear, which I think is nonsense.”
“Britain could have a really great future, with a more dynamic economy and a happier population. I’m the mayor of a city that benefits massively from an inflow of talented workers but we haven’t been able to control the numbers, so you have an absolute crisis in housing.”
“When people talk about influence in Europe they think ‘We’ve got to stay in Europe because we all went off to Cannes or Nice to discuss the European dimension of our business and it was fantastic’. There’s a certain element of bums on club-class seats.”

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-in-europe-u-turn-rz6dm5p3b

[top]

29th February 2016: Tweeted a link to Facebook which contained a Telegraph article dated Sunday 28th February 2016

“A chance to energise our democracy, cut bureaucracy, save £8bn a year, control our borders & strike new trade deals”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/704229147455922176

[top]

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson writes Telegraph Article: “Don’t be taken in by Project Fear – staying in the EU is the risky choice”

Are you frit? Are you frightened? Have they spooked you yet? It is now obvious that the Remain campaign is intended to provoke only one emotion in the breast of the British public and that is fear.

They want us to go to the polls in such a state of quivering apprehension that we do the bidding of the Euro-elites, and vote to stay in the European Union. We may accept, intellectually, that the system is unreformed, and often corrupt, and increasingly anti-democratic. We may recognise that if we were asked to join now, for the first time, that we would not dream of doing so. We may at one level understand that if we vote to Remain, we will continue to sit trapped like passengers in the back seat of some errant minicab with a driver who cannot speak English and who is taking us remorselessly and expensively in the wrong direction.

But the Remain camp clearly calculate that when it comes to the choice – between exit now, or an ever-more constricting entanglement – we will funk it; we won’t take the risk; we will stick with the devil we know. To encourage us in that decision, they are making a series of questionable assertions.

We are told that there would be a threat to the UK economy. We have just had the curious spectacle of HM Treasury insisting on the rewriting of a G20 Communique to include a reference to the potential “shock” from Brexit – surely the first time any country has used an international forum actively to talk up threats to its own economic prospects.

The agents of Project Fear – and they seem to be everywhere – have warned us that leaving the EU would jeopardise police, judicial and intelligence cooperation. We have even been told that the EU has been responsible, over the last 70 years, for “keeping the peace in Europe”. In every case the message is that Brexit is simply too scary; and the reality is that these threats are so wildly exaggerated as to be nonsense.

Indeed I am ever more convinced that the real risk is to sit back and do nothing, to remain inertly and complacently in an unreformed EU that is hell-bent on a federal project over which we have no control.

Take the so-called economic risks. Remember when you weigh them up that the people now issuing the blood-curdling warnings against Brexit are often the very same (as the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, just pointed out) as the people who prophesied disaster if Britain failed to join the euro. In fact, the opposite turned out to be true. It was the euro that proved to be a nightmare, an economic doomsday machine that is still causing low growth, high unemployment and real misery in some European countries.

The single currency is also the cause of tensions between European countries, and rhetoric of a virulence and nastiness we have not seen since the second world war. We have had anti-German riots in Greece; we have seen Angela Merkel burned in effigy in Greece. In France, relations with Germany are said to be at a post-war nadir and support for the National Front is at an all-time high. Instead of recognising this disaster for what it is – the result of an over-centralising plan to fuse diverse economies into one – the EU is determined to keep going in the wrong direction.

Francois Hollande is calling for a new federal parliament of the eurozone, and there are explicit plans to try to save the euro by creating an ever tighter political and fiscal union, with legislative consequences that would embroil Britain even though we are out of the eurozone.

We stand on the brink of another huge new centralising leap – a leap in the dark, to coin a phrase – which means less democracy, less accountability and therefore a greater risk of disillusion and eventual political eruption. It isn’t Brexit that presents the economic risk; it is the euro, and the federalising attempts to save it that are the real long-term threat to security and stability.

As for the notion that the EU is somehow the military guarantor of peace in Europe – remember what happened when the EU was entrusted with sorting out Yugoslavia. Remember Ukraine. It is Nato and the Atlantic alliance that underpins our security, as Maj Gen Julian Thompson outlines elsewhere in this paper today. EU pretensions in the area are at best confusing and at worst likely to encourage American disengagement.

It is simply untrue, finally, to say that leaving the EU would make it impossible for us to concert our activities in intelligence or counter-terrorism or policing. All these operations can be conducted at an intergovernmental level – as indeed they used to be, until fairly recently.

On the contrary, it is the European Court of Justice, with its vast new remit over the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that is making it harder month by month for the security services to get on with their job – whether it be expelling murderers or monitoring terrorist suspects. It is the border-free Europe, obviously, that makes it so much easier for our enemies to move around. As Ronald K Noble, the former head of Interpol, has said, the Schengen area is “like a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe”.

Whatever the risks of Brexit, they are eclipsed by the problems of remaining in a political construct that has changed out of all recognition since we joined in 1972. What we need to do now is screw up our courage and go for change. We need a new partnership and a new deal with our friends in the EU, based on trade and cooperation, but without this supranational apparatus that is so out of date and is imitated nowhere else.

It is a once in a lifetime chance to energise our democracy, cut bureaucracy, save £8bn a year, control our borders and strike new trade deals with growth economies that are currently forbidden. Vote Leave would be good for Britain and the only way to jolt the EU into the reform it needs. Let’s call it Project Hope.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/16/dont-be-taken-in-by-project-fear--staying-in-the-eu-is-the-risky/?fbclid=IwAR1TkygqWL0LA1MNqIAw0sVJGKH59kXoeRRmqTgO8QHvutzeGHSpE6EjLWU

And

https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153512539266317

[top]

29th February 2016: BBC Newsline Mark Simpson interview, on the Irish border:

“I think the situation would be absolutely unchanged in the sense that, there’s been a free travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland for getting on for 100 years, there’s no reason at all why that should cease to be the case.”
“I can certainly guarantee that they [farmers] will be absolutely no worse off and in many ways better off because you would be able to target the subsidy and we’d be getting money back from the EU currently goes to Brussels and goes on heaven-knows-what we lose about 9 bilion pounds a year £8.5-9bn pounds a year just goes PIOW! And we never see it again.”
“Well that’s - I mean, obviously I totally reject that. It was very difficult to decide, really because I was trying to persuade myself that we had reform and you remember the prime minister went out and spent a long time trying to get a deal and we were told it was going to be fundamental - it’s not reform.”
“It’s- well I don’t think that we’ve got the reform that we need and on that basis I’ve always said we should be very, very confident about the future of this country in striking a new series of relationships.”
“I think that there is every chance that the people will see that this is really their chance to get power back from Brussels and to get them get our people - give them again their chance to kick out elections - at elections - the people taking the decisions. Time for freedom, folks, is what I would say.”

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452

[top]

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaks in Northern Ireland

“I think it’s all baloney, it’s all project fear. In fact there’s a great opportunity for change and improvement and, Europe is going off in a very different direction than what we expected in 1972. They want to create a kind of political union based around the Euro with common budgetary and social and political union. That’s not something we want to sign up for, it’s very, very rigid, very constricting for the UK economy, its causing massive unemployment in Europe. It’s the wrong way forward the UK needs a different relationship based on free trade and cooperation.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/feb/29/boris-johnson-referendum-project-fact-baloney-european-union-video

And

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/29/eu-referendum-boris-johnson-calls-camerons-argument-baloney

[top]

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking in a visit to Northern Ireland, responds to the PM via LBC

Boris: Baloney… there is an attempt going on to scare people into staying with the status quo, when I think the real risk is that we will simply remain in a system which is less and less suitable to our needs and it is time for the UK to have the courage to strike a new series --

Interviewer: -- Do you think the facts support you?

Boris: I do.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/feb/29/eu-referendum-grayling-cameron-sturgeon-government-brexit-report-as-clearly-ludicrous-politics-live

[top]

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking in a visit to Northern Ireland

“I think there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, indeed everything to gain. We have a real opportunity to get out from under the encumbrance, that constricting force which is the European Union and the bureaucracy that’s involved.”

“I think for Northern Ireland it would be good news from the point of view of fisheries. I think the farming community, the subsides would be better tailored to their needs and, as for exports around the world, we should be so positive.”

“We need to lift our eyes to the horizon, we need to think globally. The European Union, of course it’s a hugely important market for us, but as a share of world trade it is diminishing and they are going in a very different direction from the rest of the world in the sense they are trying to create this political union based around the euro which is not really where we want to go.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/feb/29/eu-referendum-grayling-cameron-sturgeon-government-brexit-report-as-clearly-ludicrous-politics-live

[top]

MARCH 2016

[top]

1st March 2016: Boris Johnson quoted in The Guardian

“I think there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, indeed everything to gain. We need to lift our eyes to the horizon, we need to think globally.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/29/eu-referendum-boris-johnson-calls-camerons-argument-baloney

[top]

1st March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson publishes new report on London being Europe’s leading powerhouse

London is a truly colossal commercial and economic dynamo, driving job creation across the country and acting as a magnet for investment and opportunity. This invaluable report proves that London is leading the way as Europe’s leading city and highlights some of the factors that will determine its future success.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/london-is-europes-leading-economic-powerhouse

[top]

1st March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson’s introduction to the aforementioned report

It gives me great pleasure to introduce you to this comprehensive new economic report on London. It is an excellent piece of work that will enrich the present debate and help enhance our understanding of London’s economy.

The good news is that the report shows that London does very well on many

international measures. This helps cement its claim to not only be the UK’s global city but Europe’s and the world’s greatest city.

The report is filled with data and rich analysis that outlines both the challenges and opportunities ahead. In my eight years at City Hall I have taken a strong interest in helping promote London, its businesses and what its people have to offer on the international scene. This has helped us to boost exports, attract investment and tourists and create jobs. It is vital that London continues to position itself in the changing global economy. I am therefore delighted that my Chief Economic Advisor, Gerry Lyons, has produced such a valuable piece of work.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_the_london_economy_report_full_low_res.pdf

[top]

1st March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson visits Northern Ireland and dismisses fears around border controls as a consequence of Brexit

[For fisheries and farming] “...the subsidies would be better tailored to their needs.”

Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-to-trigger-return-of-ni-cross-border-controls-report-1.2554732

[top]

1st March 2016: Boris Johnson appears on ITV The Late Debate

Boris: Well I think that it is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for this country to get out from under a project that I think is nothing like what we signed up for in 1972 and it’s becoming more and more federalist - there’s less and less control over what goes on. We spend net eight between £8 and £10bn goes, which we never see again. We can’t control our borders. So this is a climactic once-in-a-lifetime moment for us.

I don’t think it is a gamble for London at all. What the - what the Lyon’s report says is that we’re better off in a reformed EU and, actually, he says we’re better off out of an unreformed EU, and the sad thing is we haven’t had reform of anything like the scale that we need. This thing is continuing to basically boss people around, to take power to the centre. At the very moment we are trying to devolve power in Britain to cities, to nations, to regions, and it is totally crazy. It is antidemocratic, that’s my objection. If you look at the problems we have building housing in London, so much of it is actually caused by environmental impact assessments, directives --

Interviewer: --You are building your failure to build enough houses on Europe?

Boris: No Partly, partly - take for instance something that is really important to Londoners, the spate of deaths of cyclists we had, mainly female cyclists at the end of 2013, do you remember, it was an absolutely terrible period. I wanted to go to the government and say, we need to change and TfL was absolutely convinced that this was the right thing to do. We need to change the configuration of those lorry cabs so that they can see vulnerable road users. And everybody was agreed in TfL that was definitely the right thing to do.

The government wanted to back it but we couldn’t get it done, basically because that decision is taken at a European level. And there is such a proposal to have safer cabs so that drivers can see vulnerable road users, but it’s currently blocked in the Transport Minister’s Council by France and by other countries because they are protecting the interests of their manufacturers. So power, authority that should be here in London, should be with the British government, to make a change that would actually save people’s lives, has been given away to Brussels. If you say, what about the City?

Interviewer: The City of London Corporation thinks we are better.

Boris: Absolutely, and Peter Mandelson, and all those characters are out there fighting and making the same old points. They said that, Simon, about the euro.

Don’t forget what they said. They said if we didn’t join the euro, then giant mutant rats were going to come out of the gutters in Throgmorton St and eat the last British bankers alive or whatever. It never happened. Actually, what happened since then was - London powered on.

Interviewer: Have you spoke to David Cameron since you made your decision?

Boris: I speak the whole time to my friends and colleagues...

Interviewer: Have you spoke to the prime inister. I speak repeatedly to my friends and colleagues in government. I am not disposed to go into conversations…

Interviewer: Can your relationship with him recover?

Boris: Listen, of course it can. I don’t believe there has been any damage to the relationship between any of us in the Conservative party. We are determined to get this right. We have different views. I passionately believe that the European project is now taking too much democratic control away from the people of this country.

Interviewer: Are you prepared to do a TV debate with David Cameron on Europe?

Boris: I am going to be making my points making --

Interviewer: That sounds like a yes --

Boris: --I am going to be making my points in any forum I can, as I said when I - the other day I don’t want to feed - what i think is - a false narrative about rivalry between or competition or whatever arguments in the Tory party which I think is totally wrong. This is about an issue to do… that is of fundamental importance to the future of this country and so as far as I possibly can I want to avoid debating my fellow conservatives and I won’t do that.

Voiceover: When Boris Johnson arrived in City Hall eight years ago, he was a backbench MP with no ministerial or even local government experience. One of his first acts was to ban alcohol on the underground. Predictably it led to the mother of all parties on the Circle line. The mayor honoured a pledge to replace bendy busses with a new version of the RouteMaster. Critics said it was too expensive and too hot. His cable car over the Thames was similarly dismissed as another vanity project. The long talked about crossrail project finally began on Boris Johsnon’s watch. Cyclists celebrated the first of a network of segregated bike lanes - some other road users were less impressed. The 2012 Olympics proved to be a proud moment in London’s history. And the mayor became known around the world after a publicity stunt which backfired. The Boris years at City Hall have been marked by triumphs and stumbles.

Interviewer: Let’s reflect on things that have happened in the last eight years in London since you’ve been mayor. What is your proudest achievement?

Boris: I think the best thing frankly is the way the city is now - if you look back to what it was like eight years ago, when the whole thing went off a cliff and it looked as though… Everybody was saying London was through. There was a cover of TIME magazine which said “London Falling” and had a picture of the city being submerged beneath the waves and everybody said it was, you know, London was going to be Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai, bye bye London and that’s not what they’re saying today. London is, unquestionably…

Interviewer: How much of that is to do with you?

Boris: I have no question at all, I think that some of the policies we pursued did help, and we’ve been very, very active in making sure that we kept the investment coming in London. Crossrail, remember when the crunch came, could have been chopped, we have gone ahead with that and it is on time and on budget. We are progressing Crossrail 2 now, very aggressively, with a lot of oomph. And we’re hoping and I am very certain there will be lots of good stuff in the budget to get that project going by… get that project done by the end of the next decade. That is, that is 50% bigger than even crossrail, that is a colossal project.

Interviewer: What do you regret? What are the missed opportunities?

Boris: I am sure you will find some things that we have cocked up. You know, there are some… Look, it is a huge, huge operation.

Interviewer: You got off to a slow start. Were there wasted months and years because you didn’t have the right team around you?

Boris: Initially? The first few weeks, certainly... Certainly months until - I think that is a fair criticism in the sense that not many people expected us to win and it was a fantastic moment, but yes, it took a while to get going. But once it got going it was - I think a huge amount of progress was made.

Interviewer: Do you regret the lack of direction on cycle lanes? The blue painted

roads. We saw six deaths on cycle superhighways in three years before you finally realised that segregated lanes were the answer.

Boris: Well well I make the point, that’s -- I made the point about how frustrating it was to have some measures that we wanted to bring, to make cycling safer, in frustrated by the EU. Look, yes, in an ideal world we would have blasted ahead with the right cycle lanes from the beginning but you know it is a very difficult thing - road spaces are hotly contested between people.

Interviewer: It took a lot of people dying before you finally got it right.

Boris: Well hang on, I mean, be fair, be fair here. The numbers of deaths of cyclists have actually been coming steadily down. I think the deaths of vulnerable road users are at a 40 year low. In fact, the lowest on record, I think. And th- sorry they have fallen by 40%, the lowest ever which is quite is quite an achievement- for Transport For London and our surface transport guys. Yes we have made it much safer, much safer. Would I have - thinking back, would I have gone for the big segregated superhighways to begin with rather than experimenting with the original model of the cycle superhighways. Yes, probably I would. But you learn things as you go along.

You have to admit Simon [the interviewer] that some of the protest that we had against the cycle superhighways are now going shows the real difficulty of getting a really big and ambitious project done in London. I’m now convinced that segregated lanes are right, they’re beautiful and they are already transforming people’s journeys, cyclists journeys and making it much safer.

Interviewer: Housing. How much of a regret is that for you, you haven’t been able to build as many as London needs? Not as many as your plan demands let alone what London needs.

Boris: On the other hand, we had to keep revising our plans because London has been so extremely successful. If you remember back when you and I were turning up to debates for the mayoral hustings in 2007/2008 - housing was hardly on the agenda because basically there wasn’t the demand. The prices actually were, were very rocky if not falling. We’ve had to respond to the huge popularity of London. The most dynamic, urban economy. We’ve have built more affordable homes than any previous mayoralty. We’ve done 100,000. And - the rate of building now in London is the highest it’s been in our lifetimes virtually, since 1981.

The trick of it has been to put in the transport investment to make those schemes viable. So what you have got across the city now is areas that people never thought were going to be the kind of place where they wanted to live actually, becoming really desirable, attractive, wonderful neighbourhoods because of good transport. Ask yourself where prices have gone up the fastest in London in the last few years? Walthamstow and Newham. Newham is the biggest zone now of house price activity. That’s an amazing tribute, by the way, to the regeneration that has followed the Olympics.

Interviewer: Talking of the Olympics, you will remember, of course, that was the event you were cheered and George Osborne was booed. You must be very proud of the Olympics?

Boris: The Olympics were a wonderful moment for London and I enjoyed it hugely. Did you say I was jeered? I don’t remember being jeered?

Interviewer: You were cheered, cheered and George Osborne was booed.

Boris: No, no, no, I see what you mean. Look I think the Olympics were a great moment for the city and I think - what they did - they brought everybody together in a way we sort of didn’t expect.. I remember the magic of it. I still cycle sometimes, I still get on my bike and cycle around the Olympic Park and remember what it was like. It still has magic, in that place. It is changing very fast. And it is now a wonderful place to live.

Interviewer: How good an apprenticeship has the mayoralty for the next big job?

Boris: What I can tell you is - apprenticeships we done em. 180,000, Simon, apprenticeships we did. Never mind me- never mind my apprenticeships…

Interviewer: How well equipped are you for a bigger job now?

Boris: I have always said the mayoralty of London is a huge job and I was very surprised, a lot of Londoners were surprised I did win but it has been, yeah, it’s been a huge education for me and a wonderful opportunity. I think that we have done some very good things, some wonderful things sometimes. Yes, we made some mistakes and some things I wish we had seen earlier and done earlier but overall, when you look at the regeneration of London, you look at the huge investment now going in the city.

The fact we are the number one tourist city in the world. Look at the huge growth in the whole tech sector. Talk about housing - Interesting fact: We have young people moving to live in London in spite of the costs that you mention. Somehow or another, despite all the difficulties, it is the most dynamic urban economy in Europe, I am very proud of it.

Interviewer: What will that next big job be?

Boris: Sorting out my sock drawer or something… Not that I have done such a thing.

Source: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/clip/150905

Box of Broadcasts

Secondary (partial) source

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-03-01/boris-johnson-accuses-eu-of-putting-cyclists-lives-at-risk/

[top]

3rd March 2016: Boris Johnson mayoral visits Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar to open the new sixth form centre

“This new sixth form centre is a fantastic example of the legacy that hosting the London 2012 Games has produced through the redeployment of structures and fittings from Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. It will offer greatly improved conditions for the students to get down to their all-important studying and I am impressed by how the new building supports the pioneering integration of activities between Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar and Marlborough schools.”

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-welcomes-continuing-london-2012-legacy

[top]

3rd March 2016: Boris Johnson - People’s Question Time

The chair: Right then, good evening everybody. Welcome to the 32nd People's Question Time, which is actually Boris's 16th and his last Question Time, so a momentous occasion tonight.

Steve O’Connell: Delighted we are holding it in Croydon. I am honoured to be the GLA member for Croydon and Sutton. I think it's absolutely fantastic that we are marking this evening in this wonderful building, the Fairfield Halls, subject to some controversy, I think that's all I'll say about that for the best for the moment. But it's great that it's in Croydon, and we are all aware that Croydon is really going places. I've been banging on probably too much in the last eight years, boring my colleagues to death about the wonderful things happening in Croydon -- and Sutton, of course, we mustn't forget Sutton. And it's great that we're here tonight for People's Question Time.

So, again, I am Steve O'Connell, GLA member for Croydon and Sutton.Tonight I'd like again to thank Boris, to thank the Assembly, to thank the chair of the assembly, Jennette Arnold, who will speak to you in a minute about coming here tonight to Croydon in our famous Fairfield Halls. I've got a few brief announcements, we've got a very busy evening in front of us.

Why are we here tonight on a cold, or perhaps not so cold, early March evening? The mayor and the Assembly are here to improve the life and lives for Londoners and the London businesses and to make London a better place. People's Question Time is Londoners, your opportunity, to voice your own concerns and to ask questions of the mayor and the assembly about what we are doing for the capital, for yourselves, your families and your businesses.

Now, to help the evening flow I want as many questions as possible tonight. We are dividing the evening up into different sections, over broad subject areas. We are going to try and stick to those areas: the economy, housing, transport, environment and then policing. About 20 minutes on each question area. I am telling you this for a purpose because we have to be quite disciplined, I want to get as many questions as possible, I'd like people to ask their questions pretty succinctly, I don't want speeches. And I will apologise now because I will close you down, because I want to get as many questions as possible and I would like the answers as succinctly and thoroughly for my colleagues behind as well.

So, again, it's a fantastic audience tonight and shows how engaged Croydon residents are. If you don't get the chance to answer your question -- and many, some of you will be disappointed, we won't get all the questions done tonight -- you would have passed in the foyer a desk where you can go out at any time during the course of the evening, fill in your question or later in the evening fill in your question, and that question will be answered. I promise that. So that's me done initially. Now I'd like to introduce the chair of the assembly, Jennette Arnold, for a few words (...Applause...)

Jennette Arnold: Thank you Steve. Thank you all and good evening. And on behalf of the assembly members can I just thank you for being with us here tonight. I was just speaking to my colleague and the last time that PQT [People’s Question Time] was here, it was 2001. I'm just reflecting and thinking that must have been either the mayor's first or second -- his second PQT, and what can I say? It's his last. So you're supposed to go “ooh ooh ooh“ or “hooray“. OK, OK. So, yes, it's just a pleasure to be here.

I mean, I always take this opportunity to just say briefly and remind Londoners that the function of the Assembly is to scrutinise the mayor, to hold the mayor and his advisers and organisations that get money from the GLA pot, it's our job to hold to them to public account. PQT is an extension of that scrutiny so tonight you are in the driving seat. You also get tonight the opportunity to put your question to named assembly members. And also the chair may well identify an assembly member, if you like, to come in and maybe give a balanced answer.

You will know that the most public way the assembly has of holding the mayor to account is at mayor's question time and that's been jolly at times. And I'm just hoping here tonight that you are going to be able to get short, sharp, clear answers from the mayor and we'll take a learning from you.

The other way that the assembly works, it's through its committees, and through that work, which is cross-party, we invite in witnesses and experts and then we produce a report with the appropriate recommendations. Our recommendations are clearly to the mayor, to national government and organisations within the GLA group of organisations. It's also the NHS in London.

And the recommendations are primarily about ways to improve our great city and to improve the quality of our lives. Let me just speak of a couple of recent publications. This week we produced a report and that came out from the Housing Committee, a subject that vexes us all, and the title of that report is “At Home with Renting, Improving Security for London's Private Renters“. And that report calls on the next mayor to seek devolved powers from Westminster to introduce longer three-year default tenancies for private renters. It also calls for rents to be initially set by the market, and annual increases capped at inflation over the course of the tenancy. We've come to that recommendation, speaking to young people, speaking to those who are renting, speaking to experts, and we believe that that's the way forward.

A couple of recommendations that I can identify to you that then had an impact nationally on government. The Environment Committee responded to the government's draft revised air quality plan last November. The recommendations and the content of our response brought about a change in the government's plan, so a number of ways and suggestions from the committee were taken up by government.

We've also had an impact on the Treasury and the chancellor, and a report from us recommending the change to the passenger compensation regime for disrupted rail services, something dear to all our hearts, that was taken on board. Our reports have been given, if you like, a gold seal of approval. I say this because, when I speak to my colleagues on the Welsh assembly and on the Scottish parliament and when I receive correspondence it's always, “Can we have a copy of the Assembly's report because of their quality?“ You can find those reports at london.gov.uk.

I look forward to hearing the questions that are going to be put to the mayor, listening to his answers. And just want to finish by, once again, thanking you for coming here to join us tonight at this People's Question Time. Thank you very much. (...Applause...)

The chair: Jennette, thank you very much, it's most useful to have the opportunity for the chair to explain the duties and the very big responsibilities of the assembly.

So now I would like to introduce someone who probably doesn't need a massive amount of introduction. I introduce to you the mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

BORIS JOHNSON: Thank you very much Steve. Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much all of you for coming along to this final People's Question Time after eight tumultuous years, and how appropriate that it should be taking place here in the Fairfield Halls in Croydon, the third city of London. And the valley of the crocus, of course, the etymology of Croydon, as I am sure you all know. And how appropriate that we should be here in Croydon, the valley of the crocus, celebrating a flowering of economic regeneration after the deepest and most bitter recession that anybody can remember for the last century.

And it is truly amazing to see what is happening not just here in Croydon where we have of course the Westfield Project that is helping to deliver thousands of homes, thousands of new jobs for Croydon, but that is a story that is being echoed around the city. And I truly believe of course there are many things that I can think of that I wish I could have done in a different way, and there are perhaps -- perhaps you'll bring them up tonight, all sorts of goofs that you think that may be things we've done wrong and things we've left undone, but I truly think that the state of London today is as good if not better than at any time in its history.

In fact, I think that this city now is unquestionably the greatest on earth, and we are going through a golden -- let me say one statistic, this is now, under this administration and thanks to the work of lots of people here and lots of people in the GLA who have supported it, London is now the most popular city in the world, by the most obvious metric it is the most visited by international visitors, 18.8 million international visitors came last year. That's more than Paris, more than New York, we've knocked them off the number one spot. In fact we had more visitors to the British Museum alone than came to the whole of Belgium. I say that as a huge fan, by the way, of Belgium and a lover of Belgium and a lover of Brussels, of course, which is where I lived for many many years and a city I admire very much, not to be confused of course with institutions that are located in that city.

Why do people come to our great city? Why do people come to London? Why are they so confident that it's the greatest city on earth and really going places? Well, I think there are all sorts of things that we've done, tried to do over the last eight years that have really helped. And I single out the reduction in crime, down about 20% over the last eight years, to pick a period entirely at random. We've seen the murder rate roughly cut in half, reduced by 50%. The Tube network is now the safest in Europe. Bus crime down 50% on what it was when I came in, that's obviously crime committed on buses rather than crime committed by buses! Which remains very rare indeed.

And we are simultaneously seeing -- and they come I think because we are seeing a huge investment in mass transit and improving public transport, making our city more convenient, more habitable than ever before. And I am delighted to say that the delays on the Tube since I've been mayor and since these great London assembly members have been around, helping -- the Tube delays are down 50%. Crossrail is on time and on budget, will come on stream in the next few years. We've seen prodigious improvements across the city, Crossrail 2 we expect to get the green light in the forthcoming budget.

And you'll be familiar with the many other improvements that we've made; there are bikes all over the place now funded by -- not, alas, so far in Croydon, although they will come one day, don't worry, they're on their way -- beautiful banker-funded bicycles all over the place. And real improvements to the quality of life, planting hundreds of thousands of trees, improving parks; I think we've got 100 pocket parks, we've got 2,500 new growing spaces across London. And huge improvements to air quality, which you don't read much about it or hear much about it, but air quality in this city has actually got much better in the last few years, and that's partly driven by some of the technological improvements that we've seen in our public transport, in our buses, and of course in our cars as well.

And I'm right in saying that NOx, nitrous oxide, is down by about 20%. PM-10s, PM-2.5s, the nasty dust stuff, is down by 15%. If you visualise this, there used to be the particulate matter, the crud, the black crud that comes out of the back of a bus or a taxi, that used to weigh 200 tonnes a year, we've now got it down to about 19 tonnes. And that shows the kind of progress that we are making. I remember there was a recent outbreak of bad air quality in the UK when it is true to say that the air was worse in Norfolk than it was in London. And the day cannot be far off, my friends, when young children are bussed in from Norfolk to London to inhale clean gulps of air at Hyde Park Corner, so fresh, so alpine is London air becoming.

And all those improvements, a much safer city, improvements in mass transit, improvements in the feel of London, all those are driving confidence and driving investment. And you've seen it here in Croydon, you're seeing it around the compass in our city. London has never seen such investment, such construction, we are now building more homes in London than at any time in the last 50 years. If you look around and see the cranes, see the volume. And that investment is helping to lift people out of the economic doldrums, 400,000 people taken out of poverty since I have been mayor. We've got record low unemployment, record high employment, the lowest number of NEETs [not in education, employment or training] for the last 25 years. And life expectancy, a key metric which you cannot ignore, has actually gone up under this mayoralty, I'm proud to say, 18 months for women, 19 months for men; you live longer under the Conservatives, my friends.

And, above all, and here is the crucial point, , that when I became mayor the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest boroughs of London was about 5.5 years, and that was an absolute disgrace, it has now been reduced, that gap in life expectancy, to about three years. So although there is still a gap it is those who are on the lowest incomes who are seeing the biggest gains. And that, in my view, is social justice. It's very, very important that everybody in this city should continue to campaign for social justice. That's why we've put things like the London Living Wage at the heart of everything that we've done. I'm very proud that that has massively multiplied since I have been mayor, putting about £60m into the pockets of some of the poorest families in our city.

Thank you all very much for coming along tonight. I want to thank particularly everybody at the GLA, all my deputy mayors and heads of department here from City Hall who have come along tonight. I want to thank everybody who has been involved in this. And I want to thank the London assembly, look at them, sitting there like the politburo. Wise, wise as a tree full of owls, they are.

They have, in their own way, each individually made a real contribution to our city, helping, I think, at the end of eight years of this mayoralty, to ensure that London's lead is lengthened as the financial, the commercial, the cultural, the artistic, the scientific, the academic, the media capital of Europe, if not of the world. Thank you very much indeed (...Applause...)

The chair: Thank you very much, mayor Johnson. So we are going to move on now quite rapidly to the first section. As I said, this section is around growing London's economy. I am going to try to stick to that subject. I am going to try to squeeze in five or six questions over the short period. I would like people to ask, put their hands up, anyone who has got questions around the subject of the economy in relation to Croydon.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hello. My name is Tina Hills, and the question that I have relates specifically to the Fairfield Halls. We are having our meetings tonight in this very well-regarded and excellent hall, and we are told that this hall will close late July this year for refurbishment, they say, two years, they say..What guarantee do we have that this magnificent Fairfield Halls will reopen again? Where shall we have our meetings? And what happens in the meantime? Surely all the star acts will find a different venue. This is a wonderful building and I want it to stay.

(...Applause...)

The chair: Thank you very much. I'm pleased we got that question out early on, which is good. Boris, would you like to comment on this one initially?

BORIS JOHNSON: Well, this is obviously something that is of concern to us in City Hall, although it is, I stress, a borough matter, this is something for Croydon council, although we are trying to work with the council to ensure that the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls, which is obviously something we all welcome, £30m I think that they are putting into it, that's a good idea. But I think it's very important that the refurbishment should, insofar as possible, minimise job losses. And that is, to the best of my knowledge, what my team at City Hall is working to ensure, to make sure that the period of actual closure is as brief as possible so that to avoid the very point, the very problem that you raise, so that the thing can really get going, get roaring away again as fast possible and everybody can take up their jobs again.

The chair: Whilst this is a, matter -- thank you for that reply -- for the council, we have Fiona Twycross who is the chair of the cconomy committee. Would you like to comment?

FIONA TWYCROSS: Yes. I used to come here to go to the panto when I was a kid, so I know how affectionate people are about the Halls and its place in Croydon. And, as a resident of Croydon, I want everybody here to see the best for our borough, and as part of that I think the council is putting a lot of effort at the moment to making sure that there's regeneration that both keeps the spirit and character of Croydon but makes sure that we have facilities that are fit for the future.

So I'm confident that when the leader of the council, Tony Newman, says that this will be done as quickly as possible and that we will retain the Halls in Croydon, I mean he, like us, loves this borough and loves London and wants us to have the best opportunities and the best entertainment facility for our area.

So I think that, while I understand why people are concerned, I think we should take what he says at face value.

The chair: Thank you for that. For the record, people will be aware that I am very uncomfortable about the closure.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hello. My name is Jenny, and I'm from South Croydon, I'm also a Croydon resident. I am just wanting to get clarification as to what the situation is for small businesses to be at the Box Park, which is currently being set up near East Croydon Station. I hear that the businesses have been changed more to do with restaurants and cafés, but how is that going to support our community and jobs for small businesses in Croydon and our culture?

The chair: To be helpful on that, this again is largely -- although the mayor will probably have an opinion -- a council matter. The council decided to invest in a commercial loan to attract Box Park, which had some success in Shoreditch, to East Croydon Station over the summer, to have Box Park retail, box retail units around that area. Which is, in principle, a good idea, although there are some issues around that. I'm not sure, Boris, would you care to have any comment around that?

BORIS JOHNSON: I'm sorry to say I can't really give you an informed answer about the composition of the businesses in the Box Park. I will make sure that we pick it up with you afterwards. And if there's something we can do to encourage businesses that really bring long-term employment then I would be very happy to do so. But I'm not aware of this particular problem, I must confess. Does anybody else have better particulars about this?

The chair: If you care to write directly to me as your assembly member I will try to get the questions answered for you.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Winston McKenzie. I would like to know from Boris Johnson and members on the London assembly what action is being taken to stop the stem, the flow, of tuberculosis in London. We are now registered as the capital of tuberculosis carriers. No one is looking at sepsis, no one is looking at tuberculosis. And also to Boris, Boris, I'd just like to ask you are you sorry you're going, mate. Are you sorry you're going?

The chair: I think he said you are sorry you're going.

FROM THE FLOOR: No, get this right: is Boris sorry he's going?

The chair: OK, that's your last question, Winston.

FROM THE FLOOR: That's my last question to Boris.

The chair: Unfortunately, that wasn't a question about the economy, it's about health, but we'll take it because you're a friend and a brother, Winston, and I'm always pleased to help you. Mr mayor, are you happy to comment on that?

BORIS JOHNSON: Yes, on TB, this is something actually that the London Assembly, led particularly I think by James Cleverly, who I don't think is here tonight, has done a great deal of work on and we are concerned about the incidence, prevalence, of TB in some parts of London. And there is a campaign by the NHS in our city to screen people and to make sure that we do what we can to prevent it. I think that's certainly something that has been actively supported from City Hall.

On your second question, yes, of course I am sad to be going, I am devastated, although I am conscious that my friend Mr Biggs who I hear behind me heckling me already does not -- where is he? -- it wasn't Biggs. Where is Biggs tonight? Idle bum. Where is he Anyway, the few Labour members who have turned up tonight and don't -- well, OK, they don't share my grief, but nevertheless it's been wonderful working with them and for Londoners.

The chair: Jennette, I think you want to say something.

JENNETTE ARNOLD: Yes, Mr chair, thank you. As the only nurse on the panel -- nurses in the audience? Yeah, big up nurses. TB [tuberculosis] is a subject that most cities have to deal with, and it's something that we should all be quite ashamed about because TB is a disease related to poverty and deprivation. So when you see a city having increased TB cases you have to look at that location and you have to ask the questions about the lives of the people in that community. And I would applaud what the mayor has said; this work is ongoing and I'm so sorry that my colleague, assembly member Sahota, who isn't here, he is a practising GP and may well be at his surgery tonight dealing with patients, and he has been doing some really great work on this.

So, Winston, thank you for raising the issue, but it's something that certainly the assembly has been following, working with the mayor, working with the NHS, since 2000, and we will keep on doing that because TB should not have a place in this city of ours. Thank you.

The chair: Thanks for that (...Applause...) I want to get on back on economy because we've time for two or three more questions.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Peter Cooper. I lived in Croydon for many years. I'm a radical, and I'm talking about housing.

The chair: Did you say housing? Housing is later, sir, I will pick you later when we get to the housing debate.

FROM THE FLOOR: mayor, I know that you are a fan of the Commonwealth, Lord Marland and the work he's doing. I think there was a comment that was made this week by a senior person in the Commonwealth saying that London could do more economically in linking into growth hubs in the Commonwealth in terms of city linkages, links between the diaspora and also women entrepreneurs. So what do you think about that in terms of targeting London's economic strategy much more about growth markets and potential markets across the Caribbean, Africa and Asia?

BORIS JOHNSON: Well, I completely agree with that. And one of the things -- after the Olympics we took a decision to travel around the world a bit to maximise investment into London and we've seen incredible flows. But how amazing it is to see these parts of the world where Britain is still held in such affection and such high regard, and where people have real memories of the close ties that they had and who want to come to London and want to invest in London. There are many, many parts of the world where I completely agree with you, we should be stepping up our activity. Now, that does not mean that we should be in any way diminishing our activity anywhere else, we've just got to realise that it's a huge, wide world out there and the growth economies now are very often those former Commonwealth or those Commonwealth economies on which effectively we very often decided to turn our back in 1973. There are massive, massive opportunities there.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Andrew Burnell, I live in Thornton Heath. I'm part of a vanguard of Americans who are fleeing Donald Trump, you'll see a lot more of us. I want to ask the mayor, please, if he can explain, in looking at other great global cities like Sydney and Singapore, why the foreign secretary spent so much time trying to convince us all yesterday that this greatest of all cities is absolutely reliant on Brussels, Paris and Berlin to do anything and to decide anything. Thank you.

BORIS JOHNSON: Look, as I said earlier on, I'm a massive pro-European. I believe in exchange, I believe in trade and I believe in cooperation with our friends and partners on the European continent. Britain is a European country, you couldn't make us anything else unless you towed this country out into the middle of the Atlantic. But there is a huge opportunity now for us, as the gentleman just now was indicating, for us to strike some additional free trade deals with growth economies, not just the United States, we don't have a free trade deal with the United States at the moment, but with growth economies around the world. With China, with India, with Malaysia, you name it, the world is changing very, very fast indeed. The EU, as a share of global GDP, has gone down in the last 20 years from about 30 to 19%. The growth markets are now elsewhere.

I don't in any way minimise the importance of trade with our European friends, that has got to be continued, but we need to lift our eyes to the horizons and we should not be scared, we should not be terrified, we should not listen to those who try to alarm us about whether we can do deals on our own. Of course we can, this is a great country, a great economy, we are the 5th biggest in the world, and we can easily do trade deals that will be massively to our advantage whilst taking back control over aspects of our lives that I think have been wrongly given away. And an erosion of democracy has taken place in this country that I think in the end we will pay a heavy price for.

And I have to say that, when I look at what is happening in the European Union, the direction it is going, I don't think that we should be part of that particular project. They are trying to centralise, to build a superstate based around the euro, which will inevitably have real repercussions for us if we remain in the EU. And that's why I've come to the conclusion that I have. We should not be timid, folks. Are we timid? No. We should not be timid, we should not be scared. We are a great country and we've got a great opportunity (...Applause...)

The chair: A couple of weeks ago the assembly passed a motion, it was not unanimous, and Fiona Twycross is going to speak to that. I would take the chair's liberty of stating my position because I am here and I can say this. Back in 1975 -- and I don't look this old -- I was just old enough to vote and I voted no. I aligned myself with all sorts of strange people and voted no. Thank you, I got some applause. And I stick by that, I made the right decision in 1975, and I shall be voting ‘out’ in June.

FIONA TWYCROSS: I mean, earlier I mentioned coming to the pantomime when I was a kid and it feels a bit like that again now. This isn't about whether or not we are a great country or a great city in or out of Europe, we will be, we will be a great city whatever happens. However, we all know that Boris's decision to campaign to leave the EU is motivated by little more than political self interest (...Applause...) and that the jobs and the investment that we get in this amazing city of ours and the regeneration opportunities this will bring.

And I think we exported £12.3bn worth of goods to the EU in 2014, that's 43% of all our exports of goods from London. We know that over half a million jobs were associated with the EU a few years ago, so we know that this is a crucial area of our economic aspects.

So don't get cajoled into thinking it's a brave thing to do to leave Europe, it would be foolhardy for our city to do that (...Applause...) I think, in terms of the impact on our city, this isn't about who is the next leader of the Tory party, it's about where the jobs are going to come from in the future.

The chair: I am really pleased that this subject came up because we need to spend a little bit some more time on this subject. I am going to take a couple of the party leads. I want their replies to be short and try to be as apolitical as possible. Then one housing question and then we're going to move on. Be brief, if you could, Steve.

STEPHEN KNIGHT: I'll be brief, chair. The point I want to make is that the mayor's own strategy for jobs and growth in London describes the UK's membership of the European Union as a critical underpinning of our success. That's the truth of what the mayor's own strategy says about our membership of the European Union, and it's very clear to me that if we were to vote for exit from the European Union we would see a recession and we would see a flight of investment.

I just want to give you one other critical local point, and that is that the European Investment Bank is critical to investment in this city, and indeed in Croydon itself we're seeing over £100m of investment in Croydon schools as a result of membership of that European Investment Bank. That's the kind of investment we'll be throwing away by leaving the European Union, and I think it would not be in London's interests to do so (...Applause...)

The chair: Darren Johnson for the Greens and then we'll wind this particular piece of the debate up.

DARREN JOHNSON: Thank you, chair. Being in the EU isn't just about the trading advantages and the economic arguments. So much of our environmental protection law, so much of our social protection that we enjoy is as a result direct of EU membership.

7,000 people die prematurely in this city every single year because of poor air pollution. It's pressure from the European Union legislation that is actually pressurising the mayor and the government to act on this. We've had cleaner water in our rivers, we've had cleaner beaches, we have lorry drivers who have to work only a certain number of hours per week to keep us safe from crashes and so on. We have protection at work directly as a result of EU membership. It would be madness to go out of the EU, we would lose all of that protection and we'd lose the opportunity to work together, to protect our environment and protect each other (...Applause...)

The chair: OK. I think we've debated that subject fully, we've heard all sides of the debate and that's really helpful. I've got one last question here on economy.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Andrew Samuels. I work for an organisation called Mind in Hillingdon, it's a mental health charity. My question is that it's stated in the media that mental health will affect one in four people at some point in their lives. And this is relating to the economy, it has a huge impact on the economy.

The UK population of 64 million, the number of voters we're talking about then is 60 million of varying political allegiances, but according to the recent Mental Health Task Force Report, the majority are in poverty or unemployment. What I want to know is what ideas do you have to get more accurate numbers so that people can go and talk about their mental health problems with their doctors and make their voices known so that we can get accurate figures and have a real understanding of the impact it has on the economy? (...Applause...)

The chair: Thank you for that question. A very strong health question, but your point was a valid one talking about the economic aspect to it. Boris, did you want to comment at all?

BORIS JOHNSON: The gentleman is absolutely right, mental health is a huge issue in this city and it affects all kinds of problems that we face. The police are in the front line of trying to deal with mental health patients who get involved in criminal activity of one kind or another, we've got mental health cases very often who present -- who have homelessness problems and who end up on the streets. So there's all sorts of ways in which the challenge is impacting life in this city. And that's one of the reasons why the London Health Board, which I chair, is really focusing on mental health, trying to bring together all these various groups, the social services, the NHS, the police, the councils, everybody who is dealing with this vulnerable group, so that they really get the focus and the attention they need.

Because at the moment there's absolutely no doubt about it, they have been falling through the cracks. And I think that is because of a sense of embarrassment, a difficulty that people have in discussing mental health issues and I think that is a great, great shame and we need to be honest about mental health problems and we need to recognise it for the real challenge that it is.

The chair: Thank you (...Applause...) We are now going to move on to housing. Housing, a massively important issue, recognised by this mayor and both mayoral candidates, London's population, by all estimations, could be moving up to 11.5 million in 20 years' time. Not -- indirectly linked to EU, but we'll settle that debate.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Mark Iles, I work for Ealing council. My work touches on planning obligation agreements and community infrastructure levy. There's a strong belief in my field that developers aren't being properly held to account on affordable housing, often using deliberately complicated viability assessments to blind planners with science and thereby minimise how much they have to provide. What's the GLA doing about this? (...Applause...)

BORIS JOHNSON: We have one of the most experienced and toughest planning departments -- well, certainly the best, I think, in London. And they drive very, very hard agreements with developers and many a time even before it gets to me, my officials, my planners, will throw out schemes that don't have enough affordable housing.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Look at the number of affordable homes that are being built: there are more affordable homes being built now in London than at any time before. Absolutely we are well on target to deliver 100,000 new affordable homes. And that is far more than we delivered under the previous mayoralty.

NICKY GAVRON: Nicky Gavron, Labour assembly spokesperson on planning.

I really think you are onto something when you are asking about viability assessments. I think we have a situation now where we are finding that too many developers -- of course there are some good ones who want to give their fair share of affordable housing -- now are absolutely not providing their fair share of housing. And, to be frank, they are really gaming the system, and cheating Londoners out of affordable housing.

And the mayor himself has called it a “dark art“. And he says himself, that this viability business is getting out of hand, so to speak, I am paraphrasing. And we know that even the mayor, where he's a joint venture partner, let's take Earls Court, has also been seen to be gaming the system. And if you look at Earls Court opportunity area then you find that out of getting on for 7,000 homes there are no new additional rented homes, whether you're talking about the unaffordable ‘affordable rent’, which is 80% of market rent, or whether you're talking about generally social rent.

I just want to say we on the planning committee have written to the mayor and asked him if he would -- we've done the investigation to this -- and asked him if he would look again and produce some proper guidance on viability. And if he would actually put some money into training local authorities so they can actually be able to hold developers to account and have a much more transparent system which delivers the affordable housing we need. We know for a fact that the numbers of affordable homes on private sector development sites have fallen now to about 3%. I'll end on that. Hold this mayor to account (...Applause...)

BORIS JOHNSON: It's not 80%, that's complete nonsense, we've built a record number of affordable homes. The average is 65%, and frankly there are many, many people in this city who do not qualify for affordable homes and we need to be building homes for them too. We need to be building low cost housing for people who want to part buy part rent and get onto the property ladder. And that's what we've been doing in record numbers.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Peter Cooper. I'm a bit radical in my views, but merely walking around Croydon there are so many empty homes, empty houses, which should be taken over by the local authorities to make housing available to the people who are not housed. The mayor says “affordable“, affordable to whom? Not the ordinary citizens in this country. It is affordable for the big investors from the Arab countries. And they ought to stop it some way, somehow, and the politicians should be able to do it (...Applause...)

BORIS JOHNSON: Well, actually -- I am going to do the statistics -- there are fewer empty homes now in London than at any time since 1980. And if you are talking about the practice of people buying homes as investments and foreign buyers, did you say Arabs? If your hostility is towards international investors, let me just remind you that by volume international investment is still only 3% of the London market, and only 6% by value.

And very often, I'm afraid, folks, the reality is -- and I spoke about the cruel recession that we had, the total freeze, the virtual collapse of some of the banks, the inability of people to get mortgages -- it is those investments that have enabled us to get projects going, whether it's at Greenwich or at Battersea or across London you're seeing developments.

FROM THE FLOOR: “What is affordable?“

BORIS JOHNSON: Well, let me give you an example of what affordable is. Since this mayoralty began, we have promoted part buy part rent projects so that people can get a part of the value of their home. We've helped 52,000 families into part buy part rent schemes. The average household income for those projects is £37,000. That's for two people. That, in my view, is a reasonable deal; they're getting a home in London and it's a fantastic home too. And if you go on our website and you look at some of the projects that we're promoting, there are good homes available across this city. There are many, many low cost homes available. One of the interesting things about the London population -- people talk about young people being driven out of London -- actually, that's complete nonsense.

We've got more young people coming into London than at any time in the past. And this city, yes of course we have struggles, yes of course there's a problem, but that problem is caused by the massive economic success of London, the desirability of living in this city. And I think it would be really, really fatal if we were now to try to pitchfork away international investors and tell them to bog off because they're not wanted and we don't want their filthy foreign money. I think that is not the right way forward.

The chair: I've got a lot of questions here. If colleagues could keep their comments as tight as possible.

STEPHEN KNIGHT: The mayor suggests that all is rosy in the garden as far as housing is concerned. Frankly you'd have to be living on Planet Zog to believe that. The truth of the matter is housing has never been more unaffordable in London than it is today. 80% of the new homes being built are unaffordable to 80% of the population. We need massive housebuilding of proper, affordable homes, and we need to stop the massive inflow of cash investors, be they home investors or overseas investors, flooding the market and bringing prices out of control at the expense of ordinary Londoners. (...Applause...)

The chair: Tom Copley is the chair of the housing committee.

TOM COPLEY: Thank you, Steve. Well look, firstly on empty homes, I think it's a disgrace when homes are left empty for long periods when there's a housing crisis, but the reality is there are only 22,000 empty homes in London, and to put that into context we need to be building more than twice that number every year, according to the mayor's own assessment of need.

But on this question of affordability, the mayor likes to talk up his record on affordable housing. It's very easy to break a record if you change the definition of what constitutes “affordable“, it's very easy to do that. And the government are about to change it again, you know what the government are going to do? They're going to make homes costing up to £450,000 “affordable homes”, and they're going to have the secretary of state imposing numbers of those homes on boroughs and saying that boroughs can't opt for social housing instead. They call that “localism“, and I think it's

this kind of abuse of language that Orwell would have recognised

(...Applause...)

FROM THE FLOOR: Sue Kennett, Croydon. Chair, before I actually ask my question can I ask the panel that this isn't a political platform for you, this is People's Question Time, and actually you are making political points and not actually answering our questions (...Applause...) In Croydon there is a tremendous amount of building going on, there's a tremendous amount of flat building going on, none of which is affordable, not even at £450,000. The council actually wants to use green land, metropolitan open land, to build affordable housing. How is that acceptable that you are taking away, potentially, our green spaces, because greed overtakes everything and we allowed our developers to build the flats that are very expensive that the common people can't buy and then you want to take away our green spaces in order to make affordable housing (...Applause...)

The chair: I think -- before I bring Boris and Darren in -- I think that's a very strong point, Sue. You are aware, hopefully, that the mayor has strengthened protection around gardens and green spaces in the London Plan, but we know that certain parts of Croydon are under threat from this council's plan. I'll say no more on that, Boris, as we are not being political, of course.

BORIS JOHNSON: My view is that there is plenty of brownfield land in London on which to build. It does cost -- you do have to remediate it, it does require investment. But it will be absolutely fatal to the economics of those projects if we were to give the go-ahead for wholesale building on greenbelt land. It would be an absolute disaster. The developers would immediately abandon the brownfield stuff and go ahead with carving up the beautiful green spaces.

I have to say, listening to the audience this evening, we cannot have it all ways, folks, we cannot want hundreds of thousands more homes in this city and simultaneously reject international investment and say that we don't want high rises anywhere in London.

You've got to recognise that not all these objectives can be accomplished simultaneously. We will need to build higher around transport hubs, will need to build good, affordable accommodation around transport hubs and we can do it on brownfield land, we can build 400,000 homes on brownfield land and protect the greenbelt and protect the greenfield sites. And that's what I want to do.

DARREN JOHNSON: Well, as the mayor says, we absolutely need to protect our greenbelt and protect our metropolitan open land in the capital; it is very precious. There is enough brownfield land, but only if we make sure we build the right sort of housing that genuinely meets the needs of Londoners. Unfortunately we seem to be wasting too much of our land in London, our precious land, by giving planning permission for wholly unsuitable developments that simply don't meet the needs of ordinary Londoners, that are way out of the price range of ordinary Londoners. So we do need to get much tougher with developers through the planning process, we need to invest far more into building genuinely affordable social housing, that includes council housing, we need new council housing. And we need to look at opportunities for increasing density.

I am very concerned that we've seen one council housing estate after another either being demolished or being set up for demolition in the name of regeneration. I think often those estates are well built, perfectly good estates that need a little bit of care and attention and refurbishment, but it would actually be better to refurbish them and look at opportunities for building additional units on them rather than flattening them and building often private and unaffordable blocks replacing council housing.

So let's have a big push on social housing. That's really what we need, genuinely affordable housing in the capital as well as protecting very, very firmly our greenbelt and our precious green space.

(...Applause...)

The chair: Because of the importance of the debate I'm going to squeeze in three more questions. Please keep them sharp.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hello Steve. My name is Sony Nair, I am chairman of MORA [Monks Orchard Residents Association], a local residents association in Shirley representing over 2,000 households.

I would like to understand the GLA's position on Croydon's local plans for intensification of the residential areas that will wreck neighbourhoods and build on green spaces when there is plenty of brownfield sites that are suitable for development. Thank you.

The chair: This is a subject that I lightly alluded to earlier, which is potential changes in the council's local plan affecting green spaces around the Shirley area. Boris, would you care to comment on that?

BORIS JOHNSON: I hesitate to say, but I think that is pretty much the same question we've just had. This is something that is very much for the borough. If they choose to build on greenfield sites I would very much disapprove of that. I don't know whether the project in question is something that would come to City Hall, but we do not approve such developments. There is space on brownfield sites. As I say, the minute you tell the developers that -- you give them the excuse to opt out of the brownfield sites they will go for the greenbelt stuff. You will never get those brownfield sites developed and you'll just have urban decay around them. Get on and regenerate the brownfield sites.

Let me just explain very very clearly the economics of this. If you want a brownfield site redeveloped you are going to need upfront a lot of money. And if you are going to have a lot of money invested in regenerating our brownfield sites -- there isn't a magic money tree in this country, folks, we've had the worst crash we've seen for 50 years. You are going to need that stuff developed with the assistance of people, of the market who are willing to bring in substantial sums to get it going.

And, yes, it's only if you have that -- that spearhead of commercial investment that you can then bring in the low cost housing as well. But that is the way to do it. That is how we've been able to regenerate huge quantities of brownfield land across London.

We have now disposed of the entire portfolio of brownfield land that was available us to when I became mayor, and that is how we have built record numbers of affordable homes. They are affordable, and I repeat my point: 53,800 new homes, low cost homes for people who are able to buy a share of the value of their homes. It is completely unfair that property ownership in London should be restricted to those who are hugely wealthy or those who are able to qualify for affordable housing. It is completely unfair.

The chair: The gentleman in question knows my position on it.

FROM THE FLOOR: Colin Hart, resident of leafy South Croydon. What is the GLA's policy on housing travellers and why?

The chair: Just to add some context, again I think this has evolved from the Croydon plan -- this is about proposed traveller sites and the mayor's control and the GLA's involvement in the site and the traveller sites. That's a legitimate question there. Mayor, do you have --?

BORIS JOHNSON: We have policies in the London plan that respect the particular needs that all communities have. And, as far as I can remember, there's an issue in Croydon, isn't there, about how to handle certain groups of travellers. But it hasn't cropped up, I have to say, for many, many years with me, and I would be struggling to tell you how we're dealing with it at the moment. If there is a problem I would be very happy to -- or Ric Blakeway, my deputy mayor for housing and planning, would be very happy to confer with you afterwards to see if we can advise you.

TOM COPLEY: Just very quickly, because we did the housingcCommittee Report looking at accommodation for gypsies and travellers and there is a massive shortage. And we did ask the mayor to conduct another assessment of need; he was unwilling to do so and we haven't had an assessment of need for a good few years. I think it's very important that we have legal sites for gypsies and travellers.

One of the problems, if we don't do that, is you end up with illegal sites which cause all sorts of problems both for the gypsies and travellers themselves and for the community. This is one of the most marginalised communities in the country and their housing needs do need to be taken account of.

The chair: This is the very last question now from the gentleman there. Then we're going to move on.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Alex and I am a planning consultant. There's been a bit of talk about viability in the room tonight, and I think it's quite irresponsible to say that viability is a dark art. It's not a dark art, it's pure economics; if it costs a developer to provide something which they can't make a profit from, why would they provide it? And there's actually a lot of guidance out there which I urge everybody to read from the RICS, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and local boroughs about how viability is calculated.

My question to the London assembly and to the mayor is developers spend an awful lot of time making plans for development in bringing forward housing, local borough councillors and their case officers pore over those and make sure that they are in tune with policy, and the GLA goes over those also, some of them, in some areas, about some designs, to make sure that they are in accordance with wider policy and strategic policies. But yet the planning application is determined by a Planning Committee who are not aware of policies. So why -- why can developments fall down at that stage? Houses can't be brought forward because planning applications are refused by people that aren't largely aware of the policy at hand.

The chair: It was useful to have a balanced contribution. I think your point -- your challenge was first of all around the debate around viability statements. You've had your say. Your point has been well made. Then you are venting some frustration around applications being held up in the GLA, potentially.

BORIS JOHNSON: Are you talking about the GLA planning decisions or about borough planning decisions?

FROM THE FLOOR: Borough.

BORIS JOHNSON: I thought so. I'm a huge fan of some boroughs' planning departments, but I have to say -- I am going to get myself into real trouble here but never mind -- not all of them are brilliant and I find some decisions absolutely bizarre. One of the things I've had to do as mayor -- and it's perfectly true that I get beaten up for not delivering enough housing the whole time -- actually to call in about 13 developments, or maybe more, which have been irrationally blocked by a borough for one reason or another.

And basically, I'm afraid, local opposition to the development is at the root of it, because people fundamentally in the neighbourhood don't like to see lorries, they don't like the trundling of the lorries, they don't like the development going on near them. We've had to call them in and push them through. I have to say very often we look at the -- some of the decisions that are taken by some borough planning committees and they are very peculiar indeed.

The chair: The contra debate, of course that is local democracy. We are going to move on to the subject --

BORIS JOHNSON: You can't bang on -- I'm a glutton for democracy and I believe in it passionately, but you can't simultaneously campaign for the borough's right to throw out good housing schemes and demand more housing across London, I mean the two things are not logically coherent.

The chair: Thank you very much. The next subject is transport and the environment. I would say, as a constituency GLA member, 80% of my casework is around transport across both of my boroughs. So I would like to take some questions around transport. I have a dear friend and comrade Stephen down there.

FROM THE FLOOR: Thank you. Boris has said several times to launch the tram to Crystal Palace. Eight years ago he promised us, when he turned up, he was building the tram for Crystal Palace. Eight years later there is literally no tram to Crystal Palace. Also, Boris, the other thing is the 24-hour freedom pass, which you promised across London, and I asked you at Battersea what you've done about it and you haven't done nothing about it. Thank you (...Applause...)

The chair: Thank you, Stephen. I mean it's good to get the questions around the trams out early and I thank Stephen for that. This is around tram extensions --

BORIS JOHNSON: Come on, first of all, on the tram link, there are in fact two schemes that we're looking at, one is the Sutton link and one is the Crystal Palace link. It has to be said that the better business case is the Sutton tram link extension. That has a better business case than the Crystal Palace one. And we are now at the stage where we are negotiating with Sutton about the extension of that tram link, and obviously -- it basically comes back to the animated conversation we were having just now: how much development is Sutton willing to see to finance that tram link?

That is the question. Because these things don't come cheap, a tram link is not a cheap thing. And, by the way, it's very, very disruptive when you put it in.

In order to finance it we would need tax increment financing from the developments that will take place in Sutton. People would be worried in the neighbourhood as to whether that is going to change the character of the area. That will be the issue and that is what we are currently talking about now with Sutton.

As for your question about the 24-hour freedom pass, I mean donnez-moi un break, that was one of the first things we did. What do you mean? Ah, well, let me tell you, yes, I put it on the buses and I put it on the Tube, but, OK, fair enough, yes, we don't control the suburban rail - yet. But we will. Because you see -- you saw what the government announced the other day -- and this is one of the most important breakthroughs we've had in the last few years -- the government announced that they are going to devolve not just the West Anglia Line, which we've now got, or the lines up out of Liverpool Street, we are going to get the southeastern trains, we're going to get the southern trains, we are going to have wholesale rail devolution in London. And I am absolutely sure there's no reason at all, once we get that, why we should not extend the 24-hour freedom pass to every route in London. But until such time as we do we can't because of course at the moment it's done by the train operating companies.

The chair: Of the tram I am -- thank you Boris, thank you Stephen -- totally committed to bring the extension to Sutton and Crystal Palace and I'm totally committed to support it. Whatever mayor comes here next to take his or her mitts -- Caroline Pidgeon is mayoral candidate for the Lib Dems -- to get their mitts on suburban rail.

RICHARD TRACEY: I am Richard Tracey and I represent Merton and Wandsworth. And of course in the case of Merton, along with Steve, your assembly member here in Croydon, I'm very much in support of extending the tram link. But, as Boris said, we are looking for some serious contributions which are facilitated by Sutton council on the one hand and Merton Council on the other. Now, Merton happens to be Labour -- I'm a Conservative -- and of course Sutton is a Lib Dem council. But we are looking for contributions from them before it can go ahead. It seriously is on the planning regime of TfL, and Steve and I have been pushing Boris very hard for that.

I'll finish on one point: if you end up with a mayor after May fifth who causes a £1.9bn black hole in TfL's finances you won't get your tram link because that will be one of the casualties, I'm afraid (...Applause...)

The chair: Right, so thank you for that.

FROM THE FLOOR: Anne Viney, Upper Norwood. Public transport improvements gladden the heart of every Londoner. How can we possibly believe that funding like the £6bn the European Investment Bank has put into transport in London will be safeguarded if we leave the EU?

BORIS JOHNSON: Really and truly, folks, we've got to nail this once and for all. This is a complete -- I mean, complete nonsense. The European Investment Bank, and indeed all the other funds that we get from the EU through INTERREG and all the regeneration funds, the CAP, the social fund, they are only a fraction of what we pay in. This is our money. Not only is it our money, they are actually deciding how to spend our money in our country.

That's the perversity of the situation. It is absolute nonsense. Very often they spend it on the most peculiar things. The cable car, for instance, I'm delighted to say, is one of the things that attracted EU money. They came to me and they said, “Is there something you want to build while you're doing this cable car?“ They've given us £8m. Now frankly I'm delighted to get that money back from Brussels, but this should not be at the discretion of civil servants sitting in their oatmeal-coloured offices, puffing their pipes in Brussels and deciding how to spend UK taxpayers' money in the UK. It is absolutely mad (...Applause...). It is absolutely mad.

And I don't -- do you notice saying this is political -- I don't care -- I was asked a question about the EIB and I am answering. We send net every year, and it's going up the whole time -- we are the second biggest contributors -- between £8 and 10bn which we never see again. That goes to an organisation, by the way, that hasn't had its accounts signed off by its auditors for the last 20 years such is the level of corruption --

The chair: That's enough.

BORIS JOHNSON: -- and we are supposed to believe that this is a sensible use of UK taxpayers' money? I really, really disagree. If we kept that money in the UK we could build a hospital every week with what we've saved (...Applause...)

The chair: I am going to bring in Len Duvall, the Leader of the Labour Group. I don't want any more questions about the EU and get back to the questions at hand.

LEN DUVALL: Please, this is just rubbish. Europe wouldn't be spending any money on the cable car if the mayor never put it forward and spent public taxpayers' money on it. It isn't a public transport project, it's a tourism project, it's a great project if you want a --

BORIS JOHNSON: If you want to attack Brussels be my guest, beat up Brussels for funding the cable car. It's completely illogical. Actually, the cable car is the only piece of transport infrastructure --

The chair: Boris, let Len finish. Please.

LEN DUVALL: Let's talk about the important issues around infrastructure planning, because the mayor has learned a lot in the last eight years because when he first arrived he could have done something to bring some brownfield sites further on. He cancelled the Thames gateway bridge. Linking east London, north and south of the River Thames, would have done good in terms of protecting us from those who want to build on brownfield sites.

That's how you do brownfield sites. He cancelled it. He also did the Croydon tram extension and cancelled that at the time; that would have been up and running, no doubt, if he pursued that with the vigour that he pursues the Garden Bridge project on your behalf. I tell you what, even more outrageous, a bit far away from Croydon, he's also stopped – he’s started it again -- the DLR Dagenham dock issue around that. That would have done good about bringing new housing into the area and building on brownfield sites.

Now, I welcome a sinner who repents and who learns a lot, and we should welcome this, but let's remember when he moves away from this organisation to go on to greater things, or lesser things, who knows what the future beholds of him?, that he remembers the issues around social housing and the link with transport. Because we've got problems here in London, we've got growing populations. The bus investment has not been good over the last years, there's something that Margaret Thatcher said about people that use buses. Well, I tell you what, Boris, actually lots of people use buses of all different classes and you've not invested on it and we need those issues around some of the buses used.

There are issues of overcrowding. And if we want to talk about money being wasted, and we talk about European funds being wasted, actually some of the money that you've spent, Boris, has been wasted. Estuary Airport, failed, not a runner, actually £5.2m was wasted on that. A Routemaster bus, which is a nice design and a bit nostalgic, I've never seen the back open in my constituency. You wasted money on those because we could have got a comparable bus, just as environmentally friendly, at cheaper the price in terms of what you've raised. Oh, and, by the way, you've had to take them off the roads to put windows back into them so people can breathe during the summer. (...Applause...) Please don't talk about wasting money, talk to yourself before you start chucking stones at others.

BORIS JOHNSON: Can I just come back on that. Several points: I actually think that the new generation Routemaster bus is an icon of this city. It's now used in advertising around the world to promote this country, it appeared in the James Bond film, it tops our popularity lead with all our passengers. An absolutely fantastic machine.

Frankly, I am very proud -- yes, I am proud -- that we have invested in British manufacturing, in cutting edge British manufacturing and engineering, a very clean bus that is built in the United Kingdom.

Unlike the bendy bus which was not only jack-knifed on the streets of London and blocked the traffic and caught fire and all the rest of it but was built in Germany. That was supported by the Labour -- I would much rather have jobs created in this country by our investment.

You talk about waste of money. The previous administration, which Len Duvall supported, they spent £34m on promoting west London trams. Has anybody seen a tram in west London? They've spent about £30m on the Cross River Tram. Has anybody seen a Cross River Tram? A total waste of money.

And, as for the cable car, which is a superb project, can I just tell you something, it is the only piece of transport infrastructure in this city that is actually making money and covering both its capital -- making so much money that it's covering both its capital and its revenue costs. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Len. It has racked up a surplus of £1m and it is a hugely popular attraction.

She doesn't even like the bikes now. I mean, come on.

The chair: Boris, that's enough.

BORIS JOHNSON: A cloud of negativity. A cloud of negativity rising off them like a smog.

The chair: Thank you. I thought it worthwhile giving those gentlemen a bit of slack and a bit of time for that exchange. Hopefully you found it useful. My comment out of that was there's no greater joy than hanging off the back of a number 11 Routemaster down Victoria Street, it's a fantastic experience. Let's talk about airports, like Gatwick. So we are going to squeeze in three more relatively quick questions, please, and relatively quick answers.

FROM THE FLOOR: My name is Sue Mi Wong and I am an engineer and an entrepreneur. You were saying about the Boris bike, I just say I really like it. But I can see a lot of grey hairs here, the older generation, and we can see the public transport here in London, you've got the Boris bike but what about the elderly people going out? I see for them it is so difficult.

Being an engineer I got together with my father, and we invented a new type of transport and we believe that it's good for the elderly people and not so able-bodied, but we have been trying really hard to get this idea to you in the past year. We tried to send you a letter and get a message to you. We would like you to try this as the next generation of the Boris bike, maybe the Boris trike? But we just find it really difficult to get to you. And actually today I brought it all the way here and hopefully you can try it out (...Applause...) maybe after all the questions, because, you know, I don't want to take all the precious time, but we do believe this might not be the solution but it will ease the pollution problem and the social problem.

The chair: Thank you for that. You are from South Norwood, I believe. Now you've flagged it up no doubt he will take an interest in that.

BORIS JOHNSON: Very happy to look at it.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hello, I am Adam from Central Croydon. I've got a question for the mayor. You mentioned Crossrail 2. I wonder -- I thought you'd like this, hopefully you won't have to argue about this one -- what are your plans for Crossrail 2, and will it affect Croydon in any way, good or bad?

The chair: Good question.

BORIS JOHNSON: Very good question. I think the truth is it will be generally good for Croydon because it will massively boost the London economy, but it won't actually get to Croydon itself. At the moment there's no plan for a link into Croydon. But it's coming fast down the track. George Osborne, the chancellor, is very keen on it. We have to wait and see what happens in the budget. But I'm confident that they will give it a very fair wind and we will get some serious development funding.

The key thing -- does everybody know what Crossrail 2 is? How excited are you about Crossrail 2? No, it's going to be at Wimbledon, which you can go to by the tram, of course, so there's a connectivity to Croydon. And it will be a stupendous project, it's about 50% bigger than Crossrail itself, it's an 18km tunnel going from the south west, from the Sutton/Kingston-type area all the way through up into the north east of the city. And it will totally transform our ability to build housing in areas of London where there is real scope to do so.

I mentioned earlier on, you need to invest in these brownfield sites if you're going to get them going, and transport is the crucial thing that you've got to do. Crossrail 2 will enable us to do hundreds of thousands, probably 200,000 homes on the strength of that transport investment. And it will simultaneously liberate huge numbers of commuters who are now stuck trying to get into Waterloo coming in from Hampshire and Surrey, if you see what I mean. There's massive constriction at Waterloo and Crossrail 2 will really sort that out. It is a fabulous project and I hope people will really get behind it (...Applause...)

The chair: Caroline Pidgeon, deputy chair of the transport committee, and mayoral candidate.

CAROLINE PIDGEON: Thank you, Steve. Crossrail 2 I think is really, really important for London, as are all the other investments in our transport infrastructure. I'd like to see a station at Streatham. I know there's been a very strong campaign in that area, just up the road, to make sure that that area is put on the map. The other key thing we've got to do is really upgrade our suburban metro rail services. It's great news the government at last has listened to what we've all been saying for many many years that we need TfL to take over running those suburban metro services. But then we need to see improvements to them. As you saw, I was rather late, stuck by a signal failure at Norbury.

We've got to get the investment in the infrastructure, we've got to make sure those metro rail services work, they're frequent and that we see an increase in capacity. But all of this does need money. And I want to go back to a point that was raised earlier. The European Investment Bank is absolutely crucial for transport investment in London. It's cheap borrowing. We would not get it at such a rate if we weren't a member of the EU. And if you look at what we've had over recent years, £1.5bn for Crossrail, Heathrow Terminal 5, London City Airport --

The chair: I did ask for no more EU questions, Caroline --

FROM THE PANEL: -- it's so important for TfL, we've got to get that cheap borrowing as well as looking things like devolving stamp duty in order to look at how we could fund things like Crossrail 2. It's really really important that we find different mechanisms to fund the transport, but I think the EIB is one of those.

The chair: I share Caroline's point completely about the suburban rail; I believe very strongly that the suburban rail system has been neglected by the franchises. And Norbury is a fine example, in my constituency.

LEN DUVALL: Two points, first, I just wanted to go back to the lady who mentioned about the transport project. Anyone who was following the Garden Bridge Project I was going to suggest you get into contact with Joanna Lumley because that will fast-track any meetings you have with the mayor about your project.

On Crossrail 2 there is wide cross-party support, and I do think it will transform the lives of Londoners, including Croydon, because people will start to access journeys differently, as the Overground has transformed the way they do, in a smaller way across London. I live in a place called Woolwich and my constituency is Greenwich and Lewisham. And Crossrail 1, the Elizabeth Line, will transform many people that are not immediately on that line.

Residents from Bexley will access it in a different way. What's good about it?

This is a long infrastructure project, it's going to take time, because there's arguments still to be made and the mayor is right about what the gains are. But we need to persuade the government about putting their portion into it, we can't do this alone.

And so there is an issue about government policy because it's not just good for London, it's good for the UK economy. Keeping London moving, keeping London prosperous, isn't just about us, it's about Scotland, it's about the North of England, it's about Wales.

That's why Crossrail 2 is important, and that's why we need to keep the pressure on all parties from here in London onto a national government which I think likes the scheme; but they don't move to Greenwich Mean Time, they move to their own time. We need this as a matter of urgency and it needs to be speeded up. We need to think of accelerators to make sure it's a done deal.

The chair: Lastly on this one. Richard Tracey.

RICHARD TRACEY: Thank you, Steve. Yes, I do agree with what Len just said. We do have complete cross-party support for Crossrail 2 which is going to so radically open up the movement between south London, where I think frankly we are badly served overall by transport, and north London, absolutely critical.

Now, the gentleman down there asked about Croydon and what he was going to get from Crossrail 2. Boris has mentioned the link to Wimbledon by tram link, but the other one that I would recommend to you is the excellent service from East Croydon to Clapham Junction, which it will also go through. I came here by train from Clapham Junction this evening in eight minutes. So you get to Clapham Junction, you get on Crossrail and you'll be onwards up to north London very speedily indeed. Absolutely essential, let's get on with it, though, because I am a bit impatient that it won't be completed until 2030.

The chair: OK. We've run out of time, but I promise one last question. My friend at the back. Make the question short, not a statement.

FROM THE FLOOR: Good evening. My name is Clive Lock, a proud resident of Croydon North. Croydon North is its poor relation. Uncomfortably, the life expectancy in the community area is 10 years less than other parts of the borough. We have two Ikea chimneys that were part of a coal-fired power station. It poisoned the area leaving the roofs in the north black due to pollutants. The power station was closed due to the Clean Air Act. Can the mayor explain why, on his watch, no more than 1000m from these chimneys, a polluting waste incinerator has been given a green light in a condensed, highly populated area.

The chair: Clive, I cut you some slack on the time because I wanted a transport question. However, it is what it is. This is clearly about the incinerator in Sutton. I do apologise, Clive, but he's a friend so he doesn't mind. Boris, it's about the incinerator -- I know Darren will have an opinion on this -- Boris, do you want to comment?

BORIS JOHNSON: Well, obviously this is something that the Lib Dem council, to the best of my recollection -- wanted. I am trying to remember whether this is one of the ones where we had to -- let me just say that, irrespective of who took the decision, I am absolutely certain that we would not have taken any decision that had not passed our environmental test and was not something that would do no damage to air quality in that area. And that will have been completely unthinkable.

And I appreciate there are people who object to incineration and to waste disposal in that way. On the other hand, you can't put it all in landfill, you've got to do something with it, and pyrolysis can be a very effective and very clean way of doing it. So I would like to see the evidence, frankly, that the Sutton incinerator you speak of is actually going to cause the pollution that you claim. I don't believe it will. And I think that if you look at the -- as I said earlier on in my speech -- overall record on air quality in this city has been very very progressive, we've had a very determined -- it's absolutely true -- we have greatly reduced pollution in London and will continue to do so.

The chair: This was supported by, as you're aware, both councils and there has been a judicialrReview. A decision has been made on it, so that has moved on. However, if colleagues would like to comment briefly. Darren first.

DARREN JOHNSON: Thank you. Well, if the mayor needs some help about who made the decision on it, the mayor did approve this planning application in 2013, just in case you've forgotten. And I do think it is a retrograde step giving planning permission for very old-fashioned approaches to dealing with waste. Yes, we do need new waste facilities in London, we can't just keep sending stuff to landfill, but burning it like this is not the best way of dealing with it, there's far more environmentally sound ways these days of processing waste rather than simply incinerating it. And it also provides no real incentives to recycle at a time when Croydon's recycling rate, for example, is actually going down 2% on the previous year.

So at a time when we need to be looking at state-of-the-art solutions to waste, and we need to be maximising our recycling, we seem to be taking a step backwards with old-fashioned technology. I think it was a mistake to give permission to it, and I think it's going to be a real regret for the local people who have to live with it for many years to come (...Applause...)

MURAD QURESHI: I just would like to add that the Beddington incinerator was opposed by the Labour administration when they were in opposition. And when they came into power at the last local election they found all the agreements had been signed up and they had to leave with the legacy of the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, signing off this incinerator. We've got to remember that during the mayor's time as mayor of London recycling across London has fallen dramatically and he's got to take some responsibility for that, and encouraged waste to energy to such an extent that it's actually affecting the life expectancy of people in North Croydon, as the questioner has told us. That's the legacy of Boris on the environment in London and there's no getting away from it.

BORIS JOHNSON: Yes there is, because you're talking rubbish. Actually in 2013/14 Croydon recycled 42% of its household waste, Darren, and that is up from 23%, when I was elected in 2008.

DARREN JOHNSON: It's back down to --

BORIS JOHNSON: That's up from 23% –

DARREN JOHNSON: Good work, it went up from 23 to 40, and now, regrettably, it's starting to creep back down, as it is in a number of boroughs. That is a real regret and it is a genuine cause for concern which the next mayor will have to take really, really seriously.

BORIS JOHNSON: I am glad you had the honesty to accept that recycling rates have massively increased under this mayoralty. And actually -- yes he did, it's gone from 23% to 42%, that's almost doubled and -- all right, fractionally down this year, I'm very sorry. With the election of a useless, spavined, dessicated Labour council, which is the problem. And, yes, the average household waste recycling rate in London has also risen.

I might point out to you that one of the reasons why it's so expensive to recycle waste in this country, and one of the reasons why landfill is so expensive is of course the various European directives on that subject, such as the European Landfill Directive, about which I will say no more.

The chair: Now, thank you for that. We are considerably behind time, but that's fine because we've now got a good 20 minutes or so we can spend on another important subject which is policing and community safety, something that is massively important across London. And I am glad that our excellent borough commander for Croydon, Andy Tarrant, is here and has presided over crime going down in Croydon, which I think is really good and I am pleased that Andy is here.

So, without further ado, we haven't got a lot of time, I want to do lots of questions.

FROM THE FLOOR: Good evening. May I thank you for coming to Croydon. My name is Emmanuel, I'm a resident of Thornton Heath. I want to ask the mayor why is it that the black people in this country are subject to stop-and-search all the time? Just two days ago I was driving to Brixton and I was stopped just for nothing, and then I asked the man what's the problem? He said, “Just pull over.“ And I was with my wife and my little kid. And at the end of the whole day the man got nothing to say. He checked my numberplates against my name and then asked me to drive.

So the question I ask, you are the head of the policing in this city, why is the black people subjected to stop-and-search unnecessarily? (...Applause...)

BORIS JOHNSON: Look, I'm very sorry if you've had unacceptable treatment at the hands of the police, and I apologise for heavy-handed use of stop-and-search, particularly if it is discriminatory against black people in the way that you describe. There can be no excuse for that.

All I will say is that I do believe that stop-and-search has got to be a part of the repertoire of the police when they are trying to deal, for instance, with knife crime. It is something that has been very useful in deterring kids from being so mad, so foolish, as to carry a knife and to go equipped with a weapon. Stop-and-search does work, combined with the two strikes and you're out rule that we've brought in. It has had an effect in bringing down deaths of young people from knife crime and bringing down violence generally.

Now, there can be no excuse, however, for a discriminatory approach to stop-and-search. If you will allow me I would like to -- I have Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy mayor for policing andcCrime in the front row. And I am sure he would want to discuss your experience with you and to see what we can do to find out what went wrong in that case and what we can do to sort it out.

The chair: Let's move on.

FROM THE FLOOR: Yes, hello. My name is Richard Daymar, I'm a resident of west Croydon. This question is addressed to the mayor, Mr Johnson, I'd like to have your view on your experience with Zac Goldsmith and how you think he is the right candidate to take your mayoralty forward in policing and other issues.

The chair: I am half tempted -- I'll allow it, but it's not -- well, I'll have to allow it. Boris, do you want to comment? No?

BORIS JOHNSON: Well, I think it's a fair question.

The chair: I am going to be an impartial chair and I won't allow that one. I'm sorry, sir. (...Applause...)

BORIS JOHNSON: Zac will be great though.

FROM THE FLOOR: Good evening everyone. I am a boy whose name is Jermaine Shah who lives across the road, and in my area, not just in my area but across Croydon, I think that there's a great increase in burglaries. So, Mr O'Connell, what are you doing to stop it? (...Applause...)

The chair: Very good question. That's good. Thank you. I think the area that you're talking about did have an increase -- burglaries have gone down. Boris, have you got some words and comments around burglary in Croydon? Good question.

BORIS JOHNSON: I can tell you that burglary is one of the crimes in London that has -- one of the neighbourhood crimes that really affects people badly and really shocks people and unsettles people. It has come down massively across the city, and across the city it's down by about 36% since I was elected. In Croydon it's down by about 25%. But you've obviously got a particular experience, Jermaine, of that crime in your neighbourhood or people have pointed out to you.

We're going to have a word with the Borough commander and find out what we can do, what's going on, whether there's something that we're not picking up in the figures that indicates that there is a problem with burglary. At the moment burglary is way, way down and that's -- I think there are 75,000 fewer of those neighbourhood-type crimes every year in Croydon than there were when I was elected. But you raise it, you must be right, we'll see what we can do to find out what's going on.

The chair: As I said, the Borough commander is over there, Jermaine, so at the end of the evening you might like to have a conversation.

FROM THE FLOOR: Good evening, Richard Lockwood, retired fire officer from Croydon. What is the point of public consultation, and indeed this engagement today, when the public strongly opposed both tranches of the fire station closures, as did members of the Fire Authority here. Yet the mayor once more threatens to impose direction. Earlier, the mayor, you joked about people living longer, yet four deaths now in the last twelve months have been attributed to significant delays in attendance of fire engines (...Applause...)

BORIS JOHNSON: I'm very happy to come back, but I'd like to hand over in a minute to Gareth Bacon. Listen, the crucial thing for me is -- I take it you are a member of the London fire brigade.

FROM THE FLOOR: That's right.

BORIS JOHNSON: Thank you very much for all you are doing because actually the London fire brigade has helped, over my mayoralty, to reduce fire and deaths by fire by half. And that's an astonishing achievement. It particularly affects people on low incomes because they are predominantly the victims of fire. It is people in poor neighbourhoods with bad accommodation who are overwhelmingly vulnerable to fire, and it's the education, it's the response, it's the work of the London fire brigade that has massively reduced those deaths. So that is very very important.

All the decisions that we take are based on that premise: how to get deaths down and how to get fires down. And that's why we did the London Safety Plan 5, and I totally stick by it because the results could still continue to be very, very good indeed and we're still seeing incidents coming down.

GARETH BACON: Yes, just to add to what the mayor has said. Incidents of fire, full stop, and fire death have never ever been lower. On a 10-year rolling trend they've been down consistently throughout the mayoralty of Boris Johnson. The response times of the London fire brigade are the fastest response times in the world and we exceed them. No, it's not wrong, sir, it is absolutely correct. The response time standard for the London fire brigade is six minutes for the first appliance and eight minutes for the second appliance.

The average response time in London last year was 5 minutes and 32 seconds for the first appliance, and 6 minutes and 54 for the second. And here in Croydon it was 5 minutes and 30 for the first and 6 minutes and 45 for the second. Those are absolutely verifiable facts, and I would challenge you, sir, to produce any data that proves anything to the contrary.

The chair: Thank you, sir, you made your point. Fiona Twycross.

FIONA TWYCROSS: Thank you. We all know that the mayor repeatedly has said that he would listen to the consultation, we've asked him repeatedly and I think politicians from all parties have asked him to make sure that he would listen to the consultation and he said would time and time again that he would, despite the fact that over 70% of those responding said they preferred the option that would have kept the 13 fire engines at their relevant stations, he is backing an option which only 18 per cent, so less than one in five people, supported.

I think the mayor has still got an opportunity to row back from his decision on this. I think it's like some of the other things we've heard tonight, he's not entirely on top of the facts at times, and he has got the opportunity -- because there is money available not to have these cuts at this time and actually to hold back and have a proper review, which is already scheduled for later on this year. So Boris, you have the opportunity to actually listen, to pay attention and row back from this at the time, as the retired fire fighter at the back suggests.

The chair: Gareth, do you want to come in quickly?

GARETH BACON: Fiona's acquaintance with facts is sometimes a bit a variance with reality. In terms of people that responded to the consultation, 0.02% of London responded to this consultation, it is not the mandate that she claims. The mayor did listen to the consultation, he also listened to the commissioner of the London fire brigade, and it is the commissioner of the London fire brigade's proposals are the ones that the mayor prefers.

To be honest, I am a politician like everybody else sat on this stage, I think actually the commissioner of the London fire brigade has significantly more expertise in terms of how to plan decent fire and rescue cover across London than any of the politicians on this stage. Therefore, I think the weight of his recommendation does carry considerable weight.

And the money that Fiona refers to that could be put together in order to save the 13 appliances that she has just referred to are various little bits and pieces of one-off funding that would disappear in a year. So you could put these 13 appliances back and they would go in 12 months' time. Now, why would she want to do that? That is not sensible, that is not sustainable, and it would actually make the fire brigade less safe in 12 months' time. It's not sensible to do it.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hello, Mr Johnson, Val Harris from Lewisham. I've worked for the Met Police for 30 years as police staff or, as you would put it, an “overhead“. We aspire for the Met to look like London. When you set the target for 32,000 police officers did you realise that the parts of the police that come from London, like the back office staff, the catering staff, the people that have had to be cut, along with buildings and cars and other resources, were going to actually mean that the people that work there now look less like London, because we were the groups that came from London.

We're Londoners, we want to work for the Met, we want to make London great and we want to make it safer. Could you look at 32,000, is that absolutely necessary, is that a target that needs to be kept to?

BORIS JOHNSON: Look, I mean that's a really important point and thank you very much for what you've done, I understand your anger about what has happened and the experience that you have had. The reality is that we are in a time of limited budgets and we have to put the money where it will deliver the best results for London. I have spoken of some of the successes that we've had in fighting crime, it has come down sharply, and overall people feel safer in this city and we are seeing increases in confidence as well - not yet as much as I'd like but we're seeing significant improvements. And I have to say that I do think it is valuable to invest in front line policing, and I do defend the decisions that we've taken to sell off buildings like the Scotland Yard building; I think £370m that made. That is a huge, huge sum that can now be invested into policing.

And I totally defend the approach that we've taken, and investing in safer neighbourhood teams, in beat policing, I think is the way forward. “Bobbies, not buildings“ is the expression used by Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy mayor for policing and crime, and I completely agree with him. And, yes, of course it means sometimes cuts in the back office, but we are not so far seeing any reduction in our crime-fighting capability. And that for me is what counts.

The chair: I'll turn to Joanne McCartney, chair of the police and crime committee.

JOANNE MCCARTNEY: Thank you. Well, it's quite clearly the case that government cuts and the mayor's policies have meant that we've seen significant depletion in our police force, both in office and numbers of PCSOs [Police community support officer] and staff that do those vital back office functions, which means that our police officers can spend the time on the beat.

You've talked about the mayor's target of 32,000 officers. Well, he's got a target -- he meets it at election time, but for the rest of that time that target is not met. For nearly 80% of his mayoralty he has been below target. Here in Croydon we're seeing a reduction in police numbers. Over the last six years Croydon has lost 46 police officers and 141 PCSOs. They are uniforms that should be out on your streets and they're not. And the mayor has talked about reducing crime. I think we can put that one to bed because we've now seen over the last 18 months total notifiable offences are actually increasing again. In Croydon in particular there's been a 16 per cent rise in violent crime, crime which is a great concern.

And we know that later this year, when cybercrime and nternet-enabled crime is added to those crime figures, the crime figures are probably going to more than double. So it's not the rosy picture that Boris says. And we have consistently raised in the police and crime committee cuts particularly to those back office and civilian staff roles.

The chair: Caroline Pidgeon.

CAROLINE PIDGEON: Thank you very much. I think many of us are concerned, about the cuts to police staff, as you say, because actually what has then happened is we're seeing police officers having to fulfil some of those admin functions, therefore being taken off the street rather than out there patrolling our communities. 32,000 police is a good number to want to aim for in London, and we have been recruiting in London, that is commendable; but actually, with the growing population we've got coming in London we need to see more police officers, more PCSOs, and we need the staff to support them to make sure they're out on the street.

The biggest mistake that I think the mayor has made over recent years is to cut the number of dedicated officers in every ward in London, and that has meant more and more people don't see the police patrolling their streets, and that important intelligence, particularly around things like counter-terrorism, is not being fed in and that's what I want to see reversed.

The chair: Boris, do you want to respond?

BORIS JOHNSON: Can I just come back on that. Actually, we've got a record number of police officers out on the street. There are more police constables now in London than at any time in the history of the city. I think we're currently virtually at 32,000 altogether, 26,000 PCs [police constables]. And one of the reasons why we're able to make savings in the back office is because of the incredible improvements in technology. Every police officer -- we're putting 20,000 body-worn cameras on police officers so that they will -- so many of the problems that the public have had with the behaviour or worries about the behaviour of the police, police evidence-gathering capabilities, abilities to see exactly what has happened when they arrive at the scene of a crime and to record it, that will be massively improved by body-worn cameras. Use of tablets, use of technology, is a fantastic advantage for the police force and we should capitalise on that rather than ignoring it. And that's why I think it's invest in front line policing, invest in technology and we are seeing crime falling steadily.

The chair: I think the fact of the matter, we have seen more police in our neighbourhoods.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hi there. My name is Damien Cheetham. I have been in the south east for most of my life. My question has been over the last five, six, seven years we have seen a reduction in budget to the front line services which we, as Londoners, rely on, whether it's the policing on the streets, safer neighbourhoods teams disappearing, being pulled back into clusters. Or, as the gentleman over there said, the firefighter, we've had 10 fire stations lost, 28 fire engines being reduced, 500 firefighters lost as well.

Boris, you are in control of the cake which is the budget that you divide. As Londoners, we do not want those front line services cut, no matter if these are being used 2% of the time or 5% of the time, they save our lives. You need to stop and reverse the removal of the fire trucks. Again, 13 this week, you are overriding the panel against public consultations. Just on the consultation side, they are very quiet, none of us know anything about them until very very close to the event. We don't have time to respond.

The chair: OK, sir. I think you have made your point, we are running out of time. Gareth Bacon can respond.

GARETH BACON: The 13 appliances the gentleman is referring to, it is very important to realise that these are not being taken now, these have been off the run for 2.5 years. They've been held back as part of a contingent of 27 fire engines to be used in the event of strike cover, because the Fire Brigades Union called a strike in August 2013 over the government's changes to their pensions. That's fine, that's their right, that's perfectly well and good. But they've been off the run for the whole of that time.

What the proposal is is not to put them back permanently. But despite them being off the run for the whole of that time the fire response times are exactly what I gave you a moment ago, those times have been achieved, they have exceeded the fastest response times in the world despite them not being there. Those 13 appliances are not needed. And that is the professional recommendation of the commissioner, not of any politician.

FROM THE FLOOR: Hello. My name is Nicola and I have lived in Croydon for many, many years. I had the misfortune to lose my purse in Croydon, and I went to Croydon police station and it was a complete and utter waste of time. They didn't want to know, they didn't take any details, they did nothing.

Now, I'm on a police panel and I go to regular meetings and at the next meeting my question was, “Why did this happen? Why didn't you want to know?“ And I was told it's down to the person who finds it to give it back to the person it belongs to. So really it's a charter for finders keepers and it's absolutely outrageous. How can you do this? How can you find something, lose something, and have nowhere to go to say it's been lost, has anyone found it? What happens with insurance if it's something major? It was in Surrey Street market, 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning. Almost empty ... No, I think I was foolish and I think I didn't put it in my bag, I think it might have slipped between my coat and my bag. I honestly don't believe that it was stolen. But I made the special effort, I told the market inspector and I made the special effort to go to the police station and they didn't want to know, they didn't want to know.

BORIS JOHNSON: I very much sympathise with your anxiety about losing your purse, but -- I may get this wrong -- if I was a policeman what I would be thinking is: what is the crime that has been committed and what can I do to rectify it? Of course what they should say to you, in my view, is, “If somebody hands in your purse to us we'll make sure we notify you,“ and they could have taken your name and your address and your details, your phone number, and notified you.

But I think that would be the psychological barrier in their minds, because that is what the police are there for, they are there to fight crime, and it wouldn't have been clear to them that a crime had been committed. But I think that you make a perfectly reasonable point as a citizen that somebody in authority should be able to help you and somebody should serve as the clearing house for your purse, as it were. You've got the borough commander over there, he is looking absolutely overjoyed by this intervention. I don't say he is going to find your purse in Surrey market. I don't know whether you went back and looked for it and asked people? You did. Look, I'm sorry about what happened to your purse, I think that if it is handed into the police station then the police should let you know that they have found it.

The chair: Right, thank you very much, I think we've got to the end of time now and well done for getting there. The first thing, I would like to thank you all for attending and participating. A full transcript will be on the GLA website. If you've got questions, leave them with the team. But, before you leave, I would like first of all to thank you all for coming, but I think we should thank the mayor and the panel for coming along tonight in the usual fashion. Have a safe journey home and thank you again.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kzjC5dFH20

[top]

4th March 2016: Boris Johnson interview with the Evening Standard

“It was a very, very difficult decision to come out for leave because I was desperate to try and convince myself we could have reform.” He is keen to show that his decision was not a last-minute calculation that he may now be regretting.
“I spent a lot of time in the past few months thinking about this and reading. I just think it is getting to the stage where they are trying to construct something that is antidemocratic and unsuitable for the UK. Look, I happen to care a lot about this. I think this thing is moving in the wrong direction.”
“[he says he has had] what you might call mixed reactions”. But he adds: “For most of my electorate Europe is number 20 on their list of priorities.”
“I can tell you, there are plenty of people who take a completely different view and think we would do very well outside. My dream would have been an outer tier with a different relationship. That’s not going to happen. There’s going to be a march towards a federal future which I don’t think we should really be a part of.”
“The people who are now bellyaching and moaning and who are apprehensive are the very people who 13 years ago were saying Britain should join the euro. A distinguished former Tory chancellor said Britain would suffer substantial economic damage if we didn’t go into the euro. Donnez-moi un break.”
“These people are, in my view, massively underconfident about Britain. They are timid, they are allowing themselves to be spooked and they are causing this country to be trussed up, tied down like Gulliver.”
“So female cyclists get crushed because those tipper trucks are not designed to save lives.” (He says he can’t regulate cyclist lanes because of Brussels harmonisation rules.)
“What a load of cobblers. You are not going to get German trains running on Crossrail.”
“I made my views clear for a long time. We’re more than capable of flourishing outside an unreformed EU. I wanted to persuade myself that reform would happen. There’s been no real change.”
“I was talking to [estranged wife] Marina about this. She is very moderate in many of her views but she is appalled by the expansion of some of the encroachments of the ECJ [European court of justice].”
“It all ends up as an elaborate attempt to suck and blow at once, to say that something is both one thing and the other. It just doesn’t work.”
“Unless we make a stand now we will simply wake up on June 24 with absolutely nothing changed. Leaving will galvanise this country, it will be a massive shot of oxygen into the bloodstream.”
[on being attacked in the commons] “I actually didn’t notice. I was so wrapped up in meditation on the European treaties that I’m afraid whatever it was passed me by.”
“That is entirely up to the prime minister. I will be a mere backbench MP.” [on a cabinet role] “That is not my concern.”
“What career? I’m coming to the end of a wonderful time as mayor. I’ve always said it was possible this would be the last big job I did in politics. My appetite for power is long since glutted, I assure you.”
“If I had a single regret it is that I was a little bit too bashful in getting the message across sometimes. A tragic excess of modesty. London is immeasurably richer and more successful than it was eight years ago.”
Things go up and down, and so they should. If there’s a bit too much at the top end, that will come out. And if some luxury flats have to be divided into two to make them slightly more affordable for other people, I’m not going to weep hot tears. Look at the scale of building going on. There’s been nothing like it for 50 years.”
“I think the more we talk about the microcosmographia of politics the less we can concentrate on what really matters: the issues.”
“People used to say of Londoners 10 years ago that they didn’t like to talk to each other on the tube, there wasn’t much communal feeling, it was a bit standoffish. I think what happened in the Olympics hasn’t gone away. People do engage with each other. Maybe it is because of selfies or social media or whatever but people are much less reserved. They are kinder, I think. I was cycling last night and some poor girl had got hurt. I was just struck by now many people were trying to help her. It just feels very giving.”
[about striking out on his own] “Yeah, none of them have got the [balls]…” [pause] “I’d better be careful what I say.”

Source: Evening Standard

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/boris-johnson-this-could-be-my-last-big-job-in-politics-my-appetite-is-glutted-a3195636.html

[top]

6th March 2016: Boris Johnson on the The Andrew Marr Show

Andrew: Before we get going on the detail, tell us why you have decided we would be better off outside the EU.

Boris: I think we’ve got a once in a lifetime opportunity, which will not come again, to strike a new series of relationships, free trade deals with the growth economies around the world. Whilst maintaining, as Wolfgang Schӓuble just said, our free trade advantages with the European Union. And the reason I’ve come to this conclusion is that I think staying in the European Union as it evolves towards an evermore centralised, federalised structure in the effort to preserve the euro is the risky option and the best thing for us now because we’re a great country, a proud economy, a proud democracy, is to take back control over our borders, over the huge sums of money that we send to the European Union and to take back large amounts of control over our democracy and that is really what clinched it for me and I’ll describe if you want the journey that led me to this conclusion.

Andrew: We will come to that but part of that journey was that I want to clear up exactly what you think and want to happen now because until relatively recently you were arguing we could have a referendum we could vote to leave, they would be so panicked and shocked we would then get a much better deal and then we could then stay in.

Boris: I have to say, I think that that is - it is certainly true that if you vote to leave, all your options are good and you could certainly strike a great free trade deal, as Wolfgang Schӓuble just said, with the European Union. What I, what I don’t think you can do is hope if you remain, if you stay in the EU for any real reform and what we were told, if you remember Andrew, what we were told is that the stated government policy is that we should have a reformed EU, fundamentally reformed, wholesale change in Britain’s relationship with EU was promised. That has obviously not been delivered we were told at the time that Britain would be perfectly safe to walk away, by the government, by the prime minister, that has now- that rhetoric has now been changed. And I think that was right, I think by the way the policy was right then we should be absolutely confident about the future of this country at the moment -

Andrew: Those people watching need to be clear, your view is that you could vote no, we could leave the EU and then there can be a second referendum where we can come back in again on better terms.

Boris: I don’t think that’s necessary, as I have said is that I think what you could do is.

Andrew: If we voted no, that would be it surely?

Boris: what you do, is you vote to Leave and you then have the opportunity to strike a series of free trade deals around the world which are currently forbidden, can I just explain why that’s so important. Europe is not the growth area of the world at the moment, if you look at the relative performance of the eurozone economies and the rest of the world it is tragic. Now, ask yourself who is in a better position to negotiate free trade deals with the rest of the world, the UK looking after the interests of British business and British industry, or the European commission who currently have sole responsibility for negotiating those agreements and of whom only 3.6% of the officials are British.

Andrew: Let’s move on for the sake of argument: we vote to leave the EU, we vote for Brexit, Article 50 is triggered...

Boris: What you do is, as soon as you vote leave, the EU treaties remain in force for at least two years. They’re grandfathered on and you have plenty of time in which to negotiate new free trade arrangements. Now, I have to say one of the feeblest arguments from the remainers is that we’re so emaciated in our diplomatic and commercial abilities today that we could not negotiate free trade arrangements ourselves and that we have to entrust to these brilliant officials in the European commission. I think that is wholly absurd.

Andrew: Fair point but there would be 66 different, new trade deals we would have to negotiate and that’s everything from shoes to marmalade. It’s a very complicated business.

Boris: Do you know what this is like? This is like the jailer has accidentally left the door of the jail open and people can see the sun, land beyond and everybody’s suddenly wrangling about the terrors of the world outside. Actually it would be wonderful and it would be a huge weight lifted from British business.can I just say it’s very sad that someone like John Longworth who shares my view, who has great experience of British business and industry, should have to pay quite a heavy price it seems from what’s happened today for sharing that optimistic view.

Andrew: You said the agents of project fear had got him out by bullying - who did you mean? Did you mean the prime minister?

Boris: No, he was, he was, he has been asked to step down for expressing what I think is a passionate, optimistic view of this country’s chances. Perhaps for the benefit, can you imagine the CBI [Confederation of British Industry] doing the same to any of its leading figures, Sir Mike Rake for instance if he passionately argued for staying in.

Andrew: You don’t think necessarily that Number 10 bullied or manipulated?

Boris: No, well younger, fitter journalists than ourselves can discover what happened.

Andrew: They can and there are many of those but let’s turn back to the sunlit uplands you’re describing because before you get to the sunlit uplands there would be a period of dislocation, uncertainty and joblessness. You yourself have used the very clear metaphor of the Nike tick and as we all understand the Nike tick goes up in a swoosh but it goes down first, there would be a period where people would lose their jobs.

Boris: It might, or it might not. And actually there are plenty of people who now think the cost of getting out would be virtually nil and the cost of staying in would be very high now let me...

Andrew: Your own adviser Jerry Lyons said there would be an economic shock, economic shocks produced, downturn dislocation that would be a big problem.

Boris: Gerard Lyons says very clearly that Britain would be better off outside an unreformed EU.

Andrew: [reading quote’ “Leaving the EU would be an economic shock, most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity.”

Boris: Tell me what he says about leaving an unreformed EU, does he say-

Andrew: “Thus, economic forecasts that focus on say a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative.” Now after that --

Boris: No, that’s not true.

Andrew: That’s what he said, that’s exactly what he said.

Boris: No it’s not true. His report says very clearly that the best future is to get out of an unreformed EU and that’s -- Can I just explain for the benefit of our viewers, faithful viewers, who remain listening to this conversation. What I think the problem of the EU is, and it boils down to democracy --

Andrew: I gave you the chance to do that.

Boris: Let me explain, it really has become injurious to government in this country, for instance, even as mayor of London I have encountered the delay caused by the EU. Crossrail, the Crossrail tunnels, the EU decided… such is the Stockholm syndrome capture of officials in this country that they decided to interpret the directive on interoperability of trans-European networks in such a way that Crossrail tunnels had to be 50% bigger in order to accommodate German trains.

In the vanishingly unlikely eventuality of German trains needing to go down the Crossrail trains, now that would have cost billions. We had to spend literally a year trying to fend off that demand. Second, it was absolutely horrific to be told that there was nothing I could do, as mayor, there’s nothing the secretary of state for transport could do to ensure that we had safer tipper trucks on the streets of London to stop cyclists, vulnerable road users being crushed particularly --

Andrew: The EU agreed with your argument in 2015 and has put forward legislation to allow safer tipper trucks.

Boris: It’s blocked and there’s no chance of getting it through until [20]21 or 2022 because currently it’s opposed - it’s opposed by both- the commission may be in favour - its opposed by both the French and the Swedes because they have truck businesses that don’t want to see it. What’s happened --

Andrew: I have looked into this, you know more, it’s unanimously supported, it’s coming in. This is project fear.

Boris: In 2011, 2012 we decided to give up type approval for vehicles to the European Union. So, we can no longer control what type of trucks we have on the streets of London. And that for me is a really important issue of political control and accountability and people feel it very strongly.

Andrew: We do need to move on, we’ve got a lot to cover.

Boris: I’m going to tell you what I’m going to cover.

Andrew: It’s not the Boris Johnson show, it’s the Andrew Marr show, I get to ask the questions.

Boris: Alright. You have sovereignty.

Andrew: I have complete sovereignty of this show.

Boris: Unlike the UK.

Andrew: I won’t go down that. The single market. You were always a great supporter of the single market, you talked a lot about its advantages. Do you accept that if we leave the EU, we must leave the single market?

Boris: The single market, people will say what do you mean by the single market? The single market is a huge territory now that comprises the member states of the European Union. Would we be able to trade freely with that territory? I think yes we would.

Andrew: But would we actually leave it as an institution?

Boris: Well yes that’s a very - OK.

Andrew: If I’m making marmalade, and I’m trying to sell my marmalade to Italy and the Italians say do you know what Andrew Marr your marmalade has too many pips in it per jar, we’re not going to accept it and that is a pure attempt to stop my marmalade coming in. Then there are rules thrown at you. You’d lose all of that.

Boris: No you wouldn’t because you’d still be able to sell your marmalade to Italy. If you had marmalade that was in some way poisonous then obviously --

Andrew: It wouldn’t be poison it would be good marmalade. But they’re trying to keep it out and if I’m outside of the single market, I’m outside the rules that stop other people discriminating against me.

Boris: There are plenty of countries that export more per capita to the European Union than we do. Switzerland for instance is not in the European. They manage to get round this problem. One of the interesting features -

Andrew: Are you in favour of leaving the European market or not?

Boris: Let me make it simple for you, one of the interesting features of the last 30, 40 years is actually American exports to the European Union - US - have increased faster than ours have. Now they’re not members of the single market, let me explain what the single market is. The single market is basically a single judicial system whereby more and more power is taken away from individual member states and given to EU institutions and -

Andrew: And Boris johnson has said “I want to campaign for the single market”.

Boris: I want to campaign for -

Andrew: For the single market, you’ve always said it was a good thing.

Boris: For free trade with the European Union and that is what we need and what we will get. And let me explain why the single market is evolving in a direction I think is completely hostile.

Andrew: “I would like to be able to campaign for the single market” - Boris Johnson on this programme.

Boris: The single market means that - it depends on how you define your terms - I’m talking about the great zone, the great free trade zone that is the European Union. I want us to be able to trade freely with that zone but I don’t want us to be subject to more and more top down legislation and regulation.

Andrew: [interrupts]

Boris: Can I just explain what the problem is with the single market? Because it’s a legal problem. When you vote in this elect- [sic] referendum, the status quo isn’t on the ballot paper. You can’t vote just to remain in the single market because the single market is changing and the project now is to rescue the euro by creating an ever denser series of political arrangements based around - it is clear from the five presidents which came out last year that they want to harmonize company law, they want to harmonize property rights, they want to harmonize social law in all sorts of ways that will impact the entire European Union, including the UK and it’s obvious, I’m afraid that --

Andrew: You have changed your view, you used to be in favour of the single market - I’ve got all the quotes here - you used to be in favour of it and now you’re saying we should get out of it.

Boris: No, I think you’re equivocating on the term single market.

Andrew: I’m not.

Boris: You are. The single market --

Andrew: It’s not complicated term --

Boris: Yes it is, because what people don’t understand is what the single market involves a series- a top down system of a single judicial authority.

Andrew: An area in which there is real, complete, free trade. Wolfgang Schӓuble said a few moments ago, you can’t be inside it.

Boris: Sorry this is BBC claptrap.

Andrew: It’s not BBC claptrap.

Boris: It is, it is not complete free trade. It is trade which is governed by a series of rules that are created by a single legal authority and --

Andrew: But to prevent protectionism --

Boris: And protectionism has massively decreased in the last 30 years, tariffs are well down and we should be able to trade freely with that area. And that’s what I want.

Andrew: I’m sorry one last time for clarity.

Boris: What I object to - what I object to is the loss of control. This is an opportunity - a once in a lifetime opportunity - for the British people to take back control and there is no -

Andrew: One last time.

Boris: I just want to explain the single market.

Andrew: You’ve explained it three or four times.

Boris: Well let me explain the difference between what we’ve got in Europe and other arrangements around the world.

Andrew: Just tell me are we going to be in it or not in it, and if we’re not going to be in it are we going to negotiate a similar kind of deal.

Boris: We’re going to have our own British arrangements which will give us access to the rest of the European Union, to the European Union-

Andrew: Without paying any money and without free movement?

Boris: Market - well, again if we look at free movement it’s very interesting how that has changed over the years. When I went to live on the continent you had to go to the local hotel- the local town hall and present your papers and sure what employment you propose to do, you had to register and that kind of thing. Since Masstricht there has been - since that treaty, there’s been.

Particularly since Lisbon there’s been a change in concept what we have now is European citizenship and the idea is that we’ve created a single country that’s what we’re being told. Now I think most people in this country don’t believe that they share nationhood, they are part of a single country called Europe and it seems entirely reasonable to me that you could have visa free travel, for instance, as we have with the United States but still require people to show that they have gainful employment or to prevent people from simply claiming benefits. There is an ideology.

Andrew: Enough of that, you’re mayor of London and you are responsible for the city. Have you ever had conversations with leading bankers, who say if we leave the EU we will move our headquarters to the continent.

Boris: No, no, absolutely not. On the contrary.

Andrew: That’s what Goldman Sachs are saying, they have 6,000 employees here and they say because of the passport system if we leave they have no choice but to move to continental headquarters and bank after bank after bank is saying the same thing.

Boris: First of all, I don’t believe that to be true at all. We’ve heard the same sorts of threats time and time again, actually London has such a massive concentration of skills and talent here in this city that I don’t believe there’d be - talk to serious bankers they don’t think.

Andrew: Well, here are two serious bankers for you Boris: Michael Sherwood and Richard Gnodde co-CEOs in Europe for Goldman Sachs say that banks won’t disappear from London overnight but they will overtime if Britain votes no. It would begin with a decline in investment and hiring and London suffers relative to cities such as Frankfurt and Paris. This is their business, they know what they’re talking about.

Boris: Well you know these - by the way - were the people engineered the biggest financial disaster of the last century so - but what I would say is that they are also the same people who said that if we didn’t join the euro then there would be all sorts of economic disasters. They never happened. If you remember Peter Mandelson, the CBI, the bank, they were all saying we have to join the euro or the British economy would be overwhelmed, we’d be isolated, they were wrong then and they are wrong now. And there are people on the other side now, people on both sides who think as John Longworth thinks, as I think, that actually there’s a great and glorious future for this country and what we’re being asked is to basically to take a very pessimistic view of Britain and of our chances, we’re a huge economy we could do well outside -

Andrew: You could say it’s pessimistic to think we couldn’t stay inside of the EU and make it better.

Boris: Well I think the evidence, the proof of that is in the recent reform process. We were promised fundamental reform we were told we were going to get wholesale changes anybody looking at the agreement that we have before us now will be in no doubt that this is not fundamental reform -

Andrew: It is clear from his Bloomberg speech what the prime minister is going to do

Boris: The next item on the agenda, is the creation, the turning, the further evolution of the single market what was a common market into this superstate. Into which we would be inevitably dragged and that is not the right way forward.

Andrew: You knew what the prime minister was going for from the time of the Bloomberg speech he has been remarkably candid and frank about what he was trying to do. So you knew at that point that it wasn’t the fundamental reform that you wanted, so you kept quiet, he briefed you again and again, you had conversations, you were agonised, you were going through this whole process, he brought you in, he rolled out the red carpet for you and then when you finally decided you didn’t even speak to him face to face. You gave him a text message. Can you understand why he is livid with you?

Boris: I wasn’t actually at the cabinet meeting where the deal was revealed and discussed because I’m not in the cabinet. But what is certainly the case is that in the days leading up to that summit and indeed during while the summit was going on there was a huge effort going on which I was actually involved in to try to make sense of the so-called sovereignty clauses and a huge intellectual effort went into creating this language in which we could somehow ensure that the - our courts, our supreme court, our House of Commons could overturn judgements of the European court of justice, if Britain felt that they were in some way maybe capricious.

Andrew: - exceeding their powers?

Boris: Exceeding their powers, exactly. And finally we had some language, which seem to have some bite and seem to work and I was very pleased with it and we went back to the government lawyers and the government lawyers sa- blew up - and said this basically voids our obligations under the 1972 European Communities Act, it doesn’t work, we can’t - and that is I’m afraid the reality. You cannot express the sovereignty of parliament and accept the 1972 European Communities Act, there’s no way of doing both at the same time. Unless of course -

Andrew: This is the moment where you decided which way you’re trying to go, was it basically when you saw that, that sovereignty matter couldn’t be resolved?

Boris: We were told, we were told that-

Andrew: Specific question.

Boris: Yes, I mean the answer specifically yes. We were told there was going to be fundamental reform, we didn’t achieve that and I think that the lesson of the whole business has been that reform is not achievable. So we now have a glorious opportunity and to get back to this whole thing about what is the single market, what is not the single market - the key thing about the single market is that it does have this single judicial system and very interestingly if you look at all the other free trade groupings around the world Nafta, Asean, Mercosur whatever, none of them are trying to create this single country, this single political unit. None of them have a single currency.

Andrew: The prime minister clearly thinks you’re doing this out of personal ambition because you want to take him out.

Boris: I think the longer we spend talking about this sort of political stuff the less time people have to focus on the real issues.

Andrew: You said you have no political ambitions left the other day, I find that hard to believe. The greasy ball is coming back from out of the ruck its bouncing towards you are you really saying no, no, no greasy ball off you go.

Boris: I have to say, with the possible exemption of Dan Hannan, I don’t think there is anybody in British and you know, you’ve read a lot, I don’t think there is anybody in British media or British politics who has written more or said more over the last 30 years about the democratic deficiencies of the European Union. Over the last few years, I have said very clearly that if we didn’t get reform then we should be prepared to walk away. I think we now have a golden opportunity to shrug off a regulatory, legislative burden that is profoundly anti-democratic and as Michael Gove rightly says in his interview this morning, look at the consequences.

Andrew: Do you expect to be our next prime minister?

Boris: Certainly not, I think that we have a wonderful prime minister.

Andrew: You know he can’t carry on if he loses this don’t you? He can’t really, realistically, practically you can’t look me in the eye and say David Cameron will carry on as prime minister and renegotiate.

Boris: To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single European Union leader in the last 20 years who has had to step down as a result of a referendum whether on Europe or not. So the whole thing is a load of cobblers, you’re just trying to personalise it --

Andrew: I am, he started it.

Boris: -- to make more interesting. I want to talk about the real choice - it’s a fundamental choice it’s between project fear and project hope I hope people go for hope.

Andrew: And you’ve had plenty of time so to do, Boris Johnson thank you very much.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IWOjb86-EM

[top]

7th March 2016: Boris Johnson on the cycle superhighway - press release

In 2013 I stood on this very spot on the Embankment and promised that we would soon behold a magnificent cycle superhighway.

Many doubted it would ever get beyond the artist's impression. A noisy minority fought hard to stop it happening.

But in opinion polls and public consultations, large majorities of ordinary Londoners, most of them not cyclists, said they wanted this project and what it represents for a cleaner, safer, greener city.

I apologise to motorists temporarily inconvenienced by the construction works on the Embankment, and I thank them for their patience in putting up with it - but the end is now in sight.

I am immensely encouraged by the evidence from Vauxhall showing that now the scheme there is finished, the flow of traffic in the area is also returning to normal.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/first-route-shows-73-per-cent-increase-in-cycling

[top]

7th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook link of a Telegraph article:

“The ratchet is clicking forwards. When you come to vote, the status quo is not on offer.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/706895496900648960

[top]

7th March 2016: Boris Johnson writes a Telegraph article: “There is no conspiracy. The EU is completely open about its superstate plan

We make at least one fatal mistake in dealing with our beloved friends and partners in the European Union. And that is that we persist in the delusion that they do not really mean what they say.

Every so often the hierarchs of Brussels publish a manifesto or programme, sketching out the route map to further integration. They set out their ambition in black and white – to create a monetary union, a political union, a social union: in essence, to take a load of disparate countries and to try to fuse them into one, with common citizenship and loyalty to a “European” idea.

Oh come off it, we say. It’ll never happen – it’s just the usual old windy Euro-rhetoric. I well remember how we reacted to the news that they wanted to create the euro – with a sort of benign incredulity. I have just re-read former Prime Minister Sir John Major’s famous article in The Economist, in 1993, in which he poured scorn on the very text of the Maastricht Treaty: “I hope my fellow heads of state and government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union. If they do recite it, it will have all the quaintness of a rain dance, and about as much potency … The plain fact is that economic and monetary union is not realisable in the present circumstances.”

Sir John was by no means alone. Across the political spectrum, people scoffed at the idea. It defied common sense that a one-size-fits-all monetary policy would be imposed on such divergent economies as Germany and Greece. Well, the sceptics were confounded: they did go ahead with the euro – and a thoroughgoing disaster it has proved.

Now EU chiefs are struggling to remedy the defects in that project, and they have produced a report explaining what they want to do. It is called the “Five Presidents’ Report”, and it came out last year and got rather buried in the aftermath of the general election. History teaches us that we would be mad to ignore this text. The five presidents in question are those of the European Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, the European Central Bank and a body called the “European Stability Mechanism”. They want to prop up the euro by creating an all-out economic government of Europe.

They want a euro-area treasury, with further pooling of tax and budgetary policy. They want to harmonise insolvency law, company law, property rights, social security systems – and there is no way the UK can be unaffected by this process. As the Five Presidents put it: “Much can be already achieved through a deepening of the Single Market, which is important for all 28 EU member states.” So even though Britain is out of the euro, there is nothing we can do to stop our friends from using “single market” legislation to push forward centralising measures that will help prop up the euro (or so they imagine), by aligning EU economic, social and fiscal policies.

Insofar as the recent “UK Agreement” has any force, it expressly allows these measures to be pursued, and agrees the UK will not attempt to exercise a veto. In other words we will find ourselves dragged along willy-nilly, in spite of all protestations to the contrary. So-called “Single Market” measures affect us as much as they affect the eurozone – and the question therefore is what we mean by “Single Market”. The answer is a mystery – because the single market has changed beyond recognition.

Twenty years ago there was a clear conceptual difference in the EEC between things that were done at an intergovernmental level – between member states, without the Commission, the Euro-parliament and the Court of Justice – and things that were part of the “single market”. Foreign and defence co-operation was done intergovernmentally, and so was anything to do with police, or justice, or borders, or home affairs, or asylum, or immigration, or anything to do with human rights. Then there were all the fields of EEC competence: the common trade policies, the common agricultural policy, the competition policy, environment policy, and so on.

Since Maastricht, that has all changed. Successive treaties have vastly expanded the areas in which the EU bodies operate so that there is virtually no aspect of public policy that is untouched. The EU now takes an interest in energy policy, in humanitarian aid, in education, in health, and in human rights of all kinds. There is a common European space policy. All of these policy areas involve the European Commission, the parliament, and above all the European Court of Justice. And remember – as soon as something enters within the EU’s field of competence, the Luxembourg Court of Justice becomes the supreme judicial body; and every time that happens, power is sucked away from this country.

We have seen recently how the Home Secretary has lost the power to deport murderers, or to conduct surveillance of would-be terrorists, because that might put the UK in breach of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has that got to do with the “Single Market”, you may ask, and the answer is nothing at all. But any clever lawyer can easily blur the boundaries: it is a short hop from a common policy on free movement of workers to a common policy on deporting terrorists.

The idea of the Single Market has become so capacious that it is a cloak for full-scale political and economic union. We now have up to half our law coming from the EU (some say two thirds); and if the Five Presidents get their way, the process of centralisation will simply continue – much of it in the name of the “Single Market”. It’s time we learnt the lesson. The federalists do mean it when they sketch out these programmes. The ratchet is clicking forwards. When you come to vote, the status quo is not on offer.

Source:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/16/there-is-no-conspiracy-the-eu-is-completely-open-about-its-super/?fbclid=IwAR2KrhW_5lunu9ZulS5w-nWg_rOlFmLLt_wsxBNPYElPy-jE4Rle4USFiqU

And

https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153526811216317

[top]

7th March 2016: Video about John Longworth

“Look I think it’s very sad that a guy like John Longworth who really understands these issues, has got to grips with the problems of the European Union, understands the disaster that is happening now in the continent of Europe - the economic disaster caused the euro and who wants to give Britain a new chance, new free trade deals around the world. I think it’s pretty sad that he’s been - he’s been stopped from speaking out in his capacity as director general of the BCC [British Chambers of Commerce]. I think what will happen now is that he will join our movement and speak his mind and I hope very much that he will.”
“25 years ago or 20 years ago there was this plan for this thing called European monetary union and everybody said “no do me a favour- that’ll never happen they [unitelligible] single currency” and John Major wrote an article saying it was, you know it was like a rain dance. Actually it did happen, and it was an economic disaster and they have all sorts of plans of sorting out by creating a single government that will inevitably drag us in.”

Source: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-boris-johnson-i-hope-john-longworth-will-join-campaign-to-leave-eu-34518018.html

[top]

8th March 2016: Boris Johnson on City Hall’s staffers’ views on the EU referendum

Boris: You can tell that they’re not gagged because they already have been for some days producing all sorts of views completely different from my own, that is what people would expect from this debate.

Interviewer: So why did your Chief of Staff send this email?

Boris: Well as soon as I saw that particular edict, which wasn’t until last night, as soon as I saw it, it ceased to be operative and indeed it hasn’t really been operative at all because you’ve seen all sorts of views expressed by members of my team. So far as that edict was operative it is now officially countermanded, it is over, it is dead, it is rescinded, it is as they say in Brussels it is kadook, it is an ex-edict, it has ceased to be operative, seemed to function, it is gone, wiped from the page of history all right?

So what we want is a robust debate, where everyone can express their point of view and that’s what the people want and that’s what they’re going to get and they’re going to get that from everybody in City Hall and they’re going to get that from me as well. I would point out there is a stark contrast in our approach which is let 100 flowers bloom and the cynicism --

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/08/boris-johnson-city-hall-staff-will-not-be-gagged-over-eu-referendum

[top]

8th March 2016: Boris Johnson on City Hall’s staffers’ views on the EU referendum

Boris: Nobody has been gagged, I was only made aware of this edict very late last night and it ceased to be operative as soon as I was made aware of it. And all that I can say is it obviously hasn’t been operative because you have members - not just of my staff - my advisory team taking a very different from me and so they can and so they shall and with complete impunity too, by the way. So there you go.

Interviewer: But we understand before the email was sent out you were consulted over it, so you must have known something about the email being sent.

Boris: No, I had no knowledge of that.

Interviewer: Is it not embarrassing that the email was sent out in the first place?

Boris: Yes its a cock-up, I perfectly accept that it’s not something that I agree with and my staff, my team have complete freedom to say what they want, indeed they already are and have been for some days. Let 100 flowers bloom folks OK.

Interviewer: So they can campaign for whatever side they like?

Boris: Yes of course, as far as I’m concerned, as I say as soon as I saw that thing last night it ceased to be operative and indeed it has not been operative for several days or it has not been operative at all because they’ve all been saying what they think OK? They can do what they want. Let 100 flowers bloom.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35749084

[top]

8th March 2016: Boris Johnson reflects on time as mayor in The Guardian

“They’ve done an amazing job, considering how difficult it is in London to take road space and give it to cycling. It’s very, very politically difficult. But it’s the right thing to do.”

“We tried a compromise approach with the paint, and that’s much better than nothing.”
“Absolutely. Looking back on it, yes. If I had my time again, and if I knew then what I know now, I would have gone straight in with a massive programme of segregated cycle superhighways. I probably wouldn’t have been re-elected, unfortunately. That’s one thing to consider. But that would have been the right thing to do.”
[on which is the more fractious debate, the EU or cycling] “Oh God, cycling. Unquestionably. The public hostility about the cycle superhighways has been much worse.”
“You’ve got no idea. When we started in Parliament Square, people went crazy. But it will all be over soon.”
“These are truly fantastic.” [on the lane he uses regularly but which is not yet officially open and remains blocked off just before Parliament Square]
“I think it will make a huge difference to public attitudes, to public understanding about why London values cycling, and what it means for us as a city. This is a city where we really want to encourage environmentally friendly transport of all kinds.”
“Look at our obesity crisis, look at the issues we’ve got as a city, the air quality issues.”
[on the future mayor building more cycle lanes]: “I think that the logic of this is now irresistible, and the programme will go on, will be protracted for many years to come. There’s a series of cycle superhighways still to be constructed and I think they’ll make a big difference to London.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/mar/08/boris-johnson-mayor-segregated-cycling-routes-for-london

[top]

8th March 2016 Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook video link about Lee Rigby

“Lee Rigby's murder sickened Londoners. How could Khan have hired someone who suggested it was in any way fabricated?”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/707133064133136385

[video transcript:]

“The murder of Lee Rigby was an event that outraged and sickened Londoners, and the memories of that tragedy are still raw. I find it absolutely incredible that Sadiq Khan a candidate for the office of mayor of London could hire as his speechwriter someone who has suggested that that event was in anyway fabricated. To my mind that shows an appalling lack of judgement and I do not see how Mr Khan could command the support - or the confidence of Londoners.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10153526861496317

[top]

9th March 2016: Boris Johnson issues a mayoral statement on victims of gang and domestic violence

Knife crime in London is at its lowest in seven years, but every young Londoner hospitalised by gangs and violence is one too many, and a problem we take extremely seriously. Since 2008, we have pioneered a range of schemes to help young people out of gangs and enforcement action to take knives off out streets, but more needs to be done. These specialist workers, at the emergency frontline, are helping to break the cycle of reoffending, offer young people the support they need to seek a way out of violent lifestyles and making London safer for everyone.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-extends-services-for-victims-of-violence

[top]

10th March 2016: Mayoral statement issued by a spokesperson to the mayor

Mr Johnson has previously rejected calls to grant the engines a temporary reprieve and on Thursday his office told MayorWatch there would be no rethink.

[mayoral spokesperson]: “Fires and fire deaths in London remain at a record low as the London Fire Brigade continues to do an excellent job. In the two and half years since these 13 appliances have been held back from the frontline, response time targets have continued to be comfortably met. The savings achieved by their permanent removal will now allow more money to be invested in frontline officers, and help fund vital long term work to continue reducing the number of fires and deaths in the capital for many years to come.

Source: https://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/boris-rejects-calls-to-compromise-over-13-axed-fire-engines/

[top]

11th March 2016: Boris Johnson gives a Brexit speech in Dartford with vote leave “win-win” speech

What an incredible privilege to be here at this incredible firm Europa, which of course is the single market. This is it. This is the absolute quintessential British success in Europe and will remain so in or out of the European Union. By the way, I apologise for being late we need to take back control of south east trains above anything else. About time TfL, about time TfL gave them [unintelligble].

Now listen, I want you to imagine a world where the EU had never been invented and the post-war history of Europe was a story of naturally, organically growing trade and economic interpenetration, travel, tourism, friendship, intermarriage, peace guaranteed as indeed it has been by the Nato nuclear umbrella for the last 70 years. Let’s imagine that what had happened. Then let’s suppose someone came to us all then today, 2016, and said bonjour or guten tag or ciao uhhh we’ve got this brilliant idea for a new project to take all this higgledy piggledy nations and turn them into a single political unit, with a single currency and gradually moving actually ever more rapidly towards a single system of government yeah?

And you Brits would have to sign up for virtually all of it except the single currency. And you say woah, OK, sounds a bit mad, a bit idealistic, but you ask how does it work? And they say well first of all you’ve got to give up the right to make your own laws, already Brussels is producing between a half, according to the Houses of Commons, and some say two-thirds of everything that goes through parliament and your courts your parliament is getting overruled more and more often, deciding everything from: how old a child has to be before he or she can blow up a balloon to the height of the brilliant Europa trailers that you’ve got outside.

They’ve got some rule saying they can’t be more than four million because - I don’t know what the reason is we don’t have any such - we don’t need any such rule in this country. We have a perfectly sensible rule which says don’t crash into bridges which is how we do it - we don’t need that rule it doesn’t operate here but they insist on a rule which is totally against common sense, adding to bureaucracy, adding to cost. They tell us how powerful our vacuum cleaners can be and its growing the whole time. They tell us who we can have into this country, they restrict our ability to deport criminals and people who are a threat to the security of this country and then- that’s too often they say well, as you think about this proposal we should join such a club...

You say well I suppose it must be a good idea for economic efficiency or something. I suppose it might save us, save us money. And they say to us no, no, no, mais no, it means about 2,500 new regulations every year from the EU costing British business about £600m a week. You think what kind of a club is that? And you say well it must be good for jobs and growth then. Is it?

You ask the proponents of this club and they say, they laugh a hollow laugh and they say no you must be joking. The euro which is the signature policy of the current European Union is an engine of jobs destruction. You’ve got massive unemployment in the EU, in the southern EU member states, you’ve got youth unemployment running on average at about 22%. You’ve got relations now between some of the EU countries, between Germany and Greece so bad that you’ve had anti-German riots recently. You’ve got the far-right on the rise in many parts of the EU. Because one of the features of this project, is that… you won’t be able to control your borders anymore and you’ll have massive net immigration that puts unexpected pressures on local councils, on social services and of course on GP surgeries, on health provision in this country.

And you say well.. When you think about the offer from that point of view it sounds a bit… deranged when you put it like that if that’s the offer, that’s the club you want us to join. And you say how much will you pay us to join this club of yours, because there must be something in it for us no no no, mais no we don’t pay you, you pay us. And you give us £20bn a year, half of which we spend in your own country, Brussels bureaucrats deciding how to spend UK taxpayers in the Uk on various projects of one kind or another, the rest between £8.5-10bn goes from the UK every year to Brussels towards the demented agricultural policy massively over-bureaucratic and prescriptive that adds about £400 to the cost of food for every household in this country and various other obscure and I’m afraid often corrupt projects such as Potemkin olive groves in Greece and mysterious circulation of cattle across borders in order to - through the Vatican I seem to remember - in order to attract export refunds and all that kind of nonsense.

Where spending of the EU budget is so wasteful and so corrupt that the court of auditors the European court of auditors have not signed off they account for the last 20 years. So that’s the offer they make to us, you know, a club that wastes our money, massively, that subverts democracy in this country, takes away people’s power to elect the people who take the decisions reduces the competitiveness of the European economy and all for no real economic benefit. That’s the offer. Why would we join such a club today? Why would we join such a woefully unreformed Europe, would anyone in their right mind join the EU as it is today.

I don’t think so I don’t think people in this country would want to do it and I have to tell you that my view is that the whole thing is an anachronism. It was set up in the 1950s basically by French bureaucrats in an effort to contain what they saw was the problem of renewed German economic and political dominance. And, actually what has happened of course is that the EU has managed to intensify rather than contain that dominance and this model of integration trying to create a single country out of many is being imitated nowhere else around the world and I know that there are people who say that this country doesn’t have the guts to get out. That we have no choice but to remain, and I have to say that they are hopelessly underestimating this country of ours and what we can achieve because it is precisely because we stayed out of the euro that we are now one of the most successful economies of Europe and if we burst out of the shackles of Brussels, we would be able to begin immediately with those long neglected free trade opportunities which we can’t do at the moment.

We could strike free trade deals with America, with China, with the growth economies around the world, with our officials, UK officials, being able to do those deals in the interests of great UK business such as this one. Rather than having to rely solely and exclusively on the European commision to strike those deals when if you think about it only 4% of the officials in the commission actually come from this country. And I think if we had the self confidence to do that, to take back control, take back control of our money, take control of our borders, take back the ability of the people of this country to elect and to remove at elections the people who rarely take decisions about this country. Then I think we would be able to take this country forwards with growth and opportunities that have absolutely nothing to do with EU bureaucracy.

We are not far, my friends, we are not far outside London. I sometimes lay claim to Dartford but I have to admit it’s outside of the greater London area.This area, this city, our capital city is the home of the biggest tech cluster, the biggest growth in the whole tech sector, anywhere in the high tech of all kinds: fin tech, bio tech, ed tech, med tech, nano tech, green tech, it’s all happening in London. Of the 40 new tech companies worth more than a billion pounds in the whole of Europe 17 are from the UK, 13 are in this area. That has had absolutely nothing to do with EU. It is not because of the EU. It owes nothing to the EU, that growth owes nothing to the EU.

We are more creative than any other part of the European economy, we make more films now in London, more films and TV than virtually any other city on Earth. We’re gonna overtake in a few years both New York and Angeles. That we’re the biggest financial capital in the world, that has nothing to do with the EU. It was so when we joined the EU and it’ll be so after we leave. We export from this city - thanks to the work of some of these amazing logistic companies which you represent - we export, I can tell you, bicycles made in London to Japan. Nothing to do with the EU. We export tea to China, from what? From Sutton I think. We export rice from Havering to India. We export TV aerials made in Wandsworth to Korea and we export growing quantities of stuff of all kinds to Europe, we export - I’m proud to say - we export cake, in growing quantities particularly dense and glutenous kind in chocolate cake. We export from Walthamstow to France. They love our cake in France.

I put it to you all those who say that there will be barriers to trade with Europe if we were to do a Brexit. Do you seriously believe that they would put up tariffs against UK produce of any kind when they know how much they want to sell us their cake, their champagne, their cheese from France. It is totally and utterly absurd. Is Germany going to deprive its firms of the incredible access of capital in the city of London when we import so many of their cars? Of course they wont of course they won’t. I think the prospects are win-win for all of us and I think its time to ignore the pessimists and the merchants of gloom and to do a new deal that will be good for Britain and good for Europe too.

Because I think it’s high time to echo exactly what Andrew was saying earlier on its high time that we showed a stagnant EU and it is a stagnant European economy burdened with too much bureaucracy. It’s time to burst loose of all those regulations get out into a world that is changing and growing and becoming more exciting the whole time. With British goods conveyed all over the place with Europa managed logistical systems. Isn’t that the right way forward? Yes it is, yes it certainly is. And if we hold our nerve and we are not timid and we are not cowered by the gloomered on poppers on the remain campaign and if we vote for freedom and for the restoration of democracy on June the 3rd then I believe that this country will continue to grow and prosper and thrive as never before. Thank you very much to all of you for listening this morning and thank you for having me along.

SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWhwzCuHfAo

[top]

11th March 2016: Boris Johnson remarks after his Dartford speech on Brexit

“Downsides. Look, I don’t think there are any substantial downsides. I think the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And even fear isn’t particularly scary at the moment.”
“Is that your only question? I mean, how deeply disappointing it is, John, that you’ve come all this way, and all you’ve got to ask about is this narrow question of personality politics. People want to discuss the issue. They want to know whether we would be better off out. I believe we would be better off out, and I want to explain it to people. And we’ve only got a few months. So the less time we spend on… on that sort of thing, the more time we have to talk about the issues that matter.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12190736/EU-referendum-Boris-Johnson-fires-up-the-Brexit-juggernaut.html

[top]

11th March 2016: Sky news interviewing Boris Johnson about the Queen after his Dartford Brexit Speech

Interviewer: How did you manage to woo the Queen? The second question: Justin Welby talking about migration, can we assume he is someone you’ve been trying to get on your side of the argument?

Boris: Right, well listen on Her Majesty I think the most important thing is that she is completely above politics, isn't she? She should have nothing to do with it. She shouldn’t be dragged in and you know I certainly don’t know what her views are. I do know she’s very much in favour of the new Elizabeth Line i.e. Crossrail and she wore a very nice purple, I think, purple dress at the launch to go with the new livery of the Elizabeth Line.

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, I don’t know what the Bible says on this issue I think... pray, prayer is probably a good way… If we don’t get out I think prayer is all that’s going to be left if we fail to vote leave on June 23 and I’m sure he will lead the nation in prayers. But I hope that won’t be necessary, I think looking and listening to people, as I have been over the last few weeks, I think people are increasingly coming round to our way of thinking and thinking this country is big enough, great enough and strong enough to stand on our own.

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/boris-i-dont-know-what-queen-thinks-about-eu-10200544

[top]

11th March 2016: Mayoral press release

We have seen across London how Crossrail is transforming vast swathes of land and acting as a catalyst for much needed new homes and jobs. By looking again at the options for this station we firmly believe that it could have a similar impact, triggering a much-needed fillip for this part of the capital. We are now delving into the detail to see just what may be possible in North Kensington to ensure it does not miss out on the much-needed regeneration Crossrail will bring.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/new-crossrail-station

[top]

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson expresses excitement over WWE coming to London

“my gt grandfather was briefly a fairground wrestler so I am dead keen, grassroots sport benefited 400k since 2008”

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/wwe-mma-wrestling/wrestlemania-in-london-boris-johnson-dead-keen-on-bringing-wwe-flagship-event-to-wembley-stadium-a6930271.html

[top]

14th March 2016: Six tweets from Boris Johnson as mayor of London, from the official twitter account

:::::Screenshot 2019-09-01 at 10.30.58.png

“Convinced London and whole UK can thrive as never before - good for UK and for Europe #endeurosclerosis #askboris @speedbird1994”

Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709359241992282113

:::::Screenshot 2019-09-01 at 10.31.25.png

“powerhouse of the European economy and world leading in finance, bioscience, universities, arts media etc etc #askboris @LennyBicknel”

Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709360293470572544

:::::Screenshot 2019-09-01 at 10.31.41.png

“it's just tautologous or else it's illegal...vote leave to take back control of money, borders, people power #askboris @Y_Eurosceptics”

Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709363765049950208

:::::Screenshot 2019-09-01 at 10.32.05.png

“Europe yes EU no. #askboris @aldwickbaypaul”

Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709364096458760193

:::::Screenshot 2019-09-01 at 10.32.21.png

“because the EU is an anti-democratic zone of low growth ...Europe yes, EU no #askboris @rcosgrove”

Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709365661043003392

:::::Screenshot 2019-09-01 at 10.32.41.png

“the big question. After 8 years of ducking this question it's time to stop horsing around... @bl8002lloydb”

“better to have smaller independent agents than a giant monstrosity - like the EU #askboris @bl8002lloydb”

Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709366854846947328

[top]

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson relationship with David Cameron referencing BBC documentary

My relationships and friendships with government go back a long, long time, they're pretty much invulnerable to any short-term disagreements about this or that.

Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-says-relationship-with-david-cameron-is-invulnerable-despite-brexit-differences-a3203186.html

[top]

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson crowns Hillingdon employee Librarian of the Year

It’s wonderful to see a Hillingdon librarian streak to the front, showing that Hillingdon libraries are the best in the country. Congratulations to Sam and all the team.

Source: https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/boris-johnson-crowns-hillingdon-employee-11028393

[top]

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson meets some young people of Newham

It is fantastic to see the role that apprentices have played in securing the future of this glorious park. We all remember the enthusiasm and buzz surrounding the 2012 Games, and that is the same enthusiasm you get from talking to apprentices here today. I would urge any businesses yet to take on an apprentice to do so. There is a rich talent pool of young Londoners available to you who can help your business grow.

Source: https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-meets-queen-elizabeth-olympic-park-apprentices-1-4456241

[top]

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out Facebook link of Telegraph link

“Americans would never accept EU restrictions - so why should we?”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/709325934965477376

[top]

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook which later becomes a Telegraph piece (dated 16th March 2015)

I love America. I believe in the American dream. Indeed, I hold that the story of the past 100 years has been very largely about how America rose to global greatness – and how America has helped to preserve and expand democracy around the world. In two global conflicts, and throughout the Cold War, the United States has fought for the founding ideals of the republic: that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.

So it is on the face of it a bit peculiar that US government officials should believe that Britain must remain within the EU – a system in which democracy is increasingly undermined.

Some time in the next couple of months we are told that President Obama himself is going to arrive in this country, like some deus ex machina, to pronounce on the matter. Air Force One will touch down; a lectern with the presidential seal will be erected. The British people will be told to be good to themselves, to do the right thing. We will be informed by our most important ally that it is in our interests to stay in the EU, no matter how flawed we may feel that organisation to be. Never mind the loss of sovereignty; never mind the expense and the bureaucracy and the uncontrolled immigration.

The American view is very clear. Whether in code or en clair, the President will tell us all that UK membership of the EU is right for Britain, right for Europe, and right for America. And why? Because that – or so we will be told – is the only way we can have “influence” in the counsels of the nations.

It is an important argument, and deserves to be taken seriously. I also think it is wholly fallacious – and coming from Uncle Sam, it is a piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy.

There is no country in the world that defends its own sovereignty with such hysterical vigilance as the United States of America. This is a nation born from its glorious refusal to accept overseas control. Almost two and a half centuries ago the American colonists rose up and violently asserted the principle that they – and they alone – should determine the government of America, and not George III or his ministers. To this day the Americans refuse to kneel to almost any kind of international jurisdiction. Alone of Western nations, the US declines to accept that its citizens can be subject to the rulings of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. They have not even signed up to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Can you imagine the Americans submitting their democracy to the kind of regime that we have in the EU?

Think of Nafta – the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement – that links the US with Canada and Mexico. Suppose it were constituted on the lines of the EU, with a commission and a parliament and a court of justice. Would the Americans knuckle under – to a Nafta commission and parliament generating about half their domestic law? Would they submit to a Nafta court of justice – supreme over all US institutions – and largely staffed by Mexicans and Canadians whom the people of the US could neither appoint nor remove? No way. The idea is laughable, and completely alien to American traditions. So why is it essential for Britain to comply with a system that the Americans would themselves reject out of hand? Is it not a blatant case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?

Of course it is. As for this precious “influence”, so dearly bought, I am not sure that it is all it is cracked up to be – or that Britain’s EU membership is really so valuable to Washington. Since the very foundation of the Common Market, the Washington establishment has supported the idea of European integration. The notable state department figure George W Ball worked on drafting the Schuman plan in 1950. He was a pallbearer at the funeral of Jean Monnet, the architect of the European project.

The Americans see the EU as a way of tidying up a continent whose conflicts have claimed huge numbers of American lives; as a bulwark against Russia, and they have always conceived it to be in American interests for the UK – their number one henchperson, their fidus Achates – to be deeply engaged. Symmetrically, it has been a Foreign Office superstition that we are more important to Washington if we can plausibly claim to have “influence” in Brussels. But with every year that passes that influence diminishes.

It is not just that we are being ever more frequently outvoted in the council of ministers, and our officials ever more heavily outnumbered in the Commission. The whole concept of “pooling sovereignty” is a fraud and a cheat. We are not really sharing control with other EU governments: the problem is rather that all governments have lost control to the unelected federal machine. We don’t know who they are, or what language they speak, and we certainly don’t know what we can do to remove them at an election.

When Americans look at the process of European integration, they make a fundamental category error. With a forgivable narcissism, they assume that we Europeans are evolving – rather haltingly – so as to become just like them: a United States of Europe, a single federal polity. That is indeed what the eurozone countries are trying to build; but it is not right for many EU countries, and it certainly isn’t right for Britain.

There is a profound difference between the US and the EU, and one that will never disappear. The US has a single culture, a single language, a single and powerful global brand, and a single government that commands national allegiance. It has a national history, a national myth, a demos that is the foundation of their democracy. The EU has nothing of the kind. In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU’s federalising structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves. That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty. They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty, too.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153547677541317

And

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/16/boris-johnson-americans-would-never-accept-eu-restrictions--so-w/

[top]

14th March 2016: BBC documentary, Boris Johnson: The London Years, BBC1 London

Boris Johnson: Hello Jo.

Jo Coburn: Hello Boris, how are you?

BORIS: Nice to see you, nice to see you.

JO: Yes, and you too.

BORIS: Are you…

JO: This way.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: You know, I was certainly amazed to be elected in 2008, I think I know a lot of Londoners were amazed I was elected.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: My job during the Olympics was really to…

JO: Sure, to rally the troops.

BORIS: To rally the troops and to keep morale.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

JO: Politically speaking you struck gold with the Olympics, and [it] famously [came together with the] culmination [of] your speech outside Buckingham Palace, where you had an incredibly warm reception, particularly when compared to David Cameron. Did you feel a bit sorry for your old chum then?

BORIS: No, I don’t. See people always make these… I didn’t notice it.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

JO: Peter Hendy, we talked to him, he told us that whatever gets in the manifesto is not always the best idea and as…

BORIS: Peter said that?

JO: And as transport, you can get him afterword, it was his job to persuade you otherwise. Do you remember when you decided to go back on your earlier pledge to keep ticket offices open, and was Peter Hendy there?

BORIS: Yes, well that, look… That’s a very good example of when you really have to change your mind because of changes in technology. The actual usage of ticket offices was going down and down and down, so it was totally the right thing to do.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: That’s basically because we keep raising our housing targets, and every time we raised them, we more or less had to double them, actually. It’s up to 49,000 a year, and…

JO: But there need to be 50,000 every year. Do you think you’ve failed on that?

BORIS: Well, what we’ve done, we’ve succeeded in achieving the record number of new affordable homes. We’re now building more homes than at any time since, you know, 1981 or possibly earlier. You look around the skyline of London, it is forested with cranes.

JO: The problem with affordability now is that there is a crisis, a housing crisis in the capital.

BORIS: Of course there is, and that, as I’ve said for the last two or three years, that is a crisis we are meeting.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: I’ve had to go in very hard with government with lots of things. We’ve had plenty of rows in the past, you’ll remember rows about welfare, about… we’ve had rows about all sorts of…

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

JO: Guto Harri said to me that you had a good relationship with David Cameron until very recently. How much impact, well how has it changed, your relationship with the prime minister, since you decided to campaign for leave?

BORIS: I think, you know, that you’ve got to understand that my relationships and friendships with government go back a long long time, and they are pretty much invulnerable…

JO: Are they?

BORIS: Yeah, to any short- term disagreements about this or that.

JO: So you’re still friends.

BORIS: Yes of course, of course. I would say so, yes.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

JO: You once said, which is true, that you had a greater chance of being reincarnated as an olive…

BORIS: As an olive, yes.

JO: Yes, you remember it, than you did…

BORIS: Or a baked bean, or a baked bean, or be decapitated by a Frisbee, or be locked in a disused fridge.

[HE CONTINUES TO MUMBLE OVER HER]

JO: Alright, alright, so that was the full phrase was it? So, yes, but actually, looking at it now, there’s no one more likely to be the next prime minister than you.

BORIS: No, I think that, honestly, David Cameron is doing a superb job, everybody knows that, there’s a long way to go before he steps down, I what I’ve said… genuinely… I was amazed to become mayor of London, and it has been an extraordinary privilege to do it and…

JO: And would you still be amazed if you became the next prime minister?

BORIS: [continuing from before] … and I, I’ve enjoyed every second of it.

Source: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0C265AB1?bcast=121240856

[top]

15th March 2016: mayoral press release

There is no doubt that the night time economy is hugely important to our prosperity and the life of our city, but there is insufficient oversight for the way it is managed and problems are mitigated. It is brilliantly successful, but night time activities can be seen as causes of noise and nuisance, whilst businesses complain that rising property values, the need for housing, licensing requirements and other red tape are damaging their operations, even leading to closures. If we are to compete against other world cities is vital that we develop policies to reconcile the competing needs and concerns.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/night-time-commission-for-the-capital

[top]

15th March 2016: Boris Johnson appears on Nick Ferrari’s LBC Radio Show, Ask Boris

Boris: Good morning folks, this is Boris Johnson bringing your latest, and possibly last, edition of ask Boris on LBC.

Nick Ferrari: -- as mayor --

Boris: I'm here for the next 45 minutes taking your calls, this is your chance to put any questions you like to me, I will do my best to answer - so the numbers for you to get your questions on the air - oh three four five six oh six oh nine seven three - email Boris at LBCC.co.uk. Don't forget, you can watch “Ask Boris” in high-definition, we have our camera, I have my trusty companion over these many years Mr Nick Ferrari here to grill me...

Nick: We've had fun down the years...

Boris: ...And make life even tougher than our beloved listeners and we're going now to John in Hendon. John.

Listener: Oh good morning Boris. Pleasure to talk to you. I would like to know, now that you've made your conversion to leaving Europe, whether it wouldn't be better if we could unite the two exit groups, I believe you're with Vote Leave and I'm with Grassroots Out.

Boris: Oh right.

Listener: Because it's just a weakness that the other side are going to exploit. I was with Nigel Farage on Saturday, we had a very good turnout for Grassroots Out, but it would have been nice that we'd have all been there together.

Boris: Yeah, sure, well look, I think that I think your basic objective is right, John, and I'm, as you say, I came into this after the EU summit really failed to produce any reform and it was obvious that there's only one way to go on this, and I was conscious that there have been groups working on this for a long time, but my view is that we should just wait and see what the Electoral Commission decides - they've got to, I think as I understand it John, they've got to work out which of the various groupings should carry the flag as it were for Britain to take back control of its borders, take back control of huge amounts of money, and forge a new relation, new trading relationships around the world. It's a massive opportunity for our country... I think it doesn't really matter too much who comes out on top in this one, John, provided, as you say, that we all get together and work to a... to that end, and try and get the facts, get the story, get the opportunity before the British people.

Listener: Yeah, but it is being exploited by the other side, and it would be far better if we had a single group and the Electoral Commission would have no choice but to appoint that group

Boris Yeah well, look, I have to say, I think that - I haven't noticed the other side making very much of this, I think let's, let's just hold our fire, not - let's not get wrapped up in, you know, tiny issues about who's doing what on a leave campaign - the thing that matters to me is getting the arguments out in front of the British people, I think that's what they want - what they want is to hear a strong compelling story about what's going wrong in Europe, why Project Fear is a load of old cobblers, and basically a kind of you know millennium bug-style scare story frankly I think, and then what we're gonna do to take not, just this country forward but help take Europe forward, because I think the real problem is the whole European continent is just mired now in this terrible desperate attempt to keep the euro together, and that is one of the things that is really going to cause us in this country a lot of problems.

Nick: How together is the campaign? The Brexit campaign, because John's central point is right, isn't it? There are - you all have the same intent, the same intent but you seem to be pulling in disparate directions.

Boris: Well I'm not really, you know, as far as I can see, the Electoral Commission has to make a decision...

Nick: And when is that? Mr mayor.

Boris: I think it's the latest by the 14th of April, is my memory of this...

Nick: And will that be the unifying moment?

Boris: Of course it will, and I think that in the more time we talk about the issue, that more we'll be satisfying the British public and doing our duty, John. I think that our - you know, our mission now is to explain, what what is going wrong - because I think a lot of people are very confused, a lot of people think 'well what is this all about? You know, Europe, I like Europe, I love going to cheap flights to wherever it is, it's fantastic, but they don't understand that that's nothing to do with the EU.

Nick: Well the flights will get more expensive, according to the prime minister, as will the price of socks.

Boris: You know, again, I don't want to...

Nick: How worried are you about the price of socks?

Boris: It just, it does remind me very much - do you remember all, everybody running around and saying that when the millennium?

Nick: Oh, planes will fall out of the sky, bank accounts will get wiped out...

Boris: It's all, I think, wildly wildly overdone, and...

Nick: So when did you last speak with Nigel Farage about unifying the Brexit campaign?

Boris: Listen, I'm not going to go into conversations about...

Nick: No I don't want intimate detail but when, just when did you last speak with Mr Farage?

Boris: About the details of the two campaigns or the, when what matters of it...

Nick: Ok, last one, have you spoken with Mr Farage?

Boris: I speak to all sorts of people in politics and...

Nick: No no, have you spoken with Mr Farage?

Boris: You know, what's it got to do with...?

Nick: It's extraordinary, is it four weeks after that momentous moment you came out of your North London home, you've not had one conversation with Nigel Farage?

Boris: Of course I've spoken to Nigel Farage, I've spoken to all sorts of people, and...

Nick: In those three or four weeks?

Boris: Of course, but you know, frankly...

Nick: About unifying the campaigns?

Boris: My view is that what unifies the campaigns is the rightness of our cause, we have a great campaign, we have an opportunity to take Britain out of what I think is a decaying European system, that is but less and less democratic, is taking more and more money away from this country, and prevents people from elementary control such as borders. And when you look at the pressures in London on the health service, on social services, caused by the councils unable to calculate how many customers and how many people, how many people they are gonna have in advance, it is a very very serious problem and we need to bring back democratic control.

Nick: We need to move on...

Boris: In my view and we're going now to Chuka, I wonder is it... is it Chuka that the the Labour candidate - the former candidate for Labour leadership, because how many Chukas can there be?

Nick: We're about to find out: Chuka you're through, you're in Streatham, good morning.

Chuka Umunna: Good morning Boris, good morning Nick, it is Chuka from Streatham, and I wanted to ask Boris, you said Boris that if we left the EU we could conclude a trade deal with the EU, along the same lines as Canada...

Boris: No, but go on...

Chuka: And my question to you is - yes you did - why would we want to adopt a Canadian model for trading with the EU, when that took seven years to negotiate, they don't have full access to the free market, the single EU free market area that we do now, they don't have full access, and it doesn't cover 75 to 80% of UK economy, which is services, and it actually would result, if we had that model, in Paris equivalent...

Boris: I think it's quite interesting, I think it's quite interesting Nick that the remain campaign...

Chuka: So what does an alternative look like? That's what I'm asking you.

Boris: It's quite interesting that the remain campaign is so completely freaked out by this Canadian discussion, because actually one of the interesting things about that, I think we should - there are elements of the Canada deal I like, we should do a British deal! We've been in the EU for 40 years, you know more - we are a massive economy...

Nick: I read it would take 10 years, Mr Johnson...

Boris: There's no reason why we shouldn't do a deal very rapidly indeed, and there are elements of the Canadian deal that show - in my view - that the remain campaign are, as usual, trying to panic people. There's, there is, interestingly about the Canada deal, is they've got rid of about 97, 98 percent of the tariffs, and that's what people say is you know, 'oooo the EU will put up tariffs against us' - what a complete load of baloney! Do you seriously imagine, do you seriously imagine, that with a net balance of trade in their favour of about £80bn a year, the EU is gonna put tariffs up?

Nick: Well let's ask Chuka...

Boris: Of course not, there is a massive opportunity for us to strike deals around the world and it's, I think it's running this country down and the sheer negativity and lack of optimism about our ability rises off the remain campaign like a vapour.

Chuka: Boris, if anybody is talking down our country, and has been doing so for some time now, it is you...

Boris: Rubbish, rubbish...

Chuka: You denigrate, you denigrate our influence in the EU, and you say everybody has been talking about Canada, you are the one who put forward Canada as the model for us to follow, and let me tell you something, I'm a Londoner, you're our mayor and I look at those who are campaigning for us to come out - take Michael Gove, I disagree with Michael on a huge amount, but he is a man of conviction and clearly...

Boris: Chuka, if you... If you'd actually...

Chuka: This issue, he made the decision based on conviction, you brought a circus to your house to make the announcement...

Boris: I brought a circus to my house? Oh dear...

Chuka: ...of what you were going to do, instead of campaigning with Michael, Ian Duncan Smith, and the others, and what you need to understand - this isn't about you, this is about our city, and about our country...

Boris: Yes Chuka, nor is it about you... nor is it about you, quite frankly - this is about the prospects of the British people, and about their democracy, and I have to say that it is, it is very sad, that we are being invited to continue to remain in a system I think is less and less democratic - we have a huge opportunity now, to strike out for freedom, and all you hear from the remain campaign is gloom and negativity about our chances. I think when you look at the European Union, the colossal erosion of democratic control that's taking place - Chuka, by your own admission, I think you've said that 50% of law in this country comes from the EU - I think that was - you were quoted as saying that weren't you?

Chuka: No you've got that wrong, actually...

Boris: No you were quoted as...

Chuka: I was not quoted as saying that...

Boris: Then you said that...

Chuka: The House of Commons library said that around 13% of our laws come though...

Boris: No, you said 50% you said 50%...

Chuka: And actually, of the 120...

Boris: Now Chuka? Chuka? Now, don't weasel around, you said 50% didn't you?

Chuka: Last parliament, just four of them...

Boris: You... come on Chuka, come on, man up, you said it. Come on.

Chuka: No, you man up. You are seeking to put words in my mouth that I have never said...

Boris: You said, you admitted, you admitted that 50% of our legislation derives ultimately...

Chuka: No I did not...

Boris: You did.

Nick: Well I don't think we're gonna get agreement, well let's just - finish the point you wanted to make, I'm sure that he did not define... but go ahead...

Boris: He did, he's on record as saying that... And...

Nick: Well I have to say again, he says he's not, but anyway, let's come to the point you're making...

Boris: Well... I'll be happy to substantiate that... the - the truth is that there is less and less democratic control of what's happening in Brussels, and I think, when people - it's very interesting when Chuka talks about our influence in the EU, it's important to bear in mind that actually, we have, now - only about 4% of the officials in the commission, who are responsible for all the trade deals that we do - are from this country, and you have to ask, with the best will in the world, Chuka, how can the people of Stretham - how can the people of London, hope that their interests in international trade are going to be properly represented by an organization with only 3.6 or 4% UK nationals?

Nick: Gentlemen we must move on, because you have the ability to debate each other across the chamber in the Palace of Westminster, my listeners don't. Chuka, thank you. We move on to other callers, just after I ask you this Mr mayor, we go to the events that, Chuka Umunna said you invited a media circus outside your home, how difficult...

Boris: Well, that's certainly not true, because I think nobody invites a media circus outside their home, and in fact, you know, there you go.

Nick: How difficult or otherwise was it to be disloyal to your party leader?

Boris: Well, as I say, I took a long time to make up my mind, basically because I thought that - I was hoping and hoping and hoping, like many of us, that we could get some serious reform. We were promised in the Bloomberg speech, we were promised proper, thoroughgoing, wholesale repatriation of powers from the European Union - serious reform, and I think most people, impartial observers...

Nick: Not quite answering the question... How difficult was it to be disloyal?

Boris: Would agree, would agree, would agree... well... the prime minister has said very clearly that he... cabinet - now I'm not a cabinet minister, but he said cabinet ministers can...

Nick: Ah. Might that have changed since?

Boris: Cabinet ministers can - uhh, no, of course not - cabinet...

Nick: Whatever job he might give you, even if he said you could be foreign secretary, Boris...

Boris: Whatever, whatever, of course, wouldn't make a bean of difference... cabinet ministers are able to take their own view, and indeed, I think more or less half the parliamentary party has decided to take a particular view - and that's the view I've taken, because I really think that to blow this chance now, for real change in Europe, to blow this opportunity - to save such huge sums of money, to take back control of our borders, all those things - I think will be absolutely catastrophic. This is this is the moment, the European Union is going in completely the wrong direction, it is up to us in Britain to save it, and it in my view to save - what I think is... to avoid a huge erosion of our democracy.

Nick: I'm sure we will come back to other European matters in a moment we take other calls though of course, you are mayor of London, we benefit from your endeavours for another couple of months before that election in May, let's take the next call up Mr mayor, where are we going?

Boris: We go to Danny in Camden...

Listener: Morning, morning Boris...

Boris: Morning sir.

Listener: Good luck with the Brexit by the way.

Boris: Thank you Danny.

Listener: That's the pleasantries out the way. I was going to ask you, Boris, do you think it's right that someone on the sex offenders register or a convicted murderer could take his car up to a TfL testing centre, half hour later drive out with a licence - private hire vehicle.

Boris: No of course I don't Danny, and I think you're referring to what we discovered when we did some spot checks at our testing centers for minicabs and found that there was some some serious problems with those, and we've suspended some of the - 15 of those centers and made quite a few applicants do a retake.

Listener: No, no, no, no Boris, no, not them testing centres, no that's for drivers. I'm talking about...

Boris: I'm sorry...

Listener: ...Someone on the sex offenders register, can take their car up to a TfL testing centre, pass all the mechanical side of things, it will get licensed, and he can drive off and that car will be the last...

Nick: But there must be what used to be known - Danny this is Nick - there must be a CRB as they used to be called, I can't remember what they're called...

Listener: No, no, no, Nick, there's nothing, anyone - you can go and buy these cars on Gumtree secondhand, right, no - and there was no fit and proper test with licencing the car...

Nick: But what about the individual? So I Nick Ferrari, go up with a car I bought from that agency - from that, from Gumtree, they don't do a CRB to find out whether I'm a paedophile or rapist...

Listener: Nope, nope, nope, nothing.

Nick: ...are you absolutely sure Danny?

Listener: I am 100% positive.

Nick: Mr mayor I find that surprising, TfL - surely they do a background check on me.

Boris: I'm very surprised by what Danny says and be very happy to to look into it - as I say I thought, Danny, you were asking about some of the tests we've been doing on on drivers, but we will certainly look into the point you made.

Nick: All right, thank you for that, you'll be aware that LBC's Theo Usherwood went up to one of the centres with a different logbook, different card, different paperwork, and was given one of those yellow disks. What action will be taken about that?

Boris: What do you mean different logbook, different card...

Nick: It didn't match so it was...

Boris: So it was all from different guys, is that what you mean? Yeah yeah, well listen, I mean that's - that's disgraceful and we'll have to - if that's one of the centres that is still issuing licenses then we'll have to close it down or we'll have to take his license away, but you know, this is something that we are - talking to all taxi drivers and all mini cab drivers, TfL really is cracking down now, we are insisting on a formal English language requirement for all drivers - everybody's got to provide - know - have basic understanding of the geography, topography of London, they got a - if you are a mini cab driver you've got to provide an estimate of a fare in advance, and all that, all that kind of thing.

So this is a this is a huge huge thing for us and the frustration I have, as you know, is that we haven't been able, in spite of the massive expansion in the number of minicab drivers, are up to about 100,000 now, from 59,000 of 2010, we haven't been able to get the government to help us with quantity licensing, and you know, you brought up this before, you look at what's happening in Brighton, look at what's happening elsewhere, we simply do not have the powers, we've been over this again again, we do not have a legal authority, at the moment, to restrain the number of mini cab drivers in the way that we need to do, and it is absolutely infuriating, I have to say, but those - so those are some of the other...

Nick: Probably up to your successor now then, I would imagine...

Boris: Well I mean, the difficulty is that you know, you'll need it you'll need a successor who is able to make his case to government, and that of course we can only be Zac Goldsmith, who will be...

Nick: Right, well, Sadiq Khan might have a different view, or even Caroline Pidgeon...

Boris: Well exactly, alright alright, why do you have to be so, why do you have to be so blindingly impartial?

Nick: I just have to throw in the occasional one don't I? Just to have a patina of respectability.

Boris: OK very very very very clear...

Nick: We move on the other calls...

Boris: Can we get a Rosie in Ramsgate please?

Listener: Good morning Boris.

Boris: Good morning Rosie.

Listener: This is coming from Royal Harbor at Ramsgate.

Boris: Oh yes, how are you?

Listener: And you haven't been down to visit us since you got into power last year...

Boris: I did come before I seem to remember...

Listener: I hope you make it...

Nick: Can I move you to your question Rosie or Roslin, what, what is your question?

Listener: My question is, how do you feel about the Queen's remarks - about the Queen's remarks at the dinner table, at Windsor Castle last week, there were quite a few, very - well there was quite a few important people there, because I've been to a couple of dinner parties of the Queen, and she only ever invites, who are going to help her...

Nick: Alright let's put that directly to: this is a suggestion that the Queen of course in her conversations, let it be known that she's not a fan of the EU and the suggestions it was Michael Gove, who might have leaked this...

Boris: All I can say, the most useful thing I can say which will come as no surprise to anybody, is that the Queen seems to me, to be a huge fan of the Elizabeth Line, which is the name that she's graciously consented to be allowed to be given to Crossrail so it's head forward - that's my only recent encounter with the Queen, that's all I can speak of with any, any authority whatever, I don't remember her saying anything about...

Nick: How much of a Philip - and not as in the name of her husband - how much of a Philip does the Queen's views - potential views for your campaign, the campaign you're part of...

Boris: Look I'd really can't comment on...

Nick: What, you can't even say whether it's a boost to the campaign or not?

Boris: I can't comment on those views, because I really think that Her Majesty the Queen, I bet our listeners would agree with this, the great thing about her is she's above politics and it is it is wrong to try and, you know...

Nick: Can I can I get respond to a story - the Queen was so irritated by an EU sermon from Nick Clegg, she threw a wobbly...

Boris: [laughs]

Nick: Now as someone who has spent a bit of time with Mr Clegg I find that astonishing...

Boris: I have to admit I find that plausible... [laughs]

Nick: Might be a little sanctimonious at times...

Boris: I think that is a deep truth, it's like listening to Chuka, I mean it's the one thing that makes one an absolute raging eurosceptic...

Nick: -- is Nick Clegg.

Boris: Is listening to europhiles. Droning on about how there's nothing else we can do and we're locked in this prison and we've got to stay and receive our punishment beatings until Kingdom Come and I think there's, I think there's a massive opportunity - look, if Her Majesty did...

Nick: Throw a wobbly...

Boris: If she did, throw a wobbly, in response to a euro sermon from the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, then I have to say I can understand - at a human level, Nick, I can understand how she, how she felt, but again I don't want to...

Nick: I haven't seen you laugh like that in eight years.

Boris: I don't think that that can be taken as authenticating the story, OK.

Nick: Even though it's in the Daily Express. We move on.

Boris: OK, to James in Neasden

Listener: Morning Nick, morning Boris, how are you?

Boris: Very good, thank you.

Listener: Now there's just one of the two questions I'd just like to ask about the rollout of the 24 tube service.

Boris: Yes sir.

Nick: Yes.

Listener: So the first thing about it is, with the poster we don't just want to be normally and step on outside the main entrances.

Boris: Right...

Listener: That's one problem with the scheme... the second thing is going to come up is how do you propose to stop rough sleeping on the abiding of the service, because you're going to have thousands of them.

Boris: Rough sleeping on the service, I understand. Well listen, James, I mean obviously the service will not be unstaffed, it will, it will - that's the whole issue that we've been working with, the unions on, and you know, I had to take a big decision which was, did we try and rush this thing through by paying well over the odds, if a deal that I didn't think was right for London, or did we have to wait, and that's what we've done, it will come in this year, and it will be fantastic. It will be a huge boost to the economy, it will be, you'll cut journey times at night by about, an average of 20 minutes, so some will be cut by more than an hour, you know it's a really great thing for the city, and, and James we're gonna roll it out across all the lines in in due course, and I think most people accept that...

Nick: Only ever on weekends, though...

Boris: No, it will, ultimately...

Nick: What, the ultimate goal...

Boris: Ultimately, it'll run 24, it'll be...

Nick: 24/7, 365 or whatever...

Boris: Whatever, whatever we manage, but ultimately it'll be 24/7, and that is the way to go, for a great...

Nick: What, for the whole network?

Boris Ultimately. Well I mean...

Nick: Three in the morning, trains at Cockfosters and… Debden and Theydon Bois?

Boris: Well I mean OK, alright, OK, you know...

Nick: What is the point?

Boris: Well ok, if you want to deprive everybody of the...

Nick: Well how many people want to get on a tube at Theydon Bois at three oclock in the morning?

Boris: Well... we will proceed as ever by demand...

Nick: Stealth!

Boris: By stealth, [laughs] by logic and calm, and we will, we will roll it out gradually, make a good point Nick, it probably doesn't make sense to you, to put the tube... I mean all the leafy...

Nick: Some poor old boy as the tube sitting on a tube comes thundering through...

Boris: All right, all right, but it - my understanding from TfL is that their objective...

Nick: Shame you can get it in your watch though isn't it?

Boris: Look there's no limit to what you can achieve, provided you're willing not to take the credit for it. And you know, it was, the choice was pretty clear, it was give in and pay a really exorbitant amount of dosh to the unions, or can work, negotiate, consult and be patient - you know, we've waited 150 years for this, it's gonna happen now, and I'm very pleased and very very very proud of it. Now we go to Mark in Suffolk.

Listener: Yeah hello Boris, good morning.

Boris: Good morning.

Listener: I just want to ask you, Boris, how do you see people, being able to have confidence, in yourself becoming a member of, if you like, the out campaign, when you have presided over this chaos in London, how do you expect people to have confidence in you, and what's going on in London right...

Boris: Well are you talking about the traffic, Mark?

Listener: I'm talking about the traffic, I'm talking about...

Boris: All right, well, let me just just say on that, that you know, that there have been, and I have this conversation very very often now with Nick and with listeners - these, the the main problem is the sheer rate of construction and economic growth in London and the pressure on the road network that is caused by a rampaging London economy...

Nick: Well, and your cycle lanes...

Boris: ...and and, I'm coming to that, that is - but we've done an analysis of all the pressures and that is the main one, and Mark, that is one of the difficulties we face. And then there, of course, there are various - and and so what you have there, when you have growth of that kind, you have for instance, you know, you look around just over London Bridge, there's a whole - Arthur Street is taken out because of constructing a new, fantastic new building - time and time again you go around the city, you see road space that is lost because of construction - now, it is also true, as Nick has just pointed out, we are putting in massive cycle superhighways, and I know that these are not universally applauded by motorists, and I apologise to people for the delays, but TfL is absolutely confident that when they're finished, it will return virtually to the status quo anti-, and traffic will flow smoothly, and I have to say Mark, when I think back over the years, my years as mayor, one of the worst moments was that time when large numbers of cyclists were being killed - particularly female cyclists - were losing their lives to heavy goods vehicles, or just vehicles of any one kind or another, and we have to make cycling safer. I really believe that that's what Londoners want, that was what I was elected to do in 2012...

Nick: I don't think you proposed a cycle lane...

Boris: I did on the side I proposed cycle superhighways...

Nick: On the level that we saw?

Boris: We, certainly, certainly, and the cycle superhighways have been be part of the program for ages and...

Nick: I don't know if it was quite the impact that we now see... You look at somewhere like Elephant and Castle, it's a disaster area.

Boris: Well I don't agree with you...

Nick: Oh the traffic, the speed...

Boris: I really don't...

Nick: There are more and more buses now, the average speed for many buses in London is 6.2 miles an hour. Once, a journalist from The Sun - it was nearly quicker for her to get to work on a donkey than it was to get on the bus.

Boris: Look, I mean, you know, I understand people's frustrations about this but, I think that when everybody looks back and they see the transformation in cycling in London and the huge - we've doubled the number of cyclists on our roads, in this mayoralty, and we've seen deaths and serious injuries sustained by cyclists radically come down...

Nick: But you've seen some traffic speeds come down as well, and average speed across London has dropped - not massively, but has dropped on your watch.

Boris: It has gone up and down, it's fluctuated actually, it went up to begin with and we did various things to smooth traffic flow and we're gonna continue to do things to smooth traffic flow...

Nick: Well like how can you? You've got nowhere to go now, you've taken the pavements away.

Boris: Well, you can, no that's not true, you can use all sorts of things - split cycle offset, optimisation techniques, traffic lights, you can do one-day cycle...

Nick: What was the other - split cycle offset - what does that mean?

Boris: Basically we've got - because of developments in technology, traffic lights are much more sensitive to the number of vehicles who need to go through it in any direction, and so they can actually alter their their colour in order to promote traffic flow, and furthermore, what is what is really happening now with with motor vehicle traffic - we're gonna enter an age of - everyone's talking about driverless cars - that's coming down the track quite fast - but what you can do now...

Nick: You still need roads, Mr mayor...

Boris: Yes of course, but many roads are completely empty, or underused...

Nick: What, in London?

Boris: ...underused, because drivers haven't thought to use them, and...

Nick: Well it might be because they're residential, and they've got bumps and you don't want people hammering down there in 30 miles an hour.

Boris: Well then, it might not be, it might be that they're just, they're just not routes on the sat-nav or whatever, and what you can do is have vehicles that are much smarter, that communicate with each other, and indeed with a central TfL traffic flow operation, in order to get the thing moving more smoothly. We've had a huge increase - as I say, look, I'm sure Mark would agree with this point - we've had a massive increase in private hire vehicles in London because of the the growth of apps and all the rest of it, now...

Nick: Well it's time to charge them the congestion...

Boris: And that's why, we are, one of the things we're doing is getting them to pay the congestion charge.

Nick: When does that start from?

Boris: And - well, we're consulting on it now, and it would - as soon as we get...

Nick: But will that be on your watch?

Boris: It won't come through on my watch, it won't be, it won't be in on my watch, but it will be this year - you can we can do it this year, and I think that is one thing to do. I've mentioned the the various other measures were imposing to crack down on on minicabs, but, you know, the congestion charge, I think will bite a bit, but what we really need is is quantity licensing. What I can say is, you know, I do understand your your frustrations about the traffic and they're shared, believe me, by loads and loads of people - it will get better.

Nick: OK, we pause briefly - coming up after a news update here LBC, the TfL budget and business plan - now that doesn't keep you by your radio, I don't know what will, 9.30 here on LBC news with Lisa Aziz...

[pause]

Nick: Ask Boris, with London mayor Boris Johnson, next caller we go to Mr mayor.

Boris: Good morning Judy in Belsize Park

Listener: Hi, good morning Boris.

Boris: Good morning.

Listener: A quick question, if we do leave the EU, has any thought being given as to whether or not we will retain VAT [value added tax]?

Boris: Well there's no reason why we shouldn't retain VAT, that's a tax that was introduced, you know, as a sales tax, as a consumption tax, I don't see any any reason why VAT should should go... What would go is Britain's contribution to the EU budget, which is part, which is financed out of own resources or out of VAT receipts, and that as you know - or you may not know, is about £20bn a year gross and about £10bn a year net, after we've notionally had back some money which EU officials spend in our - in our country.

Nick: Quick response from you Judy?

Listener: Well VAT was introduced by the European Union, wasn't it?

Boris: Yes, but sales taxes and value added taxes are very common around the world, doesn't - what I'm saying is there's no reason why VAT should disappear on day one, we'd have more flexibility on VAT - for instance, you know, famously, it's not possible for us to remove tax on tampons at the moment because that's set at an EU level, and a lot of people think that's ridiculous and unfair - why shouldn't a country be able to control those sorts of VAT questions, and that obviously would revert to this country, but there's no reason why VAT itself should should disappear, but what you would get back, Judy, is the power in this country for democratically elected politicians for people to make their views known in in parliament and to their MPs and to change VAT and reduce VAT where necessary.

Nick: In the previous half hour we've taken a number of calls to go, thanks Judy, we've taken a number of calls regarding transport. Just coming back, the TfL budget and business plan has been published earlier this morning - what exactly, what do we take, what are the key issues and items that we need to learn from this Mr mayor?

Boris: Well I think the crucial thing is that we have been able to blast on, to bash on, with all the big-ticket items that really matter to to London, we're going to get on with the construction of, as I say the Elizabeth Line and Crossrail will be finished in 2018...

Nick: Do you imagine she'll ever use the Elizabeth line?

Boris: Of course she will do.

Nick: Her Majesty travels on the underground does she?

Boris: Well the question is really is she gonna be there for the opening?

Nick: No that wasn't the question, it was do you think she'll use, regularly use the Elizabeth Line?

Boris: I think there's a faint, well I don't know if she'll regularly use it, I mean you have to ask these questions of the Palace...

Nick: Well, I'll ask Michael Gove, he'll find out...

Boris: But I certainly hope that she'll be using it when it opens and the night tube is going to go ahead as we've been discussing, we're doubling the station of the step free access in the stations from £75m to £150m to get more step three stations, and we're electrifying Gospel Oak to Barking - huge, all the programs for the upgrade of the tube and all the big things are going ahead, and the great thing today - the great thing this week, of course, is that the government is going to give us the green light for Crossrail 2, and...

Nick: How much will that cost?

Boris: That is an amazing step forward for London, I hope people really understand the significance of this.

Nick: We haven't finished the first one yet.

Boris: Well as I just said, we're about to finish it by 2018, and what fools we...

Nick: So how much will Crossrail 2 cost?

Boris: What fools we would look if we weren't, by 2018 already well down the track.

Nick: Yes. How much will Crossrail 2 cost?

Boris: Crossrail 2, when you add in all the contingency and all the optimism bias is £27bn, it's a huge - wait wait wait wait, don't freak out, it's a huge sum of money, it's a huge sum of money, but, we are confident that London can pay about 56% of that budget from its own resources... in other words from sales from Tif's from community infrastructure levies from tax increment financing from from cash coming from the developments that will partly arise as a result of Crossrail 2 - it is an amazing factor, you should you should get someone to look at the amount of money that is now coming in to the Crossrail budget from developments in London, because of the the way we structured it...

Nick: Contained within this budget is the exciting £20m road safety technology fund - what's that spent on? Where does that £20m go?

Boris: Well that will go on, for instance, on the kind of things that we were just talking about...

Nick: Driverless cars?

Boris: So road safety technology of all kinds, and...

Nick: Sorry what does “of all kinds” mean?

Boris: Well I've mentioned the traffic lights that promote traffic flow, we've talked about - on this show before, we've talked about trying to make cabs in tipper trucks more safe more - less scary, both for the truck drivers themselves and also for vulnerable road users, we're trying to promote safer - safer of all kinds and...

Nick: And while we're talking about safe driving...

Boris: And one of the one of the great things that I'm proud over the last last few years is we've got deaths and serious injuries of vulnerable road users down to absolutely all-time, all-time lows, and that really is vital, and when you consider also, that the people who suffer in accidents on our streets, the pedestrians who suffer, are overwhelmingly from the poorest parts of society, and so to reduce those deaths and serious injuries, and reduce deaths by far, as we have done as well, is it is a great thing I think for social justice.

Nick: Serena Faersh emails: “I'm currently stuck in traffic on the embankment, I've been here 20 minutes, will be least another 20 minutes, how in the world does it help London to take over a lane in one of the most important ways to get from east to eest London - why is it the cycle lane on the river path, why isn't it south of the river?” asks Sarina.

Boris: Well Serena, again I apologise to you for the delays that you're experiencing and the answer is really the same as I gave to Mark, which is that they will be finished soon and life will be much better when they are.

Nick: OK. Just last year on road safety, how advisable or otherwise might it have been for Top Gear to do that stunt by the centre?

Boris: Yeah look I, I was, I was surprised by that, I think it's it's one of those things that with, with perfect hindsight everybody would, you know, we'll all want to do again - it's like the time that they blew up a bus on on Vauxhall Bridge, and you know - just looked awful in retrospect - you know we try to be, as a city, one of the great strengths of London is that we make more movies more TV than virtually any other place in the world and it's incredible...

Nick: Outside of Hollywood, presumably...

Boris: No no no, but we are catching up.

Nick: What, we're making as much TV as Hollywood?

Boris: We are catching up, with both of Los Angeles and with New York - it's incredible.

Nick: Right.

Boris: And partly as a result, I may say, of tax breaks introduced by Conservatives in government.

Nick: Yes. But on the subject of Top Gear, have you been invited on the new series?

Boris: I have not. I have been - I've been twice before...

Nick: I know, and they haven't booked you for the new one yet?

Boris: I was totally hopeless both times so I think, I don't think... I'm not expecting invitation anytime soon... Uh, Peter in Tunbridge Wells, go ahead Peter.

Listener: Morning Boris.

Boris: Morning Peter.

Listener: Finance is one of the jewels in the UK's crown - there's you know, frankly stock exchanges now bidding for the OC...

Boris: It's got the LSE actually because they're gonna bite there they brought it up so I know...

Listener: Has that gone through?

Boris: I think...

Listener: No I don't think, so I think the bid's out today or this week, but anyway...

Nick: You thought it was sold already?

Boris: There's no obstacle to that as far as as... it's run, as you know, by Xavier Rolet, who's a wonderful French citizen of our city... yeah.

Listener: He's retiring, getting out - but what about... has anyone considered the longer term impact on London?

Boris: Of that deal? I think, I think in a you know - London, London is a great entrepôt city, it is a place that is founded on international trade. We have 40% - or 39%, I think, of people living in London were actually born abroad. It is of the most dynamic urban economy in - in the world, at the moment, it really is, we don't - you know, we, ownership of a British institution - we have, as you know, we have our Jaguar Land Rover is owned by an Indian company, we have - Minis are made by a German company, we have we have a system - our energy is - quite expensively - being, gonna be generated by a French nuclear company - that is, that's, that is the way of the world - that we are, we are part of a great global trading system - it'd be a real shame...

Nick: Well it'd arranged - we should stay in Europe then...

Boris: We are gonna stay in Europe...

Nick: Stay in the European Union...

Boris: We are gonna stay in Europe, but I think it'd be a mistake to stay in the EU, which is a very different kettle of fish, and is something that is providing more and more regulation and unnecessary regulation.

Nick: Quick response from you Peter?

Listener: And you don't think this will affect the, the strength of the financial industry in London?

Boris: No I think on the contrary... I know, as I say, I think everybody is - I think there's a sort of millennium bug style nervousness about an event in in the future, I think that it's like - remember what happened, Peter, with the Euro, where they said the CBI's - I think the CBI did a survey of its members that show that 80% of them or something thought that we should join the euro - the survey turned out not to be very...

Nick: Well I'll tell you somebody who is nervous, and thank you for your call Peter, is lieutenant general Ben Hodges, I don't know if you've heard of the lieutenant General's view, Mr mayor, he's head of the US army in Europe, and he says he's, quote: “...worried the EU could unravel just when it needs to stand up to Russia, Britain leaving the European Union could have a negative impact on the Nato...“ I beg your pardon?

Boris: Pass me the Daily Telegraph... yeah it's very good...

Nick: Checking out your column, are you?

Boris: No, it was a very good piece of in this morning...

Nick: Checking out Lynton's column, are you?

Boris: That's right...

Nick: Lynton Crosby... check what Lynton's writing...

Boris: Superb that is...

Nick: Out campaigners say leave would not affect the UK's position in Nato but of course the Lieutenant General has made his views known... surely if we want to stand up to Russia we're better in it together Mr mayor?

Boris: Well there are plenty of people who take views about that, and I would just cite... if you're talking about a - an American view, here we've got John Bolton, former US ambassador to the... United Nations...

Nick: Well, respectfully, he's not a lieutenant general who's head of the US Army in Europe is he?

Boris: He's a former UN - a US ambassador to the UN...

Nick: No, hold on, this bloke is a soldier he's head of the US army in Europe, and he's talking about defence of Europe against Putin - he's not an ambassador...

Boris: There are plenty of...

Nick: So I would suggest I Trump your bloke...

Boris: Well, I respectfully suggest you don't...

Nick: He's head of the US army in Europe man, we're talking about fighting Putin, I'm sure this bloke is an absolute genius, and very kind to his mother...

Boris: David Richards, the former head of the British army, thinks that completely the opposite is the case, and, and I happen to agree with him, I think that...

Nick: You think we don't need to be together...

Boris: No, actually, I think contrary to...

Nick: To fight Putin or to stand up...

Boris: Yes of course we do, but the, the vehicle the vet for doing that is Nato and the North Atlantic Alliance, and it always has been, and one of the anxiety is about the EU and its pretensions to kind of create a super state with a, with a military arm as well, is that it undermines the the utility of Nato..

Nick: How do you feel about Turkey getting into the EU?

Boris: Well, you know, I've, I've...

Nick: You're conflicted because you've got a Turkish grandfather...

Boris: I've been a great supporter... I've been... a great... yeah, great, absolutely... and very proud I am of my Turkish heritage... I think the interesting thing, actually, is that Turks themselves are rather going off the idea.

Nick: How do you know that?

Boris: Because I talk to people from Turkey and they feel...

Nick: Oh your hairdresser?

Boris: And they feel...

Nick: It's all based on your hairdresser, isn't it? The whole view, of 75 million people, based on...

Boris: I've got cousins - I've got cousins who, who are actually in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, and you know, they, they're very pro-Europe by the way, but many people in Turkey have become disheartened because of the snootiness of the European Union towards the Turks...

Nick: Actually this is a call relating to that, perhaps you could usher in our next call...

Boris:Yep, go very happy to Robert in Dulwich...

Listener: Yeah hi, I'm... so my call is... I'm worried about Turkey if I'm honest, I do feel it's becoming a bit of a rogue or a failed state... It's currently in advanced talks to join the EU... it has been shelling Kurdish civilians, it no longer has a free press, its military has invaded Iraq - and you don't see that on the news but Iraq...

Boris: Right, yeah, we'd never think of doing that ourselves, obviously... No, that wouldn't occur to anyone in Britain... I mean, you know, the idea of invading Iraq, I mean that's just beyond the pale isn't it Robert?

Listener: But it's not on the news, that's what strange, it buys oil from Isis [Islamic State] and it sells weapons to them and we're in advanced talks with inviting them into EU...

Boris: Yeah... OK, well let me, let me try - look, I'm not going to, I'm not going to speak up for any particular regime in Turkey, that's not my - you know, I don't know, and I think that many of the points you make, I agree, I think that I am troubled by some of the some of the things that are going on in Turkey - I didn't think that Turkey, to be honest, Turkey's been a candidate for membership of the EU since 1963, I think the chances of the Turks readily acceding to the European Union are between - you know, nil and 20% - it is, it is...

Nick: Up to 20%?

Boris: Probably lower than that, I mean it's not gonna happen - in the foreseeable...

Nick: Well you wouldn't suggest 20% then.

Boris: In the foreseeable future, and if it were to happen, what you wouldn't get Robert, is anything to do with free movement - I think that is where people are rightly spooked at the moment, they think the idea of suddenly 75 million Turks having the, the, you know - and and all those coming into Turkey notionally having rights of free travel, visa-free travel to the EU - that's that's just simply not on the cards, and what I think we should be doing - actually, William Hague wrote a very interesting piece the other day, suggesting that there could be a future for Britain, being with Turkey, as a kind of - not an EU member, but as an associate member - and I thought that was interesting, but the only way we can achieve that, is for Britain to vote to leave, and to strike this new relationship with I say - that you know, people don't believe can be done, Chuka Umunna insists that it's pie in the sky - it's not pie in the sky, it is the way forward - do a free trade deal take back control, over borders, over the way we run our our trade system, and the way we run virtually half the legislation in this country, we'd save huge sums of money, and we would free our democracy again.

Nick: We've been challenging - thank you for your call, Robert - we've been trading views of various senior American - either diplomats, or in this case, members of the military - why did you choose her to open fire on President Obama in The Economist today...

Boris: Well I didn't open fire on Obama per say, you know, himself...

Nick: You said - and I'm paraphrasing - it was a bit rich of him to come over...

Boris: Well, what I certainly think that it's fine for him to come and speak...

Nick: Ah, that's very kind of you, I didn't know I had to pass it by you...

Boris: Yeah of course, well I'm just giving my view, that's giving you my view - it's fine for people to say what they think - however I was drawing attention to the glaring hypocrisy, that Americans, Uncle Sam, can wag its finger at us and say 'Britain get in that EU, you share your sovereignty boy it's good for you, it's good for Europe', when actually, you you contrast America - they wouldn't dream of doing any such thing - the Americans are the one country on Earth that guards... well there many countries on earth that have the same sort of policy... the Americans guard their democracy the privileges of their...

Nick: Is this the language of international diplomacy Mr mayor?

Boris: With absolute vigilance, and that's a point worth making, and when you hear...

Nick: Is this diplomatic speak?

Boris: When you hear from Americans or from, from the US government, I should, you know that - Britain has gotta... trade in its democratic right to self control - look at what America does, not what they say...

Nick: Are you meeting with him next month?

Boris: I think I think it's highly unlikely, but...

Nick: Is this, is this how, is this how, sort of, prominent politicians behave on the world stage?

Boris: Don't forget, I think it's very important to make this point - and I will continue to make it.

Nick: So it's not being a liability to be offensive towards the US?

Boris: I don't believe I've been remotely offensive towards, and indeed...

Nick: Towards the US?

Boris: Towards the US, and as I say I have a, his - the United States, has strong, needs strong European allies - John Bolton former US ambassador to the UN, concludes in this morning's paper - which Britain has been and should remain the most important - we enjoy independence...

Nick: This the same John Bolton who said Iraq was right?

Boris: You should resume yours.

Nick: This is the same John Bolton who said the Iraq war was right?

Boris: Well, I...

Nick: So you're now citing his views on other matters are you?

Boris: He seems to me that he's right about this...

Nick: Is it the same John Bolton - it is, isn't it - and said the Iraq war was a just war - I think you'll find it's the same John Bolton Mr mayor...

Boris: Well, I have no idea whether it's the same John Bolton who said the Iraq war was a just war, but is - that on this particular matter I have to say I think he's right and you see and I - and to accuse me of being offensive to America - well I don't know it's absurd, I mean...

Nick: I actually think you were born there.

Boris: I was born in America, I'm massively supportive of the United States, but I think it is, it is absolutely - it is rich, it is absurd, for them to lecture us about our need to embed ourselves in the European Union...

Nick: Can we move on?

Boris: Can we go to Frances in Bexleyheath please?

Listener: Yes, good morning Mr Johnson, I just interested into how many British people, now working in the EU or residing in the EU, would face - would face a backlash from people in the EU who say 'you don't want to be in the EU go back to England'.

Boris: No, I can't...

Listener: What happens if they all came back here - jobs would go, we'd have ex-pats coming back here, they'd have nowhere to live.

Boris: No no no, that I think that is simply not - at the moment there's about...

Listener: I've had friends abroad who already been told this by their neighbors - if you get out of the EU, we don't want you here.

Boris: No, that, they would, they would - under the - there's no reason at all for people to leave and under the Vienna Convention and all sorts of treaties - their rights would be grandfathered, they would remain in - and they'd be able to remain, and there are currently about 2.2 million Brits living in the rest of the EU, there are currently about 2.3 million EU nationals here in in Britain, so it roughly balances out - there's no there's no need for any flow of peoples, we're not talking about that - what we're talking about is is democracy and democratic control, and that is at the moment being increasingly compromised by the way the EU works, and that needs to be sorted out - it will not affect people's right to enjoy their retirement, their jobs in other EU countries.

Nick: Alright thank you for that, let me just - a couple of texts before we move on - this one comes from the Rachel in Bexley: what did the prime minister say in response to the text when Boris Johnson said he was going to Brexit?

Boris: Well you know I don't go into my communications with whatever...

Nick: Just give us a broad range

Boris: You always say that.

Nick: Was it along the lines of: “Oh I'm disappointed to hear that” or “OK chum” or was it something slightly more colourful?

Boris: I honestly can't remember...

Nick: You can't remember what the prime minister said you in a text?

Boris: The blessed veil of amnesia...

Nick: If you want to give me your phone I can read it out.

Boris: Hah. I certainly don't want to give you my phone.

Nick: Well just the broad thrust of it.

Boris: Look... Honestly, I raised - the key point, which I think people do need to know about, is that relations remain extremely good...

Nick: Well not according to - did you see the papers on Sunday? One paper said that he's convinced you're after his job and that Michael Gove is bonkers.

Boris: Well that was alleged to have been said, about three or four years ago - four years ago or more, when actually we what we were doing, was campaigning for new legislation to stop wildcat strikes in, in London, by the the tube drivers and anybody else - and the interesting thing is that that legislation has now come into force.

Nick: So you're not after his job?

Boris: That's a - no, of course not.

Nick: And Michael Gove isn't bonkers?

Boris: Michael Gove is completely right in this matter, and he's thought it through very carefully, and I admire his thought his thought process completely. Daniel in St. John's Wood.

Listener: Good morning Mr mayor, good morning Nick, good morning. I think we should leave the EU, I'm genuinely concerned though, as to what the strategy is once we leave - I mean we talk about leaving, but then what's the strategy, what's the opportunity, and how do we maximise this opportunity, and the potential that's out there?

Boris: I mean, look, there is a huge opportunity and I've spoken in the past about the the trade deals that we can do - people are very negative about this, they say - Chuka Umunna, you know they say, even though Chuka himself, you know, accepts that the huge quantity of legislation now comes from the EU, they say Britain couldn't do things on her own - I don't believe that, I think we could very rapidly strike free trade deals around the world, and that is the way forward - Daniel we're moving in an era of a globalised economy, where these tariffs, these free trade areas, matter less and less, and what we want to do is, have a system of government that matches Britain's needs, and I think it would - this country would would thrive as never before, if we were to get out and...

Nick: What's the timetable though? What would actually happen the morning after the night before?

Boris: Well the timetable is that the existing treaties would remain in force for at least two years, I don't think there'd be any particular need to invoke Article 50 and all the rest of it - you'd get on - and as I say Daniel, the net balance of trade between the other EU countries in Britain is £80bn in their favour - they are going to be mad not to strike deals with us that give - continue to give them access to our huge market, we're the fifth biggest economy - the fourth biggest economy in the world, German and French can - suppose you're a French construction company, and you want to raise capital to finance the building of a new nuclear power station for instance or whatever...

Nick: Just putting that out at random...

Boris: And you need a huge sum of - you, you, you get that money in London - that's right - the capital market, that's where it all happens, and that's because this - we've got this huge concentration of talent - they're not gonna, they're not gonna, they're not going to try to discriminate against - London is an asset for the whole of this area of the world and they're not going to discriminate against...

Nick: We just have two minutes left, I have two questions to ask you: what do you take from events in - well I was gonna say in Syria, more in Russia - and that Putin now is to withdraw his troops, he says the war is won and he's pulling out - what do we take from that?

Boris: Well look, I, you know I think it's...

Nick: Do we believe him?

Boris: I don't know enough to be able to judge whether he's sincere in this, or what is what is what his motives are...

Nick: So we don't necessarily...

Boris: One thing is for sure - this is a disastrous mess in which we've ended up I'm afraid with the the worst of all worlds, we've ended up with a standstill in power in Damascus, Putin feels clearly that he's done what is necessary to prop up that regime, it is a great tragedy - and yet we still have Isis, untamed, unbowed, in in the middle of the - or Daesh as we now call them - untamed, unbowed, in the middle of the country and still occupying huge tracts, still I'm afraid, corrupting the minds of young people in this country and persuading them to join them so...

Nick: We won't speak again...

Boris: The situation is is tragic and if we still face a huge flow of refugees...

Nick: We won't speak on the radio again with you as mayor, sadly - on this phone in, I should say, on this phone in...

Boris: On this phone in...

Nick: So you're going to be leaving that office, how will you feel on your last day at City Hall?

Boris: Well I will, I will feel very sad, but also very proud of what has happened in London over the last eight years - I think when you look back at the time I came in, it was the worst financial crash for 50 years, the city is now absolutely on top of the world, we have - we got Crossrail 2 now having announced in the budget tomorrow, Crossrail 1 on time, a huge huge amount achieved - unemployment at record lows, employment at record highs, and a lot of good things have been done...

Nick: Tear in your eyes when you walk out?

Boris: I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what I felt the other day, there was a, we did an event for the mayor's music fund, I mean you do, you do a lot to support the the charities in London, we did an event for the mayor's music fund there was this kid who'd got a mayor's music fund scholarship that was raised by these blooming - a kid from Greenwich, and he had - on the strength of that scholarship - he was very good at playing, I think it was the violin or something - he got a scholarship to go to Christ Hospital School in Sussex, and I thought actually well, yes, down the crow's... probably as a result of that fund that we set up, that kid's life is genuinely never gonna be the same again, and he's he's on a on a totally different track, and I think when you look at some of the the stories of the kids that have been helped through - team London or any of those enterprises - it has made it it has made a big difference, we got, we got more more young people in employment now, than ever before...

Nick: OK.

Boris: And that was - if you remember that was the big big problem.

Nick: Yes, it was, and our problem is we've run out of time - there is a break now because of that mayoral election - Boris Johnson will be returning to LBC, we'll have an announcement about that shortly...

Boris: Is there right? What's the...

Nick: I don't know I think that means we need to go away and talk...

Boris: This is Brexit.

Nick: James O'Brien, is up next - James O'Brexit is up next here on LBC yeah we do tomorrow morning from 7...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF6TW60OTjI

[top]

16th March 2016: mayoral press release to transform Royal Docks, east London

This part of London was once a global standard-bearer for trade and industry and we are already bringing about a new era of prosperity with exciting schemes transforming Royal Albert Dock and Silvertown Quays. Now we want to take that success to a new level and transform further parts of the Royal Docks, capitalising on the potential of Crossrail and other transport infrastructure improvements to deliver more of the homes and jobs London so urgently needs.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayors-proposals-to-transform-royal-docks

[top]

16th March 2016: Boris Johnson London assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) Oral update on the report of the mayor

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): The mayor will now provide an oral update of up to five minutes in length on matters occurring since the publication of his report, including a matter that an assembly member has requested him to address.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Thank you so much, Jennette. Since we last met, we have launched 11 new housing zones in 10 boroughs. That means another 77,000 homes from all 31 housing zones. We are on target, as you know, to deliver 100,000 affordable homes.

We have fulfilled a manifesto pledge to deliver the 50th business improvement district. We have succeeded in getting yet another piece of physical legacy from the Olympic Games in the sense that Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School has taken the entire BMW Pavilion and erected it in the school grounds as a fantastic new sixth-form centre.

We have invested another £345,000 into tackling gang crime and domestic violence, working particularly with accident and emergency departments, which treat the victims of these appalling crimes and help to bring the perpetrators to justice by providing immediate evidence to the police.

We are also investing another £1.5m in grassroots sports, I see, and artificial pitches. I do not know whether you can have grass roots in artificial pitches but, anyway, that is what we are doing. You will remember that Kate Hoey [mayor’s commissioner for sport] and the City Hall sports team have helped 400,000 Londoners since the Olympics to take part in some kind of physical activity or other; some kind of exercise, that is to say.

This is, indeed, my last Mayor’s Question, Jennette --

Tom Copley AM: Hooray.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am already getting some jubilant heckling from the gentlemen on my right, as ever. They have begun sledging. Hardly had I sat down.

I want to pay a very few thank yous and I will be forgiven if I pay tribute, first of all, to everybody in the Greater London Authority and all of the officials who work in this place and, in my view, who have done an absolutely outstanding job for London over the last eight years.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Hear, hear.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Say what you like about the last eight years, you could not fault GLA officers for their dedication, their passion for this city and their determination to improve the lives of all Londoners. They can be very proud of what has been achieved.

I particularly want to thank the great Michael Coleman [Assembly Liaison Officer]. It would be appropriate to thank Michael Coleman - who is, I hope, watching this - for his work in preparing, over these 80 MQTs, my excellent briefs. I want to thank all of my team on the eighth floor for all of their work.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am not going to burst into tears at this point; thank you, John [mayor John Biggs AM].

This may surprise you: I also want to pay tribute to the London assembly members, some of whom are also standing down. Distinguished members of the London assembly are also standing down at the end of this eight-year period. I want to thank them very much and I want to thank all of you very much for your scrutiny, sometimes severe, sometimes friendly, sometimes - in my view - more or less deranged, but overall there is absolutely no doubt that you have contributed to the improvement of decision-making in this place by your scrutiny and done a great deal to help the good government of London. Thank you, all, very much. I am, therefore, very happy to take any questions you may wish to raise.

Mayor John Biggs AM: You might even answer them.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I always answer your questions.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Can I remind you that you were asked to provide an oral update?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am so sorry. Yes, I should have said earlier on. In the matter of the famous Eddie Lister [Sir Edward Lister, chief of staff] memo [setting out advice on the use of GLA resources during the run-up to the referendum on European Union membership], let me explain exactly what was happening. Somebody - I think Andrew Dismore AM - has asked for an oral update on this.

The position is pretty clear. What Eddie was trying to do was to give effect to the rules that apply to all GLA officials --

Andrew Dismore AM: Really?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- and logically, of course, this should apply to the “ten plus two” [appointments made by the mayor under Section 67 of the GLA Act 1999 (as amended)] as well. However, given that they have a sort of quasi-cabinet type of role, it seemed to me to be reasonable that a hundred flowers should bloom and everybody should be able to say what they wanted. That is the position and, indeed, you will see that there is a variety of views on the eighth floor about this matter and people are intermittently popping up and saying what they think. That is great, if not groovy. I repeat my position: let 100 flowers bloom ... or 1,000.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. assembly member Dismore?

Andrew Dismore AM: Thank you, chair. When Sir Edward issued his edict to require your senior staff, including your deputy mayors, to “either advocate the mayor’s position or otherwise not openly contradict it”, do you seriously expect us all to believe that you did not know anything at all about it?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, that is absolutely true; I did not. However, I can see the absolute logic of what Eddie was saying, which is that the formal position is that there are rules, as you know, for GLA officials and they are technically bound by mayoral policy. That is what Eddie was trying to express.

As it happens, for the “10 plus two”, for the mayoral advisors, people look at them and they think, “These are kind of like the cabinet of the government in London. It looks like he is trying to gag his cabinet”. That was not the case and we are in a state of blissful, gluttenous harmony.

Andrew Dismore AM: Instead of project fear, we can now see project farce with your Fawlty Towers Manuel’s “I know nothing” impression. Perhaps I could quote Cicero, who said to Catiline about this, “Quo usque tandem abutere patientia nostra”.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The answer to that is, “For about another two-and-a-half hours”.

Andrew Dismore AM: You are probably right. You having apparently done a U-turn on this, can we be clear about the extent of it? Tomorrow morning Stephen Greenhalgh, your deputy mayor for policing and crime, is appearing before the police and crime committee. Is he going to be free to give his opinion, which is utterly opposed to Brexit based on the basis of security --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I have made that clear.

Andrew Dismore AM: -- when he said in the Evening Standard, for example

“I know there are people who think that sovereignty is more important than public safety. [I presume he means you.] My experience in setting the strategy and overseeing the performance of the country’s largest police force has made it very clear to me that London, and the rest of the UK, is more secure in a reformed EU than it would be outside ... It is leaving the EU that would put us most at risk by breaking those relationships that keep us safe ... Turning our back on the EU would undermine our safety in the future.”

Will he be free to say that tomorrow at the police committee?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Of course, but I think it highly unlikely. He can say whatever he wants. As it happens, I disagree with that view and I know that the former deputy mayor for policing and crime does not necessarily share that view. Obviously, there are all sorts of views that people have about this matter. I myself think that this country, as I have said before in this place, has a great opportunity to do that kind of thing at an intergovernmental level, as indeed we always have, and there is no reason why things like the European arrest warrant should not be continued at an intergovernmental level. There is no reason why all sorts of police, crime, judicial, Home Office --

Andrew Dismore AM: That is not his view, is it?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- and intelligence co-operation should not continue in that way, just as common foreign and security policy should not be discussed in that way.

Andrew Dismore AM: That is not his view, is it, and he is your deputy mayor for policing?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, it is his view but, to be fair to Stephen, he is a longstanding enthusiast of the European Union .

Andrew Dismore AM: Are there any other members of your inner circle who might feel constrained as a result of Eddie Lister’s email and the U-turn?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. The position is very clear that people on the eighth floor and people in the “10 plus two” can -- there is a variety of views and people are perfectly entitled to express them. Everybody has one vote in this referendum. It is a crucial moment for our country - and, indeed, for Europe - and I hope we get it right.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): assembly member McCartney?

Joanne McCartney AM: Mr mayor, in your update you talked about Metropolitan police service finances and spending money on gangs work.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes.

Joanne McCartney AM: Given that the MPS’s finances are under pressure, are you aware of how much money has been lost with the - as we understand - failure of one of your first outsourcing projects, the CommandPoint command-and-control system? We understand from the exclusive story in the Evening Standard today that your deputy mayor has cancelled or terminated that contract and is probably going to be suing the provider, Northrop Grumman. I understand that the contract is worth £65m. Are you aware of that and how much money has been lost?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes. As you rightly say, Joanne, there is or has been a contract with Northrop Grumman and, I believe, Lockheed Martin to provide such services. They have not lived up to expectations, to put it mildly. We are confident that we will be able to recover virtually all of the investment so far.

Joanne McCartney AM: What does that mean for a 30-year-old command-and-control system that everyone would admit is creaking under the pressure? Is it fair to say that you are leaving the new mayor with a blank sheet of paper and no progress made?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. The upgrades will proceed. Obviously, the difficulty is that these particular contractors have not done the job in the way that we wanted. It is rather like, if you remember, the Bombardier contracts for the subsurface signalling. There comes a moment when you have to decide whether to keep crossing your fingers and hoping that they are going to come up to snuff or whether you cut your losses. We are confident that we will be able to minimise those losses and get on with modernising the command-and-control networks.

Joanne McCartney AM: Can you give us an estimate as to how much you expect to lose?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, I cannot give you that at the moment, but I have been briefed that the vast majority of the outlay will be recovered.

Joanne McCartney AM: Do you think that this has any bearing on other outsourcing projects that your office is thinking of making?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): What it shows is that you can save huge sums of money by outsourcing and it very often is the right thing to do, but in a fiercely competitive world what happens is that often, I am afraid, contractors do underbid or do overestimate their capacities and you get this kind of result. We will be able to proceed, nonetheless, with the modernisation of command and control.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you. Let us move on to item 5, part A. This is where assembly members put the questions to the mayor set out on the priority order paper. 2016/0728 - knife crime,

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Knife crime with injury offences have risen across London. Given you campaigned to reduce knife crime in 2008, do you think you’ve done enough to tackle this serious issue?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Thank you very much, Caroline. What is in fact the case is that knife crime has not risen across London since I have been mayor. In fact, over the last eight years knife crime offences are down by about 31% overall. That is about 4,400 fewer knife crimes. Youth knife homicides are down by about 36%. Those are encouraging data. We are spending a great deal of time, energy and indeed money on all sorts of intervention programmes, which you are of course familiar with, to divert people away from the knife crime culture and away from gangs and to accelerate the progress we have made.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Mr mayor, just this Monday [14 March 2016] we saw another young man brutally and tragically murdered with a knife on our streets in Thornton Heath. Tragically, this kind of incident is becoming the norm at times in our city. In 2008 when you were first elected, a year when we saw 23 teenagers stabbed to death, you campaigned on tackling this important issue and you pledged to lead the fight back against violent crime.

Do you think that in your two terms you have really done enough to tackle what you have called the “number one issue we face in London”?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do. You can never do enough. We have done a huge amount, Caroline. If you look at the figures, roughly speaking, youth homicide was running at about 55 to 60 a year between 2002 and 2008. It is now running at between 35 and 40 a year. That is a reduction. It is not as much as I would like. The overall number of teen homicides from knife crime is substantially down.

One of these deaths is too many. Every one is an absolute tragedy for the family of that young person and their friends. We have all sorts of measures in place to try to bring them down still further. As you know, we are doing stop-and-search but we are doing it sensitively. We have programmes in schools. We have programmes like Redthread, a system that you have talked a lot about --

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- and fair credit to you, Caroline. A lot of work has been done to work with trauma centres so that we pick up the victims and we understand what is going on in their lives and understand the gang environment. We have big gang exit and resettlement strategies.

This is a problem that is chronic in London. It has been supressed substantially by about a third, but it has not gone away. That is the reality.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Looking at the overall figure, we can all argue and compare different bits - and my statistics are different to the ones you are using today - but violent crime overall has risen by 66% since 2008 when there were 132,000 recorded violence-against-the-person offences. Last year there were over 220,000. Violence in general has been going up. Since 2008, we have seen 90 teenagers fatally stabbed and hundreds more wounded. Last year we had 15 teenagers killed.

Do you think that perhaps you could have done more on some of the preventative measures like making sure every school in London has an education programme and that we have youth workers in every A&E in London, not just a handful?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It is no consolation to any of the victims or their families to say that the rate was higher before 2008 but, developing on proposals from you and from the GLA Conservatives, we are certainly putting more people into A&Es. We now have 19 of the 29 hospitals sharing data. Yes, we need all 29. It has been a job to get it going partly because of the Hippocratic oath and people’s anxieties about betraying patient confidentiality and that kind of thing, but it is moving ahead. We have a huge range of operations led by the police like knife surrender bins, knife arches and interventions in schools, a variety of operations to tackle the problem. You cannot realistically fault either the Metropolitan police service or the GLA for the urgency with which they have tried to tackle this problem.

Yes, you could say that we have not achieved as much as we would like to have achieved. That is a fair criticism that I would absolutely accept, but we have gone at it full-bore.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Do you feel you have? Maybe if you had started on some of these programmes eight years ago, you might have achieved more. Some of the programmes have come on much more in the latter half in your term in office.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, I do not know about that --

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: I am just wondering. In hindsight, is there perhaps one decision that you have made or perhaps you might have liked to have made differently, even pursuing hospitals about getting A&E data? Is there one decision that perhaps you think in hindsight you might like to have done differently that might have helped to reduce knife crime on our streets?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am sure that there are all sorts of things. Blunt 2 we brought in pretty early on to take knives off the streets. That took a huge number of knives off the streets. Arguably, it led to some stop-and-search that was not being done completely politely or in a way that I would have liked. Looking back on it, we decided that we would do stop-and-search in a different way and I think that has also been very effective.

I will just go back to your statistics about the rise in violent crimes. You must be including domestic violence.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: All violent crime, yes. I am talking about all violent crime in London, which has gone up.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You are including domestic violence. If you look at non-domestic violence, actually, there has been a fall in violent crime.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: In terms of knife crime, there is nothing that you would do differently?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): What is certainly true is that there has been an increase in reporting of domestic and sexual violence --

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes, but I have asked about knife crime.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- and that may have other factors.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: OK. I will leave it there. Thank you very much.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Tracey?

Richard Tracey AM: Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Mr mayor, can I just take your mind back to the last parliament when the then Conservative member of parliament for Enfield North, Nick de Bois, introduced amendments to toughen up the position of the police in dealing with knife crimes? If I remember rightly, it was opposed by the Lib Dems and yet you have a Lib Dem member of this assembly questioning you now on your record.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am absolutely amazed to hear that the Lib Dems could take two positions at once on anything. It is quite an astonishing revelation. Are you saying that they were soft on knife crime a few years ago and now they are coming in all tough because they have a mayoral election to fight?

Richard Tracey AM: I do not know about the election, Mr mayor, but they --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Back to Nick de Bois, it is a very good law that Nick brought in, the “Enfield law”; two strikes and you are out. I have to say that we are looking for the evidence that it is starting to bite. I do not know how many convictions we have yet had from the “two strikes and you are out” rule, but I am waiting to hear from the MPS about how it is actually working in practice.

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you.

Tom Copley AM: Is “two strikes and you are out” the government’s trade union policy?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That was another great policy that arose from this place, Tom, as you know. It is now government policy. It has now been passed by parliament, actually.

Tony Arbour AM: It should be one strike and you are out; any strike.

Tom Copley AM: Trust you to be tougher, Tony.

Len Duvall AM: Millions of Londoners rely on the social protections afforded to them by European Union Directives. Do you agree that any moves to water down these social protections could harm both London’s economic prospects and the quality of life for those who live here?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Len, thank you very much for this question. You are asking about whether the protections that Londoners have from EU Directives would in any way disappear if Britain left the European Union. Of course that is not the case because they have all been transposed into domestic law. It is idle to suppose that any future government would want to water down valuable protections for our people. These are things that I think most people support. They may disagree about some of the detail and I personally disagree about some of the detail, but in general you can rely on our parliament and our government to have measures that are humane and, above all, practicable to protect the rights of working people.

Perhaps even more valuable than some of these directives, I might mention some of the things that we have done to help the quality of life for people across this city.

Len Duvall AM: Thank you very much, Mr mayor. Can you then tell us which bits you do not like, then, and that you think could be changed if we withdrew from the EU? Do you want me to help you with this? You have obviously done some thinking about this --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, I--. Look, I --

Len Duvall AM: -- and so I can pose the questions. We have had this game before and you have declined to answer. You have been thinking about this a lot because you have chosen a position. Which are the bits that you think should be changed? What is the detail?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Sure. This would be up to a future government and a future parliament to decide.

Len Duvall AM: I am asking for your personal position, Mr mayor, your personal position --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You are asking rather --

Len Duvall AM: -- or do you not have a thought?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): About, what, the whole corpus of EU law?

Len Duvall AM: OK. Let us know, then, OK?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The animal hygiene directive that says that you have to bury your sheep is totally deranged, it seems to me.

Len Duvall AM: Let us help you, Mr mayor. Let us have a look at some of the --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The directive that says that kids under the age of eight cannot blow up a balloon --

Len Duvall AM: Mr mayor, you have made it up before.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The interoperability of --

Len Duvall AM: Let us not make it up again. Let us ask you these questions, then. Which part of the health and safety directive --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It is true.

Len Duvall AM: -- would you undo if we came out of the EU? Which parts of the right to information in terms of workers or other issues would you undo? Would you pull back on parental leave? Would you pull back on employment protection of part-time workers? Mr mayor, you have not said much on this issue in the past eight years in terms of the Equal Pay Act for women. The EU guarantees a basic issue --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That is incorporated in existing British law. In fact --

Len Duvall AM: You think that is the case, then?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Why do you suppose our parliament or our courts are so puny as to be able to give the British people these rights anyway?

Len Duvall AM: Our institutions are not puny, Mr mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Why do you think that this country is so inhumane --

Len Duvall AM: I will tell you why, Mr mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- as to wish to take away benefits from workers?

Len Duvall AM: Shall I tell you what worries me?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I simply do not understand what you are arguing.

Len Duvall AM: Shall I tell you what worries me about you --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Go on.

Len Duvall AM: -- and your colleagues who want to pull out and make it quite clear that you want to do down these regulations? Part of the European Social Charter, which guarantees the minimum rights, states: “Persons who have been unable ... to enter ... the labour market and have no means of subsistence must be able to receive sufficient resources and social assistance...”

I tell you why, Mr mayor. On 2 March 2016 you walked into the voting lobbies and voted to cut support to disabled people who have been disabled either since birth or through an accident in their life and cannot work. You voted to cut some of their benefits, along with some of your colleagues on the other side. That is why you cannot be trusted, Mr mayor --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Come on.

Len Duvall AM: -- because the minimum guarantees by Europe are the backstop for people like you and your colleagues who have made it clear. You have made it clear, Mr mayor. At an LBC interview --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Can I come in at this point?

Len Duvall AM: -- you made it very clear, but you do not want to share with us which ones you do not support personally.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, because --

Len Duvall AM: You made it clear when Mr Cameron [David Cameron MP, prime minister] --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): To be totally honest with you, Len --

Len Duvall AM: -- watered down some of the issues in his negotiating stance. You said in 2015: “I looked at the headlines this morning about the possibility of Britain dropping its insistence on changes to employment law and I thought that was very disappointing. I think we need to move forward on that ... we’ve got too much regulation, too much stuff coming from Brussels, too many laws that are promulgated by Brussels that make it hard for business. So I think we need to weigh in on all that stuff, all that social chapter.”

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We do. I have to say that that is absolutely true. If you want me --

Len Duvall AM: That is fine. You can have that position, Mr mayor, but you should tell us which bits you would do down and which regulations you would change.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. What I would do is I would take, if I may --

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Can I just say, nothing has been recorded of what has been said for the last five minutes. It is impossible. It is just impossible if you are going to speak across each other to each other. Can we just have the question, Mr Duvall, to the mayor and an answer?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes. What I would like to see is British courts and the British parliament being able to decide these matters. Britain has traditionally led the way in social protections of all kinds. We have a fine record in that matter compared to virtually any other nation on earth --

Joanne McCartney AM: Primarily under Labour governments.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- and we should be proud of that from Disraeli [Benjamin Disraeli, 19th century British prime minister] onwards. I would also like us to take back control over our borders, for instance, because there is a question about this later on but it is unquestionably true that one of the major reasons for low pay in this city has been the huge influx of unskilled workers from across the accession countries of the EU who have --

Len Duvall AM: You were praising them. Some years ago, you were praising them.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- helped to bring down wages. You cannot have it both ways.

Len Duvall AM: Please, Mr mayor. You cannot have it both ways.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): What this country would like to see is control of all of those issues -and would like to see laws devised in the interests of British workers and in the interests of British industry and manufacturing.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Bacon?

Gareth Bacon AM: Yes, Mr mayor, are you as appalled as I am at the lack of faith that the leader of the Labour Group seems to have in democracy and the idea he seems to have that democratically elected governments should not be allowed to govern in the name of the people who elected them and that instead we should have unelected people living in other countries telling us how we should live our lives?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am. Europe as a whole will pay a very great price for this because what we think is that we are somehow pooling our sovereignty with other governments and getting influence in Brussels on these decisions, but actually what is happening is that the power to make these decisions is being transferred by all governments to people they do not know, the EU commission. As I have told you and as I never tire of saying, only 3.6% of the officials there originate from this country, yet they are devising laws that currently comprise 50% of the legislation going through parliament. That is a problem. It really is. It is a big democratic problem. We need to think about the long-term consequences of that and it is time to take back control.

Gareth Bacon AM: All right.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Cleverly?

James Cleverly AM MP: Thank you, madam chair. Mr mayor, do you share my incredulity that a whole load of issues like maternity pay, paid leave and that kind of thing, which are absolutely not under threat if we leave the EU, are being highlighted as examples of why we should stay, yet other more practical things like direct support for the British steel industry and zero rating of tampons and other women’s sanitary products, which would be on the agenda if we left the EU, seem to be strangely missing from the list of things brought up by the opposition?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I completely agree, James. The thing that has really concerned me recently is the increasing activism and interventionism of the European court of justice. That court is taking the charter of fundamental rights and interpreting it in a very liberal fashion so as to take away the power of this country to deport criminals and to decide who gets asylum here. That, in my view, is fundamentally antidemocratic and it needs to be sorted out. Unless we vote leave on 23 June 2016, it will not get sorted out and the whole thing will grind remorselessly onwards.

James Cleverly AM MP: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you. Let us get to the next question.

Roger Evans AM

Recent research from PwC found that more than half of the firms surveyed expect to become the victim of cybercrime in the next two years. However, a third reported that they have no plan to address such incidents. What conversations have you had with businesses in London to encourage them to take the necessary steps to prepare for a cyber-attack and protect their customers?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Thank you very much, Roger. There has been an increase in the reporting of cybercrime and it is a very important issue now, as you know. Firms across London are anxious about it. It is a crime type that is going up. That is why we launched the London Digital Security Centre [LDSC], which tries to bring together everybody who is threatened by it like banks and other companies that feel threatened by crime over the internet or cybercrime of any kind whatever. There is a big unit now in the MPS, the fraud and linked crime online or “Falcon” unit, which works closely with the LDSC to do that. We have put a lot of money into it. There are now about 300 people working on that. They have made about 1,056 arrests and have confiscated £3.1m in cash.

Roger Evans AM: Thank you. We have done quite a lot of work on cybercrime at the police and crime committee because it is an emerging area of concern for the police in London and, indeed, across the world.

Would you support the introduction of a voluntary minimum standard for businesses in London that they could sign up to to demonstrate that they have done the minimum required to protect their customers’ data and to report cybercrime and so that there is a basic set of standards that we can advise everyone to adhere to?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Roger, thank you for all your work you have done on this. That sounds like a very interesting idea, which I am sure this place should be looking to take forward. I do not know whether I have much time to develop it myself, but it is a very good idea.

Roger Evans AM: Do you think, further, that if we had such a standard, it would be a good idea for us to publish a list of the organisations that had signed up to it so that customers would know who to trust their data with when they are making a choice about the people they are doing business with?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That sounds like a very good idea.

Roger Evans AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you. Let us go to the next question.

Darren Johnson AM: Have you left London’s housing situation in a better state than when you first took office in 2008?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Thank you. Yes, Darren, indeed, by the end we will have delivered 100,000 new affordable homes - 14,000 more than the previous mayor - and above all helped 52,000 people into home ownership with the part buy/part rent First Steps scheme. We have very ambitious targets now for housing in London and a huge attack now on the whole problem in the sense that the number of affordable homes delivered last year was bigger than at any time since the early 1980s. As far as I can remember, we are building more homes now than at any time since 1981. There are a further 260,000 homes in the planning pipeline. That is 50% more than there were when I took over.

Darren Johnson AM: What do you make of this quote, then?

“House prices in London have accelerated faster than wages over the last eight years, and many Londoners now cannot afford to buy a home in their own city. Those lucky enough to own their home have to work longer hours to meet ever-rising mortgage costs, and those still searching have to take on mountains of debt in order to get on the ladder.”

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am afraid that that is absolutely true and --

Darren Johnson AM: That was actually from your manifesto in 2008, commenting on the previous mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I know. That is a function of the growing popularity and success of this city. It is the number one urban economy in Europe by miles and people want to live here. Just since I have been mayor, we have had growth of about 800,000 in the population of London. Compare Berlin, which has had a fall in its population of about 186,000. London is absolutely booming by comparison with most other European cities and that, inevitably, makes housing more expensive. The only serious answer is not rent controls, which I know someone is going to raise later, but to build more homes.

Darren Johnson AM: In your eight years in office, wages rose by just 4% and house prices have risen by 76%. Is that a legacy to be proud of?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I certainly am proud that more Londoners are now in work than even before. We have employment at record highs. We have unemployment at record lows. Yes, as I said, I am perfectly willing to accept the criticism that house prices have risen. It is an open question as to how much people would like the value of their homes to fall. I know that owner-occupiers in this room may wonder how much they would like the value of their homes to fall. People will have different views about that.

However, what we have done is to tackle the problem by building more homes, record numbers of homes, new affordable, new housing zones. Every single bit of GLA land, all of the brownfield sites that we had when I took over, are now under construction with hundreds of thousands of new homes for Londoners.

Darren Johnson AM: You also wrote in your 2008 manifesto that the average monthly rent had increased by over a third on the previous eight years, but in your eight years we have seen rents rise by a similar amount. You were concerned and worried about that in 2008. Are you still concerned and worried about this now?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): What we have done is to introduce the London Rental Standard, which has 15,000 or so landlords accredited to it and more than 100,000 dwellings. I cannot remember; it is 130,000 dwellings or something of that kind. What we cannot do is try to magic rents down by imposing some sort of government fiat because it just does not work. Where it has been tried --

Darren Johnson AM: You were saying that it was a problem in 2008 that rents had risen in eight years by a third. They have now risen by another third in these eight years. Is it still a problem? Are you genuinely concerned about it or is it just something --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am. No, of course I am. I am just trying to give you the full picture --

Darren Johnson AM: You have not actually been able to do anything about it, have you, because rents have risen by the same amount?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, we have because, as I say, we have tackled the problem by building more homes than the previous Labour mayor. In fact, there are now net far more affordable homes. As far as I can remember, under the previous mayor [Ken Livingstone] the net number of affordable homes actually went down. We have increased the overall number of affordable homes and we can be very proud of that record.

Do not forget that this has been achieved in spite of the credit crunch, the absolute freezing of mortgage lending that went on in the early part of the mayoralty, and very difficult conditions for the banks and other lenders. When I took over, construction had, basically, collapsed because of the disaster in the financial services industry and it took a real effort to keep things going.

Darren Johnson AM: I will leave some time for my colleague Jenny Jones AM but, even by the terms you set yourself in your 2008 manifesto, you have actually failed on those terms.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I must disagree with you, respectfully. We have tackled the problem with a huge effort to build more homes. Again, I would pay tribute to Ric Blakeway [deputy mayor for housing, land and property], to David Lunts [executive director - housing and land, GLA] and to everybody in the GLA housing unit, who have been extremely ambitious and dynamic in their approach.

Darren Johnson AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you.

Andrew Boff AM: Is increasing regulation the best way to increase the supply of new homes in London?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Andrew, thank you. I slightly anticipated your question there in my answer. Rent controls are not the way forward. Remember the mayor of Ho Chi Minh City who said that the only thing more destructive than the United States air force of his city was rent controls? What they lead to is a reduction in the supply of rented accommodation and an increase, therefore, in average rents. Rents in New York City rose by 33% between 2005 and 2011 compared to only a 7% rise in London. Rents in Berlin have risen 27% since 2007 compared to 12% in London. Rent controls constrict supply and are economically illiterate, in my view.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you, Mr mayor. I know that you pore over the transcripts of all of the assembly committees and I am sure that when you were reading the transcript of our investigation into rent stabilisation methods you will have come across a quote from professor Christine Whitehead from the London School of Economics, who indeed is its professor of housing --

Tom Copley AM: She supports rent stabilisation measures.

Andrew Boff AM: -- and who said that rent stabilisation only works “where you do not need it”.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That is true of anything.

Andrew Boff AM: Are you concerned, Mr mayor, that the assembly is producing reports despite the evidence that it receives rather than as a result of the evidence that it receives?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The Labour members of the assembly are perfectly at liberty to continue to make their points and to remind everybody that the Labour party has still to apologise for its lamentable failure to build more council accommodation and indeed for the fact that Margaret Thatcher [20th century British prime minister] built more in one year than Labour did in 13 years in office, a point that Tom Copley AM has called on his party to apologise for, quite rightly.

Andrew Boff AM: Have you also noticed, Mr mayor, that the opposition parties, including the Greens and the Labour party - I am not sure what the Lib Dems think, but who is? - are now using the term “light-touch rent stabilisation”? Do you think a “light touch” will have any effect other than to prevent investment in housing at all?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do not really know what they mean by that.

Andrew Boff AM: I do not really know.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The chances are that they do not really mean anything at all, but my point holds. This kind of regulation is counterproductive. The best answer is to make sure that London landlords are treating their tenants decently and we do that through the London rental standard and to build many more hundreds of thousands of homes. That is the agenda. There is a huge stock of good new homes in the pipeline.

One of the interesting things that I would say about the homes we are building in London, by the way, is that they look much better than they used to. When I became mayor, everything was being built with this horrible cladding of panelling, which gets streaky and awful. We are now insisting on London brick and it looks fantastic. If you look at the new homes going up across London with the recessed Georgian-style windows and brick, they look absolutely fantastic. I am grateful to you and to Kit [Kit Malthouse AM MP] and to many other members of the assembly who have bashed on about that because it has made a big difference to the quality of homebuilding in London.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you, Mr mayor. What impact do you think there would be of a reintroduction of your predecessor’s failed 50% affordable housing target? What would happen?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You would get the result that he did. He did not build anything like as many affordable homes because he had these ludicrous targets and in the end he was getting 50% of nothing, which, as you know, is nothing.

Andrew Boff AM: Yes. What effect would it have if you were to impose such a 50% target on bringing forward the large and the small sites that we need for development in London?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It would be prohibitive, as you rightly understand. It would just be a block on development and a block on growth. That is why we have taken the pragmatic approach that we have.

Andrew Boff AM: You rightly, Mr mayor, obsessed in your first term and second term about the size of properties and you wanted to see an end to these very tiny properties being built. What would the effect of a 50% affordable housing target be on the size of homes, bearing in mind that the real shortage in London is for family homes? I thought I would just slip family homes in there because it is no use to me saying that --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes. Thank you. We have built loads of family homes. We have a target in the London Plan, as you know, of 42% family homes per development. We have not always met that but we have built huge numbers.

I am proud not only of the better design of these homes - and I mean what I say about the brick; they look great - but also of the room sizes. We have Parker Morris plus 10%, which is a massive improvement on some of the rabbit-hutch dwellings that were being built before. That is right for Londoners. It is right for families who need to live in this city. They should not be living in crowded, cramped accommodation.

Andrew Boff AM: Would you say that the affordable housing targets were more about winning votes rather than building houses?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): They are counterproductive because what they do is they basically stop developers from going ahead with projects that might otherwise be viable and so you do not get any new housing at all and you get, as I say, 50% of nothing.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you very much, Mr mayor. Thank you, chair.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you.

Tom Copley AM: In which years did you achieve your overall London Plan housing completions target?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Thank you, Tom. We have, as you know, continually been forced to exceed or to raise our planning target and housing completions target. In 2014/15, we virtually got there. We got to 31,894 against a target of 32,210 and so that was very close. Since then the target, of course, has gone up again. Yes, it is hard to meet these targets.

What I can say is that we have comfortably met and way exceeded all of the previous mayor’s targets, which may be of some consolation to you.

Tom Copley AM: Mr mayor, as opposed to the previous mayor, who exceeded the target every year, you have never once met your London Plan target.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We have exceeded his target.

Tom Copley AM: You missed this target by more than 14,000 homes last year. In fact, the highest number of housing completions under your mayoralty came in your first year and they were, of course, homes that were started under your predecessor. You have never achieved the level of housing that was achieved at that point. Of course, the consequences of this failure have been unaffordable private rents, insufficient numbers of new affordable homes and first-time buyers priced out of home ownership, as we have already heard.

In reality, over the course of your eight years in office, is it not the case that you have managed to turn the 2008 housing shortage into a housing crisis?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. What has happened is that the London economy has turned around and has risen to about 25% of United Kingdom gross domestic product. It is not just the powerhouse of this country but the biggest urban economy in Europe by a long way. Everybody wants to live here and we have tackled that problem by building record numbers of homes. We will have done 100,000 affordable homes --

Tom Copley AM: You have not built record numbers of homes. As I say, you have not exceeded the 29,567 homes that were completed in 2008/09, which were of course started under your predecessor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, we have. I have just told you.

Tom Copley AM: Not according to the London development database.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): My dear fellow, you seem unfortunately not to have been listening to what I have just said, uncharacteristically. I have just told you that in 2014/15 we did 31,894.

Tom Copley AM: No, you did 27,819, according to the London development database. I do not know where your figures are from or where you have magicked them up from.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We did 31,894 and that is a great credit to the housing team. Yes, of course we set very ambitious targets, but that is because the population has been growing and we had to respond to the challenge. That is what we have done.

Tom Copley AM: It is absolutely right to set ambitious targets, but of course Londoners cannot live in your ambitions. What we really need is action and --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I have exceeded the so-called ambitious targets of the previous mayor by miles. If you now want to take the opportunity to apologise for Labour’s failure to build more affordable homes, at long last, after eight years of passing this chance up, now is the moment, Tom.

Tom Copley AM: This is a prime opportunity for you to apologise for your failure over the last eight years, Mr mayor, but --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Why do you not apologise for the Labour government’s failure to build more homes in its 13 years in office?

Tom Copley AM: Why do you not listen to my next question, Mr mayor? It is this. Sadiq Khan [MP, mayoral candidate] has proposed to set up “homes for Londoners” at City Hall, which will get involved in directly commissioning and building houses. That is in his manifesto. Why over the last eight years have you not had the ambition and the foresight to set something like this up and actually get involved in the direct delivery of homes?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We have been directly overseeing the construction of more homes than ever before. We have knocked the previous Labour mayor’s targets out of the park. Indeed, we have built more every year --

Tom Copley AM: Hang on; you say the previous mayor’s targets. What about your targets, which you have failed to meet every single year?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We have knocked all of the previous years’ achievements out of the park and we have exceeded his targets. I am proud of the record of the GLA and the London housing team in what they have been doing.

Tom Copley AM: Why have you not decided to get City Hall --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look --

Tom Copley AM: Let me put it this way. Would you support getting City Hall involved directly in the commissioning and building of homes and setting up “homes for Londoners”?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): City Hall is. My dear fellow, I do not know what you have been doing here for the last few years. City Hall is directly involved. If you are suggesting that the Labour candidate for mayor is going to use his powers to build rabbit-hutch highrise dwellings all over the suburbs of London and all over the green spaces, if that is the agenda --

Tom Copley AM: I love how you say that I am suggesting something that I have never once even suggested --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You have just brought up that it --

Tom Copley AM: -- which of course is your tactic over the years, is it not? It is to malign an agenda that was never brought forth, Mr mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): He obviously has access to some new supply of land that we do not know of. What is it? Where is it going to be? We are developing all of the brownfield sites. That is going ahead at a terrific rate. I would like to know where these new sites are. I think most Londoners listening to you will have a terrible suspicion that the intention of the Labour party is to build on the green belt, to build on garden spaces in outer London --

Tom Copley AM: I can say, Mr mayor, once again, scaremongering, implying an agenda that does not exist. Sadiq Khan has ruled out building on the green belt, as you know.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I remember a Labour environment secretary who said, “The green belt is a Labour achievement and we mean to build on it”. That was what he said.

Tom Copley AM: John Prescott is not running for mayor, Mr mayor.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK.

Nicky Gavron AM: Are you concerned that the government’s proposed redefinition of affordable housing will result in fewer numbers of existing affordable housing products being built in London?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, Nicky, I am very much in favour of a mixture of tenures and that is why, in addition to social rent, I support the creation of homes that are part buy/part rent. That is why the whole project of the First Steps scheme has been a good one. More than 90% of Londoners, when asked, if given the chance, would like to own a bit of their home at least. It is only fair where we can to try to help them onto the property ladder and 52,000 have been helped through First Steps. That is a great thing.

Nicky Gavron AM: Yes. Your government has just redefined ‘affordable housing’ to make it almost meaningless. It means that in the definition houses that are unaffordable are now deemed affordable. Let us just take starter homes. I am not quite clear if you were talking about that at the end of what you just said, but now --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, I was not. I was talking about part buy, part rent.

Nicky Gavron AM: -- unlike actual affordable housing, there is no income threshold. You can be under 40 but you could be a millionaire. Actual affordable housing is very different from that. As Shelter has pointed out, you really do need a household income of about £77,000 and a deposit of about £100,000 in order to buy one of these starter homes and that is even with the discount. It has also pointed out that ordinary families with an average income can afford starter homes in only three London boroughs and nobody on the “national living wage” can afford a starter home anywhere in London.

I just want to put it to you. These starter homes, Boris, are not affordable, are they?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The prime minister has said that he wants starter homes in London to be priced within £150,000 to £200,000 and I have to say that that is a fine idea and I would certainly support that.

Perhaps unusually, Nicky, I am going to agree with some of the thrust of what you are saying because the part buy/part rent schemes are very good and, if you pushed me, I would say that we have to avoid having the starter homes programme, which is also very good, conflict with that objective. Basically, the part buy, part rent schemes can reach people that probably the starter homes scheme cannot. There will be a lot of overlap, but the part buy/part rent schemes can help people who have a median deposit of perhaps £20,000 as opposed to, you say, £100,000 - but it is actually probably more like £70,000 - and a median income, as I recall, of £37,000 per household for the First Steps. I am --

Nicky Gavron AM: You are meeting me?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- reaching out to you here, Nicky. What I am saying is, look, what you are saying is not wholly wrong and there is an issue. London has particular circumstances. I think the part buy, part rent approach is better.

Nicky Gavron AM: Fine. Thank you for that, mayor. Thank you for that. This is interesting because, actually, you are on the record as responding to my written question, “Do you think that the definition is too broad?” You have said that you do not agree that it is too broad and --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, I must be clear. Starter homes are a great thing, too. I am just concerned that too much of the emphasis in London could be on those rather than on the part buy, part rent schemes.

Nicky Gavron AM: Can I just go on? I just --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Starter homes are a fantastic thing for families and --

Nicky Gavron AM: You said, “I am agreeing with you in some way”?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The question is whether we are going to be able to do them in a way that is going to be genuinely affordable for Londoners and that is the question.

Nicky Gavron AM: Yes. Can I just move on a minute? Apart from them being unaffordable for Londoners, which you are actually meeting me on, apart from that--

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Well, it depends what the price is.

Nicky Gavron AM: Hang on. Let me just ask the question. Apart from that, they squeeze out other products. This is what is really interesting. The government’s own equality statement has said that there will be less social housing for rent, less affordable --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Less affordable rent than --

Nicky Gavron AM: Listen. Just listen to me. There will be less affordable housing for rent and less part rent, part buy, which you have just been talking about. I just want to ask you. How can you and your government support a policy that the government’s own equality statements says will squeeze out affordable housing?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I understand. I understand completely what you are saying and I am giving you my opinion as mayor, which is my view as mayor and it is the view of my housing team and it is the view of Eddie [Sir Edward Lister, chief of staff and deputy mayor for planning and policy] and lots of people who study all of this very closely. I am concerned. Part buy, part rent - and I have seen how those schemes are working - is fantastic.

Nicky Gavron AM: What have you done about the fact that starter homes are unaffordable and are going to squeeze out not just part rent/part buy, which you have been talking about a lot, but also affordable rent and social rent?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We are continuing to make the case to the government that what we need in London is --

Nicky Gavron AM: What are you doing about it?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We are making the case to the government, if I may say so, that what we need in London is a mixture of tenures and it would be a shame, to echo your words exactly, if a great model - part buy, part rent - was squeezed out by the starter homes initiative. I like starter homes. I like the idea. If you can do them at that sort of price, £200,000, it is a fantastic thing. However, there must be a concern that --

Nicky Gavron AM: You do not think they should be in the “affordable” category, then?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- the funds available will go on those, which will by and large probably not reach the same income groups as the part buy, part rent schemes. That is my concern and I hope that you do not mind me agreeing with you a little bit, if you can bear it.

Nicky Gavron AM: You are partially agreeing.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. Can we move on from this love-in, then, and go to the next question?

Joanne McCartney AM: Since 2008/09 - sanction detection rates have fallen by 6% across London. Why is this?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Thanks, Joanne. The crucial thing, obviously, is that sanction detection rates are important but crime overall is well down. It is down by about 18% since I was elected. That is 155,177 fewer offences per year. That is very important for people who are victims of crime in this city. It is a great reduction in crime. Homicide is well down. Many offences are substantially down.

Sanction detections are proving a tougher nut to crack and that is partly because, when crime comes down substantially, it may be that you are left trying to clear up the more difficult crimes committed by more professional criminals.

It is also the case that we have moved away from [crimes] “taken into consideration”, which Tony [Tony Arbour AM] has raised so often in the past and which - let us be honest - the police were sometimes using as a way of clearing up crimes and sanction detections when I am not 100% sure that those crimes had really been taken up. They would say, “You have been nicked for this. Would you like to confess to this, this, this and this in return for some sort of understanding?” The criminal would say, “Yes”, and all of those crimes are mysteriously cleared up. You have to have some doubt about whether that has really taken place and whether he or she is really guilty of those crimes. We have moved away from that and we are not doing that anymore. That may partly account for the difficulty in increasing sanction detections as well.

Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you. When I last asked you about this a couple of years ago, you did say that we want to see an improvement in sanction detections. Sanction detections - police solving crimes - are surely a good marker as to whether the police force under your watch has been effective. We have seen that when you came into office sanction detections were running at just over 26% and so a quarter of crimes were, in effect, being solved and now it is down to below 19%. That is quite a remarkable drop. If we look at the range of offences --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It is 20%.

Joanne McCartney AM: Just under 19% is the latest figure that has been recently uploaded to your own datastore. If we look at the range of offences, there has been a significant reduction. Rape sanction detections have gone from 33% to 12%, violent crime from 37% to 23%, drugs from 94% to 67%, burglary from 13% to just under 6% and robbery from 16% to 10%. There are some quite significant drops. I accept that in some categories there are issues but the downward trend is there, which does give me concern. It gives me concern particularly because, compared to our most similar police forces, the MPS is languishing at the bottom.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, I am not going to pretend that I am happy about the sanction detection rates, but the most important thing is that fewer people by far are victims of crime. That is one of the reasons --

Joanne McCartney AM: Victims want those crimes solved.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Of course, but there are many fewer victims and many fewer crimes and that is the key thing and is the real sign of a successful police force. Yes, we are working on all sorts of things to improve detective work. We are rolling out 20,000 body-worn cameras. Every police officer, virtually, on the beat will have a body-worn camera. That will greatly improve the sanction detection rates of some crimes.

Joanne McCartney AM: We support that, Mr mayor. That will be important as well. Do you not think that part of this is because we now have almost 4,000 fewer police uniforms on the street than when you were first elected with cuts to police officers and police community support officers?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No.

Joanne McCartney AM: Recently, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said that the MPS requires improvements in its crime investigations. It particularly highlighted the lack of basic equipment and the MPS being almost 800 detectives short of where it needs to be.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, that is unfair in the sense that there has been a massive decrease in crimes of all types of 18% overall.

Joanne McCartney AM: The crimes being committed are not being solved, Mr mayor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Robbery is down 41%, burglary 25%, theft of a motor vehicle 34%, theft from a motor vehicle 41% and criminal damage 38%. There has also been huge falls in antisocial behaviour and --

Joanne McCartney AM: Mr mayor, if crime is down overall, you would expect the police to be able to put more effort into solving it and they are not.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I understand. The difficulty is that it is the percentage of the remaining crimes that are cleared up. Part of the reason is the move away from TICs. Also, it is possible that, for instance, when you have huge falls in something like burglary, the remaining burglars that are operational are likely to be the ones that it is most difficult to catch, if you see what I mean. That is --

Joanne McCartney AM: I do not think I am going to get any further. Thank you.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is more to be done in this area, Joanne, and I have outlined some of the ways that we are doing it. The MPS has a first-class detective service and we try to reassure victims of crime that their crimes will be tackled seriously and professionally. Do not forget that anybody who is a victim of crime in this city gets a visit from a police officer.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Badenoch?

Kemi Badenoch AM: Thank you, chair. Mr mayor, is it not right that the Home Office has said that sanction detection is not the best way to measure police performance and that the numbers we get should be interpreted with care? Rates have fallen because of more accurate recording of crime and a crime could be considered solved even when a detection is not made. Is this not just scaremongering by the opposition members?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It is, a little bit. I have made the point about crimes and TICs. There was a bit of an epidemic of those at one stage and they were greatly flattering the figures. We believe in properly clearing up crimes. The acid test of a successful police force is whether it is bringing down crime overall and that is what the MPS has done.

Kemi Badenoch AM: Absolutely. Is this not a good time to remind members on the opposite side that London has become one of the safest global cities and you have stuck to your commitment to keep police numbers at or around 32,000?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Absolutely. We had a very good settlement in the comprehensive spending review. Police numbers are at or around 32,000. We have never had so many police constables out on the beat and I pay tribute to the MPS, to the mayor’s office for policing and crim, to Stephen Greenhalgh [deputy mayor for policing and crime] and to everybody involved in that effort. It is one of the great successes and it is one of the reasons why London is so economically successful. It is a very safe city. People just come here in the knowledge that it is safe.

Kemi Badenoch AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Dismore?

Andrew Dismore AM: Thank you, chair. At a previous MQT, you said you would look into the proposal from a Hampstead resident, Ms Learmond-Criqui - who is the chair of the local ward panel and coincidentally also the chair of the local Conservative party - for a crowdfunded police buy-one-get-one-free deal for Hampstead, but apparently no formal proposal has been made by her or any other community group. Do you find it a bit surprising --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): By whom?

Andrew Dismore AM: By Ms Learmond-Criqui, who is the chair of the neighbourhood panel. She has made a lot of fuss about this idea. Do you find it surprising --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Are you for her or against her?

Andrew Dismore AM: Do you find it surprising that there has been no formal proposal made to the MPS about this?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I have to say, Andrew, that I am not quite certain of the point of your question. Look, I am --

Andrew Dismore AM: It is a simple question. Do you find it surprising that, after all the fuss, there has been no proposal for it?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Look, I was not aware of that much fuss, to be honest. I see that we are clearing the room with this question. If there is a proposal put forward, I would be very happy to look at it.

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. You said that you would look at it at the time. I am surprised that you do not know about it because it has been on the television and in every local paper there has been. Anyway, even so, in the three Hampstead wards there have been 250 burglaries in the last 12 months. The rate of domestic burglary in Frognal and Fitzjohns is 48%, higher than the London average. In Hampstead Town, there has been a 64% rise in personal robbery offences and a 48% rise in violence against the person. Only last month there were two extremely violent attacks on women in the street in Hampstead. Both women were attacked, strangled and robbed. The fact is that since 2010 in Camden you have cut 321 uniformed officers and also closed Hampstead police station.

There is a real lack of faith in local policing under your stewardship in Hampstead, is there not, and it is down to you --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. I have to say that I find with your whole direction of travel in this question you veer widely. First of all, you say that there is a plan to crowdsource more [buy-one-get-one-free] police officers. Then you say that it is not happening. Now you launch a general complaint about crime levels in Hampstead and in Camden. Actually, overall, crime is down in both areas and --

Andrew Dismore AM: It is not as far as the residents are concerned. If you look at what has happened in the last 12 months, it is not the case is it?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- burglary is well down over the last eight years across both areas. Look, in all humility, Andrew, if there is something that needs to be addressed in Hampstead, I will take it up with MPS, with the borough Commander and with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe [QPM, commissioner of police of the metropolis] and we will have a look at the figures that you cite. However, the data I have is that overall crime is well down across the area.

Andrew Dismore AM: Obviously you do not read the papers, do you?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do read the papers, but I have to say that I was unaware of the -- I do not know whether you are in favour of this initiative or not? Are you in favour of this crowdsourced --

Andrew Dismore AM: It is a great proposal, is it not?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- police officer organised by this local Conservative --

Andrew Dismore AM: That is the whole point. She has made a lot of fuss about it but you have not put forward a proposal.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Why do you not put forward a proposal? There you are. What is the point of you? You can do it. You can take her idea and run with it.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK, Mr mayor --

Andrew Dismore AM: As the local borough commander thinks it is a stupid idea, probably not.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Sorry. Let us move on. You would think by now that you would know that it is the Members who ask you questions --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am very sorry, Jennette.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): -- not the other way around. Let us move on.

Richard Tracey AM: What changes would TfL make if it gained control of London’s mainline rail?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, thank you very much, Dick, and thanks for all your support over the years on transport issues and particularly on river transport where you have played a historic role in doubling river traffic - more than doubling, actually - in this mayoralty.

This is a breakthrough for London. The overground rail stuff is going to be superb. It is a historic thing. The only risk is a Labour mayoralty with the current policy of cutting £2m from TfL budget, which will make it difficult for us, yes, because we need to invest in this stuff. If we are going to make this work, it is a massive opportunity for us to invest in overground rail and to bring it up to the standards we want with higher frequency, cleaner stations, better trains and better signalling.

I was on Southeastern the other day. Southeastern is unbelievable. Tercermundista, as we say. It is just ... Anyway, the sooner that is improved and the sooner that is taken over the better, but it would be fatal to take £2bn out of our investment pot to help with these improvements.

Richard Tracey AM: It is undoubted that a black hole like that would be no help at all. It is interesting that you have just mentioned Southeastern. The statistics we had recently would show that TfL rail and the overground, also run by TfL, have half the level of complaints that Thameslink, South West Trains and - this one that you seem to think is particularly notorious - Southeastern. Half the number of complaints has to be an indication, surely, of TfL getting things right and the train operating companies getting things far from right.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes. Actually, it is the one thing that everybody agrees with. The point about suburban rail in London is that everybody assumes that we are responsible and yet we are not. We cannot control it.

However, if you give TfL the ability to set the timetables and to manage the trains, you will get that ethos. If you put the roundel on those stations and if you put the roundel on those trains, people will know that it is the mayoralty and City Hall that is accountable and that it will be the mayor’s butt that gets kicked if it does not work. That will be a massive incentive to drive up performance. I am very glad that we are moving down that track.

Richard Tracey AM: With the population predicted to grow so rapidly over the next 15 years, is a TfL takeover of the suburban rail services going to mean that there will be more services on the line, more regular trains and longer trains? Is that a realistic prospect?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, it is, provided we have the investment budget to do it.

Richard Tracey AM: Do you think that the timetabling would allow for more trains to run in the same way as they do on the upgraded underground?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, because if you improve the signalling you can get more trains on the network. The plan is to have a proper turn-up-and-go metro-style service across large parts of suburban London and that will really boost economic activity.

Richard Tracey AM: Is it also going to mean that there will be more staff available to help passengers in the concourses and on the platforms than we can see currently on the mainline services?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Absolutely. One of the differences between Network Rail and TfL is that it has very old-fashioned working practices. It still has guards on its trains. TfL moved away from that a while ago and we have been able to get staff where the passengers need them. That is helping them on the platforms.

Richard Tracey AM: We can realistically hope for this prospect over the next, what, five to ten years?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): A lot of these franchises are coming up in the next five years or so.

Richard Tracey AM: Yes, unless, of course, there is a £1.9bn black hole in the finances and the whole thing would grind to a halt.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It would be tragic. This has been agreed and this is a great agenda for London, but it depends on government support. It depends on the Department for Transport knowing and having the confidence that TfL is going to invest. How can it have that confidence if we have a £1.9bn black hole in the budget?

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. Before I call the next member, can I recognise the pupils from Annunciation Primary School from Burnt Oak? We thank them for being with us this morning. We are sorry that we did not have any seats in the gallery, but you have been great. We see you have your high-vis on. Thank you for being with us this morning. Thank you.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Good morning.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Shawcross?

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Thank you very much, chair. You mentioned there the proposal by Sadiq Khan to freeze the fares over the next four years if he is elected. I was hoping to find some illumination in this debate between our two parties on the fares issue and this so-called £1.9bn in the business plan.

The business plan was published yesterday, and it is somewhat of a feng shui business plan inasmuch as there are quite a lot of holes and wind blowing through it. There is one page of very, very limited information about financial issues over the next five years and the only thing that one can deduce from that - it is a very limited piece of information and I have one sheet here - is that over the five-year period to 2021 the total take on fares would go up under these not-explained proposals by 38%. Would you like to confirm for me, Mr mayor, how much of that 38% increase in the fare take would in fact be from fare rises?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): This is a matter for the future mayor, and he or she has committed himself or herself to a real-terms freeze, as I understand it, in his or her fare policy. The Labour candidate has at least. The Conservative candidate, Zac Goldsmith [MP for Richmond Park], is rightly going to take advice from TfL. We had a lengthy conversation about this with Mike Brown [Mike Brown MVO, commissioner of TfL] only a few weeks ago at which you were present and Mike was categorical that it would cost a huge wodge of £1.9bn --

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: No, he was not, chair.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- out of TfL’s budget. You cannot magic money out of nothing. I will tell you something very seriously. If you have an irresponsible fares policy in London, the Treasury will not ride to the rescue. You will be starving Londoners of cash and it would be a disaster.

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Mr mayor, in the same way that you say we cannot magic money from nowhere, we cannot magic information from nowhere. In here, the only thing we are told about the fares is that the fare revenue would go up from £4.8bn in 2016 to £6.6bn in 2020. What you do not say in here is what the retail price index is going to be, what the plussage is going to be or what the percentage is going to be of that money that you would see coming from fare increases.

Would Londoners be expecting to pay a 38% increase in their fares over that period or are there some other assumptions and would you like to explain them?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We have kept fares at RPI for the last two or three years. That is a sensible thing to do. It is the Labour party’s policy to break away from that and to freeze fares in real terms in an attempt to get elected, which is what it traditionally does. You will then have to whack fares up vertiginously afterwards because the Treasury will simply not accept it and you will take £2bn out of TfL’s budget. If you do that, you will not able to invest --

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: You may say that, but why does this business plan not give any of that information? Did you sign this business plan off?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): This is a TfL business plan and I am very pleased that it has produced it, and you will recall --

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Did you edit out the 12 pages of financial data over the next five years that we would normally expect to have --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No. Of course not. No.

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: -- in favour of this light-touch, feng shui budget approach?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You have had ample opportunity at transport questions with Mike Brown and with me to go over this Val, and TfL will be absolutely categorical. Most people can understand the difference between freezing fares in real terms and having a sensible fares policy. If you do what your candidate is proposing to do --

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Mr mayor, I would have loved to have asked a question at the transport committee about this.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- which is a return to “Livingstonery”, it will simply mean that you hold them down one year and then whack them up by record amounts the next year because you have the deluded idea that somehow you can get money from nowhere. I can tell you that the Treasury will not ride to the rescue. What will happen is that you will have to cut valuable upgrades.

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Mr mayor, I would have loved to have asked the commissioner about this at either a previous MQT or the transport committee. However, you deferred the publication of the business plan from November 2015, when it normally comes out, to after all the transport committees had finished. It does suggest to me that along with the disappearance of several pages of financial data that we would normally expect - and five months have also disappeared - either you do not know the answer to the question or you have something to hide.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do know the answer. The answer to the question is: do not vote Labour.

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: I will leave it there, chair.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The answer to the question is: do not vote for a massive black hole in TfL’s finances. That is my advice.

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Shall I call this a ‘white hole’, then, Mr mayor?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Cleverly?

James Cleverly AM MP: Thank you, Madam chair. Mr mayor, how much information did you get about the proposals to close the £1.9bn black hole in the fares box from the Labour party’s alternative budget proposal?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): The Labour party’s alternative budget proposal was going to explain how they were going to do it.

James Cleverly AM MP: That is right.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Where is the Labour party’s alternative budget? I seem to remember --

James Cleverly AM MP: Mr mayor, you will forgive me because my memory is not what it was and I am struggling to remember the passage in that tome that outlined how they are going to fill that £1.9bn number.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I am sure it is somewhere. Has anybody seen the Labour party’s alternative transport budget proposal? Where are they? I hesitate to intrude on private grief but, as I recall, what happened was they had some sensible proposals that they were going to make. Then the Labour candidate for mayor arrived, Mr Sadiq Khan, and tore them up and said that he did not like their proposals and they decided - rightly, I may say, and I defend the sovereignty of the Labour Assembly just as I defend the sovereignty of the House of Commons - that they were not going to take this and, therefore, they did not produce any proposals at all. They sit there in infantile aphasia, unable to comment, with nothing to say.

James Cleverly AM MP: Mr mayor, when I look across this chamber I see people who, whilst we have had disagreements over the past, must be regarded as some of the most thoughtful and experienced people in London politics and I include Val Shawcross AM in this. There are no two ways about it: there are very few people around this chamber who know more about London transport policy and costs than Val Shawcross and she will remind us about it, without a shadow of a doubt.

Do you think it is inappropriate that some Johnny-come-lately candidate, who clearly knows nothing about transport policy, ignores the wise counsel of the very people upon whom he should be relying?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do think it is very, very sad.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): No, we have moved away from the topic of mainline rail.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): She does not like the way it is going.

James Cleverly AM MP: I will accept the wise counsel of the chair.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): She does not like the way it is going.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Boff?

James Cleverly AM MP: Unlike the mayoral candidate.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Sorry. Andrew?

Andrew Boff AM: Mr mayor, I am sure we are all indebted to mayorwatch.co.uk, the absolute go-to place for anyone who is interested in London government, for informing us that TfL intends to double the allocation to step-free access on the Tube --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): To 250.

Andrew Boff AM: -- which is something I asked you to concentrate on last time we met with the transport commissioner, and it now appears to have been done. Do you think that the Labour party’s obsession with distracting us by talking about interior decoration has something to do with trying to distract us from their candidate’s plans to threaten the kind of investment that will deliver an increase in step-free access in London?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Of course that is right. From memory, we have gone up from £750m to £150m in the programme. I think that is what I saw. That is fantastic. Of course, the tragedy is that he is not really their candidate. They wanted Tessa [Tessa Jowell, former mayoral candidate] and, quite rightly, they have Sadiq Khan instead and they are really struggling to make sense of it.

Andrew Boff AM: Do you think that Londoners would be delighted - none of us like paying fares; none of us like paying stuff out - to know that the fare income that they generate and they are paying for actually goes into making our transport system more accessible for disabled people?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I think that people do understand. We have tried to bear down on fares as much as possible. We have kept them at RPI for the last few years. That is reasonable and sensible. Londoners resent paying high fares and I totally understand that. We do have huge numbers of concessions.

However, if you cut into the fares box, you cannot do the things that Londoners want. You cannot invest in step-free access or upgrades of Bank station or the subsurface lines. You cannot do everything. To take £2bn out is a lot.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you, Mr mayor. Thank you, chair.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you. Assembly member Malthouse?

Kit Malthouse AM MP: Thank you, chair. On the subject of step-free access, within the very welcome doubling of the allocation is there any money to bring step-free access to South Kensington, which, as you know, gets more people through it every year than Gatwick Airport and yet is inaccessible to large proportions of the population?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Kit, I cannot rule it out, and I congratulate you on your indefatigable representation of your constituents on this point over eight years, both in Andover and here.

Kit Malthouse AM MP: No or yes?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, it is not. No, it is not a ‘no’. As you know, the issue with South Kensington is that there is an equation about the development. That has to be acceptable to local people and that will help to fund the step-free access.

Kit Malthouse AM MP: Do you accept that for some reason South Kensington is being treated in a different way to other tube stations in that the step-free access is being made consequent upon development, whereas other tube stations are getting step-free access for free without having to take on any development?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We think - and I am sure you would agree - that some development is reasonable on that site.

Kit Malthouse AM MP: The issue is that I do not think the two should be linked.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Then I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you. There you go.

Kit Malthouse AM MP: I take your congratulations. It is very sad after eight years not to have made any progress whatsoever, but there we are. I have tried.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): OK. Can I just welcome pupils from George Mitchell primary school? Can you give us a wave? Thank you. You are from the glorious borough of Waltham Forest, which I have the pleasure to represent.

Can I also just add to what assembly member Boff has just said and welcome to the chamber Martin Hoscik [journalist, MayorWatch]? I would agree with assembly member Boff that his site has been the go-to place for all that has happened over the last eight years here.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Hear, hear.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Thank you.

Jenny Jones AM: 16 years.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Sixteen? The man deserves a medal. Let us then move to the next question.

Andrew Dismore AM: Which do you consider to be your more important legacy, the Orbit Tower or the cable car?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It is like asking a tigress to choose between her cubs. It is impossible to distinguish between these two historic monuments on the London skyline. I am very proud of what has happened in the Olympic Park generally. I am very proud of what has happened in transport generally. We have had the biggest investment in transport this city has ever seen: the first extension of the tube for 15 years, Crossrail on time and on budget, phenomenal improvements in the tube, brilliant new buses everywhere. I am very proud of what has happened with London.

If you ask me to choose between the ArcelorMittal Orbit and the Emirates Air Line, giving them their correct appellations, I refuse. They are both worth visiting in their own right.

Andrew Dismore AM: Let us look at your legacy, shall we? The Orbit: £19.1m original cost, including not the originally announced £6m loan but £10.6m. It is losing £10,000 a week. You are now planning to reinforce failure with a slide that is going to cost an extra £3.5m to build to taxpayers, but it is going to cost them £17 to have a go on it.

We have had no answers to the 14 detailed questions that I put at the London Legacy Development Corporation’s primary, followed up by letter a couple of weeks ago, about the finances, including very basic ones like: What is the interest rate? By how much a year is the loan growing? Is the loan subject to compound interest? Let’s look at the cable car, it was initially intended to be privately funded with a budget of £25m, but that doubled to £63m. You had to be bailed out by the EU, of all people. The EU had to bail you out; £9.7m.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes, and we got all of our money back. We got our money back.

Andrew Dismore AM: You signed a dodgy deal.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): If they want to give me £8m for the cable car, I am not going to say no.

Andrew Dismore AM: You signed a dodgy deal with Emirates and the banned TfL deals with Israeli businesses, until I challenged you on it. The cable car carries hardly any commuters, now registering zero regular --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Rubbish. You are talking miserable, negative --

Andrew Dismore AM: In Time Out last week they wrote

“In news that’s set to cause major travel disruption for at least six or seven people, we’ve just heard that the Emirates Air Line cable car is going to be closed all week ... there’s the knock-on effect for nearby tube lines and bus routes, some of which could have to cope with up to three more passengers an hour, as stricken cable car users seek alternative routes.”

That is your legacy, is it not? You are not one for ever seeing the details, are you, Boris? You are not one for ever seeing the details.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Do you know that the Emirates Air Line cable car has already taken 6.4 million passengers? I went past it the other day and it was absolutely rammed with people. It was. It was fantastic. I had to use City Airport the other day and it was looking fantastic. My father took his grandchildren on it the other day and they had an absolutely fantastic time.

Andrew Dismore AM: Let us look at your legacy, Boris.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): This is the complete negativity of these guys. For the cable car, to the best of my knowledge, we had £36m of private sponsorship.

Andrew Dismore AM: How many million from the public?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): We had £8m, I am delighted to say, from the EU, which might otherwise have gone on Potemkin olive groves in Greece and --

Andrew Dismore AM: Let us look at your legacy, shall we? The question is about your legacy. Let us look at it. Yesterday --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- I am thrilled that we got some of our money back. Can I just finish my point?

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): No, let us just have a little bit of order.

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. Let me ask the next question.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Dismore?

Andrew Dismore AM: Thank you. Yesterday in the Evening Standard, Simon Jenkins [journalist] wrote of your legacy that you “have been nothing but the lackey of London’s developer lobby”, and on 9 March 2016 The Times reported as you having said you wanted your legacy for London to be more Edwardian. You said, “If you cannot turn the clock back to 1904, what is the point of being a Conservative?”

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Can I explain for the benefit of --

Andrew Dismore AM: I do not think you meant the 1904 of the Entente Cordiale treaty with France, did you?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Shall I teach you what happened in 1904? Two points.

Andrew Dismore AM: It was that or the Aliens Act. The 1904 of no rights for working people; the 1904 of country house shooting parties and accompanying infidelities for the aristocratic rich, but grinding poverty for the poor with no pensions and no support for the disabled, like you voted for last week; the 1904 of only householders having the vote --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You know perfectly well --

Andrew Dismore AM: -- only one in six people, like the way you have knocked tens of thousands off the voting register in London; the 1904 of Charles Booth, the survey of The Life and Labour of the People in London and his London poverty maps, as your housing crisis gets ever worse. That is the 1904 you are after. You are the man who wants to be prime minister. Britain, watch out.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I admire your obfuscation of what I in fact said, which was that in 1904 the cycling journeys in London accounted for 20% of the traffic on the roads and I thought that was a good thing and we want to increase cycling in London and try, if we can, to get back to those levels, which would be a fine thing. Cycling has more or less doubled under this mayoral term. We can be very proud of that. Also, deaths from cycling and injuries of cyclists have radically diminished, and that is incredibly important to me and important to the whole of London.

On the cable car, it is just worth reminding you that it makes money and it has already accumulated a surplus of £1m, and it is the only piece of transport infrastructure that is going to cover both its capital and its revenue costs. It is a triumph. As for the ArcelorMittal Orbit. It is one of the reasons we have had 9.3 million visitors to the Olympic Park.

There was a brilliant piece in The Wall Street Journal the other day pointing out that the London Olympics are the only Olympics in modern memory to have delivered a massive, concrete, physical legacy in urban regeneration. No other city has achieved it. It is absolutely stunning to see what is happening in that part of London and it is nothing to do with the previous mayor, who has not been here for eight years, as far as I can remember.

Jenny Jones AM: Why are you still talking about him, then?

Murad Qureshi AM: He is obsessed.

Jenny Jones AM: Obsessed.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, I was being heckled. The answer is I was being heckled by --

Darren Johnson AM: He has lost concentration now.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Who?

Tom Copley AM: You.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Why?

Tom Copley AM(?): Because you have.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I have not lost concentration.

[Break from the transcript]

Murad Qureshi AM: Mr mayor, you continuously sound like a Volkswagen car salesman trying to fix the emissions tests in vehicles before they got on the floor.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): On the contrary, our standards are authentic.

Murad Qureshi AM: Also, can I correct you? You have mixed up NOx with nitrous oxides.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): By the way, since you mention it, one of the reasons for the problems that we have had was that it was the EU standards. It was. It was Euro 4 and Euro 5, which it said would deliver certain results. We relied on the EU approach. It was a total shambles. It was doing exactly what VW was doing. The test results in its test circuits were completely different from the results on the roads and vehicles were not able to achieve the emission standard required. It was a total fiasco. We would have been much better renationalising it and doing the test ourselves.

Murad Qureshi AM: Mr mayor, as my final comment on this, I for one am grateful for the environment directive on air pollution from Europe and I think many Londoners are. There was a poll yesterday quoted in the Evening Standard where 75% of Londoners would welcome legal action. We do not need to go that far but the evidence during your time in the mayoralty has shown that it has grown as a problem.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, it has not grown as a problem.

Murad Qureshi AM: There has been an absolutely scandal.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): That is rhubarb. It has not.

Murad Qureshi AM: People like King’s College --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): No, what has happened is it has gone up the political agenda. That is certainly true.

Murad Qureshi AM: You are quoting stuff from computer-generated things, not from real life stuff --

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): It has certainly gone up the political agenda.

Murad Qureshi AM: -- and shown a difference there.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): There have been massive improvements in air quality. It is good that it has gone up the political agenda. It is a very important issue. The problem has not grown; the problem has diminished.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Tracey?

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you. Mr mayor, do you regret that the last Labour government encouraged people to buy diesel cars? It was in fact Mr Ed Miliband, who was the energy secretary. Do you think that that has had an effect on the pollution levels in London?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): I do. People were absolutely ripped off by the whole thing. The dieselisation of the fleet was a huge mistake. Labour should apologise, obviously, for what it did and the mistake that it made. There you go. You had two things coming together: you had the Euro standards, which totally failed to deliver the results that were claimed, and you had a policy of dieselisation. We are moving away from that rapidly and you are seeing good results in London’s air quality.

Richard Tracey AM: You, of course, have made various remarks about the age of diesel taxes. You have also encouraged the introduction of hybrid buses - the new Routemaster being one - and I read today that we are going to see the prospect of an electric double-decker bus in London.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): There is one already. It is on the streets.

Richard Tracey AM: Is that right? It is operating, is it?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Yes. Absolutely. It is there. I overtook it on my bike. Obviously, it was moving quite fast.

Richard Tracey AM: Of course we have hydrogen fuel cells, as I am reminded by Kit Malthouse [Kit Malthouse AM MP]. Do you think that these measures you have taken - along with, of course, encouraging more people to ride bicycles - have cut the pollution levels?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): They have all helped. They all play their part. On reducing NOx, the big win is retrofitting boilers. That is where you get most of the stuff that generates the NOx but the vehicle fleet certainly helps as well. Carbon dioxide [CO2] is also well down, by the way. In spite of a 20% growth in GDP, CO2is down by 14%. That is a pretty good effort.

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Let us move to the next question.

[Break]

Stephen Knight AM: I am going to run out of time. Very briefly, let me put one more point to you, Mr mayor.

You said earlier in the session that London is the economic powerhouse not just of the UK but of Europe, but, as I have pointed out, wages have been falling faster here than anywhere else. That is particularly pertinent at the bottom end of the spectrum, where we have seen the percentage of those earning less than the living wage in London rising very quickly.

In particular, can I put a couple of figures to you that outline this very important point? In 2008, 8% of full time employees earned less than the living wage. That is now 13%, an increase of 63% in the number earning less than the living wage. In 2008, 15% of women working in London earned less than the living wage. In 2015 that figure is 24%. Almost a quarter of all women earn less than the living wage, up from 15%.

Mr mayor, you promised four years ago that Londoners would be “better off with Boris”. That was the bumper sticker quote.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): They have been, yes, in my view.

Stephen Knight AM: Mr mayor, it is hard to imagine, is it not, that Londoners could have been any worse off eight years on than they have been?

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): Unfortunately, they would have been substantially worse off because the policies that were being advocated would have led to massive underinvestment in transport. I remember that there was a plan to cut 7% from the fares budget. It would have been catastrophic for investment in this city. I do not believe that there would have been any prospect of doing the kinds of housing developments that we have done and getting in international investment to kick-start developments that had been frozen for decades. We are much better off now. This is a very successful economy.

Stephen Knight AM: It has not been successful for wage earners, has it, Mr mayor? It may have been successful for big corporate profits but not for wage earners.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): You have to accept that the downward pressure on wages is a function of the market. What is going on is, as everyone understands, unrestricted access to this market of labour that is willing to work for very low wages. That is one of the features of the EU system at the moment that is most heavily contested. We have to decide as a country --

Stephen Knight AM: It is the EU’s fault, is it?

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (chair): Assembly member Knight, you are out of time.

Boris Johnson MP (mayor of London): -- whether we want to continue with that system in that way. There is no doubt at all that when you have net migration running at hundreds of thousands more than you have predicted or social services are able to cope with, it will have a big downward pressure on wages at the bottom end of the spectrum. That is basically what has been happening.

It is quite interesting that Stuart Rose, who chairs the remain campaign, said that one of the effects of voting to leave would be that wages would go up for low-paid people in this country. That is worth meditating on. If you are able to control your immigration, you have a better chance of ensuring that people at the lower end of the spectrum get the living wage. That is what I want to see.

[top]

16th March 2016: Boris Johnson for The Telegraph: “There is no conspiracy. The EU is completely open about its superstate plan”

We make at least one fatal mistake in dealing with our beloved friends and partners in the European Union. And that is that we persist in the delusion that they do not really mean what they say.

Oh come off it, we say. It’ll never happen – it’s just the usual old windy Euro-rhetoric. I well remember how we reacted to the news that they wanted to create the euro – with a sort of benign incredulity. I have just reread former Prime Minister Sir John Major’s famous article in The Economist, in 1993, in which he poured scorn on the very text of the Maastricht Treaty: “I hope my fellow heads of state and government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union. If they do recite it, it will have all the quaintness of a rain dance, and about as much potency … The plain fact is that economic and monetary union is not realisable in the present circumstances.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/16/there-is-no-conspiracy-the-eu-is-completely-open-about-its-super/

[top]

16th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets to support Zac Goldsmith

“Folks - just 50 days left to make sure @ZacGoldsmith is elected to City Hall - not Corbyn and Khan. #BackZac2016”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/710151369299091457

[top]

17th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out on St Patrick’s Day

“Hope that everyone celebrating has a very happy #StPatricksDay”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/710452154994200578

[top]

17th March 2016: Southwark news reports on Boris Johnson’ lecture at the John Harvard Lecture

[On dismissing Garden Bridge protestors being angry only because]

“...it hasn’t been built faster.”

Source: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/boris-gives-last-public-lecture-at-old-vic/

[top]

17th March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson speaking about the night tube

[Asked if the wait for the night Tube would end in July]

“Well, that's what I'm told by TfL - towards the end of July.“

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/night-tube-london-underground-tfl-service-to-begin-in-july-boris-johnson-confirms-a6936296.html

[top]

17th March 2016: mayor gives green light on train extension

The London overground has been a huge success story, driving forward regeneration in all corners of the capital and proving incredibly popular with passengers. The unequivocal support for this extension shows what an impact the line will make to Barking, and I'm delighted that we're ready to take it forward and ensure Barking Riverside realises its full potential.

Source: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2016/march/mayor-gives-the-green-light-for-london-overground-extension-to-barking-riverside

[top]

18th March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson announces investment in colleges

As a global city attracting the very best talent, it’s only right Londoners have world-class facilities to ensure they are prepared to compete for the thousands of new jobs being created in business, tech, media and construction. I am pleased to be able to support our colleges as they prepare the next generation who will further London’s position as the best big city in the world.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-invests-further-65m-in-londons-colleges

[top]

18th March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson announces new ’social supermarkets”

When I visited the Lambeth Community Shop last year, I was struck by the range of training and skills services, making it a hugely positive resource. This funding will help boroughs kick start similar ‘social supermarket’ ventures that can really help local people on tight budgets.
I want to see more innovative schemes on our high streets that tackle food waste, help communities and offer access to a variety of good standard cheaper food.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/new-social-supermarkets-to-cut-food-poverty

[top]

20th March 2016: mayoral press release on the cost to the public health a third Heathrow runway

There is no silver bullet for the noise nightmare of a third runway at Heathrow and any approval of expansion would clearly result in decades of legal challenges. Its cramped urban location simply cannot accommodate the kind of airport this country requires to compete on the global stage and the cost to the taxpayer of necessary road and rail connections would be huge, however well disguised. That means the government has a bold decision to make - but not a difficult one. They must surely finally recognise that the only long term vision that sustains our economy and safeguards our health is to build a four runway hub airport at the Thames Estuary or Stansted.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/astonishing-cost-to-public-health-of-heathrow

[top]

20th March 2016: Boris Johnson refloats Thames Estuary airport plan

If we are to secure the connectivity we need to support our future growth and prosperity and do so without dire impacts on public health - then we must do better than Heathrow.

[Building an airport at one of two locations in the Thames Estuary or expanding Stansted in Essex] “away from populated areas“ [was the] “only credible solution“.

“Each could accommodate the four-runway hub that London and the UK needs. Our analysis predicts that they would offer around double the number of long haul and domestic destinations served by Heathrow today, while exposing 95% fewer people to significant aircraft noise. A four-runway hub to the east of London, rather than jarring with the growth of London will support it, catalysing regeneration and housing to the east.“

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35855676

[top]

21st March 2016: Boris Johnson on ITV Agenda, regarding Donald Trump

[He is] “genuinely worried“ [about the republican candidate becoming president].

“I am genuinely worried that he could become president... I was in New York and some photographers were trying to take a picture of me and a girl walked down the pavement towards me and she stopped and she said ’Gee is that Trump?’. It was one of the worst moments.“

[He also said the European Union is] “corrupt“.

“What I want Brexit to achieve is for the European Union to understand that it's not just in our country that people are really disenchanted and that across the EU people feel that the EU has got too remote and is I'm afraid in many ways corrupt. I think we should get out and do a free trade deal. It would be a convulsive shock for the rest of the EU but I think a beneficial shock.“

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12200562/Boris-Johnson-I-was-mistaken-for-Donald-Trump.html

Available on Box of Broadcasts, requiring an institutional login: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0C3173A0?bcast=121287490

[top]

21st March 2016: Boris Johnson appears on The Agenda, ITV London

Tom Bradby: So Boris, was it [Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation] about the European Union?

Boris Johnson: No I don’t think it was, I think what Ian said just now is absolutely right, I’m very sad that he went, I’ve known and admired Iain Duncan Smith for a very long time and I think it would be much better, quite frankly, if he’d stayed in and fought his point of view from within the cabinet. That’s always the best thing to do. He clearly feels very very passionately about this issue, you know he came back into politics after being leader of the party to try and promote this campaign for social justice, he wants to get people off welfare into work, and he had an obvious disagreement about the PIP [personal independence payment], and the great thing about that, of course, is that now it is pushed to one side, they got to sort that out.

But I’d have to say I think that where I part company with some of the criticism at the moment is that I do not think you can reasonably say that this government has lost touch with its mission to help all the people in this country all to be a one nation, sort of government…

TOM: Well let’s just home in on that for a second, was he…

BORIS: …because that is what some people are saying, and I totally and utterly reject that.

TOM: OK, was he right to resign? You’re saying he wasn’t, you don’t think he was right to resign.

BORIS: Well, I’m sad that he’s gone. I’m sad, and…

TOM: So, it was the wrong decision from his point of view?

BORIS: I think it’s always better, if you can, to stick with your point of view and fight for the argument within cabinet. And he has, Ian has very very strong views, as you said, for a long time about social justice. If you remember, he came back from being leader, he then went to the Easter House estate in Glasgow, he worked there, he discovered what was going on with welfare. He decided that it was holding people back, he decided it was part of the Conservatives’ mission to try and sort out these problems. It is an incredibly intricate and difficult to do. You look at something like the PIP, what you’ve got there is something which is very very valuable for huge numbers of people, but where the budget is going up and you’ve got to have some way of working out that it’s being properly spent.

TOM: So were the cuts originally proposed right or wrong?

BORIS: Well, you know, what they have decided to do now seems to me to be entirely reasonable, they’ve decided to put it to one side and have another look at it, and that seems to me to be…

Jane Moore: But why didn’t they do that in the first place?

Mariella Frostrup: It was only last week.

BORIS: …an acceptance that it wasn’t the right idea so…

JANE: But, Boris, why didn’t they do that in the first place? It’s sort of a bit like politics for dummies, you have that many advisors, to me if you are talking about an one nation country or government and you’ve got all those advisors, and you’ve got breaks for high earners at one end and then you go ”ooh, lets take money away from the disabled”, it’s a complete nonsense.

BORIS: Yes Jane, OK… and I think obviously that was what got Ian’s goat, it was that impression, and I genuinely…

JANE: And he’s been having these arguments with Osborne for years.

BORIS:… I genuinely don’t think that is what the government is all about. If you look at…

JANE: But it’s a mistake, isn’t it?

BORIS:…what they have done on the living wage, which is not coming in from next month across this country, absolutely brilliant proposal…

TOM: How did you feel the budget went generally?

BORIS:… For people on low incomes, if you look at what they’ve done for people on low incomes, if you look at what they’ve done for the unemployed, they’ve got unemployment at record lows…

JANE: No, they’ve done some great stuff, but this is a PR mistake.

BORIS:…have employment at record highs, you’ve got people not in education, employment or training at record lows, now that for me is about social justice, and I think that, you know, they deserve support.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: Come on, it [Duncan Smith’s resignation] is a storm in a teacup.

MARIELLA: I’m a slow, I’m a slow learner, Boris, but it…

BORIS: No you aren’t.

MARIELLA:… but it wouldn’t take me six years to realise that actually the cuts they are making are damaging the very poorest in society, and I think the final line of his resignation letter, where he says, you know, I’m starting to feel that we’re not all in it together, that is so damaging to the Conservative party, to new, to the new Tories, you couldn’t have thought of a more vicious thing…

JANE: Straight back to the nasty party.

MARIELLA: …to strike in. And it’s not just the chancellor it impacts on but also on the prime minister, I mean it makes that whole, you know, we’re with the people…

[BORIS STARTS TALKING OVER HER]

BORIS: Mariella I, I, I…

MARIELLA: Excuse me. Why would you do that unless it was something bigger, which is Europe?

BORIS: Unless you were very cheesed off.

TOM: OK, Boris, come to this.

BORIS: I genuinely don’t think it’s anything to do with Europe. I think that Ian, as everyone, as Rory and Jane have both agreed, he really cares about this stuff, he wants to help the poor get out of poverty traps and he…

MARIELLA: Well maybe he should join a different political party maybe.

BORIS: …He didn’t like the way the PIP thing was being done, but the great news is that it’s now been out to one side and we are going…

TOM: OK, OK, let’s move on, let’s move on.

BORIS: …to try to sort it out. Now it is my view, I have to tell you, that if you really want to help the poorest and the neediest in society, as we must, then you also have to have a strong economy and you got to manage the economy sensibly, and you got to have sensible fiscal policies…

TOM: OK, I’m going to move on and ask you about a thing specifically.

BORIS:… and if you look at the proof of the pudding…

MARIELLA: But I think it’s a problem with the contrast, isn’t it, the contrast of taking away from poor people…

TOM: OK, Mariella, hold on a second…

[ALL TALK OVER EACH OTHER]

TOM: Hold on, I want to ask you one thing. What did you make of the budget as a whole?

BORIS: Look, I’ve been very clear about it. I went on, I said it was a great budget for London, and that’s the truth.

TOM: But as a whole, you must’ve been devastated that it hasn’t gone very well for the chancellor.

MARIELLA: London though, that’s quite specific.

BORIS: I’m the mayor of London…

MARIELLA: Yes, so it’s a terrible budget for Manchester?

BORIS: No, on the contrary, it’s a great, it’s great for the whole of the country….

TOM: And do you think the budget went well? On balance?

BORIS: …It focuses on infrastructure developments of the kind this country really needs, and particularly on Crossrail 2, and on HS3 which will be transformatory. And it gives us the funds now in London to develop a most wonderful project, add tens, if not hundreds of billions to the UK economy…

TOM: OK… I get it, I get it, I get it. I think we’ve got that.

BORIS: And that by the way will be great for every people, every income group in our society, OK.

TOM: Can you characterise for us where you think the chancellor is…

BORIS: There’s nothing more liberating, nothing more liberating for poor people…

TOM: When you’re prime minister, are you going to answer the question a little more…

MARIELLA: He’s not going to be saying it’s a brilliant budget for London, is he?

TOM: When you are prime minister, you have to answer the question occasionally.

BORIS: I did answer. You asked me what I thought of the budget, and I told you.

JANE: Of course everyone is saying that this is really good news for you, because it puts you in pole position now to become prime minister.

BORIS: We have a brilliant prime minister, and that is never going to…

MARIELLA: Awww, that is so diplomatic, that’s marvellous.

BORIS: Come on, I think what people want to know is what does the budget mean for them, what are we doing to sort out the PIP problem…

TOM: And we’ve done that all week…

BORIS: …and I think although it provides fascinating copy, and all the rest of it…

[ALL TALK OVER EACH OTHER]

TOM: But finally, briefly, do you think the chancellor handled the budget well?

BORIS: Look, he’s got a… Yes I do, yes I do, because as I’ve said, I think the budget delivers some very very important things for the city I represent. It’s things we’ve tried to lead on for a long time. The devolution of business rates to great cities is of huge importance, it means we can borrow to promote growth, producing policies…

JANE: But do you think the PIP cuts, that aspect was a mistake? Do you think that was a mistake?

BORIS: I think I’ve already said very clearly that the government has decided collectively and quite rightly to take the PIP aspect of it and try to sort it out…

JANE: And try to take it out. So it was a mistake.

BORIS: …So that the burden of the cuts…

TOM: So, that’s a yes, it was a mistake.

BORIS: It’s obvious from what has happened that it was admitted as a mistake.

MARIELLA: That’s a good soundbite, it needs to go out on twitter, can you make it a bit shorter?

[ALL TALK OVER EACH OTHER]

BORIS: I don’t care about Twitter, stuff Twitter.

Rory Bremner: But its almost like there’s they’re saying, well we’ve done away with the PIP, that’s now….

BORIS: Well, I think you’ve got to ask, any political party coming into government in in 2015 would’ve been obliged to go for welfare reform, and actually the people of this country want to see welfare reform, they really do.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: Yes but I think the thing is, hang on, there’s a big big difference between Europe and the EU, and my position is Europe yes, EU no. And I have to say, you asked the question, what would it be like out, which is what you want to come to Tom, I think first of all we’d stop spending £20bn, we’d get £10bn back, net.

RORY: We don’t spend £20bn anyway.

BORIS: We’d get £10bn back, net, yes? Yes.

RORY: No, no, we’d get half of what it is, half…

BORIS: Yes, we would, secondly, yes, no, half of 20 is 10, yes?

TOM: Depends on who is doing the budget.

BORIS: We’d get back control of loads of things, Rory, that we currently have lost control of.

MARIELLA: But there’s…

[ALL TALK OVER EACH OTHER]

BORIS: I happen to think a lot of people can focus on the reality of losing control of your boarders and of your ability to determine who comes here to seek employment. That is something I think politicians should be able to control. They currently can’t control it, and people notice that. And it’s one of the reasons why people across the European Union have got quite so [unintelligible] and quite so hostile to the bureaucracies. Because we haven’t just lost power to other countries. I know, I’m rambling on.

TOM: No, no, don’t want to stop you rabbiting on, but I just want to focus. I think a lot of the audience are really hungry to have a couple of questions answered.

BORIS: Sure.

TOM: One of which is in theory, as you know, under the Lisbon Treaty we have two years to negotiate out. No one thinks it’s going to be done in two years. Let’s just begin with that. Do you think a deal would take two years, five years, 10 years, how long do you think a deal will take realistically? You’ve covered Europe, you know the EU inside out and backwards, what do you think would be…

BORIS: I don’t see why it should take very long at all, I don’t see why you couldn’t do it in under two years, there’s no reason at all why you shouldn’t do it in under two years. But don’t forget that 70% of our trade currently takes place with countries with whom we have no trade deals at all.

[ALL SPEAK AT ONCE]

TOM: Hold on a sec, hold on a sec.

MARIELLA: Iain Duncan Smith, you said that he shouldn’t resign, and that he should stick in, and that’s how decisions should be made. So why is that not the same with Europe?

BORIS: I’ll tell you why. Because unfortunately what has happened is that the EU, for reasons that have nothing to do with this country, is going in completely the wrong direction. Unfortunately, well rather fortunately, we’re no longer part of the main project of the EU, which is the euro. We took that historic decision, under the Labour party, which I think you [MARIELLA] support.

MARIELLA: That’s not a fact.

BORIS: OK, I’m sorry, I take it back then. The Labour party wisely decided not to go into the euro, and since then the EU has moved in the direction of trying to create a very tight, federal structure, with an ever more elaborate system of legislation about all sorts of things, which will inevitably impact more and more…

[ALL SPEAK AT ONCE]

TOM: I want to bring Jane Moore in, but before we get there, I want to ask you one more specific question. A lot of people want to know the single biggest factor that determines why people are thinking of voting out is, as you say, control of boarders. But you know as well as I do that Switzerland is out, applied to remove freedom of movement and push back, and the EU has said no, you have to accept freedom of movement as the price of trade deals, as does Norway, as do Iceland as part of the economic area.

Do you think, are you absolutely confident, that at the end of this deal we will be able to sign it without having to accept freedom of movement if we don’t want it?

BORIS: Yes, yes absolutely, of course, absolutely. Because Canada. for instance, has gotten rid of 97% of its tariffs with the EU, 98% I think, and there’s no freedom of movement, free movement deal with Canada at all. There’s no reason why Britain, as George Osborne said rightly on the telly the other day, what we want is a British deal. And what I think we need to do is to continue to trade freely with the rest of the European Union, the remainder of the European Union, and do all the rest of the stuff at an intergovernmental level.

JANE: So you’re going back to the table once we vote to leave.

BORIS: No, no.

[ALL SPEAK AT ONCE]

BORIS: What you go for, in my view, is a tariff free trade deal, there’s no reason at all, they’d be nuts not to do it, they have an £80bn balance for trade surplus with us, and then all the other things. I do worry a lot, I do care a lot about homeland justice cooperation, about foreign policy cooperation, that can be done on an intergovernmental level.

TOM: You always argue, the reason you want to leave the European Union is that it’s all about politics, not economics. But you also argue that their response to us leaving will be driven by economics, not by politics. I don’t get the logic of that.

BORIS: Well I don’t know whether that’s true. Their response to our leaving will be, I hope it will be, pragmatic and common sense. And what they will go for, what they will see is frankly there’s a massive difference now between their objectives and ours. They really do want to make the euro work by creating a united states of Europe. I think in the long-run that is not suited to British democratic needs or interests.

RORY: What kind of country do we want to be? Are we internationalist, outward looking, cooperative, or are we narrow-minded, isolationist little Englanders? And that’s what I think it’s about.

BORIS: Or are we global, free-trading, looking to the whole world?

[ALL SPEAK]

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: Some people on the remain campaign chose to read it [Boris’s Telegraph article] as meaning that I might want to go and renegotiate. What I want this Brexit to achieve is for the European Union to understand, and I do think it is not just in our country where you will find people who are really disenchanted. Across the EU, people feel it’s got too remote, it is in many ways, I’m afraid to say, corrupt. What needs to happen… I think we should get out and do a free trade deal, and I think it would be a convulsive shock…

JANE: So, you wouldn’t go back for a second referendum?

BORIS: …I think it would be a great shock for the rest of the EU, but I think a beneficial shock.

TOM: These deals take forever, do you have any doubts, fears about it?

BORIS: Democracy really matters. I don’t, I don’t at all.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: The tragic reality is that most people don’t know who their MEP [member of the European parliament] is because that thing has not caught on in people’s hearts.

[ALL SPEAK AT ONCE]

BORIS: Because people to not feel that the European parliament represents them in any way.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: Just, looking at all those resignations…

TOM: Did you feel like resigning?

BORIS: No, I’m stepping down anyway, so there’s not…

TOM: What are you going to miss about high office apart from the long list of your achievements?

BORIS: Thinking about this, there was nobody actually pressurising Robin Cook to resign. Of that list he was just about the only one who decided that he had to go on a point of principle, and unlike virtually everybody else, he’s been proved completely and utterly right by events, so you know, you have to, out of all those he gets the prize.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: You think he [Nick Clegg] was like the carbon rod in the nuclear reactor?

MARIELLA: Yes, absolutely.

BORIS: He stopped the whole thing from throbbing away.

MARIELLA: And now look what’s happened. I think so.

BORIS: Nah, I don’t think so, on the contrary. Well the problem is that there aren’t that many Liberal Democrats left to, I think actually of course that we’re much better off without him, but there you go.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: One of the joys of the job I’ve been doing is that it it’s impossible, virtually impossible, to get rid of me by any normal means.

TOM: Is that why you’re doing it?

BORIS: I’m totally invulnerable to any kind of backbench rebellion, or anything like that, nothing.

MARIELLA: For the moment, for now.

BORIS: Right, absolutely, yes.

TOM: What will you miss? What are you going to miss? Will you miss anything about the job?

BORIS: Ah, I’ll miss the whole thing, it’s wonderful. I do not understand why Tony Blair invented that job in the knowledge that it could be captured by a Conservative, and it’s just been the most fantastic thing and privilege to do. I think, the story of London in the last eight years has been quite an amazing thing to…

TOM: Is it really short?

BORIS: Oh well OK, in a nutshell…

TOM: You’ve got 10 seconds.

BORIS: Well in a nutshell it was going off a cliff and now it’s in a really good place.

TOM: Well there we have it.

[PAUSE AND RESTART]

BORIS: Basically, I am worried about Trump.

MARIELLA: Are you worried about Keith?

BORIS: No, I like Keith, I am genuinely worried that he could become president.

TOM: Speaking of which, we have a picture, which we need you to comment on. [shows two pictures of Boris and Trump looking similar] Is there any connection at all?

BORIS: I’ve got to tell you a terrible thing, I was in New York and some photographers would try and take some pictures of me, and a girl walked down the pavement towards me, and she stopped me, and she said: ”Gee, is that Trump?”. And it was one of the worst moments.

TOM: You think he might actually get it?

BORIS: I don’t think he will, I don’t think he will, I think that sensible middle America will row in behind the sensible alternative, which I think is Hillary.

MARIELLA: Did you just say sensible middle America? I’ve never heard those words used together.

BORIS: Well, you know I’m very pro-American.

Source: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0C3173A0?bcast=121287490

[top]

21st March 2016: Boris Johnson on ITV agenda on IDS, Personal Independence Payment cuts

“It would have been much better quite frankly if he had stayed in and fought his point of view from within the cabinet. That's always the best thing.“

“I think Iain really cares about this stuff he wants to help the poor get out of poverty traps. He didn't like the way the Personal Independence Payment [PIP] thing was being done. The great news is that PIP has been put to one side and we are going to try and sort it out. It's my view if you want to help the poorest and neediest in society which we must then you also need a strong economy and you've got to have sensible policies.”
“I think I have already said very clearly that the government has decided collectively and quite rightly to take the PIP aspect of it [the budget] and try to sort it out.“
[The London mayor said the Conservatives were still a party that intended to help] “all people“.

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/2016-03-21/ids-should-have-stayed-in-cabinet-says-boris-johnson/

[top]

22nd March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets condolences

“Shocked and saddened by events in Brussels - the thoughts of Londoners are with the victims this morning.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/712220406472699906

[top]

22nd March 2016: Churchfields Junior School publishes correspondence with mayor Boris Johnson dated 16th March

Churchfields School Council

C/o [email protected]

Our ref: MGLA030316-6582

Date: 16 MAR 2016

Dear Churchfields School Council

Thank you for your email of 2 March following your visit to City Hall.

It is always a pleasure to hear from school groups when they have enjoyed the visit and I am glad that you found it I also appreciate you taking the time to put your questions to me and my answers are below.

Why do you not want to be the Mayor of London anymore?

I am honoured that the people of London made me their Mayor in 2008 and again in 2012. I have always said this is the best job in the world, and I have been extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to do it.

However, in a vibrant global capital city such as London, I believe that it is important that the leadership role evolves and develops. In 2008, I pledged to only stand for two terms.

Does any of the London budget go to charity?

I am patron of both the Mayor’s Fund for London and the Mayor of London’s Fund for Young Musicians.

The Mayor’s Fund for London exists to give young Londoners the skills and opportunities to get a decent job and escape the threat of poverty and play a full part in London’s future.

The Mayor’s Music Fund is an independent charity providing grants of around £400,000 every year to enable thousands of children and young people across every London borough to develop their musical potential, through 4-year Scholarships and with opportunities to learn from and perform alongside professionals.

Further information about the work of these charities can be found through the following links: www .mayo rsf undforlondon.o rg.uk and
www .mayorsmusicfund.org/

What was your favourite thing about being the Mayor of London?

There are so many parts of this job that I have enjoyed – highlights include cutting council tax; revolutionising our creaking transport infrastructure; making our streets and homes safer; working with business to create over 100,000 apprenticeships for young people; and of course delivering a truly great legacy after the success of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Why is most of the budget spent on Transport for London?

Every day around 24 million journeys are made across our public transport network and our city is growing fast, so it is extremely important that income is available to reinvest to run and improve services. London needs a transport system that connects people to jobs and allows people, goods and services to move easily within and through the capital. Around 3.1 million more people – and over 1.4 million more jobs – are expected to live in Greater London by 2050. This will lead to millions more trips each day, so it is important that we have the money to keep the city moving and making sure the transport network is safe, reliable and fit for the future.

What was the most stressful part of your job as Mayor?

Being Mayor or London is a very, very difficult job and a very, very big job so it can often be stressful. However, it has been an enormous privilege.

What was the hardest decision that you ever had to make for London?

There are over eight million people living in London, making it the biggest city in western Europe. It is part of my job to make decisions that ensure that London is a safe, clean city for everyone to live in, work in and visit, and to ensure there is a great public transport system for everyone to use.

I cannot say any one decision is harder than another, but with my planning powers I get to decide which new big building projects can go ahead in the city, and these decisions can be difficult to make.

Will London have a firework display on New Year’s Eve this year?

Planning for New Year’s Eve 2016 is already underway and this will include the annual Fireworks display. I look forward to watching it.

Who would you choose as the new Mayor of London?

I hope that Zac Goldsmith MP will succeed me as Mayor of London.

What is your favourite part of the City Hall building?

One of the other loveliest parts of the capital is the view from my office window. The Tower of London, Tower Bridge, the City, Canary Wharf and the giant treble clef that is the Orbit visitor attraction in the Olympic Park. There is no better view in the world.

Do you regret any of the decisions that you have made as Mayor?

Not yet!

Thank you again for writing to me and good luck with your studies.

Yours sincerely,

Boris Johnson

Mayor of London

Source: https://churchfieldsjunior.com/mayor-of-london/

[top]

23rd March 2016: Boris Johnson gives oral evidence in the Treasury select committee on the economic and financial costs and benefits of UK membership of the EU

Q1129 Chair: Thank you very much for coming to give evidence this morning. I do not know whether to call you Boris or Mr Johnson.

Boris Johnson: Boris is fine, Mr Tyrie.

Chair: I generally call the chancellor chancellor; I suppose I could call you mayor. We used to have almost adjacent offices and I suppose I should declare that we know each other extremely well.

Boris Johnson: We do.

Chair: We used to be in and out of each other’s offices quite a lot, years ago. You represent London. What are London’s views on Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I cannot give you any particular polling detail from Londoners. I have heard that Londoners tend to be more supportive of remaining in the EU than other parts of the country. I do not consider that necessarily to be an impediment to my position, which is to favour a change in Britain’s relationship with the European Union in favour of Brexit.

Q1130 Chair: But you are not keeping an eye on the opinion polls,

Boris Johnson: No, we have a Burkean duty, Mr Tyrie.

Q1131 Chair: Are you not aware of the very recent YouGov poll showing relatively strong support for remaining in the EU?

Boris Johnson: As I say, I am aware generally of that phenomenon, but I contrast it with a national position that is showing some quite interesting data in favour of leaving. That is the right balance of the argument.

Q1132 Chair: In your professional capacity, you are looking also at the financial sector. Are you aware of what they say in surveys and in survey data?

Boris Johnson: It is very interesting. It is certainly the case that if you look at the survey data you will find people like the CBI and the British Bankers’ Association will generally tend to be quite strongly supportive of remain. A couple of points need to be entered there. They have been supportive also of going into the euro and regard it as essential, for instance, to completing the single market. It turned out to be a disastrous idea. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

It is also quite interesting when you dig into these people’s opinions. They are much less strongly held than you might suppose. Indeed, there are some very distinguished bankers who are in favour of Brexit and in favour of us getting out. I would mention Norman Blackwell of Lloyds, who made a very good speech the other day in the House of Lords, Sheila Noakes of RBS and Henry Angest, of Arbuthnot, who have all come out and said that they are in favour of us leaving. What has struck me in private conversations, as obviously I occasionally have with leading bankers about this, is how finely balanced they see it to be. Most of them will candidly say that they do not believe it will do any damage to London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre. That is the overwhelming picture I get.

Q1133 Chair: Rather than the anecdotal evidence of your meetings, are you aware of the more thorough work that has been done to try to assess the views of the very people you are talking about – the leading bankers with whom you have been conversing?

Boris Johnson: As I say, I have given some examples of at least three leading bankers who are willing to stick their heads above the parapet.

Q1134 Chair: I am asking you whether you are aware of any of the surveys that have been done.

Boris Johnson: I am aware of the gist of the surveys, Mr Tyrie, which, as I say, do show a majority in favour of remaining, but I would point out that they said that before.

Q1135 Chair: I have got the two leading surveys in front of me, one is by City UK and one is by the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation. City UK has taken the leading people in the legal profession, the banking profession and accountancy, and they split about 84% in favour, 16% against. Of course you may be right that their views are all lightly held and that could all suddenly trigger like a herd of antelope in the other direction. The Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation has polled the 400 professionals on their contact list, and they are getting slightly weaker support but still very strongly in favour. What you are getting in your anecdotal meetings does not seem consistent. The fact that you are not even aware of these does strike me as surprising.

Boris Johnson: I have said I am aware of the general thrust, Mr Tyrie. If I may say so, the same balance of opinion was heard about whether it was right for Britain to join the euro. That turned out to be a completely disastrous course of action. They were wrong then; they are wrong now. You are hearing very much the same sort of theme from the same constituency of people. I am very struck –

Q1136 Chair: You have made that point, Boris, and we have got that firmly on the record. Have you got a point that you have not made – the one that you are very struck by?

Boris Johnson: I am struck by how shallow the enthusiasm for the European Union seems to be, even among its supposed advocates.

Q1137 Chair: Yes, you have made that point as well. In your Dartford speech you quote some Open Europe analysis. I do not know whether you know you quoted some Open Europe analysis, but I did give you a warning before this meeting that we were going to take a close look at what you had said recently about Europe and that we would go through this in some detail. You say, “EU regulation costs British business £600m a week”. Have you taken a look at the methodology of that figure?

Boris Johnson: Yes, this relates to an Open Europe report that looks at the 100 most expensive EU regulations. The actual cost of EU regulation may be even higher than the Open Europe report states. £600m a week comes to about £33bn a year. Clearly, when you talk about costs like that, I imagine the point you are driving at is what the saving would be if you were to get rid of all of those regulations. Would you even contemplate getting rid of all those regulations, many of which might be beneficial and are after all incorporated into UK law, and some of which may be very helpful?

The point I would make is that there is always scope if we get out to amend and change those regulations in the interests of this country. As long as we remain in and as long as we have the 1972 European Communities Act in the way that it is currently formulated, there is absolutely no way that we can change any of that corpus of EU law. The point about EU regulation is that it flows irresistibly onwards and forwards: 2,500 more every year. Every time the EU touches some area of law, and it continually adds to the area of law that it affects and that it regards as part of its competence, that area of law and law making becomes subject to the judicial authority of the European court of justice. That is the fundamental problem.

Q1138 Chair: We will be coming back to the point about the 2,500 pieces of legislation later in the hearing, I expect. I just want to probe a little more on this £600‑million-a-week figure. You have described it as the costs of regulation.

Boris Johnson: This is an Open Europe report, as you say yourself.

Q1139 Chair: Have you taken a look at Open Europe’s own quite reasonable description of the methodology that they are using? It is quite short.

Boris Johnson: As I understand it, they have looked at the government’s own impact assessments in order to make their estimates. They are quite conservative estimates of the cost by Open Europe’s account. One of the interesting things about Open Europe is that they have been banging away for a long time in quite a Eurosceptic way but remaining, as far as I know, neutral in this debate.

Q1140 Chair: I am just asking whether you have read their own qualifications to this work.

Boris Johnson: I have a digest of the point that they make, which is that they have done it according to the government’s own impact assessments.

Q1141 Chair: Are you aware that what they have done is add up the costs in the cost-benefit analysis from the impact assessment but ignored the benefits?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I made that clear in my earlier answer.

Q1142 Chair: You are aware of that. Of course, if you add up the costs of a proposal without taking account of the benefits, you will always get a very high figure. If you were building a bridge –

Boris Johnson: As I intend to and have done – many.

Chair: – you would not want to ignore the fact that the bridge might confer some benefits, would you?

Boris Johnson: No, of course not. Can I complete the point?

Q1143 Chair: Have you had a look at the costs?

Boris Johnson: Open Europe has something quite interesting to say about the benefits, since you mention the benefits.

Q1144 Chair: Order, order. Have you had a look, Boris, at the full list of costs and benefits of the measures that they are using to arrive at this number?

Boris Johnson: I did look down the list. You talk of the benefits, Mr Tyrie. It is quite interesting that Open Europe themselves say that 95% of these benefits have not in fact materialised. This seems to me to be a consideration you might take into account.

Q1145 Chair: They have not said that. They have said that the full benefits are very difficult to quantify, which is not quite the same thing. They are making the perfectly reasonable point that a regulation may confer a heavy cost on a small group but a much broader and much more difficult to quantify benefit on a larger group, for example a regulation that might reduce consumer detriment.

Boris Johnson: Yes, this is a very important point.

Chair: Would you accept that, in order to give the electorate a fair balance of the costs and benefits, at the very least it is important to take a close look at the benefits side, and also, always, when quoting a figure, ensure that the public are aware that all you have done here is add up the costs? Open Europe have quite reasonably said, “It is important to note that these rules can bring benefits, including facilitating trade across the single market”, which is a pretty fair-minded and balanced qualification.

Boris Johnson: They say that they can bring benefits. However, they also say, Mr Tyrie, that these rules have not brought benefits in the way that was advertised and expected. If I may make a general point about the so-called single market, it was promised when the whole thing was launched in 1986. There was something called the Cecchini report. You will be familiar with the whole drumroll of excitement about the birth of the single market. It was going to lead to a great period of European growth and dynamism. In fact, that did not take place. We did not get the huge expansion in employment in the EU. We did not get growth in the European Union economies.

Chair: These are all very reasonable points, Boris.

Boris Johnson: I am glad.

Q1146 Chair: I am trying to elicit from you a much narrower response to a narrower question.

Boris Johnson: I have given you the answer. The £600m figure is very fair considering that Open Europe themselves say that 95% of the benefits have not materialised.

Q1147 Chair: Do you think we can ignore the fact that the benefits are considerable in the list of measures they themselves provide?

Boris Johnson: Since you yourself have attached great significance to this Open Europe report, as I do, you should also attach significance to the fact that they say 95% of the benefits have not materialised.

Q1148 Chair: We have already discussed that. That is not only what they say, Boris. They make clear that there are benefits that may not be quantifiable, which is not the same thing.

Boris Johnson: The important point, if I may say so, is what you can do about these regulations. It is the view of Open Europe that they are costly, they are burdensome, and there are a great number of them, which I think you would concede fall too heavily on some sectors of our businesses. The advantage of a Brexit would be that we could amend those regulations. Without Brexit you can do nothing. If you look at some of the stuff such as the Working Time Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Data Protection Act, GM [genetic modification] regulations and the Solvency II Directive, many directives and regulations emanating from Brussels have, either through gold-plating in this country or simply because of poor drafting or whatever, been far too expensive. That is the point that Open Europe are making. They are not ideally tailored to the needs of this economy.

Q1149 Chair: Are you aware of the exercise to try to find examples of gold-plating undertaken by the government?

Boris Johnson: I am.

Q1150 Chair: Did you know that they struggled to find very many examples? There are some, but they struggled.

Boris Johnson: There are indeed some examples. I will give you an example of gold plating.

Q1151 Chair: Perhaps rather than giving me an example now, you might send us a list of the areas of gold-plating after this meeting – only to speed things up.

Boris Johnson: I would be happy to give you an example now, if you want.

Q1152 Chair: I would like to turn to your article in the Telegraph on 22 February, where you say that there are these ludicrous rules emanating from the EU and that this is a reason for your decision to leave. One of the ludicrous rules that you cite is: “An EU rule that says you can’t recycle a teabag and that children under eight can’t blow up balloons”.

Boris Johnson: May I say, Mr Tyrie –

Q1153 Chair: Can you tell me which EU regulation or directive says that children under eight cannot blow up balloons?

Boris Johnson: Yes, the European commission’s own website. I would be happy to give you the number of the press release in a moment. The European commission’s own website says, “Adult supervision is required in the case of the use of uninflated balloons by children under eight”. In my household, more or less only children under eight are allowed to blow up balloons, My Tyrie. It is absolutely ludicrous to have this kind of prescription set out at a European level. I think it is absolutely bonkers and I think you do too.

Q1154 Chair: What it actually says, Boris – I have the Toy Safety Directive requirements in front of me – is, “Warning: children under eight can choke or suffocate”, and it is asking that this warning be placed on the packaging. It is not requiring or forbidding--

Boris Johnson: It is requiring it to be placed on the packaging.

Q1155 Chair: It is requiring a warning to be placed on the packaging. It is not prohibiting children under eight from blowing up balloons.

Boris Johnson: Even the European Union would be hard put to invigilate households in such a way as to prohibit people under eight from blowing up balloons. On your point about recycling teabags, which you mentioned, it is a classic example of gold-plating. The EU animal by-products regulation of 2002 stated that stuff that had come into contact with milk or with meat could not be recycled. Cardiff Council decided to interpret the animal by-products regulation 2002 in such a way as to forbid people from recycling teabags. That is a classic example of the confluence of EU legislation with overzealous British implementation, which we might call gold-plating.

Q1156 Chair: OK, but that is an action that we can perfectly well decide whether or not we want to implement. It is not true, though, is it, to say that there is an EU regulation or directive that prohibits people from recycling teabags?

Boris Johnson: Yes, there is.

Q1157 Chair: It would be true to say that some countries or some councils or some regional authorities or centres might have decided to gold-plate recycling teabags.

Boris Johnson: You will readily appreciate, Mr Tyrie, that without the animal by-products regulation of 2002 there would be no scope for the council to institute that prohibition. They are relying on EU regulation, namely the animal by-products regulation of 2002, and there is a separate regulation that forbids you from burying your own sheep on your own ground. That is the animal hygiene regulation of 2001.

Chair: We have not got into sheep yet.

Boris Johnson: There [is a] myriad of these things. They are taken and used by UK officials, however well meaning, in such a way as to add greatly to the burden of bureaucracy.

Q1158 Chair: This is taken and used or misused by British officials on the back of something from the EU that does not prohibit people from recycling teabags. It is a misrepresentation to say that people are prevented from recycling teabags.

Boris Johnson: They are by Cardiff Council as a result of EU legislation.

Q1159 Chair: That is a much better description, which was unfortunately, somehow, omitted from your Telegraph article.

Boris Johnson: To be fair, there was plenty in that Telegraph article about the Stockholm syndrome of UK officials who feel obliged to take the opportunity to implement overzealously legislation emanating from the EU. That is the whole point. One of the interesting things about this country is that we are far more enthusiastic about implementing these regulations than others. We take it far more seriously. One of the problems I have in London, in among the series of uninterrupted joys that is my job in London, is getting more housing built fast. There is no doubt at all that EU regulations/legislation of one kind or another, such as environmental impact assessments or whatever, slow down the planning process. You have to wonder whether those processes would be quite so cumbersome and quite so slow in other European countries. We do relish bureaucracy in this country and we do tend to implement it in a very zealous way.

Q1160 Chair: That has rather changed your line of fire in the speech and the article, which are attacking EU regulation, to the actions of UK officials who have caused the problem, which the EU regulation did not itself bring.

Boris Johnson: It did. I am afraid I must respectfully disagree with you, Mr Tyrie. Without the animal by-products regulation of 2002 there would be no scope for the officials in question to enact this provision.

Q1161 Chair: Other people can form their own view about the composting of teabags.

Boris Johnson: They will.

Q1162 Chair: I have got your book here, Lend Me Your Ears. In that you say, “There really is European legislation on the weight, dimensions and composition of a coffin”.

Boris Johnson: Yes, there is.

Q1163 Chair: Can you tell me where that is?

Boris Johnson: That was to do with the shipment of corpses across frontiers. I seem to remember that there were various British funeral operators, such as Kenyon in particular, which is a very successful funeral operator in this country, keen to have some sort of European provision on this. The result was a Euro-coffin, as far as I can remember, or regulations on the maxima and minima of Euro-coffins. I do not believe it was remotely necessary for the safe and successful operation of the single market.

The whole term “single market” is widely misunderstood. Free trade across Europe would have continued unimpeded without legislation on the size and shape of a Euro-coffin. They probably, by the way, had to change those dimensions radically since everybody in this country started getting fatter and fatter.

Q1164 Chair: It is not EU regulation at all, is it?

Boris Johnson: It is a long time since I studied this matter, Mr Tyrie, and you will have to forgive me. It is more than 20 years ago. This is something that I seem to remember arose from some Brussels institution.

Q1165 Chair: You wrote it in your book a decade ago. It is not 20 years ago, and you are defending it now. In fact it is a Council of Europe convention on the transfer or corpses. In there, there is no reference to coffin weight or dimensions, nor is there any EU legislation, nor is the UK a signatory. The story is a figment of your imagination.

Boris Johnson: I am afraid, sir, I think you are in error there, but obviously it is a long time since I looked at it. There was a question about the maxima and minima of coffin sizes. My memory is that it was to do with the EU.

Q1166 Chair: There was legislation and it was EU. OK. If you could provide us with that after the meeting, we would be interested to take a look. I have been through quite a list there either of things that require quite a bit of qualification to understand and for which a reasonable person would say that you had either exaggerated or misrepresented the extent--

Boris Johnson: I do not think so at all. You have failed utterly in your experiment, if I may say so.

Q1167 Chair: That is a judgment that others listening to this can make. Do you think on reflection – perhaps you do not, having just made that remark – it might be prudent, in the interests of generating a strong case, that you add qualifications in at the time that you make these remarks?

Boris Johnson: May I just say how strongly I feel about this? There is a great deal of effort being made at the moment to deprecate the views of those who think we should leave, to undermine their point of view and to say that everything we say about the EU is somehow mythical. I will give you an example.

Q1168 Chair: What has that got to do with the question I have just asked?

Boris Johnson: I will tell you. You have asked me whether I want to recant some of the things I have said.

Q1169 Chair: I have not asked you to do that. I have asked you to make sure that you qualify and provide the full and balanced view, in your own interest, of points that may indeed, in one way or another, to an extent, support your case, but which, because of the language you have used and your one-sided description of them, many might feel is an exaggeration to the point of a misrepresentation.

Boris Johnson: I do not agree with that. Let me explain why I feel so strongly about this. There was an instance that I mentioned on The Andrew Marr Show of the cab dimensions that we wanted to have in London in order to minimise deaths of cyclists. An organisation called InFacts wrote an article on their website, which I think has been widely read, suggesting that this was untrue, that there was no such problem, and that the EU had agreed unanimously a provision that would protect cyclists with new types of cabs. Having studied the directive closely, as I am sure you have too, Mr Tyrie, it is completely untrue.

The directive in question, 2013/0195 from memory, did indeed attempt to modify the dimensions of cabs, mainly from an aerodynamic point of view. That was what they were trying to achieve principally. There was some change to visibility, but it got nowhere near what we needed in terms of lowering the driver and getting the windows big enough so as to be able to see vulnerable road users in the way that we wanted. There were representations made to amend this directive, which was the weights and dimensions directive, when it was going through, and we tried to do that. But the truck industries in France and, indeed, Sweden fought the thing off. We cannot get it through. Type approval for truck dimensions for lorry cabs have been passed from this country to the European Union. It only happened a few years ago. It happened in 2011‑12.

So, I cannot do it; the Department for Transport cannot do it. We cannot make essential changes to the dimensions of truck cabs in our country that would save the lives of cyclists. Reading some of the stuff from the remain camp shows that they should get their facts straight. This is something that I have tried very hard to make a difference on in London. We have campaigned very hard to make cycling safer. We have an opportunity to have a new regime for truck cabs in our city. It would save the lives particularly of female cyclists. It is a great shame that, in the interests of propaganda, what we have tried to do has been misrepresented by the remain campaign. The fact is we have lost the power to do it. It has been handed over to Brussels. That is a shame. It should come back.

Q1170 Chair: We are trying here to get beyond the misrepresentation on both sides. You will have seen what we have been trying to do with respect to claims made by the remain side.

Boris Johnson: Ah, I see. Well, that is good.

Chair: You sound surprised, Boris.

Boris Johnson: No – I am delighted.

Q1171 Chair: I would have thought that every question that is being asked of you is in that spirit. You would acknowledge, though, that with respect to the very regulation that you are just referring to, the UK would have no say on UK truck safety standards in the rest of the EU if we left, and that therefore your ability to influence what EU trucks looked like when they came to the UK, unless you banned them completely, would be very severely limited.

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course.

Q1172 Chair: Would you consider that to be a restraint to trade?

Boris Johnson: No, it would be a very sensible measure.

Q1173 Chair: You would ban lorries or trucks that did not conform to your standards. Is that right?

Boris Johnson: Perhaps for the benefit of the committee, we are already pioneering the world’s first safer lorry zone within an urban area. We are already instituting various requirements for mirrors, blinds spots – all sorts of ways in which we can minimise the risk to vulnerable road users. This is a further step that it is technologically possible thanks to the evolution of cab design. Basically you get a bus-like cab and you put it on a truck. They look fantastic. They are fantastic. They save lives. You cannot do it at the moment because it is blocked in Brussels.

Q1174 Chair: It is blocked by one country, in fact, is it not?

Boris Johnson: It is either France or Sweden – I do not know.

Chair: It is France.

Boris Johnson: I am told the Swedes also.

Q1175 Chair: The principle, though, that you seem to be arguing for is for some form of standardised regulation. Have I not got that right?

Boris Johnson: Respectfully, Mr Tyrie, you do not have that right, because I am arguing for the ability of Londoners and the--

Q1176 Chair: You are asking for unilateral regulation.

Boris Johnson: That is in the nature of a safer lorry zone. It would be a good thing.

Q1177 Chair: You are arguing for that even if it may be deleterious to trade?

Boris Johnson: I do not believe it would be deleterious to trade. In fact, it would stimulate the market for better and safer cabs. It would be a great thing. It would save lives.

Chair: At this point, I hand you over to the tender hands of Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Q1178 Mr Rees-Mogg: I am, of course, on your side. I am a supporter of vote leave. If I can just follow on from what the chairman has been saying, we can assume that your design might even appeal ultimately to the French, because I assume they do not wish to go around murdering cyclists, particularly, so it could be very innovative and successful across Europe. If we had our scheme in place first, others would follow.

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course. The problem, if I can be absolutely frank about it, is that Renault and Scania have been reluctant to move as fast as they might because basically they have not got their truck cabs in the state of evolution that they would want in order to be able to take advantage of this market. Other firms have. This can, I think, only be passed in unanimity. The French have been using their position to block it. It is a great shame. If we took back control, we would be able to make our streets safer.

Q1179 Mr Rees-Mogg: Thank you very much. If I can move on to the laws that are made in the UK but emanate from the EU, you were making the important point about Cardiff and teabags, because if they do not implement EU law correctly, of course we can be taken to the European court [of justice] and it can be imposed on us. There is inevitably, because of the EU, not because of foolishness among councils, a need to implement accurately. If a teabag has gone in milk, it must meet the animal by-products directive. That is the issue then of percentage: various figures have come up as a percentage of UK law that comes from EU law. You have quoted on occasions the House of Commons figure – the 15% to 50% figure – and you have also quoted a two-thirds figure. The German parliament came up with an even higher figure.

Boris Johnson: 80%.

Mr Rees-Mogg: 85%. Could you give us some guide as to how you would like to calculate this figure and where you would get it from?

Boris Johnson: I have hot news, Mr Rees-Mogg. The House of Commons library has just produced another series of calculations. We have heard various authorities – Nick Clegg, Chuka Umunna – who have said it was about 50%, a claim Mr Umunna now denies he ever made. The House of Commons previously said it was 50%. They now say in what has come out either yesterday or today that it is about 59% or 60%. That is because you have got to think about not just the directives but also the regulations, the secondary instruments of one kind or another. They are very numerous. As you rightly say, as soon as EU law touches anything it becomes justiciable by the ECJ.

Q1180 Mr Rees-Mogg: Thank you. Michael Dougan, an EU public law expert, gave us evidence saying that trying to quantify this could never be anything more than an inaccurate guess. Within the bounds of inaccurate guessing, do you agree with him or do you think that he is arguing his own point of view?

Boris Johnson: I am sorry. I am not familiar with the authority.

Mr Rees-Mogg: Michael Dougan. He is an EU public law expert. You do not know who he is? I do not think I do either.

Boris Johnson: You must forgive me. I was not familiar with his work before today. There are varying figures. What cannot be denied is that the volume has increased, is increasing, and ought to be eliminated.

Q1181 Mr Rees-Mogg: It is along the lines of a very good 18th century debate in the House of Commons indeed. You are very happy with the figure. It is very good that we have got a new figure. Dougan again worries that when we compare EU laws and our laws we compare non-legislative measures with legislative measures. He feels it is inaccurate, comparing apples with pears, and that you would have to include all sorts of regulations that come out of local councils and so on and so forth. I wonder if you agree with that or whether you think that, once again, he is arguing his own book.

Boris Johnson: I do not know what point of view Mr Dougan has or what his perspective is. Just as mayor of London, I am amazed at the amount of stuff I come across every day that seems to have an EU origin, whether it is, as I say, public procurement rules, which we obey very punctiliously, unlike some other European countries, or whether it is rules about the interoperability of trans-European networks that affect the dimensions of Crossrail tunnels or whatever it happens to be. There is an awful lot of this stuff, and it seems uninterruptable at the moment.

Q1182 Mr Rees-Mogg: Rules inevitably come with a court of some kind, and the court we have is the European court of justice. It is said that is essential to the proper working of the single market, because otherwise people would do what they like and ignore the rulebook. Is it possible to have a free trade area without the European court of justice?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I do. I am very grateful that you raised that point, because people do not understand 70% of our trade outside the EU is with countries with which we do not have any free trade agreements at all. Of the free trade areas that there are around the world – Nafta, Asean, Mercosur – not a single one tries to imitate this anachronistic, old-fashioned system, devised by idealistic French bureaucrats after the war, of a single judicial approach. Nobody else does that.

It is very striking that unemployment in the EU is roughly double that of the other free trade zones that I mentioned. Growth is much lower. I invite the committee to speculate as to whether or not that is associated with the volume and the rigidity and the irreversibility of EU law. The ECJ is a system that reminds me rather of Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It has basically slipped its human moorings and become autonomous. If you look at the recent rulings of the ECJ, they are bizarre.

Q1183 Mr Rees-Mogg: Though occasionally they go in our interest, particularly the location policy in relation to clearing of euros, where it was ruled that the ECB [European Central Bank] did not have the authority to make the regulation. It was not a single market issue; it was on the powers of the ECB to make the regulation, but it did go in our favour.

Boris Johnson: I agree with that. On the other hand it has never been my view that a single currency was necessary for the completion of the single market.

Q1184 Mr Rees-Mogg: No, but in terms of the clearing possibilities for the City of London, the European court allowed the City of London to carry on with the clearing, whereas the ECB was trying to stop it. We do occasionally win. Do you think that the wins that we get are sufficiently important to outweigh the losses that we suffer and the undermining of democracy that is implicit in having a supranational court overrule us?

Boris Johnson: That is the fundamental question. My answer to that is that the balance has now switched against. 20 years ago many of us would have said that the balance was in favour of remaining. Let me give you a couple of examples of thinking today, particularly about how to combat terrorism and the threat that poses to our society.

I have seen various people quoted as saying that remaining in the EU is essential for our security. It is important to put a countervailing point, which is that there are some ways now in which the European court of justice is militating against our ability to control our borders in a way that we would want to and, indeed, to maintain proper surveillance. Look at the case of Abu Hamza’s niece, who tried to smuggle a SIM card to him in prison. We could not deport her, not because of the Strasburg court of human rights but because of the European court in Luxembourg, which is now able to adjudicate on the entire caucus of the charter of fundamental rights.

You have also seen the European court of justice in Luxembourg saying that states’ security services cannot retain mobile phone data that is very often essential for monitoring potential terrorists. What does that have to do with completing the internal market? What does that have to do with free trade? The answer is absolutely nothing. It is morphing into a political union of a kind that is no longer, on balance, in our interests.

Mr Rees-Mogg, on your point about the protections of the City, the City would continue to flourish outside the EU, and flourish mightily. I remember that the threat to euro clearing was mentioned at the time of the creation of the euro, and that everybody said that that would be migrated away from us. That did not happen, simply because of the concentration of talent, the critical mass, is here in London, for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the EU.

Q1185 Mr Rees-Mogg: The point you make about the Abu Hamza family case is very important, because not only were we promised that the charter of fundamental rights would not apply in the United Kingdom – there is a protocol attached to the treaties that it was pretended achieved that – but the court tried to keep it secret to save themselves from the shame of having interfered so directly in UK criminal law rather than in a matter of the single market. You are absolutely right on that. It is no longer a sacrifice worth making, and even outside the single market is it not true that the WTO [World Trade Organisation] has arbitration systems that are almost invariably followed by member states of the WTO when there are breaches of free trade rules?

Boris Johnson: Of course, and tariffs generally have been coming down across the world. You are seeing more and more free trade deals done that involve virtually zero tariffs. You look at the US-Australia deal recently: tariffs were removed in 99% of goods of all kinds. Even then, before the deal was done, their tariffs were only running at 4.3%. There is a huge opportunity now for us to get out from under an incredibly prescriptive, over-bureaucratic system that is trying to create a single polity out of many, and strike a new future.

Mr Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Johnson, for your very compelling evidence.

Q1186 Chair: You mentioned the figure of 59%; could you describe how that number is composed?

Boris Johnson: Certainly, Andrew.

Q1187 Chair: First of all, you say it is hot from the press. What is in fact the document you are reading from?

Boris Johnson: It is the amount of legislation from Europe. It is an update by the House of Commons library of the figures that they give.

Q1188 Chair: And the date?

Boris Johnson: 8 March, so it is not quite as recent as I thought.

Q1189 Chair: No. It is in fact a 2014 figure, but not to worry. You probably did not know that, but do keep going.

Boris Johnson: I am so sorry, Mr Tyrie. I was informed by my enthusiastic colleagues. However, 2014 does not seem to me to be that long ago.

Q1190 Chair: What is this 59% composed of?

Boris Johnson: This is composed of the number of EU regulations and EU-related statutory instruments, I believe.

Q1191 Chair: You have really done exactly, and you are illustrating exactly, what I began the session with, which is you have come out with a figure, which you claim to be hot form the press, that, in fact, you do not know the composition of. In fact it consists of regulations, directives and decisions. Decisions may relate to an individual firm decision. There are thousands of those relating to individual firms.

Boris Johnson: Are you disputing the veracity of the House of Commons library, Mr Tyrie?

Q1192 Chair: Fortunately I do the asking at these meetings. The conclusion of the note on this reads, “All measurements have their problems. It is possible to justify between 15% and 55% or thereabouts.” –

Boris Johnson: 59%, isn’t it?

Q1193 Chair: I am reading the note on which what you have in front of you is based – “depending on what is included or excluded from the calculation”.

Boris Johnson: Whether it is 59% or 55%, it is an awful lot.

Q1194 Chair: 15% is the range offered by the House of Commons library. I am repeatedly trying to point out to you that, while it might be possible to put together a case for 55% or 59%, it is extremely important also, if you want to try to acquire credibility in this debate, to say there is a vast range depending how you measure this, and that may be as low, as the House of Commons library has said, as 15%.

Boris Johnson: That is if you look solely at directives and decisions. If you add in statutory instruments, the figure rapidly expands. Since statutory instruments have effect in this country and since they form part of the caucus of European law and since they are justiciable by the European court of justice, it seems to me entirely right that we should look at that figure. It is a huge figure. Most people listening to this debate will conclude that there is too much legislation emanating from the EU that we can neither control nor repeal. That is the critical point. Once it is promulgated, it cannot be reversed.

Chair: We have had the key exchange we need to have on the extent to which we should attach veracity to figures like 55% or 59% or, for that matter, 15%.

Q1195 Helen Goodman: Good morning, Mr Johnson. On the 7 February you said, “Leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty while embroiling the government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country”. How long do you think this period of uncertainty would last?

Boris Johnson: The first point to make there is that it is important in this whole debate not to blame every problem in this country on the EU, and I do not.

Q1196 Helen Goodman: That is not what I asked you. I asked you how long the period of uncertainty would last.

Boris Johnson: It need not last very long at all. In fact, there need not be a period of uncertainty at all. The best analogy that I can come up with for this whole debate is the millennium bug, the Y2K alarmism. People said that planes would fall from the sky and computers would crash and the economy would tank by 5%. Nothing of the kind took place. There is a great deal of scaremongering and alarmism. That piece, as I recall, set out two sets of arguments: pro and con. It concluded, I remember, by saying that we had absolutely nothing to fear from leaving the EU. That is the truth.

Q1197 Helen Goodman: Mr Johnson, those were your words. We have taken evidence from a number of people, including John Cunliffe, who used to be our ambassador in Brussels. He says that the negotiations would basically have three parts. After we have triggered Article 50 we would have a negotiation, which might last for two years, on arrangements for leaving. We would then have a negotiation about our future relationship with the EU. In addition to that, we have 50 free trade negotiations to undertake. You have also said, “The people of Europe do not vote as one, think as one, or speak as one”. How long do you think it would take the other 27 member states to establish what their negotiating position is going to be under Article 50?

Boris Johnson: One of the most interesting things about this debate is the sheer negativity about our potential to do these deals. We have become infantilised by the fact that the whole responsibility for this is now conferred upon the commission. They do not have, in my view, sufficient UK representatives to do it properly.

Bear in mind, Ms Goodman, we already have extensive trading relationships; we have been in the thing for 44 years. Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It does not seem to me that it would be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.

I do not think it would not be necessary to invoke Article 50 immediately. I do not see why that would be the case. The US-Australia deal that I just mentioned, for instance, took only two years. George Osborne is right when he says that what we want is a British deal, and a British deal that represents an opportunity to get free trade with our European partners based very largely on existing arrangements. I do not see why that should be beyond the wit of man.

Q1198 Helen Goodman: It is certainly not beyond the wit of man. Nobody is suggesting that we would not be able to negotiate a deal at any time. That would be patently absurd.

Boris Johnson: That is terrific.

Q1199 Helen Goodman: The question I am asking you about now is the period of uncertainty. You have said a number of different things about what you think Brexit should look like. Do you think the other 27 member states have an agreed picture about what the relationship they want would be with the UK?

Boris Johnson: I do. We are not having this debate in isolation in this country. Everybody can see across the EU what is happening. People are already thinking about this and preparing for how they, our friends and partners, would want to take things forward. It would be overwhelmingly in their interests to do free trade deals as rapidly as possible. Many of them, as you know, Ms Goodman, have quite substantial trade balances in their favour with us. They would want to protect their businesses, their industries. The UK is 16% of exports from the rest of the EU.

Q1200 Helen Goodman: It is not; it is 10%.

Boris Johnson: I defer to your knowledge.

Q1201 Helen Goodman: 6% of trade is quite a lot.

Boris Johnson: My information is that it is 16%.

Mark Garnier: It is 16% of GDP.

Boris Johnson: Forgive me – 16% of the GDP. I am happy to look at the figures for exports. If you look, for instance, at the German balance of trade with us, it is £27bn net. That is a very substantial incentive for the largest and most political influential economy in Europe to strike a deal very fast that is advantageous to their businesses.

Q1202 Helen Goodman: Do you think the interests of the German economy and what they would want from the deal are the same as what, for example, the Greeks would want from the deal?

Boris Johnson: There would be a variety of interests that people would have. Obviously at the moment we have free trade across the EU, and people would want to protect that as far as they possibly could.

Q1203 Helen Goodman: Of course people would want to protect that as far as they possibly could but, in striking a deal, do you think that the interests of the German economy and the interests of the Greek economy are the same and that they could say immediately that they would have the same negotiating position and there would be no period of uncertainty?

Boris Johnson: You would have to take a view about whether or not you were going to strike an agreement with the EU as a whole. Do not forget that the EU retains competence for international trade negotiations. Even on a Brexit, it would do that. I imagine the commission would be negotiating on behalf of both the Greeks and the Germans at the same time. It would be possible to do a deal very rapidly indeed based on the existing patterns of trade. That is what the people would want to protect.

Q1204 Helen Goodman: Mr Johnson, that is not how the process works. The council of ministers give the commission the negotiating mandate. The council of ministers initially have to have a discussion to agree the negotiating mandate for the commission to do the practical negotiations. I am asking you whether the EU member states on the council might take some time to agree the negotiating mandate.

Boris Johnson: I do not think so, because the overwhelming interest of European economies, and indeed several of the most powerful European economies, is to get such a deal done as fast as possible. The EU has already, because of the euro crisis, had problems there. They would want above all to minimise uncertainty and delay, and they would want to get on with it as fast as possible.

Q1205 Helen Goodman: The EU crisis is obviously caused by the fact that the structures and interests of the German and the Greek economies are quite different, so you are being far too optimistic. Can I ask you another question about the UK’s negotiating position? Do you want to have access to the single market?

Boris Johnson: The single market is a term that is increasingly misunderstood. What we mean by the single market, it seems to me, is the whole corpus of European law adjudicated by the European court of justice. In that sense it comprises everything from animal hygiene by-products regulations to the weight and size of lorry cabs--

Helen Goodman: We do not need to have every single example of the whole of the single market.

Boris Johnson: --to the rights of prisoners in UK prisons and whether or not we should be able to deport them. All these things are now justiciable by Luxembourg. We should get out from under that system.

Helen Goodman: That is not the question I asked you.

Boris Johnson: We should have a free trade arrangement that continued to give access to UK goods and services on the European continent. That is what it is all about.

Q1206 Helen Goodman: That is very helpful, because on 6 March you gave the impression that you wanted a deal like the deal the Swiss have.

Boris Johnson: I do not know who took that impression.

Q1207 Helen Goodman: That is what you said on 6 March, and on 11 March you said you wanted a deal like the Canadians. Those deals are rather different.

Boris Johnson: As I said earlier, Ms Goodman, I want a deal for Britain. I think that is what we will get.

Q1208 Helen Goodman: If we are to end the period of uncertainty, it is not terribly helpful for those people who are for Brexit not to give a clear view of what--

Boris Johnson: I have given you a very clear view.

Helen Goodman: You have not given us a very clear view at all.

Boris Johnson: I have given you a very clear view.

Helen Goodman: No, you have not.

Boris Johnson: I have. We have 1,700 officials in this country who are capable of negotiating trade deals. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be done very expeditiously indeed. One of the interesting features of the Canadian deal and indeed the US-Australia deal that I just mentioned is that they were able to remove huge numbers of tariff barriers. We could do that. We could go ahead and, indeed, we would be able to strike other free trade deals around the world, which we are currently prevented from doing.

Q1209 Helen Goodman: Mr Johnson, the Canadian deal does not include financial services.

Boris Johnson: I do not want to imitate the Canadian deal; I want a British deal.

Q1210 Helen Goodman: You do not want to negotiate like the Canadians; you do not want to negotiate like the Swiss.

Boris Johnson: No, I want us to do a British deal.

Q1211 Helen Goodman: What does that mean?

Boris Johnson: There are aspects of the Canadian deal – the tariff-free approach without free movement – that are right. There are aspects of the Swiss deal that are less attractive. They have just voted against the provisions for free movement, as you know. Free movement would be wrong for us. I see absolutely no reason at all, given the huge balances of trade they have with us, favourable to them, why they would not want rapidly to do a free trade deal with what is – whether 10% or 16% – one of the biggest export markets that the remainder of the EU has.

Q1212 Helen Goodman: Mr Johnson, on the day that you came out for Brexit the pound fell, supposedly because you are a very effective communicator and that made it more likely that Brexit would happen. When the governor of the Bank of England came and gave evidence to us on Europe, he described Brexit as the biggest domestic risk to financial stability. He said there would be volatility in the foreign exchange markets and downward pressure on foreign direct investment, on investment particularly in tradeable goods and on household consumption. Are you not concerned that a period of uncertainty in the British economy would have those effects?

Boris Johnson: First of all, I have looked at FDI [foreign direct investment] into London at the moment, what is going on, confidence in the City, what is happening with our economy. There is no sign whatsoever of people being discouraged from investing, coming to London. That remains massively strong. I am not quite certain what this period of uncertainty is that you speak of.

I seem to remember that when we were considering whether or not to go into the euro – and thankfully made the right decision not to do so – people were saying very much the same sort of thing, and it did not transpire. On the contrary, London flourished and prospered as never before. If you ask me about the pound, the pound will be as strong and as robust as the UK economy. My view is that the risks are in remaining in the EU. Why should we remain tethered to this anti-democratic system?

Q1213 Helen Goodman: Sorry, I am not now asking you questions about the long term. I am asking you questions about the short term: the period before we have agreed our new relationship with the EU; the period before we have negotiated 50 new free trade agreements. The governor of the Bank of England is telling us that there would be volatility in the foreign exchange markets. This would have a detrimental impact on foreign direct investment, on investment in the British economy, particularly in the tradeable goods sector, and on household consumption. If you could just look beyond the City of London, in the north east we have 140,000 manufacturing jobs dependent on exports to the EU. Nissan and Hitachi, the two biggest foreign direct investors, have both said they would not invest more in the event of Brexit. Is it responsible to dismiss as “airy fairy” these concerns about uncertainty and the impact on investment?

Boris Johnson: You are wrong about Nissan, certainly, because they have changed their tune since the euro controversy.

Helen Goodman: I am not wrong about Nissan.

Boris Johnson: As far as I can remember, Nissan have said they would continue to invest irrespective.

Q1214 Helen Goodman: No, Nissan have not said that. Nissan have said that they would not close the current factory, they would not move it, but they would not put any new investment in. We get £27bn of foreign direct investment into this country every year. A period of uncertainty while you were deciding what a British deal meant would undoubtedly mean that we lost investment for a period of perhaps two years. Is that not a worry for those people who have jobs in the north east in manufacturing?

Boris Johnson: It should not be a worry, and I hope very much that people will do their best to persuade those who are anxious that there is no need for them to worry. As far as I can remember, Nissan did take a strong line in favour of the UK joining the euro, and said they would close the Sunderland plant if we did not join the euro. That obviously did not happen. Neither of those two things happened, and that was the right decision.

I think the UK will be more competitive if we leave the EU. We will be able to set our own course and do our own trade deals, and legislate it in a way that is in the interests of British manufacturing.

Q1215 Helen Goodman: A minute ago you were complaining that Renault wanted to structure the rules on truck design. Nissan are obviously completely happy with the European rules on car design. Surely you can see that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and we have 140,000 jobs dependent on this.

Boris Johnson: No, because of course when selling into the European markets where there will continue to be a standard set at a European level, obviously it will be in the interests of Nissan to make vehicles that are acceptable for those markets, just as they make them acceptable for the United States, where they also have many detailed provisions for what they want in their markets. There is such a deal of negativity about our ability to do this, and we would be missing a massive opportunity to make this country more competitive, to be able to set our own economic course, and to restore democracy in this country.

Q1216 Chair: You have made those points quite thoroughly. Quite early on in those exchanges you were, I felt, trying to distance yourself from the view that we would want a deal akin to that of Switzerland. Just over three years ago you said, “We could construct a relationship with the EU that more closely resembled that of Norway or Switzerland – except that we would be inside the single market council”, which makes it sound like you are very supportive of the idea of the single market, which you have cast some doubts about.

Boris Johnson: I do.

Chair: Boris, order. I am about to ask you a question. What is the single market council?

Boris Johnson: There used to be something called the internal market council, and that has now, as far as I can remember, been scrapped in favour of the competitiveness Council.

Q1217 Chair: What is this single market?

Boris Johnson: I do not think it is possible to do that. I was speculating there about a possible relationship you could have. It does not really make sense, because in the end you are either part of the single judicial system or you are not. This comes back to the whole two referendums idea that some people floated a while back. Could you, as it were, vote to get rid of a lot of the stuff that is not necessary and then reaccede into the single market? In the end, I am giving you a very clear position.

Q1218 Chair: Are you for or against the two referendums approach?

Boris Johnson: I think we have one referendum and we get on with it.

Q1219 Chair: Is that then the end of our relationship within the EU? We do not try to engage in another referendum. I want to be clear whether that is your view or not.

Boris Johnson: That is my view.

Chair: OK, that is all I need to know. It appeared that it was your view for a while, some months ago, and it is very helpful now that we have had that clarification.

Boris Johnson: I think I have been pretty clear about that.

Chair: You have, just now, been very clear.

Boris Johnson: I think I have been pretty clear about that before this august committee.

Q1220 Chair: Could I just clarify one more point? Do you agree that a large proportion of the trading goods that would come in – as you know, the EU has a surplus with us – would be covered under WTO rules?

Boris Johnson: Yes, certainly.

Q1221 Chair: Therefore Germany, for example, is more likely to be able to get access than we would to their market for our services, which are dependent on much more detailed single market negotiations?

Boris Johnson: It is certainly the case that the Germans have, in my view, a massive interest in making better use of UK services, and when people say they will discriminate, for instance, against the City of London, that has never happened in the past and it would be utterly foolish of European economies not to make use of what is a massive resource for the whole of this area. The City of London, financial services – all the service industries in which we excel – are vital for any big European company that wants to raise capital. This is the place to come. It always will be, and I think you are being excessively negative.

Q1222 Mark Garnier: Good morning. I am very keen to carry on with the City of London and financial services specifically, but can I just follow up on Helen Goodman’s line of questioning about the negotiation and the relationship that we have in total trade with Europe? Just to go through some of these figures, the UK represents about 15% of Europe’s total GDP. 45% of our exports go to Europe but, depending on how we count it, either 7% or 10% of Europe’s exports go to the UK; it is quite small. It is 7% in GDP terms and 10% in total.

Boris Johnson: I am not certain of that, but anyway.

Q1223 Mark Garnier: The point I am trying to make – and it may be more, and I do not want to get too stuck on that point – is that 45% of our exports being with Europe is a very significant proportion of our total trade, but for Europe 10%, roughly, is not vanishingly small but is far less significant. Does that put us at a very poor negotiating disadvantage when we start trying to negotiate trade deals?

Boris Johnson: No, I do not think so at all. As I said earlier on, Mr Garnier, it is massively in the interests of our friends and partners to continue to trade freely, and even more freely than ever. The Germans, as I say, have a £27bn net surplus with us. They are the most influential in the European council. Even the French have a considerable net balance of trade with us. It would be very curious, bizarre and totally self-destructive of them not to, and the great thing is that this conversation is not happening in a vacuum. Everybody is thinking about this. The time is now. People can prepare for what will be a very exciting moment.

Q1224 Mark Garnier: It will be exciting; I definitely agree with that. Can I just pick up on that? You talk about Germany and France. It is absolutely right to talk about two specific countries, but you can talk about other countries where they have trade deficits with the UK, and they would presumably turn around and argue that they do not want to have such a--

Boris Johnson: With great respect, I think we cleared that point up a moment or two ago.

Mark Garnier: But an FTA [free trade agreement] with Europe is an FTA with all 27.

Boris Johnson: The competence for negotiating trade deals resides exclusively with the European commission. If I may just elaborate that point for a second, one of the problems we have as a country in trying to do free trade deals around the world is that the EU commission does not, in my view, well represent us in international trade. For instance, the audio-visual sector in this city is doing brilliantly – probably producing more TV and film than New York, and more than Los Angeles. Because of French objections, we can never do a free trade deal that involves the audio-visual sector. That is totally hopeless for the UK economy. We need to have the ability to strike our own deals.

Q1225 Mark Garnier: Let me talk about financial services in particular. You mentioned three senior bankers: Norman Blackwell at Lloyds, Henry Angest of Arbuthnot and Shelia Noakes – I cannot remember where she is.

Boris Johnson: RBS, I believe.

Mark Garnier: RBS – OK. All three of those banks are UK domiciled, and would be in the UK anyway. Can you think of any international banker, specifically somebody who is a senior member of an international bank like Goldman, Nomura or Deutsche Bank – or any number of these international banks that have sought to come to London – who agrees that the UK would be better off outside Europe?

Boris Johnson: I would not want to give away private conversations, but I can certainly say that there have been plenty of people I have spoken to from those types of institutions who have felt – to get back to where we really began this conversation – that the balance of the argument is much more equivocal than is commonly supposed. They really do think that London would flourish whatever happened. London has the right time zone and the right language.

Q1226 Mark Garnier: These are the international bankers?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Q1227 Mark Garnier: That does not concur with what I am finding when I am talking to these international bankers privately.

Boris Johnson: I have to say I am getting a different message.

Q1228 Mark Garnier: Maybe they are speaking to you as a Eurosceptic and me as a Europhile.

Boris Johnson: Perhaps that is true, but I respectfully direct you back to what some of them were saying at the time of the euro debate.

Mark Garnier: I completely agree with that.

Boris Johnson: Goldman Sachs was very clear that it was a terrible mistake for Britain not to go in. We heard the same from the CBI, from Lord Mandelson, from all sorts of people – indeed, from notable colleagues of ours, Mr Garnier, and friends of ours.

Mark Garnier: I am not an enthusiast myself.

Boris Johnson: No, of course not, and I did not for one minute mean to suggest that you were, though Mr Tyrie, back in 1991, wrote an interesting pamphlet suggesting that the single market could not be complete without a single currency.

Q1229 Chair: No, it did not say that either. You have also misrepresented it quite badly. If you go a bit further on in the document, you will find some very interesting passages explaining why the project of the euro is being formed at a single and rather dangerous moment in the cycle.

Boris Johnson: There was another very interesting document called Never Say Never. Has anybody ever found a document called Never Say Never by Andrew Tyrie? It is very common sense on the euro.

Chair: Order. It is very kind of you, Boris, to read all my material.

Boris Johnson: I just thought I would bring it up: Never Say Never: Time for British Common Sense on the euro.

Q1230 Chair: If I may say so, however, you are illustrating exactly what I began the session with, again, which is a very partial and busking, humoresque approach to a very serious question for the UK, and what we really need is a much more balanced exchange--

Boris Johnson: I am not going to deny that. We need a balanced exchange.

Chair: --in which people make an effort to qualify and represent the points that they make, and represent each other’s views with some accuracy. You are at it again, I am afraid.

Boris Johnson: I am glad you said that, because some of my views have been, as I say, traduced. I am grateful to you, Mr Tyrie, for the opportunity earlier in this hearing to set straight some of the gross misrepresentations that have been made.

Chair: That is enough of that, Boris. Mr Garnier has got a question for you.

Q1231 Mark Garnier: I was just going to carry on the line of questioning about the City of London. We heard earlier on from Andrew that the City of London Corporation has got an official position. Many, many institutions have official positions. According to the City UK survey, 84% of respondents want the UK to stay in, and it is perfectly reasonable to accept that these City institutions are looking at it from their own interests, but why should they not? The governor of the Bank of England has also said that if the UK came out of Europe and failed to negotiate a proper agreement on financial services with Europe, it would be detrimental to the City of London. Do you disagree with these institutions, which are pretty unequivocal about this?

Boris Johnson: As I say, Mr Garnier, they are not unanimous on this point.

Mark Garnier: 84% is admittedly not unanimous, but it is pretty close.

Boris Johnson: There are plenty who take an opposing view, and my impression is that the balance of opinion is very moderate about this.

Mark Garnier: I am sorry. I just find that really difficult to believe.

Boris Johnson: Most people think the stakes are much lower than they were. Even in the last 10 years, exports of financial services to the EU have gone down from about 39% of our financial services exports to about 32%, possibly even lower. As a proportion of our exports, they are already going down. The opportunities are around the world. This is the moment to go global.

Mark Garnier: Some of the opportunities around the world.

Boris Johnson: I fear that by staying locked in to the EU system, where we consecrate the right to set trading arrangements to the commission, we are missing a huge opportunity. A Brexit would be massively beneficial to Europe as well.

Q1232 Mark Garnier: You have been talking about the rest of the world. We go out to the rest of the world and we ask them why they want to trade in London. Why does the Chinese government want to have offshore renminbi trading in London? Why do US banks want to come to London? Every single one of them talks about the cluster effect, the support that goes with it, but they also talk about the fact that it gives you access to the 550 million people in the single market, and that is incredibly important to them. All of them are saying we would be off our trolley to come out of Europe. Respond.

Boris Johnson: The access to 550 million people is going to remain, in my view.

Q1233 Mark Garnier: But how can you be sure – especially when you said in 2012 that France is “always trying to get one over on London”?

Boris Johnson: Countries do not trade with countries. People trade with each other. Businesses trade with each other. Businesses need a great city. Businesses need to find places to raise capital. They need banks. They need support. They need services of all kinds. They are going to continue to find them in London, and if you look at the story of this city since the decision not to go into the euro, it is a story of unbelievable growth and dynamism, which all the euro gloomadon poppers completely failed to spot. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

One thing I have been wrestling with is this problem you raised: why is it that there is a certain type of person, very often in the big corporations or the big banks, who takes this line? There is an enormous industry of lobbyists, of people involved in negotiations at conferences and all of this kind of thing, who are basically one way or the other turning left on the plane as a result of our membership of the European Union. That is the reality, and those companies would not be remotely disadvantaged, but the people who would benefit massively are the 95% of UK businesses that do not export to the EU but have to comply with 100% of EU regulation – 100%.

Q1234 Mark Garnier: That is a wider debate for other parts of this hearing, but I just wanted to finish off in one area. Nobody can deny that the European Union as a single market is the biggest single economy in the world and the biggest single trading bloc the planet has ever seen. It is incredibly important. Financial services are also very important for this, and the rest of the world wants to trade with Europe through Britain. Now, what is key to a great deal of this is the regulation that comes on financial services as a result of British lead but also Europe’s – notwithstanding the American influence with the Dodd-Frank Act and all the rest of it – and the fact these financial regulations tend to lead the world in the terms of the direction of travel, because they are very good regulations. Were we to come out of Europe, we would have no influence on those regulations. We would be subservient to an architecture of regulation being driven forward by Europe, which frankly I do not think is as good at it as we are. Why would we want to give up our position to be able to influence the world’s financial services regulation?

Boris Johnson: Obviously I defer to your knowledge of this sector, Mr Garnier, but with respect I do not think that is entirely accurate about what would happen. Many of these standards and regulations are now set not in the single market, the internal market, or the competitiveness council or whatever we want to call it these days. They are not set at an EU level but are international regulations based on, for instance, bodies and acronyms I am sure I do not need to spell out to you: the FSB [Financial Stability Board], the CPMI [Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures], IOSCO [International Organization of Securities Commissions], and the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the WTO. The paradox is that Britain by Brexit would gain influence in some of these multinational institutions. Let me explain why.

If you look at the WTO or at the IMF, or the G7 or G20 – bodies that try to set standards for financial services of one kind or another, or try to have a role in this – the EU as an institution is now trying to interpose itself and to speak for all 28 in those debates. By Brexit, you would find that the UK would regain strength and influence in those conversations.

Q1235 Mark Garnier: Overall financial regulation is a fantastically – fantastically – complex area, with huge amounts of overlap and huge amounts of underlap. It is the underlap that, of course, causes a problem, where you start seeing financial crises going on. There have been an awful lot of institutions around the world. We have had America, we have had our Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which I was involved in with the chairman, and the Financial Services Act 2012. These have been led by us and Europe is still catching up, but Europe is looking to us. You cannot deny that the biggest single economy in the world would have a less influential part to play in these international agreements than Britain would, with a relatively important financial services centre but not the same level of influence because it is not the same sized banking market.

Boris Johnson: If you abstract Britain.

Mark Garnier: If you extract Britain, yes. No, sorry, if you extract –

Boris Johnson: Paradoxically what you might get is an intensification of European influence in global conversations about these matters, because you would have not just the EU speaking in its own voice but the UK, with all its influence in financial affairs, around the table as well. As I am sure you can envisage, there would be a lot of co-ordination between us and our friends.

Mark Garnier: We are at the tables as well.

Boris Johnson: One of the difficulties is that we as a country, now, are more and more often outvoted in the European council of ministers, and it is hard sometimes to maintain that we are effectively influencing proceedings in the way we would like. There are alternative ways of getting international influence, particularly on financial services.

Q1236 Mark Garnier: I would not disagree with you that, as you get more member states, your relative influence gets smaller, and I would completely agree with you that there are many things wrong with the European Union in terms of its architecture. But would you not agree that it is better – you probably would not, to pre-empt you – to be inside negotiating and trying to change that organisation? We are better off by being in.

Boris Johnson: Mr Garnier, yes, that was the position I was in for a long time, and I was sure that is a position that many of us have been in before, but several things have really curdled my belief that was possible. First of all, there is Lisbon and the annihilation of the opt-out over human rights. We were told that this had no more significance than the Beano, remember? The charter of fundamental rights is now in the ECJ and it is being used by the court of justice. It was perfectly obvious. A lot of people were very encouraged by David Cameron’s Bloomberg speech of 2013 and the talk of wholesale reform, fundamental repatriation of powers and so on. I do not think anybody in their right mind can pretend that has happened.

It is a balance, and I accept that there are two sides to this argument. Nobody is going to deny that, but in the end when you look at the massive concentration of power that is now taking place in the EU, and you couple it with the loss of control over borders and immigration, which has been so damaging to public confidence in politics, the argument only goes one way.

Mark Garnier: We are not part of the Schengen zone.

Boris Johnson: You have not asked me as mayor of London about the impact on our city of immigration, but I would be perfectly happy to answer that.

Chair: You will get more questions in a minute.

Q1237 Rachel Reeves: Mr Johnson, on 11 March you said, “What I think we should do is strike a new free trade deal along the lines of what Canada has just achieved”. When did Canada start negotiating its trade deal, and what is so good about it?

Boris Johnson: Ms Reeves, as I have said before several times, we want a British deal.

Rachel Reeves: You said “along the lines of what Canada has just achieved”.

Boris Johnson: We would not be in the same position as Canada, because we have been members of the EU for 44 years, and we would be able to do a deal very rapidly. One of the attractions of the Canadian deal is that it involves wholesale or very large removal of tariffs, but there is a lot more we could do.

Q1238 Rachel Reeves: My question was when the negotiations started. They started in 2009, and at the moment they are not yet in force. The EU-Canada agreement took seven years to negotiate, and it is still not in force.

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Rachel Reeves: It takes quite a long time. I expect the Canadian trade negotiators are pretty good, and it has taken them seven years to negotiate a deal, and it is still not in force. The former Canadian trade minister who had some part in these negotiations wrote a piece in the Times today, and he says, “It is fatuous to think there is a real comparison between Canada’s relationship with the EU and the UK’s with the bloc. Indeed, were Canada to trade as much with the EU as we do with the US we would want a much deeper relationship” than the Canadian deal.

Boris Johnson: Yes, that is right. The point about the Canadian deal is, obviously, you have two very different systems and two very different trading relationships. The EU deal with Canada took a while to negotiate. I do not see why on earth that should be the case with the UK, which has been a member of the EU for 44 years, as I said. I point you to the US-Australia deal, which was completed in less than two years.

Q1239 Rachel Reeves: The difference, Mr Johnson, with respect, between the US-Australia deal and a deal with the EU, and this is what Pierre Pettigrew in The Times says today, “Any ambitious deal has to be ratified, in the case of the EU, in 27 legislatures”. That is not the same as a deal between the US and Australia. That is why it takes time. Pettigrew goes on to say, “That means years of uncertainty, barriers to trade for UK firms, and a likely drop in inward investment”.

Boris Johnson: I am not seeing--

Rachel Reeves: Sorry, I have not finished Mr Johnson. In your response to Mr Garnier, you said that there are, of course, arguments on both sides. Are these not pretty compelling arguments for staying in the European Union?

Boris Johnson: No, I do not think those are good arguments at all. No. There are no good economic arguments. There are good political arguments, but I do not think there are any good economic arguments.

Q1240 Rachel Reeves: The governor of the Bank of England is not making good economic arguments for staying in the European Union. the chancellor and the CBI are not making good economic arguments for staying in the European Union. They are all making political arguments and not economic ones. Is that what you are suggesting, Mr Johnson?

Boris Johnson: Yes. Yes, I am, and quite seriously the economic impact of Brexit would be positive. In fact, my economic adviser, Gerard Lyons, I think said it would be overwhelmingly positive, it was the right thing to do, and I would have to say I agree with him. It would unshackle us from a great deal of excessive regulation, and it would be a huge boost for British democracy. We would take back control of very considerable sums of money.

Q1241 Rachel Reeves: Do you think that part of the success of the UK economy is being an outward-looking trading nation?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I do.

Q1242 Rachel Reeves: In that case, do you not think that having free trade with our nearest neighbours is an important part of our success as an economy?

Boris Johnson: I do, and I see absolutely no reason why that should not be perpetuated.

Q1243 Rachel Reeves: You may see absolutely no reason for it not being perpetuated, but it needs the agreement of 27 legislatures, which, as Canada has found and is still finding, is not always that easy to achieve. What evidence do you have for suggesting, Mr Johnson, that we will be able to achieve an agreement in two years?

Boris Johnson: I would cite the prime minister, David Cameron: “Would we be able to trade freely? Yes, of course we will”, and Lord Kerr, who said, “Of course we would be able to do a free trade deal”.

Q1244 Rachel Reeves: Can you point to any trade agreement between the EU and another country that has taken less than two years to negotiate?

Boris Johnson: Do not forget, because people will want to understand the context--

Rachel Reeves: Can you point to one, Mr Johnson?

Boris Johnson: The UK will remain within the existing treaties for two years anyway, and I believe that will be abundant time to negotiate a free trade deal. If you can point to me any EU country that wishes not to do a free trade deal with us, I would be interested to hear about it.

Rachel Reeves: It is our prerogative to ask questions in this committee, Mr Johnson. I have asked you whether--

Boris Johnson: I am telling you that we have absolutely no--

Rachel Reeves: Sorry, Mr Johnson, with respect--

Chair: Order. Sorry, Rachel.

Q1245 Rachel Reeves: Thank you, Mr chairman. With respect, Mr Johnson, my question was: do you know of any trade deal between the EU and another country that has taken less than two years? Yes, or no?

Boris Johnson: No, I do not, and that is one of the defects of the EU.

Rachel Reeves: OK. If it is OK, I will move on to my next question.

Boris Johnson: That is one of the defects of the EU. You are making my point, if I may say so, Ms Reeves, because one of the catastrophic weaknesses of the system is that the EU is unable to strike these deals. They cannot do a free trade deal, even with China. Iceland has done a free trade deal with China. Switzerland has done a free trade deal with China.

Q1246 Rachel Reeves: You are rather, Mr Johnson, I believe making my point: that it is very difficult to secure these type of trade arrangements, and given that it takes such a long time to make a deal and we are dependent on free trade in this country--

Boris Johnson: This is absolute scaremongering and total nonsense – total scaremongering.

Rachel Reeves: I am just using the evidence, Mr Johnson.

Boris Johnson: There already is, as you know perfectly well, a free trade area in the European landmass stretching from Portugal to Turkey, to the borders of Russia. To get back to my point, it is not Britain that trades. It is British people, British companies, British firms. They will continue to trade, more than ever before, with countries, with people, with partners on the continent of Europe, and do not forget 70% of our non-EU trade is done without any trade deals whatsoever.

Q1247 Rachel Reeves: We may well trade; however, whether we have a trade agreement and whether we have tariffs and other non-tariff barriers is my point.

Boris Johnson: Why would they put tariffs--

Chair: Order, order. Boris, you really have to stop interrupting people trying to ask questions.

Boris Johnson: I am so sorry. Forgive me.

Chair: If I may say so, when you answer the questions, it would help if you do try to address the question that was asked, even if it may not necessarily be the one you would like to hear or have asked.

Boris Johnson: I think I have demolished all the questions that have been asked so far.

Chair: I know earlier you were giving hints on what you would like us to ask, but we make up our minds on what we are going to ask here.

Boris Johnson: Forgive me.

Q1248 Rachel Reeves: If we look back at Canada, and I pick on Canada because it is the country that you cited as an example – you thought we should strike a deal along the lines of Canada’s – I would like to look a little bit more at the Canadian deal. Is the Canadian deal good for the service sector in Canada in accessing EU markets?

Boris Johnson: With great respect, this question has been asked before. The Canadian deal has some aspects that are attractive, such as the removal of 97% or possibly 98% of tariffs. That seems to be an attraction. It is clearly not ideal for the UK. What we want, as George Osborne has rightly said, is a British deal, and that is what we will get.

Q1249 Rachel Reeves: Let us look at the tariffs and then the non-tariff barriers. If we look at agriculture, for example, tariffs have been eliminated in most areas but not all. More than 90% of UK beef and sheep exports go to the EU, but tariffs on those exports for Canada still exist – tariffs of more than 12% if you go over a certain quota. There are still substantial tariff barriers in areas, so do you think that the Canadian deal would be good for farmers in the UK, if we were to secure that deal?

Boris Johnson: As I say, there are attractions to the Canadian deal. There are obviously things we would do much better. The fact that the UK has been part of the EU for 44 years augurs very well for doing a substantial free trade deal involving a comprehensive deal both on services and goods, and indeed on agricultural products, as our friends have absolutely no interest not to do such a deal.

Q1250 Rachel Reeves: You make that assertion, Mr Johnson, but the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who appeared on The Andrew Marr Show on the same day that you did, said, “You are either in the single market or you are not in the single market, and if you are not in it then you have trade agreements”. We may have those arrangements, as you rightly say, currently, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that we would have the same sort of access as other countries you have mentioned this morning, as Switzerland and Norway have to both contribute to the EU budget and accept free movement. You seem to want to have the best of both worlds, which I am sure we all agree would be fantastic.

Boris Johnson: That’s the spirit.

Rachel Reeves: However, the reality is not always the same, and I like to deal in realities, Mr Johnson. If we move on, now, to the other aspects of the Canada deal. Inside the EU, financial firms based in the UK can sell their services directly to EU countries through passporting. Does Canada have those arrangements in its deal with the EU?

Boris Johnson: On passporting, I see absolutely no reason why our friends and partners should not want to continue current arrangements, when you consider that their banks benefit very considerably from their presence in London. They would want to have reciprocal arrangements. I think Deutsche Bank has about 8,000 employees in London.

Chair: Just to tell you, and to tell everybody in the room, that at 11am the division bell will sound and we will observe one minute’s silence, as will the rest of the House of Commons, in respect for the events in Brussels. Rachel, do carry on, but you may need to interrupt your answer.

Q1251 Rachel Reeves: Yes, of course. Again, Mr Johnson, you assert that we will get these arrangements, but presumably Canada wanted these arrangements, and wanted further barriers to be broken down, but that was not to be achieved. I do not think there is any evidence that we will get everything we want through a negotiation.

Boris Johnson: That is a bit defeatist, if I may say so.

Q1252 Rachel Reeves: You are not pointing to any evidence. I am pointing to the evidence that exists, based on the trade deal that you cited as the type of trade deal that you wanted. When we are making such important decisions and when our constituents are having to make such important decisions, they need to do that based on the facts. If you look again at the airline industry, the relationship between Canada and the EU does not afford the same sort of access that the single market does. I believe there are risks for farmers from the Canada deal, there are risks to financial services, there are risks to airlines, and risks to motor manufacturers as well. I am afraid, Mr Johnson, you have not provided any evidence that we could secure a deal that is better.

Boris Johnson: I merely point out to you that, unlike Canada, we have been a member of the European Union for 44 years.

Q1253 Rachel Reeves: And because of our membership of the EU, we have access to the single market, and the abolition of tariffs and other trade barriers. You are, Mr Johnson, making my point. It is because we are members of the EU that we have a better deal than Canada.

Boris Johnson: My point is that, thanks to the close relationships and understanding that there is between our countries and our systems of trade, there will be absolutely no difficulty at all, given the substantial balances that they have in their favour with us. I am speaking particularly about France and Germany, but also Spain and other countries. I think there will be absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in getting a free trade deal.

Chair: Order, we are at 11am, and you will be able to continue in just a moment.

[The committee observes a minute’s silence]

Chair: Do continue, Boris. You were halfway through a reply to Rachel.

Boris Johnson: I had completed my point.

Chair: You said there would be no difficulty at all in negotiating. I think that was your phrase.

Boris Johnson: There is a defeatism that rises off this debate. We have a huge number of very competent officials, about 1,700, who are capable of negotiating trade deals. The pity of it is that in the European commission, which does our trade deals for us, only 3.6% of officials come from this country. I do not know if I will get an answer to this, so I ask this rhetorically: how do people think we can expect that European commission to do deals with other countries around the word that reflect Britain’s needs?

Chair: Rachel has one more question for you.

Q1254 Rachel Reeves: Mr Johnson, you are the person who in your speech on 11 March cited the Canadian deal. It took seven years to negotiate. It is going to take seven years to fully implement. I do not want to take until 2030 to get access to markets that we can access today.

Boris Johnson: That is total tripe. There is a free trade area from--

Q1255 Rachel Reeves: Sorry, let me just ask my question. Sir John Cunliffe gave evidence to this committee on 8 March. He is one of those 1,700 people who could do our negotiations, and he was indeed the UK representative in Brussels for many years, and he was for many years the sherpa on G20 deals. He said, “Different countries have very different views and I personally would expect, regardless of what the UK decided it wanted, that on the European Union side it would take some time for them to work out what they wanted to do”. He is one of those 1,700 people who you say would be able to do the negotiations. I have every confidence he would be able to do the negotiations, but as he says it will take some time. I do not think that is time that British businesses and employers can afford.

Boris Johnson: I am afraid you are being too pessimistic, both about British business and about our ability to do these deals. Indeed, if you look at what the prime minister has said, what Lord Kerr has said, and what virtually everyone who is a permanent representative to the EU has said, there is absolutely no doubt that we could do a free trade deal and do it, in my view, in very short order. It is overwhelmingly in the interests not just of the UK but of our partners to do such a deal.

Q1256 Rachel Reeves: Yet Wolfgang Schäuble says that you are either in the single market or you have a trade agreement.

Boris Johnson: Yes, and that is what we want.

Q1257 Rachel Reeves: We will have a trade agreement, you believe, Mr Johnson, that will give us all of the benefits but none of the costs?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely, and that is the way forward.

Rachel Reeves: You have said that with no evidence to back it up.

Boris Johnson: Yes, and I say that because if you look at what Wolfgang Schäuble said, and I remember that interview, he spoke of a disaster for the European economy if the UK left, and in my view the disaster is being caused by the euro, and the catastrophic failure of that policy, driven by Germany. If unemployment rates increase, there is still about 50%--

Rachel Reeves: The referendum is not on the euro.

Boris Johnson: What I am saying is I am not going to take lessons from Wolfgang Schäuble about economic disaster in Europe. Look at what has happened. Look at what has happened on that continent. You are paid to represent working people. Look at what has happened to the people of Europe.

Q1258 Chair: OK, order, Boris. [Interruption.] Order. When I ask you to quieten down, Boris, I would be grateful if you did. That may or may not be a very interesting point, but it is certainly not very closely related to the question you were asked. I would like to ask you a question, though, that is closely related to what you were asked. Is there – I should tell you I do not know of any – a bilateral free trade agreement between two regional bodies, or one country and a regional body, that gives full access to financial services?

Boris Johnson: I cannot give you the answer to that. I do not know.

Chair: I do not think there is, but if there is perhaps you will come back and let us know.

Boris Johnson: If by that question, you are implying that--

Chair: These things are very difficult to negotiate, Boris. That is what I am implying.

Boris Johnson: If you are implying that the rest of the European Union were to be so foolish as to discriminate against UK financial services, that would be wholly wrong. I do not think that would happen for one minute. The precedent is amply there, in the case of the euro. You were told that money and power and banks would migrate away from London. It did not happen. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Those who said that you needed the single currency to complete the single market were wrong.

Q1259 Chair: Does that include all those people who were polled: the business leaders, the 85% in those polls, and the 70%-odd in another poll?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Q1260 Chair: You made one other remark that we just need to clarify. You said that the governor of the Bank of England was making a political argument. Do you think the governor was going beyond his remit in doing that?

Boris Johnson: No, I have a high regard for the governor of the Bank of England.

Q1261 Chair: Do you think his remit can cope with him making political arguments? Is that part of his remit?

Boris Johnson: I know you have had him here before your committee recently, and I am sure you asked him something along those lines. He is expressing his views as governor of the Bank of England.

Q1262 Chair: But was he right or wrong to do so?

Boris Johnson: He has a perfect right to express his views. I do not happen to agree with them.

Chair: That is clear enough.

Q1263 Wes Streeting: Does the governor have a right to make an economic or a political argument?

Boris Johnson: He has a perfect right to express his views.

Q1264 Wes Streeting: The governor should be able to make a political argument about the European referendum, should he?

Boris Johnson: I think the governor of the Bank of England was saying that there were short-term downsides.

Q1265 Wes Streeting: To be fair, we heard what he had to say. I do not need it translated. It is wholly inconsistent for you to say that there is not an economic argument for remaining in the European Union but it is an economic argument the governor has made, and yet you have confidence in it. If the governor of the Bank of England was making an economic argument I did not agree with, I am not sure I would share your confidence. However, that is about as consistent as some of your other positions we have heard this morning. I want to pick up Rachel Reeves’ point about the negotiation post-referendum. You seem to think, unlike our former man in Brussels who has been at the heart of European negotiations for years, that we will be able to negotiate a favourable deal pretty much on the same terms as we have now, because we have had that relationship with the European Union.

Boris Johnson: That is right.

Q1266 Wes Streeting: On what basis? What possible evidence? Surely we would face some penalties.

Boris Johnson: Why?

Q1267 Wes Streeting: You made that argument yourself, in August 2015 in Der Spiegel in Germany, and I am just wondering if you make a Europhile argument to pro-Europeans, whether in this place or in Europe, and a Eurosceptic argument to Eurosceptics. Nonetheless, you said yourself, in August 2015, we would face some penalties. What penalties did you have in mind?

Boris Johnson: I am sure that there would be some penalties. I do not know. Frankly, I have no idea what penalties they might be so foolish as to try to impose, but let us face it: there would be some short-term feeling of hurt, perhaps, on the part of some of our European friends and partners. It would be very important to allay those, and to point out that it was overwhelmingly in the interests not just of the UK but of the whole of the European Union that we should stop a system that is, in my view, out of control, anti-democratic, and weakening people’s trust in politics. If you look at what is happening across the EU, you have the rise of the far right; you have anti-German demonstrations taking place in Greece.

Wes Streeting: Let us keep things close to home.

Boris Johnson: The EU, and certainly the monetary union experiment, has been very damaging.

Q1268 Wes Streeting: But unrelated to our membership of the European Union. We are not in the euro. You have repeatedly, this morning, talked about the euro or indeed risk of exposure to the euro even if we were still part of the single market, as I think we should be whether we remain or leave. That does not alter our relationship with the euro.

Boris Johnson: It does. It does. Can I come back on that?

Wes Streeting: No, I want to move on, if I may.

Chair: I would be grateful if you would answer the question you were asked.

Q1269 Wes Streeting: On the domestic implications in the event of a Brexit vote, again, I see this picture of the prime minister emerging in the event of a Brexit vote – who knows? It may be a different prime minister. I am sure they are not going to be talking about this new land where children can choke on balloons and we can recycle our teabags. They are going to be dealing with the practical economic realities of leaving the European Union. Earlier you said that there is no reason for uncertainty. Do you not agree that if we were to leave the European Union – if there were to be that vote – there would be an economic shock?

Boris Johnson: No. I think, as I said, the best comparator is the Y2K bug.

Q1270 Wes Streeting: No, we have heard this. I have heard your Y2K bug example, and in fact your own economic adviser has said, “Leaving the EU would be an economic shock”. You do not agree with the governor of the Bank of England, but you cannot explain why. Now, seemingly, you do not agree even with your own economic adviser. Could you please point to any evidence whatsoever, beyond argument and beyond a view-

Boris Johnson: Yes. Beyond argument – you do not want argument.

Wes Streeting: --that tells us there will not be an economic shock in the event of Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I will give you the most obvious. First of all, Gerry Lyons has been absolutely clear that the UK would benefit massively from Brexit and it is overwhelmingly the right thing to do. That is his judgment and I think he is right. Secondly, what is the evidence that there would not be an economic shock? I simply point you to and revert to all the arguments that were made at the time of the euro decision. There were many people who were saying then that it would be--

Chair: We have heard that argument, and I am going to close that down. We must have heard that about six or seven times.

Boris Johnson: On the contrary, it galvanises--

Chair: Order, order. We have heard that argument six or seven times in your responses. It is a very interesting point, and one that people can weigh outside this room, but we have heard it before. You have now alluded to it again in response to that question. If you have some new points to make, please do make a new point.

Boris Johnson: The CBI, which got it so wrong about the euro, put out a study a couple of days ago in which they predicted what would happen upon a Brexit, which I thought was grossly negative, but even in their most negative scenarios, there were still three million more jobs by 2030. I do not happen to agree that they are right to be negative. The British economy and British democracy would be galvanised, and we would take back control over our borders, and we would take back control over about £10bn, or £8.5bn net, that we send to Brussels. It is high time, frankly, that we did so.

Q1271 Wes Streeting: You cannot even tell us what the Brexit scenario would look like, and the events this week show us that economic forecasts barely last months, let alone decades. Let’s not put too much stock in them.

Boris Johnson: Why are you predicting an economic shock?

Q1272 Wes Streeting: Your economic adviser has predicted the economic shock, and you do not agree with him. That is an issue you should probably take back to City Hall.

Boris Johnson: He is predicting very clearly we would be much better off out.

Q1273 Wes Streeting: Let me just take your own view, or at least the view at the time. When you were questioned by Andrew Marr, he raised this metaphor of the Nike tick, or the Nike swoosh, to describe what would happen in the event of Brexit, and he said there would be a period, presumably in the downward bit of the swoosh – I can draw a diagram, if that is helpful – where people would lose their jobs, and you said there might.

Boris Johnson: You are now quoting Andrew Marr.

Wes Streeting: You said that it might – it might. However, there is no uncertainty.

Boris Johnson: Our risks are roughly the same as the Y2K millennium bug, and we are talking ourselves into needless negativity about this.

Q1274 Wes Streeting: No, hang on a minute: I am shutting down this Y2K bug stuff. You keep on falling back on this argument. The only relevance of the Y2K bug here is that there was no evidence for the Y2K bug and there is not much evidence for the arguments you are making.

Boris Johnson: There is not any evidence for the arguments you are making.

Wes Streeting: I have cited your economic adviser.

Boris Johnson: He thinks it is overwhelmingly right to leave the EU.

Q1275 Wes Streeting: I have cited a quote you have given to a German newspaper. Let’s instead turn to an independent report released by the CBI – I know you do not have much time for them, but it was conducted by PwC – and that warned that a vote to leave the EU would cost the British economy £100bn and 950,000 jobs. How many job losses would it take before you would change your mind again on Britain being a member of the European Union?

Boris Johnson: As I say, if you study that report properly and closely, as I am sure you have, you will find that it predicts there will be three million more jobs as a result of a Brexit.

Q1276 Wes Streeting: That is by 2030. If people worried about paying the bills in the next two years, what is your message to them?

Boris Johnson: I believe the country as a whole would be £10bn better off from day one, net, and we would be able to invest that money in projects, goods and services that our country needs. Secondly, we would take back control of our frontiers, and we would relieve the colossal downward pressure on wages that we have seen.

Wes Streeting: I am not touching on immigration just yet.

Boris Johnson: No, it is very important. You are asking about whether people will be better off.

Wes Streeting: No, I asked about jobs.

Boris Johnson: Well, let’s talk about jobs. Let’s talk about employment.

Q1277 Wes Streeting: I am trying to bring you back to the next two or three years, because most families cannot plan their finances over a period of decades.

Boris Johnson: Let’s talk about jobs. Let’s talk about families’ finances.

Chair: Order, Boris. I am not going to instruct you to stop interrupting the questioner again.

Boris Johnson: Alright.

Mr Rees-Mogg: But the questioner is interrupting him, chairman. It is a bit unfair.

Chair: Order, Jacob.

Wes Streeting: If we got direct orders, I would not have the need to interrupt him.

Chair: Order, Wes.

Mr Rees-Mogg: It is a bit unfair.

Chair: Boris, let Wes ask his question, and then try to address your answer to the question, not to what, perhaps, you might have wanted the question to be.

Q1278 Wes Streeting: In the short term, there would be an economic shock. Of course there would, because there is natural uncertainty. Even if the government have a clear position about their platform for renegotiation, which as far as I am aware they do not, we would still have to get the agreement of every other EU member state. That breeds uncertainty and there is risk, and I am afraid I put a bit more stock in independent analyses by economists that warn about job losses in the short term. What work have you done as mayor of London to look at what would happen in terms of jobs in London in the next two to three years? How many job losses would there be for Londoners in the next two to three years – whether that is people on the trading floor or the people who clean the trading floor – and how many job losses would it take before you changed your mind?

Chair: Let us hear what Boris has to say.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Streeting. I believe the London economy, along with the rest of the UK economy, would benefit from the removal of a huge amount of regulation and red tape. It would also benefit many Londoners on low incomes, who currently have very poor access to services such as the NHS, education or whatever it happens to be, simply because of the pressure on those services from uncontrolled immigration. I must be very honest about this: I am pro-immigration. I believe it is a good thing, but it is absolutely wrong of politicians to be unable to control those flows.

In the last year for which we have figures, we had 330,000 net immigration into this country. That has unquestionably exercised, which you should care about very strongly, a downwards pressure on the wages of all our constituents. It has made it much more difficult for social services to cope. It has put huge pressure on public services of all kinds. It is not reasonable for us, in London or anywhere else in this country, to be asked to cope with those kinds of numbers without some sort of measure of control. It is not reasonable for politicians continually to tell the electorate that they can control it when they cannot.

People feel that very strongly. I think it was Lord Rose who came to this committee and made the point that a Brexit would lead to an increase in wages for the low paid. That is something you might bear in mind when you talk about jobs and the impact on jobs of a Brexit.

Q1279 Wes Streeting: Would you, in the event of Brexit, want Britain to remain part of the single market?

Boris Johnson: I have given that answer about 15 times.

Q1280 Wes Streeting: Your views tend to change from one question to another. Further down the track, if we have negotiated Britain taking part in the single market, do you accept that we may still be subject to European regulations? They may still insist on freedom of movement as a principle and, even if they did not, a country like ours and a city like London is still reliant on immigration to drive its economy.

Boris Johnson: I referred to controlled immigration, and it is totally wrong that politicians should continually tell their electorates that they can control numbers when they cannot. There is no reason at all why this country should not be able to continue to attract talented people without having an open-door policy. The whole argument has changed very much over the last 20 years or so, because before Maastricht basically you were able to move to another EU country if you had a job to go to. When I went to work on the continent, I had to go and report to the commune, I had to show evidence that I had a job, and all the rest of it.

That is no longer the case under the doctrine of European citizenship. Anybody can travel around in search of work and indeed, as you know, to receive benefits. That is leading to colossal pressures across the EU, and when you have a gigantic free travel area and you have huge difficulties of controlling immigration coming in to the EU zone, you are making life really difficult for government at all levels.

Q1281 Wes Streeting: I just want to finish on the issue of trust. If we were to leave the European Union but still be subjected to EU regulations and there was still inward migration to drive the economy, are you not concerned that people who are voting to leave the European Union on the basis of sovereignty and immigration might feel cheated? Secondly, whatever criticisms I may have of the facts or lack of facts you may have put across in answers, I do not think many people would doubt that this morning you have put across an enthusiastic and rather passionate case for leaving the European Union. Do you not understand why many of us find it hard to believe that passion and believe your authenticity when, over the course of your political career, you have been making very different arguments?

Boris Johnson: Rubbish. I have not. To answer your second point first, you would be hard pushed to find a single British politician or journalist who has written more about the failures of democracy in the EU over the last 30 years than me. With the possible exception of Daniel Hannan, I do not think there is a single one, and I resent it very much. I have given you my explanation of what I think has gone wrong and is going wrong with the European Union. This thing is out of control. It is totally out of control, and what we need to do is take back control, particularly over the funds and over our borders.

Somebody sent me a cutting from 25 years ago, Daily Telegraph, Thursday 17 January 1991, which predicted the EC was facing 800,000 immigrants a year. As I reported, “As 1992 draws near, the issue is becoming increasingly sensitive amongst member states. France shares British anxieties that abolition of frontier checks could see migrant workers wandering unchecked from Czechoslovakia to Spain, from Algeria to London”. That was 25 years ago; at the same time Andrew was writing about how you needed a single currency to complete a single market, I was accurately predicting what would happen in a border-free Europe.

To answer your first point about what would happen post-Brexit and what we would do with our frontiers, there is no reason at all why you should not be able to have free trade, as exists, as I say, from Iceland to the borders of Russia, without having free movement in the way that we currently have it. It did not exist before Maastricht anyway. Why is it necessary? It is not the law of the Medes and the Persians; there is no reason why we should have it.

Q1282 Chair: When you spoke in the House of Commons in 2003, which is a bit more recent, I have the strong impression from reading that speech that you were strongly supportive of enlargement and the immigration that came with it. Do I take it that you have changed your view?

Boris Johnson: I was supportive of enlargement, because it was then the view of the government – and I thought, rightly, it was the British view – that if we widened the EU it would somehow become a more tenuous relationship, a looser arrangement. Instead, the widening of the EU has seen an intensification of the dominance of Germany. Let’s be totally clear about what has happened. The whole federal structure has accentuated German preponderance within Europe.

Q1283 Chair: I am just trying to clarify whether your view has changed with respect to that enlargement and the associated immigration.

Boris Johnson: I think it was the Blair government that decided, prematurely, to allow the EU accession countries to have free movement, to get rid of the derogation, as I recall. I do not think that was the right thing to do.

Q1284 Chair: Earlier you said it was rubbish that you had changed your view, and I am just looking at what you said in 2003, which is not that long ago. You said, in regard to the measure for the introduction of 10 countries into the EU, including the A8 east European member states, “It is hard to think of a measure that the government could have brought to the House that I could support more unreservedly and with greater pleasure”.

Boris Johnson: Of course.

Q1285 Chair: You also said, quite recently, “For the life of me, I cannot see the economic logic of restricting immigration on the grounds that it increases house prices”.

Boris Johnson: There are plenty of pressures that immigration puts on all kinds of services, and the point I was making there was about the impact of foreign buyers on the London market. That has been grossly exaggerated. It is certainly the case that, if you look at welfare, the NHS or wages at the bottom end, there have been huge pressures caused by immigration.

Q1286 Chair: The question that I am asking you, though, is quite straightforward. I am sorry to interrupt. It is because we hope to finish at 12pm and we have three more colleagues who want to come in. You did say it was rubbish that you had changed your view, and I am just trying to clarify whether what you feel you are now saying about immigration constitutes clarification of what appears to have been your view.

Boris Johnson: I am in favour of immigration, but I am in favour of controlled immigration.

Q1287 Chair: Is that what you meant when you said you supported unreservedly the expansion of the EU?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Q1288 Chair: Even though there were no proposals for control on the table at the time?

Boris Johnson: No. It was the Blair government, as I recall, that decided to ditch the derogation and allow unfettered immigration. That was the mistake.

Q1289 Chair: At the time you said that, you were assuming that a derogation would somehow appear – even though it was not part of the negotiations for us.

Boris Johnson: No. Other countries exercised it. As you will recall, Mr Tyrie, other countries decided to protect themselves against such flows and continue to have the derogation. We chose not to.

Q1290 Helen Goodman: You said the CBI document claimed that, “After Brexit, three million jobs would be created”, but that is not what it says. It says, “In the short term, our results suggest that employment levels fall. Over the longer term, total UK employment could be around 350,000 to 600,000 lower in our two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the EU”. That is what they say. They do not say that it will increase by three million, Mr Johnson.

Boris Johnson: It does. Ms Goodman, you have to combine tables 4.1 and 5.5. I leave that to your ingenuity. You will see that, even in the worst case scenario, there is a gain.

Q1291 Chair: I am not sure that you are as on top of those tables as you appear, since I notice that you are reading from a scrap that has been passed to you by your colleague.

Boris Johnson: I notice you have been constantly conferring with some chap sitting on your left.

Chair: I quite understand that you may not have the tables 4.1 and 4.6 at your fingertips, but we will take a look at them and come back to it if necessary before the end of the hearing.

Q1292 John Mann: Mr Johnson, I had the pleasure of hearing your 2003 speech. It was the first time I had heard you speak, and you also said then, “If we did not have a European Union, we would invent something like it overnight”. I appreciate people do change their minds. It was the most pro‑European speech – far too pro‑European for my liking – that I had heard in parliament at that time, very much in tune with the mood of Mr Blair and his government at the time.

It is interesting to see how people change their views, but I wanted to home in on one of the things you said that I thought was inappropriate. This is, under British law, a sitting of a parliamentary select committee. The governor of the Bank of England has a remit, indeed a contract. He is not allowed to make political comments. I would judge that, if he were to make political commentary, that would be a sackable offence. You have said that he has made political commentary.

Boris Johnson: I did not say that.

Q1293 John Mann: Mr Johnson, you said that the governor of the Bank of England has made political commentary in relation to what he has said to this committee. I give you the opportunity to correct the record – which exists, verbatim – such that what you meant to say was, “The governor of the Bank of England made appropriate economic commentary, as he thought fit”. Would you like to correct the record?

Boris Johnson: First of all, I would like to see what the record says. My memory of what I said was that the governor of the Bank of England was at perfect liberty to say what he wanted.

Q1294 John Mann: Let me be quite clear, because I wrote it down at the time. You said “political comments”. That is how you described the governor of the Bank of England. I am giving you the opportunity to correct the record. If you do not wish to, that stands.

Boris Johnson: I would love to see the record before I correct it. I am grateful to you for writing down the words “political comment”. It does not seem to represent, to me, a very accurate shorthand note of what I said.

Q1295 John Mann: That is an answer. There is a tape and verbatim record of the proceedings. We will see what you have said. In my view, your commentary is wholly inappropriate to a committee like this. It is a sackable offence, but we will see where that takes us in the future.

Boris Johnson: We will.

Q1296 John Mann: You also referred to Canada. On 11 March, you said, “We can be like Canada”. In relation to the Canadian agreement, you said – and I am quoting you again – that “one attraction is the wholesale removal of tariffs”. You also suggested that we might need a deeper relationship than Canada has, because of our 44 years. In that Canadian agreement, what was the single big stumbling block that led to prime minister Harper not being able to sign it during his tenure?

Boris Johnson: One of the biggest difficulties is obviously that Canada has a very different history.

John Mann: No, there is only one big stumbling block. I am sure that you have studied what has gone on in Canada – it is contemporary. For prime minister Harper, there was one stumbling block to this agreement. I am asking you if you are aware of what that stumbling block is.

Chair: We must let Boris now answer the question.

Boris Johnson: I am sorry to say that, from my point of view, the attractions of the Canadian agreement are that it gives free trade in a huge number of areas and removes 98% of tariffs. As I have said before, I do not consider it to be the perfect model for what we need to achieve. What we need is a British deal.

Q1297 John Mann: The reason that prime minister Harper could not sign it, and the reason it has taken seven years and is still not enacted, is because the EU insisted in those negotiations that the charter of fundamental rights be included. That is the reason that prime minister Harper refused to sign it, although there are significant factors relating to human rights in it. How long is this small agreement? What is the length of the agreement?

Boris Johnson: If I may say so, Mr Mann, it is you who seem to attach such great significance to the Canada deal. I was merely isolating one attraction of it.

Q1298 John Mann: How long is the agreement? You are here as an expert witness. I am trying to prey on your expertise. How long is the Canadian agreement?

Boris Johnson: I am sorry, sir. I cannot tell you how long the Canadian agreement is.

Q1299 John Mann: Have you read the Canadian agreement?

Boris Johnson: Mr Mann, it is you who seems to want--

Q1300 John Mann: Are you aware of the name of the Canadian agreement?

Boris Johnson: It is you who attach such great significance to the agreement.

Q1301 John Mann: Are you aware of the name of the Canadian agreement that you have cited?

Boris Johnson: What I want is a deal for Britain--

Q1302 John Mann: You are not aware of the name of the Canadian agreement. You are not aware of its length.

Boris Johnson: I am not interested in a deal that has defects of the kind--

Q1303 John Mann: Are you aware of its content?

Boris Johnson: It gets rid of 98% of tariffs. That seems to me to be admirable.

Q1304 John Mann: Are you aware of its content on human rights?

Boris Johnson: You have just mentioned that.

John Mann: It is 598 pages.

Boris Johnson: If I may say so, you are rather making my point. It is absurd that the EU should be introducing such requirements into international trade negotiations – absolutely mad.

John Mann: Let’s go on to tariffs.

Chair: We just need to have Boris’s reply to the specific point that John made. If you could be brief, that would be helpful.

Boris Johnson: It is absurd that the obstacle to the EU-Canada trade agreement should have been the charter of fundamental rights. I am taking this from you, Mr Mann. If that is indeed the case, I see no reason why the charter should be such an obstacle. It seems totally irrelevant to our trade concerns. Anybody that has studied the 55 articles of the charter of fundamental rights will know that some of them are very peculiar indeed. They go way beyond the normal understanding of human rights.

Why on earth the commission feel it is necessary to use this as the basis for trade negotiations is beyond me, and I think it is totally inappropriate.

John Mann: It does in the current ongoing trade negotiations with Canada.

Boris Johnson: Totally wrongly. Mr Mann, it shows why we need to renegotiate our own deals.

Chair: Order, Boris. John, have a go, and then Boris.

John Mann: No, it shows what the negotiating stance of the European commission is and why it took the Canadians – who had a similar approach to you – seven years to negotiate. Clause 2.11.3 of the Canadian agreement says that, “Canadian products can only be imported and sold in the EU if they fully respect the EU regulations without any exemption”. In their current negotiations, the EU is requiring full acceptance of EU regulations to allow Canadian products into the EU. That is their negotiation stance.

Boris Johnson: I hesitate to be remotely disrespectful to this committee, but if you want to sell into a domestic market, of course you have to make sure that your goods comply with those domestic requirements. That is the case for the US or Switzerland exporting to the EU. One of the interesting things is that, in spite of not being a member of the so-called single market, the US has seen a much bigger increase in its exports per capita to the EU than we have. The same is also true of Switzerland.

Countries do not trade with countries. People trade with people. Businesses trade with businesses. They will continue to do so to a huge extent.

Q1305 John Mann: Countries put up tariffs. You raise the Animal By‑products Directive 2002. What is your assessment of the Aqsiq negotiations ongoing with China?

Boris Johnson: If you are talking about the EU-China negotiations--

John Mann: I am talking about the British-Aqsiq negotiations.

Boris Johnson: I am sorry. I cannot give you an informed commentary on that except to say that it is very sad that we are currently unable to do a free trade deal with China, because that competence has been given to the EU.

Q1306 John Mann: No, China refuses to do any specific negotiations with the UK on it at the moment. I am meeting the secretary of state in two weeks’ time on the very issue because it affects jobs in our area. You happened to quote the Animal By‑products Directive. Which country initiated that?

Boris Johnson: I am sorry. I cannot tell you that.

Q1307 John Mann: You came in in 2001, the same time as me. Can you not recall what happened when we came in that might have led to the British government wanting to propose an animal by‑products directive?

Boris Johnson: I am sorry – yes, it was foot and mouth.

Q1308 John Mann: Why did that directive get brought in at the behest of the British government?

Boris Johnson: As I recall, we wanted to restore trade in British beef and livestock with the rest of the EU. We were keen to persuade them to accept our beef. As I recall, they did not. In spite of our membership of the EU, Mr Mann, they kept our beef out. They did, illegally and in a highly discriminatory way that affected our farmers and businesses.

Q1309 John Mann: The directive came in at Defra’s request, in order that we could get that industry going again.

Boris Johnson: Let me ask you: did the French drop their ban? When did the French drop their ban?

Q1310 John Mann: You cited that as an example of terrible regulation, but in fact that regulation – that you did not vote or argue against in parliament – was precisely to tackle tariff barriers to our industry.

Boris Johnson: I am sorry – it is possible that you were not here at the beginning of this conversation, which was a couple of hours ago. What the chairman, Mr Tyrie, said was that there was no evidence to suppose that you could not recycle teabags. I pointed out that this resulted from Cardiff Council manically over‑interpreting an EU directive. I made no comment on the rights and wrongs of that directive, which related – as you rightly say – to BSE [bovine spongiform encephalopothy]. I commented on the ludicrous gold‑plating of that directive and the behaviour of Cardiff Council. The record will reflect that, Mr Mann.

Q1311 John Mann: Mr Johnson, the beauty of these hearings is that there is a record of them. If any expert witness is inconsistent, that can be seen.

Boris Johnson: You will find that I have been perfectly consistent.

Q1312 John Mann: You say that there 2,500 statutory instruments per year. You have been in parliament for six years and came in on the same day as me. How many have you voted against?

Boris Johnson: I had been out of parliament for a while, but I am now back in.

Q1313 John Mann: You have been in for six years – the period I have been in, and started on the same day. That would be around 15,000 that you are claiming in the period that you have been in parliament. How many have you voted against? How many? 14,000? 10,000?

Boris Johnson: Many of them as you know, Mr Mann, cannot be voted against at all. I used to serve on something called European Standing Committee B and it was a completely pointless exercise. There is absolutely nothing this parliament can do to stop the vast majority of this. It is absolutely true. It goes through on the nod. There was nothing we could to stop it.

I remember being on the European Standing Committee B and asking whether there was anything we could practically do to stop the stuff we were effectively rubber-stamping, and there was not.

Q1314 John Mann: Any member can attempt to force a vote on any issue in here. I am asking you on how many occasions – out of these 15,000 – you have attempted, by vote or speaking, to block them?

Boris Johnson: When I was on European Standing Committee B – I would have to go back and look at what I said – I certainly remember being appalled by some of the things that we were being asked to rubber‑stamp. However, it was made clear to me that that was the position we were in, this stuff had to go through the House of Commons, and there was nothing that we could do about it because of the supremacy of European law under the 1972 European Communiqué.

Q1315 John Mann: The answer is that you have hardly forced any votes on any of them during your period of time in here.

Boris Johnson: It would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever, as you know very well, Mr Mann. It is absolutely absurd to pretend otherwise. This House has no ability to stop European legislation or statutory instruments.

Q1316 Chair: You have had an important and clear exchange on that. We have your point on that issue, which is well made. Many of us have some sympathy with the point that you are making, but I do want to pick up on one of the agriculture points that John Mann made and bring in George Kerevan at this point.

Boris Johnson: This is a marathon. This is turning into a European agriculture council. Let’s have an all‑nighter – a fisheries council.

John Mann: It is called a select committee.

Chair: Part of the reason, Boris, is that you do occupy the odd minute or two in the sidelines of our conversations with remarks of exactly that kind.

Q1317 George Kerevan: At your now famous Dartford vote leave launch you said that the common agricultural policy was “demented” and it adds “about £400 to the cost of food for every household in this country”. Are we to take from that that if Britain votes to leave the EU, the average household will be £400 better off in some direct way?

Boris Johnson: There would be some reductions in the cost of food, made possible by getting rid of some bureaucracy and provisions in the current CAP [common agricultural policy] system.

George Kerevan: You have put a number on it. The number was strategically used, so I am just trying to get the number clear.

Boris Johnson: Let me give you a full answer, Mr Kerevan. It is very important for my side of the argument to stress that we believe in subsidising and supporting agriculture. It would not be reasonable to expect British agriculture to survive without direct support. What we are advocating is a repatriation.

Q1318 George Kerevan: I appreciate that. I am trying to clarify the number. You used a specific number, which got a lot of publicity. It may be right or wrong; I am just trying to clarify it. Are you saying that it is not £400 if we leave? What is the saving?

Boris Johnson: The extra cost of food as a result of the CAP has, for a long time, been put at £400 per year, per family.

Q1319 George Kerevan: By whom?

Boris Johnson: I would be very happy to write to you with the provenance of that statistic, but that is certainly a statistic that I have read for a long time.

Q1320 Chair: Would it not have been a good idea to try to find out what that statistic was before making it in a speech like that?

Boris Johnson: Mr Kerevan, I would be very happy to supply you and Mr Tyrie with the origins of it. If you think about it for a second, you can see that if you support agriculture in all sorts of ways – through subsidies and tariffs – there will be an extra cost. The question for us is: is the CAP efficient?

Q1321 George Kerevan: £400 is misleading, because it is not what people would save.

Boris Johnson: Is CAP efficient in the way--

Q1322 George Kerevan: No, you have gone off on a tangent. I am trying to be as specific as possible. We have a number. You introduced the number. You do not know where it came from. Is it a £400 saving – or is it £300 or £200 – or do you know?

Boris Johnson: Let’s be very clear: there is a cost to the consumer.

Q1323 George Kerevan: You used a specific number two weeks ago. You do not know where it came from. You are now telling me that it would not be £400. It would be less than that.

Boris Johnson: You have spoken about a saving. I was speaking about a cost.

Q1324 George Kerevan: You said that there was a £400 cost at the moment. You used the number. If we leave – I am asking – do we save that £400, wherever it came from?

Boris Johnson: My answer is that we would not save all that £400. We would save some.

Q1325 George Kerevan: How much?

Boris Johnson: I cannot give you that figure. We will certainly continue support for agriculture, and all farmers will continue to receive the current levels of subsidy. We would need to make sure that was baked in very firmly and that stewardship and deficiency payments – payments for agriculture – would be maintained.

Q1326 George Kerevan: As well as UK subsidy to farming and fishing, do you mean you would maintain the £3bn a year that goes to British farmers from the EU?

Boris Johnson: Yes, but do not forget the FEOGA [Fonds Europeen d'Orientation et de Garantie Agricole] budget, or the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, is something to which we are huge net contributors. We pay in much more than we get back. The net contribution on FEOGA is something like £4bn. I would have to check the figures, but it is a very considerable net payment we make in to the European agricultural system. There will be more funds available for the support of other vital services in this country. More to the point, I think everybody does understand.

Q1327 George Kerevan: I appreciate the editorial comment as a journalist. The £400 that you have used, and which is constantly used, comes from the TaxPayers’ Alliance. It comes from data that is seven or eight years old, so it is quite whiskery. It does not include netting back the money that comes to British farmers, which is about £3bn a year. Even on its own grounds, that £400 is misleading because it does not include the money that comes back to British farmers and British businesses.

Boris Johnson: As I have tried laboriously to point out: at the moment, if you look at the Office for National Statistics’ figures, we contribute gross about £20bn. Through the agricultural, structural and regional funds, or abatement, we get back about £10bn. There is scope for a colossal saving for British taxpayers.

George Kerevan: I understand that.

Boris Johnson: I am glad you understand that, because that is a vital point.

Q1328 George Kerevan: It is a vital point. The vital point – now that you have explained that you understand that farmers get money back from the CAP – is that the £400 that you are using, which does not include allowance for that net back, is an exaggerated figure.

Boris Johnson: No, it is the extra cost as a result of the CAP. In my view, it partly reflects the additional bureaucracy of the CAP system, with its price support, intervention, export refunds – all sorts of mechanisms that are exceedingly inefficient. It would be possible to have strong domestic support for farmers and repatriate the CAP in such a way as to support British farmers in a way that they need and deserve.

Q1329 George Kerevan: How would you change the support system?

Boris Johnson: The EU is party to witting evil in the way that it discriminates against manufacture and agricultural products from sub‑Saharan Africa, for instance. There are goods that would benefit families in this country that come from markets that are currently prevented from exporting to us by the external EU tariff. People should care about that very much. The whole system of price intervention – although they have moved away from that a great deal – is still crazy.

Q1330 George Kerevan: I am asking what your system would be.

Boris Johnson: This would be a matter for government and parliament to decide, but my preference would be for deficiency payments and farmgate payments that were baked in and supported agriculture in the way it needs to be supported, and stewardship payments as well, because many farmers need support for looking after the land and not just for producing. Thank you, Mr Kerevan, for this question, because it is vital to get across that it would be at the level that they currently enjoy and that level of support would be perpetuated.

Q1331 George Kerevan: Is the £400 wrong?

Boris Johnson: No. As I have said, the EU system – the CAP – involves all sorts of mechanisms, such as intervention support for prices, such as tariffs.

George Kerevan: The bulk of it is the subsidy.

Boris Johnson: Before the CAP was invented, Portugal did not even have a sugar beet industry.

George Kerevan: We are not talking about Portugal. We are talking about British farmers.

Boris Johnson: The result has been that the EU sugar regime has done fantastic damage to the interests of UK sugar cane producers. Tate & Lyle in particular, which I represent in London, are facing huge problems because of the EU’s approach. They would be totally liberated by a Brexit. Sugar cane producers in poor countries around the world would benefit.

Q1332 George Kerevan: Let us move on, if we can. You have made the point. We have left the EU – let’s move on to that scenario. This morning you have said on several points that there is an existing free‑trade area across the whole of Europe, from Iceland to the Russian border. That is not true, because agriculture is not subject to free trade across that whole area. If the UK left, we would then face the tariff barriers on food and agricultural products by being outside, which you have mentioned.

Boris Johnson: Why?

George Kerevan: The EU applies the very tariffs that you have just mentioned that you knew about. They apply to Norway. Are you saying we would have to negotiate free trade access for agricultural products?

Boris Johnson: Given the huge exports of agricultural products to this country from the rest of the EU, they would be insane not to do a deal with us involving free trade in agricultural products.

Q1333 George Kerevan: That would then require acceding to the CAP rules.

Boris Johnson: No. Why? We have already discussed free trade agreements that the EU has done with other third‑parties. I see no reason at all why there should not be free trade in agricultural products.

George Kerevan: The French farmers might see a reason.

Boris Johnson: They might. On the other hand, they might not want their wine or Camembert to face discrimination in this country.

Q1334 George Kerevan: Would you advocate counter‑tariffs if the EU permits it?

Boris Johnson: No. There would not be a need for any such thing. There would be no need for tariffs or counter‑tariffs. It is an increasingly primitive way of thinking about the world. Britain is global. We should be trading globally.

Q1335 George Kerevan: I am not advocating. I am just suggesting that if you take the concrete example we have of Norway, Norwegian products face tariffs because Norway is in the economic area but not within the EU, although it has free trade in manufactured goods. It does not have free trade on agricultural products. They are subject to the same tariff barriers that the EU puts to everyone else. If we are out of the EU, we face those tariff barriers – unless you can negotiate them away. It is reasonable to assume that part of negotiating those away – if that was possible – would be accepting the common rules for the agricultural policy. You would not get rid of that, so it is either: out, and face the tariff barriers of the EU for food products; or in, and keep the payments.

Boris Johnson: I do not follow you and do not agree. It is a non sequitur. I do not think that is true. Yes, we would want to keep free access, and it would be overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the EU to do so. However, there is no reason for us to be part of the CAP, whereby we have this extraordinary system where you send in a huge cheque to Brussels; that gets dissipated on all sorts of farm support schemes around the EU, and you get a much smaller amount back for the support of your own agriculture. We would have a system whereby we were able to support our agriculture and support it more generously, thanks to the massive saving that we were making.

Q1336 George Kerevan: You want to spend more on agricultural subsidies.

Boris Johnson: You might want to be more supportive on some areas. Many people would say that some of the big barley barons have done very well out of the CAP over the last 25 years. You might consider exactly how you wanted to develop your programme so as to the benefit of all producers in this country.

Q1337 George Kerevan: Will you use the £400 sum again when you speak?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to you for bringing it up. It is a handy reference point for the effect of the CAP on prices.

Q1338 George Kerevan: However, you cannot justify the number.

Boris Johnson: You have said that the TaxPayers’ Alliance has produced that number and that is their calculation. I am saying to you that there is ample scope for savings on bureaucracy in the whole weird architecture of the CAP.

Q1339 George Kerevan: How much?

Boris Johnson: If you would like to know how much we can save on our net contributions to Brussels –

George Kerevan: Pounds, shillings and pence – I am just asking what the number is.

Boris Johnson: From memory, we contribute £6.5bn to the FEOGA budget and get £4bn back. I would have to check those figures. That is a saving of £2.5bn.

Chair: We have made some progress in that exchange. I am sorry that this is going on so long.

Boris Johnson: No – I love it. It is such an honour to be here.

Chair: Boris, I am very pleased that you are taking that view. It is not the longest session we have had. You have some way to get to the record, but I am sure you are looking forward to taking the baton.

Boris Johnson: I just admire the indefatigability of your committee, some of whom have deserted.

Q1340 Chris Philp: Thank you for joining us this morning, Boris. Thank you for your patience, which has been exceptional, and goes above and beyond the call of any sort of duty. I would like to start by talking about some of the future prospects for the European Union if we stay in, which have been held out to us as, one might say, carrots or inducements. One of the provisions in the deal that was struck a few weeks ago was that competence would be reviewed on a regular basis, with a view to returning some to the United Kingdom or member states where possible. Bearing in mind your long experience of the Brussels machine, how likely is it that, were we to stay in, there would be any return of competence or sovereignty?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for that, because it goes to the heart of what we are talking about with the development of the single market. I think it was Rachel Reeves who said we were not in the euro and therefore did not have to worry about the way things were going. I do not take that view. One of the reasons that my attitude has changed, Mr Mann, from that speech I made in 2003 – before the Lisbon summit and the euro experiment got so out of hand – is that the Five Presidents’ Report shows very clearly they are bent on more integration of social policy, company law, property rights and all sorts of things that have not hitherto been thought necessary for the functioning of the monetary union. Avowedly, they want to do it through the single market. That will impact on us. Chris, I do not see any prospect at all in that context of a repatriation of powers to our country. That is just not going to happen.

You have seen what happened in the renegotiation; we got absolutely zilch, effectively. That is the best that we can hope for.

Q1341 Chris Philp: Do you draw any comfort from our exemption from the ever-closer union, or is that just a platitude?

Boris Johnson: I do not want to minimise that. It is something, but there are very few times that the European court of justice has relied on that provision to form its federalising judgments. Most times, it is very federalising and centralising anyway. It does not need to have recourse to that. It is a nice symbol, but it is not of much practical assistance.

Q1342 Chris Philp: There is also a provision in the arrangement to look at removing regulations. There will be annual review and they will look at which regulations they can cancel. I established – in questioning the commissioner, Lord Hill, a few weeks ago – that not a single regulation that he is aware of has been repealed, thus far. It is always a one-way street. In a similar vein, do you have any expectation that, if we did stay inside and the British government battled energetically, we might be able to get some regulations taken away from the inside?

Boris Johnson: I do not want to contradict Lord Hill, but the EU does technically repeal measures, so far as they are replaced by new ones. They will argue that there are some that have been repealed. However, in the course of their subsidiarity campaign to get rid of stuff where they think they have been ultra vires, nothing has happened. I do not see any prospect of that happening. Where is the acquis – the corpus of European law? Where has it been winnowed down as a result of British intervention? I am afraid I cannot see it.

We fundamentally have something that is not suitable for us. It is a political union and the time has come for us to say, “The emperor has no clothes”, and call a halt.

Q1343 Chris Philp: Can we not stand within the European Union, participating in the single market fully, but standing to one side from the political projects such as the ever-closer union, the single currency and so on?

Boris Johnson: It is fundamentally dishonest of us to keep pretending that we are able to be in it just for free trade and nothing else. This is an avowedly political project. They want to create a single polity. That is what they say. That is what is being achieved by the huge increase in EU law. It is time to make a judgment and to say that the only way forward is for us to value our democracy. We fought for this.

Q1344 Chris Philp: We briefly touched on the question of immigration in earlier exchanges. Net immigration is currently 330,000 on the most recent figures, of which, very roughly speaking, half is EU, half is non‑EU. Were we to leave the EU, what level could we get immigration down to?

Boris Johnson: Obviously we would be able to control it much more easily. You would not have to admit people just because they have an EU passport. We know that there are now some places in the EU where you can get travel documents in a way that is not wholly above board, and an awful lot of people are coming here without any clear job already existing. Many of them do wonderful things for this country, but if you have uncontrolled immigration of the kind that we have had in the past 10 or 15 years, it will have very serious impacts.

As a country, we need to work out: what is the ultimate size of the UK population? How far are we going to go with this? If it goes on like this, it will be 92 million by 2050. That is an awful lot of people. We need to think about the impacts of that. Most of this will be driven by immigration. How are we going to cope?

Q1345 Chris Philp: I completely understand the point. Could you venture a number that people might be able to consider – the net immigration figure we might be able to achieve, were we to withdraw?

Boris Johnson: One of the difficulties of this whole thing is that governments endlessly come out with figures that they think they will be able to achieve, and they then disappoint the electorate. It would be unwise to come out with a figure.

Chair: That is how we feel about quite a few of your figures, Boris.

Boris Johnson: Mr Tyrie, perhaps you will write to me afterwards, telling me which of my figures you particularly do not like.

Chair: I think it is pretty clear which ones they are. Sorry, Chris – do carry on.

Boris Johnson: Anyway, I have seen studies saying that you would get it down to 50,000 a year. I am not necessarily endorsing those. The difficulty will be that there is a very large demand from business and industry, but you should at least be able to control it. You should be able to decide what type of labour you want. Do you want skilled labour of a certain kind? Do you need certain unskilled jobs filled? How does it work?

At the moment, what you have seen is a huge downward pressure on wages, and that has had a big impact on our country.

Q1346 Chris Philp: Of the current inward immigration flow from the EU, what proportion would you characterise as helpful, i.e. high skilled, filling gaps etc., versus unhelpful, i.e. unskilled and more of a drag?

Boris Johnson: The issue is really to do with control and what the scope is for UK politicians to take responsibility for what is happening. At the moment it is way out of control. People feel it; they know it. They can see hundreds of thousands of people coming here net every year. I do not see how we can stand up to the electorate anymore and tell them that we can stop this thing, when we patently cannot.

Q1347 Chris Philp: I understand. The final point on immigration before moving on: what would happen in a Brexit scenario to those three million or four million EU citizens currently living and working in the country?

Boris Johnson: I may get this wrong, but there are about 2.3 million EU citizens in the UK and about 2.2 million UK citizens in the rest of the EU – something like that. Their rights would be unaffected. We already have, as everybody knows, huge numbers of French people living in London and huge numbers of people from all around the EU. Indeed we have huge numbers of Americans, Canadians, Australians and Russians. There are communities with 300 languages on the streets of this city. I do not think there would be any threat to their position.

Q1348 Chris Philp: As part of our exit negotiation over the two‑year period, we would effectively grant grandfathered residency rights to any EU citizen living here. Presumably, we would similarly expect a Brit living in Spain to receive grandfathered residency rights in Spain that would last for their lifetime.

Boris Johnson: Absolutely, and indeed those rights – to the best of my knowledge – are respected under the Vienna treaty.

Q1349 Chris Philp: Would that not trigger a massive influx of people in that two-year period, seeking to acquire those grandfathered rights?

Boris Johnson: Do you mean Brits coming back?

Chris Philp: No, people from Europe. Let’s say that we said any EU citizen resident as of up to and including 23 June 2018 gets lifetime grandfathered residency rights, but after that they are subject to whatever controls the British government--

Boris Johnson: Do you mean in the period of the negotiation?

Q1350 Chris Philp: Yes. Presumably during the renegotiation, which let’s say takes two years, we continue to be full members of the EU with all the normal laws applying. Let’s say that from 23 June 2018, two years later onwards, we get to control our borders as we see fit, but any EU resident that has pitched up before then would get these grandfathered lifetime residency rights, and vice‑versa for Brits overseas. Would that not then create an incentive for every person living in Romania that could jump on a plane to come over here before June 2018 to get their lifetime rights?

Boris Johnson: I am not certain that that is the case. If it were the case and if it seemed that that was a risk, you could probably take some steps to prevent it by unilaterally deciding to install restrictions on free movement of labour, which is what we are talking about. Do not forget that this is not as deeply ingrained in the DNA and religion of the EU as everybody now pretends. This is something that really only arose post‑Maastricht.

Q1351 Chris Philp: I have one final question. I realise people want to get to PMQs, although I have taken far less time than anyone so far. In terms of the debate we have frequently had about the nature of the future trade agreement post‑Brexit, we have talked about Canada, Switzerland and Norway, and you have said you would like to see a distinctive British deal. For the committee and the country’s benefit, could you give a rough sketch of how that might look in terms of goods, services, financial services, and any countervailing obligations that may be imposed on us, like free movement or budget contributions?

Boris Johnson: Both of those would be locked off – free movement and budgetary contributions – but it would be massively in the interests of our partners to do a deal based on free trade in goods and services, and I am sure that is what we would achieve. It is very important to recognise that we would retain the ability to work with our European friends and partners in all the other areas of EU co‑operation that matter greatly to this country and Europe. On the common foreign and security policy, or home, justice and criminal affairs, we would remain active partners, but it would all be done at an inter‑governmental level. As I say, there would be no need for this supranational judicial approach.

Q1352 Chris Philp: If we had full single market access, we would have to sign up to the regulations, wouldn’t we?

Boris Johnson: No. The whole point is that 95% of UK businesses do not do trade with Europe. However, they have to conform with 100% of the regulations. Those businesses that want to export to the EU – and we would want to encourage that and do a free trade deal – would of course, like the Americans, Canadians, Chinese, or anybody else exporting to the EU, have to make sure that their vehicles, or whatever it happened to be, conformed to EU standards if they wanted to have access to that market. But there is no reason why we, in this country, should be subject anymore to the single judicial system of the single market. That is what I am saying.

Q1353 Chris Philp: To play devil’s advocate on that point: if it were possible to do the deal you are describing, why have Norway not done it? They are subject to budgetary contributions; they are subject to free movement as a quid pro quo for the kind of access you are describing.

Boris Johnson: This is the fifth biggest economy in the world and it has been in the EU for 44 years. They have with us a net balance of trade in their favour of £80bn. They have had all sorts of economic shocks, which you discussed extensively this morning. They are going to want to move over Brexit as fast as possible, do a brilliant free trade deal, get on with it, allowing their businesses to trade freely with a huge market, and profit from engagement with us. That is the future for them as well as us.

Q1354 Chair: I would like to end with one point and give you an opportunity for a last word. I am very grateful that you have been able to give evidence for nearly three hours. We normally take a break after two if we have an extended session – as we occasionally do with the governor of the Bank [of England]. I want to come back to a point relating to almost everything you have been asked, which I was trying to get at the start, which is whether you accept that some of the claims you have been making – even in speeches in recent weeks, in some cases – can easily mislead people. Would it not be better to qualify these remarks much more carefully?

I will take you through a few of them. You said just now that immigration has a huge downward impact on wages. As far as I am aware, that is an extremely controversial issue and evidence on it is very difficult to pin down – certainly in agriculture.

I am going to give you a chance to reply to all the points that I am going to make. Scribble down the headings, by all means.

You have said that there would not be any economic shock, even in the short term, of Brexit – even though your own economic adviser recently said, “Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity”.

You said in a speech in Dartford very recently that £400 was being added to the cost of food of every household. Anybody listening to that might think, “If I leave the EU, I might pick up £400 of benefit”. As you acknowledged, once cross‑examined on it, that is not the case. You made clear that that figure would be lower.

You said about half an hour ago in cross‑examination with John Mann that you made no comment on the directive that led to this dispute or extraordinary exchange on teabags. However, when you look at the speech you made, you described the directive as ludicrous – quite the opposite of the impression that you gave in response to that question.

We can carry on with so many of these. You said, “Between half and two-thirds of everything that goes through parliament is being produced by Brussels”. However, the facts are that the best sources suggest between 15% and 59% is either produced or at least influenced by the EU. “Influenced” is the word you used. In other words, between half and two-thirds is not produced by Brussels; it is between 15% and 59%, and it is influenced in some way. This includes the decisions that often relate to individual firms, which constitutes a third of the total number in itself.

I come back to my original question. By all means, qualify further the answers you have given on each of those points, or all if you feel it necessary. I just want to ask you whether you would be prepared to consider – given that we need to have a sensible debate about this subject – that there are some very foolish claims, as you have already seen. Many in this committee think they are being made by the remain camp, but it seems that you are now fuelling the fire with some of your own.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful. If I may, Mr chairman, I will go through your points one by one.

Chair: And you may have the last word, yes.

Boris Johnson: On huge downward pressure on wages, yes, it is a matter of great economic controversy. In some sectors of industry or business, there has been considerable downward pressure as a result of the uncontrolled flow of unskilled labour. People will dispute whether it is always huge or not, but I do not think that many economists would contest that there has been downward pressure on wages.

Chair: Just to clarify: you are withdrawing “huge”.

Boris Johnson: No. I am saying that it might not always be huge, but in some cases I am sure it has been.

Secondly, in this city alone real incomes for the bottom two deciles are still not back up to the levels that they were in 2008. There has been a substantial downward pressure on wages. There are many factors for that, but immigration is certainly one of them.

On the vexed issue of what would happen if we left, and the shock that people describe – and I am grateful for what you have said about the alarmism of the remain campaign – it is wildly overdone. The point I am trying to make is that, by the time it were to be happen, it would be very much priced in. People would understand the consequences. The reason I make the analogy of the Y2K bug is because by the time that happened everybody had freaked out so much that it passed without the batting of an eyelid. The same thing would happen with Brexit; we and business would simply get on with it. The deals that I have described would be readily done on the back of what is already a huge free trade area.

On the point about the cost of food: yes, there is an extra cost to food as a result of agriculture subsidy. What I tried to say in my long exchange with Mr Kerevan is that we are big net contributors to the EU agriculture budget, as well as to the overall budget. Approximately £8.5bn or maybe as much as £10bn goes from us to the EU, never to be seen again. The European court of auditors have spent a long time not signing off the EU accounts. Even today, they continually point out that a significant percentage of the budget is misspent or cannot be properly accounted for. 5% is a lot of money. The EU budget over 2007 to 2013 is about €868bn. 4% or 5% of that is serious sums of money going missing. It is not good use of taxpayers’ money and it needs to comes back to this country. There would be savings on the agricultural budget if we did.

On the point about the animal hygiene by‑products regulation, my point there was very simple. I made it repeatedly both to you and John Mann, the real issue is about gold‑plating. It is about how officials in our country take EU legislation--

Q1355 Chair: I am sorry to interrupt, Boris. I want to read you what you said only very recently: “Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag”.

Boris Johnson: Most people would say that that does sound ludicrous.

Chair: There does not seem to be much of a reference there to gold‑plating or criticism of domestic legislation.

Boris Johnson: You will find that either there or frequently I have made the point about domestic gold‑plating, and it does sound ludicrous. It is a result of the hideous confluence of EU regulation and overzealous implementation by officials in this country.

As for the percentage of EU regulation or legislation coming through this place, after lengthy mastication we basically agreed here that, if you look just at the primary instruments and directives, you are down at about 13%. If you include the statutory instruments – and we had a long discussion about this – you are up at 59%, almost two-thirds, of law going through this place. That is a huge amount.

Q1356 Chair: Is that being produced in Brussels?

Boris Johnson: This is the crucial thing: emanating from Brussels in such a way as to fall within EU competence. Once it is within EU competence, it is justiciable by European courts. That is the crucial thing.

Chair: It is very helpful to have that clarification. Thank you.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for this opportunity to make these points, because I feel that, far from my having to clear up some of the things that I have said, it is up to the remain campaign and their running dogs in InFacts and others to explain why they have gone so stunningly wrong.

Chair: You are in danger of getting back to delivering us grains of truth with mountains of nonsense again, I am afraid.

Boris Johnson: I am sorry – I am telling you the truth.

Q1357 Chair: You were dangerously close to making some very considered points a moment ago. I am very grateful to you. By all means, do have the last word.

Boris Johnson: There are fundamentally three main points for wanting Brexit. One: the EU as it currently stands is too expensive. We need our money back. £8.5bn, £10bn net, is an awful lot, particularly when a lot of it is wasted.

Secondly, it is about control, power, democracy and this place. It is really being undermined. It is absurd that we cannot control our borders. The volume of legislation is now absurd.

Third is the fundamental dishonesty of continuing to pretend that we are part of a free trading arrangement when it is a political project. We should level with the British public about what is really going on.

Q1358 Chair: That is an extremely helpful clarification of your justification for your decision. I am very grateful to you for having stayed for three hours – which, as I say, is an hour longer than we normally have sessions without an interval. You have provided some extremely interesting and varied evidence often in primary colours – as we have come to expect of you.

Boris Johnson: I am most grateful to you and your heroic committee for sitting here, with most of them not even consulting their BlackBerrys. It is unbelievable – quite extraordinary diligence.

Chair: Who knows, Boris – we may even need to see you again if you carry on like this. That might finally shut you up. Thank you very much for coming, Boris.

Boris Johnson: If you do not want me to talk, you do not have to invite me.

Source: https://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/treasury-committee/the-economic-and-financial-costs-and-benefits-of-uks-eu-membership/oral/31014.html

[top]

23rd March 2016: Boris Johnson pays tributes to those affected by Belgium attacks

The scenes in Belgium were truly appalling and it is important we pay tribute to the victims, as well as show our solidarity with the people of Brussels. They have the sympathy of every Londoner and our thoughts will be with them as they do their best to recover from this despicable atrocity.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/london-landmarks-pay-tribute-to-belgian-victims

[top]

23rd March 2016: Boris Johnson records a message for Out & Proud

“Hi folks. I’m Boris Johnson. I’m the mayor of London. I’m very proud to say, we in Britain have the most progressive attitudes towards LGBT issues anywhere in the world and it’s a wonderful thing to see. But let me ask you a question. Did those rights and those freedoms, that spirit, come from the European Union? Or did it come from people campaigning from our courts, our parliament? It was us the British people that created that environment of happiness and contentment for LGBT people and it is absolutely vital that we fight for those rights today because they’re under threat in Poland, in Hungary, in Romania and other parts of the EU where they are not protected in the way they are in our country. What we need is to take back control for LGBT issues and everything else folks. Come on, I’m out and I’m proud.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ChAWodUYbQ

[top]

26th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets Happy Easter

“Wishing you and your family a very happy Easter.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/713715201149952001

[top]

28th March 2016: Boris Johnson Telegraph column

I suppose it is bizarre to feel such joy at the military success of one of the vilest regimes on earth. But I cannot conceal my elation as the news comes in from Palmyra and it is reported that the Syrian army is genuinely back in control of the entire Unesco site.

There may be booby traps in the ruins, but the terrorists are at last on the run. Hooray, I say. Bravo – and keep going. Yes, I know. Assad is a monster, a dictator. He barrel-bombs his own people. His jails are full of tortured opponents. He and his father ruled for generations by the application of terror and violence – and yet there are at least two reasons why any sane person should feel a sense of satisfaction at what Assad’s troops have accomplished.

The first is that no matter how repulsive the Assad regime may be – and it is – their opponents in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) are far, far worse. These are the people who have carved out this foul statelet in the desert, this dark star whose tractor beam of evil has sucked in so many pathetic would-be jihadists from Britain and other countries in western Europe. These are the nutjobs whose hideous ideology expressed itself again last week at Zaventem airport and Maelbeek metro station.

They somehow claim a religious justification for the murder and maiming of hundreds of innocent civilians. Assad’s regime may be thuggish and brutal and callous and evil in its own way. But these people are warped and sick almost beyond belief. They burn people alive – simply for holding to a slightly different version of Islam. They throw gays off cliffs or out of windows. They put their opponents in cages and then lower those cages into swimming pools, all filmed to the accompaniment of their droning music and their pompous commentary.

They are engaged in what can only be called genocide of the poor Yazidis (though for some baffling reason the Foreign Office still hesitates to use the term genocide). They are a threat to our security in Europe; they are a nightmare for the people of Syria. If ever a group of terrorists deserved to be wiped off the face of the Earth, to be expunged from the roll of the human race – that group is Isil.

And then there is a second reason why I rejoice at the news from Palmyra – and although I am aware that for many people this is a very secondary consideration, it is, for me, of deep emotional importance. The victory of Assad is a victory for archaeology, a victory for all those who care about the ancient monuments of one of the most amazing cultural sites on Earth. The monsters of Isil were not just content to murder anyone who refused to accept their barbaric version of Islam. They were so small, so narrow, so stunted in their understanding of the will of God that they regarded any pre-Islamic building or structure – no matter how beautiful – as being somehow a blasphemy. They have mined, bombed and demolished some of the most sublime buildings in the world. They took the devoted curator of the site, Khaled al-Assad, and punished him for his scholarship by killing him in the amphitheatre.

The period in which Isil has held Palmyra – now almost a year – has been a moral and cultural catastrophe. And yes, that is why I am glad that they have been driven from the site.

On April 19, we in London will show our solidarity with Palmyra by erecting in Trafalgar Square a digitally reproduced copy of the 15-metre gateway of the Temple of Bel. The project is being led by the Institute of Digital Archaeology, and it is a joint venture with Harvard, Oxford and Dubai’s Museum of the Future.

It will not be perfect. It will not be made of the same pinkish-golden stone of that original temple gateway, which Isil has blown to atoms. It will be made of resin. But it will still look amazing, and it will symbolise our collective determination – across the world – to put this ghastly epoch behind us, and to remember that for almost 2,000 years there was a willingness on the part of every conqueror who came to Palmyra to enjoy the architecture for what it was.

That temple was sacred once to Bel; then it was a church in the Byzantine period; and then it was a mosque. No one, until these sickos, thought to destroy it. I am glad the gateway will be going up in London, because I hope it will also be a sign of our British determination to be useful in the reconstruction of the country.

It is alas very hard to claim that the success of the Assad forces is a result of any particular British or indeed Western policy. How could it be? We rightly loathe his regime and what it stands for, and for the last few years we have been engaged in an entirely honourable mission to build an opposition to Assad that was not composed simply of Isil. That effort has not worked, not so far.

It has been Putin who with a ruthless clarity has come to the defence of his client, and helped to turn the tide. If reports are to be believed, the Russians have not only been engaged in air strikes against Assad’s opponents, but have been seen on the ground as well. If Putin’s troops have helped winkle the maniacs from Palmyra, then (it pains me to admit) that is very much to the credit of the Russians. They have made the West look ineffective; and so now is the time for us to make amends, and to play to our strengths.

We have some of the greatest archaeological experts in the world. I hope that the Government will fund them to go to Syria and help the work of restoration. It is far cheaper than bombing, and more likely to lead to long-term tourism and economic prosperity. One day Syria’s future will be glorious, but that will partly depend on the world’s ability to enjoy its glorious past. British experts should be at the forefront of the project.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/27/bravo-for-assad--he-is-a-vile-tyrant-but-he-has-saved-palmyra-fr/

[top]

31st March 2016: Boris Johnson April Fools Day secret plan

[Boris denies secret plan to tarmac over Britain’s canals to create a nationwide “cycle superhighway” if he becomes prime minister] “It is an inverted pyramid of piffle.”

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-has-secret-plan-to-tarmac-over-uk-s-canals-to-create-nationwide-cycle-superhighway-if-a6962736.html

[top]

31st March 2016: Boris Johnson Tweets a Standard article linking Khan to Corbyn

“There you go folks: vote Khan, get Corbyn.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/715597784859209728

[top]

APRIL 2016

[top]

1st April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets against Sadiq

“Sadiq Khan backed Jeremy Corbyn to be Labour leader, and says he'd do it again. #AprilFools? I'm afraid it's 100% true.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/715809155244814337

[top]

4th April 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column “Pity the Port Talbot workers – their country is powerless to help them”

Everyone feels sorry for the 15,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot; everyone in this country will be hoping for a solution that will keep them in work. That is partly because their fate seems so unjust. This disaster isn’t their fault. They don’t have some new strain of the Seventies “British disease”. The plant is not a hotbed of union activity.

On the contrary, these workers have agreed over the past few years to make substantial reductions in jobs and big increases in productivity. They make superb quality steel. They offer it at a reasonable price. It is just that the Wales plant has been overwhelmed by a series of misfortunes over which they – the workers – have absolutely no control; and these misfortunes, moreover, arise in policy areas over which these workers might reasonably expect their elected government to have some control, but which the UK has simply lost; abandoned; surrendered; supinely given up as part of our membership of the EU.

There is the massive global dumping of cheap Chinese steel, subsidised by a Beijing government that is itself alarmed by impending job losses in the sector. Then there are the excessive fuel bills that this country currently imposes on industry. When you are running blast furnaces the cost of energy matters a great deal. A recent report by the Business, Innovation and Skills parliamentary committee said that UK steelmakers were facing energy costs as much as 80 per cent higher than the EU median. Even if that figure is high, there can be no doubt that the UK’s various climate change policies – largely generated by Ed Miliband – have been highly damaging for British manufacturing.

Then, I am afraid, there is Brussels, which is exacerbating both problems. It is one of the features of membership that we must not only accept that about 60 per cent of our legislation – primary and secondary – comes from the EU. We must also accept a fatal loss of flexibility, an inability to take decisions that might be in our national interest – and an inability even to make good our own mistakes.

Take the glut of Chinese steel. It seems that the EU Commission has been considering a broad range of anti-dumping measures for some time. It is also clear that before Tata took the decision to close Port Talbot, the UK was one of the countries to be lobbying against such tariffs. Some have suggested that this was out of a general desire to suck up to the Chinese; others that it was a principled aversion to tariffs, and recognition that such import duties would hit domestic consumers of steel. Since the Port Talbot crisis blew up, the story seems to have changed. We are now told that the UK does indeed favour anti-dumping measures, though not of the kind that the EU Commission has been proposing.

The result? Probably nothing. Nothing will happen in the near future, if ever, because there is no agreement round the table in Brussels. Even when we want to change tack on tariffs, we can’t – because we have given up control.

Contrast the US, where – wham – they have applied 266 per cent tariffs on dumped Chinese steel. Contrast China itself, which – to add insult to injury – has just slapped 46 per cent duties on steel from Port Talbot. Britain can do nothing to mimic these steps, because we have given up control.

Exactly the same point can be made about energy costs. It is true that much of the burden of these high UK energy bills is self-imposed. There is a sense in which Miliband’s bonkers plan has succeeded. We have certainly cut our CO2emissions – but only by applying such crippling levies to UK industry that much of this manufacturing has simply gone elsewhere – along with the CO2production. We may feel virtuous about cutting our CO2, but it is unlikely that the planet notices the difference.

The Conservative Government is sensibly trying to make amends for Miliband’s folly, and to cut the costs of energy for industry – but at every turn we have the problem of the EU, and the objections of Brussels to anything that looks like state aids. Even when we are trying to address our home-grown mistakes, even when we are simply trying to bring down our energy costs so that they are more in line with the rest of the EU, we face the same difficulty: we no longer call the shots, even when thousands of jobs are at stake.

When this referendum campaign began, and I said that the key issue was sovereignty, I remember people giving me pitying looks. No one cares about sovereignty, they said. Well, losing sovereignty is just a fancy way of talking about losing control – and I think people care passionately about it.

As Michael Howard said yesterday, it is absolutely true that we cannot systematically check to see whether doctors practising in this country can speak good enough English. It is absolutely true, as Priti Patel has pointed out, that uncontrolled immigration from the EU has put a massive strain on the NHS. I spoke to one long-serving Hertfordshire GP who said she had never seen such pressure – and what can we do? Nothing. We can’t take emergency action against dumped Chinese steel, even with British industry on its knees. We can’t cut our own self-imposed energy costs. We can’t set our own language tests for practising doctors. We can’t control our borders.

What do we get for this sacrifice of control? Access, supposedly, to the giant EU market. Well, plenty of countries have access to that market. US exports to the EU have been growing faster than ours, and so have Switzerland’s – and both those countries have kept control of their democracies. The EU system is being daily exposed in this debate as an anachronism, and membership is increasingly cumbersome and anti-democratic. Nowhere else are they conducting a giant experiment of trying to fuse so many countries into one.

It is time to ignore the doomsters, get out, go global. It is time to take back control of our country – not to speak of about £10 billion net. We would have more money, and more freedom to rescue the British steel industry – and we might even succeed.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/pity-the-port-talbot-workers--their-country-is-powerless-to-help/

[top]

5th April 2016: Boris Johnson speaks with Wales Online (non-EU related) as he campaigns for vote leave in Wales

[source link to video only as in English and Welsh]

Source: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tested-boris-johnson-knowledge-welsh-11142170

[top]

6th April 2016: Boris Johnson comments to journalists on taxpayers’ money spent to scare the public

Boris: If we stay in this system which is completely, in my view, politically bankrupt we will be locked into a system where we continue to send about £20bn a year to Brussels only £10bn of which comes back much of which is misspent. We will continue to have about 60% of our laws made effectively, by the EU and we’d be locked ever tighter into a federal union of a kind we never signed up to. Now, I would like the government actually to put those facts to the people that would be a useful thing for the public to have before them as they come to make up their minds.

Interviewer: What do you say to the taxpayer whose money has been spent making these leaflets?

Boris: Given that I think it's very likely that it will be very biased and hysterical and warning unnecessarily about the risks of leaving the EU, I think it's a complete waste of money. It's crazy to use quite so much taxpayers' money on stuff that is basically intended to scare people and to stampede people in one direction.

I think what we want is a proper, informed debate and if you are going to use taxpayers' money, you should allow people to put the other side of the case as well.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/eu-referendum-taxpayers-to-fund9m-leaflet-to-every-home-warning/

[top]

6th April 2016: Boris Johnson commenting on David Cameron’s fathers offshore holdings

“As far as I can see, even a close study of The Guardian, I cannot see what they are blathering on about, I really can’t. The prime minister has made a very clear statement that he does not have a trust or any income from trusts and all the rest of it. It seems to be a load of absolute tripe.”

[Johnson was asked if he had any offshore holding linked to the Panama Papers] “I wish.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-labour-says-cameron-seen-as-shady-following-unanswered-questions-politics-live

[top]

7th April 2016: Boris Johnson Tweets a picture of a campaign stop in support of Zac Goldsmith

“Great to support @ZacGoldsmith tonight with the troops in east London. He'll be a great mayor for our fantastic city”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/718186137664253954

[top]

7th April 2016: Boris Johnson on EU leaflets

[The government does not want] “a fair fight“.

“If this thing was genuinely going to help people to understand what is going on in the debate there might be a case for it. But given, I think it’s very likely it will be very biased and hysterical and warning unnecessarily about the risks of leaving the EU. I think it’s a complete waste of money, the fact is that if we stay in this system which is completely, in my view, politically bankrupt we will be locked into a system where we continue to send £20bn a year to Brussels only £10bn of which comes back, much of which is in misspent. We will continue to have about 60% of our laws made effectively by the EU and we’ll be locked ever tighter to a federal union of a kind we never signed up to. Now I would like the government, actually, to put those facts before the people, that would be a useful thing for the public to have before them as they make up their minds.

“I just think it’s crazy to use quite so much taxpayer money on stuff that is basically intended to scare people and to stampede people in one direction. I think what we want is a proper informed debate and if you are going to use taxpayer’s money you should allow people to put the other side of the case as well.”

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35984991

[top]

8th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out in support of Zac Goldsmith

“Hi folks. Here's a cracking video to kick start your weekend. Sign up to #BackZac2016 here: https://backzac2016.com/volunteer”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/718500061425070080

[top]

9th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook video link to his speech at the Conservative Spring Forum – his final speech as mayor

“Here's my speech to the troops this morning at the @Conservatives' #SpringForum - and my final one as mayor:”

[full text]

Time is short, time is short. Technology is vital. We have only 26 days to save the greatest city on earth from the man who nominated Jeremy Corbin to be the leader of the Labour party. We have 26 days to save London not just from the left, but from the extreme left my friends. And I am very grateful because I see so many people here today who helped me not just in 2012, but in 2008 as well. And I want to take this last chance as mayor to thank you for everything that you did, thank you very much for helping us in those campaigns, but also to remind you of the forces we defeated back then, the kind of people that are slavering to get their hands back on the wheel at City Hall. And to remind you of the disaster that almost overwhelmed London the last time Labour in charge.

Do you remember the cover of Time magazine in early 2008? One called ‘London Falling’ and it had a picture of the skyscrapers of the city sinking beneath the waves like the funnels of some doomed ocean liner. Who was at the bridge? Captain Ken Livingston with his grogg store clinking with bottles of taxpayer funded French vintages. And who was perched on his shoulder, chattering nonsense in his ear? Lee Jasper. A man whose idea of social justice is to live in a council house while taking a state salary of £128,000. And it is no wonder an injustice we are now trying to rectify. It is no wonder that the good ship London was foundering on their watch. They were firehosing tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds on dodgy projects through the Lonodn development agency. They were failing to get a grip on the problems of gang crime and knife crime. The whole construction and housing industry had basically frozen because of the crunch and they had put up council tax - never forget this my friends, they had put up council tax to pay for their waste and their profligacy by 153%.

And there they all are again waiting for Sadiq Khan to put the band back together again. A bunch of high taxing, high spending, garden grabbing, chateau neuf-du-pape swilling, bendy bus fetishists. And my question tot you is do you- do you want these people back in control of the greatest city on Earth? No we don’t because we’ve got so much frankly to be proud of in London today. It is the number one tourist city on Earth. 18.8 million international visitors. We’ve knocked Paris, we’ve knocked New York off the number one spots. I’m delighted to say that on current trends, there are going to be more people visiting the British Museum every year than visit the whole of Belgium. And I say that without any disrespect to Brussels - which is of course a city I love. Though not necessarily all the institutions therein. It is a city of course with 400,00 French men and women, which will remain the case, and indeed all are welcome international, talented international workers I’m sure will remain here after June the 24th, or independence day as I’m sure it will be known. A city that - I’m going to slip these ones in quietly here. A city that makes up now 25% of UK GDP and which according to City AM just last week, or just this week was named yet again as the number one city in the world for investment and to do business in. Why is it so successful at the moment? What’s the formula? Why have we got all this incredible activity happening, not just in commerce and in finance, and in the universities, but also in the arts, culture, the media, all those incredible sectors. Why here? Why now?

And I think it is a confluence of factors all of them crucial in their own way. Of course crime is very important, a lot under the conservatives down about 19% in this city, burglary down 36%, murder roughly speaking cut in half, bus crime down 50%. Bus crime obviously crime committed on buses rather than crime committed by buses which remains very, very rare indeed. And this reduction in crime is of huge social importance because the victims of crime my friends are disproportionately the poorest and the neediest in our societies so in fighting crime, we are doing something for social justice. And the same point can be made about our investments in transport because you need to move people swiftly and conveniently around this great city of ours and I am absolutely thrilled that on our watch, under this conservative administration we have progressed crossrail so that it is on time on budget, will be completed in the next three years, this great government has committed to Crossrail 2, a colossal project firing away the biggest infrastructure project in the whole of Europe which will be absolutely transformative for rail transport in this city, North East to south west.

We are going ahead now with the first extension of the tube for 15 years, once again these crucial infrastructure projects done under Conservative administrations. We have 25% more people on the tube, every day than there were when I was elected some of you may feel they were in your carriage this morning but that is - but we have also reduced delays by 50% over the last eight years and at the same time we have massively improved cycling, cycling has doubled in the last period and I’m delighted to say on buses we have a beautiful new bus, do we not? A wonderful machine I’m thrilled to say that it is made in Northern Ireland, driving jobs, driving growth in the United Kingdom and replacing the bendy bus which was of course made elsewhere, in Germany as it happens. Wonderful, wonderful to see a fantastic UK project. That transport investment has enabled regeneration across the city, we’re transforming parts of the city that have been neglected for 40 years: Battersea, Old Oak Common, the Olympic Park, Greenwich and in all sorts of vital ways we are helping to improve the quality of life, I think it is one of the things that makes London so attractive to live in.

We have really concentrated, as Zac is going to concentrate, on all the environmental improvements that matter. 2,400 growing spaces we’ve created, where people are producing fruit and vegetables across London. The other day I was presented with the first ever bottle of London grown champagne, Chateau Enfield. Absolutely true, the bottle - this is one of the ways London is now the volunteering capital of Europe, one of the things we do is we encourage people to plant trees and do that kind of thing. Chateau Enfield, I’m afraid the bottle in question has been mysteriously stolen from my office and I hope that whoever nicked it is alright.

We have taken particular care to green up the city, we’ve planted 100,000 trees and contrary to some of the gloomy stuff you hear on the media we have greatly improved air quality in this city. You may not believe it but London air quality is improving the whole time, nitrous oxide is down 27%, PM10, PM2.5 down 20% in fact the air in London only recently throughout an outbreak of bad air quality throughout the UK - the air in London was actually better than the air in Norfolk, my friends. The day cannot be far off when kids are bussed in from Norfolk to inhale clean gulps from London.

We have done all these things, the biggest program of transport investment since the Victorian times, the biggest program of homebuilding, the biggest regeneration we’ve seen for the last century. We’ve done all these things with a sensible, cost-cutting, conservative approach. Taking the tough decisions to reform the estates of the police and the fire service, liberating surplus buildings for housing, taking on the unions when it came to the matter of the ticket offices and taking advantage of new technology so as to deliver automated trains, not a single train, tube train for london will have the old fashioned drivers cabs, we aer going for automatic trains in our system - and yes this July you will have on London’s underground the night tube service! And we’ve done it by being so prudent with your money, we’ve done it by being so prudent with your money that we have been able simultaneously to cut our share of the council tax by 28% my friends.

That is Convervative government in London, that is Conservative approach that we’ve had in city hall that has been so essential for building up the trust of central government and that central government, Whitehall, has rewarded us with increasing commitments to support London infrastructure. When they see local government behaving sensibly, central government responds. And they’ve given us, as I say, commitments to Crossrail 2, they’ve given us the backing for our 13 new river crossings. Incredibly, I’m delighted to say central government is also now committed to giving Londoners much more control over suburban rail which will be a fantastic gain for this city. They’ve given us huge backing in the matter of our housing zones, and I’m delighted to see Greg here in the front row who has been absolutely instrumental in helping London to develop new homes.

And when I think of the cooperation that I’ve had with George, with Greg, with David Cameron with everybody over the last few years I think what a disaster - the closeness of our relationship - I think what a disaster it would be if TfL budgets had £2bn taken out of them as Sadiq Khan promises to do. I really think there is only one man that can work with our Conservatice government and get the funding and get the confidence that London needs and that man is sitting here in the front row and that man is Zac Goldsmith.

Now, my friends, Zac is one of the most remarkable politicians of his generation. He’s a man of principle, he’s certainly right about Heathrow, he’s an environmental campaigner who works so hard and Londoners should pay attention to this because he works so hard for his constituents and so successfully and diligently that they have rewarded him with bigger and bigger majorities, he now has I think, Zac, the biggest majority in the entire country - give or take. Or certainly - Zac tells me it’s not quite true with characteristic modesty but it is, it is, Zac’s majority in Richmond is almost as big as my majority in London folks and that’s a measure of his willingness to serve his constituents. I think Zac shares with me and with David Cameron and with our government at the moment this fundamental binding philosophy - we are all one-nation Conservatives.

We understand the vital symmetry of a modern 21stcentury economy and that is it is only by having fantastic public services that you can create the platform for a dynamic market economy and its only if you value and you liberate entrepreneurialism and free market capitalism that you can pay the great public services, isn’t that right? And it’s by having that combination that combined approach, that one nation approach and by taking all those factors together: bringing crime down; investing in transport; investing in housing, that have helped to make the fundamentals of the London economy so strong.

We lead now, we lead Europe and we almost lead the world, in a sector - tech - that barely existed when I came to City Hall eight years ago. We now lead in fin tech, bio tech, ed tech, med tech, green tech, nano tech, Aztec, we have 500,000 people working in the tech sector now in London. Of the 40 tech business worth more than $1bn, 17 of them are in this country, 13 of them in London. And of course we lead in all those creative, culture and media sectors as well. We’re gonna - in a few years time we’ll produce not only more film than New York, more film and TV than New York but more film and TV than Los Angeles as well and that by the way is very largely due to Conservatie tax breaks for those industries.

Now I don’t know if any of you have seen the recent James Bond film, have any of you seen Spectre? You’ve seen Spectre? It’s a wonderful film. At the end of Spectre there’s a very, very important study on what happens to an unelected bureaucratic kabal who tries to subvert democracy, you may remember at the end of the film the final reel, James Bond shoots the baddie who is the leader of this unelected bureaucracy as I say and he falls, can you remember, he falls now where is he? Can anyone remember where the top baddie is? When Bond shoots? That’s right. Absolutely right he is - the location for that final, that climactic scene is of course, City Hall. The world’s leading baddie tumbles roughly from where my office is… all the way, all the way through the, the void made by an eight-floor spiral staircase constructed by Norman Foster thereby becoming the first person in history to make any practical use of that architectural feature. And he lands slap bang, slap bang in front of the place where I’m interrogated every month by the London assembly. In a tribute, in a tribute, I think, by the forces of unelected bureaucracy to democracy in this city and in this country.

Now I - what an amazing thing I think to have turned City Hall, this humdrum piece of municipal architecture - and made it the set of one of the biggest grossing movies of all time. I think $1bn it has already made, much of it of course coming in the way of employment to this city. It’s that creativity, that dynamism that has lead to what we’ve seen over the last few years under this Conservative administration a huge growth in the employment, Neets [not in education employment or training] at a 25-year low, employment at record highs, and it’s the creation of those jobs that economic activity in all these sectors that is the single biggest driver of social change and the single most important bringer of social justice and I’m very proud of a lot of the things that have happened under this administration on our watch in London above all of the 400,000 people in London who’ve been lifted out of poverty in the last eight years, when I was elected mayor of London we had four of the six poorest boroughs in the city and of course it is still true that we have pockets of immense deprivation but there is now no London borough in the bottom 20.

Where do you think property prices have been rising the fastest in the last year? Anybody know? It is of course - last year it was Waltham Forest, this year it is - anybody know? - Newham, Newham. London is the only Olympic city in the last 50 years to achieve a real physical legacy from the Olympic Games and now we come of course to the final weeks of my time in City Hall and it’s a bit like a washing machine coming towards its final, surging, throbbing, panting bout of energy and we are pushing on with a few things which I’ll briefly tell you: we are pushing on with the Garden Bridge, it’ll be done it’ll be absolutely fantastic place, we have just announced, just in the last few days, we’ve announced the completion of 100,359thaffordable home, so knocking Labour’s record out of the park.

The cycle superhighways - the beloved and popular cycle superhighways are almost there, work continues on the superb arts and cultural centre and the universities in the Olympic park known as the Olympicopolis by me if by nobody else. And in the next few weeks we will perfect perfection in the sense that Carsten Holler the artist Carsten Holler is teaming up with Anish Kapour to adorn the ArcelorMittal Orbit - you know what I mean by the ArcelorMittal - is going to adorn that by the longest covered slide in the world and I fully intend to be amongst the very first to descend, to go down the tubes in what may or may not turn out to be the perfect metaphor for the conclusion for my mayoralty.

But all these projects, there’s many many other things that we’re doing besides what we’re doing in the last few weeks but all these projects and I hope you will agree with this in conclusion my friends. All these projects are dwarfed in importance by the choice we face before us on May the fifth, do we want - well the choices I’ll set it out for you on the one hand you’ve got a victory not just for Sadiq Khan but for Jeremy Corbyn’s Sadiq Khan, don’t forget that Jeremy Corbyn is a man whose idea of a defence policy is to send Britain’s nuclear submarines to sea, without nuclear missiles aboard. So the whole country’s literally firing blanks, a victory for Sadiq Khan who has shared platform to put it at its mildest with some pretty dodgy people, with some pretty repellent views, a man who would bring back - avowedly - bring back the unions to City Hall, put up your council taxes and violate the gardens of outer London with rabbit-hutch highrises.

Now, do we want to go back to that regime, do we want to put - bring back Ken Livingstone and that kabal of cronies to City Hall, do we want those kind of people running London again? I don’t, I don’t. Or do we rather want to go forward with Zac Goldsmith, and sensible moderate progressive, green one nation but tax-cutting and efficient conservative administration to take this city forwards, that’s what we need, that’s what I want. I hope very much you do as well let’s back Zac folks, let’s back Zac and crack on with supporting the greatest city on earth and let’s get out there. Let’s get out there and get Zac elected on May the fifth.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10153621808466317 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU8OV4r9WsQ

[top]

9th April 2016: Boris Johnson on a scandal of prime minister Cameron

“I’m here to back Zac Goldsmith.”

[Questioned on whether offshore investment is a legitimate way of making money] “Ask all these blooming left-wing media organisations exactly the same thing.”

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-refuses-to-condemn-offshore-investments-in-uncomfortable-panama-papers-interview-as-a6976711.html

[top]

11th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to his Facebook post about Sadiq Khan

“We can’t let the Corbynistas plant the red flag back on top of City Hall. Here's why:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/719430149578612737

[top]

11th April 2016: Boris Johnson posts a Facebook post against Corbynistas in City Hall which becomes a Telegraph article (dated 10th April 2016)

OK, fingers on buzzers, folks. Here’s a question about 20th-century world affairs. A Labour councillor from Luton was recently discovered to have tweeted that Adolf Hitler was “the greatest man in history”. What was going through her mind?

What did Aysegul Gurbuz find so admirable about the Nazi leader? Maybe she has a thing about those Nazi uniforms, or the weird camp salute they used to have. Perhaps she liked Hitler’s lust for world domination. It might be that the budding Labour student politician – she appears to be active at Warwick university – liked the way Hitler was a vegetarian; or his fondness of dogs; or his teetotallism.

If it was any of these things, then the former Labour councillor (she has since been removed) might like to say. Otherwise, we are left with the overwhelming conclusion that the reason she admires him above all other men in history is the reason most sane people abhor his memory – namely that he unleashed genocide against six million Jews. That’s what she seems to find admirable: that he was responsible for the gas chambers.

Now, Miss Gurbuz is a young woman; and her defenders would presumably argue that she is naive and easily misled. But for someone to hold those views, and be a councillor for the Labour Party, suggests to me that there is something seriously wrong with the Labour Party.

And there is. There is a cancer in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party – and it is metastasising the whole time. Veteran Jewish Labour MPs such as Louise Ellman are being bullied in their constituencies – simply for sticking up for Israel’s basic right to exist. At Oxford university, the hip young students at the Labour Club now routinely refer to Jewish students as “Zios”. Even in the Woking Labour party, the deputy chairman Vicki Byrne has (twice) been suspended – for sending out tweets that were deemed to be anti-semitic. Jewish donors to Labour, hitherto generous, are refusing to give any more.

What is going on? To understand this anti-semitic sickness – this new boldness in the use of virulent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish language – you must grasp what has happened to Labour. It has been captured by the Corbynistas; and the Corbynistas believe in the most extreme ideology that Labour has ever espoused. It’s not just a question of bringing back the unions or sending Britain’s nuclear submarines to sea without missiles aboard. In the Corbynista worldview, capitalism is wicked, bankers are evil, Tories are scum and most geo-political discontents can be traced to the existence or behaviour of Israel.

To be fair, these views have long been prevalent among some parts of the Labour Party. It is just that they have never been on top; they have never commanded the party before. These views – explicitly rejected by Blair and Brown – are now the driving agenda of the Corbyn Labour party; and the tragedy is that we cannot dismiss them as the foaming irrelevance of a party doomed to opposition.

In less than a month’s time, there is a real danger that the Corbynistas will capture the London mayoralty. Who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the party leadership? Sadiq Khan. How did Khan himself secure the mayoral nomination? By ruthlessly outmanoeuvring the favourite – Blairite Tessa Jowell – and sucking up to the Corbynistas. And now – unless we can elect Zac Goldsmith – they will plant the red flag back on the top of City Hall.

And, yes, it matters desperately. The Mayor of London has a spending budget far bigger than many Whitehall departments and he runs an economy bigger than most EU countries. He has unilateral power to raise or cut the council tax. He has absolute control over fares on public transport. He can sack the police chief; he can set the law enforcement and recruitment priorities of the biggest police force in the country. If he wants to build a bridge or a cable car or a tunnel – he can. If he wants to introduce a new low carbon bus, or a new bike hire scheme or a new Olympicopolis cultural centre, he can. He has sole power to greenlight skyscrapers, and he can use his vast planning authority for good or ill.

With no parliamentary procedures and no backbenchers to worry about, the mayor can get more things done – and faster – than any Whitehall department. But he must be responsible with Londoners’ money, and Sadiq Khan is wrong to propose to fund a fares cut by taking £2 billion out of TfL’s budget. That will cost Londoners vital infrastructure investment. People will pay for it in delays and overcrowding. Above all, it will undermine the ability of the city to negotiate with the Treasury. It is a big mistake.

But perhaps the mayor’s most important function is to set the tone for political discourse in the city – to bring people together: to be a force for inclusiveness, and moderation, and tolerance; and that means emphatically not setting community against community. That, alas, is not the Corbynista agenda.

Sadiq Khan has himself belatedly admitted that Labour is afflicted with anti-semitism. He has rightly called it a “badge of shame”. But for years now he has been sharing platforms with some of the most backward and sectarian forces in Islam – men such as Sulaiman Ghani, who has denounced gays and called women “subservient”, and called for the release of al-Qaeda terrorists.

Khan spoke at an event with a man called Azam Tamimi, who threatened reprisals of “fire throughout the world” after the Mohammed cartoons – words Khan dismissed as “flowery language”. Khan has repeatedly spoken at jihadi flag-waving events sponsored by the Islam Channel, which has been criticised by Ofcom for condoning marital rape. Khan hired a speech- writer who speculated that the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby was staged.

In Islam and the Labour Party there is a struggle going on, and in both cases Khan – whatever his real views – is pandering to the extremists. I don’t want him running our capital. Zac Goldsmith is a man of principle, a passionate campaigner, a One Nation Tory who has served his Richmond constituency so well that he recorded the biggest increase in his majority in 2015. He must win.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153625421296317

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/we-cant-let--the-corbynistas-plant-the-red-flag-back-on-top-of-c/

[top]

12th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out in support of Zac Goldsmith

“Here you go folks - it was great to join @ZacGoldsmith at the launch of his Manifesto in Wandsworth earlier today: “

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/719878002155393024

[top]

14th April 2016: Boris Johnson writing in The Yorkshire Post ‘Let’s put the brakes on EU power grab and ride high’

BRITAIN is facing a historic decision on June 23 that gives us the opportunity to leave the European Union.

In the 1975 referendum, when Britain voted “yes” to staying in, people put their crosses next to the words Common Market. So it is hardly surprising they now feel conned. Instead of a community based on free trade we are now part of an ever-more powerful political entity that has nibbled away at our democracy chunk by chunk.

The EU does not stand still. It keeps moving forward, but in only one direction – towards a European super-state that would turn its nations into museum pieces.

Let’s be absolutely clear here. Voting to remain is not a vote for the status quo – it is vote for a federalist super-state with no possible future reprieve.

In Britain, by contrast, power is moving in the opposite direction as places like West Yorkshire and Sheffield reclaim authority from distant bureaucrats.

But Brussels never lets go. That is why we must leave. Then we can take back control over our destiny – our borders, over our laws and the future of our trade with the world, the motor that has always driven Britain’s prosperity.

We will also be taking back control of the £350m a week that Brussels demands from us. EU membership costs Yorkshire and the Humber £1.1bn a year, that is equivalent to a quarter of the region’s entire schools budget. We are wasting that money on an unaccountable and failing institution, whose accounts are so riddled with waste and corruption that auditors have refused to sign them off for 20 years.

If we left, we would not have to cut a penny from programmes like regional support that are currently funded by European grants or from the funding we provide to farming, which is such an integral part of Yorkshire’s identity. But we would have billions of pounds a year left over to spend on our own priorities, whether on the NHS, education or infrastructure.

We need control of our borders. This will allow us to introduce a carefully managed migration policy, replacing the current free-for all and easing the pressure on our public services.

European judges constantly interfere whenever we try to protect our borders, meaning we have little power to turn away people who can’t contribute to the economy or who have criminal records.

Official EU figures show that last year there was a 70 per cent increase in the number of people trying to reach Britain using fraudulent documents, with forged or stolen Greek and Italian ID cards particular favourites.

Taking back control would also give us the opportunity to gain new prosperity and jobs by increasing our trade with the world beyond Europe. Currently the EU occupies our seat at the World Trade Organisation, and it has proved appallingly slow at reaching agreements with countries like India and Canada.

We could do a far quicker, more efficient job if we followed the nimble example of countries like Switzerland and South Korea. Two-thirds of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Yorkshire are in favour of Britain, not Europe, controlling British trade policy.

Nor will our free trade with Europe suffer as the gloom merchants claim. The Europeans sell £60bn more to us than we export to them. They are not going to tell their best customer to push off.

The europhiles believe the continent would want to strangle trade with an independent Britain. But these are the same people who warned us in the 1990s that it would be a disaster if we left the Exchange Rate Mechanism and later that we would be doomed if we stayed out of the euro. We ignored them and are now outstripping our continental friends who shackled themselves to the euro.

The businesses that have benefited so much from what Yorkshire has to offer are not suddenly going to pack up if we leave the EU. As Paul Polman, chief executive of Unilever, explained, the reason they have their research centre in Leeds is because Leeds is a brainy, sparky place to come up with new ideas. “We don’t make a decision on moving research centres around depending if you are in the EU or not,” he said.

Already, between half and two-thirds of our laws are sent down from Brussels.

The 100 most damaging EU rules are estimated to load £33bn of costs on to the economy nationally. If we leave, we are not suddenly going to scrap entitlements to holiday and restrictions on working hours. The point is that we will be able to decide what makes sense for Britain.

We can see today how important it is for a country to control its own industrial policy. Yorkshire employs 10,000 people in its steel plants alone. But because of EU rules we are powerless to do what we need to do. State aid rules forbid us from supporting businesses in crisis and we have no power to set our own tariff levels to protect high-quality industries.

With a little self-confidence, we can take back control from the bureaucrats and judges of Brussels, hold our elected representatives accountable and boot them out for their failures.

If we want to reclaim our democracy and our freedom and find the surest way to create jobs and prosperity, we should Vote Leave.

Source: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/boris-johnson-let-s-put-the-brakes-on-eu-power-grab-and-ride-high-1-7853822

[top]

14th April 2016: Boris Johnson opinion piece in the Manchester Evening News

Britain is facing a historic decision on June 23rd that gives us the opportunity to leave the European Union.

I hope we take a lesson from Greater Manchester, a pioneer of the new wave of devolution in England and the first local authority to take back control of its own health budget. People here know what it means to regain power and accountability from faraway bureaucrats and I hope that enthusiasm will take hold across the country.

In the 1975 referendum, when Britain voted yes to staying in, they put their crosses next to the words Common Market. So it is hardly surprising they now feel conned.

Instead of a community based on free trade, we are now part of an ever-more powerful political entity that has nibbled away at our democracy chunk by chunk.

The EU does not stand still. It keeps moving forward, but in only one direction – towards a European super-state that would turn its nations into museum pieces.

Let’s be absolutely clear here. Voting to remain is not a vote for the status quo – it is a vote for a federalist super-state with no possible future reprieve.

By leaving, we will be taking back control over our borders, over our laws and the future of our trade with the world, the motor that has always driven Britain’s prosperity. We will also be taking back control of the £350m a week that Brussels demands from us. It is an eye-watering subscription for a club that bosses its members around, gives them such a raw deal and takes such shambolic care of its finances.

EU membership costs the north west £1.5bn every year, enough to pay for a new hospital every three months.

We are wasting that money on an unaccountable and failing institution, whose accounts are so riddled with waste and corruption that auditors have refused to sign them off for 20 years.

If we left we could afford to keep paying just as much as we do now in regional support grants, but without recycling it through the wasteful Brussels bureaucracy. We would still have billions a year to spare for our own priorities in the NHS, schools or infrastructure.

There is nothing small-minded about wanting to get out of the EU. It is about Britain striking out into the world – the spirit that made Manchester great and greater.

This was Cottonopolis, the throbbing entrepot with its 2,000 great warehouses trading across the oceans, and its own Free Trade Hall built to celebrate the city’s gift to the world.

Now, sadly, Britain’s freedom to trade depends on Brussels not Manchester.

The EU occupies – or rather slouches in – our seat at the World Trade Organisation, and has proved appallingly slow at reaching economic agreements with key economies like India and Canada. We could do a far quicker, more efficient job if we took back control, following the nimble example of countries like Switzerland and South Korea.

Nor will our free trade with Europe suffer when we vote leave, as the gloom merchants claim. The Europeans sell £60bn more to us than we export to them. They are not going to tell the best customer for their cars and their wine to push off.

The europhiles believe the continent would want to strangle trade with an independent Britain. But these are the same people, led as ever by the CBI, who warned us in the 1990s that it would be a disaster if we left the Exchange Rate Mechanism and later that we would be doomed if we stayed out of the euro. We ignored them on both occasions and as a result are now outstripping our continental friends who shackled themselves to the euro.

If we stayed, we would be agreeing to remain part of a ratchet system that drives ever-more power to the EU. Already, between a half and two thirds of our laws are sent down from Brussels. This thicket of red tape is a nightmare for small and medium-sized businesses, who have to follow Brussels rules even though fewer than one in 20 trade with Europe.

Across the north west, 99% of businesses are SMEs, providing more than two thirds of the jobs. They reject the arguments for the EU and its single market. They believe Brussels rules make it harder rather than easier to take on new people.

The 100 most damaging EU rules are estimated to load £33bn of costs on to the economy. If we leave, we are not suddenly going to scrap everything like entitlements to holiday and restrictions on working hours. The point is that we will be able to decide what makes sense for Britain.

With a little self-confidence, we can take back control from the bureaucrats and judges of Brussels, hold our elected representatives accountable for the laws they pass and boot them out for their failures. Jobs, freedom and democracy – they are compelling reasons to Vote Leave on June 23rd.

Boris Johnson will be addressing Brexit campaigners during an event on Friday 15 April at Old Granada Studios, Manchester

Source: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/opinion-boris-johnson-mayor-london-11180752

[top]

15th April 2016: Boris Johnson speaks on the first day of the EU referendum campaign

Boris Johnson: Good evening, good evening everybody, thank you very much, thank you for the pleasure. What a wonderful thing to be here in Manchester and to listen to such inspiring speeches as I have been just now. Thank you everybody very much for coming along. I hope everybody will remember this evening because it’s a vital, it is a historic moment for our country folks.

This is the launch of a campaign for freedom and it’s a chance for us to believe in ourselves again. A chance, yes of course it’s a chance for us to show that we love Europe. We admire our European friends and partners and it’s a chance for us to reaffirm that our country, Britain, is, has been, always will be a great contributor to European culture and civilisation. And what is the greatest contribution that Britain has made over the last 200 years? What is it we put [to an ideal] which we fought in two world wars? It is that the laws of our countries should be made by people we elect.

We should be in no doubt that this is the last chance that many of us will have in our lifetimes to assert that principle in our relations with the European Union. It’s called democracy and it’s now or never because if we fail to make the change now then we will continue to be like passengers locked in the back of a minicab with a wonky satnav driven by a driver who doesn’t have perfect command of English and going in a direction we frankly don’t want to go.

I think, I think the people of this country, I think the people of this country have no idea how far the EU now invades every area of our lives and it isn’t just the mindless interference telling us how powerful our vacuum cleaners can be, saying we can’t sell olive oil in carton cans in five litres or bananas with abnormal curvature of the fingers it must be banned. Or that we can’t cut VAT on tampons or indeed telling us who we can or cannot admit to this country and preventing us from deporting murderers and indeed those who we may believe to be a threat to our security.

It isn’t just the burdensomeness of those regulations, it isn’t just the cost of those regulations, although they are estimated to cost UK business about £600m per week. It’s the fact that we can do nothing to stand in the way of measures that are simply not in the interests of the UK.

I was coming up today on the West Coast Mainline of course, and a fantastic service it was, but I noted it was rather crowded and now you maybe thinking what’s he about to say? I mean surely the EU, surely the European Union has absolutely no influence on our trains, surely there’s no competence you may think over, over railway networks in the UK. They can’t tell us what sort of trains to run, can they?

Oh yes, they can. Oh yes they can. They have told the UK, 2013, they told the UK that by the 10thof November 2018 we must create a rail freight corridor to Glasgow and Felixstowe from London which means that Network Rail can be legally obliged to accept rail freight trains in place of passenger trains on the West Coast Mainline. And of course our excellent transport minister spotted this insanity and he saw that with the West Coast Mainline full to capacity, he had more freight trains, meaning fewer passenger trains, and more overcrowding at higher fares.

And so he wrote, our excellent Conservative minister I should say, wrote a fierce letter explaining that the commission was “circumventing requirements under EU legislation”, in other words bending the rules, he said they were “guilty of competence creep”, i.e. sticking their nose into something that had nothing to do with them, and he said that imposing more freight trains on the West Coast Mainline was “not supported by market and socioeconomic benefit analysis”, in other words it was a nutty thing to do.

And what do you think the commission told him? What do you think they told him to do? They told him to go and jump in the lake more or less. And so the United Kingdom took the commission to the European court of justice and what did the European ... what a waste of money indeed my friends, it’s exactly what it turned out to be – yet another waste of money.

And what did the European, what did the European, what did the European court of justice say to the British government, which you would have thought had full authority to decide what kind of trains ran on the West Coast Mainline, what did the European court of justice say? They said “go and jump in a lake” or “allez-vouz [plungez] dans un lac” or whatever it is.

And they ruled, they ruled on that occasion, as they have done on 80% of the cases in which the UK has been involved, they ruled against us. And they said that this country had no say in the matter because control over that issue had been transferred to Brussels, had been taken away from this country. It was up to Brussels to decide the [lists] of freight and passenger trains, [unintelligible] on the West Coast Mainline and not the UK.

And I suppose all this might be more bearable in some way, might it, if you had some sense that there was a limit to all this, a limit to the ambitions of the EU and the process of integration was finite, that it was coming to an end. But it isn’t coming to an end, it is getting worse and worse and more burdensome with every year.

We were told by the Blair government in 2009 that the European court of justice would have no say over human rights. Do you remember they agreed the charter of fundamental human rights at the Lisbon summit and we were told by Tony Blair’s ministers they would have no more legal force than the Beano.

Well yesterday the government published a document admitting that they were wrong, that the UK government was wrong, and that as of today all 55 articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be enforced by the European court in Luxembourg, all kinds of things that you don’t normally think of necessarily as fundamental human rights: the right to set up any type of school, the right to pursue any occupation you choose in the European Union, the right to think or believe whatever you want. I mean they may or may not be admirable rights, people are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want as far I’m concerned.

But what have these rights got to do with the idea of a common market, which we signed up for in 1972? How far we have moved. The European court of justice, the European court of justice. The European court of justice has become Britain’s new constitutional port. And the crucial point about European court judgements is that they are supreme, there is no recourse from them. Indeed all emanations of the EU legal system are supreme over UK law. Once they have been imposed they cannot be dissented from by this country. They cannot be revised. They cannot be rolled back, not unless Brussels agrees.

And these laws, we not only have a vast corpus of European law, but fully 60% of primary and secondary legislation going through the palace of Westminster now emanates, one way or another, from Brussels and is therefore just issuable by the European court.

And the plain fact is that this is now a political project, a nakedly political project, a plan to take a group of diverse countries, very diverse countries, admittedly from high and noble motives in the immediate post war years, it began in a spirit of idealism, but it is now trying to meld countries together in a way that is totally anachronistic. And they are ever more desperate, I can’t remember ... some chap from the media is trying to do his piece to camera. I think, shut up. Can we, can we, can we tell [crick], can someone go and interrupt Crick at the back there? Go, go tell Crick. You can do your piece to camera when I’ve finished. Tell Crick he can do his piece to camera when we’ve finished.

They are ever more desperate to do so because of course the European Union, why they try, why is this effort intensifying? It’s a question worth bearing in mind because it’s not happening anywhere else in the world. No other free trade grouping is trying to turn themselves into a single country. They’re doing it because the EU is under huge strain and much of that strain is caused by the euro.

Will, would you go and tell Crick, just go, just go, just go, thanks. And much of that strain is caused by the euro. Look at what is happening, look at what is happening in Greece -

Male voice: Out. Be quiet.

Boris Johnson: -where unemployment is running at 25%. Youth unemployment is at 50% and where they cannot ... well done.

They cannot agree the latest bail out for the region and look at what is happening with the Italian banks where they have a £360bn black hole in their system. They want to keep the whole thing from collapsing by creating a fiscal union, a political union and of course those measures will inevitably make use of the single market, they say so avowedly, and they will implicate the United Kingdom. They are a huge impact on Britain and in a way that we cannot veto, and which we have said that will not veto.

Now just imagine that the EU had never been invented and the history of the last 60 years had been entirely different, it would have been all about free trade and economic interpenetration between our friends and partners in the European Union with peace guaranteed by Nato, as indeed it has been. And imagine if somebody came to us now and said: “Would you like to join this, this club?” A club that costs us that £20bn a year, that takes away our right to control our borders and our right to control our democracy and where the real economic benefits to this country, the real economic benefits of membership, to go back to the Beano, are about the same as membership of the Desperate Dan pie eaters’ club which I remember and I remember joining. I remember joining in the spirit of some idealism when I was a child and absolute no benefit to prove to me from that.

What would we, what would we do now if someone came to us and said: “Would you join such a club?” What would we say to them now knowing what we know now about the offer? Would we join it? No we wouldn’t, no we wouldn’t. Then why, why are we being told that we have no alternative and no choice? Why are we ... you know, the most, shall I tell you the most oppressing thing about the campaign to remain in Europe as we call it? What’s the most oppressing thing about the remainers?

Female voice: Jeremy Corbyn.

Boris Johnson: The most oppressing thing about the remainers is not just Jeremy Corbyn, I won’t go there. But the most oppressing thing about the remainers is that there is not one shred of idealism in their argument, not a single one of them will stand up and admit that this is a political project. No one will say, “You know what, I rather love the idea of a federal Europe”.

But if they should, that’s the logic of their position, that’s the logic of the position they’re defending. But that’s not what they say. Oh no, what they keep saying is “We’re, I’m Eurosceptic of course but…” or “We’re all Eurosceptics but we’ve got no choice to, we’ve got to stay in and we agree with you”. We all agree with you they say about the democratic problems but it’s the price we have to pay.

My friends, these people are the Gerald Ratners of modern politics. The EU, the EU, the EU they say, the EU it’s crap but we have no alternative, that’s what they say, that’s their line. Well my friends I’m afraid we do have an alternative, we do have an alternative and it’s a glorious alternative. A relationship with Europe based not on the whims of unelected bureaucrats but on cooperation between elected governments where we can continue to work with our friends and our partners on matters of common interest, judicial, police cooperation, foreign and security and defence policy.

We can do all that at intergovernmental level, but where we are no longer subject to the stultifying one-way ratchet of supranational EU law. Where we take back control of £350m per week, take back control of our borders and as for the people who say that we can’t trade freely with the rest of the world or the people who prophesied doom, they said that the pound would fall or that interest rates could rise or there would be a plague of frogs.

You know who they remind me of, they remind me, they remind me of the people, the prophets of doom who said that the millennium bug would cause planes to fall from the sky and they’re very often, they’re very often the same people. They’re very often the same people who said it would be an economic disaster if we didn’t join the euro, remember? They said it, those words, ”economic disaster” that’s what they said.

And the very opposite, the very opposite turned out to be true and it’s precisely because we stayed out of the euro that we now have the most dynamic economy in Europe. And it’s an astonishing fact that our country, this great country while it exports all sorts of astonishing things around the world, not just financial services and the biggest media culture of banking, financial, all services in the world, but we export all kinds of things that you wouldn’t believe. We export bicycles made, as it happens, in London to ... and probably also in Manchester to Germany for heaven’s sake. We export ever-growing quantities of a very dense kind of chocolate cake to France and we export, I discovered, I’d like to say we export French knickers to France..

And I ask you, my question, my question for the economists, my question for the economists who prophesied doom, would the Germans discriminate our bicycles if they thought we were going to discriminate against their BMWs? Of course they wouldn’t. And I know it must be, I know it must be vaguely unsettling, vaguely unsettling for some French patriots to see British-made saucy French knickers in Paris as they are today. But would they discriminate, would they discriminate against our knickers, or indeed against our chocolate cake, if they thought we were going to discriminate against their champagne? Of course not, mais non, of course not.

So let’s say knickers to the pessimists and to the merchants of gloom and to the people who consistently, the people who consistently run this country down and let’s do a new deal. Let’s do a new deal, it’s time for us in this country to speak up actually for millions of people, millions of people around Europe, around the whole continent, 10s of millions, perhaps 100s of millions, who think as we do, who share our anxieties, who are fed up with the remoteness of Brussels and who feel disfranchised by the current system.

No one is talking for them at the moment, it’s up to us in this country to do so and we can do so if we believe in ourselves and believe in Britain and what we can do. And if we hold our nerve and we’re not cowed and we vote for freedom and we vote for democracy on June the 23rdthen I believe this country will prosper and thrive as never before. And yes, it will be independence day on June the 24th, vote, vote leave, vote for vote leave and vote not just for a better Britain but for a better Europe too. Thank you very much all [friends tonight].

Male voice: Wow, come on, a big round of applause, he’s come all the way from London, Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, thank you.

Male voice: I now have the great pleasure to introduce Scott Fletcher, Scott is chairman and founder of ANS, an IT company, and he’s going to moderate a session of questions and answers with Boris. If I can ask you to welcome Scott Fletcher.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you Alan, Boris. Welcome to Manchester.

Boris Johnson: Thank you very much.

Scott Fletcher: So amazing analogies there from Boris, I think the one that resonate with me the most was the millennium bug one and I work in the IT industry and a lot of people made a lot of money out of that. And I would say when it comes to the EU, follow the money. Who is making the money? It’s the big corporations, the people, the big corporation influence in Brussels, it’s the unelected bureaucrats that are getting influence. We send £1.5bn from the north west for them to decide how we spend it to come back.

Greater Manchester, I sit on the LEP [local enterprise partnership], we’ve got devolution from the government as it stands, why can’t we have that £1.5bn back and decide what we’re going to do with it and how we’re going to spend it? So I’d like to open it up to questions. Sir, are you going to get a microphone?

Male voice: If we leave the European Union, as well as still maintaining trade, do you think we should look to the Commonwealth to expand?

Boris Johnson: Yes, absolutely. Did everybody hear the question? Of course we should and not just obviously to the Commonwealth but to the [great] economies around the world. And one of the things I’ve been ... I mustn’t, you know, overdo this, but I’ve been doing a lot of travelling, even though I’m mayor of London, drumming up investment, drumming up support for our economy and it’s incredible. By the way it continues to flow and in spite of the so-called fears over Brexit, actually people are investing in London as never before.

But the places where I find we have such a ready audience are those places which we used to have very close links with, very close ties with, which are now the growth centres. And in the Gulf, in India, it’s quite incredible to see the affection and rather humbling actually, to see the affection and interest they have for the UK. Africa, huge opportunities for this country. And, yes Europe is important, of course it’s important, we’re always going to be massive investors in the EU and massive traders with the EU but there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t lift our sights to the horizon and go global.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you Boris. And the EU actually is the only or one of the only areas in the world that hasn’t grown over the last ten years actually so we should be reaching out. Have we got a question over here?

Female voice: Hi. As Scott said, Manchester is leading the way in devolution, what’s the impact of Brexit on the northern powerhouse?

Boris Johnson: Well I think that what we need in Europe is devolution. I mean we need independence back for the UK and it would be a fantastic thing and I think the implications for the northern powerhouse will be positive. I think that Manchester, this part of the world is going [gang busters]. The great thing is when you’re going to have a project like that, you’ve got to invest in the transport infrastructure, you’ve got to invest in the housing to make it all viable.

You’ve got an opportunity now to have £10bn more per year to spend on your priorities, whether it’s the health service or investment in scientification in the northern powerhouse, whatever it happens to be, and I think that it will be wholly beneficial for the UK economy. In fact it will give us, it will give us a sense of responsibility and dynamism and an ability to change our destinies that we’ve been lacking.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you Boris. I think from a Manchester point of view though, and being on the LEP, we’d like to make sure we get as much of that money back into the north. That’s really important for the people, really important for the people who are voting in this referendum. We do get a lot of European money into the north west, we want to see that maintained.

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course.

Scott Fletcher: We want to put our priorities on it and spend it on what we want to spend it on, not at the behest of the EU bureaucrats.

Boris Johnson: I hesitate to correct you about anything but it’s not European money.

Scott Fletcher: No, it’s not, you’re quite right.

Boris Johnson: It’s our money.

Scott Fletcher: Yes, that’s correct.

Boris Johnson: It’s our money and it’s coming back.

Scott Fletcher: Have we got a microphone for this gentleman over here?

Male voice: [Just working it].

Boris Johnson: What’s wrong with it?

Male voice: Boris, welcome to Manchester. Can I ask you a little bit about the stay campaign?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Male voice: Their message is almost entirely negative -

Boris Johnson: It is.

Male voice: - I think as you mentioned before. But it’s also I think they’re almost deliberately destabilising our economy by not offering a plan B. Why won’t they talk about what would happen if we did leave?

Boris Johnson: I think it, well of course it’s ludicrous because ... and I totally agree with you. But the whole strategy of the remain campaign seems to be to try to run the country down and say that we couldn’t cope on our own, it’s absolute nonsense and it conflicts completely with what the prime minister was saying before the end of the negotiations. And I seem to remember he was saying that well you could possibly flourish outside the EU.

That, the tune seems to have changed a bit I think as we get closer and it becomes more and more obvious that there is a very, very large constituency for a fundamental change. Indeed if I, the latest poll I read suggested that the leave campaign was ahead. I’m not sure if I really believe that. I think we’re still the underdogs, but I think it’s a responsibility of any government to get ready some positive plans for the country and they should be setting out, instead of setting out all this prophet of doom stuff, which nobody really believes in, they should be setting out how we’re going to make it work and how we’re going to prosper and flourish as indeed the prime minister initially said.

And that is what is needed and if I... my advice to the government now, looking at the way it is moving, is to stop trying to stoke fear and be a little bit more above the debate and say “It’s up to the British people”.

Male voice: Hear, hear.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you Boris. Have we got one question over here?

Female voice: Thank you Scott. Boris, the big claim being made today by your campaign is that £350m that goes to the EU could magically automatically be spent on the NHS if we leave. Now you know very well some of the £350m, much of it, is actually spent in this country. Do you really want to start this campaign not being completely straight with the public?

Boris Johnson: Oh come on, oh come on. I think everybody... come on, I think it was Scott who, I think it was Scott, the point is very, very, very clear. The £350m relates to the gross figure that goes every week to Brussels. Obviously about £10bn of that comes back spent in the UK by EU officials in Brussels deciding what our priorities should be, which seems to me to be absurd. I think we would be much better spending our own money ourselves in the UK on the northern powerhouse, on science, on the NHS.

But there is a further 10, roughly £10bn a year that we never see again in any form, that just vanishes into the wide blue yonder. It literally goes up in smoke in the form of tobacco subsidies to Greek tobacco growers or whatever or helps fund [Potemkin] olive groves around the [community]. The [court of borders], as we were just hearing, has not signed off the accounts of the European Union for about 20 years. A lot of this stuff is completely wasted and it would be much, much better spent in this country, that’s my view.

Scott Fletcher: Well said. I think we’ll actually take one a bit further back if you don’t mind, this gentleman over here.

Male voice: Thank you very much. I’ve got two questions.

Scott Fletcher: Sir, only one, you can have one.

Male voice: Well I’ll have the best one then. Who is your hairstylist?

Boris Johnson: Oh come on.

Male voice: And can -

Scott Fletcher: The same as yours.

Male voice: - and can you give me any tips on how I can cope with hair like this?

Boris Johnson: It’s looking very good, I think, I think whoever it is, he’s a very nice, he’s a very nice guy, he won’t give me -

Scott Fletcher: Sorry, has the gentleman got a real question, a proper question? OK.

Male voice: On behalf of the creative industries, on behalf of the creative industries, is increasing harmonisation and standardisation, is it destroying and limiting our culture, our innovation and creativity of which we’re world famous?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely, and I genuinely... the EU, the EU can’t see any sector of the economy without conceiving instant lust to regulate it and to provide a Europe ... one of the most extraordinary things happening in Manchester, and indeed in London as well, is the boom in tech of all kinds and media tech, our cultural, creative tech, all that is happening, financial tech, all that is happening at an extraordinary rate. Of the, of the, I think of the 40 tech companies in the whole of the EU that are worth more than $1bn, 17 of them come from this country, we’re an incredibly creative country.

The last thing we need is, you know, European directives on the audio-visual industries that say we, you know, we can’t innovate in the way that we need to. I think it’s preposterous. One of the difficulties we’ve got at the moment in doing free trade deals, for instance with America, exporting our creative and cultural output is that the French have this [exceptional cultural].

They insist, the poor French people have to what, I can’t remember what proportion of their TV and radio has to be French. Or, you know, their television programmes have to be [in France], but it’s something or other. And the result is that it’s impossible to, for Europe as a whole, to do deals on one of our most important exports, one of the things we lead the world in, Downton Abbey, all the rest of it.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you Boris. I’ve one last one over here.

Boris Johnson: The Jeremy Kyle Show, which I think is made, which I think is made here.

Scott Fletcher: The Boris Johnson show ladies and gentleman.

Male voice: Which is a fine ITV programme if I could point out.

Boris Johnson: Yes, absolutely.

Male voice: Chris here from ITV News here, I should check with the gentleman there that the tie is straight before I start.

Boris Johnson: I think it’s straight, I haven’t looked.

Male voice: And I think I should also point out that when journalists as fair as impartial as the BBC’s [Lord Greensberg] ask a fair question, booing just reminds us all of what happened during the Scottish referendum campaign of course. My question however, is this, you’ve been saying today your side that £350m a week could be spent on the NHS. George Osborne has been saying in Washington tonight that mortgage rates could go up if we left the European Union. Aren’t voters entitled to ask, as you yourself often say, Donnez-moi un break, can we have some facts please before we go into this 10-week campaign?

Boris Johnson: Yes. Well if you’re asking about the facts about the budgetary contributions, I think you’re quite right, the point that you make about not booing anybody, that’s absolutely right and I’m sure that everybody would agree with that, all those who didn’t boo would agree with that. But the point I was trying rather laboriously to make is that ... can you hear me? Is that the gross figure is £350m a week, that’s about £20bn a year and we get quite a lot of that back in cash that is spent in this country.

But it is of course delivered to this country at the discretion of people in Brussels or in other EU institutions. And I think, I don’t know what you think, but I think that, which is UK taxpayers’ money, would be better decided, those parties would be better decided by us. And if we wanted to spend it on the northern powerhouse or on taking forward the NHS in Manchester or wherever it happens to be, that should for us.

And then of course, as I was saying, there is a further £10bn that we never see again. And those my friends are the facts, £10bn that literally goes up in smoke and it would be better, 20 [million] overall, 10 [million] goes up in smoke, £10bn back to us but we would be better off having control over absolutely all of it. Those are the facts, those are the facts.

Now, now on the, on the issue of, on the issue of interest rates and all that, I go back to my point about the millennium bug. But there’s a further, there’s a further consideration which is I think you’ve got to be very careful about such. I remember in the 2001 election, I remember campaigning then and meeting a guy who was absolutely furious with the Conservatives because in 1997 he had believed the warnings about interest rates going up under a Labour government and he’d got a fixed rate mortgage instead of letting it float, and he felt he’d been totally ripped off.

So I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you issue warnings about interest rates. And I just remind everybody of the prophets of doom in 2000, they were totally wrong then, wrong, and they are wrong now. They were wrong about the Euro and they are wrong about the penalties of leaving the European Union, believe me.

Male voice: Hear, hear.

Scott Fletcher: We’ve just got time for about two more questions, this young man here?

Male voice: Hi. I think a lot of people in this room have got the leaflets, [scamming room] leaflet from the remain campaign by now. I happened to get one which had a quote from the first minister, Carwyn Jones, that said farming could end if we leave the European Union. I was just wondering what do you think about that?

Boris Johnson: I think it’s just preposterous and it’s very, very important to make sure that we get the message across to all the communities who currently receive UK taxpayers’ money in the form of EU support. So if it’s farmers or universities or whoever it happens to ... or scientists or whoever it happens to be, we are going to guarantee that all those funds will be met, absolutely guarantee.

So the single farm payment, all that support, will be maintained after we leave. We will continue to support British agriculture and British farming. What you won’t have [applause], what you won’t have is the crazy and hysterical directives and regulations that bear down on British farmers, even if they do very little business with the rest of Europe.

Male voice: Look at the fishing industry.

Boris Johnson: Look at the fishing industry the gentleman says in the, in the, very near the front row, and he’s totally, he is totally, he is totally right. There’s a-- under EU rules, you have to, if anybody is selling fish in this country, you have to have a ... has to have a thing saying on it, saying “may contain fish”, which seems to be a completely, a completely deranged example of their bureaucracy.

But more importantly, more importantly than that, British farmers who have, they had very different approaches one between the other, are all facing exactly the same one size fits all regulations. And my family used to be in farming and very unsuccessfully, we went totally bust [laughter] but we had a hill farm in Somerset and we used to ... anybody who knows anything about sheep on an Exmoor Hill farm, will know that there’s nothing much you can do when sheep die. When sheep die, you know, their corpses basically disintegrate where they are.

And there was a directive saying that you could not allow this to happen, the animal hygiene regulations, you could not allow this to happen on your own [front]. You could not allow, you could not bury corpses of sheep on your own farm, I mean how deranged is that? How deranged is that? I thought it was, anyway.

There is far too much of regulation and bureaucracy that affects our farmers, that drives up their cost, they would be free from that. They would be able to sell their products to the European Union because of course the points about the balance of trade remain very, very strong and massively in the interests of the EU to do a great deal with us and they would have a great future.

Male voice: Boris, can I just pick you up on that then?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Male voice: So you are saying quite clearly that the 200,000 farmers that are out there, we will continue -

Boris Johnson: We will, we will, we will, that is no doubt, that is no doubt. That is no doubt.

Scott Fletcher: OK, [on the end].

Male voice: Can I just ask, one of the things to me that goes to the very heart of the matter of this referendum is that David Cameron stated he would come back with real reform. And I heard the other day that the vice president of the EU has said that these are not, these reforms are not legally binding. So what planet is he living on?

Boris Johnson: Well no, you know, obviously we’re all on the planet Earth for the time being but I think that the ... everybody can see that there was no substantial reform. I’ve said, I’ve said before, and when the, you know, a couple of years ago, when this whole thing blew up, I said what I wanted was a reformed EU. But we didn’t get it, we didn’t get any substantial repatriation of powers, we got no real commitment by the EU they were going to stop regulating, instead the whole thing is proceeding at an ever greater pace. And we do it, and we’ve in fact given up, and specifically under the deal, we’ve given up our right to veto any further integration.

And so I’m afraid it isn’t a significant reform, and in fact it isn’t really a reform at all, and bearing in mind what I said earlier on about how the Blair opt out, the protocol on the Lisbon Treaty turned out to be worthless, I have no doubt that the European court of justice would push this aside as well. And it doesn’t, I’m afraid it’s not, you say it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, I might make the same point about the leaflets that are being thrust through everybody’s door and as somebody rather, you know, rather well pointed out the other day, one of the many defects of these is they’re not sufficiently absorbent for the purpose of which he intended to use them.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you. So time for just one last question. This gentleman over here please.

Male voice: One very important point that’s not been raised at all about our steel industry -

Boris Johnson: Yes

Male voice: - which is bleeding to death.

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Male voice: And I understand, if I’m correct from what I read, that the EU is interfering and saying it is illegal to try and support our steel industry. And I’d like to know what’s going to be done about this.

Boris Johnson: I’ll tell you what’s going to be done, we’re going to vote leave and when we vote leave, what you can do then, and you may or may not be in favour of tariffs which you can put in as an emergency measures to protect your industry if it’s under, facing extreme pressure, for instance, from dumping by the Chinese who might consider that, I’m normally a big free marketeer, I don’t like that kind of thing, but you could at least consider that.

But what you can certainly do is you can unilaterally cut the cost of energy for our steel companies, which is currently, which is currently 80... our steel companies are currently paying for energy 80% more than the medium cost of European steel makers, much of that cost is imposed, I’m afraid to say, by the deranged policies of the previous Labour government, which I read the taxes are not meant to be party political.

But a lot of it comes from Ed Miliband, but what we can’t do under the current rules, is we can’t as a government give them the abatement, the temporary abatement, in those costs that they need to keep production going because that falls foul of current EU state aid rules even though those costs are so exorbitantly higher than the cost faced by all other steel companies around the EU. So that’s one thing you could do immediately.

Scott Fletcher: Thank you Boris. So Boris, I’d just like to thank you for coming up to Manchester. The people in Manchester really, really care about this issue and I think times are changing now, they’re starting to talk to people, they’re seeing a tipping point. I think it started to happen as you got on stage the first time and said you were back in the leave campaign and when you pointed out that our laws are not controlled here, they’re not controlled by the people that we elect and that is just plain wrong and I think people are waking up to that issue now. So I’d like to thank you once again, ladies and gentlemen, Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Scott Fletcher: Ladies and gentlemen thanks once again to Boris Johnson. I thought the question from ITV was quite interesting about the chancellor being in Washington talking about what will happen to our finances because the people of the UK only need to look at the last budget to see whether you can trust him on the economy anymore.

Before you leave tonight we can only win this referendum if you all pledge to do your bit. So as you leave, if you could take some leaflets, if you can sign up to [Runner Street] School, we’ll be out in the hall, so thank you very much for taking the time to come here tonight and please help us to take back control on the 23rdof June, thank you.

----

Male voice: As a business owner, as a business owner, I carried out costs, all my costs for the business, how can I ensure I’ve got enough money for a rainy day? How can I ensure I’ve got enough money for planning for the future? And I look at the EU and what do I see? I see that we’re sending a cheque every single week of £350m and where is it going? We don’t have control of it, we don’t know where it’s going. People say to me, somebody said “Ah you get some of it back”. Yes, we do get it back ladies and gentlemen but it’s not controlled by us, it comes back controlled by their Brussels bureaucrats. I don’t think that is controlling our own money.

Male voice: Correct.

Male voice: I also have concerns, I have concerns that... how many schools, how many houses we will need in two, three, five years time if we don’t know how many people are coming into this country? It is not an issue about immigration, it is purely and simply an issue about sensible management of the country and managing our borders.

And while I talk about costs, so basically ladies and gentlemen, as a businessman who likes to look at costs, who likes to see controls, who likes to see budgets, I cannot see any good reason at all for the fact that we are in this political organisation called the EU. So what am I saying in conclusion? I’m saying -

Boris Johnson: [Good evening everyone]. Well it’s wonderful to come to Manchester to listen to such inspiring speeches as I have been just now, thank you everybody very much for coming along. I hope everybody will remember this evening because this is vital, it is an historic moment for our country because this is the launch of a campaign for freedom and it’s a chance for us to believe in ourselves again but we love Europe, [we advise the good friends of London] and [trumped up] and reaffirm that our contribution to Britain has made over the last few hundred years, [what is it, which ideal] which we fought in two world wars -

Male voice: Correct.

Boris Johnson: - it is that the laws of our countries should be made by people we elect. We should be in no doubt that this is the last chance that many of us will have in our lifetimes to assert that principle in our... and it’s now or never because if we fail to make the change now than we will continue to be like passengers locked in the back of a minicab with a wonky satnav driven by a driver who doesn’t have perfect command of English and going in a direction (unintelligible) .

…I think the people of this country have no idea how far they [can or cannot admit] to this country and we’re going to be asking [to be] deporting murderers and indeed those who we may believe to be a threat to our security. It isn’t just the [purpose of those] regulations, it isn’t just the cost of those regulations, though they are estimated to cost UK business about £600m per week. And I was coming up today on the West Coast Mainline, and a fantastic service it was, and I noticed it was rather crowded and [unintelligible] surely the EU, surely the European Union has absolutely no influence on our trains, surely there’s no competence you may think to accept rail freight trains in place of passenger trains on the West Coast Mainline and of course our excellent transport minister spotted this insanity and he saw that the West Coast Mainline was full to capacity …[every] European court of justice [say to the] British government which you would have thought had full authority to decide -

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-04-15 /watch-live-boris-johnson-makes-case-to-vote-leave/

[top]

15th April 2016: Excerpts of Boris Johnson speaking in Manchester for vote leave

Source: https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/721039421890502656?s=20

“They keep saying that they are Eurosceptics, but we have no choice, we agree with you about the democratic problem, they say – but it’s the price we have to pay.”

“My friends, they are the Gerald Ratners of modern politics. The EU, they say – it’s crap but we have no alternative. Well we do have an alternative, and it is a glorious alternative, a relationship with Europe based not on the whims of unelected bureaucrats but on cooperation between elected governments.”

Source: https://home.bt.com/news/news-extra/a-mixture-of-xenophobia-and-jokes-how-twitter-saw-boris-johnsons-brexit-speech-11364052247807

[top]

15th April 2016: Boris Johnson speaks at a vote leave event and then urges crowd to interrupt live Channel 4 broadcast

“We should be in no doubt that this is the last chance that many of us will have in our lifetimes, to assert that principle in our relations with the European Union - it’s called democracy and its now or never. Because if we fail to make the change now then we will continue to be like passengers locked in the back of a mini cab with a wonky satnav driven by a driver who doesn’t have perfect command of English and going in a direction we frankly don’t want to go.

“The EU, they say, the EU is crap but we have no alternative, that’s what they say. I’m afraid we do have an alternative and it’s a glorious alternative, a relationship with Europe based not on the whims of unelected bureaucrats but on cooperation between elected governments where we can continue to work with our friends and our partners on matters of common interests: judicial, police cooperation, foreign and security and defence policy. We can do all that at intergovernmental level.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/voteleave/videos/582029235307338/

“And they are ever more so desperate - some chap from the media is trying to do his piece to camera - shut up - can we tell [crick] can someone go interrupt [crick] at the back there, tell [crick] you can do your piece to camera when I finish.”

Source: https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/721044715127222272?s=20

[top]

16th April 2016: Telegraph report on Boris Johnson and others with vote leave, comments whilst on a “48 hour Brexit blitz”

[Remain campaign is an attempt to] “scare everyone into voting for the status quo.”
[the leaflet is not] “sufficiently absorbent” [for toilet roll].
[People say Britain has] “no choice” [but to remain] “we don’t have the guts to leave.”
“But the status quo is not an option.”
[The EU is an] “anachronism” [those who wanted to join originally were] “wrong then and wrong now.”
[It is] “borderline corrupt” [and] “anti-democratic”.
“I'm mayor of London by the way.”

[About the recent] “bondage, sorry bonding” [session held for Tory MPs in Oxfordshire] “I don't think we're allowed to say much about what happened but it was amazingly harmonious.”
“Whatever happens on June 23, people understand that this is a radical, brilliant Conservative government they want to get on with policies that are going to deliver better lives, better public services, a stronger economy for the people of this country. Yes, we have a disagreement at the moment about Europe, there's no question.” But there are friendships within the Conservative party that are being completely maintained untroubled in spite of this disagreement.”
[In Newcastle] “Let us suppose that someone came to us here in 2016 said bonjour guten tag we’ve got this brilliant idea for a new project to take all these higgledy piggledy nations and turn them into a single political unit with a single currency and gradually moving towards a single system of government – and you Brits will have to sign up for all of it except the single currency.”

“And one way or another Brussels will produce between half and two thirds of everything that goes through parliament with around 2500 EU regulations a year costing UK business £600 m per week and you won’t be able to control your borders any more, and you will have massive net immigration that puts unexpected pressures on local councils and on health services.”
“EU membership costs the north east half a billion pounds every single year - that’s enough money to buy six new hospitals being wasted on an unaccountable and failing institution. As a country we have ceded far too much control to the EU - control over our economy, our public services, and over key decisions that affect our daily lives. In return we get uncontrolled immigration, which puts unsustainable pressure on our vital public services as well as on jobs, housing and school places. I for one have had enough, which is why I am campaigning to vote leave on the 23 June.”

“This country will thrive if we throw off the shackles of the EU - and the people of the north east should rest assured that they stand to benefit if we take back control over our future.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/16/boris-johnson-and-priti-patel-attack--barack-obamas-hypocritica/

[top]

16th April 2016: The Yorkshire Post reports on Boris Johnson’s speeches during the ‘Brexit blitz’ tour

“Great Yorkshire companies have an opportunity now to think globally. I think without the incumbencies of the European Union, British business can really thrive and prosper.

“Regulation from Brussels probably costs UK business about £600m per week. Every small business in this country has to comply with 100 per cent of the costs and the regulations coming from the European Union, even if only five per cent of our businesses are exporting to the rest of the EU - so it is very rigid structure.

“I think the opportunity for businesses in this part of the world is to get rid of a lot of the unnecessary regulation and be able to think globally. And to have trade deals done by UK officials who know the particular needs of those businesses.”

“Two crucial points. One - the single farm payment - the leave campaign, we are guaranteeing that we will continue to support British agriculture in the way it is being supported. So they will get the subsidies.

“Secondly, we can make life cheaper for them by getting rid of some of the regulations again.”

“People know what I do, they shout at me in the street rather like those kindly people. They shout ‘you Tory tosser’ or whatever. They know who I am, they know what I do. Who knows what’s going on in Brussels?”

Source: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/latest-news/picture-special-yorkshire-businesses-will-thrive-and-prosper-from-brexit-claims-boris-johnson-1-7857086

[top]

16th April 2016: ITV reporting on Boris Johnson in Newcastle with vote leave

“EU membership costs the north east half a billion pounds every single year - that’s enough money to buy six new hospitals being wasted on an unaccountable and failing institution.

“As a country we have ceded far too much control to the EU - control over our economy, our public services, and over key decisions that affect our daily lives.

“In return we get uncontrolled immigration, which puts unsustainable pressure on our vital public services as well as on jobs, housing and school places.

“I for one have had enough, which is why I am campaigning to vote leave on the 23 June.

“This country will thrive if we throw off the shackles of the EU - and the people of the north east should rest assured that they stand to benefit if we take back control over our future.”

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2016-04-16/boris-johnson-in-newcastle-on-vote-leave-campaign/

[top]

16th April 2016: Boris Johnson trashes Obama’s hypocrisy over Brexit

“I just find it absolutely bizarre that we are being lectured by the Americans about giving up our sovereignty and giving up control, when the Americans won’t even sign up to the international convention on the law of the seas, let alone the International criminal court.”

“There is one unanswerable point, which is that if you want to take back control of huge sums of money that this country is sending to Brussels… take back control of our politics and our democracy then you got to vote leave.

“I think staying is the real risk. I think that what you need to focus on is the risk of ‘Bremaining’.

“Everyone goes on about the risk of Brexit, but what about the risk of ‘Bremaining’ in this system that is, in my view, marginally corrupt or borderline corrupt in many, many ways.”

“It takes away from ordinary people the ability to dismiss at elections the people who make crucial decisions about their lives.”

Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/339821-boris-johnson-brexit-obama/

[top]

17th April 2016: Boris Johnson’ column for The Telegraph “Angela Merkel is now silencing German satirists to please Erdogan. This is what the EU has wrought”

Love is a many splendoured thing. Cupid’s darts find the most unexpected targets. I am not for one minute prepared to exclude the possibility that erotic interest may flower between a man and a goat. The ancient Greeks clearly thought about the possibility: hence their mythologising about Pan and satyrs and other cloven-footed hybrids.

A cursory trawl of the internet reveals – according to the BBC – that in 2006 a Sudanese man called Tombe was surprised in the act of darkness with a female goat, and was obliged by the village elders to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars to its owner, and then to marry the beast. To the best of my knowledge they are still together.

But I don’t think there is anyone of any importance who seriously believes that there has been any kind of romance involving the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and any other non-human mammal, caprine or otherwise.

So, when a young German comedian called the Turkish leader a “goat –––––––”, in a little-watched broadcast on March 31, you might have thought that the best response – from Turkey’s point of view – was a dignified silence. Yes, I suppose it was puerile. And yes, I accept that it was not in especially good taste. But it was what we call a joke. It is utterly bewildering – and slightly shocking – that the Turkish leader has failed to see this.

The episode has, as they say, got his goat, and he has deployed all Turkey’s diplomatic and political weight in an effort to persecute the satirist, 35-year-old TV host Jan Boehmermann. He and the Turkish government have officially demanded that the presenter should be prosecuted for lèse-majesté – in this case causing offence to the leader of a foreign state – under an all-but defunct statute that dates back to 1871 and the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Incredible though it may seem, the journalist could face five years in jail. But what is truly incredible – indeed what is positively sickening – is that the German government has agreed at the express request of Angela Merkel that the prosecution should go ahead. She did not have to do so. She could have said no. The matter was entirely at her discretion. Plenty of German politicians were telling her that any such legal action would be an outrageous infringement of free speech – an act of censorship that smacked of some of the darkest moments in Germany’s 20th century history.

And yet she numbly decided to kowtow to the demands of Erdogan, a man who is engaged in a chilling suppression of Turkish freedom of expression. Erdogan only became president 18 months ago – and yet in that time prosecutors have opened 1,845 cases against people accused of insulting him, including a doctor who posted a picture of Erdogan on social media, next to a picture of Gollum.

It is no use saying that the case against Boehmermann is an obvious dud, or that it will be thrown out by the German court. Think of the impact in Turkey. Imagine how you would feel if you were a Turkish journalist, worried about what you could say, and you saw Angela Merkel – the leader of the most populous and richest country in the EU, this club of soi-disant liberal western nations – cravenly siding with the whim of an autocrat.

You would feel alone, frightened that even Germany was unwilling to stick up for you; and you would be right. Everyone knows why she has done it. Everyone knows why Angela Merkel is so cynically and so desperately determined to appease the Turkish leader – or at least to do nothing to irritate him; and that is because in the next few weeks and months we could have another migration crisis in the eastern Mediterranean.

We all know that the original problem was exacerbated by Germany’s open-door policy. Angela Merkel presented herself as a kind of EU Statue of Liberty – and the result was a pull factor that brought migrants flooding to Germany and other countries, via Turkey, on a scale not seen for decades. And now a deal has been done – a fragile deal by which Turkey agrees to take back refugees from Greece, in exchange for cash, and renewed promises of EU membership.

But it is Turkey’s hand on the tap. Erdogan, if he chooses, can allow the trickle to turn back into a flood – with devastating consequences not just for Merkel, but for the whole project of EU integration. The British referendum is on a knife edge. All the usual suspects are out there, trying to confuse the British public, and to persuade them that they must accept the accelerating loss of democratic self-government as the price of economic prosperity.

We have heard from the IMF (which got the Asian crisis completely wrong), as well as the banks and the CBI, all of whom were wrong about the euro. Davos man – the kind of people whose club-class air tickets are paid by the taxpayer, all the lobbyists and corporate affairs directors of the big companies: they are all increasingly nervous that they have been rumbled, that people can see the emperor has no clothes and that Britain could have a glorious future outside the EU.

They all know that there is one event in the next few weeks that could remind the British people of at least one salient point in this debate – that this country has lost control of its frontiers – and that is another migration crisis on the borders of the EU, and within the EU itself. That is one reason why it is essential for Angela to suck up to Erdogan. That is why this egregious prosecution has drawn not a peep from the UK.

No one believes that Erdogan is a goat-fancier or that muffled baa-ing is to be heard from the presidential suite in Ankara. But in a free and pluralist society there is no reason why a self-professed satirist should not make a joke about it. The process of EU integration means the wholesale erosion of democracy; and it would seem that protecting that process means the erosion of free speech as well. The whole thing is infamous.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/17/angela-merkel-is-now-silencing-german-satirists-to-please-erdoga/

[top]

17th April 2016: Boris Johnson hits out at David Cameron for talking b******s over Brexit’s impact on trade and jobs, as reported in The Independent

[Referencing an interview given to the Sun] “The PM was very clear before the whole campaign began that Britain could have a great future outside the EU. He said we would have absolutely no difficulty trading around the world.

“Now there is this idea that trade is entirely controlled by governments, that no trade takes place unless governments agree with each other.

“Well, b******s. It's nothing to do with governments. It's to do with businesses, people and enterprises deciding they have something to buy or sell.”

[While delivering a speech in Manchester] “So let us say knickers to the pessimists and the merchants of gloom and do a new deal that will be good for Britain and good for Europe.”

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/its-bs-boris-johnson-hits-out-at-david-cameron-over-impact-of-brexit-on-trade-and-jobs-a6988236.html

[top]

18th April 2016: Boris Johnson makes comments on Turkey joining EU in Sunday Times

”I am very pro-Turkish but what I certainly can’t imagine is a situation in which 77 million [his estimate] of my fellow Turks and those of Turkish origin can come here without any checks at all. That is mad – that won’t work.”

Sources: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/has-boris-finally-realised-why-turkey-shouldnt-join-the-eu/and https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-boris-johnson-falsely-claims-he-didnt-say-anything-about-turkey-in-the-referendum-campaign

[top]

18th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets in support of Zac Goldsmith

“zac's action plan for greater ldn will increase supply - by getting govt to release publicly owned land for 50k homes a yr #LondonMayor2016”

This tweet is followed by this:

“sadiq you can't keep this great city moving by taking £2bn out of the transport budget + say it won't have negative impact #LondonMayor2016”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/722186918885199872and https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/722190429790281728

[top]

19th April 2016: Boris Johnson speaks on the treasury

“Her Majesty’s treasury of course were the people who said we should stay in the exchange Rate mechanism when that turned out to be a disaster. They said there would be economic benefits of joining the euro, when that turned out to be a complete disaster. The treasury has not been totally successful in all its economic forecasts, let’s be honest and the reality is that this country is giving at the moment £20bn every year to the EU, £350m a week, which we would get back and we’d be able to spend that solid hard cash and I think on the contrary our economy our business, our country would be liberated. It would be independence day on June 24th.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/voteleave/videos/583454931831435/

[top]

20th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a picture of Zac Goldsmith supporters and himself

“Great to kick start the morning with the troops campaigning in Wandsworth for @ZacGoldsmith”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/722824893482446848

[top]

20th April 2016: Boris Johnson posts a Facebook post urging people to vote for Zac Goldsmith

“Folks – the votes have started to drop. London is the greatest city on earth and it is vital that we get Zac in. He is the only candidate who can get the best deal from Government to build more homes, invest in transport, improve our air, and make our streets safer. So make sure you complete and return your postal vote today.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/photos/pb.7972991316.-2207520000.1461711936./10153645152346317/?type=3&theater

[top]

20th April 2016: mayor Boris Johnson opens replica of Syrian monument destroyed by Islamic State

“I think two digits to Daesh from the Institute of Archaeology and from London. Ladies and gentlemen the triumphant arch of Palmyra. We’re here in a spirit of defiance, defiance of the barbarians who destroyed the original of this arch, as they’ve destroyed so many other monuments in Syria and the Middle East. We’re here today in solidarity with the people of Syria, because one day that terrible conflict will come to an end and the world will be able to travel to Syria and see the historical and archaeological riches of that country.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/palmyras-arch-of-triumph-rises-again-in-londons-trafalgar-square/

[top]

20th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a picture reminding voters to complete postal votes by today

“London is the greatest city on earth + we need to get @ZacGoldsmith in. So complete + return your postal vote today”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/722861319569838080

[top]

21st April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets in celebration of the Queen’s 90thbirthday

“Hooray for The Queen and many congratulations to Her Majesty. No other monarch in our history has such a record of service to her country.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/723117282617098240

[top]

21st April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out the link to an article on the Evening Standard about Sadiq Khan

“The Evening Standard is right. Londoners deserve proper answers:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/723164199887769601

[top]

21st April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a link to a video comparing Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan’s answer to freezing council tax

“i'm proud to have cut mayoral council tax - but as this movie from #esmayoral shows, khan will ramp it up again:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/723256795817500672

[top]

22nd April 2016: Boris Johnson writes an article to The Sun about President Barack Obama

Something mysterious happened when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009.

Something vanished from that room, and no one could quite explain why.

It was a bust of Winston Churchill – the great British war time leader. It was a fine goggle-eyed object, done by the brilliant sculptor Jacob Epstein, and it had sat there for almost ten years.

But on day one of the Obama administration it was returned, without ceremony, to the British embassy in Washington.

No one was sure whether the President had himself been involved in the decision.

Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.

Some said that perhaps Churchill was seen as less important than he once was. Perhaps his ideas were old-fashioned and out of date.

Well, if that’s why Churchill was banished from the Oval Office, they could not have been more wrong.

What was he fighting for, in the Second World War? Why did he work so hard for the American entry into the war?

Yes, he was fighting for British survival; but he was also fighting against the dictatorships for democracy in Europe – for the right of the people to choose who makes their laws, and to kick them out at elections.

At the very heart of Winston Churchill’s political beliefs was what he saw as the supreme right of every voter, with his or her little pencil, to decide who governs the country.

And today it is a tragedy that the European Union – that body long ago established with the high and noble motive of making another war impossible – is itself beginning to stifle democracy, in this country and around Europe.

If you include both primary and secondary legislation, the EU now generates 60 per cent of all the laws that pass through Westminster.

We are giving £20bn a year, or £350m a week, to Brussels – about half of which is spent by EU bureaucrats in this country, and half we never see again.

We have lost control of our borders to Brussels; we have lost control of our trade policy; and with every year that passes we see the EU take control of more and more areas of public policy.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is now taking decisions about human rights of all kinds. In their desperation to prop up the euro, the other EU countries are planning a further lunge towards a political and fiscal union.

If we are stay in this system, we will find ourselves hauled inch by inch towards a federal superstate – with no proper accountability to the people.

Can you name your Euro-MP? Can you say what they are doing in Strasbourg?

It is a measure of the fatuity of that Euro-parliament that some of the bravest Euro-MPs, such as Sayeed Kamal and Daniel Hannan, are campaigning for Britain to leave.

This project is a million miles away from the Common Market that we signed up for in 1973.

It is deeply anti-democratic – and much as I admire the United States, and much as I respect the President, I believe he must admit that his country would not dream of embroiling itself in anything of the kind.

The US guards its democracy with more hysterical jealousy than any other country on earth.

It is not just that the Americans refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, or that they have refused to sign up to the International Convention on the Law of the Sea.

America is the only country in the world that has so far failed to sign up to the UN convention on the rights of the child, or the UN convention on the emancipation of women.

For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy – it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do.

It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical. The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU, for themselves or for their neighbours in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?

There are those who think that Britain has more “influence” within the EU than outside, and that therefore we can be of more value to Washington.

That is nonsense. The UK has been outvoted 40 times in Brussels in the last 5 years, and the total bill for those defeats – in extra costs for UK government and business – is put at £2.4 bn a year.

How can we have “influence” in the Brussels commission, when only 3.6 per cent of Commission officials come from this country?

Can you imagine the Americans entrusting their trade negotiations to a body that comprised only 3.6% Americans? The idea is laughable.

The truth is that the UK would GAIN influence outside. We would be able to speak up again in international bodies, rather than having our views represented – half-heartedly and imperfectly – by the EU.

Then there are those who say that we would be somehow more “influential” in Washington, because of our membership of the EU.

Really? We have been in the EU for 43 years, and we haven’t even been able to do a free trade deal with the US.

And then there are the defeatists who say that yes, the EU is anti-democratic, but that we are too small and frail to survive on our own.

I really don’t know what country they are talking about. The Britain I see is the fifth biggest economy on earth, a world leader in all kinds of 21 century sectors, with a capital city that is in many ways the capital of the world.

I think it is time to channel the spirit of the early Obama, and believe in Britain again.

Can we take back control of our borders and our money and our system of government? Yes we can.

Can we stand on our own two feet? Yes we can.

Can we build a new and prosperous relationship with the rest of the EU, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation? Yes we can.

Can we speak up for the hundreds of millions around the continent who also feel estranged from the Brussels project?

Can we once again be the champions of democracy? Yes we can.

And by doing all those we can thrive as never before – and therefore be even better and more valuable allies of the United States.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160621070638/https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/1139354/boris-johnson-uk-and-america-can-be-better-friends-than-ever-mr-obama-if-we-leave-the-eu/

[top]

22nd April 2016: Boris Johnson calls Obama’s comments on Brexit “perverse”

Always very good to hear from Barack Obama, I’m a big fan of Barack Obama on any subject. But, clearly this is something where we have a disagreement and I do think it’s perverse that we’re being urged by the United States to embroil ourselves evermore deeply in a system where our laws - 60% of them are now emanating from the EU - when the United States would not dream of subjugating itself in any way to any other international jurisdiction they won’t even sign up to the International Criminal Court, the law of the sea. America is the only country in the world not to sign up on the UN’s Convention of the Rights of the Child. America has a point of view, we have a different point of view and the point I am trying to make is that British democracy - to us- is as sacrosanct as American democracy is to America.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-boris-johnson-perverse-eu-video

[top]

23rd April 2016: Boris Johnson on St George’s Day

London is hosting another fantastic celebration for St George's Day, this year bringing in another pillar of English culture, the great Bard himself. It's a superb family day out and all are welcome.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/londons-st-georges-day-celebrations

[top]

23rd April 2016: Boris Johnson visits a local Subway as reported in The Sunday Post

“What sort of bread is it? Is it a bap? Do you get the tomatoes ready sliced?”

[On not eating the roll] “I’ve just had a huge load of fish and chips”.

[On Subway’s growth in sales] “What does that tell us about the world? Why is it growing so fast? Is it that nobody has an office canteen any more?”

Source: https://www.sundaypost.com/in10/food/you-need-to-see-boris-johnson-struggle-to-make-a-sandwich-in-subway/

[top]

23rd April 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook

Who was St George? Nobody knows but he is said to have been a Cappadocian bacon merchant who made a fortune from victualling the crusaders. And if that is true it is highly appropriate that he should be our national Saint – a heroic and independent small business man of the kind that still today forms the backbone of the English economy. Above all he was a man who had the guts to stand up to the prevailing consensus of the establishment. You will recall that for decades the people had been oppressed by an alien tyrant, a dragon that ate people and took 20 billion pounds a year and did terrible economic damage. The elites all collaborated in the disaster. They said that there was no other option. They deplored the dragon but they said that getting rid of it was too risky. Stuff that said St George. He slew the dragon, liberated the people and restored democracy. And he got the princess.

Cry God for England and St George today!

Source: https://reaction.life/st-georges-day-celebrate-third-birthday-boris-facebook-post-slaying-dragon/

[top]

24th April 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column “Do Bremainers really think voters will be cowed by the likes of Obama?”

So I gather they think it’s game over. The Bremainers think they have bombed us into submission. They think that we have just seen the turning point in the referendum campaign, and that the British people are so intimidated by these testimonials – American presidents, business leaders, fat cats of every description – that they now believe the British people will file meekly to the polls in two months time and consent to stay in the EU; and thereby to the slow and insidious erosion of democracy in this country.

If that is indeed the view of the Remain campaign, they are crowing too soon. They are perhaps ignoring the resilience and thoughtfulness of many middle-of-the-roaders. One senior public servant – a man of no political party, and who had previously been on the fence – texted me after the US intervention and said he had been so outraged at President Obama’s “back of the queue” remark that he had instantly decided to vote Leave.

But let us suppose that the Bremainers are right in their complacency. Let’s imagine that we all wake up on June 24, and discover that the people have indeed been so cowed and so perplexed by the scare stories that they voted to Remain. What then? There will be instant jubilation in Brussels, of course; champagne corks going off like Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture. Among the vast clerisy of lobbyists and corporate affairs gurus – all the thousands of Davos men and women who have their jaws firmly clamped around the euro-teat – there will be relief. Things will go on as they are; indeed, things will go into overdrive.

For more than a year now, Brussels has been in a self-imposed lockdown. Nothing must be done to frighten the children. The British referendum – that embarrassing and tedious genuflection to democracy – must be safely won; and then they will get their plans out of the drawer and get on with the business of building a federal superstate.

You may have noticed, however, that the euro crisis is far from over, and that the EU remains a gigantic engine of job destruction. Eight years after the disaster began, it is obvious that the problem is structural, not cyclical. In Spain, Portugal and Greece, a whole generation of young people has been sacrificed to the Moloch of the euro – and they are still on the dole. The Greeks are unable to pay their debts; the Italian banks have a €360 billion black hole.

In response, the EU plans “more Europe”, a fiscal and political union, in which Britain would inevitably be involved.

Remember we were told we wouldn’t have to pay for the Greek bail-outs? And then we did? According to the European Commission’s Five Presidents’ Report, which lays out plans to shore up the euro, the Commission wants to have a new European approach to company law, to property rights, to every aspect of employment law. Why? Because if the Germans are to be persuaded to engage in a perpetual bankrolling of the less prosperous regions of the EU, then they want proper Germanic rules to enforce good behaviour. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And Brussels can see only one way to save the euro – and that is to get Germany to pay, and therefore to allow Germany to call the tune.

Remember that twice in the last five years, the EU has removed a democratically elected government – in Italy and Greece – and installed Brussels-approved technocrats. It is a narcotic tyranny. They want to go on with the work of building a unitary state, in a way that is anti-democratic and ultimately very dangerous, since it will one day provoke real public anger.

Britain should not be involved in any of this – and yet we have absurdly and inexcusably given up our veto rights; and the whole process is going to be conducted within the “single market” – that is, the existing EU structures – so that we are morally and legally comprised, and share all the ensuing political and economic damage.

Inch by inch, month by month, the sausage machine of EU law-making will extrude more laws – at a rate of 2,500 a year, or perhaps even faster, once the referendum is out of the way. More and more people will exercise their unfettered rights to come to this country, putting more pressure on our public services. And eventually – when we are unable to take it any more – the UK will utter a faint sheepish cough of protest. Please sir, we will say, raising our hand in the EU Council, we need reform. And eyebrows will shoot up in a Batemanesque way. REFORM? they will say, in the tones of Lady Bracknell. REFORM? But you just had reform…

If there is one thing that proves the folly of remaining in the EU – in the hope that we can change things from within – it is the tragic poverty of that deal. The Prime Minister asked to restore social and employment legislation to national control; for a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental rights; to stop the European court adjudicating on UK criminal law; to ensure that immigrants have a job offer before entering the UK; to revise the Working Time directive to protect the NHS; to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and the structural funds; and full-on Treaty change. What did we get? Two thirds of diddly squat.

We need to talk about that deal in the weeks ahead, because it shows how contemptuously we will be treated if we vote to remain. This is the last chance, in our lifetimes, to take back control – of £350m a week (and use some of that cash to deliver a seven-day NHS) – and the last chance to take back control of our democracy.

Of course the elites want to remain. They will always have power. The losers are the hundreds of millions of Europeans whose only power is their vote – their ability to sack their governments at elections. That power is being taken away. It is indefensible, and it will lead to real trouble. We can be stronger, richer, more influential if we vote Leave. In believing that we can all be scared into thinking otherwise, the Remainers are fatally underestimating the British public.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/24/do-bremainers-really-think-voters-will-be-cowed-by-the-likes-of/

[top]

24th April 2016: Boris Johnson replies to President Obama’s response of Boris Johnson’ initial racist attack against Obama as reported in The Daily Mail

[On Obama's plea for Britain to stay in the EU] “ridiculous” “weird” [and he had not] “come close to answering my point”.

“Barack Obama is entitled to his view and he is an honoured guest, but it is ridiculous to warn that the UK will be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal.”

“The UK has never been able to do a free trade deal with the US in the last 43 years – because we are in the EU.”

“It is very weird that the US should be telling the UK to do something they would not dream of doing themselves in a million years.”

[On criticism of his comments] “Oh come on. This is all a complete distraction – an attempt by the remain campaign to throw dust in people's eyes.”

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3555600/Boris-rage-ridiculous-weird-Obama-Extraordinary-statement-MoS-mocks-President-trade-threats.html

[top]

24 April 2016: Boris Johnson answers to Mail On Sunday regarding Obama comments

Barack Obama is entitled to his view and he is an honoured guest, but it is ridiculous to warn that the UK will be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal.

The UK has never been able to do a free trade deal with the US in the last 43 years – because we are in the EU!

Any negotiations are entirely in the hands of the European Commission and only 3.6 per cent of commission officials actually come from this country.

Negotiations are held up by absurd problems like the French restrictions on Hollywood movies or Greek hostility to American feta cheese.

No one in the last 48 hours has come close to answering my point – it is very weird that the US should be telling the UK to do something they would not dream of doing themselves in a million years.

We can be better allies of America if we recapture control of our democracy and our borders and £350m a week, much of which could be spent on this country's real priorities, such as health. It's time to take back control, folks.

The crucial thing that Churchill stood for, and that America stands for today, is representative democracy. The problem with the EU is that nobody knows who is in charge and nobody knows who is making these decisions.

Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-attacks-barack-obamas-7822601

And https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3555600/Boris-rage-ridiculous-weird-Obama-Extraordinary-statement-MoS-mocks-President-trade-threats.html

[top]

25th April 2016: Boris Johnson “We have not had a US trade deal because we are in the EU” [publicly available content shown]

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that the UK is now being told it has go to the back of the queue for any free trade deal the reason we haven’t had a free trade deal for the last 40 years is that we’re part of the EU, if we get out we’ll have a huge opportunity to intensify our trade not just with Europe but with the rest of the world. The WTO has changed the way trade works in the world, tariff barriers are much less important and I think, don’t forget 73% of the non-EU trade we do at the moment is done without any sort of trade deal whatsoever. I don’t want to exaggerate, but for people to say that we’re going to be unable to cope on our own I think is absolutely wrong.

“I think the crucial thing is what kind...”

Source: https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/media-interview/74228/boris-johnson-we-have-not-had-us-trade-deal-because-we-are-euand https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/wto-eu-uk-consumers-trade-deals

[top]

25th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out to commemorate Anzacs

“We remember with undying gratitude the Anzacs who gave their lives for freedom (1/2)”

“Amazing to think that we discriminate against Australians + NZers who want to come to this country + in favour of those from the EU (2/2)”

Sources:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/724591422549168128and https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/724591823101022208

[top]

26th April 2016: Boris Johnson on Facebook

“Enjoyed hosting a telephone town hall yesterday evening, talking to the troops about why we need to get Zac over the finish line. We covered tonnes of subjects and appreciate everyone for taking time out to join.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/enjoyed-hosting-a-telephone-town-hall-yesterday-evening-talking-to-the-troops-ab/10153656256011317/

[top]

27th April 2016: Record of mayoral meeting

The Mayor thanked the Commissioner for all the hard work of Metropolitan Police officers and staff over his eight years as Mayor.

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/27_april_2016_mayor_commissioner.pdf

[top]

28th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture whilst campaigning for Zac Goldsmith

“Brilliant to bang the drum with the troops in Wanstead, working hard to get @keithprince4gla & @ZacGoldsmith elected”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/725772623439904770

[top]

28th April 2016: Reported comments of Boris Johnson on Sadiq Khan from LBC

[There is an] “ideological continuum” [between them]

“There’s plainly some sort of virus of anti-Semitism within the Labour party that needs to be addressed.

“It seems to me there’s an ideological continuum between the views of Ken Livingstone about Israel and the position of Jeremy Corbyn and indeed the views of their candidate for London mayor Sadiq Khan.”

“I think it’s very prudent of the Labour party candidate to do that – although I note that Sadiq Khan had previously called upon Ken Livingstone’s services as an adviser and indeed Sadiq Khan had nominated Jeremy Corbyn, as I recall, to be leader of the Labour party...

“I certainly think it was politically expedient for him to do that.”

[Mr Khan has done] “exactly the right thing” [to dissociate himself from the Hitler comments]

“They are all part of the same movement, they’re all part of the same Corbynista group.”

Source: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/74394/boris-johnson-ideological-continuum-between-ken

28th April 2016: Boris Johnson reportedly accuses the Labour Party of having been infected by antisemitism on LBC

“There is plainly some sort of virus of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party that needs to be addressed. There is an ideological continuum between Ken Livingstone about Israel and the position of Jeremy Corbyn.”

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-04-28/boris-labour-party-infected-by-virus-of-anti-semitism/

[top]

28th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook video where he appears with Zac Goldsmith

“Great to make a return to the fantastic Leadenhall Market at lunchtime today with my good friend @ZacGoldsmith”

[Video transcript]

“Hi folks, I’m here in Leadenhall Market, the heart of commercial London with the man I hope so much is going to be our next mayor Zac Goldsmith if there’s one man who understands the needs of the business community in London, the need for London to have a strong vibrant economy so we can pay for pay for all the wonderful public services that man is Zac Goldsmith.

“Don’t go for Sadiq Khan, folks, he’ll cut our transport budget, he’ll put high rise buildings all over London and he’ll whack up your council tax. Back Zac next Thursday the fifth of May.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/videos/10153661134541317/?v=10153661134541317

[top]

28th April 2016: Boris Johnson speaks to the Huffington Post

“We're making the case now to central government for more funding. I'm making the argument to the treasury that a pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde. You will generate jobs in Strathclyde far more effectively if you invest in parts of London. There's amazing opportunity to take London forward, but I don't want to go back to the tired-out policies of the past. We want to keep going with our apprenticeships scheme, to expand it and recruit more businesses into that scheme. They will get great value for money from their apprentices.”

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/26/job-creation-london-mayor-huffpost-linkedin_n_1456092.html?guccounter=1

And

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/30/boris-spending-london-economic-woes

And

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjFboRwGiqc

[top]

29th April 2016: Telegraph article ‘Boris Johnson: I was very lucky, as a kid I had everything thrown at me’

There was a kid I met four years ago at City Hall,’ he says. ‘He won a music scholarship and he went on to get an academic scholarship to study at Christ’s Hospital school in Sussex and, as a result, his life has been totally transformed.

That story sticks in my mind. But there are thousands of young people across the capital whose lives are better now than they were when I came into office. So if you’re asking me for my legacy, hand on heart, there it is: confidence and social mobility. And I’m very, very proud of it. Because music is something that teaches kids discipline, hard work and teamwork.

It’s about practice, about failure, about keeping on trying – which is 95 per cent of the battle. The tragedy in London is that we have a lot of kids who do very well until they’re 11, but they don’t carry their music through from primary to secondary school.

And they’re losing something huge. All the evidence is that if they’re helped to keep their music up, the effect on their academic performance, and on their lives, is profound. It’s a very good way of achieving social change.

There are still far too many kids who are not getting a fair suck of the sauce bottle. But as far as London is concerned, I know all the mayoral candidates will continue the work. We live in a hugely prosperous and successful place and we have to go on finding ways to support them.

I was very lucky: as a kid I had everything thrown at me. But there’s talent everywhere. It’s all about confidence.

Show respect, love, interest, and children bloom. But it’s not just about taking an interest. It’s much more than that. It’s about teaching them not to give up when the going gets tough.

Source:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/29/boris-johnson-i-was-very-lucky-as-a-kid-i-had-everything-thrown/

[top]

29th April 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a video with Zac Goldsmith on the campaign trail

“Come on, folks – back Zac next Thursday and he’ll deliver his Action Plan without putting a penny on Council Tax.”

Video transcript:

“This is Boris Johnson here, we’re in Bexleyheath as we come now into the final furlong of the great mayoral campaign and everyone is hearing of Zac Goldsmith and his action plan for greater London to build more homes, to make our streets safer and to freeze your council tax. Back Zac on Thursday folks.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/726104917610356737

[top]

MAY2016

[top]

2nd May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to his Facebook post about the EU

“I’m off – but don’t let Labour bring Ken Livingstone’s chaos back to City Hall:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/727063911590141952

[top]

2nd May 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook (also a Telegraph article dated 1st May 2016)

I am sorry but this is no time for a load of sentimental guff. People keep asking me whether I am sad to be stepping down, after eight years, as Mayor of the greatest city on earth. Will I shed a tear? they ask. Will I blub into my last fair trade goat curry in the City Hall canteen? And the answer is, of course, I am sad – and immensely proud of all that has been achieved in London. But I have been around long enough to know that the punters, frankly, could not give a monkey’s.

They are interested – rightly – in what comes next. Their eyes are on the future. They want to know whether the next mayor will do a good job for them; and so in the last four days, before I am finally prised from my swivel chair on the eighth floor, I want to give some advice to the people. It concerns their choice on Thursday.

The other day, LBC radio took me up in a helicopter, and I was stunned at the changes that have taken place. Eight years ago the cover of Time had a picture of London sinking beneath the waves – and the thrust of the piece was that London was finished. We had been banjaxed by the financial crisis, the US news magazine argued. Money and power were haemorrhaging to the east. It was all Shanghai, Mumbai, Dubai and bye-bye London.

Well, whoever wrote that piece – and he was not alone in his analysis – should have been in the chopper last week. The growth is stunning, and it is in every quadrant of the city. From Battersea to Greenwich to the Olympic Park to Old Oak common, London is now seething with the biggest programme of regeneration the city has ever seen. Brownfield sites – derelict wastelands that have been untouched for decades – are turning into fantastic places to live. London is now by far the most dynamic urban economy in Europe, leading the world in tech, media, arts, culture, finance, bio-science, universities – and we still manufacture everything from bikes to chocolate cake.

Four years after the Olympics, we are the number one tourist destination in the world. Unemployment has fallen; incomes have risen; the London Living Wage has massively expanded. Everyone wants to come here – and, if possible, to live here. And that is the problem. Since I have been Mayor, the population has boomed – by well over 600,000. We have to build new housing; faster, better, cheaper. Yes, my team in City Hall can be very proud of building well over 100,000 affordable homes (far more than were ever achieved in Labour’s eight years). But we need more – and in a city that is 607 square miles, that means joining up the brownfield housing sites with the zones of economic activity; and that means investing in public transport.

That is why I am so alarmed by the policies of the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan. Never mind the nauseating drivel about Hitler from the former mayor, Ken Livingstone. Set on one side, for a moment, the Labour Party’s current problem with anti-Semitism. What worries me is the return of another aspect of Livingstone-ism; and that is an irresponsible and unaffordable approach to the funding of the city.

At the heart of Sadiq Khan’s pitch is a piece of classic Ken-ery. He wants to hold transport fares down so low that he would take £2bn out of the budgets for London transport. This is a huge mistake. It will mean delaying or cancelling infrastructure projects that are desperately needed; and that means your bus not turning up; your Tube delayed; your nose thrust into someone else’s armpit. But it is also a tragic failure to understand the reality of London’s position, in an age of budgetary restraint.

It is true that we have seen record investment in the city – but that is because London government has persuaded the Treasury of our seriousness in cutting waste. We have folded organisations together; we have massively reduced headcount; we have radically reformed the estate to take account of technological change – closing 12 fire stations, 70 police stations and 263 Tube ticket offices. We have transformed TfL’s finances, so that by 2020 it will not need any revenue funding at all. It is because we have taken these tough decisions that the Treasury has been willing to support the city, and to defy all those who say London is unfairly favoured.

Crossrail 2 will now go ahead, as well as new river crossings; and City Hall has been given big new powers over suburban rail, over health, over planning and over skills. But that is because at every stage we have been ruthlessly cost-cutting – slicing our share of the council tax by 27 per cent, for instance. With the deficit the size it is, there is just no way the Treasury will write cheques to London if the city is run by a mayor so profligate and reckless that he decides to burn £2bn.

It will turn into a war between City Hall and Whitehall – of the kind that Ken Livingstone used to love in the 1980s – and it will be a fiasco. When I came to City Hall eight years ago, I turfed out a load of semi-Marxists who luxuriated in taxpayer-funded Châteauneuf-du-Pape while specialising in the kind of Lefty grievance politics that divide the city. Whatever Khan may now say, that gang will come back with a Labour victory.

If Labour wins on Thursday, I confidently prophesy that Livingstone will be back in City Hall within a week. Zac Goldsmith is the only man who can stop it happening. He is a sensible, moderate one-nation Tory who will keep council tax low, protect the look and feel of outer London, keep crime coming down and keep the capital moving in the right direction. He has superb and innovative policies on housing and the environment; and in addition to pursuing all the good policies of the outgoing mayor he is younger, taller and let’s face it, much better-looking. He will make a great mayor. Let’s back Zac and crack on with the renaissance of the greatest city on earth.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153668221026317

[top]

3rd May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a photo from a campaign rally for Zac Goldsmith

“Fantastic to be with the troops this evening banging the drum for @ZacGoldsmith ahead of Thursday’s election.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/727592340039290880

[top]

4th May 2016: Boris Johnson posts a farewell image and message on Facebook

“Yesterday I bid an emotional farewell to the staff of City Hall. Everything we have achieved in London over the last 8 years is down to the incredible team who have worked flat out to help make it happen. I couldn’t have done it without them.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/photos/pb.7972991316.-2207520000.1463050411./10153672307321317/?type=3&theater

[top]

4th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a video on his last full day as London mayor

“This is my last full day as mayor folks and Operation Juddering Climax is coming to its final shuddering surge:”

[video transcript]

“Hi folks. It’s Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, making my last appeal to you really as your mayor, and the most important thing I want to say is a huge thank you to all Londoners for the immense privilege that you did of allowing to be the mayor for the last eight years. I know that a lot of you didn’t vote for me but loads of you did and I hope think that at least some of the things that we’ve done have been worthwhile.

“I’m incredibly proud of what the team at City Hall has been able to deliver. I don’t think there’s ever been such an incredible legacy from the Olympic Games and any other Olympic city has ever produces such a physical, concrete regeneration legacy as we have done. No other period of London has seen such extraordinary investment in transport. We’ve got Crossrail on time on budget, Crossrail 2 now a major fact of life for the government. Huge upgrades of all our tube networks, and all together across London I don’t think there has ever been such a period of regeneration and construction.

“So I am proud, it’s been a massive honour for me. I know I was very surprised to be elected, and I know that millions of people in London and around the world were very surprised when I was elected too. But the most important thing now as I take my leave and shuffle off into the sunset is that everything that’s good that we’ve tried to do in this city is now taken forward.

“All the environmental campaigns, all the support for young people, for apprenticeships, for volunteering, all the things that we’ve cared about so much in the last 8 years. I really hope that they will be protracted on tram lines, like the Sutton tram which we’re going to build by the way. And that people continue with that work and I have to tell you there’s only one candidate at this election that I think is able to do that.

“And that is Zac Goldsmith. Zac is an extraordinary politician, he’s very different from most other members of parliament, he’s absolutely rigid in his environmental principles. He stands up against his own government, against the Prime Minister when he cares passionately about an issue. He gets results for his constituents in Richmond. He’s been re-elected in with colossal majorities and I think he’ll do a superb job in bringing our city together and in taking it forward. He’s the only guy at this election who can do the deals with central government that will give us the funding that we need.

“So I just say if you think London has been going in broadly the right direction, if you think our great city has still got further to go, then I hope very much that you’ll support Zac Goldsmith on the fifth of May and make greater London greater still.

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/727834121980903424

[top]

4th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out supporting Zac Goldsmith

“Tomorrow you choose London’s next mayor – so get out and back @ZacGoldsmith.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/727963410412019712

[top]

5th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a picture containing polling information

“Morning folks. Polls just opened and remain so until 10pm. vote to back Zac - and make Greater London greater still.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/728102985851494401

[top]

5th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture of him and his wife going to their local polling station to vote

“Delighted to vote Conservative this morning. Polls remain open until 10pm so don’t forget to vote for @ZacGoldsmith.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/728195707165921281

[top]

5th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture of a “final heave” on election day

“Final heave after leaving City Hall for the last time. Just over an hour to go folks - back Zac and crack on.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/728312181788413952

[top]

7th May 2016: Outgoing mayor Boris Johnson congratulates new mayor Sadiq Khan on Facebook

Many congratulations to Sadiq on securing a huge mandate to do the best job in British politics. I wish him every possible success and will be calling him in the morning.

I have also been in touch with Zac and thanked him for his heroic efforts to carry the Conservative banner in our city, in spite of the strong headwinds he faced at this stage in the political cycle.

I believe the high turnout is proof once again that the London mayoralty is now firmly established in the public mind, and I have no doubt the incoming mayor will be able to use the growing powers of the job to deliver improvements in the lives of Londoners.

Source:https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-05-07/boris-johnson-congratulates-successor-sadiq-khan/

[top]

9th May 2016: Boris Johnson Brexit speech Q&A

BORIS: I’m sure they carried that live. I’m very happy to take some questions. Andy, yes.

Andy Bell: Thank you very much, Andy Bell, Five News. This morning the prime minister basically said that leaving would be taking a risk with peace and usher in the possibility of the continent returning to violence. He has a point, though, doesn’t he? The EU has played a role in making war between France and Germany virtually unthinkable, of military dictatorships in southern Europe moving into peaceful co-existence with the rest of Europe, of Eastern Europe being liberated. He has a point that the EU has played a role, at least, in preserving peace on the continent, and you risk, there is a risk of it falling back into violence if you unpick that with Britain leaving.

BORIS: I don’t think the prime minister can seriously believe that leaving the EU would trigger war on the European continent, given that he was prepared only a few months ago to urge people to vote leave if they failed to get a substantially reformed European Union. We have not got a substantially reformed European Union, the thing is virtually identical to before. I think it very very curious that the prime minister is calling this referendum and now warning us that world war three is going to break out unless we vote to remain. I think that is not the most powerful argument I’ve heard.

Everybody knows that peace in Europe over the last 60, 70 years has been guaranteed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I mentioned earlier the Nato intervention in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia that was in the end decisive in bringing that area back to peace. The European Union, as you will remember, exacerbated the problems by the premature decision to recognise Croatia.

And if you want an example of EU foreign policy-making on the hoof and the EU’s pretentions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine. I think it’s very very important that we don’t muddle up the role of the EU with the role of Nato, and to say that the EU has been the guarantor of peace on our continent risks in my view undermining that fundamental defence architecture that is the North Atlantic Treaty alliance and that has been primarily responsible for peace in our time. Michael.

Michael: You said, Mr Johnson, that the EU is becoming a force for instability and alienation. In that case don’t we have a duty to stay and put a break on that?

BORIS: Well that’s, thanks Michael, I’ve tried very extensively to deal with that very argument because I think it is something that people intuitively feel, that maybe we should try and help our neighbours by going for reform. And the difficulty is that we have failed to see any reform, we haven’t produced any reform by our negotiating efforts over the last six months.

The UK agreement, as I’ve said before, delivered nothing on treaty change. No change on borders, no change on the contributions the UK makes, no change on anything. What I think that really showed people is that you stay in, they’re not going to listen to you. So the best bet, I think, for thoroughgoing reform, for devolution in Europe, for a continent, for a programme, to get a grip on what is happening, to end this sense of alienation, is to vote leave on June the 23rdand make the European elites think again about the direction they are going in. That is by far the best answer. Yes, Robert.

Robert: Just on this issue of the role that Europe has played in bringing peace and stability. In your marvellous bestselling book on Churchill, you did say that the EU had been, quote “a spectacular success” in bringing peace and stability to the continent. Have you changed your mind?

BORIS: Well, Winston Churchill was very clear that the European Union might have its merits, but that Britain should have no part in it, and if you remember, what he said was that the most important thing about our country was our democracy. That’s the biggest export we have made to the world, the most important contribution we have to make to the arguments in Europe, and at the moment it is that democracy that is being undermined, and it is the undermining of that democracy in Europe that in my view is provoking this adverse reaction, and that is causing alienation and instability. Yes, Anushka.

Anushka Asthana: Yes, I’m sorry. Anushka Asthana from The Guardian. You really really want Brexit, but you must accept that there are some risks involved with Brexit, and I think the public deserve to know what they are, and I was just wondering if you could say what the risks might be, and how the UK could deal with them.

BORIS: Well, I think that the greatest problem we have at the moment, in my view, is the endless tendency in this conversation to talk down Britain as a means of winning this argument. And that is the single biggest threat that I can see, is that people on the remain camp will continue to run scare stories about world war three, or bubonic plague, or what ever it happens to be, and that actually they may in the end inadvertently do substantial material damage to people’s confidence about this country.

We’re a great country, we have nothing to fear, we are the fifth biggest economy in the world, London is the greatest city in the world by a huge margin. We lead the world in a huge number of sectors, so we will prosper and thrive as never before outside the European Union, and we will teach them a wonderful example, we will save Britain by or exertions and Europe by our example. Two more. Yes.

Express correspondent: [unintelligible] from the Express. Do you agree with many of your colleagues? I mean you referred to the Brexit campaigners as “we happy few”, do you agree with any of your colleagues…

BORIS: Well, not according to the polls, we’re quite numerous…

EC: Well yes, but do you agree with any of your colleagues…

BORIS: Well financially, they got the big battalions, I won’t deny it, they got the money at the moment, they got the money. They got taxpayers’ money.

EC: Do you agree with our colleagues when they say that this contest has been skewed by that, by this £9bn?

BORIS: Awh, I think that, I think it’s ridiculous, as I said earlier, poor old taxpayers, who are hard pressed enough, you’ve got the NHS under huge pressure and they’re taking £9m out to spend on a bunch of leaflets. I do think it’s ridiculous, you know, it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. Or if they’re going to do it, they should at least do it fairly, and give us £4.5m.

EC: Could a future conservative leader or prime minister bring this question back is there still is a remain vote?

BORIS: Well, I am confident that the British people, in their infinite wisdom, will get the right answer on June the 23rd, and that’s what I’m, what I want to see. Yes.

Harry Cole: Harry Cole from The Sun. Boris, you just effectively accused the prime minister of deliberately misleading voters.

BORIS: I like that you used the word “effectively” there.

HC: Deliberately.

BORIS: Effectively deliberately.

HC: Deliberately deceiving the public in your view. Surely, you can’t really serve in this man’s government? Would you serve in a future David Cameron government post-Brexit vote given that your saying he’s…?

BORIS: I’m a humble, look, I’m a humble ex-municipal toenail now dedicated to serving the cause of this country and trying to extricate us from the European Union, which as I say, ever more expensive, moving in the wrong direction, undermining our democracy. We’re sending £350m every week to Brussels, we are losing control of our democratic institutions. It is not right, it is not right for Britain, it is not right for Europe either. That’s my concern at the moment. One more, last one. Last one. No, no, Stephen, Telegraph.

Telegraph: George Osborne suggested that the next leader of the Conservative party would need to be serious, sober, and principled. Do you feel that you would fit that bill?

BORIS: Look, I’m delighted to discover that the chancellor is principled, and it’s very important, and sober, and everything else. Laura.

Laura Kuenssberg: Joking apart, Mr Johnson, there is a very serious suggestion that’s been made by the prime minister this morning. Do you think that David Cameron is telling the truth when he tells voters that leaving the EU would risk peace on our continent? And, just because it’s Europe day, could you give us that complete verse of Ode to Joy?

BORIS: Well I mean, you can’t have it both ways Laura, it is a very serious point and I think that people should think very hard before they make these kinds of warnings. And I don’t, the answer is no, I don’t believe that leaving the EU would cause world war three to break out on the continent, and as I’ve said, I think the principle guarantor of peace and stability on our continent has been Nato, and what worries me now is it’s the European Union’s pretentions to run a foreign policy as well as a defence policy that risk undermining Nato.

We saw what happened in Bosnia, we’ve seen what happened in the Ukraine. It is very very important in this argument that British politicians remember that we focus on the North Atlantic alliance, and that we keep the focus of Washington and of the Pentagon very much trained on the concerns of the whole of this continent, and not to turn their eyes away, and that means keeping the focus very much on Nato. All the EU can do in this matter in my view is cause confusion, and as we’ve seen in the Balkans, I’m afraid, tragic instability for a long time in the Ukraine as well. So, focus on the North Atlantic alliance, that is my advice.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxUenbzRKYw

[top]

9th May 2016: Boris Johnson delivers a Facebook Live speech at the vote leave headquarters

“I am pleased that this campaign has so far been relatively free of personal abuse – and long may it so remain – but the other day someone insulted me in terms that were redolent of 1920s Soviet Russia. He said that I had no right to vote leave, because I was in fact a “liberal cosmopolitan”.

“That rocked me, at first, and then I decided that as insults go, I didn’t mind it at all – because it was probably true. And so I want this morning to explain why the campaign to leave the EU is attracting other liberal spirits and people I admire such as David Owen, and Gisela Stuart, Nigel Lawson, John Longworth – people who love Europe and who feel at home on the continent, but whose attitudes towards the project of European Union have been hardening over time.

“For many of us who are now deeply skeptical, the evolution has been roughly the same: we began decades ago to query the anti-democratic absurdities of the EU. Then we began to campaign for reform, and were excited in 2013 by the prime minister’s Bloomberg speech; and then quietly despaired as no reform was forthcoming. And then thanks to the referendum given to this country by David Cameron we find that a door has magically opened in our lives.

“We can see the sunlit meadows beyond. I believe we would be mad not to take this once in a lifetime chance to walk through that door because the truth is it is not we who have changed. It is the EU that has changed out of all recognition; and to keep insisting that the EU is about economics is like saying the Italian mafia is interested in olive oil and real estate.

“It is true, but profoundly uninformative about the real aims of that organization. What was once the EEC [European Economic Community] has undergone a spectacular metamorphosis in the last 30 years, and the crucial point is that it is still becoming ever more centralizing, interfering and antidemocratic.

“You only have to read the Lisbon Treaty – whose constitutional provisions were rejected by three EU populations, the French, the Dutch and the Irish – to see how far this thing has moved on from what we signed up for in 1972. Brussels now has exclusive or explicit competence for trade, customs, competition, agriculture, fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, the areas of freedom, security and justice, and new powers over culture, tourism, education and youth. The EU already has considerable powers to set rates of indirect taxation across the whole 28-nation territory, and of course it has total control of monetary policy for all 19 in the eurozone.

“In recent years Brussels has acquired its own foreign minister, its own series of EU embassies around the world, and is continuing to develop its own defence policy.

We have got to stop trying to kid the British people; we have got to stop saying one thing in Brussels, and another thing to the domestic audience; we have got to stop the systematic campaign of subterfuge – to conceal from the public the scale of the constitutional changes involved. We need to look at the legal reality, which is that this is a continuing and accelerating effort to build a country called Europe.

“Look at that list of Lisbon competences – with 45 new fields of policy where Britain can be outvoted by a qualified majority – and you can see why the House of Commons library has repeatedly confirmed that when you add primary and secondary legislation together the EU is now generating 60% of the laws passing through parliament.

“The independence of this country is being seriously compromised. It is this fundamental democratic problem – this erosion of democracy - that brings me into this fight. People are surprised and alarmed to discover that our gross contributions to the EU budget are now running at about £20bn a year, and that the net contribution is £10 billion; and it is not just that we have no control over how that money is spent. No one has any proper control – which is why EU spending is persistently associated with fraud. Of course the remain campaign dismisses this UK contribution as a mere bagatelle – even though you could otherwise use it to pay for a new British hospital every week. But that expense is, in a sense, the least of the costs inflicted by the EU on this country.

“It is deeply corrosive of popular trust in democracy that every year UK politicians tell the public that they can cut immigration to the tens of thousands – and then find that they miss their targets by hundreds of thousands, so that we add a population the size of Newcastle every year, with all the extra and unfunded pressure that puts on the NHS and other public services.

“In our desperation to meet our hopeless so-called targets, we push away brilliant students from Commonwealth countries, who want to pay to come to our universities; we find ourselves hard pressed to recruit people who might work in our NHS, as opposed to make use of its services – because we have absolutely no power to control the numbers who are coming with no job offers and no qualifications from the 28 EU countries. I am in favour of immigration; but I am also in favour of control, and of politicians taking responsibility for what is happening; and I think it bewilders people to be told that this most basic power of a state – to decide who has the right to live and work in your country – has been taken away and now resides in Brussels.

“And, as I say, that is only one aspect of a steady attrition of the rights of the people to decide their priorities, and to remove, at elections, those who take the decisions. It is sad that our powers of economic self-government have become so straitened that the chancellor of the exchequer has to go around personally asking other finance ministers to allow him to cut VAT on tampons, and as far as I can see we still have not secured consent.

“It is very worrying that the European court of justice – Luxembourg, not Strasbourg – should now be freely adjudicating on human rights questions, and whether or not this country has the right to deport people the Home Office believes are a threat to our security; and it is peculiar that the government is now straining at the gnat of the convention and the Strasbourg court, whose rulings are not actually binding on UK courts, while swallowing the camel of the 55-article charter of fundamental rights, which is fully justiciable by the European court in Luxembourg, when you consider that it is the rulings of this court that are binding and that must be applied by every court in this country, including parliament.

“It is absurd that Britain – historically a great free-trading nation – has been unable for 42 years to do a free trade deal with Australia, New Zealand, China, India and America.

“It is above all bizarre for the remain campaign to say that after the UK agreement of February we are now living in a “reformed” EU, when there has been not a single change to EU competences, not a single change to the Treaty, nothing on agriculture, nothing on the role of the court, nothing of any substance on borders – nothing remotely resembling the agenda for change that was promised in the 2013 Bloomberg speech.

“In that excellent speech the prime minister savaged the EU’s lack of competitiveness, its remoteness from the voters, its relentless movement in the wrong direction. As he said, the biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

”More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same – less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs. And that will make our countries weaker not stronger. That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change. He was right then.

“We were told that there had to be “fundamental reform” and “full-on” Treaty change that would happen “before the referendum” – or else the government was willing to campaign to leave. And that is frankly what the government should now be doing. If you look at what we were promised, and what we got, the government should logically be campaigning on our side today.

“We were told many times – by the PM, home sec and chancellor - that we were going to get real changes to the law on free movement, so that you needed to have a job lined up before you could come here. We got no such change. We were told that we would get a working opt-out from the charter of fundamental human rights – which by the way gives the European court the power to determine the application of the 1951 Convention on Refugees and Asylum, as well as extradition, child protection and victims’ rights. We got nothing.

“We were told that we would be able to stop the eurozone countries from using the EU institutions to create a fiscal and political union. Instead we gave up our veto. The Five Presidents’ report makes it clear that as soon as the UK referendum is out of the way, they will proceed with new structures of political and fiscal integration that this country should have no part in, but which will inevitably involve us, just as we were forced – in spite of promises to the contrary – to take part in the bail-out of Greece. They want to go ahead with new EU rules on company law, and property rights and every aspect of employment law and even taxation – and we will be dragged in.

“To call this a reformed EU is an offence against the Trades Descriptions Act, or rather the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive that of course replaced the Trades Descriptions Act in 2008. The EU system is a ratchet hauling us ever further into a federal structure.

“We have proved to ourselves time and again that we cannot change the direction. We cannot change the pace. We cannot interrupt the steady erosion of democracy, and given that we do not accept the destination it is time to tell our friends and partners, in a spirit of the utmost cordiality, that we wish to forge a new relationship based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation.

“We need to vote leave on June 23, and in the meantime we must deal with the three big myths that are peddled by the remain campaign. The first is the so-called economic argument. The remainers accept that there is a loss of political independence, but they claim that this trade-off is economically beneficial.

“The second argument we might broadly call the peace-in-Europe argument – that the EU is associated with 70 years of stability, and we need to stay in to prevent German tanks crossing the French border.

“The third argument is more abstract, but potent with some people. It is that you can’t really want to leave the EU without being in some way anti-European, and that the remain camp therefore have a monopoly on liberal cosmopolitanism.

“All three arguments are wholly bogus. The most important mistake is to think that there is some effective and sensible trade-off between the loss of democratic control and greater economic prosperity. The whole thrust of the remain argument is that there is a democratic cost, but an economic benefit – that if we accept that 60% of our laws are made in Brussels, we will see some great boost in our trade and our exports and in the overall economic performance of the EU. This is turning out to be simply false.

“The loss of democratic control is spiritually damaging, and socially risky – and the economic benefits of remaining subject to the single market law-making machine, as opposed to having access to the single market, are in fact very hard to detect. What the government wants is for us to remain locked into the single market law-making regime, and to be exposed to 2500 new EU regulations a year. What we want is for Britain to be like many other countries in having free-trade access to the territory covered by the single market – but not to be subject to the vast, growing and politically-driven empire of EU law.

“There is a good deal of evidence that this is the more sensible position to be in. Take the two relevant 20 year periods, before and after the creation of the single market, in other words from 1973 to 1992, and from 1992 to 2012.

“Now when the single market dawned, we were told that it was going to be a great dynamo of job and wealth creation – €800bn, the Cecchini report said, of extra European GDP. We were told that it was going to send exports whizzing ever faster across borders. So what happened?

“Did Britain export more to the rest of the EEC 11, as a result of the single market? On the contrary, the rate of growth slowed, as Michael Burrage has shown this year. British exports of goods were actually 22% lower, at the end of the second 20-year period, than if they had continued to grow at the rate of the 20 years pre-1992. And before you say that this might be just a result of Britain’s sluggish performance in the export of manufactured goods, the same failure was seen in the case of the 12 EEC countries themselves.

“We were told that goods would start pinging around the EEC as if in some supercharged cyclotron; and on the contrary, the rate of growth flattened again – 14.6% lower than the previous 20 years when there was no single market.

“So what was the decisive advantage to Britain, or any other country, of being inside this system, and accepting these thousands of one-size-fits-all regulations? In fact you could argue that many countries were better off being outside, and not subject to the bureaucracy. In the period of existence of this vaunted single market, from 1992 to 2011, there were 27 non-EU countries whose exports of goods to the rest of the EU grew faster than the UK’s, and most embarrassingly of all – there were 21 countries who did better than the UK in exporting services to the other EEC 11.

“So where was this great European relaunch that was supposed to be driven by the 1992 single market? In the 20 years since the start of the single market, the rate of growth in the EU countries has actually been outstripped by the non-EU countries of the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. It is the independent countries that have done better; and the EU has been a microclimate of scandalously high unemployment. This year the US is projected to grow by 2.4%, China by 6.5%, NZ by 2%, Australia by 2.5% and India by 7.5%. The eurozone – 1.5%.

“All that extra growth we were promised; all those extra jobs. The claims made for the single market are looking increasingly fraudulent. It has not boosted the rate of British exports to the EU; it has not even boosted growth in exports between the EU 12; and it has not stopped a generation of young people – in a huge belt of Mediterranean countries – from being thrown on to the scrapheap.

“What has that corpus of EU regulation done to drive innovation? There are more patents from outside the EU now being registered at the EU patent office than from within the EU itself. The eurozone has no universities within the top 20, and has been woefully left behind by America in the tech revolution – in spite of all those directives I remember from the 1990s about les reseaux telematiques; or possibly, of course, the EU has been left behind on tech precisely because of those directives.

“There are plenty of other parts of the world where the free market and competition has been driving down the cost of mobile roaming charges and cut-price airline tickets – without the need for a vast supranational bureaucracy enforced by a supranational court.

“I hear again the arguments from the City of London, and the anxieties that have been expressed. We heard them 15 years ago, when many of the very same remainers prophesied disaster for the City of London if we failed to join the euro. They said all the banks would flee to Frankfurt. Well, Canary Wharf alone is now far bigger than the Frankfurt financial centre – and has kept growing relentlessly since the crash of 2008.

“As for the argument that we need the muscle of EU membership, if we are to do trade deals – well, look, as I say, at the results after 42 years of membership. The EU has done trade deals with the Palestinian authority and San Marino. Bravo. But it has failed to conclude agreements with India, China or even America.

“Why? Because negotiating on behalf of the EU is like trying to ride a vast pantomime horse, with 28 people blindly pulling in different directions. For decades deals with America have been blocked by the French film industry, and the current TTIP [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership] negotiations are stalled at least partly because Greek feta cheese manufacturers object to the concept of American feta. They may be right, aesthetically, but it should not be delaying us in this country.

“Global trade is not carried on by kind permission of people like Peter Mandelson. People and businesses trade with each other, and always will, as long as they have something to buy and sell. But it is notable that even when the EU has done a trade deal, it does not always seem to work in Britain’s favour. In 10 out of the last 15 deals, British trade with our partners has actually slowed down, rather than speeded up, after the deal was done.

“Is that because of some defect in us, or in the deal? Could it be that the EU officials did not take account of the real interests of the UK economy, which is so different in structure from France and Germany? And might that be because the sole and entire responsibility for UK trade policy is in the hands of the EU commission – a body where only 3.6% of the officials actually come from this country?

“In trying to compute the costs and benefits of belonging to the single market, we should surely add the vast opportunity cost of not being able to do free trade deals with the most lucrative and fastest-growing markets in the world – because we are in the EU.

“When you consider that only 6 per cent of UK business export to the EU 28; and when you consider that 100% of our businesses – large and small – must comply with every jot and tittle of regulation; and when you consider that the costs of this regulation are estimated at £600m per week, I am afraid you are driven to the same conclusion as Wolfgang Munchau, the economics commentator of the FT [Financial Times], who said, “whatever the reasons may be for remaining in the EU, they are not economic”.

“And so I return to my point; that we must stop the pretence. This is about politics, and a political project that is now getting out of control. To understand our predicament, and the trap we are in, we need to go back to the immediate post-war period, and the agony and shame of a broken continent.

“There were two brilliant Frenchmen – a wheeler-dealing civil servant with big American connexions called Jean Monnet, and a French foreign minister called Robert Schuman. They wanted to use instruments of economic integration to make war between France and Germany not just a practical but a psychological impossibility.

“It was an exercise in what I believe used to be called behavioural therapy; inducing a change in the underlying attitudes by forcing a change in behaviour. Their inspired idea was to weave a cat’s cradle of supranational legislation that would not only bind the former combatants together, but create a new sensation of European-ness.

“As Schuman put it, “Europe will be built through concrete achievements which create a de facto solidarity”. Jean Monnet believed that people would become “in mind European”, and that this primarily functional and regulatory approach would produce a European identity and a European consciousness.

“Almost 60 years after the Treaty of Rome, I do not see many signs that this programme is working. The European elites have indeed created an ever-denser federal system of government, but at a pace that far exceeds the emotional and psychological readiness of the peoples of Europe. The reasons are obvious.

“There is simply no common political culture in Europe, no common media, no common sense of humour or satire, and – this is important – no awareness of each other’s politics, so that the European Union as a whole has no common sense of the two things you need for a democracy to work efficiently. You need trust, and you need shame. There is no trust, partly for the obvious reason that people often fail to understand each other’s languages. There is no shame, because it is not clear who you are letting down if you abuse the EU system.

“That is why there is such cavalier waste and theft of EU funds: because it is everybody’s money, it is nobody’s money. If you walk around London today, you will notice that the 12-star flag of the EU is flying all over the place. That is because this is Schuman day. It is the birthday of the founder of this project, and the elites have decreed that it should be properly marked.

“Do we feel loyalty to that flag? Do our hearts pitter-patter as we watch it flutter over public buildings? On the contrary. The British share with other EU populations a growing sense of alienation, which is one of the reasons turn-out at European elections continues to decline.

“As Jean-Claude Juncker has himself remarked with disapproval, “too many Europeans are returning to a national or regional mindset”. In the face of that disillusionment, the European elites are doing exactly the wrong thing. Instead of devolving power, they are centralising.

“Instead of going with the grain of human nature and public opinion, they are reaching for the same corrective behavioural therapy as Monnet and Schuman: more legislation, more federal control; and whenever there is a crisis of any kind the cry is always the same. “More Europe, more Europe”.

“What did they do when the Berlin wall came down, and the French panicked about the inevitability of German unification? “More Europe” and what are they saying now, when the ensuing single currency has become a disaster?

“More Europe. They persist in the delusion that political cohesion can be created by a forcible economic integration, and they are achieving exactly the opposite. What is the distinctive experience of the people of Greece, over the last eight years? It is a complete humiliation, a sense of powerlessness. The suicide rate has risen by 35%; life expectancy has actually fallen. Youth unemployment is around 50%. It is an utter disgrace to our continent.

“That is what happens when you destroy democracy. Do the Greeks feel warmer towards the Germans? Do they feel a community of interest? Of course not. In Austria the far right have just won an election for the first time since the 1930s. The French National Front are on the march in France, and Marine le Pen may do well in the presidential elections. You could not say that EU integration is promoting either mutual understanding or moderation, and the economic consequence range from nugatory to disastrous.

“The answer to the problems of Europe today is not “more Europe”, if that means more forcible economic and political integration. The answer is reform, and devolution of powers back to nations and people, and a return to intergovernmentalism, at least for this country – and that means vote leave on June 23.

“And of course there will be some in this country who are rightly troubled by a sense of neighbourly duty. There are remainers who may agree with much of the above; that the economic advantages for Britain are either overstated or non-existent. But they feel uneasy about pulling out of the EU in its hour of need, when our neighbours are in distress; and at this point they deploy the so-called “Peace in Europe” argument: that if Britain leaves the EU, there will be a return to slaughter on Flanders fields.

“I think this grossly underestimates the way Europe has changed, and the Nato guarantee that has really underpinned peace in Europe. I saw the disaster when the EU was charged with sorting out former Yugoslavia, and I saw how Nato sorted it out. And it understates the sense in which it is the EU itself, and its anti-democratic tendencies that are now a force for instability and alienation.

“Europe faces twin crises of mass migration, and a euro that has proved a disaster for some member states; and the grim truth is that the risks of staying in this unreformed EU are intensifying and not diminishing. In the next six weeks we must politely but relentlessly put the following questions to the prime minister and to the remain campaign:

1 How can you possibly control EU immigration into this country?

2 The living wage is an excellent policy, but how will you stop it being a big pull factor for uncontrolled EU migration, given that it is far higher than minimum wages in other EU countries?

3 How will you prevent the European court from interfering further in immigration, asylum, human rights, and all kinds of matters which have nothing to do with the so-called single market?

4 Why did you give up the UK veto on further moves towards a fiscal and political union?

5 How can you stop us from being dragged in, and from being made to pay?

“The answer is that the remain campaign have no answers to any of these questions, because they are asking us to remain in an EU that is wholly unreformed, and going in the wrong direction.

“If we leave on June 23, we can still provide leadership in so many areas. We can help lead the discussions on security, on counter-terrorism, on foreign and defence policy, as we always have. But all those conversation can be conducted within an intergovernmental framework, and without the need for legal instruments enforced by the European court of justice. We will still be able to cooperate on the environment, on migration, on science and technology. We will still have exchanges of students.

“We will trade as much as ever before, if not more. We will be able to love our fellow Europeans, marry them, live with them, share the joy of discovering our different cultures and languages – but we will not be subject to the jurisdiction of a single court and legal system that is proving increasingly erratic and that is imitated by no other trading group.

“We will not lose influence in Europe or around the world – on the contrary, you could argue we will gain in clout. We are already drowned out around the table in Brussels; we are outvoted far more than any other country – 72 times in the last 20 years, and ever more regularly since 2010; and the eurozone now has a built-in majority on all questions.

“We will recapture or secure our voice – for the 5th biggest economy in the world – in international bodies such as the WTO or the IMF or the Cites [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora], where the EU is increasingly replacing us and laying a claim to speak on our behalf. If you want final and conclusive proof of our inability to “get our way” in Brussels – and the contempt with which we will be treated if we vote to remain – look again at the UK deal and the total failure to secure any change of any significance.

“Above all – to get to the third key point of the remainers – if we leave the EU we will not, repeat not, be leaving Europe. Of all the arguments they make, this is the one that infuriates me the most. I am a child of Europe. I am a liberal cosmopolitan and my family is a genetic UN peacekeeping force.

“I can read novels in French and I can sing the Ode to Joy in German, and if they keep accusing me of being a little Englander, I will. Both as editor of the Spectator and mayor of London I have promoted the teaching of modern European languages in our schools. I have dedicated much of my life to the study of the origins of our common – our common – European culture and civilisation in ancient Greece and Rome.

“So I find if offensive, insulting, irrelevant and positively cretinous to be told – sometimes by people who can barely speak a foreign language – that I belong to a group of small-minded xenophobes; because the truth is it is Brexit that is now the great project of European liberalism, and I am afraid that it is the European Union – for all the high ideals with which it began, that now represents the ancient regime.

“It is we who are speaking up for the people, and it is they who are defending an obscurantist and universalist system of government that is now well past its sell by date and which is ever more remote from ordinary voters. It is we in the leave camp – not they – who stand in the tradition of the liberal cosmopolitan European enlightenment – not just of Locke and Wilkes, but of Rousseau and Voltaire. And though they are many, and though they are well-funded, and though we know that they can call on unlimited taxpayer funds for their leaflets, it is we few, we happy few who have the inestimable advantage of believing strongly in our cause, and that we will be vindicated by history; and we will win for exactly the same reason that the Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon – because they are fighting for an outdated absolutist ideology, and we are fighting for freedom.

That is the choice on June 23. It is between taking back control of our money – or giving a further £100bn to Brussels before the next election. Between deciding who we want to come here to live and work – or letting the EU decide between a dynamic liberal cosmopolitan open global free-trading prosperous Britain, or a Britain where we remain subject to a undemocratic system devised in the 1950s that is now actively responsible for low growth and in some cases economic despair between believing in the possibility of hope and change in Europe – or accepting that we have no choice but to knuckle under. It is a choice between getting dragged ever further into a federal superstate, or taking a stand now.

“Vote leave on June 23, and take back control of our democracy.“

Source: https://www.facebook.com/voteleave/videos/592103550966573/

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215829/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/boris_johnson_the_liberal_cosmopolitan_case_to_vote_leave

And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piihgjW_oAg

[top]

9th May 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook

The response from the Remain campaign on my remarks this morning shows the depths to which they will sink in their smears against those who campaign for Leave.

I have repeatedly condemned Vladimir Putin's actions in the Ukraine.

As it happens I didn't even discuss the issue of the Russian leader this morning. I merely said what is relatively uncontroversial - that the EU handling of Ukraine was very far from ideal.

It is absolutely contemptible to call me an apologist for Putin.

The Remain campaign are clutching pathetically at straws and they should themselves apologise.

They having nothing positive to say about Britain's future. Jack Straw is tacitly admitting what we all know - that the deal delivered absolutely no change in Britain's relations with the EU.

These are the hard truths. And they are trying to disguise them by their usual confection of distortion and untruth.

These are the questions that the Remainers need to answer:

1. How can you possibly control EU immigration into this country?

2. The Living Wage is an excellent policy, but how will you stop it being a big pull factor for uncontrolled EU migration, given that it is far higher than minimum wages in other EU countries?

3. How will you prevent the European Court from interfering further in immigration, asylum, human rights, and all kinds of matters which have nothing to do with the so-called Single Market?

4. Why did you give up the UK veto on further moves towards a fiscal and political union?

5. How can you stop us from being dragged in, and from being made to pay?

And won't and can't.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/the-response-from-the-remain-campaign-on-my-remarks-this-morning-shows-the-depth/10153683371371317/

[top]

11th May 2016: Boris Johnson admits some of the £350m does indeed come back to the UK as reported on ITV

[On the £350m Brexit campaigners claim it sends to the EU every week[ “gross figure is the right figure.”

[On suggestion the true figure was £161m] “Not in itself to be sneezed at”.

“That figure [£350m] represents accurately the gross sum that is sent. Yes we do get some of it back, but we get it at the discretion of EU officials who decide how they're going to spend UK taxpayers' money in the UK.

“If you take out the abatement and the money that comes back via Brussels, the figure is obviously lower. We think it's relevant to keep people focused on the global figure, because that is the figure over which we have no control.”

“The single market costs UK business about £600m a week.”

[Nato] “keeps us strong and safe at home” [and the EU is] “very much a distraction from that.”

[On his vote leave activities: it is a] “campaign for freedom”.

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/uk-does-get-back-some-of-350m-it-sends-to-eu-boris-johnson-admits/

[top]

11th May 2016: Boris Johnson live on BBC Breakfast from Truro

Boris: Good morning. How are you? Yes, we haven’t got the battle bus here but it’s coming.

I do think it very odd that we’re being called extremists and irrational and all this kind of thing when only the other day we were being told that world war three was going to break out if we voted to leave. Really that cannot be sensible. Everybody knows that peace in this continent is guaranteed by Nato and if it really is true that world war three and bubonic plague are going to break out then why on earth are we having this referendum?

This is a referendum about taking back control of £350m a week which we could spend according to our priorities here in this country, it’s about taking back control of our borders and I think it’s about getting back control of British democracy. And I believe in this country, I love Europe, of course I have many wonderful, happy memories of living and working and going on holiday to Europe. Most of my family come from one European country or another. Of course we love Europe, but there’s a difference between Europe and the institutions of the European Union. And they are now evolving I think in a direction that is simply not compatible with long-term health of UK democracy.

BBC: We had your brother the universities minister talking about how leaving Europe would damage science in the UK, about talent and the flow of funding. We know your dad is voting in, your other brother and your sister, if you’re struggling to convince those who love you, how can you convince the public?

Boris Johnson: There are no shortage of Johnsons and I can tell you I have yet another brother who is firmly pro-Brexit and he’s right. Just going to the points about science funding and the rest, let’s be clear: of the money that we send to Brussels, £20bn a year, £10bn we never see again. It goes on all sorts of things. Greek tobacco farming. Spanish bullfighting. £110m a year of CAP money goes on Spanish bullfighting for heavens sake! Now with that net money back in this country, we could actually fund things like the NHS, like our science base, like our academic health science centres, even more generously than we do at present.

So that argument simply doesn’t stack up. As for scientific core cooperation across frontiers, of course we could continue to do that. The Erasmus programme could continue. All the things that we do... Or used to do at an intergovernmental level, so all the cooperation on defence, foreign policy, security, sharing of intelligence, all that can be done and probably should be done intergovernmental league without putting it under the auspices of the federal supranational institutions of the European court of justice and thecommission.

BBC: Can I have you about the--

Boris: The problem with the EU at the moment is we’re trying to bolt everything together with a supernational system that I think is going in the wrong direction.

You cannot vote for the status quo in this referendum.

BBC: I want to talk about the state of the Tory party. You said there was not going to be insults. That is now happening. And to talk about you personally if the UK votes to stay within the EU will that then block any potential for you o get into number 10?--

Boris: I really think that people love - and I understand how it makes it more fascinating to reduce this all this to personalities but this is about the fundamental issues of our constitution and whether we are able to govern ourselves and to take back control of huge amounts of money and our borders and our democracy and just to get to the point I was trying to make, you can’t vote to stay, for things to stay as they are because what will happen as soon as the British referendum is over and if we do make the mistake of voting to stay in they will use the institutions of the single market, the federal supernational institutions to drive forward with a whole new agenda designed to prop up the euro. Using measures to pull fiscal policy, property rights, company law, heaven knows what, the whole agenda is set out in the Five Presidents’ report. The UK will be dragged into that. That is on top of the £600m a week that EU regulation is costing UK business.

BBC: Ok, you’ve said it’s about the issues will you welcome the opportunity to debate the issues in a TV debate?

Boris: I have said very clearly to the people running the leave campaign, they point me and I’ll march. I’ll do whatever it takes to get these points across

BBC: So that is a yes?

Boris: We have got lots of good debaters on our side, Gisela Stuart, Nigel Lawson, Michael Gove, John Longworth, we’ve got huge numbers of people who are – huge numbers of people who are very, very – Iain Duncan Smith everybody’s there

ready to make the points. Chris Grayling. We are all now set to get our argument over. Kate Hoey. We are all there.

BBC: One final question. Has the bus turned up yet by the way?

Boris: I have seen it. It is colossal. Unlike the remain side of the argument, we are not spending £9m of taxpayers’ money on this operation. I think it is absolutely infamous the way, that they have got the whole government, the whole of Whitehall supporting the remain campaign. They’ve got all their advisors who are being marched in the same direction. Every international visitor is made to spout the remain campaign lines and they are spending £9m of taxpayers’ money on shoving a leaflet through everybody’s door. I think it is absolutely infamous. Never mind. We few, we happy few with small amounts of money will get our points across and I think we have got a once lifetime chance to change the direction of this country and democracy in Europe.

BBC: Before we let you go. We are talking today about microphone faux pas. Should David Cameron apologise about what he said about Nigeria and Afghanistan, do you think?

Boris: I just saw that on the news. I think the prime minister, as far as I understand it, was speaking very candidly about the problems of global corruption and most people will find it refreshing he is speaking his mind. The more people that speak their mind the better, in my view.

BBC: Thank you very much. Enjoy the bus.

Source: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0C7B85AA?bcast=121628204&sub=BBC

[top]

11th May 2016: Boris Johnson on Good Morning Britain live from Truro

Piers Morgan: The great Boris Johnson joins us live for the first time since I've been on Good Morning Britain, your hair looks almost normal Boris, are you all right this morning? How are you?

Boris: Well of course it's a very... Well we’re here in Truro, and obviously trying to get the message across to people that this is a lifetime – once in a lifetime chance for us to take back control of our country and our democracy. A lot of money – £350m a week overall goes to Brussels, you’ve got about £600m worth of costs to British business and of course you’ve got the whole problem that politicians in this country are no longer really able to control our borders, so those are some of the issues that we’ll be talking about.

Talking about, you’ve just said in your introduction, Piers, that this is a part of the world that gets a lot of EU money, worth pointing out there, of course, that that is our money which is actually coming back to Cornwall from Brussels, but the most sensible thing would be to keep the money in the UK, spend it on priorities such as supporting farming and fishing here in Cornwall rather than sending it around the houses through Brussels.”

Susanna Reid: Yet no guarantee that that would happen though is there, at the moment Mr Johnson, that money, you know, what is it Cornwall gets through the European Union programme - gets €100m per year. There’s no guarantee that Cornwall would get that money if we left?”

Boris: There is a guarantee, there is, and we’re making that guarantee, and it’s very important to recognise that things like the Common Fisheries Policy have been absolutely destructive of the fishing here in Cornwall and around the UK – there are probably half the number of people involved in the fishing trade than there were in 1973 when the UK joined – it was an absolutely deliberate decision by the Heath government there, back in the 1970s, it was in the final rubber of the negotiations, they were desperate to get in, and they basically traded away Britain's fish, and then you'll remember what happened in the Factortame judgement in 1988, it became absolutely impossible under European legislation to protect Britain's fisheries, and they have been predated upon by other European Union companies in a way that we simply can't obstruct - and there has been, to take back control of fisheries would be of massive benefit to this part of the world.

Piers : I want to take back control of this interview. Let me ask you Boris--

Boris: Sorry, come on.

Piers: I've known you a long time you're a fantastic character you're much brighter than some people give you credit for--

Boris: I don't like the way this conversation is going Piers, but go on--

Susanna: Setting you up--

Piers: There's a sting in the tail, don't worry, there won't be a sea of compliments... and you you remind me of a gambler – a smart gambler – who's gone down to a casino and put all his money on red, alright, which is that we will leave the European Union--

Boris: Alright I think I know what you're trying to say.

Piers: How will you feel if this massive gamble, for you personally - putting aside the the nation's interests, but you - if it fails and you lose, how will you feel?

Boris: Well I will feel obviously, that you know, the your view, you are wrongly characterising, I'm afraid my decision to back leave and to ask people to vote to leave, obviously I do think that in many ways being an active, contributing partner for Britain in Europe is important, and we will continue to do that - a lot of the arguments that you're hearing at the moment are about security, about defence, about sharing of intelligence – all that we can continue to do, Piers, but we can do it at an intergovernmental level in exactly the way we used to do it under the old Maastricht Treaty, and before – sorry, before the Maastricht Treaty – and what worries me now, getting back to the point about the the Fisheries and all the rest of it, is so much is now decided by the European institutions – particularly by the European Court, that the thing has changed radically – people--

Susanna: Sorry can I--

Boris: Who supported Europe in a vague way perhaps 25 years ago--

Piers: Boris you can't just make an address to the nation, you have to at some stage, you've gotta draw breath.

Boris: Are now looking at an institution that is radically, fundamentally different.

Piers: I just wanna ask you, on that one point, right, you goaded the bear of the President of the United States before he came to this country and you goaded him pretty personally, you know, you made a few jibes about him, and he responded by slapping you around like a heavyweight prizefighter, and basically destroyed one of your key arguments when he said ”look, you pull out – you guys in Britain will be back of the queue” - now, do you believe that it was a mistake, with hindsight, to have goaded the president in that way?

Boris: No. I think it's very important that people should have listened to that, because obviously, when the United States wants us to be the front of the queue for various things - the Iraq war which you were discussing earlier - then that's a different matter... I think actually, what most sensible people would recognise, is that we'll do a free trade deal, not just with the EU but of course we'll have the opportunity, for the first time in 43 years, to do free trade deals not just with America, but with India, China, Australia, and New Zealand, which we currently cannot do because we are members of the European Union. The EU has done deals with San Marino and the Palestinian Authority and loads of other places, but because of the immense complication of trying to get 28 countries to agree on a negotiating position, we haven't done free trade deals with massive growth economies of the world.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko-TtUY1rEM

[top]

11th May 2016: Telegraph reporting on Boris Johnson in Cornwall

“…And the EU are no longer the same thing. And it’s the EU that is going in the wrong direction. So I hope you’ll build a movement everybody. They think they’ve got the big battalions, they’ve got all the taxpayers money, we’ve got the passion we’ve got commitment and we’ve got right on our side. Fight for our democracy, folks, on June 23rdand lets make sure June 24this Independence Day for Britain. Thank you very much. Vote leave on June 23rd.

:Isn't it wonderful to see our battle bus, which is not funded by the taxpayer? Unlike the £9m they spent on that government propaganda, that remain propaganda. Folks, this a once in a lifetime unrepeatable opportunity for us to take back control of our country. Do you think we can do it?

“I think we can do it. We can take back control not just of £20bn that we send every year to Brussels, about £350m a week that comes to. We can take back control of our immigration system so politicians will be held to account with what happens in this country.”

Sources: https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/730315020563779584

And https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/boris-johnsons-bizarre-day-in-cornwall--the-best-tweets/

[top]

11th May 2016: Boris Johnson in Cornwall via The Guardian

“…absolutely crazy that the EU is telling us how powerful our vacuum cleaners have got to be, what shape our bananas have got to be, and all that kind of thing.”

“…costing UK businesses about £600m a week in unnecessary regulation” [he is] “delirious” pwith vote leave’s claim that Britain] “sends the EU £350m a week”.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall

[top]

11th May 2016: Telegraph article reviewing Boris Johnson’s clash with BBC’s John Humphrys

Mr Humphrys: [Do] you want us to stay inside the single market or leave it?

Mr Johnson: The single market is a term of art for the vast empire of legislation and regulation adjudicated by the European court of justice… The answer is yes, we should get out of the empire of EU law-making….What we should have instead is access to the single market.

Mr Humphrys: We would still have an arrangement, a new contract, where we can be a member of the single market without actually being a member of the EU?

Mr Johnson: You said a member of the single market. What we want is to make sure we have access to the single market.

Mr Humphrys …and we would have to have an agreement?

Mr Johnson: Exactly, in the way that many other countries have access….

Mr Humphrys … and they would have to accept free movement of people, that’s part of the deal….

Mr Johnson: No they don’t.

Mr Humphrys: Norway, Switzerland, you name them.

Mr Johnson: The United States, for instance.

Mr Humphrys: The US does not have access to the European single market. It is not a member of the European Economic Area.

BH: Of course it does, it has access.

Mr Humphrys: We are not in the euro, we are not going to become a member of it, that’s that, end of story.

Mr Johnson: You have not been looking at what they are determined to do.

Mr Humphrys: I am looking at what we are going to do.

Mr Johnson: If we vote to remain, they will use the institutions of the single market, the commission, the court of justice and so on, to promulgate measures to prop up the single currency, on company law, on property rights.

Mr Humphrys: And we have an opt-out from all of that.

Mr Johnson : No we don’t. We gave up our veto. We will be embroiled in the creation of a fiscal system to support the euro.

Mr Humprys: Why do you want to control it if it is good for the country and the statistics do show that is good for the economy?

Mr Johnson I am not sure the statistics show that it is good for us.

Mr Humphrys: What we know is that 85% of EU nationals in this country are economically active…. we earn money from them, we are richer by £22bn over the last few years.

Mr Johnson: I don’t know what statistics you are quoting… Uncontrolled immigration is politically very damaging, particularly when politicians promise that they can control it. I think it is unfair on local government when people come in…. and put pressure on our services. It is the lack of control that is so corrosive, it is financially damaging, it also corrosive of trust in democracy.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/boris-johnson-vs-john-humphrys-who-won-the-battle-over-brexit/

[top]

11th May 2016: How close was Boris Johnson to backing EU, as reported on BBC

John Humphreys: Did you, as the rumour goes, have two columns written? One for, for The Telegraph, that is, one for either side of the argument, and only at the last minute did you decide to run with the column saying, look, I’m in favour of Brexit. Is that true or is that not true?

BORIS: No, look, I’ve written all sorts of things over a long period of…

JH: Is that true, what I’ve just said?

BORIS: …time, and what I, it is perfectly true to say that I thought long and hard about this decision, and it was very very difficult to come to because I didn’t want to be at variance with the prime minister, like Michael Gove I didn’t want to be going against what the government…

JH: Right, so it’s not a matter of profound principle that you have held for many years?

BORIS: …and actually what has changed, what has changed over the last few years, the last 20 years, since I went to Brussels and began, if you remember John, writing all sorts of articles attacking the…

JH: Oh, I do remember, and you got your knuckles rapped a number of times, on a number of occasions…

BORIS: No, I, complete here, I’ve been vindicated time after time, and actually…

JH: But you didn’t advocate leaving at that time, did you?

BORIS: Well I certainly pointed out that it was grossly wasteful, that the caravan…

JH: But you didn’t advocate leaving, and up until the 19…

BORIS: No, I mean it’s perfectly true that until the Lisbon Treaty, you wouldn’t have found me in that camp. But since the Lisbon Treaty, I have found myself moving ever… my position has hardened…

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p03ts6tj

[top]

12th May 2016: Boris Johnson distances himself from official Brexit campaign’s attack on prime minister Cameron, commenting whilst on the campaign trail in a steel factory in Dorset

“If I may say so, this is the kind of microcosmographica to which they will try to reduce this thing.”

“I would much rather talk abut the issues that matter to the people of the country and the great choice that we face in a few weeks' time.”

“The more we bang on about who is going to be talking to whom in the debate, the more people's eyes will frankly glaze over.”

“We need to focus on choice, and the choice is between freedom and I think an endlessly more bureaucratic regime, it's between democracy and bureaucracy, and it's between the future and the past.”

“I am happy to debate whoever, within reason.

“This subject of personalities in debates shouldn't dominate over the next few weeks. We need to focus on the big choice the electorate faces - the once in a lifetime choice to change the direction of this country.”

“This is what they want to reduce this great question to - trivial conversations about personalities.”

“I'm happy to do any number of debates, but I'm not organising them. Somebody else is.”

[framing the June 23 referendum as a] “David versus Goliath scenario” “It is we happy few, we are a small, shall I say, plucky, hardy bunch of fighters.”

“But I think when you look at what happened in the David and Goliath struggle there is a real reason to be optimistic - apart from anything else because we have right on our side.”

Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-distances-himself-brexit-7954142

[top]

12th May 2016: Boris Johnson comments on debating PM Cameron

“I think I'd look a bit of a wimp if I said no.”

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/669473/Nigel-Farage-David-Cameron-Brexit-EU-referendum-debate

[top]

12th May 2016: Boris Johnson writes in an article in the vote leave website - ‘vote leave to create 300,000 British jobs’

If we vote leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215659/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs

[top]

14th May 2016: Boris Johnson interview with the Spectator

“It is unquestionably true that I’ve changed. But so has the EU. And of the two of us, it’s the EU that has changed more than me.”
”I thought — bloody hell, when that comes round I’m really going to be on the spot. For many people, the Bloom-berg speech was a moment of hope, a credible programme of change in Europe. Dave spoke of repatriating powers, making the EU more competitive, devolving powers back to people and making it less remote — it was all great stuff. But not a sausage has been produced. Not a bean, not a sausage, not a jot.”
“We’ve got this embarrassing problem of putting membership to the British people, we’re going to need some concessions, what can you give us?”
”We had until the end of 2017, why didn’t he play it long?“ [Cameron lost because he did not] ”swivel the guns of the dreadnought” [on Brussels]
”I would have gone with the Bloomberg text and said: this is what we want, give it to us or the baby gets it. Negotiation didn’t produce anything, so there is no alternative — if vote leave is not the right answer then what is? It’s shit or bust.”
”My side is urging a change and a change is a radical thing to do. For many people, change is loss. And people think, “Oh my God, what is it going to mean for me?” But in this case, change would be a massive gain. Staying in means less security and further erosion of our independent self-governing status. We can’t vote for the status quo. If you vote to stay in, you vote to be part of a project that is changing the whole time.”
”They have tried everything now: world war three, the bubonic plague… And people aren’t buying it, you can tell that from the polls.”
[On calling the referendum without a substantial deal] ”I think that was a mistake. I think the British public are looking at all this and thinking: “Take back £20bn? Take back control of the borders? Run the country? Democracy? You know, it might be a good idea.””
”People think the single market is a great wonderful European souk or bazaar in which you will find absolutely everything humanity could possibly desire: aubergines, derivatives, trucks, ballistic missiles…“ [the single market is] ”a gigantic system” [that imposes] ”extremely detailed and onerous rules on a territory of 500 million”.
”The European court of justice in Luxembourg is supreme in every matter. It’s now a colossal body of law and comprises everything — including human rights. That’s why I’m for out.”
“All I will say is that Lynton Crosby is a very great man and I owe a great deal to him and I listen to his advice on everything. But on this particular case I can categorically say that his advice was not decisive. Lynton is too good, he’s too nice, to be dragged into this.”
”I am delighted to hear that he’s [the chancellor] principled. That is a major, major development.“ [the leader of the Tory party needs to be] ‘smartly turned out, about six foot tall and faintly rubicund with brown hair swept back off his forehead.”
“I hope very much that the prime minister will stay on and negotiate the terms of our exit. By nature, and by inclination, he is an extremely good dealmaker, but he just didn’t give himself enough time.”
“What I’ve said is — you point me and I’ll march, I’ll do whatever I’m told to do… Somehow or other, we’ve got to have debates and they have to elucidate the issues to the public. I wouldn’t do it with any great joy because I don’t want to be opposing my prime minister.”
“Put it this way, I think I’d look a bit of a wimp if I said no… For me to recuse myself from the debates would be wet.”
”Dear Spectator reader: do you see Britain’s future as an open, global, free trading, dynamic economy based on confidence in tried and tested British institutions? Or do you believe that in order to survive we need to remain embedded in something that fundamentally takes away our powers? Something that, over the past 15 years or so, has been a powerful depressor of jobs and growth in our historic European home?”
”I hate that sudden look of hurt in the face of an Italian friend when they think this means that you are turning your back on them.“ [He is at pains to stress that he is] ”naturally, temperamentally, emotionally a very pro-European person with a big E… I love Europe, I really do.
[Churchill would not have wanted] “parliamentary sovereignty to have been so compromised. I think he believed in that above all else. He would have felt it had gone too far.”
“.to stick up for democracy is entirely Periclean” [the referendum comes down to whether you believe in] “rule by the many, not the few.”

[On the next Conservative party manifesto] “They should be honest. One of the most corrosive things is that government won’t level with us about it.”

“We are asking the British people to be brave, to be confident in themselves and to believe in Britain. We have a very good chance.”

Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/boris-to-dave-somehow-or-other-weve-got-to-have-debates/

[top]

14th May 2016: Boris Johnson interview with The Telegraph

“All the people I talk to, increasingly, can see that the emperor has got no clothes. The case for leaving is now overwhelming.”

“It is a bit of a David and Goliath story” [as Boris embarks on] “by far the most important” [period of his political life, he is determined to speak for doctors] “overwhelmed” [by migrants and millions who do not want to see] “our democracy thrown away”.

[He challenges the prime minister to a] “democratic debate” [about the referendum].

[He outlines his] “Tory mission” [for how the party can win the next general election]

“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire. I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically.”

“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”

“This is a chance for the British people to be the heroes of Europe and to act as a voice of moderation and common sense, and to stop something getting in my view out of control.”

“It is time for someone – it’s almost always the British in European history – to say, 'we think a different approach is called for’.”

[Would Churchill himself be on the Brexit bus?] “I think so, but we can’t consult him now. It’s pretty clear to me that his vision for Britain was not subsumed within a European superstate. He saw the UK as being supportive of the marriage but not a participant in the marriage – that is the crucial thing.”

[The euro has allowed the Germany to] “destroy” [weaker countries’ economic health].

“The Italians, who used to be a great motor-manufacturing power, have been absolutely destroyed by the euro – as was intended by the Germans.”

“This is an act of economic takeover. The euro has become a means by which superior German productivity is able to gain an absolutely unbeatable advantage over the whole eurozone territory.” [It is] “rash” [for leave campaigners to take peace in Europe for granted].

“The idea that the EU is somehow the guarantor of peace on the continent – that is in itself rash, in my view, and risks undermining the vital role of Nato.”

[Any Tory leadership contest is] “a very long time” [away.]

“By then, there will be younger, fitter people jostling. There will be all sorts of other people coming forward.”

“I was perfectly aware that I was going to get attacked but that’s life. It would have been very, very easy to have chosen a different course, frankly. But it would have been totally wrong. Yes, it was difficult to come to the decision I did because I didn’t want to be at variance with the prime minister.”

“This is a debate fundamentally about democracy so obviously, in a democratic debate, you’ve got to have debates. I’m happy to do it.”

“By being there for everybody, and by being on the side of people on low incomes who aren’t getting a fair crack of the whip. By campaigning for small businesses against the big battalions – small businesses are the backbone of the economy.

“There is a Tory mission for social justice that has got to be part of what we are about. I agree very much with what Iain Duncan Smith had to say the other day.”

“You can’t just talk the language of aspiration and opportunity. You have also got to talk about helping people who feel that they might not be successful and who feel that they might not be life’s winners. Because there are always people who are going to feel like that about themselves, and they need help and they need encouragement and they need support.”

“There is a lot of bizarre camaraderie between both sides. I suppose it is like a game of rugby or football – you go out and knock seven bells out of each other, and then you’re fine in the changing room afterwards.”

[Nicholas Soames, Churchill’s grandson and MP for mid Sussex] “has been knocking the stuffing out of me but our friendship, I can tell you, is absolutely unaffected – and so it should be.”

“We are close to winning this referendum.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/boris-johnson-interview-we-can-be-the-heroes-of-europe-by-voting/

[top]

16th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook post about the EU

“Of course our City fat cats love the EU – it’s why they earn so much”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/732134275206762496

[top]

16th May 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook: “Of course our City fat cats love the EU – it’s why they earn so much” (also a Telegraph article dated 15th May)

At last year’s Tory Party conference I drew attention to a worrying statistic about the way our society is changing. It is the number of times the salary of the average FTSE100 top executive exceeds that of the average – the average – employee in that company. This multiple appears to be taking off, at an extraordinary, inexplicable and frankly nostril-wrinkling rate.

Plato said no one should earn more than five times anyone else. Well, Plato would have been amazed by the growth in corporate inequality today. In 1980 the multiple was 25. By 1998 it had risen to 47. After 10 years of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson – and their “intensely relaxed” attitude to getting “filthy rich” – the top executives of big UK firms were earning 120 times the average pay of the shop floor. Last year it was 130 times.

This year – cue a fusillade of champagne corks – the fat cats have broken through the magic 150 barrier. The average FTSE100 CEO is taking home 150 times as much as his or her average employee – and in some cases far more. Let us make no bones about it: these people have so much more money than other people in the same company that they are flying in private jets and building subterranean swimming pools, while many of their employees cannot afford to buy any kind of home at all. There is one gentleman out there who is on 810 times the average of his employees.

What is going on? Is it just greed, or mutual back-scratching of the remuneration committees? No doubt they will tell us, as ever, that this is the “going rate in the market”. But I notice one other point about these FTSE100 men (and I am afraid they are almost always men): that they are only too happy to parade through Downing Street and declare their undying devotion to the EU. They happily sign letters to the papers, explaining how vital it is that we Remain. They must think that the EU is good for their business.

But how, exactly? The Single Market is a microcosm of low growth. It is blighted by chronically high unemployment. The EU countries have been outperformed for growth by the rest of the OECD countries; and it is a stunning fact that there are 27 non-EU countries that enjoyed faster growth in exporting goods to the EU than Britain, since the start of the Single Market in 1992, and 20 that have done better at exporting services. Membership is far from conspicuously brilliant for UK Plc.

So what is it these fat cats like about the EU? Broadly two things. They like uncontrolled immigration, because it helps to keep wages down at the bottom end and so to control costs, and therefore to ensure that there is even more dosh for those at the top. A steady supply of hard-working immigrant labour means they don’t have to worry quite so much about the skills or aspirations or self-confidence of young people growing up in this country. And as denizens of Learjets and executive lounges, they are not usually exposed to some of the pressures of large-scale immigration, such as in A&E, or schools, or housing.

Then there is a more insidious reason – that the whole EU system of regulation is so remote and opaque that they are able to use it to their advantage, to maintain their oligarchic position and, by keeping out competition, to push their pay packets even higher.

In their brilliant book Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson explain how transparent political institutions are essential for innovation and economic growth. They make the distinction between “inclusive” societies, where people feel involved in their democracies and their economies, and “extractive” societies, where the system is increasingly gamed by an elite, for their own financial advantage. The EU is starting to take on some of the features of an “extractive” society. It is dominated by a group of powerful international civil servants, lobbyists and business people.

These people, on the whole, know who each other are. In the case of big business, they can afford to hire someone to follow the regulation that comes out of Brussels. They can fix a meeting with the Commissioner responsible. They may even meet him or her at some conference or event – Davos being the most famous. In that respect they have an immense advantage over the vast majority of businesses in this country.

Most businesses (in fact most Britons) have absolutely no idea who works in the Commission, or how to get in touch with them, and they wouldn’t know their Euro-MP from the man in the moon. Only 6 per cent of UK businesses actually export to the EU, and yet 100 per cent of them have to comply with 100 per cent of EU law, whether they are large businesses or small – a regulatory burden that costs about £600m per week.

Last week I visited Reid Steel, a British success story in Christchurch, Dorset. They export steel for bridges in Sudan, hotels in Mauritius, aircraft hangars in Mongolia. The only thing that was holding them back, they said, was EU regulation – generated by an inscrutable process involving fat cat lobbyists and fat cat businesses and the governments of other countries. They are desperate to get out of the EU, and they are right. They believe the other EU countries would rapidly do a free trade deal, and an unshackled British business sector would probably export more to the rest of Europe than it does today.

Of course, the FTSE100 fat cats will sign up for remaining in the EU: they are getting personally richer and richer – by mainlining immigrant labour for their firms and manipulating EU regulation that only the big players can understand – while those at the bottom have seen a real terms fall in their wages. It is one of the reasons that the EU has such low innovation, low productivity, and low growth. If you want to back the entrepreneurs, the grafters, the workers, the innovators, the burgeoning and dynamic businesses of Britain – then Vote Leave on June 23, and give this cabal the kick in the pants they deserve.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153696672496317

[top]

16th May 2016: Boris Johnson speaks to BBC News about his Hitler – EU comparison

“Over the last few thousands years there have been all sorts of attempts in Europe to recreate the dream of the Roman Empire and very often that’s been done by force. The EU is different – it’s tried to do it in a more bureaucratic way.

“The problem is there isn’t a single charismatic authority that anyone feels any loyalty to and it’s completely antidemocratic, that’s the problem.

“This discussion is bedeviled by all sorts of artificial media twit-storms or hysteria of one kind or another. There’s a very good argument against the lack of democracy in the EU.

“Over the last 2,000 years people have made repeated attempts to unify Europe by force. The EU is a very different project but it is profoundly antidemocratic. And that’s why we should vote leave on June 23rd, thank you”

[The EU is a] “peaceful organisation” [but] “fundamentally undemocratic” [it is operating] “by stealth” [and taking away the] “powers and prerogatives of the people of this country.”

“People don't understand when they see these Downing Street hostage videos - these people coming through Downing Street and giving these endorsements of the remain campaign - what they don't understand is they are not speaking for the vast majority of British business.”

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36295208

And

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-boris-johnson-defends-hitler-comments-a7031741.html

[top]

16th May 2016: Boris Johnson compares EU to badly fitting underwear as reported in The Guardian

[The European Union is an ill-fitting undergarment] “too constricting in some places but dangerously loose in others”.

“When you look at the EU now, it reminds me, it makes me think of, walking around this wonderful factory, it makes me think of some badly designed undergarment, that has now become too tight in some places, far too tight, far too constricted, and dangerously loose in other places. Is that what we - now is that the kind of undergarment we make here at David Nieper? Absolutely not! Absolutely not!

“Knickers to the pessimists, how about that? Knickers, let’s say, knickers to the pessimist, knickers to all those who talk, all those who talk Britain down, all those who talk Britain down, let’s take back control, of huge sums of money, take back control of immigration, take back control of our democracy, let’s vote for freedom, vote for freedom on June 23rd, and I believe that in this country, June 24th will be independence day.

“What happened over the last 2000 years or so, was that various people tried to recreate the idea of a single European territory as we had under the Roman Empire, they did it, very often, with extreme force, the EU is a different proposition, but it fundamentally comes from that idea, that you can unify Europe. And my problem with that, is that it has not been done by…”

[interjection]

Anonymous: “Hang on, Adolf Hitler wasn’t talking about unifying Europe though, he was talking about conquering Europe, and wiping out half its population, it’s not the same thing as unifying Europe is it?”

Boris: “Well, you know, as I say, you persist in trying to drag the subject back to previous attempts to unify Europe, what I’m talking about is what is going on now, and it is deeply antidemocratic.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/may/16/boris-johnson-compares-eu-with-badly-fitting-underwear-video

[top]

17th May 2016: Boris Johnson accuses prime minister Cameron of an establishment stitch up, as reported on Sky News

“When you’ve got, what looks like, collusion between the government and big remain-backing business on the surface of it seems to be suggesting that in exchange for support for remain there is consideration to be given to the awarding of lavish public sector contracts. I think people will wonder what is going on.”

Source: https://news.sky.com/video/boris-johnson-accuses-prime-minister-of-stitch-up-over-eu-referednum-10286245

[top]

17th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to his Facebook post about the EU

“This is the biggest stitch up since the Bayeux Tapestry:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/732520584542846976

[top]

17th May 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook: “This is the biggest stitch up since the Bayeux Tapestry”

Check this out folks:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/David-Cameron-s-EU-sham-expose…

This is the biggest stitch up since the Bayeux Tapestry.

It stinks to high heaven.

FTSE 100 chiefs are seeing their pay packets soar while uncontrolled immigration is forcing down wages for British workers.

Now we learn that some fat cats have been secretly agreeing to campaign for remain while angling for lavish government contracts.

It makes us look like some banana republic.

And it is also now beyond doubt that the so called renegotiation was a fiction designed to bamboozle the public.

It was a meaningless mime, a ritual, a Kabuki drama in which the outcome was utterly preordained.

This is not the far-reaching and fundamental reform we were promised.

The only safe way to take back control of our borders and our democracy is to Vote Leave on June 23.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153698971446317

[top]

17th May 2016: Boris Johnson speaks on the vote leave campaign trail, with Douglas Carswell and Gisela Staurt

“Now is the chance for us to take control of this country - can you hear me at the back? - because the organisation that we belong to now, the European Union, has changed beyond all recognition from what we signed up to in 1972. And if we vote leave on June 23rdwe can take back control of £350m a week and spend on our priorities here in this country, including the National Health Service, we can take back control of our immigration system.

“Because I don’t know whether you saw, I think it’s absolutely outrageous we’ve got some of the people lobbying now to stay in the EU, the fat-cat business - did you see the story in the paper this morning about some guy who wants to do a deal with the prime minister in order to - well the gist of seemed to be that he would campaign for remain whilst angling for lucrative government contracts.

“Now of course the people - some of the people on the FTSE 100 - they don’t care about uncontrolled immigration of course they don’t because what happens is their pay packets go ever higher and higher whereas the wages of most people in this country have not increased and in some cases have actually been going down. That’s of course - and they never see the actual experience of people in this country who have to use GP services, who experience the impact of uncontrolled immigration that’s why they support the European Union at the moment.

“My friends it is a stitch-up - indeed it is the biggest stitch up since the Bayeux Tapestry. I would go further, and all this talk of backing the remain campaign in exchange for favours it makes this country look like a banana republic quite frankly. Ill tell you this if we take back control on June 23rdwe can also get rid of so much of the pointless rules and regulations that are holding back this country.

“This gentleman here mentions bananas, it is absurd that we are told that you cannot sell bananas in bunches of more than two or three bananas, you cannot sell bananas of abnormal curvature of the fingers. Why should they tell us? Why should they tell us how powerful our vacuum cleaners should be, why should they tell us how powerful our hairdryers should be ladies and gentlemen!? This is not a matter for an international, supernatural body to dictate to the British people.

“If we take back control, If we take back control we will lift the burden - £600m a week lifted of the backs of British industry and business. That’s why this campaign is growing. Now they think they’ve won the argument did you hear them yet today? They said, they said that they’ve won, do you think they’ve won? No they haven’t.

“Can we go forward to victory on June 23rd- yes we can. Do you believe in this country and what we can achieve? Yes we do, don’t we. They’re running this country down, we can take back our country and the government of our country. I hope you’ll all get to it folks, this is the most exciting campaign any of us have ever been involved in, go to it everybody. Campaign for freedom, for independence and democracy on June 23rdand make June 24thindependence day for Britain.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/732566077926825985and https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-claims-eu-stops-bananas-being-sold-in-bunches-of-more-than-three-that-is-not-true_uk_573b2445e4b0f0f53e36c968

[top]

17th May 2016: Boris Johnson mocks 'hostage videos' of pro-EU business leaders, as reported in The Guardian

“People often don’t understand when they see these Downing Street hostage videos of these people ... giving endorsements for the remain campaign that they are not speaking for the vast majority of British business that is not of that scale and are weighed by these kinds of extra costs.”

[Big companies award] “nauseating” [levels of executive pay at the expense of workers]

“It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s obvious what is happening. The EU is a zone of low growth. The one group of people benefiting are chief executives of big companies that are taking more and more out while those on the shop floor are getting in real terms less and less.

“In my view the problem with the whole setup is that it does benefit a minority of businesses who are able to interact with policymakers, with Davos man and woman, and businesses like the one we just went to are not – and they feel 100% of the cost.”

[Osborne and others are] “danger of talking down the economy” [evidence for the Loch Ness monster is] “considerably better than treasury forecasts.”

“The PM before the renegotiations in Brussels was saying that he was absolutely sure, no question, we would get a free trade deal. He said he was perfectly prepared to walk away: what’s changed?”

[It is a] “scandal” [that the government’s immigration policy had led to longer A&E waiting times.]

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/16/boris-johnson-mocks-hostage-videos-of-pro-eu-business-leaders

[top]

19th May 2016: Back and forth between Boris Johnson and David Cameron, as reported in The Telegraph

“No one could credibly claim this was a reformed EU. I have been a Eurosceptic for decades and was hoping that the PM would achieve what he set out in his the Bloomberg speech - fundamental reform and full on treaty change.

“We were told to expect reform of the European court of justice and of border controls and agriculture and social and employment law and many other things. Alas we achieved non of that.”

{Mr Cameron is a] “self-declared Eurosceptic. The fact is that in a globalised economy the EU is an obsolete political construct whose main policy - the euro - continues to cause unacceptable misery. It is also clear that the government has totally failed to protect the UK from plans for more centralisation.

“I urge my friends in government to recognise that in all logic and as self declared eurosceptics they should really be campaigning with us on this side of the argument.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/david-cameron-claims-boris-johnson-privately-said-he-would-never/

[top]

17th May 2016, posts Boris Johnson statement reported on Politics Home

“I have been a Eurosceptic for decades and was hoping that the PM would achieve what he set out in his the Bloomberg speech - fundamental reform and full on treaty change.

“We were told to expect reform of the European court of justice and of border controls and agriculture and social and employment law and many other things. Alas we achieved none of that.

“It also became ever clearer that the government's exercise of trying to produce a so called sovereignty bill - in which I was involved - was a farce and would achieve nothing.

“'That is obviously why it has been dropped from the Queen's speech.

“'No one could credibly claim that this was a reformed EU.”

Source: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/75196/david-cameron-boris-johnson

[top]

20th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about opening a velodrome

“Officially opened @streetvelodrome in Fassnidge Park. All welcome tomorrow for free sessions before race on Sunday - cheer on #TeamLondon!”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/733707592925642753

[top]

20th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Dementia Friends

“Proud to become a Dementia Friend with @AlzSocLondon in #DAW2016. I want London to be dementia friendly so no one faces dementia alone”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/733708976802660352

[top]

22nd May 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column: “Future Britons will find it hard to believe that anyone voted to stay in the EU”

Thanks to an unexpected wormhole in the space-time continuum, I have come across the following passage from a historical textbook a few decades hence. It is a chapter called “Brexit”…

It is now generally agreed among historians that Britain’s departure from the EU really began in 1991, a quarter of a century before the famous “Brexit” referendum. It was then that the UK government took the controversial decision to opt out of the third stage of European monetary union – thereby ensuring that the British people would be able to keep the pound sterling, rather than being forced to use the euro. When this historic rupture was confirmed by the Labour government, in 2003, there was widespread condemnation from those in British banking and business who were traditionally nervous of being left out of any European project, as well as from some politicians.

Thanks to an unexpected wormhole in the space-time continuum, I have come across the following passage from a historical textbook a few decades hence. It is a chapter called “Brexit”…

They were disappointed when the UK government’s “renegotiation” of the terms of EU membership failed entirely to restore control of immigration to the UK authorities. They were also increasingly unsettled by the realisation – as the campaign went on – that it was not possible to vote for the status quo. The EU had plainly changed out of all recognition from the Common Market that they had voted for in 1975.

In their desperation to save the euro, the Brussels authorities had set an ambitious agenda to go further and faster with a United States of Europe. Reading the fine print, the British discovered that there was nothing they could do to veto such moves – towards a fiscal and political union, as detailed in the “Five Presidents’ Report”. Nor could they stop further centralisation from applying to Britain.

By the spring of 2016, many electors were thinking that the EU was moving in completely the wrong direction. With some polls even predicting a Vote to Leave, a highly nervous UK government resorted to a series of scare tactics. Hysterical claims were made about house prices, food prices, World War Three and other nonexistent bogeymen. The American president was prevailed upon to campaign for the UK to remain – even though, as he was repeatedly reminded, the US would not dream of compromising its independence in the manner required of EU members.

As the brow-beating and scare stories intensified, many began to suspect that the government campaign to “Remain” was driven not so much by an enthusiasm for the Brussels system, but simple fear of the political embarrassment entailed in a Vote to Leave. The Leave campaigners focused on the anti-democratic nature of the EU. They noted the not insignificant expense of membership – £350 million a week, all in – and the inability of the Remain campaign to show that the UK’s net contribution of £10 billion a year was well spent.

They demonstrated that EU legislation now inspired 60 per cent of all primary and secondary legislation at Westminster, and that the costs of this torrent of laws were running at about £600 million a week for British business – even though only 6 per cent of UK businesses actually traded with other EU countries. They convincingly showed that claims of UK “influence” in Brussels were laughable, given that only 3.6 per cent of EU commission officials actually came from the UK. They pointed out that plenty of non-EU countries had done better than Britain at exporting to the vaunted “single market”; that global free trade was legally impossible for Britain while in the EU; and in the end it was hard to resist the conclusion that the EU was an anachronism – outdated in a digital age in which people could shop across frontiers at the click of a mouse.

Given the choice between taking back control or being sucked ever deeper into a federal superstate, the British voted for independence on June 23. To no one’s very great surprise, Project Fear turned out to be a giant hoax. The markets were calm. The pound did not collapse. The British government immediately launched a highly effective and popular campaign across the Continent to explain that this was not a rejection of “Europe”, only of the supranational EU institutions; and a new relationship was rapidly forged based on free trade and with traditional British leadership on foreign policy, crime-fighting, intelligence-sharing and other intergovernmental cooperation.

The British felt suddenly and unexpectedly galvanised – with a renewed confidence in their democracy, and excitement about the new opportunities for global trade and partnership. The Brexit vote was followed by a powerful campaign for reform in Europe, and a widespread euphoria that at least one population had plucked up the courage to say that the emperor had no clothes.

After only a few years it became increasingly hard to find anyone who would confess to having voted Remain.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/future-britons-will-find-it-hard-to-believe-that-anyone-voted-to/

[top]

23rd May 2016: Boris Johnson comments on “Treasury propaganda”, as reported in The Guardian

“Do you know, I just always used to make it all up? I had to write this motoring column for GQ magazine and I always used to go on about ‘crabbing pins’ and the ‘corn thruster’. I never had the faintest idea.

“They are putting out more propaganda than we have seen at any time since 1992, when they said that we couldn’t leave the European exchange rate mechanism. They said it would be a disaster. They said that interest rates would go up. They said there would be an economic catastrophe for this country if we left the exchange rate mechanism. And what happened? It was a liberation for this economy. We did better than ever before. They were wrong then, my friends, and they are wrong now.”

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/may/23/eu-membership-makes-britain-literally-ungovernable-says-former-pm-adviser-steve-hilton-politics-live?page=with%3Ablock-5742db6ae4b0d7feade1cc1e

[top]

23rd May 2016: Boris Johnson cracks joke at would be egg thrower, as reported in The Yorkshire Post

“I said the other day that there was an EU directive on bananas. And the Remain campaign got very angry - they said that I was wrong. I was wrong. Shall I tell you what? There isn’t one directive - there are four directives on bananas, including on the curvature of bananas.

“Do you think we need to be told by the EU about what sort of bananas we are selling, or how powerful our hairdryers are, or how much suction there should be in our vacuum cleaners? It’s out of control. I think they’re rattled on the Remain side because they’re putting out more propaganda than we’ve seen at any time since 1992 when they said that we couldn’t leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Do you remember that?

“They said it would be a disaster, they said interest rates would go up and it would be an economic catastrophe for this country if we left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, that’s what the Treasury said.

“And what happened? It was a liberation for this economy. We did better than ever before. Now I was told there was a gentleman who had an egg he was going to throw at me can you believe that, there he is, there’s the man with the egg. Now there are people hungry in this country, my friend, don’t waste that egg.

”One month to go folks until we take back democracy and take back control for our country, now can we do it? I think we can, I think that they are rattled on the Remain side of the campaign because they’re putting out more propaganda than we’ve seen at any time since 1992. When they said we couldn’t leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism - do you remember that?, they said it would be a disaster, they said that interest rates would go up, they said it would be an economic catastrophe for this country if we left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism that’s what the treasury said and what happened - it was a liberation for this economy we did better than ever before.

“They were wrong then, my friends, and they are wrong now. There is somebody who has given the game away, today, one of the most important advisers in Downing Street, one of the people at the heart of government has explained in a brilliant article today why the EU doesn’t work and why our membership should be brought to an end. And it’s not just to do with the money - though that’s important isn’t it - why are we sending 10 billy a year net to Brussels some of which is sent to Spanish bullfighting. Do you think that the British taxpayer should be sending supporting Spanish bullfighting - absolutely not.

“And it’s not just a question of taking back control of our immigration policy though that’s important too isn’t it. You look at some of these fat-cats that go into Downing Street, lobby the government, tell the government they’re going to support Remain, what do they know, what do they know of the impact of immgration on school places, on hospital waiting list on gp surgeries they know nothing about it - they know absolutely nothing about it.”

Source: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/latest-news/video-europe-s-bananas-says-boris-as-egg-protesters-scramble-in-york-1-7926875and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-manages-to-talk-his-way-out-of-being-egged-on-the-eu-campaign-trail-a7043576.htmland https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/boris-brexit-battlebus-tour-rallies-the-public-but-will-it-work/and https://soundcloud.com/spectator1828/boris-a-month-to-go-until-we-take-back-control

[top]

23rd May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture about being in York for vote leave

“Fantastic to be in beautiful York earlier today - one month until Brexit @vote_leave”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/734756841079635968

[top]

23rd May 2016: The Guardian covers comments Boris Johnson made campaigning in York [article dated 24th]

“These types of prophecies are just not credible. You have to ask yourself why the government would call a referendum, giving people the great historic choice, if they thought that was the case.

“It makes no sense at all. Nobody could conceivably take such a risk with this country, that’s not in my view believable. I think that the whole thing is a hoax.

“What I would say is that my own feeling is that there is some risk now that the prophesies are so doom-laden that they are at risk of becoming self-fulfilling. I am worried that they are starting to talk Britain down quite significantly. I don’t think it’s necessary.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/24/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-job-loss

[top]

24th May 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a video at Ginetta Cars in Yorkshire with Lawrence Tomlinson

“Quick clip from my fantastic visit to Ginetta cars, Yorkshire. Thanks to all the staff and @lawrencelnt for hosting”

[video transcription]

“Hi folks, it’s Boris here, we’re here at Ginetta with Lawrence Tomlinson, we’ve had a wonderful day, inspiring to see what he’s doing with all these brands, particularly the Ginetta cars and fantastic that he and I think a large proportion of his staff are going to vote leave on June 23rd.”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/735073758961078272

[top]

26th May 2016: Boris Johnson writes a statement for vote leave website about immigration statistics

Last year, 270,000 people came to this country from the EU and net migration was 184,000. That means we are adding a population the size of Oxford to the UK every year just from EU migration.

Since 2004, 1.25 million people have been added to the population due to EU migration. That is bigger than the city of Birmingham.

I’ve always championed the great benefits that can come from immigration. I am the proud descendant of immigrants. I’ve seen how as Mayor of a great capital city, London has benefited in so many ways from migration. As Mayor I argued consistently for a more sensible visa policy that would welcome talented people from across the globe, people recruited on the basis of their skills.

Britain benefits from cultural influences from abroad, I'm pro-immigration, but above all I'm pro controlled immigration. People of all races and backgrounds in the UK are genuinely concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the pressure it's placing on local services. People have every right to question why we can't control our borders. We need to answer those concerns by taking back control of those borders.

But we must also face the fact that the system has spun out of control. We cannot control the numbers. We cannot control the terms on which people come and how we remove those who abuse our hospitality. This puts huge pressure on schools, hospitals and housing. It is exploited by some big companies that use immigration to keep wages down - and it is striking that the pay packets of FTSE 100 chief executives are now 150 times the average pay of people in their firms.

Worst of all, it is terrible for our democracy. People have watched Prime Minister after Prime Minister make promises on immigration that cannot be met because of the EU and this has deeply damaged faith in our democratic system.

The Prime Minister repeatedly promised that he would get a grip of this. The government told us that it would ‘keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands’. We were told that economic migrants from the EU would need to prove they had a job offer to come here - a pledge made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor.

I am afraid that Brussels sent them packing, and in fact 77,000 have come since the Prime Minister made that promise.

The Government has failed because of the simple reality that inside the EU we cannot control immigration - it is literally impossible because we have no choice but to accept the principle of free movement and the European Court has ultimate control over our immigration policy. This has led to the absurd situation in which we stop highly qualified people coming from around the world who could contribute enormously to our society because we cannot stop millions of unskilled people coming here from the EU.

Even worse, the Prime Minister’s deal has given away control of immigration and asylum forever. His deal does nothing to solve this crisis and has not brought back a single power for the UK. The rogue European Court now controls not just immigration policy but how we implement asylum policy under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

And, on top of all of this, new countries are in the queue to join the EU and the EU is extending visa-free travel to the border of Syria and Iraq. It is mad.

If you vote IN on 23 June, you are kissing goodbye permanently to control of immigration. You are voting for the current situation not only to continue but to get worse. You are voting for the European Court to be in charge of immigration and asylum policy permanently. You are giving away any chance of democratic legitimacy for immigration policy.

The only way to take back control of immigration is to Vote Leave on 23 June. The public should be able to vote for those who make the laws of this country including on immigration. It is intolerable to continue without democratic consent for Britain’s immigration policy.

That will be best for our public services, particularly the NHS. It will also allow us to have a fairer immigration system that is better for Britain, stops discriminating on the basis of where you come from, and instead allows us to pick people on the basis of skills.

Imagine how much stronger we will be, and how much more respected in the world, when we have an immigration policy that stops discriminating on the basis of whether you are an EU citizen and instead selects people on the basis of their contribution to this country.

The British public support immigration but they want it controlled by those who they elect. They are generous but feel their generosity has been abused. They are right. On the 23 June they will get their chance to take back control.

That’s the safer choice.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215822/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/boris_johnson_the_only_way_to_take_back_control_of_immigration_is_to_vote_leave_on_23_june

[top]

29th May 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph article “The only continent with weaker economic growth than Europe is Antarctica”

Yes indeed, let us talk about economics. Let’s look at the real economic impact of the European Union on Britain and Europe.

We can dismiss most of the claims for the “single market” – too often an excuse for a morass of politically driven legislation that costs UK business about £600 million a week. In the 20 years since the dawn of the 1992 Single Market programme, there were many countries that did far better than the UK at exporting to the EU; 27 non-EU countries did better at increasing their exports of goods, and 21 did better at ramping up their exports of services. Of course they did: American and other non-EU businesses have excellent “access” to the EU, but aren’t wrapped in EU red tape, whereas we have only 6 per cent of companies trading with the rest of the EU – yet 100 per cent of them have to comply with EU law.

And is the EU booming, thanks to the “single market”? Of course not. Since 2008 the US has seen gross domestic product go up by about 13 per cent; the EU’s has gone up by 3 per cent. The EU is a graveyard of low growth; the only continent with lower growth is currently Antarctica. That is partly because of the sclerotic one-size-fits-all Brussels approach to regulation; but, worse, in the last decade the EU has been suffering from a self-inflicted economic disaster – the euro.

We get inured to some of the figures – the 50 per cent youth unemployment in Greece and Spain – without stopping to think of the individual tragedies; the suicide rates; the inability to get medical treatments; the blighting of young lives. It is a moral outrage; and the search for a safety valve is continuous.

On our doorstep we have a vast and developing tragedy – caused by the folly of trying to impose a single currency on an area with different labour markets and different rates of productivity. Take away their ability to devalue – with their own independent currencies – and many parts of the EU have found it impossible to compete.

What can they do? There are broadly three responses. The first is for the battered southern Mediterranean states to obey the diktat of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They can cut costs. They can punish workers. They can cut pensions and holidays and benefits and hope that they can somehow bring their unit labour costs in line with Germany. The resulting austerity has taken a vicious toll, demand has fallen, confidence is shot to hell, and the suffering continues. The riots have now spread to France.

Alternatively, they can be treated as the poor and backward parts of a single political unit – like the south of the US, or the Mezzogiorno of Italy. They can beg for cash subsidies to keep them going.

The trouble with this approach is that it requires the German taxpayer to be extremely generous to non-Germans – and as the programme develops, the Germans are inevitably demanding restraint on the fiscal policies of their clients, since he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is why the next step – post the UK referendum – is to try full-bore to create an “economic government of Europe”, using the single-market institutions, in a way that will inevitably drag us in – and for which the UK taxpayer will end up paying. This “political union” will be both horrifically anti-democratic and expensive; for us, too.

Then, of course, there is a third way in which people can respond to the disaster of being locked in a suboptimal currency zone, when their own region is unable to compete. They can simply move. That is what is happening now – on a scale never seen before in our lives. People are leaving the areas of Europe that are being hit by the euro crisis, and they are moving in search of work – above all to Britain. Last week we saw some astonishing figures: 270,000 immigrants from the EU – and 184,000 net. That is the same as a city the size of Oxford. We are in the throes of the fastest demographic change for 1,000 years.

I have always championed the benefits of immigration, and the ability of talented people from around the world to contribute to the life of this country. But how can anyone claim that this is not an economic phenomenon? Immigration is now the single biggest driver of our population – set to soar to 70 or 80 million. It is this surge in demand that is largely causing the housing crisis, and the almost overwhelming pressure to destroy the green belt. It is immigration that has been relentlessly helping to compress the wages of the low-paid while the FTSE-100 chiefs (many lobbying for Remain) have seen their pay go up to 150 times that of their average worker.

Priti Patel was absolutely right to point out yesterday that such executives – nice and well-meaning though they may be – are insulated from the impacts of these inflows on GP surgeries and school places. And the flows will get much, much bigger as the new Living Wage takes effect. The UK minimum wage is already the equivalent of €1,529 a month – compared with €215 in Bulgaria and €233 in Romania. Think of that magnetic effect – if we continue, as now, with no way of moderating the tide.

There may be a case to be made for this influx. Perhaps the public could be persuaded. But that is emphatically not what the Government has chosen to do. Year after year we have been told that immigration can be cut to the “tens of thousands” – a claim that now looks demonstrably hollow as long as we are in the EU.

People do not necessarily object to immigration, and certainly not to the immigrants themselves. They object to the absence of democratic consent. There is no balance or discretion in the policy, because we do not control it – and the only way to take back control is to vote Leave on June 23.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/29/the-only-continent-with-weaker-economic-growth-than-europe-is-an/

[top]

29th May 2016: Boris Johnson writes an open letter joint statement to David Cameron with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart for vote leave website

Dear Prime Minister,

GETTING THE FACTS CLEAR ON THE RISKS OF REMAINING IN THE EU

We all agree that it’s vital everyone is clear about the facts in the EU referendum.

There are real risks in remaining in the EU and every citizen needs to be aware of these in coming to a balanced decision about how to vote on 23 June.

We would be grateful if you could confirm a series of facts about the free movement of people which is a critical element of continued EU membership. Agreement on these facts will enable us all to have a fully informed debate.

We already agree on some basic principles.

We all agree that migration brings many benefits to Britain - culturally, socially and economically. We all agree that our economy benefits from the arrival of new people with great talent and special skills. We all agree that Britain has a proud tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing persecution which must be upheld. And we all agree that if we are to continue to benefit from migration then the public must be reassured that we have control over who comes here.

But our membership of the EU means we don’t have control.

As you know, this week the Office for National Statistics published migration statistics for 2015. Last year 270,000 people came to this country from the EU. Net migration overall was 184,000. That means we are adding a population the size of Oxford to the UK every year just from EU migration. This puts particular strain on public services.

We are particularly concerned about the impact of free movement in the future on public services. Class sizes will rise and waiting lists will lengthen if we don't tackle free movement. As the euro crisis continues, more people from Southern Europe will want to escape unemployment and austerity in their countries by coming to the UK. Their arrival will put further strain on schools and hospitals.

Last year, 77,000 jobseekers from the EU came to the UK. It’s Government policy that ‘EU migrants should have a job offer before they come here.’ But the EU did not agree to letting the UK implement that policy during the renegotiation of our membership.

It's not just the strain on public services which gives rise to cause for concern. We are all committed to improving wages for working people. But continued free movement for jobseekers will place considerable pressure on the wages of low paid British workers in the event of a vote to remain in the EU. This is good for some of the multinationals funding the IN campaign. It is not good for British families struggling to make ends meet.

And the current EU approach to immigration isn't just bad for us economically, it is also bad in security and humanitarian terms.

There is a direct security concern for all of us because the European Court of Justice can interfere with our ability to deport criminals and others whose presence here is not conducive to the public good. The case of Abu Hamza's daughter-in-law underlined the way EU institutions fetter our ability to deport convicted criminals.

Perhaps most worrying of all, the EU's policies are failing in humanitarian terms. The tragic scenes unfolding in the Mediterranean underline how badly the European Union is handling population movements and migration pressures. People smugglers and organised criminals are exploiting this situation and the EU is failing to tackle this trade in human misery.

If we remain in the EU the situation is only likely to get worse. The European Court of Justice can use the Charter of Fundamental Rights to overturn decisions of elected politicians on asylum policy. It is now in charge of how we implement the crucial 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. We need a new approach on refugees but the EU's institutions stand in the way.

There is also the basic lack of democratic consent for what is taking place. Voters were promised repeatedly at elections that net immigration could be cut to the tens of thousands. This promise is plainly not achievable as long as the UK is a member of the EU and the failure to keep it is corrosive of public trust in politics.

Given the public’s desire for the facts ahead of the referendum, we would like you to confirm the following facts:

A vote to remain is a vote to maintain permanently the EU Treaty principle of 'free movement of people'.

A vote to remain is a vote to ensure that we must admit economic migrants from the EU, whether or not they have a job offer.

A vote to remain is a vote to affirm the European Court of Justice’s ultimate authority over whether we can remove persons whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good - in this and other respects we do not control our borders.

A vote to remain is a vote to leave the European Court of Justice able to use the Charter of Fundamental Rights to strike down decisions of the UK Government and Parliament about asylum and immigration policy.

A vote to remain is a vote for the UK to continue supporting the EU's failed policies to deal with the tragic crisis in the Mediterranean.

We think that it is fundamentally important that immigration policy has democratic consent. We believe that the safer choice is to Vote Leave on 23 June and ensure that the public can vote for those who determine Britain’s immigration policy.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Gove, Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath

Boris Johnson, Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Gisela Stuart, Member of Parliament for Birmingham Edgbaston”

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215821/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/pm_challenged_to_set_out_the_facts_on_eu_immigration

[top]

29th May 2016: Boris Johnson appears on Countryfile speaking against David Cameron and why rural Britain should vote with them

Voiceover: The countryside is absolutely central to ourselves, our sense of identity in this country.

Interviewer: But what do the vote leave campaign think about those issues? Well, I’ve been invited to Boris Johnson’s family farm, down here in Exmoor, to find out. What does it mean to you, this place?

Boris: It’s holy, it’s holy, it’s holy, it’s a place... It’s just the most beautiful, wonderful place in the world.

Interviewer: So how does Boris Johnson answer those concerns? If we vote to leave,

will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?

Boris: Well, we would have access to the single market, but we wouldn’t remain part of the whole empire of EU lawmaking. That’s a crucial point to understand. So that means that the UK, UK agriculture, everything, would no longer come under the jurisdiction of the commission and the bubble of the European court of justice.

Interviewer: So, if I’m a sheep farmer or a beef farmer, you know, some of those export very high percentages to the EU... Yes... The moment I hear you saying we’re going to get out of the single market, I’m alarmed.

Boris: Well, no, you shouldn’t be. The crucial thing to understand from the point of view of agriculture is that provided we’d complied, provided, you know, the goods were… good to eat, they were fit and proper and healthy and all the rest of it, there’d be no difficulty at all selling in to the rest of the EU, you just wouldn’t have the same burden of regulation. So, if you think about it, 94% of UK businesses don’t actually export. Most of them are within the domestic market, but 100% have to comply with EU regulations.

Interviewer: But if I’m a sheep farmer here, I know I can sell into the rest of Europe, just like I could sell to the farm, to the town next door... Yes... and that is something you cannot guarantee if we get out of the single market.”

Boris: Well, yes, we can, because…

Interviewer: Only if you obey all their regulations that they want to bring with it.

Boris: Yeah, obviously, but if you want to export any kind of product to a country where they have certain rules, you’re obviously going to want to make sure that that product is acceptable to that market. What some people might say is, “Well, what if they decide that they want to put tariffs up?” And that is not going to happen, in my view. Obviously, you know…

Interviewer: But it’s your view, you can’t guarantee it. You’ve metaphorically stuck up two fingers to the rest of Europe. What makes you think they’re going to play nice with us?

Boris: No. Not two fingers, not two fingers. We love the rest of Europe.

Interviewer: Funny way of showing it, voting to leave.

Boris: No. Well, we’re not leaving Europe, we’re leaving the EU system. And what we’re saying is, they send us about £18bn worth of food, we pay about £18bn to them for their food, and we sell about £7bn worth to the continental Europe. So, from their point of view, what’s not to like? It’s a great deal.

Interviewer: Can you guarantee that farmers would get the same level of subsidy after we’d left the EU as they do now?

Boris: Well, I can make that guarantee, but people will say, well, I’m just a backbench Tory MP. All I can say is, I think any government would be mad not to make such a guarantee. It’s an economic no-brainer. It’s much more important to get a guarantee and get commitments from UK government, that you can hold to account, that you can kick out of office and you can elect.

And I’m saying that our point of view on the leave camp is we want to fund and support agriculture. We’ve said that from day one of this campaign. But furthermore, the extra incentive for our farmers to go for leave is getting rid of that burden. It’s the form filling, it’s being told that you’ve got to go back and do something again or you won’t qualify. It’s being told that if your sheep’s got two teeth, it’s got to be butchered in a certain way, or that, you know, you can’t bury your own sheep on your own farm.

Interviewer: A number of farms in the UK are dependent on migrant labour, a lot of which comes from the EU.

Boris: Yeah. Well, obviously, people who exist, who are here already under the Vienna treaty, they would have a right to be here and to work. That wouldn’t change. All we’re saying is in taking back control of immigration, we are saying to people, “If you want to come and work here and contribute to the agricultural sector, fantastic. But you’ve got to have a job offer, there’s got to be some sense in which we know that you’re not just arriving without any qualifications or any job.”

Interviewer: Basically, workers can come here if there is a job for them. There could continue to be an increasing number of people from the rest of the continent of Europe in Britain, even if we leave. Because there’s plenty of demand for the labour. And is that OK?

Boris: Well, I think it would be up to the government of the day, and if the rural industry was saying, “Look, come on, we’re desperate, we can’t get the crops out of the field,” then of course that’s an argument that people will listen to. But the great thing is, that will have gone through a democratic process of consent from the British people.

Source:

https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0CA8187C?bcast=121757578#

And

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1295315/Boris-leaves-Brexit-bus-make-case-Countryfile.html

[top]

30th May 2016: Boris Johnson retweets a tweet from the vote leave Twitter account about meeting cricketer Ian Botham

“Great to spend time w Beefy - the spirit + belief he showed in '81 will help us win on 23 June + prosper thereafter”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/737401527497854977

[top]

31st May 2016: Boris Johnson speaks in Chester-le-Street, as reported in The Chronicle

“My job in the next 23 days, whatever we have got left, is to get over our key messages. This is the only chance in our lifetimes to go for a new approach, a democratic approach, but still leading in Europe.”

“If you look at what Carlos Ghosn [chairman and CEO of Nissan] himself has said, they’ve very much changed their line since 15 years ago when the discussion was held about the Euro and I think Nissan now see massive strengths in this area, a great skills base, fantastic people, no reason not to continue to invest in this part of the world, that’s what they’re saying and plenty of other international investors are saying the same thing.”

“Digital is one of those areas where the EU’s attempts at legislation regulation have been absolutely catastrophic and the UK’s success in that area, in tech, is nothing to do with our membership of the EU.”

Source: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/boris-johnsons-brexit-battle-bus-11404801

[top]

31st May 2016: Boris Johnson releases a joint statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart to The Sun readers via vote leave website - vote leave to cut VAT on fuel

On 23 June, Sun readers can decide whether we stay in the EU or take back control.

We believe working people will be better off if we leave the EU. The NHS will be stronger, class sizes smaller and taxes lower. We’ll have more money to spend on our priorities, wages will be higher and fuel bills will be lower. Leaving the EU is a great opportunity for us to take back control of our borders, our economy and our democracy.

Leaving is good news for the next generation. Our children will find it easier to get a good school place, healthcare and a home. Because if we vote to stay, we will never be able to control the number of people coming here and putting more pressure on our public services. As long as we are in the EU we are not allowed to impose any limits on the number of people who come here from the 27 other EU countries.

Last year 270,000 people came here from other EU countries. And the problem will get worse. The euro is broken. It’s destroying the economies of southern Europe. Young people there are leaving in huge numbers and coming to Britain. As the euro crisis deepens, this problem will only get worse.

What will happen to A&E units and GP waiting lists? How much worse will the housing shortage be? How many children will miss their first choice of school? That is an economic price we cannot afford to pay.

On top of that, we will all be paying the bills for the euro’s failure. We’ve already had to pay to bail out Greece. As the euro crisis continues, the EU will take more of our money to send to Greece and other countries whose economies are failing and who owe billions to the bankers. Sun readers will be taxed more to pay off these debts and what makes this so unfair is that a huge slice of this cash will go to the bankers who are funding the IN campaign.

We already hand over £350 million to the EU every week. And while we get some of it back, the EU decides how much. We should control all of this money so we can spend it on our priorities like cutting NHS waiting lists.

There’s another big problem for our economy if we stay in. The European Court has recently sided with multinational businesses who want to avoid paying taxes in this country.

The unelected and unaccountable Court has ordered us to pay millions in tax refunds to these multinationals - money that comes straight from working people's pockets. If we Vote Leave we can take back control of that cash and invest it in supporting the poorest in our society.

There are two other big economic arguments for leaving.

Wages will be higher for working people outside the EU. Even the boss of the IN campaign admits wages ‘will go up’ if we vote leave because pay will no longer be undercut by uncontrolled migration.

And fuel bills will be lower for everyone.

In 1993, VAT on household energy bills was imposed. This makes gas and electricity much more expensive. EU rules mean we cannot take VAT off those bills.

The least wealthy are hit particularly hard. The poorest households spend three times more of their income on household energy bills than the richest households spend. As long as we are in the EU, we are not allowed to cut this tax.

When we Vote Leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax. It isn’t right that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels impose taxes on the poorest and elected British politicians can do nothing.

The safer choice on 23 June is to vote leave and take back control over our own affairs. We will take back control of immigration policy, taxes, our money, and our economy. You - Sun readers - will be able to vote for the people who make these crucial rules instead of watching politicians promise things they cannot deliver.

Not only will this be better for democracy, you will have more cash in your pocket too. Working families will gain.

The current system works for huge multinationals who spend millions lobbying in Brussels to rig the rules against entrepreneurs and to keep wages down. It doesn’t work for families on PAYE.

Don’t listen to those who say Britain is too weak to take back control - those who say we’ve got no choice but to give away democratic control. They were wrong when they told us to scrap the pound. They are wrong now.

The referendum on 23 June is our last chance to take back control. If we don’t seize it, imagine where Britain will be after another twenty years of immigration out of control and more power and money taken away from us.

Britain’s a great country. Vote leave, let’s take back control.

Source: https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_by_michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_for_the_sun_vote_leave_to_cut_vat_on_fuel.html

And

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1218703/boris-promises-cheaper-household-gas-bills-if-brits-back-brexit/

[top]

JUNE 2016

[top]

1st June 2016: Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Priti Pate and Gisela Stuart MPs release joint statement

Migration brings many benefits to Britain - culturally, socially and economically. We want Britain to continue to benefit from migration. But if we are to welcome more people to Britain then the public must be reassured that we have control over who comes here.

Our membership of the EU means we don’t have control.

Last week the Office for National Statistics published migration statistics for 2015. Last year, 270,000 people came to this country from the EU. Net migration overall was 184,000. That means we are adding a population the size of Oxford to the UK every year just from EU migration.

This puts particular strain on public services. Class sizes will rise and waiting lists will lengthen if we don't tackle free movement. As the euro crisis continues, more people from southern Europe will want to escape unemployment and austerity in their countries by coming to the UK. Their arrival will put further strain on schools and hospitals.

Last year, 77,000 jobseekers from the EU came to the UK. It was Government policy that ‘EU migrants should have a job offer before they come here.’ The Government failed to achieve this during the renegotiation of our membership.

If we vote to remain in the EU then continued free movement for jobseekers will place considerable pressure on the wages of low paid British workers. The head of the IN campaign, Lord Rose, has admitted that wages are kept low by our membership of the EU and would ‘go up’ if we vote to leave. The Bank of England has found that a ten percent rise in the proportion of new people coming here is associated with a two percent reduction in pay for working people. This is good for some of the multinationals funding the IN campaign. It is not good for British families struggling to make ends meet.

The current EU approach to immigration is also bad for security. The European Court of Justice can interfere with our ability to deport criminals and others whose presence here is not conducive to the public good. For example, it has hindered our ability to deport the terrorist recruiter Abu Hamza's daughter-in-law, even though she was convicted of a very serious offence.

And the EU's policies are failing in humanitarian terms. The tragic scenes unfolding in the Mediterranean underline how badly the European Union is handling population movements and migration pressures. People smugglers and organised criminals are exploiting this desperate situation and the EU is failing to tackle this trade in human misery.

These are the basic facts on UK immigration policy:

A vote to remain is a vote to maintain permanently the EU Treaty principle of 'free movement of people'.

A vote to remain is a vote to ensure that we must admit economic migrants from the EU, whether or not they have a job offer.

A vote to remain is a vote for the UK to continue supporting the EU's failed policies to deal with the tragic crisis in the Mediterranean.

These problems will only get worse when countries in the pipeline to join the EU become members in the near future. British taxpayers are already paying nearly £2 billion for Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey to join the EU. The European Commission recently announced an acceleration of these plans and is already extending visa-free travel to the border with Syria and Iraq. This is dangerous and is not in our interests.

We therefore propose that if Britain votes to take back control on 23 June, we should introduce a new, safer and more humane immigration system as rapidly as possible. The main principles for such a new system will, we believe, be broadly supported across British society.

First, there will be no change for Irish citizens. The right of Irish citizens to enter, reside and work in the UK is already enshrined in our law. This will be entirely unaffected by a vote to leave on 23 June.

As the Northern Ireland Secretary has made clear, the common travel area that has existed since the creation of an independent Irish state will not be affected. There will be no change to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Second, there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present.

Third, we will rapidly amend the European Communities Act 1972 to take back the power to remove criminals and other persons whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. There are dangerous people living in the UK who we cannot currently remove because of EU law. We will regain the power to deport terrorists and terrorist sympathisers and stop violent criminals entering the UK - powers that EU law currently denies to us.

Connected to this is the need immediately to end the application of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights to UK law. This Charter gives the rogue European Court practically unlimited powers to extend its jurisdiction. By ending its application in UK law, we will take back control of how Britain implements the crucial 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and end the Charter’s ability to affect immigration and asylum law.

Fourth, by the next general election, we will create a genuine Australian-style points based immigration system. The automatic right of all EU citizens to come to live and work in the UK will end, as will EU control over vital aspects of our social security system. EU citizens will be subject to legislation made by those we elect in Westminster, not in Brussels. We could then create fairness between EU citizens and others, including those from Commonwealth countries.

Those seeking entry for work or study should be admitted on the basis of their skills without discrimination on the ground of nationality. To gain the right to work, economic migrants will have to be suitable for the job in question. For relevant jobs, we will be able to ensure that all those who come have the ability to speak good English. Such a system can be much less bureaucratic and much simpler than the existing system for non-EU citizens.

If we implement these principles, for the first time in a generation it will be possible for politicians to keep their promises on migration. If they fail, there will be no hiding behind EU rules and the European Court. The British public will be able to decide what immigration policy they want.

It is fundamentally important that immigration policy has democratic consent. We believe that the safer choice is to Vote Leave on 23 June and ensure that the public can vote for those who determine Britain’s immigration policy.

We also think that this system will be fairer, more humane, and better for the economy. We will end discrimination against non-EU countries. We will end our support for the EU’s disastrous policies that have encouraged the people-smugglers. We will be able to manage immigration according to the needs of the economy with a new points based system. We will welcome new citizens who wish to contribute to our society, as so many immigrants have done. And we will be able to remove those who abuse our hospitality.

We urge people to Vote Leave on 23 June and take back control.

Source: https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/restoring_public_trust_in_immigration_policy_a_points_based_non_discriminatory_immigration_system.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/01/eu-referendum-live-vote-leave-remain-immigration?page=with:block-574f00b2e4b0467e825fbb30#block-574f00b2e4b0467e825fbb30

[top]

1st June 2016: Boris Johnson speaks in Preston during vote leave visit

BORIS: We believe in taking the argument to the people, and we believe that we can make that argument on June the 23rdand we can win, don’t you think so? Yes we can. We can take back control of £20m per week, over which we have no control at the moment. We can take back control of our immigration system, and how absurd it is, how absurd it is, that the biggest supporters of remain are the people in the FTSE 100 companies who are seeing their incomes go higher and higher. They now earn 150 times the average pay of people in their companies.

People on modest incomes in our country have not seen their incomes increase. In many cases they have seen their incomes go down, and as the Bank of England has pointed out, that is at least partly a function of immigration, my friends. Is it not time, is it not time to take back control of our immigration policy? Gave the people of this country, gave the people of this country the pay rise they deserve? What do they know of the pressure on our health service? What do they know of the pressure on our school places? What do they know of the pressure on social services?

This is a huge opportunity for our country, and to take back control of our democracy. Do you know what proportion of the laws going through the palace of Westminster go through Brussels in primary and secondary legislation? Do you know sir? Do you know it is 60%, it is 60%, we are losing control, steadily losing control of our democracy, and as they go for…

Source: https://youtu.be/r-xgwoxUVVE

[top]

1st June 2016: Boris Johnson on Sky News with Adam Boulton and Sarah Hewson

BORIS: Is it not time we took back control of our immigration policy? Gave the people of this country, gave the people of this country the pay rise they deserve?

Beth Rigby: Boris Johnson is adamant he’s not setting out a future government manifesto, but he’s adamant too that current government policy isn’t working either. The majority of big businesses in the UK disagree.

BORIS: Migration flows help to depress wages, so for millions of people in the country who haven’t seen their pay packets go up, it’s a bit much to hear from the FTSE 100 chiefs, who are now earning on average 150 times what people in their own companies are being paid.

BR: Three weeks to go, and Boris Johnson appears to be enjoying this campaign…

Source: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0C958CF0?bcast=121774069#

[top]

1st June 2016: Boris Johnson touring the country on the vote leave bus as part of the leave campaign trail, as reported in The Telegraph

[Remain campaigners] “Don't believe in this country.”

[Britain is] “losing control” [of its democracy because 60% of laws come from Brussels]

“We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, he says. We will thrive as never before if he leave the EU.”

“Of course, there is no leader in Europe in the last 20 years who has stood down as the result of an adverse referendum.”

Source:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/eu-referendum-boris-and-gove-pledge-tough-new-australian-style-p/

[top]

1st June 2016: Boris Johnson, speaking outside a clothing factory, on why he has announced alternative plans, as reported in The Telegraph

“All we are saying is what any government could do and we are saying after we vote leave on June 23 it will be up to the government to take back control.”
“Not just of immigration policy but obviously of huge sums of money, of our ability to set our economic and political priorities and to stop the situation where 60% of the law going through the Palace of Westminster comes from the EU.”
[On whether he is setting out an alternative vision for government] “The answer to that is no.”
[The national living wage is having a] "huge magnetic effect" on the UK labour]
“One of the things I could certainly imagine is that the pressure on prices, particularly in the south east, would abate.”
“You'd get less pressure as a result of the huge influxes that we're seeing. There's no question at all that councils have to provide all sorts of services - there's huge pressure on the NS, there's huge pressure on school places, as a result of uncontrolled immigration.”
“Housing is also a massive part of that. Councils have a duty to provide housing to people. I think you'd see a beneficial effect.”
[On leaving the EU] “It'll be fine, it'll be fine.”
"The great truth of this is we can and we are stronger and better if we take our own decisions and work on the basis of free trade."

“Who here is remotely apprehensive about leaving the EU? ...It'll be fine.”

Tweet source: https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/737999967927865345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E737999967927865345&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F06%2F01%2Feu-referendum-boris-and-gove-pledge-tough-new-australian-style-p%2F

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/eu-referendum-boris-and-gove-pledge-tough-new-australian-style-p/

[top]

1st June 2016: Boris Johnson speaking on the campaign trail

“The pressure on prices, particularly in the south east would abate, you get less pressure as a result of the huge influx of [unintelligible]. There’s no question at all that council taxes supply all sorts of services, huge pressure on the NHS, huge pressure on school places as a result of uncontrolled immigration at the moment.”

Source: https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/738023974039388160

[top]

2nd June 2016: Boris Johnson attacks “EU burden” on UK farming whilst in Lancashire on the campaign trail, as reported in The Guardian

“We want to lift the burden from UK farming. I’ve just been talking to people about the rule that says if your sheep has two teeth or more than two big teeth you’ve got to slaughter it in a certain way to remove the spinal tissue. What is the point of that? It’s way out of date. You don’t need it. But because it comes from Brussels, we cannot change it and we cannot reform it.”
[Any government would be] “out of its mind” to cancel agricultural subsidies]

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/02/boris-johnson-attacks-eu-burden-on-uk-farming-referendum

[top]

2nd June 2016: Boris Johnson visits a biscuit factory, as reported in The Express

“I've never seen so much dough in all my life. But never forget - no matter how much dough they have here, it's nothing like the dough we are sending to Brussels every day, 50 million quids’ worth, £350m a week over which we have no control.”
“These biscuits are an example of British dough that is well controlled. They know what's going to happen to these biscuits. This is a perfect illustration. This is a company that is in total control of its dough. They know it to the ounce how much they use. We have lost control of our dough.”

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676281/EU-referendum-Boris-tackles-Brussels-funding-debate-on-visit-to-biscuit-factory

[top]

2nd June 2016: Boris Johnson writes in the Daily Express saying that Churchill opposed membership of the EU

The evidence is absolutely conclusive that Churchill did not want us to join the EU or its predecessor.

He had the opportunity to take us in as Prime Minister in the 1950s and didn’t take it because he did not want us in.

He would be horrified at the loss of sovereignty this country has suffered and would definitely campaign for us to Leave.

Source: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZAEFboO9nR8J:https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/676022/Winston-Churchill-EU-European-Union-Brexit+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

[top]

2nd June 2016: Boris Johnson auctions a cow, as reported by the BBC

“Good morning everybody, good afternoon rather, thank you very much for having us along here to Gisburn, and this beautiful specimen here is, who will give me £800?

This Gisburn reared, contented cow.

“Any advance on 800 for this absolute wonderful… Are you bidding sir, are you bidding? 810… £900 to you, sir. £960 for this beautiful, beautiful, Ribble Valley reared… what is she? Beautiful milker, beautiful cow. Looking lovely. Any advance on £960? I’m gonna sell it I’m going to sell this cow, going, going going gone, sold. There you go. Beautiful.”

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36437136/boris-johnson-auctions-off-a-beautiful-milker-cow

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson releases joint statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart on NHS funding, on vote leave website

A STRONGER NHS AND MORE MONEY FOR THOSE IN NEED - WHY LEAVING THE EU HELPS PROTECT WORKING PEOPLE

Our NHS is a precious asset. No other European country gives its citizens the guarantee of free healthcare, there when people need it, irrespective of ability to pay.

The NHS is a great British institution and its core values - of solidarity, fairness and inclusivity - need to be protected and defended. The wealthy can always buy themselves top quality care and jump the queue for treatment. Working people don’t have that option. Working people need an NHS which is strong and well-funded to give them security at every stage in their lives.

As our population grows, and as we all live for longer, so the pressures on the NHS are set to grow. We believe that one of the best ways to protect, and to strengthen, the NHS, for the people of this country is to use some money we currently spend on EU membership to invest in improving healthcare.

The NHS leadership has said it needs an additional £30 billion each year by 2020 to meet future pressures. Eight billion pounds will come from spending increases, and £22 billion will need to come from efficiency savings. The Government rightly committed at the last election to meet that £8 billion target.

But we don’t underestimate how difficult it will be to make the £22 billion worth of efficiency savings. Again, we are sure ministers, managers, doctors, nurses and everyone in the Health Service will do everything they can. However, trusted health experts such as the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation and the King’s Fund have all stressed how difficult it will be to achieve the planned net efficiency savings of 2% each year.

This level of savings is far above what the NHS has achieved historically. And the demand for NHS services is only set to grow. NHS Improvement, the NHS regulator, has identified rising demand as one of the principal challenges for the NHS’s future funding.

If we vote to leave the EU on 23 June, we will be able to do something about one of the main causes of higher demand - uncontrolled and unlimited migration from the EU into the UK.

In 2015, 270,000 people came to the UK from Europe, a population movement equivalent to all the inhabitants of a city the size of Newcastle arriving in our country. Net migration was 184,000, a population increase equivalent to adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population. Year after year, similar numbers arrive.

On top of this, between 2005 and 2014, there were 475,000 live births to mothers who were EU citizens. This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Manchester to the UK population. The cost of maternity services alone to these families is likely to exceed £1.3 billion.

As we have set out before, it is government policy for five new countries to join the EU: Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. We are paying billions to these countries to help them join. The EU is already opening visa-free travel to Turkey. That would create a borderless travel zone from the frontiers of Syria and Iraq to the English Channel. The EU’s plans for future growth will lead to demands being placed on the NHS far beyond what its funding can cope with.

We have set out our plan to change the immigration system after we vote to leave. We will end the ‘free movement’ of people from the EU and take back control. We will introduce a points-based system under which migrants will be admitted to the UK on the basis of their skills, not their passport.

But even after we take back control of our migration policy, the NHS will still face funding pressures. Restoring control over our borders is a necessary step, but there is more we should do to guarantee quality care for working people.

We need to ensure the NHS has as much money as possible and after we vote to leave we will have the means to do so without damaging public finances.

After we Vote Leave on 23 June, the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS.

This money will be over and above the commitment that the Prime Minister rightly made at the last election to an £8 billion real terms increase.

How can we pay for this additional spending? From the money we save from leaving the EU.

The UK’s gross budget contribution is currently over £19 billion or £350 million per week. According to Treasury estimates, this will increase to nearly £400 million per week by 2020.

We get some cash back through a negotiated rebate and some other money we hand over to the EU is spent here in the UK on areas like farm subsidies.

But the rebate is not a fixed benefit anchored in the treaties. It is there only by the consent of other EU nations, it has to be negotiated, it has already been reduced, and if we vote to stay it can, and will, be whittled away.

If we Vote Leave, we take back control of the whole sum. We will no longer be dependent on other countries to protect the money we get back in our rebate. And we will continue to support farming, science, universities and poorer areas of the UK with the money they currently receive from the EU.

That would mean we would then be able to spend all of our net EU contribution of £10.6 billion on our priorities like the NHS and cutting VAT on fuel.

Other money will also be liberated to spend on public services in the event of a vote to leave.

We have already set out plans to amend the European Communities Act 1972 immediately after the referendum to stop multinationals using EU law to claim tax refunds in the UK. This will save taxpayers between £7 billion and £43 billion by 2021.

It is wrong that big businesses have been using the European Court to starve public services of money they could never have recovered under English law.

If we leave the EU we could also restore our system of taxation of offshore companies which was set aside by the European Court. The European Court’s judgment has cost UK taxpayers an estimated £840 million each year.

We can also scrap the EU’s foolish rules on how Whitehall runs procurement processes which add billions to costs every year. The European Commission’s own conservative figures suggest that procurement rules cost at least £1.7 billion each year and delay projects by years.

There are billions of savings that Government will be able to make after we vote leave and escape the control of the rogue European Court.

A vote to leave is a vote for a fairer Britain. You only have to look at who funds the IN campaign to realise this: the undeserving rich, the investment banks that crashed the world economy in 2008 and who bankrupted the people of Greece, and the multinational corporations who spend millions on lobbying the corrupt Brussels system.

This is the choice on 23 June.

A Vote to Remain means that we keep handing over control of £350 million of our money to the EU every week. A Vote to Remain means we cannot control immigration. A Vote to Remain means greater pressure on the NHS, school places and housing.

If we Vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and our money. By 2020, we can give the NHS a £100 million per week cash injection, and we can ensure that the wealthy interests that have rigged the EU rules in their favour at last pay their fair share.

That is why we believe a Vote to Leave is the right choice for social justice, safer for public services, jobs, and families and better for the next generation.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215816/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_by_michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_on_nhs_funding

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Gove and vote leave

“These economists Faisal cites were wrong then and they are wrong now. They said we should join the euro! Gove is right #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738809969127108609

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about immigration, Bank of England and vote leave

“Bank of England has confirmed that wages are partly held down by uncontrolled immigration #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738810210320547840

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson quote tweets vote leave about the £350m figure

“It is perfectly reasonable to use the £350m figure - actually it is an underestimate”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738811118961995776

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs about joining the euro

“And J P Morgan and Goldman Sachs were wrong about joining the euro #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738812119236399104

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove

“Brilliant stuff by the Gover. Totally aced Faisal on sterling #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738812768124559361

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about EU trade deals

“Remember only 3.6 per cent of EU officials come from this country - how can they do trade deals for us? #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738813445701836800

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove, and comments on elites and big business

“Gove is dead right on the elites vs the rest. EU a vast stitch up for big business #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738813919876255744

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove

“Gove had Faisal Islam totally on the ropes - bravo Michael #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738814199804112896

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets reference to Margaret Thatcher

“And remember the 364 economists inc 2 Nobel prize winners who attacked Mrs T in 1981 #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738814446064259072

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove, £10bn a year

“The Gover spot on about the rebate. At this rate the rebate will go + in any case we send £10bn a year net! We never see it again! #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738815840720719872

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove, immigration policy

“Exactly right Michael Gove. The current immigration policy is massively lopsided #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738816045197185025

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove, pro immigration pro control

“You can be pro immigration but also pro control. Keep going Gover. Take back control #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738816417563348992

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove, life will be better off out

“Gove spells out how life will be better off out and plan for day one #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738816814914895873

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets support for Michael Gove, globalised and digital economy

“Dead right Gover. In the globalised and digital economy the EU is increasingly out of date #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source:https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738817670980702208

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about the EU being undemocratic

“And how many people can name their Euro MP? The EU is totally undemocratic #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738817934726991872

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about the Vienna Treaty

“Vienna Treaty protects rights of UK residents in France and elsewhere in EU! Brexit will make no difference #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source:https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738819385964568576

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about steelworkers

“Steelworkers should vote for Brexit. Mad that we can't cut steel energy costs because of EU rules (1/2) #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738821077091115008

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about energy prices

“Even though our energy costs much higher than elsewhere. Take back control and we could correct Miliband policy #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738821264941404164

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about housing pressures

“Gove quite right about housing pressures - they have unquestionably been increased by immigration #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738822027432370176

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Michael Gove

“Spot on Gover and great appeal at the end! Bravo #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738822193841328129

[top]

3rd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Michael Gove at the Sky News Debate

“Gove hits it out of the park tonight at Sky News debate. Hope beats fear. Let's believe in this country #VoteLeave #InOrOut”

Source:https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/738822468253712384

[top]

4th June 2016: Boris Johnson says Americans would never subjugate themselves to the EU, as reported on CNBC

Wilfred Frost: Now in the United States there are quite often, I don’t know if it’s because of your delightful mop of blonde hair, or because of your charisma and populist status, quite often comparisons between yourself and Donald Trump. What do you make of that?

BORIS: Well, you know, I don’t know the gentleman you refer to at all, well, I heard what he had to say about muslims and not wanting to allow muslims into America, I thought that that was an extraordinary thing for a candidate for the office of the president of the United States to say, basically because America, as I understand it, is a country based on the ideal of welcoming people irrespective of their race, religion, colour, or whatever. And I think that’s a fine thing about America, so I was disappointed to hear that.

WF: And he’s going to be here the week after the vote, would you take a meeting with him?

BORIS: I, let’s, we’re concentrating here on taking back control of this country’s… I mean, of our democracy. Since you bring up America, I think one thing that I think that, it’s fascinating listening to American politicians on this subject. No American politicians in their… I think Americans are genuinely amazed sometimes when they realise the loss of democratic control that is entailed by the EU system. They would never dream of subsuming, subordinating, subjugating their own democracy to the type of system that we have…

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/06/04/americans-would-never-suBorisugate-themselves-to-the-eu-boris-johnson.html

[top]

4th June 2016: Boris Johnson writes to The Observer, saying that he believes no genuine “liberal internationalist” could support the EU

“The impact of EU-enforced uncontrolled immigration to the UK – made worse by the euro crisis – has been to depress the wages of the low-paid, while fat cat FTSE-100 chiefs have seen their pay packets soar to 150 times the average pay of their workforce.

“It is time that liberals everywhere saw the EU for what it is – essentially a stitch-up between the very biggest corporations, their lobbyists and the commission to frame regulation in such a way as to keep out the competition, especially … from start-ups and innovators.

“That is one of the reasons – along with the euro – why the EU is a zone of low growth, low innovation, and very high unemployment. It makes no sense to stay in this unreformed EU, and only Brexit can shake it up.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/04/gove-jonson-brexit-one-nation-britain

[top]

5th June 2016: Boris Johnson interview on The Andrew Marr Show

Andrew Marr: Earlier we heard a pretty stinging broadside from Sir John Major against the leaders of the leave campaign, and surely not one that Boris Johnson can dismiss. He’s with me now, good morning. Boris Johnson, dismiss it.

Boris Johnson: Well, I do dismiss it in a way because I think that you’ve got a very short time now to go until this referendum and I think what people want to hear are the arguments, and what we’re setting out on the leave side of the campaign is I think an agenda for the government to take back control on June 23rd of a lot of things that really matter to the people of this country. So yes, there’s the money. Not an insignificant sum. Yes, there’s our borders but there’s also very, very important aspects of our economic life that invisibly we can no longer control, and we want to take them back and we think it will be great for our country and great for democracy.

ANDREW: Well, I want to get onto the details of all of those things later on if I may, but nonetheless, Sir John, following Chris Patton, following Michel Heseltine, they’ve all had a really, really personal go at you. Is this because they’re trying to take you out?

BORIS: Whether it is or not I think that – I’m rather with John McDonnell this morning who says –

ANDREW: Really? Unlikely.

BORIS: Well he says that there’s too much of this sort of blue on blue action and what he wants to hear is the arguments. And that’s where I am. If we take back control – let’s go into the money side of it. If we take back control of that money, we talked about the 350 million. You heard earlier on how that 350 million figure is fictitious –

ANDREW: Squalid.

BORIS: Actually it’s – squalid or whatever. Not true. Look at it. Imagine I give you – I take out my wallet, which I don’t actually happen to have on me unfortunately but gave you – if I had £350, I gave you £350 –

ANDREW: And I give you back 80 and then you give back another 20.

BORIS: Then next year, hang on, next year you gave me back 60 or so then you decided that you were going to spend some of it on my –

ANDREW: On your behalf.

BORIS: On my behalf, thank you very much.

ANDREW: That could get your hair cut.

BORIS: Whatever priorities you chose, they might not be my priorities, you decide you’re going to spend it on what you thought were good things for me, and then you gave about half of it away and we never saw it ever again I think most reasonable people –

ANDREW: But you haven’t lost £350 at that point.

BORIS: Most people would say, and they’d be absolutely right, that we have lost control of that £350 million. And it’s totally wrong, totally wrong.

ANDREW: You get a lot back in your pocket, just as farmers do, just as universities do, lots of organisations in this country that money comes back to them.

BORIS: Absolutely. And the point that we’re making is that we would have a lot more.

ANDREW: --is that Westminster should be able to stop that happen.

BORIS: We’d have a lot more back. £10.6bn a year net back and all we’re suggesting, humbly and respectfully to the government is that yes, they could spend that on one nation policies for the good of this country, such as on the NHS. For instance such as on cutting VAT or the cost of fuel for elderly people, which is a huge burden, and which we currently cannot do because of our membership of the EU. Invisibly, many aspects of our life are now controlled from the EU, from abroad, from Brussels in a way that I think is anti-democratic. At the heart of this campaign, coming to the second big charge against us, which is that we’re talking too much about immigration and all that, for me this is a question of democracy. It’s about public consent and explaining to people and at the moment we have absolutely no power to control our immigration policies.

ANDREW: Okay, so a very quick fire question in that case: do you want to see immigration come down in this country?

BORIS: I think I would like a situation where the government was able to fulfil its pledges to the people, and if it is going to say that immigration is going to come down to the tens of – net immigration from the EU is going to come down to the tens of thousands, then it should be in a legal position to deliver that. At the moment we are –

ANDREW: Not quite the question I asked. I said –

BORIS: The answer is yes, by the say.

ANDREW: You do?

BORIS: Yes.

ANDREW: Okay you want to see immigration –

BORIS: Yes and I do. I’ll tell you why. Because I think that if you look at the figures last week, we had a net increase of 330 thousand all told, 333 thousand, 270 thousand from the EU, 184 thousand net. A city the size of Oxford from the EU. Now, the question the remain campaign have to answer is what is their long term vision? What is their programme for the country if the numbers continue at this rate? Because at the moment, if we grow the size of a city like Newcastle every year we will see our population rise inexorably to about 70 or perhaps 80 million.

Now, what the remain campaign have to say is, what’s their vision for this. Where are they – it may be a great vision for Britain by the way, it may be a positive thing, but where are they going to build the homes? What’s going to happen to the greenbelt? How will it work for schools and hospitals and all the public services that will be affected? We’re not hearing anything. We’re not hearing any description of how this is supposed to work in the absence of control. What we’re saying is that on day one post June 23rd, you take back control of that, but you also take back control of loads of the management of our economy and our policies.

ANDREW: Let me move onto something else. Last time we were discussing we have a bit of a round of disagreements about the single market. I had Michael Gove in that chair and I said, after Brexit will we be in the European single market, yes or no and he said no.

BORIS: And he was right.

ANDREW: So we won’t be in the European single market?

BORIS: Michael – yeah absolutely and let me explain. One of the – I remember you and I we both covered the dawn of the single market, remember what it was all about.

ANDREW: We did, yes.

BORIS: The great joyous moment of 1992.

ANDREW: Which was a British achievement actually.

BORIS: Yes. And one of the stunning things about it is in the 20 years since the creation of the 1992 single market, actually there were 27 other countries not in the EU who have done better than the UK at exporting into the single market goods and I think 21 countries who’ve done better at exporting services, in which we excel into the single market. Now, you have to ask yourself why that is so and I think one of the reasons is that this country is - yes we’re members of the single market, but we’re also caught in the toils of regulation coming at a rate of 2,500 a year from the EU that costs our businesses about £600m per week. I think – the whole programme is one of the factors that is making the European Union the slowest growing continent on Earth apart From--

ANDREW: Antarctica. I saw the quote.

BORIS: Our messages are getting through comrade.

ANDREW: I saw the quote. But the single market, you said leaving the single market would cause business uncertainty and you’ve used the image of the Nike swoop so you do accept –

BORIS: I haven’t actually used that image, but what I certainly accept--

ANDREW: Yes, you have, haven’t you?

BORIS: - is that – I think a hockey stick might be a good –

ANDREW: All right, a hockey stick so it’s a bigger thing but it still goes down first.

BORIS: No, if you study a hockey stick closely you’ll see it doesn’t go down. It just goes up. But anyway, the people I’m inclined to credit on this –

ANDREW: After Brexit, after leaving the single currency there would be a bit of a downward shock. You can call it a blip, you can call it a shock, we can discuss how long it is, how big it is but we would go down a bit.

BORIS: I think it’s very telling that you use the word single currency there just now Andrew, because actually we didn’t join the single currency, and a lot of people –

ANDREW: No, we didn’t, my mistake.

BORIS: - prophesied boom if we did and actually the British economy powered on and it was the eurozone.

ANDREW: Pretend I said single market, then.

BORIS: It was the eurozone that suffered. And that goes to the heart of I think the current protestations of - prognostications of gloom. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The two authorities that I’m inclined to listen to on this are the head of the remain campaign, Lord Rose of Marks and Spencer, who went before the Treasury’s select committee if you remember and was very, very clear. He said there would be no shock. What would happen and he made – there was one economic prediction he made –

ANDREW: He did say jobs would go down.

BORIS: He said that wages for the low paid would go up. And that for my money is a good idea. Because if you look at what’s happening in our country at the moment –

ANDREW: I understand that argument.

BORIS: Well I don’t think people are aware of quite – of the differentials that are now opening up between the pay of the FTSE100 chiefs who are parading through Downing Street and urging us all to remain in the EU and the people in the – the average pay of people in their companies. So I think he was right about that. The second authority –

ANDREW: So you listen to those.

BORIS: --second authority is the prime minister who was I think probably in this chair.

ANDREW: But you don’t trust him.

BORIS: and he said – and he said to you –

ANDREW: You say he’s untrustworthy.

BORIS: He said to you,

ANDREW: You say he’s dodgy Dave, he’s untrustworthy.

BORIS: You’re putting words into my mouth, I’m afraid. What he said to you then, and these words I certainly am inclined to credit, he said to you then that a lot of people would scaremonger and there’ll be all sorts of talk about how Britain couldn’t manage on its down but actually he said Britain could prosper outside the EU and -

ANDREW: But we’d be better in of course he thinks.

BORIS: - and there would be no difficulty doing free trade deals. And one of the things that we’re saying today, is actually you’d be able to do free trade deals, according to the European commission’s own statistics, not fantasy, according to the European commission’s own statistics, we’d be able to do free trade deals that would generate 300 thousand jobs.

AM; We’ve been talking about the prime minister, so let me show you this. That’s one of your campaigns. “You can’t trust David Cameron on Immigration.” And you’ve put out other things saying you can’t trust David Cameron on Turkey.

BORIS: That is the first time I’ve seen that and my view is that the –

ANDREW: Well disavow it.

BORIS: That’s the first time I’ve seen it and I certainly think –

ANDREW: How do you feel about it?

BORIS: I think, well let me – I would put it in my own language, okay. And my own language would be that um – by the way I backed David Cameron in 2005 because he’s the best man for the job, he’s the best man for the job now. But what I think is certainly true is that if you tell people that can cut immigration to the tens of thousands and we all stand on that manifesto –

ANDREW: “Corrosive of public trust,” was your phrase.

BORIS: That’s exactly what I’m going to say. And if you then are unable legally to deliver what you have pledged, because of our membership of the EU, I think it is frustrating. And I think people want an answer.

ANDREW: But also untrustworthy?

BORIS: So what we want to hear I think – well, we’re all convicted of the same crime by that token because all of us Conservatives stood on that manifesto. We all thought that we were going to get reform of the EU as a result of the renegotiation to adjust our immigration policy so that we would be able to cope with that, we didn’t get a sausage, we didn’t get anything in that renegotiation. We weren’t able to change our - and so that what I really want to hear from the remain campaign is how they see this thing going. Because contrary to what we’ve been hearing just now the eurozone is still mired in catastrophic unemployment.

ANDREW: It’s getting better.

BORIS: 51% youth unemployment in Greece. Are you saying that’s getting better?

ANDREW: No, but Spain is improving.

BORIS: 45% youth unemployment in Spain.

ANDREW: It’s terrible, but it’s improving.

BORIS: It is an abomination.

ANDREW: It’s improving and their case is that eventually they will get out of that and therefore the migratory pressure on our shores will ease.

BORIS: Well, we’ve seen no sign of it over the last 10 years and – or over the last 20 years. We’ve seen a steady increase in migratory pressure and what is going to happen unquestionably, is that – conceptually. Andrew, you remember this from when we first covered this. The ideology of the EU is to think of the difference between the furthest reaches of the Balkans and Iberia and Italy as being no different from Britain – as

ANDREW: [OVER] Because they’re trying to create a single market.

BORIS: - as no different from Britain than say Surrey and Lancashire. Right. It’s all one territory throughout which they want people to circulate totally freely. I don’t think that’s feasible.

ANDREW: But since we’re talking the big picture –

BORIS: I don’t think that’s feasible in circumstances where you’ve got real economic crisis cause by the euro and massive migratory flows across Europe.

ANDREW: I said I wouldn’t interrupt. You said you wouldn’t give me speeches. We’re veering towards that.

BORIS: Sorry, forgive me.

ANDREW: In terms of the big picture, isn’t it pretty abominable to compare what the EU as it is today with Hitler and don’t you regret that? Hitler believed in strong nation states fighting each other which has been a long European tradition going right back to Gustavus Adophus and all the rest of it. It’s what the Europeans did and we were drawn in again and again and again. And the EU was set up to stop that happening and we have both lived through a period of peace which the EU has to be given some credit for.

BORIS: Of course, of course and I don’t write the headlines, you know. The key point I would make is that there is something worryingly anti-democratic about the EU as it is currently set up. I do think that it is – it should concern everybody in this country that 60% of our laws now come from Brussels, primary legislation secondary legislation together in – I think it should concern everybody that since the Lisbon Treaty - we have been outvoted more and more often and there are fundamental ways now in which we cannot control our lives. I’ve mentioned the money, I’ve mentioned immigration policy.

ANDREW: Well let’s talk about immigration, which we haven’t done properly.

BORIS: Look at VAT.

ANDREW: Can I just show you this poster. Again I’m sorry I’m showing you vote leave posters all the time now. Turkey is joining the EU. Is that true?

BORIS: That is the government’s policy.

ANDREW: The government would like it to at some point in the future, maybe, but the statement, Turkey is joining the EU is not true, is it?

BORIS: Turkey has been joining the EU since 1963, by the way.

ANDREW: Well you join or you don’t join, but it’s not true is it? That’s what John Major was talking about.

BORIS: Frankly I don’t mind whether Turkey joins the EU provided the UK leaves the EU. I mean that’s where I am on this on this matter. But look, I’m very pro-Turk and I’m very proud of my Turkish ancestry and my Turkish family.

ANDREW: And you always wanted Turkey to join the EU for big historical reasons, you know, end that great gap between the east and the western Roman Empires and all of that.

BORIS: Yes, but - and I think you’ve shown that on your – but that was, you’ve got to understand Andrew, that was back in the days when some of us and perhaps John Major himself, thought that widening the EU would not mean this federalising, centralising deepening process that we’ve seen. The really disappointing thing was the Lisbon Treaty which I think let –

ANDREW: Let’s not talk about the Lisbon Treaty just now.

BORIS: Why not?

ANDREW: Well because I’m trying to talk about Turkey actually.

BORIS: Well no, because I think the EU has changed out of all recognition since people like me first starting advocating Turkish membership.

ANDREW: Okay well let’s not talk about back in the day. Let’s talk about two months ago when you said there was no prospect really of Turkey joining the EU, you said it was between zero and 20% or less than that. No prospects, not on the cards at all. And now you’re responsible for this poster that goes up saying Turkey is joining the EU. That is a flat lie.

BORIS: It is the government’s policy that Turkey should join the EU.

ANDREW: That’s a different poster, that’s a different poster.

BORIS: It’s something that they’ve said is their - they’ve simultaneously said it’s their number one priority

ANDREW: That’s a very different poster.

BORIS: And they’re going to pave the way between Brussels and Ankara and they’re also saying it won’t be achieved till the year 3,000. So they can’t be -

ANDREW: Do you regret that poster? It is hogwash isn’t it? It’s an inverted column of piffle whatever the phrase is.

BORIS: I believe it’s government policy. If that means it’s hogwash then –

ANDREW: If the poster said, it is government policy that Turkey at some stage should join the EU that would be a truth. “Turkey is joining the EU” is not true.

BORIS: No sorry, no actually it’s government policy that Turkish membership of the EU should be accelerated.

ANDREW: Well at some point in the future, but they’ve got lots of hurdles.

BORIS: No, no, no I’m sorry Andrew, it’s government policy that Turkish membership of the EU should be speeded up and there are clips of the prime minister in Ankara advocating the speeding up of this.

ANDREW: In the heat of this campaign you have all gone – and you particularly – you’ve gone a bit wild. That’s not true that poster and you’ve said things, you’ve got the £350 million all the rest of it which are not the case. I mean both sides are doing, what Faisal Islam said, both sides ... untruth politics

BORIS: No, well I wondered whether you were going to say that. I think the £350 million genuinely is a reasonable figure to use for the reasons I’ve explained. If I give you £350 and you then spend some of it on my family and give me a bit back.

ANDREW: We’ve done this. The ONS...

BORIS: This is money we cannot control and a lot of it frankly you fritter and you spend some of my money on supporting Iberian bullfighting which is not what I want you to do.

ANDREW: Looking from outside this seems that the Conservative family is terminally falling apart.

BORIS: No.

ANDREW: You’re saying the prime minister is untrustworthy, Boris Johnson is saying you’re a court jester, and so forth.

BORIS: I think you’re confusing me with John Major for some reason, which is the first time I’ve ever been confused with John Major.

ANDREW: That’s most unlikely. But can this party be put together again and how do you respond to John Major’s suggestion that you were doing this really for personal ambition? You used to be in favour of joining the EU and now you’ve decided this is your best way to Downing Street.

BORIS: No, nonsense. Absolutely nonsense and I think that the – obviously there is going to be a temptation by one side or other and particularly the remain side to try to turn it into a personality driven conversation. My view about the EU has changed but that is because the EU has changed out of all recognition and it is now totally different from what we signed up to in 1972 and it is turning into a federal state, we’ll be safer taking back control and voting leave on June 23rd.

ANDREW: One last interruption, Boris Johnson thank you very much.

Video Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkESFmODHF0&t=6s

Transcript: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05061602.pdf

[top]

5th June 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph joint letter “Getting the facts clear on the economic risks of remaining in the EU - vote leave's letter to David Cameron”

Dear Prime Minister and Chancellor,

We all recognise that there are real risks facing our economy if we remain in the EU. Every citizen needs to be aware of these in coming to a balanced decision about how to vote on 23 June.

We would be grateful if you could confirm a series of facts about the serious crisis in the Eurozone’s economy and the failure of EU institutions to reform, failings which will deeply affect British interests if we remain in the EU. Agreement on these facts will enable us all to have a fully informed debate.

We already agree on some basic principles. In particular, we all agree that the Eurozone economies and EU institutions need far greater reform than the EU’s leaders agreed to in the recent renegotiation.

You made the case for real reform in your 2013 Bloomberg speech which outlined many of the problems with the EU’s current structures. You argued persuasively for ‘fundamental, far-reaching change’ but the EU has not changed its fundamental structures. The other EU states rejected the Government’s reform agenda.

As you explained in the Bloomberg speech, the Eurozone suffers from severe economic and institutional problems. It is blighted by low growth and high and rising debts and taxes. Unemployment and youth unemployment are high - at their worst level since the 1930s - in some parts of southern Europe youth unemployment is over 50%. The Eurozone also suffers from the costs incurred by a rapidly ageing population and large unfunded pension liabilities.

The Eurozone countries are trapped in a low-growth system in which debts are rising remorselessly. This adds to pressures on taxpayers and creates a vicious cycle . The Eurozone’s economic policies since the financial crisis have helped Germany and made Greece less competitive. The wealthy in the Eurozone have grown wealthier and the poor poorer - the precise reverse of what is needed to address the economic problems of Europe.

The Eurozone institutions remain broken and have been unable to cope with the euro’s crisis. Despite writing a promise of ‘no bail-outs’ into the EU Treaties, there have been massive bail-outs. The so-called Stability and Growth Pact was abandoned by Germany and France as well as Greece and Italy and no substitute has been found. The Eurozone banking system remains in crisis and lacks clarity about who is in charge of what. The European Central Bank is under attack from the Bundesbank and German Government.

Because of this interaction between economic and institutional crisis, Greece and other southern European countries face years or decades of austerity and mass unemployment. This Eurozone crisis is a disaster for millions of Europeans and it is also a danger to Britain.

We fear the situation in the future can only get worse. The nations of the EU are not creating new technologies and new industries in the way other countries are. The EU lacks the networked relationship between great universities, entrepreneurs and venture capital that generate economic breakthroughs. That is why there have been no EU equivalents of Apple, Uber, Amazon, Netflix, Google or Facebook. Indeed the EU’s whole regulatory structure works against innovation. The EU now has slower growth than any other continent apart from Antarctica. Unless the EU reforms, it will continue to decline with damaging consequences for all its members.

Given the public’s desire for the facts ahead of the referendum, we would like you to confirm the following facts:

- The Eurozone’s economic crisis is fueling the rise in migration. Millions of people in southern Europe, particularly young people, are giving up hope of their countries escaping recession. Unsurprisingly, migrants from those countries are disproportionately coming to Britain. Given the Eurozone crisis, we can only expect this to continue for many years. If we stay, we are tying ourselves to a broken Eurozone economy while simultaneously accepting unlimited migration of people trying to escape that broken economy. The only way to restore democratic control of immigration policy is to vote to leave on 23 June.

- These problems will only get worse when countries in the pipeline to join the EU become members in the near future. British taxpayers are already paying nearly £2 billion for Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey to join the EU. The European Commission recently announced an acceleration of these plans and is already extending visa-free travel to the border with Syria and Iraq. This is dangerous. The Government’s claim that Britain has a veto is meaningless if it is simultaneously trying to ‘accelerate’ this process.

- The Eurozone now has a permanent structural majority in the EU’s voting system. We only have 12% percent of the votes (at most 8% in some circumstances). When the Eurozone countries vote together to prop up the broken system, they can impose their will and force us to accept laws that are not in our interests. The recent renegotiation did nothing to change this situation. This has left us dangerously and permanently exposed to being forced to hand over more money and accept damaging new laws.

- We have been forced in the past to pay unexpected bills at the demand of the European Commission. For example, in 2015 the Eurozone announced it would use the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism to pay bridging finance to Greece. As the Chancellor said, this was a ‘flagrant breach’ of an earlier agreement that this fund would not be used for the purpose of bailing out the Eurozone. In October 2014, the European Commission announced that the Government would have to pay an additional £1.7 billion into the EU budget.

The Government said it would not pay. It then paid nearly £1 billion to Brussels. As with failures on immigration, this was damaging to public trust. As the Eurozone crisis deepens we may be forced to contribute to new bailouts under article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or by some other legal route. The public cannot trust EU or Government promises that we won’t be paying for Eurozone bailouts given the history and how we can be outvoted.

- The EU has failed to agree trade deals with the most important economies in the world. We have much stronger historic links with countries like America and India than any other EU member does. Outside the EU, we would regain our independent voice at the World Trade Organization, control our own trade policy, and be responsible for our own trade agreements.

- Countries across the world enjoy trade with the EU without being part of the EU. Trade does not require this country to give away permanent control of issues as diverse as immigration and the regulation of cancer drugs.

- Even the European Commission has been unable to provide evidence of significant gains from the Single Market. It claims EU GDP is 2.13% higher than it would have been without the Single Market project, less than half of what it forecast would be the gains in 1988. This sum is dwarfed by estimates of the cost of the Single Market made by both the Treasury and by Peter Mandelson.

- The Single Market includes many complex regulations on procurement and competition policy. A vote to stay means permanent EU control over crucial aspects of how public services work including the rules on hospital building, privatisation, and procurement. We all saw how the 2012 disaster over rail franchises cost taxpayers over £50 million and delayed the project. Many of these EU rules help a small number of big companies but cost the taxpayer billions and pose a growing threat to the NHS.

- Despite the plan to get a ‘complete opt-out’ from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the statement earlier this year that the Charter should not be ‘in force in Britain’, no meaningful change was secured in the recent renegotiation. This means that the ECJ can use the Charter to take control of many vital economic policies. It has already used the Charter to increase the price of insurance. This sort of problem can only multiply as the ECJ exercises its new powers.

- There is already an official plan and timetable for the Eurozone’s next wave of centralising power in Brussels, described in the Five Presidents’ Report. This official EU plan involves the use of the ‘Single Market’ legislative system, in which the Eurozone has a permanent voting majority, to force through the next transfer of powers to EU institutions. The next stage involves yet another Treaty and the creation of a central government raising European-wide direct taxes. The Government’s recent renegotiation represents a commitment by Britain under international law not to block this process. Our veto on further centralisation was one of our strongest cards. It has been given away. This represents another severe danger to our economy.

- Although some very large banks and multinational companies profit from the EU system, the situation is very different for small and medium sized businesses, the backbone of the economy. By 2:1 SMEs think the EU is bad for their business. About 70 percent of businesses think that Britain should take back the power to make our own trade deals and have done so for over a decade. This is only possible outside the EU. British companies know that we can trade with Europe without giving away permanent control of regulation.

- The Treasury published analysis claiming that each household would be ‘permanently poorer’ by £4,300 per year by 2030 if we take back control. This figure was calculated by dividing a putative future reduction in GDP growth by the current number of households. This figure is bogus because it assumes 3 million more persons will come to the UK by 2030, a figure that could be considerably lower if we took back control over our borders, which would boost per capita income. It is economically indefensible to calculate changes in disposable income by dividing total GDP in 2030 by the current number of households. The analysis also didn’t consider any of the benefits of leaving the EU. And of course the Chairman of the IN campaign said wages will ‘go up’ if we leave.

- The Commission has delayed publishing the new budget until after our referendum. We already know the official bill for our membership is due to rise to £20.65 billion per year by 2020-2021. Our ‘rebate’ cannot be counted on - as the Chancellor has said, ‘It is not a unilateral decision of the British Treasury or the British Government to just say, “This is our rebate. We are entitled to it. Pay up”. The way this works and has always worked is there is a negotiation with the European Commission’. It could be abolished altogether in five years time. A vote to stay is a vote to keep sending more and more money to a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has no proper democratic oversight.

- Our official bill does not, of course, include many other costs of the ‘Single Market’, such as the multibillion tax refunds we are having to make to big business because of decisions of the European Court setting aside our tax legislation. HMRC estimates payouts could be as high as £43 billion by 2021, a huge sum of money that would be better spent on schools and hospitals. A vote to remain is a vote to keep paying these sums, no matter how large and no matter how badly public services are damaged. The European Court will continue to prioritise the rights of big companies, not our public services.

- We have a large trade deficit with the EU. It is in everyone’s interests to do a free trade deal. There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey. This will not end just because Britain decides to take back control and be a normal self-governing democracy.

Overall, EU membership helps some people and some businesses but they are disproportionately those with power and money. The reality of the ‘Single Market’ has not even closely matched what we were promised a quarter of a century ago. EU membership makes it impossible to control immigration and this is putting enormous strain on public services and is corrosive of trust in politics. Sadly the European Union and its euro project have become an engine for job destruction and there is no prospect for reform unless Britain votes to leave and forces a new agenda on Europe’s elites.

We all want greater cooperation in Europe. It is clear to us that the best way to further European prosperity and international cooperation is for us to vote leave on 23 June.

Yours sincerely

Michael Gove, MP for Surrey Heath

Boris Johnson, MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/04/getting-the-facts-clear-on-the-economic-risks-of-remaining-in-th/

And

https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215814/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_on_the_risks_of_remain

[top]

5th June 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column “You must vote to leave the EU or wake up with the worst hangover in history”

It’s June 24 and quite early in the morning – too early, frankly. You wake up with a vague but intensifying sense of guilt, and wonder why you have fallen asleep on the sofa.

There are half-drunk beer cans lying around, crisp packets. The TV is burbling to itself in the corner of the room, and you know that in a second you are going to remember that something big has happened, and that you aren’t going to like it – and then it hits you: the Referendum! That’s right.

Yesterday morning you were on the verge of voting to Leave the EU. You were all psyched up. You could see that the case was unanswerable – that we were being asked to remain in an EU that was unabashed, unrepentant, undemocratic and, above all, unreformed.

You knew that this was the last – the only – chance you would have in your life to vote for change, and to make the powerful listen. This was the moment for Britain to speak for all the people of Europe – everyone enraged with how Brussels works.

You began that Thursday determined to protest against the whole stitch-up: the way the European Commission conspires with big business to regulate out the competition; the lobbyists, the fat cats, the people who were responsible for the VW diesel emissions scandal; and all the billions of pounds of fraud and waste of the EU budget.

This was the moment to stand up for the dispossessed of southern Europe, their lives blighted by the euro. This was the chance to fight for the low-paid in the UK, their incomes compressed – according to the Bank of England itself – by the uncontrolled immigration that is a function of EU membership and the euro crisis.

Now, and now only, was the time to call a halt to the endless erosion of democracy. This was the day when you had resolved to give back to the British people their sovereign right to sack – at elections – the people who make the big political decisions. Yes, you were going to take back control.

You were going to give our government – the British government – the power to control our immigration policy, with a points-based system to serve the real needs of the UK economy.

You were going to take back control of at least £10 billion a year of taxpayers’ money that goes to Brussels and that we never see again, which could be spent on the NHS or schools, or whatever priority the government chooses.

You were set to reclaim control of our national security – and stop the European Court of Justice intervening in Home Office attempts to deport terrorist suspects. You were going to take back control of taxation, so that this government could – if it chose – cut fuel bills for the elderly, or motoring costs, or the price of tampons.

You were going to allow this country to set its own destiny, with a dynamic series of free-trade deals of the kind that have been impossible while the UK has been in the EU. You had decided once and for all to end the madness by which 60 per cent of the law made in Westminster is generated, one way or another, by the EU.

You were about to strike your own small but vital blow for freedom and democracy – when you suddenly bottled it. You swerved; you shied; you jibbed; you baulked.

You screwed up your eyes in the polling booth and you found yourself momentarily oppressed by the sheer weight of the Remain propaganda – all that relentless misery about this country and its inability to stand on its own two feet.

For reasons you secretly know were nonsensical, you decided to go for what the gloom-mongers had told you was the safer option. Nose held, eyes screwed tight, you voted for Remain.

And now you understand why you feel that sense of morning-after shame and abject remorse: because the burble from the TV is informing you that Remain have won.

Yes, by the narrowest margin you – and fellow last-minute swervers – have helped to keep us locked in the back of the minicab, with a driver who barely speaks English, going in a direction we don’t want to go.

Now the TV is going to Brussels, where an exultant Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commission president, is hailing the wisdom of the British people. “The British question is solved!” he announces over what looks very like a glass of champagne.

Assorted Europhiles are on the airwaves – Peter Mandelson and Tory ex-Cabinet ministers – proclaiming that the next step is UK membership of the euro.

People are already talking about the plan to create a true “political union” with common EU rules on company law, property taxes, and many other areas of policy in which Britain will have no choice but to comply.

Brussels correspondents are reporting on all the plans that the Commission has been sitting on to avoid frightening the horses during the UK referendum.

There is the directive that will seriously damage the UK art market; there is the famous directive on the power of vacuum cleaners and toasters; and dozens of others, none of which we can veto.

It now seems – hey presto – that Britain’s budgetary contributions will go up, to more even than £350 million per week. There are plans for a European army, it emerges, that will undermine Nato.

You put your head in your hands – because you realise you have given the green light to a continuing and intensifying disaster: attempts to preserve the euro by creating a United States of Europe – a territory where people will have no choice but to flee the less competitive zones, with ever-growing numbers coming to Britain, from EU countries where the average wage is a fraction of our living wage.

A nightmare, yes? So don’t let it happen. Believe in Britain, and our ability as a proud, self-confident, and independent country to help restore democracy here and around the whole continent. Vote Leave on June 23.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/05/you-must-vote-to-leave-the-eu-or-wake-up-with-the-worst-hangover/

And

https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153739708871317

[top]

5th June 2016: Boris Johnson appears on Countryfile against David Cameron to debate how Brexit will affect the environment and our fisheries

Interviewer: I’m back on Boris Johnson’s family farm in Exmoor, to find out how the vote leave campaign see the future of our environment and the UK’s fisheries post Brexit. When it comes to our environment the remain camp claim the European Union has been key in passing legislation that has helped protect and clean up the countryside around us.

In fact, Boris’ own father, Stanley Johnson, was instrumental in the 1992 EU Habitats Directive, which protects many wild species from the humble Dormouse to the natterjack toad.

So if the EU does so much to safeguard our environment, why would we want to leave? The EU has been a champion and protector of the natural environment of Britain, and if we left, surely that’s in peril?

Boris: I don’t agree that it’s in peril. I certainly agree that the agreements that have been reached at a European level have been valuable for the environment, but the question that you need to ask yourself, Tom, is…

Interviewer: Who wrote them? Your dad wrote a lot of them.

Boris: Great man.

Interviewer: Stanley Johnson was an architect of EU environmental protection. You should be proud of it.

Boris: I am, I am. But the question you need to ask yourself is, do you need the full apparatus of the European court of justice, and thousands of regulations, coming through, imposed in this top down, one size fits all way, which cannot be deviated from or dissented from in any way - I don’t think you do. I think we’re… we love our countryside, we love the farming industry in Britain, it’s part of our souls, it’s part of our character - we are going to want to protect our countryside. You know, these national parks were invented, I think, by the Attlee government, from memory, this idea of protecting rural Britain is very deep and very dear to us. So that’s going to continue.

Interviewer: But you know a lot of people in this country care passionately about the national environment, birds, wildlife, and they believe that the EU has done a lot to protect what they care about. If we leave, can you guarantee the same level of protection?

Boris: Yes, yes, ok well that’s very important, because I think people do passionately care about it, and they do see that the EU has done a lot of good, but you could do so much of that protection through all sorts of intergovernmental arrangements, which by the way non-EU countries in this area already sign up to, so we’d be in the same position as them, signing up to that level of protection, and perhaps even going further where it was necessary.

Interviewer: An example of an environmental issue, if you like, where the EU differs from Britain, just taking GM [genetically modified] crops. If we voted to leave, would we be more likely to see GM crops in our fields?

Boris: Well, you know, I’m a technological optimist, I am pro where possible, but it would be a matter for the government to decide. But at least we would have that freedom.

Interviewer: It’s difficult to paint the EU as a great success on fisheries…

Boris: Now come on, as I really think it was a tragedy, I mean you know, we’ve got half as many people involved in fishing now as there were when we joined, quite possibly fewer, and that would be a great thing, take back control of our fish, it would be great for this country.

Interviewer: Some fishermen say, yeah but at least fisheries is a powerful lobby in Europe, whereas it’s not in Britain, and if we left the EU, the fisheries would end up having an even smaller voice in government than they do now.

Boris: Well I don’t agree with that at all, I’ve just literally come from Cornwall where, as I say, there are six MPs, solid leavers, solidly behind British fishing, there’s a strong strong constituency. Look at what’s happened to our coastal towns, there are areas in many cases where you see too much poverty, bringing back the fishing industry in those areas would be fantastic.

Interviewer: In the last few years, we’ve begun to turn it round, some stocks are improving, there have been some recovery in the levels of the monetary value coming from fishing, are we just abandoning the Common Fisheries Policy as it gets it right?

Boris: You know, my view is that, I’m not hostile to our friends and partners on the European Union, I just think that we can do it just as well ourselves, and if we managed our waters, some of the rules - chucking back perfectly good fish to manage the quotas, I mean come on, that’s gotta be crazy, there’s gotta be a better way of doing it.

Boris: I really think that after leaving the EU there is absolutely no reason why our countryside in Britain should not be as beautiful, if not more beautiful, and wonderful, than ever before.

Source: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0CBA7825?bcast=121810015

And

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36453416

[top]

6th June 2016: Boris Johnson speaks on Brexit, CNBC interview

Wilfred Frost: Let’s talk a little bit about jobs, perhaps coming back to that sense of uncertainty. We heard from Jamie Diamond…

BORIS: Which, you know, I reject. I think…

WF: Jamie Diamond’s arguments you reject?

BORIS: I do. Jamie Diamond and JP Morgan are the very people, I recall, well they’re bankrolling the remain campaign, and they are the very people who urged this country to embed itself in the euro, which has turned out to be an absolute catastrophe. Yes, it is true that some financial services institutions have over the last 20 years benefited phenomenally from the EU setup. But it is also true that huge numbers of people on modest earnings in this country have not seen their earnings rise, in real terms people have seen their wages fall, in many cases as a result of the signature policies of the EU.

One is the euro, the other in uncontrolled migration across EU territories. Since you bring up America, I think one thing that… It’s fascinating listening to American politicians on this subject. No American politician… I think Americans are genuinely amazed sometimes when they realise the loss of democratic control that is entailed by the EU system. They would never dream of subsuming, subordinating, subjugating their own democracy to the type of system that we have in the EU.

WF: Did Obama go too far in coming over here and implying how we should vote?

BORIS: Well, what I’m hearing from all of these international… Angela Merkel sounding off at the moment… Let them speak, it’s all very interesting to hear their points of view. But in the end, this a decision for the British people, and I think that when we vote to leave, as I very much hope we will on the 23rd, it will actually be a blow for freedom and democracy.

The EU system, as I’m sure American viewers will appreciate, is profoundly sclerotic. There’s not continent in the world with slower growth than Antarctica at the moment, and that’s partly, not just because of the euro, but because of the mass of legislation comes out of Brussels in a one-size-fits-all sort of way, that is often for the benefit of the big companies we mentioned, JP Morgan, but not for the benefit of startups, of innovators, of entrepreneurs, and people who want to change things.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/06/06/boris-johnson-sounds-off-on-brexit.html

[top]

6th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to his Facebook post and Telegraph column about the EU (dated 5th June)

“Don't wake up to the nightmare of staying in the EU on June 24th. Believe in Britain and vote Leave:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/739714575994609664

[top]

6th June 2016: Boris Johnson writes on vote leave website with a comment about prosperity

It is a myth and a delusion to think that we can somehow gain greater prosperity by bartering away our freedom and our democracy. In fact, we can see at every stage how the loss of democratic control is turning into an economic disaster.

There is nowhere else that is engaged in anything like this experiment, of trying to fuse countries into a giant political entity; and in its centralising tendencies the European project is going against the tide of events and history.

The risks of remaining in this over-centralising, over-regulating job-destroying machine are becoming more and more obvious, which is why I believe we are winning the arguments today.

It is time to take back control, and speak for freedom in Britain and around the whole of the EU.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215812/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/voting_to_stay_in_the_eu_is_the_risky_option

And

https://web.archive.org/web/20160620220409/https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/24/attachments/original/1465205577/RisksofRemain.pdf?1465205577

[top]

6th June 2016: Boris Johnson writes in a vote leave pamphlet

The biggest myth in this whole debate is that there is some clear division between the arguments about democracy, and the arguments about economics.

We are invited to believe that there are two ways of measuring the question of EU membership for Britain; two sets of scales; two units of calibration.

For instance there are many reasonable people on the Remain side who are willing to accept that the EU suffers from what has for a long time been acknowledged to be a democratic deficit.

If pushed, they would admit that there are legitimate concerns about the accountability of the Commission, about the popular legitimacy of the European parliament, and about the increasingly wayward judgments of the European court of justice.

They would accept – when they are being reasonable – that there is something troubling about the sheer volume of EU law, and the way it now contributes 60 per cent of the law passing through parliament.

They would acknowledge that this vast corpus of EU law is generated by the Brussels commission; and that it is now extremely worrying that only 3.6 per cent of EU Commission officials actually come from this country.

They would accept that it is disturbing, to say the least, that the UK is now outvoted more and more often – 72 times in the last 20 years.

They would in their sober moments accept that there is a serious and growing democratic problem, and that on the question of democracy it is this side – the Leave side - that holds the high cards.

But they argue that this sacrifice is worth it, because of the economic advantages of being in the EU. I think I am fair to their argument.

I also believe that argument to be both morally disturbing and practically wrong.

On the contrary, it is the very absence of democratic control that is having all sorts of disastrous economic consequences, both for Britain and for the EU.

1… We are currently unable to exercise democratic control over such basic economic matters as our tax rates – so that we cannot cut the price of fuel for elderly people; we cannot cut the cost of motoring; and despite the pleas of the Chancellor we cannot even cut the tampon tax.

2… We cannot exercise democratic control over the energy costs of our steel firms, even when those costs are far higher than in other EU countries – so that companies in this country are going to the wall because of our slavish adherence to EU rules.

3…We cannot do anything to stop the torrent of EU legislation, coming at a rate of 2,500 a year, and imposing costs of £600m per week on UK business.

4…We cannot control the EU budget, not just in the sense that we send £350m a week gross to Brussels, much of which we never see again, but also because we can be asked to pay more – without warning – if the UK is deemed to have performed better than other EU countries.

5…We can neither stop other countries going ahead with ill-advised plans to create an economic government of Europe – since we explicitly gave up our veto in February – and nor can we protect the UK taxpayer from the demands of the eurozone countries for bail-out funds; nor can we protect the UK economy from the impact of further single market measures – on company law and property and many other areas, as set out in the Five Presidents report.

6…Above all, we can do nothing to protect this country from the biggest economic change we have seen for a century or more – the very rapid growth in population that is largely a function of immigration, which is in turn a function of the euro crisis. I repeat my challenge to the Remain campaign: what is their vision for Britain, with our population set to climb so rapidly? Where do they intend to build the houses? How will the health service cope?

There is one answer to all these economic problems, and that is to take back control – so that we make our laws and our trade policy and our immigration policy to suit the needs of the UK economy.

The benefits of being in the single market have been wildly overstated – look at the far greater success that countries OUTSIDE the EU have had, in exporting INTO the EU, than we have.

The risks of remaining in this over-centralising, over-regulating job-destroying machine are becoming more and more obvious, which is why I believe we are winning the arguments today.

It is time to take back control, and speak for freedom in Britain and around the whole of the EU.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215812/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/voting_to_stay_in_the_eu_is_the_risky_option

[top]

6th June 2016: Boris Johnson writes a speech for vote leave website - UK taxpayers face EU triple whammy: paying for euro bailouts, a higher EU budget, and an extra £2.4bn bill

The risks of remain are massive. Not only do we hand over more than £350 million a week to the EU, but if we vote to stay the British people will be on the hook for even more cash. It is a triple whammy of woe: the eurozone is being strangled by stagnation, unemployment and a lack of growth, it could explode at any time and we will be forced to bail it out. The botched bureaucratic response to the migration crisis means the Eurocrats are demanding even more of our money. And now we find that there is a £20 billion black hole in the EU’s finances.

If we vote to stay in the EU we will be forced to hand over even more money to Brussels. If we Vote Leave we can avoid this extra £2 billion bill from Brussels, take back control of our money and spend it on our priorities like the NHS.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620220536/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/uk_taxpayers_face_eu_triple_whammy_paying_for_euro_bailouts_a_higher_eu_budget_and_an_extra_2_4_billion_bill

[top]

7th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture about campaigning in Ipswich

“.@ipswichstar24 - on the money as usual!”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/740129444602482688

[top]

7th June 2016: Boris Johnson and Michael Gove write an open letter to the prime minister, challenging him to a debate

The real risk for Britain in this referendum is voting to remain in the EU with a broken single currency and a rogue European Court. The safer choice is voting to leave, so we can take back control of our money, borders, security, trade and taxes.

If we needed a reminder of just how risky it is to remain in the EU, the European Court has today issued extraordinary judgements that undermine our ability to deal effectively with asylum.

We think that the public deserve the chance to hear these issues debated face-to-face between the Prime Minister and a spokesman for Vote Leave so they can judge for themselves which is the safer choice on 23 June. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to hold this vote and allow Ministers the chance to disagree with him. We hope that in the same spirit he will accept this invitation.

Source: https://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/19322-gove-and-johnson-the-pm-should-debate-the-risks-of-staying-in-the-eu-with-vote-leave.html

And

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/david-cameron/news/75857/boris-johnson-and-michael-gove

[top]

9th June 2016: Boris Johnson quote tweets the Evening Standard about Khan

“Throughout the campaign Khan was asked how he'd fund his £2bn transport budget black hole. Answer - break his promise”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/740842616154140672

[top]

9th June 2016: Boris Johnson on the ITV EU debate

Boris Johnson: On June 23, we all face a historic choice. To remain locked in a

European Union ruled by an unelected elite. Frankly, indifferent to the suffering their policies are causing, or to take back control. Take back control of huge sums of money. £350m a week. And spend it on our priority such as the NHS. Take back control of our immigration- in a balanced and fairway. Take back control of our trade policy and do deals with growth economies around the world. Take back control of our democracy. So we can make our laws and set our taxes according to the need of the UK economy. And to the prophets of doom, I say they were wrong in the past and they are wrong today. Let us take back control and let us speak up for all the people around the European Union who looking to us to speak for democracy. Take back control on June the 23rd and we will prosper like never before

Moderator: Thank you, all. It’s time now for our first question. Each of our contributors will have 40 seconds to answer before we open things up for a free flowing debate. And that question comes from Manraj Othi.

Manraj: Good evening. A factor that will sway many people’s decision on the vote is immigration. Immigration is good for the country and our economy, but only when the appropriate controls are in place. Which decision, leave or remain, allows us to put in place the appropriate controls to ensure we have immigration that only improves and adds to our country? Thank you.

BORIS: The remain campaign are offering no solution whatsoever. We are offering an Australian style British solution which will allow people to come in on the basis of the skills they can offer our country and our economy. A points-based system. And it would be fairer because we currently discriminate massively against people from the 92% of people of the world who don’t come from the European Union while having unrestricted access to people from 28 countries without even being able to check whether they have criminal records.

BORIS: I think Amber is... we both fought on the same manifesto which was to cut immigration to the tens of thousands and it is impossible to do that. We both, I think, hoped there would be reform of the European Union treaties that would allow us to do that by taking back control of our borders. That did not happen in the renegotiations, we didn’t get anything of the kind. We didn’t even succeed in our attempt to make sure people had a job to come to. There were 77,000 people who came to this country from the EU without even a job offer last year. 184,000 net. I am massively pro-immigration, I am a descendant of Turks - and very proud of it too. But, there's got to be democratic consent for the scale of the flows that we're seeing. And at the moment, it’s corrosive of trust in democracy.

BORIS: What Andrea said. If I may so, I think the real problem has been the

flows have increased exponentially, or very considerably over the last 10-20 years, we have absolutely no way of controlling it. A city the size of Newcastle arriving every year. That is a very considerable pressure on our population growth. We need to sort out. We proposed, at the last election, that we could do it. All politicians say that they can do it. We are actually offering a way to do it, which is to take- take back control of our immigration policies.

BORIS: Of course, people can always argue spending money on all sorts of priorities, but if we took back control of our money, we would have £10bn more to spend every year on our priorities at the very least.

And I may point out that the most important effect of immigration on huge numbers of people, as Andrea has rightly said, is to compress wage growth and to compress their wages. As the bank of England says: "For every 10% growth in immigration there is a 2% reduction in wages.” That bears thinking about.

Moderator: That was a very specific point on wages. Could one of you address it?

Moderator: On that point on the inequalities of wages and employment across the EU, Angela Eagle?

ANGELA: If we leave the European Union, wages will actually go European Union, wages will actually go down. There will be more pressure on already pressured people.

BORIS: Lord Rose is the head of the remain campaign said they'll go up.

ANGELA: Your entire campaign is based on falsehoods. It’s emblazoned across your bus. It doesn’t cost £350m to be a member of the EU, and you know that's not true and you have emblazoned across your bus and you have refused to take it back. Now, the head of the statistics authority has told you it’s not true because it doesn’t take account of the rebate... The TUC says we get £10 back for every £1 we put in.

BORIS: It is perfectly true and verifiable that there is slightly more than £350m a week that we do not control. Huge sums of it go to Brussels and never come back, we could use some of that money to help alleviate, solve the pressures in the NHS that are caused by uncontrolled immigration.

Andrea Leadsom: If I ask you how much you earn and you tell me £30,000, are you telling- £30,000, are you telling me the sum after tax and national insurance? Of course you aren’t. That £350m per week is exactly what the Office of National Statistics says is the amount due to the EU. The point is that 25% of it, roughly, is given back to us in the form of a rebate which the EU controls that only lasts till the end of this decade.

BORIS: Yes, yes.

ANDREA: Another 25% comes back in subsidies. Again, the EU controls it. And £10bn a year goes to the EU which we never see again. That's enough to meet the needs of the NHS in one year.

ANDREA: What is so misleading about this is the- the fact that being in the European Union makes us money, it doesn’t save us money. There is no saving from leaving the European Union. What we are going to do is repaint that bus and we are going to put a leprechaun on one end, a great big rainbow on one side and a pot of gold at the end. Because that's all it is, it is pure fantasy that bus.

BORIS: We are talking about cold hard cash that belongs to the people of this country that is sent every week, every year to Brussels.

BORIS: I think it was the head of the remain campaign, Lord Rose - Stuart Rose of Marks and Spencer, who said that when we vote to leave, if and when we vote to leave on June 23rd, is that nothing much will happen to begin with. There would be no economic shock. What he did say is that people will get a pay rise. Those on low incomes will get a pay rise. I think the authority that I'm inclined to trust is our Prime Minister, David Cameron, who only a few months ago, before the whole logic of project fear kicked in, was very clear that Britain could prosper and flourish outside the EU. We could do trade deals and we would have a great, great future. That is what Anthony Bamford said today and I’m with him.

BORIS: Speaking as somebody who's proud to be descended from foreigners, let me just say, first of all that on the single market, it is totally illusory to think that we necessarily need to be within that legal system in order to do well. In the last 20 years since the single market was founded, 27 independent non-EU countries did better than us in exporting goods into the single market, including America...

BORIS: 21 did better at exporting services.

ANGELA: That is because our manufacturing sector is too small. The leave campaign’s leaving economist said that if we left the EU, it would, over time, eliminate manufacturing. And that shouldn’t scare us. Well there's 2.3 million jobs, quite a few of them in Gisela’s constituency, manufacturing cars that go straight into the European Union. Every 36 seconds, a car European Union. Every 36 seconds, a car is manufactured in this country that goes into the EU and they're putting that at risk. Unfortunately, Angela, as she will know, is not talking about anything vote leave has said.

In fact, UK manufacturing, just today, numbers are out showing that it’s never been stronger. It has recovered from its pre-financial crisis of 2008. That's fabulous news. And going back to the head of JCB diggers, he believes, as a big manufacturer, that it is in fact easier to do business often with the United States than it is with the European Union. It is incredibly difficult. 80% of the world’s economies are outside of the single market, and most of them are growing much faster than any economy within. Let me bring in Amber Rudd.

AMBER: It is common sense that having access to one free market, as with one set of rules, keeps the price of trade down. We keep jobs up. The reason why the leave campaigners don’t like referring to the experts in this area, like the CBR, is because there aren’t any who support them.

BORIS: We would have access to the single market which is the important thing. And that is what, as I mentioned just now, there are 27 countries not in the EU just now, that have done better than us at exporting goods. 21 countries, Angela, that have done better at exporting services. And I think we're just starting to degenerate again into project fear, don’t you think? There is a member of the panel who has complained about the remain campaign who has said it is negative and fear based. And fear based campaigning of this kind starts to insult people’s intelligence. Now that was... Nicola Sturgeon.

BORIS: I have to say... I agree with Nicola.

ANGELA: Boris you don't seem to care about the millions of jobs that would be at risk if we leave the EU. I think you only care about one job, and that is your next one.

BORIS: I don’t think that you care... Sorry, I'm afraid I missed the insult. I don’t think that you care about the EU’s total failure, and Andrea was completely right: to do free trade deals with Japan, with Azean, with Mercosur, even with America, which according to the EU’s own figures has meant that in this country alone, we have forsaken - sacrificed 284,000 jobs.

Now, think what we can do we could do if we take back control, not just of our money, of our immigration but also of our trade policy. Can I tell you the EU Commission has the entire responsibility for negotiating UK trade. Only 3.6% of EC commission officials actually come from this place, how are they going to negotiate for us?

BORIS: We cannot minimise the money we would get back. £10m is not to be sneezed at. But more importantly the pressure on NHS... When I talk to GPs in London area what they tell me is yes there is huge pressure caused - a lot of it - by European accession countries but because of our immigration policies we cannot recruit some of the people who might actually be wanted to work in our NHS and that strikes me as being completely crazy. And I just think to get back to what we were saying earlier on, the remain side have absolutely no answer to the question of what happen down the line as the eurozone gets worse and worse and the migratory pressures increase.

BORIS: Talk to the patients, talk to the patients, I would really want to agree with Gisela. I think the people you should think about and you should talk to when you make your decision is the patients. Our experience of the NHS, it is under huge pressure we could have a better system if we had more money and if we were able to recruit the people we want. And we were able to control our immigration. Which, currently, we cannot do.

BORIS: Nobody could say that the EU is an economic nirvana. As Gisela rightly said, it is the zone of lowest growth in the world, apart from Antarctica. Actually if you look at the direct impact of the EU and our membership of the EU and our ability to provide first class medical services. Let me direct you to what happened with the ambulance service, which went into a terrible crisis in the last couple of years because we couldn't find enough paramedics who could speak good English and the only place to get them from is Australia, where we had to recruit 200 urgently and of course under the current system they have all sorts of difficulties getting in which do not apply to the people coming from 27 other EU countries. You know, that for me is a concrete example of how the system is simply imbalanced and unfair. Our system is imbalanced and unfair.

ANGELA: Sarah Woolaston, the chair of the select committee, the Conservative, who until yesterday, was part of your leave campaign, has quit because she said the claims you are making about the NHS are deliberately misleading- and the NHS are deliberately misleading and treating the public like fools. John Major, one of your ex-prime ministers, said the NHS is about as safe with them - meaning you Boris - as a pet hamster would be with a hungry python. I never thought I’d think it, but I agree with John Major.

BORIS: I-I-I obviously there is a great temptation to try to reduce this argument to a lot of personal stuff. It is very important we focus on the issues in the time we’ve got we focus on the issues. There is no question at all we would have more money if we took back control of our immigration policy, we would be able to sort out bizarre situations where we are discriminating against Australian paramedics but cannot have huge pressures from people coming in by virtue of the EU.

BORIS: Sorry, how does the EU, how does the EU help the NHS? Nicola is that miserable, or fear based or negative, which one was it? It's total nonsense. At the moment we have anaesthetist from India, we've got nurses from the Philippines whatever who cannot come in to our country in the way that we need them for our NHS because of our crazy immigration system.

AMBER: If you wanted to build a bridge, you would turn to expert engineers to make sure it didn’t fall down. If you are going into surgery, you would want to talk to surgeons to make sure that you are getting the right expert opinion. If you want expertise from Boris on a good joke,

BORIS: You might not get expert surgeons with the current immigration policies!

AMBER: You ask him. The experts’ advice is what you need and they don’t like

experts because they don’t support them.

BORIS: Barbara Castle, campaigned fervently against joining the EU, even back in 1975 and I think she would be appalled to see what it has turned into. We were told it would be a common market, it is now evolving into a United States of Europe. I think women - everybody have got to be alarmed by the way the EU is developing. One thing that particularly concerns me and my family is the idea that on the streets of our city, on the streets of London.

Because of European judges there are terrorists and murderers and very serious criminals that we cannot deport. Because the European court is taking control of that kind of question and I think we should take that control back.

ANGELA: Look I happen to think that people are more likely to have a job if we have a more thriving economy, we will be more likely to have that in the EU. That is why all the major trade unions representing four million workers in this country are actively campaigning for us to remain in the European Union. And you know there is a threat to workers' rights from people at work in the leave campaign. Priti Patel, the employment minister in the current government made a speech where she said that EU employment regulation was unnecessary and meddlesome and should be cut in half. Is she talking about paid holiday? Is she talking about maternity or paternity leave? Protection for agency workers? And they need to come clean in the leave campaign - which rights would they take away?

BORIS: Absolutely none. I want to know if whether that counts as being miserable, or negative, or fear based in your approach. Because we have said very clearly that we want to protect the rights of people in the workplace.

ANGELA: Not Priti Patel.

BORIS: People bash UP the Conservative party. Actually it was William Joynson-Hicks who gave women the right to vote in this country. I think that Labour are still to produce a woman leader of the Party though maybe Angela Eagle will sort that out at some stage.

ANGELA: Boris beware of the blonde bombshell.

BORIS: Our courts, our parliament uphold the rights of women and everybody at

work. We have pioneered these things in this country. We should be incredibly proud of it. We do not need the European Union to guarantee our humanity.

To answer Gisela directly, I don’t have confidence that politicians like Boris Johnson would keep these protections. Why do I not have confidence? Because this is what Boris said. “The weight of employment employment regulation is now backbreaking. We should get rid of the Collective Redundacies Directive, the Workers Directive, the Working Time Directive and a 1,000 more”. That is what Boris Johnson wants to do if he manages to get us out of the European Union and have unfettered control of these things. I don’t want that.

Moderator: For clarification, would you like to answer?

BORIS: I would like to be absolutely clear, our side is determined to protect the rights of workers and I think it absolutely absurd -

NICOLA STURGEON: So if you're telling the truth now - were you not telling the truth then?

BORIS: I am quoting - that you are seeking to spread scare stories about what would happen outside. These are protected by our courts and our parliament.

NICOLA: I am quoting you. Boris Johnson is asking people to trust his word. He is making a lot of claims and he's asking you to trust him and vote the way he wants you to vote in two weeks time. Now I'm simply asking him if he is telling the truth tonight about the protection of workers rights, was he not telling the truth when he said he wanted to get rid of all of the ones I've just listed. The thing is Boris Johnson is not interested is your job or your protection, he’s only interested in David Cameron’s job.

BORIS: It is very important that people recognise that under our proposals, everything we have said, and I know that Gisela agrees with this very strongly, we do not want to see any attrition of the rights of people at work. That is not what we are campaigning for. We are campaigning to take back control our economy and our legislative system. And I would like to challenge the Remain campaign to say whether they agree with absolutely every jot and tittle of EU law. Do they accept every one of the 2,000 regulations from Brussels every year? Do they think it is a good thing that our business is weighed down with regulation that costs £600m a week.

BORIS: Let me put the question back another way. What we've heard from the remain campaign is that t hey believe in every piece of EU regulation. Tell me what you would get rid off?

AMBER: You are not asking the question.

Moderator: Let’s call a halt. We asked Boris Johnson to respond directly to the question from Nicola Sturgeon. Boris Johnson put a question directly to this side. Angela Eagle?

BORIS: There is no reason why the European arrest warrant should not be done at- an intergovernmental level. You don't need the EU system. They still haven’t told us which regulations they would repeal.

Moderator: The question was about employment- and--

BORIS: We can have exactly that influence and more if we take back control and come out of the EU. What happens within the EU is that we are more outvoted than any other country. We have 60% of our laws coming from Brussels. Chuka Umunna, himself, has confirmed that - your friend Angela. And sovereignty to me belongs to the people. It is their ability to kick out at elections the people who take the decisions. Let me tell you, there is no where else in the world that is engaged in this kind of experiment, a fusing countries together to create- a superstate. A united states of Europe. It is antidemocratic.

AMBER: ...That was by direct experience. And we are only in climate change, say, 1% of the world’s emissions. And there were three blocks negotiating: the EU, China and the US and if we had just been on our own, we would not have been able to have that influence.

BORIS: Let me give you a classic example of how the EU lets us down, lets down consumers and people who are victims of pollution, and indeed people who oppose climate change. When you look at what happened with the VW scandal, that was a complete masterclass in the collusion between Brussels bureaucrats the well-paid lobbyists and the motor manufacturing industry to conceal what was really going on. Millions of people bought diesel cars on false pretences and our ability to improve our air quality in our cities was sharply reduced. That was a disaster caused by the absence of democracy and the lack of control. We take back control and we are better able to deal with those problems.

BORIS: It is curious to hear this from Nicola because she’s obviously keener to be ruled by Brussels than Westminster politicians. The most important point, is actually we do increase our influence if we come out because very often, what is happening is the European Union is trying to replace the UK in conversations, for instance with the IMF [International Monetary Fund], in the UN [United Nations], international bodies - take the convention on international trade on endangered species, where Britain used to have a powerful voice and now the EU wants to speak for us. When the EU can’t decide its position, there is no no UK position. That is a disaster for people who care about endangered animals in this country.

Moderator: Leaving the endangered animals, special though they are--

BORIS: They are.

Moderator: I would like to take the point - I am not disagreeing on that basis at all, I would just like to take the point you made to Nicola Sturgeon, about rules from Brussels.

BORIS: I only wish that were true. We are outvoted more than any other country, 72 times in the last 20 years. And we are unable to stop further transfers of sovereignty which is what the gentleman asked about. Further control will be passed to Brussels by the Five Presidents’ Report, as they try to bubblegum the euro together, we are going to be asked to pay for it. It has been perfectly clear from what the government has done with our budgetary payments, those are going to continue. Another £2.4 billion as soon as this referendum is over. And we have absolutely no way of stopping it.

BORIS: I think we are dealing with hard, cold, observable, empirical fact about what is taking place in the EU now. It is the zone of worst growth in the world apart from Antarctica. It is abominable that you have 51% youth unemployment in Greece. We are paying huge sums of money into it, which is set to grow. The only solution they have for the problems of the eurozone is to try to create the united states of Europe, with further transfers of power away from this country to the European Union. That is the plan - in black and white - in the Five Presidents’ Report. I think it had its purpose once, it was not an ignoble idea - in the 1950s. It's time to come out.

BORIS: I'm afraid that's a simple error of fact, the reality is look at what the government has had to do just over the last few months. Whenever Brussels asks for more money, even though we think that we're not required to pay it for instance the bailout fund, the stabilisation funds. We had to cough up, they asked for £1.7bn we ended up giving £1bn. They asked for another £1bn contribution because they revalued the UK economy and said our GNI [Gross National Income] was higher than they thought - so the better we do, the more we have to pay into Brussels. The prime minister said he wasn't going to pay - he paid on the nail.

And the same goes I'm afraid with what is going to come down the track with the eurozone, we have no protection at all as part of the EU from paying into this or do we have any protection Nicola from the plans to go ahead under the Five Presidents' Report with harmonization of company law, of property rights, of employment law and so on. They will take us further and further into a united states of Europe.

BORIS: I think there are two ways in which we are very heavily impacted by what's going on in the eurozone. One, I'm afraid it is true that we will be sucked into further arrangements to keep the euro together, and we will have to be involved in the bailouts. Number two, I’m afraid that the disaster in the eurozone area is producing considerable migratory flows on a scale we haven't seen in a very long time. As long as we not seen for a long time. As long as we are part of the EU, we cannot escape the consequences of that. If we come out and take back control, there is one thing I do agree very strongly with both Amber and with Nicola - there is a tariff-free zone all the way from Iceland to Russia, we are part of that we will continue to be part of that and we will prosper mightily.

BORIS: I think what the last couple of hours and, indeed, this whole campaign has shown is that there is a contrast between this side of the argument, which is offering hope, and that side of the argument that is offering nothing but fear about life outside. They say that we can’t do it on our own, they say that we can't leave the euro. We say that we can we say that we are a great country. They say we have no choice, I listen to Amber Rudd's metaphor: we have no choice but to stay locked in the back of the EU car driven in the wrong direction, going to a destination we do not want to go.

We say we can take back control. Take back control of huge sums of money, take back control of our borders, take back control of our economic policy, our tax, our trade, and take back control of our democracy. That is fundamentally what this is all about. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this country to speak up for democracy around the whole European Union. And I hope you we do on June the 23rd.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHfDqOfRAtg

Additional source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-boris-johnson-v-nicola-sturgeon-in-itv-debate-live

[top]

11th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about the Queen’s 90th birthday

“Y'day celebrated HM Queen's 90th B'day w a Royal tea dance @Hill_libraries. Lots of street parties planned this w/e”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/741587542303215616

[top]

12th June 2016: The Interview: Boris Johnson, chief Brexiter, The Times interview with Tim Shipman

[His goal all along was to enhance his leadership prospects] “It’s complete rubbish. It became absolutely clear to me that to follow the path of least resistance would have been totally wrong. This is it. This is the only chance we have to have serious reform in Europe.”

[On renegotiating with Brussels] “They treated us very contemptuously. The deal delivered nothing.”

[On the attempt to devise a law enshrining parliamentary sovereignty over EU law] “It was just Professor Branestawm stuff. It was an attempt to make cucumbers out of moonbeams.”

{On not backing Cameron] “I didn’t want to go against the government and against the prime minister. The desire for a quiet life was strong.”

“That was my holding line: I’ve always thought we were better off trying to work it from within. That basically became untenable. I just felt there was no choice, I just felt it would be irresponsible of me, knowing what I do about the EU ... I thought it would be just lazy of me not to stand up and be counted.”

[The EU is] “just a massive stitch-up. It is the elites and the great corporate class meeting together, cooking things up in a way that I think is antidemocratic.”

[On his education at Eton and Oxford] “I got scholarships to both places, I should point out.”

[Cameron has been through the] “professional deformation of people who become prime minister”.

“Someone should count up the number of times some of my opponents have mentioned the Nazi leader and the number of times I mentioned him.”

“There’s nothing cruel about sticking up for democracy and the low-paid. I would have thought the callousness was to stick up for great corporate fat cats and the Brussels consensus.”

[Does he regret anything he has said?] “I don’t. I’m trying to tell it exactly as I see it. I think people know that I will sometimes say things that can be misconstrued. I have to try to be as faithful to what I think as I possibly can. That has got me into a lot of trouble and also got me out of it again. As somebody says, ‘To thine own self be true, and it follows as night follows day that you shall not be false to any man.’ I got that slightly wrong, but that’s the gist of it.”

[On the name Boris being a conscious creation] “That’s all bollocks. To very close friends I’m still Boris. That’s the honest truth. Al is my family name. I started to be called Boris at about the age of 11, but people who knew me before then call me Al because that is what I was known as before.”

[Is Al the same person as Boris?] “Christ, that’s like a question from logical philosophy. Is Hesperus the same as Phosphorus? I think we need Gottlob Frege and Wittgenstein to crack this. I need to lie down on a couch. I think you’ve cracked it: it’s Dr Al and Mr Boris. I’m afraid that we are consubstantial, co-eternal, we are of the same substance, we are homoiousios and homoousios.”

“I just felt it would be irresponsible of me, knowing what I do about the EU, not to stand up and be counted.”

[What has he learnt about himself during the referendum campaign?] “I’ve learnt that I’m several stone overweight.”

[What was the most important thing he learnt from his own father?] “Swerverama. The most important thing I learnt from him was not answering tricky questions about one’s family. It was a brilliant lesson.”

[What is his greatest flaw?] “Oh God. My answer is that I am excessively bashful, my greatest flaw is my almost unbearable humility.”

[Does he think vulnerability is an important attribute for a politician?] “I do. But you’ve got to be brave, you’ve got to be tough. You’ve got to be robust and you’ve got to go out there and have a thick skin, which I do.”

[On being a heroic figure] “Yeah, I think there’s a bit of that, if I’m honest. I basically think that I’m constructed for combat. I think that is true. I don’t want to sound aggressive, but I think that’s why I always end up fighting all these elections.”

“It’s par for the course. Come on! I’ve fought two elections in London. This is nothing. This is peanuts. If this is the best they can do, bring it on, I say. I had Labour calling me a racist, a bigot, a liar.”

“I believe in one-nation conservatism. That’s why I championed the living wage. I believe in devolution. That’s why I championed fiscal devolution for London. And I believe in the great influence of transport infrastructure as an equaliser for humanity.”

“I want the party to unite and I will do everything in my power to make that happen. I think we’re more united than people realise. It’s much less difficult than the whole Maastricht business was. That was really ugly. Take me and [Nicholas] Soames. He is certainly dishing it out. I’m trying not to respond. In any event, we both know that we will be friends.”

“We must never be complacent. We must accept that Jeremy Corbyn is more popular with people than I think we sometimes seem to believe.”

“After June 24, a massive chunk of the moderate, sensible public who have been interested in the Europe debate but not perhaps as passionate as I am will want to see us pulling together and delivering for them the things they really care about. We need to continue to deliver a one-nation agenda of reforming and improving public services, supplying better infrastructure, because that is the bedrock of a strong, dynamic wealth-creating economy. That’s my agenda.”

“It’s pathetic, really, but you were giving me some good advice, speak in shorter sentences and get to the point quicker. I can’t. I have to do it my way, otherwise the mental exhaustion will be intolerable, trying to remember what the bloody soundbite is. It will come out in the wrong order. It’s hopeless — I’m 51 now, I’m going to do exactly what I do.”

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-sunday-times-magazine/the-interview-boris-johnson-chief-brexiteer-jpt7plmzv

[top]

12th June 2016: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column “When it comes to the single market, you don't have to be in it to win it”

You know when someone is losing an argument because they suddenly get all rattled, and personal, and sometimes even a little bit menacing. It is clear from their style of debate in the last few weeks that the Remain campaign is conscious that it is losing the argument, and losing comprehensively. To many fair-minded people – including those who had not previously given the matter much thought – it now seems obvious that the UK should leave the European Union.

The Remain campaign has failed to answer the fundamental question. How can we control immigration as long as we are in the EU?

Whatever the noble ambitions on which it was founded, the EU is an anachronism. It is increasingly anti-democratic; its supranational system is being imitated nowhere else on earth; and its economic policies are causing misery in many parts of the EU. It is sclerotic, opaque, elitist: different nations bound together by a centralised bureaucracy that ordinary people can neither understand nor vote out. It is an attempt to build a United States of Europe; to create a single political structure. And yet no senior Remainer has so far had the honesty to defend the project for what it is. No one on the Remain side has shown any shred of explicit federalist idealism; no one has called for Britain to join in “building Europe” or in creating a “European identity”. That is because they know that this ideology – though dominant in Brussels – would be viewed with alarm by the British public.

So what do we get, instead of idealism? We get an unending and intensifying diet of fear. We are being bullied and brow-beaten into remaining in this failing system – and I think the public can see through it. As time goes on, I find more and more people can see that Britain would have a great future outside the EU – trading freely with the EU and the rest of the world, while engaging fully at an intergovernmental level with all the political and diplomatic questions in Europe. On every major question it is possible to take back control – and thrive.

Whether you express the figure as £350m a week gross or £10.6bn a year net, most people are amazed to discover how much we pay just to be in the EU. We could do with having that cash back. They can see that our current immigration policy is unfair and unbalanced and out of control – and they can also see that the Remain campaign has failed for months to answer the fundamental question. How can we control the rate – 333,000 net last year, a city the size of Newcastle – as long as we are in the EU?

The Remainers have nothing to say. Their mouths just open and shut, wordlessly. Above all, people are rumbling the great big fat lie at the heart of the whole thing: that the sacrifice of democracy – the 2,500 new EU laws imposed on us every year, costing £600 million a week for business – is somehow worth it for the economic benefits of the so-called single market.

In the last week we have had amazing testimonials from two of the biggest heroes of modern British manufacturing. I was thrilled when they spoke out, because I know the kind of pressure that all UK business leaders are facing from Project Fear. In their optimism, their vigour and their belief in this country, they sum up what the Leave campaign is all about. They are (Lord) Anthony Bamford, of the mighty digger firm JCB, and James Dyson the billionaire entrepreneur and inventor.

Now these people make machines: beautiful, complex, cutting-edge bits of technology. You might have thought that it was precisely for them – and their kind – that the “single market” was invented, so that their vacuum cleaners and backhoe loaders can circulate freely across the 510-million strong territory. You might have imagined that they would be passionate advocates of the system.

Lord Bamford has seen that the “single market” is in reality a political project that is turning inexorably into a single government of Europe.

On the contrary – they both export colossal quantities to EU markets, and will continue to do so; but they both think we should get out of the EU, and that the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. Dyson is the No 1 brand leader in the German vacuum-cleaner market. Does he worry about tariffs, if we left? Of course not. The Germans would not dream of it: we Brits buy 820,000 German cars every year, worth about 20 billion euros. In fact we buy one fifth of Germany’s entire car output. As Dyson points out, tariffs would mean the Germans would be cutting their own throats. It won’t happen.

He wants to take back control of our law-making system, because he is fed up with the Brussels stitch-up, by which British ministers can be outvoted to the detriment of his company. And he wants to take back control of immigration – not because he is in any way hostile to immigrants. He is just infuriated by the imbalance in the system. There is no limit on EU migrants, but he has no way of hiring enough postgraduate engineers, because most people doing research in science and engineering at British universities are from outside the EU.

As for Lord Bamford, he has seen that the “single market” is in reality a political project that is turning inexorably into a single government of Europe. There is no need to be part of this expensive legislative machine in order to export goods or services into the EU. The latest figures show that between 1993 (the dawn of the single market) and 2015 there were 36 countries – including India, Russia, China, America, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil – who did better than the UK at exporting to the single market. They weren’t “in” it. They didn’t have Brussels making 60 per cent of their laws. And yet they did better than us.

It is time for this country to show some of the self-belief of these two great companies. It was only a few months ago that the Prime Minister was saying we would thrive mightily outside. He was right first time. As James Dyson says: “We will create more wealth and more jobs by being outside the EU. We will be in control of our destiny. And control, I think, is the most important thing in life and business.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/when-it-comes-to-the-single-market-you-dont-have-to-be-in-it-to/

And

https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153755801946317

[top]

13th June 2016: Boris Johnson doubles down on the £350m remark, as reported on ITV

[It is an] “underestimate.”

“About half: [comes back from the EU but is] “under the control of EU bureaucrats”.

“We don't control that money anymore and a huge quantity of it is simply wasted.”

“European officialdom“ [is making] “many decisions” [on how the UK is run]

“For me that's only part of the problem, for me the real issue is the absence of control generally”.

“That manifests itself in all sorts of ways, lack of control of our borders, over our security.”

[It is] “wholly wrong” [for a foreign court to make decisions on security that affect a sovereign country]

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-13/boris-johnson-350-million-a-week-goes-to-the-eu-and-that-is-an-understatement/

[top]

13th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a Facebook link to his Telegraph article (dated 12th June 2016)

“When it comes to the single market, you don't have to be in it to win it: “

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/742269781571686400

[top]

14th June 2016: Boris Johnson BBC Interview “Boris Johnson on Brexit, steel and Wales”

“What we're saying is that the money that's currently spent in Wales, whether it's spent on farming, or supporting culture, or whatever it happens to be, that would continue because any government in its right mind is going to want to subsidise agriculture, and all the other regional funds that continue to be important. It drives a lot of jobs in all sorts of ways, but you get a Brexit dividend in the form of about £10.6bn [a UK figure] that you could spend on the priorities of this government, the NHS probably being the most attractive.”

“What we are saying is that this is what the government could do post-Brexit. This is the Brexit dividend and what they could additionally do is say that the money that is returned to us they could continue to use that to match all the current contributions which are very valued and important for agriculture and so on but then on top of it you'd have a huge wadge of cash back and I think that's very attractive.”

“…because Brussels says 'no' even though the cost of energy is far higher in this country than in most other places in the European Union.”

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-36532871#

[top]

14th June 2016: Boris Johnson co-signs open letter published on vote leave website - leave ministers commit to maintain EU funding

It is important that people and organisations now receiving funding from the European Union know that their funding is safe if we Vote Leave on 23 June.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the official bill for our EU membership in the last year for which we have figures was £19.1 billion - that amounts to over £350 million each week.

We get some of this money back, partly through a negotiated rebate and partly through payments to farmers, universities, regional funds, cultural organisations, and others. Our net contribution to the EU budget is £10.6 billion. We have no control over much of the money spent by the EU in Britain.

Further, we cannot count on the rebate. It is negotiated with the other member states. Its importance is diminishing. The EU budget and our contributions to it are forecast to increase over the next decade as they have continually since we joined the Common Market in 1972.

There are of course some benefits from the EU. There are also many other costs, direct and indirect, of EU membership on top of our official contributions to the EU’s budget.

For example, the UK is set to pay out between £7 billion and £43 billion by 2021 in tax refunds to big businesses which have successfully used the European Court and EU law to escape taxes lawfully imposed on them in Britain. If we stay, these bills will be paid for by British taxpayers on P.A.Y.E. instead of that money going to public services. If we Vote Leave, the Government will pass legislation to prevent these payments being made so that taxpayers are not given these huge bills.

We can also restore our taxation of offshore companies set aside by the European Court, a decision which costs British taxpayers over £800 million each year. There will be many other savings, including from reforming EU procurement rules that add costs and delays to building schools and hospitals.

It is therefore clear that there is more than enough money to ensure that those who now get funding from the EU - including universities, scientists, family farmers, regional funds, cultural organisations and others - will continue to do so while also ensuring that we save money that can be spent on our priorities.

If the public votes to leave on 23 June, we will continue to fund EU programmes in the UK until 2020, or up to the date when the EU is due to conclude individual programmes if that is earlier than 2020.

We will also be able to spend the money much more effectively. For example, some of the bureaucracy around payments to farmers is very damaging and can be scrapped once we take back control.

The funding system for scientists is also unnecessarily bureaucratic. As the Nobel Prize winner Andre Geim said: ‘I can offer no nice words for the EU framework programmes which ... can be praised only by Europhobes for discrediting the whole idea of an effectively working Europe.’ After we vote leave, it should be a priority to increase funding for science and fix problems with the funding system, not all of which are the fault of the EU.

Many have claimed that there would be an immediate blow to the British economy if we take back control. But the Chairman of the IN campaign itself, Lord Rose, admitted:

‘Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years… . There will be absolutely no change… It’s not going to be a step change or somebody’s going to turn the lights out and we’re all suddenly going to find that we can’t go to France, it’s going to be a gentle process.’

Many areas have seen recent falls in EU funding. The value of agricultural support is in decline and EU structural funds have been cut back significantly. The real danger to current recipients of funding from the EU institutions is that if we vote to remain the EU will further reduce their funding.

After protecting those now in receipt of EU funding, we will still have billions more to spend on our priorities. We propose that at least £5.5 billion of that be spent on the NHS by 2020, giving it a much-needed £100 million per week cash transfusion, and to use £1.7 billion to abolish VAT on household energy bills.

Overall, it is clear that if we Vote Leave we can take back control of British taxpayers’ money, protect funding for those who now get it from the EU, and improve the funding mechanisms so that money saved gets to the frontline. In particular it is clear that scientists and universities should expect that funding will be much more generous after we take back control and give them the priority they deserve, and which is so important for learning and scholarship as well as our future prosperity and security.

Yours sincerely

Julian Brazier

James Duddridge

George Eustice

Michael Gove

Chris Grayling

Boris Johnson

Penny Mordaunt

Priti Patel

Dominic Raab

Iain Duncan Smith

Desmond Swayne

Theresa Villiers

John Whittingdale

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160620215809/https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/leave_ministers_commit_to_maintain_eu_funding

[top]

14th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to his debate with the Daily Telegraph

“Looking forward to setting out the case for Brexit at tonight's Daily Telegraph #eudebate. You can watch live here:”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/742742985192951808

[top]

14th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture with Priti Patel about Telegraph debate

“Just about to start the #EUDebate @Telegraph @HuffPostUKPol with @patel4witham - looking forward to it”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/742779669653651456

[top]

14th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to Bank of England, refuting Alex Salmond

“Salmond claim in #EUDebate wrong, BoE report shows 10% increase in immigration = 2% wage decrease 4 lowest earners: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf#page=25 …”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/742841009575448576

[top]

14th June 2016 - Boris Johnson takes part in the Telegraph and Huffington Post EU debate

Question: Net immigration to the United Kingdom is currently equivalent to adding the population of Newcastle upon Tyne each year. Given the cost and time needed to increase water reservoir capacity, sewage plants, electricity generation, hospital and school places, train GPs over 10 years, build roads and houses in our small island, can the panel say what annual rate of net immigration to the UK is actually practical for us to cope with, and if they cannot say, is it not irresponsible to advocate uncontrolled immigration?

Interviewer: Boris Johnson, what is an acceptable level of immigration?

Boris: Well first of all, let me say that I am pro-immigration in the sense that I'm the beneficiary of this country's generosity to my Turkish great-grandfather many years ago, he came in 1912 to Wimbledon as it happened, I don't know quite why but that's where he ended up, and very lucky my family was, and I think London benefits massively, and has benefited massively from immigration. But what you say sir is quite right, we're now running at a net rate of 333,000 a year, see the size of Newcastle, net immigration from the European Union is running at about 184,000 last year, I think most people in this country feel that is very high indeed and probably too high. And if you look at the recent projections from MigrationWatch, if we go on at this rate, the population will pretty rapidly get to about 80,000,000 people in the next few decades, so...

Interviewer: So if you had to put a figure on it, Boris Johnson, what would you put?

Boris: I would say that we need to go lower, but the only way to do that is to take back control of our immigration policy.

Interviewer: How low?

Boris: Get back to a manageable figure, and I'm not going put a, I'm not going to give a...

Interviewer: Nigel Farage said 30 or 40,000, would you agree with that?

Boris: What you want is a figure that corresponds to the needs of British industry and business, and to the economy. And at the moment we've got a system which allows in huge numbers of people who do not even have a job offer. 77,000 people came last year who had no job... from the European Union. And I don't think... If you subtract 77,000 from 184,000 you can see, you know, you're already making some serious reductions. I think that you need to get to the position that the Prime Minister, and indeed other members of the government said we should get to before renegotiations began, and make sure that people can't come here unless they have a job to come to, I think that is reasonable, and I would also like, an Australian-style - if I may finish quickly - an Australian-style points based system, that is fair to everyone.

Alex Salmond: I don't live in leafy suburbs, I live in a country which has areas that suffer not from immigration but from emigration, and I've seen emigration and depopulation, and believe me it's a lot worse, the problems that it causes, than immigration will cause. We've got a family in the Highlands at the moment, from Australia, who were attracted to Scotland under a campaign that I launched as first minister - the Highland homecoming campaign, and they're about to be kicked out by the Home Secretary, despite the fact that they're exactly the sort of hard-working people - their son is seven years old, his first language is Scots Gaelic, and he's going to be kicked back to Australia, betraying all the promises that were made to them.

Boris [speaking over]: Absolutely, terrible, right, absolutely, I agree with Alex.

Alex: ...by an immigration policy which regards people coming to your country as a problem. I'm not saying you do, sir, but many people have got that impression from this campaign, they must regard it as a positive, not a negative.

Interviewer [interrupting]: OK, OK, Boris is agreeing with Alex Salmond, this is a moment, Boris...

Boris: Well I do agree, I do agree very strongly with Alex about that, because the Brain family - I studied the story, where of course from Australia if I remember correctly, and they are victims of the imbalance in the whole immigration policy that we have in this country as a result of our EU membership, and we at the moment cannot - if we want to have brilliant engineers from India or paramedics from Australia who are vital for our ambulance service, we face obstacles to getting them in, the kind that the Brain family face, whereas we have absolutely no way of impeding - if I can just finish - huge numbers of people coming from the other EU countries, and in a way that we cannot control.

Now it's control that matters here, because there's a reason why across Europe you are seeing the rise of far-right parties, there's a reason why you're seeing immigration escalated in the whole conversation at the moment, and that is, I think, because people feel that they haven't given democratic consent to what is happening, and it is because we can't do that, and because we don't have control that you're seeing this. If you have that control... there was fairer to both sides.

Alex [interrupting]: Boris... Boris... Sorry, Boris, but you have that control, Boris, But your government has control over the future of the Brain family, it's entirely under the control of your government, you have control over the future of the Brain family...

Boris: But not over any...

Alex: And the idea is that your campaign can go to Scotland and say “look you're gonna have the freedom in Scotland to have lots more immigrants” while you're campaigning in England saying “keep them out at all costs” in a nonsense tactic, a total nonsense...

Boris: No, no, come on, I think you're guilty, I'm sorry but, if I may say so you're guilty of completely misrepresenting what I've just said, which is that it is unfair and imbalanced at the moment, there is a discrimination against people from outside, but no..

Alex: So you think the Brains should stay?

Boris: Yes, of course...

Interviewer: As important as this story is, I don't want to spend another 10 minutes talking about it, the Brain family, as big a story as it is, let's move on…

Liz Kendall: You have said that you wanted to halve the amount of employment laws, you haven't spelt out what they are, Boris wants to be out of the social chapter, people like Ian Duncan Smith oppose the social chapter, the working time directive and voted against the minimum wage, I am taking you at your word, I don't think it's red tape and regulations, I think it's baseless to underpin...

Boris: There are plenty of rules and regulations that make it much more difficult to do business in the European Union that are nothing to do with protecting workers' rights, and we want to protect them... if you look at the EU as a whole it is a zone of the lowest growth anywhere in the world apart from Antarctica. They've got catastrophic youth unemployment in many parts of the Mediterranean countries, running at 51% in Greece, the whole EU project is a machine for generating excessive bureaucracy and red tape. And on the digital point, which our question was about, actually the amazing thing about this city, is how - and the UK economy - is how well we do in the digital sector, in spite of EU legislation and regulation. And I believe we have the opportunity to do better still outside.

Alex: And last point, Boris, when Liz was about you wanting to scrap the social chapter, you were shaking your head - but you said it to Reuters in 2012. And you have to, see...

Boris: Workers’ rights are protected by our laws in our parliament.

Alex: Unlike other people, I think it's a perfectly honourable position for you to want to become prime minister, I think that's a - all politicians want that sort of thing - but my worry is not that you want to be prime minister, it's what you'd do when you were prime minister, and scrapping the social chapter doesn't give us control - it might give you control - but that's a protection that most workers of this country would like to keep. But you know, for understandable reasons, people here will understand I don't really go along with the economic Armageddon stuff..

Boris: Hear hear, well said Alex, that's a man speaking some sense.

Alex: And I've got very good reason for saying that, but nonetheless - because I've seen it from the other side, and I don't think it's the way to campaign. But undoubtedly there would be an economic hit, and that economic hit I think would be concentrated on inward investment, because a lot of inward investment is looking for guaranteed access to the £500m market across the EU. Now the leave side could minimise that hit if they would commit to the European Economic Area like Norway, or Efta [European Free Trade Association] like Switzerland, but of course they won't do that, because along with the EEA or Efta comes with free movement of people.

Boris: Which remain won't agree to, either...

Alex: ...and given, perhaps not Priti and Boris, but the rest of the campaign, or Nigel and the other lot, who are not here tonight, are featuring on immigration, and they won't commit to something, even if it diminished the economic damage, because it would involve free movement of people, and that is the contradiction at the heart of the Brexit campaign.

Boris: Quick... quick point about the remain, just quickly on the remain campaign, the remain campaign are themselves now riven with indecision and division about this, I think it was Tom Watson of your party today...

Liz Kendall: No need to point, Boris...

Boris: ...and Ed Balls, both of whom have said that they think that we need to go back on the negotiation and have changes to the rules - am I not right in saying that? - I think remain is all over the place on that issue, they're conceding one of the fundamental points, and on the question that the gentleman asked, which is “is there going to be an economic shock”, I think that the best advice that I can give is to relay what the Prime Minister himself said a few months ago, before the whole logic of project fear kicked in, and I agree totally with Alex that it is ludicrous.

Some of the things that we're hearing at the moment, the prime minister said that there was no doubt at all that Britain could thrive mightily outside the EU, you can hear all sorts of scaremongering, and we could do free trade deals. I am very very confused, by what I'm hearing from Anthony Bamford of JCB. Alex talks about car sales. Here is a guy, JCB make diggers that are literally building Britain, building the whole world, they're huge bits of kit we're selling in ever growing quantities, you might have thought that the single market was designed for people like JCB - on the contrary, he wants out. For the very reason that there's too much regulation, too much red tape, he's better selling comfortably, being out.

Question: How are we supposed to trust you, Boris Johnson, when you wrote a book a few years ago talking about how the single market is undeniably a great thing, and now you're on stage saying something else, completely different? I don't think you're a trustworthy individual at all, and you're just in it for your own gain, I'm afraid I don't believe anything you've got to say on this issue.

Boris: I think it's important in this debate not to get dragged into, you know, not to get dragged into the whole past...

Interviewer: But you've been asked this many times before, you've changed your mind

Boris: If I may say so, I think the single market is a fascinating study, just to get to your point, because what happens there is that the predictions for growth within the single market post-1990 to when the thing started turned out to be completely false, I think there are about 36 countries outside of the EU that have done better than this country at exporting both goods and services into the single market, and that tells me that that is the ideal - and they include America, Japan, China, India - all the growth economies of the world. They're doing much better at exporting into the single market, and I think that is the way forward.

Liz: I want to come back to Steve's point here - I mean some people on the leave campaign are a bit more honest, and they say our economy will take a hit, jobs will be lost, and they say it's a price worth paying for what they believe...

Boris: Who's that?

Liz: …is an illusion of - Dominic Cummings, Aaron Banks, Michael Gove said that jobs may be lost...

Boris: He said that Euro MPs might lose some jobs. He said 73 British Euro MPs might their jobs.

Liz: Boris I want to come back about this - who is it...

Boris: Michael Gove said 73 British Euro MPs might lose their jobs.

Liz: Boris... Excuse me but who will pay the price? It won't be Boris or Priti or me or Alex. It will be the people who always pay the price.

Question: Has the tone of this campaign, particularly the use of project fear tactics and the dominance of personal attacks in recent days, shown that Britain's political classes have lost touch with the hopes and fears of ordinary British voters?

Interviewer: Right, well, I mean you are looking very much at Priti and Boris - Boris? Have you lost touch with ordinary British voters?

Boris: Well, I think that the, some of the language that has been used to scare people about the consequences of voting leave, I do think is extreme, and I'm very much at one with what Alex, and I think what Nicola Sturgeon as well, has been saying about that, because it's totally different from what Lord Stuart Rose said previously - remember he's actually the head of the remain campaign, and a few months ago he was questioned by the Treasury select committee.

To get back to your point sir, about what would happen post Britain leaving, and he said there wouldn't be any kind of economic shock at all, there would be one economic result, which was that people on low incomes would see their wages rise. And that strikes me as being a very very important consequence of voting to leave, it is probably true, it is what the Bank of England has confirmed, that when you have large movements of labour across the EU as we're seeing, you will have a compressing effect on wages. I thought that was very significant. It's very important... in the last few days... to concentrate on comments like that.

Alex: Boris, who in the Bank of England said that? Who in the Bank of England said what you just said?

Boris: It was a Bank of England study that showed that for every...

Alex: Who wrote it?

Boris: 10% increase in immigration there was a 2% reduction in wages. I'd be very happy to tell you.

Alex: No it didn't - have you read that study Boris? Have you actually read it? It's a straight question, have you read that study?

Boris: I have not read that study... I have... I'm guilty

Alex: Right. OK.

Interviewer: Very honest.

Alex: Can we just nail this because I've heard this from a number of... So I've taken the trouble of reading this study, it was from Stephen Nickell and Jumana Saleheen... It doesn't say - it says a 10% rise in immigration would result in a third of 1p diminishing in average wages - a third of 1p - it would result in EU immigration, because that's all immigration, EU immigration for one sector of their economy that is of the workforce - no Boris let me finish this point because, after all, I went through the trouble of reading this study...

Boris: And now that you're confirming exactly what I've said. You are.

Alex: A third of 1p is not 2% Boris, that is 2p, you see that is six times, and you see when you come along here, and you complain and say “oh I agree with Alex about not scaremongering”, and then you go on to scaremonger on wages...

Boris: No. I think most people know a wage is a wage... are you saying wages have gone up? For people on low incomes?

Alex: I'm saying the way to protect wages in this country is to believe in the minimum and living wage.

Boris: And so we certainly do.

Alex: Which you don't.

Boris: On the contrary - in this very room, in this very room, if I may say so, in this very room, in this very room we launched the latest version of the London living wage and under my mayoralty we let it - we increased it by 800%, number of firms that take it...

Alex: But you didn't want it in 2004.

Boris: And it was a colossal success. So I won't have that from you.

Alex: What about 2004 Boris? You didn't want the minimum wage then?

Boris: What you've confirmed, Alex, today, just now, is that there is a compressing effect on wages, as a result of immigration...

Alex: But you multiplied it by a factor of six.

Boris And that needs to be borne in mind. And most people...

Interviewer: Does anyone here think that no, actually the politicians actually haven't lost touch with the ordinary voters, they're speaking to us, they're addressing our concerns, which seem to be immigration and the economy, anyone at all?

Boris: Come on, we're doing our best here.

Alex: ... Just as I want to hear the positive case for immigration, I want to hear the positive case for Europe, I think there's an extraordinary case for peace and prosperity that the European Union has contributed to, and we've hardly heard that in this campaign.

Interviewer: Well hang on a minute Alex, why haven't we heard it? That's the fault of the remain campaign.

Alex: Well I think that, as I say, I think both sides have been engaged in scaremongering and negative tactics and the rest of it.

Interviewer: But do the remain side need to shout louder, is that it?

Boris: Let me cheer you up Alex, let me cheer you up and move you away from all the gloom-mongering that's going on from - but very very quickly because there is a huge opportunity for this country, we are locked into a system that doesn't really suit our interests, we could be doing much more to trade with the 93% of the world that isn't in the EU, at the moment all of our trade policies are controlled by the EU commission, only 3.6% of EU commission officials actually come from this country.

We cannot do free trade deals with America, with China, with India, that would allow our economy to grow - sorry can I just, just let me finish this point - allow our economy to grow, according to the EU commission's own figures, by 284,000 jobs. Now that's a fantastic prize, and what about that? What about that? What about taking back control of our trade policy, and believing in ourselves, as a great trading nation, and not thinking that we can't do it on our own, because that’s the truth about this country. And the difference between our side of the argument and their side of the argument is very very simple - we believe that we can do it, we believe there are great…

Interviewer: OK you’ve made your point, this is not an opportunity for you to give a speech, I’m sorry, as wonderful as it was, it’s not an opportunity. Right, on that subject, I want to come to you just very very quickly on that, because Nigel Farage, that was after a TV debate, and he became the most searched for person - you took part in a debate where there were how many other women - five other women, and it didn't have an impact - why not? You should've been number one, should you not, you should've been mirroring what Nigel Farage…

Boris: I think if I may say so, out of the greatest respect to you, this question is exactly what I think many people in the audience have been complaining about, what we want to hear is discussion of the issues, we don't want to hear some ludicrous assessment...

Interviewer: But that's what people are searching for.

Boris: Which politicians have been Googled...

Interviewer: But Boris, that's what people are searching for.

Boris: What they want to know is - if I may say so - what people want to know is what's going to happen to the UK after we leave the EU, the fantastic opportunities that I think this country has to build a brighter future, to take back control of very considerable sums of money, which we haven't mentioned already, and basically, the fundamental issue for me is democracy. It is taking back control of our ability to govern ourselves, and at the moment you've got 60% of the law that goes through the palace of Westminster emanating - whether primary legislation or secondary legislation - from the EU. And I think that the most important - there is a fundamental dishonesty - a dishonesty to get to your point about what is being proposed. We were told in 1972 that this was a common market, it's now turning into a united states of Europe. And it's no longer suitable, I think...

Boris: I think Alex needs to have a word with the first minster of Scotland, I don't know what his authority is over Nicola Sturgeon...

Alex: None. About as much as your authority over David Cameron, I would imagine.

Boris: Well she was very interesting on that point the other night because everybody knows that there was a very conclusive referendum result a couple of years ago, Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom and I think that matter has been settled for a generation, and Nicola was given the opportunity, really repeatedly, to say what Alex has just said and she refused, and I think that's because she recognises that there's no appetite in Scotland whatsoever for a new referendum - people have voted on it - and to get back to Priti's point...

Alex: And you're an expert on this thing, Boris?

Boris: And I think people find being asked to decide these big constitutional questions - you know, it's a huge responsibility for people, politicians are paid to take important decisions, they should not, regularly, remit fundamental questions to people in this way - I think that's why both the European Union question and the Scottish question should be generational questions.

Question: Boris we hear you talk quite often about how the EU is antidemocratic, could you just elucidate a little on exactly why it is antidemocratic, and then perhaps the other side could say why they want to vote to be part of something that is antidemocratic?

Boris: Yes, well, I think the EU is hopelessly antidemocratic, I mean how many people can name their Euro MP who is supposed to be the person who represents them in the EU institutions? Nobody knows what goes in the EU commission, I bet hardly anyone here can name the five presidents of the major EU institutions who are dictating the future of the EU after the referendum, and have plans to build an even more tightly integrated federal Europe - I think it is a disaster, a democratic disaster, that quite so many decisions are now taken a long way away from the scrutiny of the British people, and we cannot sack them at elections.

People - when I was mayor of London, people roughly speaking knew who I was, when I cycled around the streets, they knew and they would shout at me all sorts of abuse, as some of you have kindly done so tonight... and quite rightly, and quite rightly, they knew that I was responsible for things. We do not know who's in charge of huge quantities of regulation and legislation - we cannot remove them - and it is not as if they are doing a good job. There is huge unemployment in the EU, it is an economic disaster area, and it needs reform and it needs us in this country to speak up to it.

Boris: I do think there's a very important failing in the way the EU works, and you saw it in the VW scandal, and we've been struggling to improve air quality in the cities around the UK, we've got thousands of people who die prematurely as a result of NOx [nitrous oxide] and diesel particulates, everyone was persuaded on the basis of the EU commission's urgings to buy diesel cars.

And it turned out that there was a huge scam, and VW and other manufacturers had basically been lobbying the commission to get a certain type of testing approved, and the whole thing was a fix and a stitch up. If we'd been doing the testing in this country, rather than relying on the homologation procedures of the EU, I think there is a real chance that that would not have happened, millions of people in this country would not have bought machines that were very expensive and were very very polluting.

And that's a classic example of how the EU works against the interest - not just of the consumer, not just of the consumer but against the interest of the environment - and look, I want to get back to what Priti said because I agree passionately with what she said - we actually play a bigger role sometimes if we speak as Britain. And let me give you an example - the EU is constantly trying, because the ideology is that it is one - 28 countries are becoming one country - what they want to do is, in international bodies, to replace the UK, and speak up for us - so in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, about which many people in this country care absolutely passionately, the EU takes our seat, but if the EU cannot come up with an answer, if the EU doesn't have a common position, on tiger skins or whaling or whatever it is, then the EU is silent and the kicker is, Britain, Britain has no voice at all. And that is a disgrace. We are a great country, we should be keeping up on environmental questions internationally.

Question: I think the blue flag legislation predates the EU…

Boris: Of course it does.

Alex: I thought Boris said some very interesting things about the failure of EU regulation, and I'm glad he's abandoned the banana example, now we're getting into more substantive...

Boris: How many directives of the EU were passed on bananas, Alex? Are they all essential? How many are there?

Alex: Bananas are not your strongest suit of the campaign.

Boris: Well they're obviously your strongest suit. Can I ask you respectfully how many directives there are on bananas? How many? Do you happen to know? Have looked at the banana directives? Have you got them there? How many are there? How many are there? I have taken the trouble to look through... unlike you... you've decided... I told you not to come into these debates so woefully unprepared... The reality is that there are four directives, and you may not in this country... you may not sell bananas of abnormal curvature of the finger, because Brussels says so, now I don't think, and I don't know what Priti...

Alex: We should leave the European Union and a single market of 500 million people on the banana directive?

Interviewer: That's enough please... Ok there's no point... We do not want to be remembered tonight for shouting about bananas so can we all just calm down please...

Liz: Too late.

Question: Boris, you spoke about the faceless bureaucrats in Europe, and then Liz spoke about the Habitats and Birds Directive, well the man who introduced that in Europe was one Stanley Johnson, which you may know better as your father. Now I work for Stanley, I run Environmentalists for Europe, and he does a lot of great work and achieved huge amounts in Europe. Now you can't build walls against air pollution, water pollution and climate change, half of the air pollution we have in this city comes from Europe, so how do you solve that, by leaving the union that allows us to tackle it together?

Boris: Because I think what my father would say... and I agree, that when he began his work in the 1970s, it was a very different EU, and there was a huge amount to be achieved, and I pay tribute to what he did. I think he would also say, though, that it has become a very different proposition, and it's now moving into a, as I say, United States of Europe, in which so many composites, so many areas of our lives, are now justiciable by the European court of justice in Luxembourg, because the EU has, just under the Lisbon Treaty, 45 new areas of competence for virtually every aspect of public policy.

Now, that is not something that we bargained for, what I think you can do on protecting the environment is go to Europa 2000 network, go back to cooperation, and as I think Alex and others have said, we have very high standards in this country, they are protected by our own courts and our own parliament, there is no reason why we should not cooperate to continue to drive forward environmentally, as we've done, by the way, in London and around this country, without the need for the coercive power of a supranational court, and a supranational judiciary. It is simply unnecessary and hugely bureaucratic.

Interviewer: Boris, can you make a point in 10 seconds?

Boris: Well I just, very briefly, one thing that you can't do at the moment because we're in the EU - we have huge shortage of housing, in this city particularly, in the whole of the south east - a lot of the pressure, the price pressure, is driven by the huge attractiveness of the international market, people want to come to London, people are buying properties from abroad. Now I think a very attractive policy would be to have a tax on foreign buyers, and to make sure that, you know, if they're going to have an asset in this country, then they use it. You cannot do that as long as we are in the EU.

Alex: Well that's very interesting, if only Boris had become mayor of London, he'd have been able to implement such a policy - instead of which, much of London, of which I can see, has not been sold to French and Germans, it's been sold to sheikhs and oligarchs, who've ended up with... We wanted a positive idea, in this campaign, now I would have loved, for the remain side to have taken the £2.5bn net contribution, the EU migrants, or expats as we'd have called them if they were our people going to Spain, the EU expats who have come to this country, £2.5bn a year net contribution.

For that net contribution, you could hypothecate it to building 100,000 socially rented houses a year across the country. Now, what I'd like to see the remain campaign do is articulate the benefits that as a country we have, from these EU expats, and translate it into policies that actually have a tangible result for the people across the country.

Question: Vote leave have put Turkey's accession to the European Union on much of the literature that's going to people's doors at the moment, and I just wondered, if the UK does vote to remain on June 23rd, do you think the prime minister should commit to a referendum on Turkey's membership of the EU, if they ever achieve all 35 chapters required?

Boris: Well at the moment there is no such commitment from the government and it is the government's policy...

Question: Would you like there to be one then Boris? Because I'm aware there's not one, which is why I'm asking you if you'd like there to be one.

Boris: I think it's an issue of very great importance to the people of this country, I think that they deserve to be consulted on it, we don't normally have referendums on accessions, and I find it very unlikely that the government would grant a referendum on any new accession, and that is not a protection that we have.

Alex: We do have a veto on accession, contrary to what the leave campaign said. Now, Boris is being too shy on this because he was a signed up member of Conservative Friends of Turkey...

Boris: I still am.

Alex: Who were campaigning for Turkey's accession to the European Union, so I've now come to the conclusion, that Boris wants Turkey in, so he can use it as a scare to make sure the UK voted out. That's the only logical explanation for campaigning for Turkey to come into the European Union, while your own campaign says their membership is a reason for the UK to go.

Boris: Actually there's a very good case for, you know, for Turkey and the UK having, as William Hague, I think, himself said, a while back, a new type of associate relationship with the EU. We should be, I think, outside the EU, and I think Turkey...

Alex: Do you want Turkey in?

Boris: I... provided we come out.

Alex: Well, there we have it. It was the scheme! It was the plan.

Boris: I'm all in favour of Turkey coming in but I want us to come out...

Alex: It was the plan. Unbelievable.

Interviewer: There were more people in the room that said they would be happier in than out. Some people didn't put their hand up. Boris you wanted to quickly come back. Very quickly.

Boris: Just to that gentleman there, and to Alex's point. Actually what the EU does, is in trying to turn itself into a defence pact, undermines Nato, and if you look at all the areas where the EU has been involved in trying to preserve stability in the European continent, I remember the Bosnia business where the EU was given trust to sort that business out, for about four years the EU led on it, it was a total disaster. A million people died. NATO eventually came in, the Dayton Accord, do you remember, the Americans finally took - I remember, I reported it in detail...

Alex: No no no, but when you wrote that two years ago, you believed it, did you?

Boris: Second, second, second: I don't think anybody in their right mind could say, whatever you say about Vladimir Putin, he's a tyrant, he's a technocrat and all the rest of it, he certainly is, I don't think the European Union's diplomacy in Ukraine was very good at all, I think it was a disaster. All this, all this undermines the fundamentals of our defence, which are the Nato Alliance. You talk about the biggest peace, period of peace since the Antonines...

Alex: No, that was your quote, this is an exact quote from Boris, two years ago. It was your Antonines

Boris: And actually, that has been guaranteed, that has been guaranteed by the Nato Alliance. And that is fundamental...

Alex: A jolly jape isn't it, but two years ago, Boris said exactly in his book what I quoted to you a few minutes ago, and if he believed it two years ago, he either stopped believing it over the last two years, or he has some...

[Boris and Alex shout over each other]

Interviewer: In France, they want to know, will they need a visa to visit the UK if Britain leaves the EU?

Boris: No.

Interviewer: In Germany, they’re asking why Brexit is bad for London’s financial centre…

Boris: It isn’t…

Interviewer: Of course the leave campaign would dispute… I think we need to turn your microphone off.

Alex: Hear hear.

Liz: I think that the people who are dominant in the leave campaign are really on the right, they want a small state, they don't support the social solidarity or the view that we are stronger when we work together, and there should be a floor underneath...

Boris: But John Mann, John Mann, Gisela Stuart... Gisela Stuart, John Mann, Kate Hoey... Total rubbish.

Interviewer: Why would any club treat former members better than current members, Boris Johnson...?

Boris: Well I cite... what about the British empire, for instance? Where actually, the United States of America did pretty well by seceding, don't you think? I, well... The Soviet Union, was a total disaster, kept lots of nation states glued together...

Alex: Trying to catch up with these examples...

Boris: ...Glued together in a way that was opaque, remote, antidemocratic...

Alex: Soviet Union, United States of America, the empire...

Boris: ...And in the end, they did far better, to break up that system... there's nowhere else, it's very interesting the question you raised, because it's not a club, it's totally wrong, it's not a club, it's a system of government, and it's a supranational system which has a single court, which which there is no recourse, it's the supreme court, we all have to obey its law, and it touches more and more areas, it is totally inscrutable - we don't know who makes our laws, and it's crying out for fundamental reform. The only way to get that reform is to vote leave and take back control, take back control on June 23rd.

Boris: He brought up that Scotland was run by Brussels and London…

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-telegraph-eu-debate-with-boris-johnson-and-alex-salmond-all/

And

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G5L41hdybI

[top]

14th June 2016: - The Telegraph EU Debate Highlights, debate with Boris Johnson, Liz Kendall, Alex Salmond and Priti Patel

[There is a] “fantastic prize” if Britain votes to leave the European Union.
“How many directives have the EU passed on bananas? Have you looked at the banana directives? Have you got them there? I happen to have taken the trouble to research it, unlike you.”

”If we’d been doing the testing in this country rather than relying on procedures of the EU I think there is a real chance that that would not have happened.”
“Millions of people in this country would not have bought machines that were very expansive and very, very polluting. That’s a classic example of how the EU works against the interests not just of the consumer but of the environment.”

[Politicians] “should not regularly remit fundamental questions to people in this way. I think that’s why both the Europe Union question and the Scottish question should be generational questions.”

“It was a Bank of England study which showed that for every 10% increase in immigration there was 2% reduction in wages.”

Source:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-telegraph-eu-debate-with-boris-johnson-and-alex-salmond-all/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G5L41hdybI

[top]

15th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Michael Gove

“Michael Gove doing v well in setting out positive case to #VoteLeave #bbcqt. Keep going!”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743146902737326080

[top]

15th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Michael Gove and migration on BBC Question Time

“Gove spot on. We value migration but we want to take back control #VoteLeave #bbcqt”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743148207929163776

15th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Michael Gove on BBC Question Time

“Yet again Gove whacked it out of the park tonight - bravo #VoteLeave #bbcqt”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743149221960945664

[top]

15th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about being on ITV’s This Morning

“Lovely to meet @hollywills + @Rylan on @itvthismorning just now. Thanks for letting me make the case to #VoteLeave”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743033866382938112

[top]

15th June 2016: Boris Johnson writes an article in the Evening Standard

I was waiting on my bike at the traffic lights and a man wandered across and looked me sorrowfully up and down. I knew what he was going to say. “Boris,” he said. “I voted for you — but you’ve made the wrong call on this referendum. We don’t want to be Little Englanders. Think of the geopolitics. Think of the world!” he said, and I understand at least the emotion behind his words.

London is the greatest urban economy in the world. We have 300 languages spoken on the streets. There are more Chinese students studying at London universities than there are in any city outside China. Of the London population, 38 per cent was born abroad.

It is this amazing cosmopolitan vibe that helps make London the most visited city on earth, and also the world’s financial capital, with an unbeatable concentration of talent that has seen the City massively lengthen its lead over EU rivals. London defied the Euro-enthusiasts 15 years ago when the UK stayed out of the single currency, and it will defy them again if we vote Leave — not just because French construction companies or German telecoms giants will continue to raise capital in London but also because if you are an Indian company buying an African mobile phone firm, there is simply nowhere better than London to do the deal. That is what we mean by a “world city”.

It is vital that we preserve this openness and dynamism — and that is one of the very reasons why we should vote Leave and take back control next week. This referendum is not about our relations with the world. It is about our membership of the European Union, a sclerotic and anti-democratic project that has caused economic misery in much of Europe; that pre-empts £350 million a week of UK cash, that generates about 60 per cent of our laws and that is holding us back in a modern globalised economy.

It was just about possible to argue in 1975 that the Common Market was an internationalist experiment, opening us up to the delights of the continent. Today it is the EU straitjacket that is actually preventing us from engaging with the rest of the world.

Locked in the EU, we cannot do free- trade deals with some of the fastest growing economies — in South-East Asia, China, India or the Americas — because our trade policy is entirely controlled by the EU Commission, where only 3.6 per cent of officials come from this country. According to the commission’s own figures, such deals could generate 284,000 extra jobs in the UK alone. Or take UK representation in global bodies: the IMF, the UN, and all the global standards-setting bodies that increasingly decide the terms of world trade, whether it is the Codex Alimentarius (on food) or CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species).

The Euro-ideology is to create one country out of many, to build a United States of Europe. So the EU Commission is gradually replacing member states at the global table — on the principle that the whole EU should be speaking as one.

The result is that Britain’s distinctive and humane voice — as the fifth biggest economy in the world — is being drowned out. There are inevitably times when the EU cannot agree a position, and says nothing — as sometimes happens in CITES — so that the British people end up with no one to represent them at all.

We spend huge amounts of energy trying to “influence” this EU position: just look at the vast numbers of Foreign Office staff devoted to this shrinking part of the world economy. This means that we have proportionally fewer resources to devote to the real growth economies: and I have met many superb UK trade and diplomatic representatives who are mystified and resentful at this short-sighted Eurocentrism.

As for the impact of our efforts in Brussels, we are outvoted more than any other country, an experience that will intensify as the eurozone countries go forward with their desperate plans to prop up the currency, using the single market to create a totally undemocratic single economic government.

What is it really producing, this vaunted “membership of the single market” — this Aladdin’s cave to which we are supposed to have such privileged access? If you look at exports of goods and services to the single market in the past 23 years (since the birth of the single market programme) there are 36 countries that have done better than us at exporting both goods and services to the EU — and they are outside the EU, with none of the regulatory burden.

And then there is one fundamental way in which the EU system is shutting us off from the 93 per cent of the world that is not in the EU, and that is in the movement of people. One of the reasons Sir James Dyson so passionately wants to leave the EU — to take back control of UK immigration policy — is that he cannot get the non-EU engineers he needs.

One of the most disreputable aspects of the Remain campaign — in addition to their increasingly bizarre and hysterical scaremongering — is to say that anyone who discusses immigration is racist. It is the EU system that is discriminatory — and it is the Leave campaign’s proposal for an Australian-style points based system that is fair and balanced.

I am pro-immigration; but I also believe that it should be controlled, and done with democratic consent. It is that lack of control that has caused such public disquiet — as the Remain campaign is belatedly recognising. Indeed, it is only by taking back control that we can spike the guns of those political forces that are truly hostile to immigrants.

If you want our great capital to be genuinely open to the world — rather than locked in and diminished by a failing EU system — then go global, vote Leave, and take back control next week.

Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/boris-johnson-london-is-a-global-city-that-s-why-we-must-leave-the-eu-a3272431.html

[top]

15th June 2016: Boris Johnson appears on ITV’s This Morning and defends his position on immigration and leaving the EU

Rylan Clarke: I've been following this campaign very very closely over the past couple of weeks and months - I don't know who to believe. That's I think is what a lot of people's main problem's here. Do you promise today, to tell us the truth?

Boris: Absolutely.

Holly Willoughby: Good.

Rylan: So the first question I'll ask you, just to test you...

Boris: Come on.

Rylan: ...Do you want to be prime minister?

Boris: I want David Cameron to be prime minister, and I wanted to go on, and he can, and should, I think, take us through after we take back control, which I hope we will do on Thursday, and take back control of our economy, of our democracy, I think David Cameron is the ideal guy, to do the renegotiation that is going to be necessary...

Holly: You can understand what people ask that question, because it wasn't that long ago, a few months ago, that in The Telegraph you did a whole article about the fact that, actually, we will benefit from staying in Europe, and suddenly you appear to have changed your mind, and is that just part of your sort of plan to get yourself into number 10?

Boris: No Holly, if you look at that article it ended with a resounding conclusion that we'd prosper mightily outside, which was indeed the view of the prime minister only a few months ago, when he was saying you know we were going to get all this scaremongering and people would say we'd be worse off- actually, he said then, that we could do very well outside the European Union, and we could do trade deals, and there would be scaremongering.

We're now seeing, I'm afraid, quite a lot of... I think, quite panic-stricken stuff, from the remain campaign, and I think there's a fantastic opportunity on Thursday: take back control of so many things, so many aspects of our lives and of our democracy, and a chance to believe in ourselves - we're a great country, we do things fantastically well, and I don't think we've got anything remotely to be afraid of, and what I think will happen, actually, on Thursday is that there will be a great period of calm, because all the project fear stuff will suddenly be over, and it was, it was the, it was the head of the remain campaign himself, Stuart Rose, who said there wouldn't be any economic shock at all - what you would see, is people on low incomes get a pay rise.

Holly: The problem is, you do sort of seem to change your mind, because I mean in that answer you did say it would be better if we stayed in Europe, and you've also said things about bananas, and the restrictions, and we can't sell...

Boris: I have to disagree, respectfully - with that article, I don't know which part you're quoting, but that article ended with a resounding conclusion that we do very well outside. And on bananas, which I've been attacked about, and indeed they sent a, they sent a gorilla, or a person dressed in a gorilla suit, to kind of monster me - how many directives do you think there are, from the European Union, on bananas? There are four. Do we need them, do we need to be told that you cannot have, you know, abnormal curvature of your bananas?

Holly: But they don't actually say that, do they? They give you three... they give you the three options for the companies who sell them, but they don't actually say you can't sell them at all.

Boris: No, one of them says that there should not be abnormal curvature of the fingers on the bunches. And I think that's a trivial example of the kind of massive amounts of regulation that we're getting from Brussels, and that costs UK business about six hundred million pounds a week. Now, I think we'd be better off out, we could take back control of huge sums of money, about ten and a half billion pounds a year net, we could spend a hundred million pounds a week more on our NHS, which we can't do at the moment - this money's going all around...

Holly: But what does it do for me as a mum? There's lots of families out there, the day that we wake up in the morning, say you've got your way, what happens to us individually as families?

Boris: I think everybody over time would be much better off, we could do free trade deals with the growth economies around the world, we could take back control of our whole way of making laws, so we won't get any stuff imposed on us from Brussels, from other European countries, we could take back control of our immigration policy, so we had one that was balanced and fair...

Holly: Yeah, the immigration thing is interesting, Hattie said if we leave the EU and immigration is dramatically stopped, who will do all the jobs that immigrants currently do? British systems don't want to do the low-paid, possibly thankless tasks. What will happen there?

Boris: Well, actually I don't agree with that, with your correspondent about what British people want to do, I think people do want to do jobs, people who are here now would of course have their rights protected and under all sorts of treaties, so EU workers here, and indeed British citizens working abroad, would have their rights protected, so there's no problem there.

What we think, is what I think, is that the system is very very unfair, particularly to people who want to come from outside the EU - they may be very talented, they may be people who are brilliant at software engineering or paramedics or whatever it happens to be from India or Australia or wherever - they can't get in, but we have no control whatever, over huge numbers coming from the 27 other EU countries, and last year as you saw in the figures, we had 184,000 net from the EU, 77,000 who came across without even having a job to come to. Now, I'm pro-immigration, I believe in immigration, but I think what people feel is it would be better if there was an Australian style points based system, so that for our economy you could get the people that we actually need to do the job - so your question, is a, is a good one, and the question we're being asked is a good one...

Holly: I'm glad you approve, finally.

Boris: It's a good one...

Holly: It's actually Hattie's question...

Boris: Hattie's question, yeah. I think Hattie's right, we could still get people...

Holly: You just told her she was wrong.

Boris: You would still get people into those jobs...

Holly: You do change your mind a lot. Back to my initial point...

Boris: ...You could still get though - I think Hattie was, she's wrong in saying they would be sent back, that will not happen...

Holly: Right, so she's half wrong...

Boris: But you could you could still have people coming in, provided they had a job to go to, and provided that they were - they had talents and skills that were useful for the UK economy - and now that, I think, is an approach that people would rally behind.

Rylan: Boris let me just ask you...

Boris: ...I always think that people would be very supportive.

Rylan: With this - immigration aside, I mean...

Boris: ...But you can't do that as long as we're in the EU. You can't do that...

Rylan: OK look, well with the immigration stuff aside, the one thing that bothered bothers me much when I watch this, and I'm thinking about where should I vote with this, is the scaremongering - the sort of David Cameron and the remain party doing this whole doomsday talk about if we leave the EU...

Boris: Well I'm with you.

Rylan: ...This could all go... no but that's what worries me, but then both sides have got the argument - I watched the referendum and I saw, obviously, the debate, and it just seems ... someone's lying somewhere, because for every argument there's a counter-argument - who's lying? Who is lying?

Boris: Well, look, I think that the prime minister was right a few months ago, when he was very clear and said we do well outside the EU, I think Lord Rose of the remain campaign - the remain campaign. He wants he wants us to stay in, but he actually said there would be no economic shock and what you would see is that people on low incomes actually got a pay rise, and I think that's really worth thinking about.

I also think the people who are right are people like Antony Bamford of JCB - you know, runs the biggest private manufacturing company in this country - basically, they're building Britain, they're building cities around the world, I'm really interested in what he's got to say, because you would have thought - we're talking, what we're talking about in the EU is this single market, and guys like Bamford, or James Dyson who makes the hairdryers and the vacuum things or whatever, that is what it should be all about. Free movement of those sorts of goods within the EU, but, both those heroes of British manufacturing think we would be better off out and we would create - and what Sir James Dyson says: is we'd create more wealth, and more jobs, if we come out.

Holly: And what happens to you and David Cameron after this - can you remain friends? I mean do you feel that you've sort of betrayed him now?

Boris: I mean of course, everybody... Holly we were just saying, and Rylan was just saying, everybody wants to have facts. I think people are profoundly uninterested in the relationships between us...

Holly: I'm not. I'm really interested. I mean, do you...

Rylan: We love a gossip Boris.

Boris: I know, but it's... perfectly legitimate line of inquiry but my view...

Holly: Thank you again. I'm glad you approve.

Boris: Well no, I do approve, but my view is - my view is that, in what, eight days we've got to go, I think the fundamental issue is, the choice for our people and our country. We've got a historic opportunity - take back control of huge sums of money, take back control of our democracy, and lead the way for reform in Europe - you know there are hundreds of millions of people around the European Union who are fed up with how remote and unaccountable Brussels, is they're fed up with the whole system. The Eurozone is a disaster area, it's got, you know, youth unemployment running at 51% in Greece, 45% in in Spain, it needs change, and if the British people speak up for change I think it will be a massive force for good.

Holly: And will it be a disaster area for you, if you lose? What happens to you?

Boris: Who cares?

Holly: We do.

Boris: I mean nobody... it's, I think the, this is much much more important than...

Rylan: How would you feel going forward, you know, with Britain, if it does remain in the EU? How will you feel going forward with that?

Boris: Well, you know, I suppose that what you mean Rylan, is do I think that we should continue to campaign for reform? Yes but we won't get it. And you're hearing now from the remain campaign that they think - they're now saying “oh well the deal wasn't any good” - you remember the prime minister - “that wasn't any good after all, we've got to try again and get some better stuff on on borders” - I think the Labour remain guys are saying that.

But that is what we've - what we've proved beyond any doubt whatever, is that that is not possible. We had the maximum moment of leverage earlier on this year... if we surrender and vote to stay in, they won't give us a sausage. They won't give us anything. And this is the moment, the only way to get change is to vote leave next Thursday.

Holly: And I mean, obviously, clearly, when it comes to politics and your personal life you like to keep those things very separate and whenever I've asked you anything that sort of urges toward a personal thing...

Boris: You haven't asked me anything so far but...

Holly: No no I'm not going, but all I'm gonna say is that it does feel like this campaign has been quite personal against you and people have said terrible things - there's been things about your hair and there's been things about this... does it, does it hurt?

Boris: No, and it's... and also, just get back to the point on which - one of the many points which you and I are in complete agreement - I think it's just... what people want to hear, is the facts. They want to hear what's going on, they want to hear the... what we could do on day one. And what we're saying today, from the leave campaign, is we could take back control of our immigration system - Australian-style points based immigration system - take back control of huge sums of money, so you could have £100m a week for the NHS, you could cut VAT on fuel, which could be very very helpful for loads of people...

Rylan: Boris, I hate to cut you off, I'm so sorry, because we are running out of time, but very quickly...

Boris: Final point is you end the supremacy of the European court of justice, which is even more important.

Rylan: Before we go to the break, very quickly, very very quickly: how confident are you that you're gonna win?

Boris: Look, you know, it's in the hands of the British people, and they're very great and very wise, and they will think about it hard, and I very much hope they come to the right decision.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHSavoiFxyE

[top]

16th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture of campaigning in Norfolk

“Fantastic welcome to Lowestoft, Norfolk, this am. Grt to meet some of the troops. Keep at it folks! #VoteLeave”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743358286754287616

[top]

16th June 2016: Boris Johnson in the east campaigning, as reported on ITV News

[Leaving the European Union would help the UK] “take back control” of its fishing]

“We think we'd get more boats coming to Lowestoft. We hope that carries your core support.”

Source: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2016-06-16/boris-johnson-arrives-in-the-east-to-promote-leave-campaign/

[top]

16th June 2016: Boris Johnson visiting a fish factory in the east, as reported in The Sun

"They're pinching our fish. We think we'd get more boats coming to Lowestoft. We hope that carries your core support."

[On becoming prime minister] “No, that's not going to happen.”

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/1292317/boris-johnson-accidentally-gets-chummy-with-ex-edl-man-as-he-visits-fish-factory-on-brexit-battle-bus/

[top]

16th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture from Norwich with Steve Hilton

“Hello from Norwich! Grt to have the support of @SteveHiltonx. Here's my attempt at a selfie from the bus #VoteLeave”

Source:https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743420547682471936

16th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Jo Cox

“Just heard the absolutely horrific news about the attack on Jo Cox MP. My thoughts are with Jo and her family”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743432645619687424

[top]

16th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets about Jo Cox’s Death

“Sad & shocked to hear of Jo Cox's death. Appalling a MP should lose her life simply doing her best for constituents. Thoughts w/ Jo's family”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/743486312389435392

[top]

19th June 2019: Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column “Please vote leave on Thursday, because we’ll never get this chance again”

People often complain about voting these days. They say it doesn’t make any difference. They say that whatever party they choose they get the same old broken promises. In fact, they say there is no point in bothering at all.

Well, whatever you say about this referendum campaign, it is a moment of fundamental decision. When you pick up your ballot paper this Thursday, you have it in your hands to transform Britain’s current democratic arrangements for the better. You can change the whole course of European history – and if you vote Leave, I believe that change will be overwhelmingly positive.

What is the Remain camp offering? Nothing. No change, no improvement, no reform; nothing but the steady and miserable erosion of parliamentary democracy in this country. If we vote Remain, we stay locked in the back of the car, driven by someone with an imperfect command of English, and going a direction we don’t want to go.

If Britain votes to Remain in the EU, then we continue to be subject to an increasingly anti-democratic system that is now responsible for 60 per cent of the law that goes through Westminster – a phenomenon that contributes so powerfully to the modern voter’s apathy, the sensation that we no longer control our destiny, and that voting changes nothing.

If we vote Remain, we do nothing to rebuke the elites in Brussels who have imposed the euro on the continent, and thrown a generation of young people on the scrap-heap, and who are utterly indifferent to the misery they are causing for the sake of their bankrupt ideology.

We will remain prisoners of a trade regime that will not allow this country – the fifth biggest economy on earth – to negotiate with America, or China or India or any of the other growth economies of the world; because that privilege is reserved exclusively for the hierarchs of the European Commission, of whose vast staff only 3.6 per cent come from this country.

If we stay, we will find our global influence and weight not enhanced, but diminished

If we stay, we will find our global influence and weight not enhanced, but diminished – as the EU ruthlessly cuckoos us aside from our seat on international bodies, from the IMF and the UN and the WTO to even the North East Atlantic Fisheries Management Board, which determines the fate of the fish in so much of UK waters. Iceland has a seat; Norway has a seat; the Faroe islands have a seat. The UK is represented by the Commission.

We are not more powerful, or more influential for being around the table in Brussels – look at the pitiful results of the so-called renegotiation earlier this year. We are drowned out. And it is an illusion to think that if we vote to Remain, we are somehow opting for the status quo. The status quo is not on offer. If we stay in, we will be engaged willy-nilly in the desperate attempt to keep the euro together, by building an economic government of Europe.

We have already seen how we can be forced to bail out the debtor nations; and we have seen – in the absence of border controls – how the despair in southern Europe contributes to the substantial flows of migration, which show no sign of diminishing. If we vote to stay then I am afraid the whole EU caravan carries blithely on; and when I think of the champagne – guzzling orgy of backslapping in Brussels that would follow a Remain vote on Friday, I want to weep. We must not let it happen.

Think of what we can achieve if we vote Leave. We can take back control of huge sums of money – £10.6 billion net per year – and spend it on our priorities. We can take back control of our borders, and install an Australian-style points-based system that is fair both to people coming from the EU and from non-EU countries.

“Now is the time to believe in ourselves, and in what Britain can do, and to remember that we always do best when we believe in ourselves”

We can do global trade deals that the EU commission itself believes could generate another 300,000 jobs. Above all we could take back control of our powers to pass laws and set tax rates in the interest of the UK economy. We can re-orientate the UK economy to the whole world, rather than confining ourselves to an EU that now amounts to only 15 per cent of global GDP.

Why shouldn’t we do this? When in the history of this country have we gone wrong by believing in self-government? As this campaign has gone on, the Remain campaign has become more and more hysterical in its threats and warnings, to the point where very few people now believe in them. The IMF? Why on earth should the Treasury expect us to believe the IMF – when it was only a couple of years ago that the Treasury was bitterly (and correctly) denouncing the IMF for running Britain down.

People can sense the true motives behind Project Fear. It isn’t idealism, or internationalism. It’s a cushy elite of politicians and lobbyists and bureaucrats, circling the wagons and protecting their vested interests.

Finally the Remainers are now desperately trying to suggest that anyone who wants to Leave is somehow against the spirit of modern Britain; against openness, tolerance, decency. What nonsense – and what an insult to the people of all races and parties and ages and beliefs who simply want to take back control of this country’s democracy.

It is we who want to give power back to people. It is we who want to stand up against the corporatist and elitist system that will never admit its mistakes. That is why we believe in democracy – because it is the best way humanity has found of correcting the errors of our rulers; and we are mad to throw it away.

Now is the time to believe in ourselves, and in what Britain can do, and to remember that we always do best when we believe in ourselves. Of course we can continue to provide leadership and support for Europe – but intergovernmentally, outside the supranational EU system.

I hope you will vote Leave, and take back control of this great country’s destiny; and if we Vote Leave, then all our votes will count for more in the future. This chance will not come again in our lifetimes, and I pray we do not miss it.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/19/please-vote-leave-on-thursday-because-well-never-get-this-chance/

And

https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153772110831317

[top]

20th June 2016: Boris Johnson on Brexit for The Express and The Star

My news editor would send me to search for unexploded wartime bombs in people's gardens and quiz locals who thought they had spotted UFOs in the skies over the Black Country.

I loved my time in Wolverhampton and a lot has changed since then.

Those of you over the age of 58 will remember being asked to join a 'common market'. Yet the organisation we find ourselves in today is not the one we willingly joined in 1975: it has a common currency, a parliament, an anthem and a flag.

The case for leaving the European Union could not be more compelling than it is today.

This referendum is a truly once-in-a-lifetime chance for the people of the West Midlands to take back control of their country – control of our borders, our public services, our money, our laws and our democracy.

Whether you're in Wolverhampton or Walsall, leaving the EU will make it easier for people in this country to live a better life.

Brexit will boost jobs

Take jobs. Over 15 million people in Britain are employed by a small or medium-sized business – people like Peter Shirley, the Managing Director of Midland Chilled Foods or Chris Kelly of Keltruck. It's their ability to grow and take on more staff that is essential for the long term success of our economy.

But as a member of the EU these businesses are prevented from doing just that. Red tape and regulation costs small businesses more than £600 million every week, despite the fact that just six per cent of all businesses actually export to the EU.

This kind of arrangement is alright for the big businesses who can cope with those extra costs, but for SMEs it's a cost that many are increasingly unable to afford. And that matters for people here in the West Midlands – for every extra job opening that a business puts out on their shop window, that's another person in this country with the security of a regular pay cheque.

Leave does not mean Armageddon

Don't listen to the doom-sayers and the Armageddon predictors. There is absolutely no reason why Britain would not be successful by leaving the EU. For one thing Britain is a great country. Our economy is the fifth largest in the world and last year we grew faster than most other major advanced economies. Our education system is world class, with three of the world's top 10 Universities here in Britain.

And despite the EU, we still have tremendous influence on the world stage and the capacity to do great things – we have the fifth-largest defence budget in the world, we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and we are currently the second biggest giver of humanitarian aid to war-torn Syria.

But there is another reason why we would succeed – Europe is failing. Every month we read about yet another crisis in the Eurozone, with countries such as Greece facing the most appalling social and economic circumstances. Over half of all young Greeks are currently out of work. Europe, as a proportion of the world's GDP has declined from more than 30 per cent in 1980 to nearly 20 per cent today. If we vote to remain, how long will it be before the unelected Presidents of the EU come knocking on our door for more money to bail out yet another disaster within the Eurozone?

We must control our border

And it's not just the economic storms that Britain is unable to prepare for. The EU is the only trading bloc in the world where countries must accept free movement in order to trade freely and co-operate with one another.

Not only does that mean that we are prevented from negotiating our own free trade deals with non-EU countries, but it has led to a level of immigration that we are unable to control.

As a member of the EU the fact that we cannot control the number of people who can come to this country means that it is impossible for us to plan for the public services that we all rely on. Whether it's in our hospitals, schools or on the housing ladder, having an open border with almost 500 million people will clearly make that problem worse and not better.

Uncontrolled immigration is an issue that matters to millions of people in this country. We need to control our own border in a way that is fair to everyone who wants to live and work in this country. Currently because of our arrangement with the EU, we are forced to discriminate against people from non-EU countries in an attempt to control immigration – that means our economy misses out on skilled people, many of whom share our values, culture and history.

EU cost is crucial

But it is the cost of being a member that is the most perverse. Time and time again we are told that people like farmers and scientists rely on 'EU funding'. Excuse me? This is simply part of the money that we hand over to the EU – a staggering sum of £350 million a week – half of which we never see again, much of the rest spent by EU bureaucrats who decide our priorities for us and over whom we have no control.

We can no longer claim to choose those who govern us. Since joining for economic reasons 40 years ago, we have gradually handed over the power to govern ourselves, control our own borders and make our own way in the wider world. Thursday 23rd June is the one day that we can take back control.

Voting to leave the EU is not some leap into the unknown. It is the chance to be like any other nation – one that is successful and dynamic, trading and co-operating with others but which is beholden only to itself and its own citizens.

The people of Wolverhampton have more chance of seeing a UFO land in their street than seeing meaningful reform of the EU. That is why voting to Leave is the right thing to do on 23rd June.

Brussels has had its chance – now it's your turn.

Source: https://www.expressandstar.com/comment-and-opinion/2016/06/20/boris-johnson-writes-from-wolverhampton-to-walsall-voting-brexit-is-the-way-to-take-back-control/

[top]

20th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to his Facebook post and Telegraph Article about the EU

“Please vote leave on Thursday, because we'll never get this chance again: “

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/744810041983721472

[top]

20th June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a link to the vote leave website sign up page

“Less than 3 days until your chance to Vote Leave + take control of our country’s destiny. Sign up to join me here: https://action.voteleavetakecontrol.org/stand_with_boris_johnson …”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/744952543327981569

[top]

21st June 2016: Boris Johnson says he will apologise on LBC if Brexit leads to recession, as reported in The Guardian

“Of course I will. I’m not certain what my political career holds anyway. This is far more important than any individual political career. I don’t think London has anything to fear from coming out of the EU, and neither does Britain. When has our country ever gone wrong by believing in ourselves?”

“I want people to know what the consequences of a vote to leave the EU would be before they cast their votes rather than afterward. A vote to leave could see the weekend with a Black Friday and serious consequences for ordinary people.”

“The people I listen to are not people like George Soros, who speculate on market movements – that’s how he makes his money. I listen to people like Anthony Bamford of JCB, the biggest private manufacturer in this country.”

[On the possibility of a leave vote] “…incredible with the polls where they are that the British government, the cabinet secretary, the whole of the civil service is not actively working on it.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/boris-johnson-will-make-tv-apology-if-brexit-triggers-recessionand https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JEOx_0I2g2g

[top]

21st June 2016: Boris Johnson: Live on LBC Radio

Nick Ferrari: The economic case is absolutely complete for remain, isn’t it Boris Johnson?

BORIS: Absolutely not, I think that the remain campaign have been running project fear very solidly over the last few months, and its perfectly true that they’ve had an impact on some people’s thinking about it, but I think the vast majority of people are now completely discounting it. And le me tell you, if you look at the…

NICK: But the markets, Mr Johnson.

BORIS: Look at the remain campaign themselves, the prime minister was the most passionate defender of Britain’s ability to prosper and thrive outside the EU, you had Lord Rose himself, the leader of the remain campaign, saying that we wouldn’t see any kind of shock at all, and in fact what we would see would be wages for the lower paid increasing as a result of taking back control of our boarders and taking back control of out democracy. That is fundamentally what is at stake on Thursday.

NICK: Pound got its biggest one-day gain in seven years, seven years, as markets bet on a remain victory.

BORIS: Well, let’s see, I think…

NICK: The financers want to remain, don’t they?

BORIS: Well I think the financers want to make money, I think fluctuations in the markets is what is the truth, but the pound is roughly at the same level, in fact I think a bit higher than when the whole thing kicked off. The pound is dependent entirely on the strength of the UK economy.

NICK: George Soros is someone to listen to, isn’t he? On financial matters, George Soros or Boris Johnson?

BORIS: I think you should listen to people who make fantastic things, fantastic bits of technology for this country, who think we would be better off out. And people I listen to, not people like George Soros, who speculate on market movements, that’s how he makes his money, I listen to people like Anthony Bamford of JCB, the biggest private manufacturer in this country…

NICK: Not quite on the same level as Mr Soros though when it comes to financial wizardry.

BORIS: No, higher I would say, higher, higher

NICK: Anthony Bamford, the JCB fellow is…

BORIS: Yes, absolutely, and lets be quite serious…

NICK: As regards markets?

BORIS:…Be quite serious, this is a guy…

NICK: No, no, regarding employment I agree, he created…

BORIS: Sorry, George Soros, we are talking about two completely different things. George Soros is…

NICK: No, no, but for market analysis. Job creation, Anthony Bamford, 10 times out of 10. Market analysis, George Soros.

BORIS: I think market speculation, George Soros, and making a ton of money out of fluctuations in the pound, George Soros. Creating jobs in the real world, sticking up for the interests of this country, believing in this country and what it can do, Bamford. Dyson. Dyson, the number one maker of vacuum cleaners not just in this country, but in Germany. He’s beaten Bosch, he’s beaten Meal, he’s beaten Siemens, and I think what an incredible thing.

NICK: Why don’t we see more of him, why isn’t he on stage with you more?

BORIS: I can’t tell you Nick, the pressure that project fear and remain put on senior businessmen not to articulate their views.

NICK: In what way?

BORIS: Well, because everyone has, one way or another an interest…

NICK: What, did they get phone calls at the dead of night?

BORIS: In keeping friendly with government, and…

NICK: And how does government make that known, do they wake up and there’s a horse’s head in their bed?

BORIS: There are, I think it is, a well known…

NICK: Is there a vacuum, just a vacuum cleaner without the engine?

BORIS: I do not wish in any way to be disparaging or critical of my friends in government, but it is well known that there is an operation is Downing Street, and you will get a call from certain gentlemen whose names you can discover, younger, fitter people than us Nick, who go out and do the research. And they will say look, we want to continue to have contracts with you, and its very important that we want to maintain a friendly relationship, you know there’s an honours system, as you know, and that’s how. So the heroism, the heroism…

NICK: So that’s how it happens, the businesspeople are lent on and told listen, if you want a gong…

BORIS:…So the heroism, therefore of people like Bamford and Dyson, is very remarkable. And people go on about the single market, you know, as if it was this absolute holy grail, and we have to be within its system as opposed to having access to it. Actually, listen to these guys, they make bits of kit, fantastic bits of cutting-edge technology that circulate around Europe, and they want to come out. They want to take back control.

NICK: It’s effectively bribery, by the government with contracts.

BORIS: I’m not going to cast doubt on the motives of the people who…

NICK: Make these calls…

BORIS: Keep their heads down. But let’s face it, there is a lot of….

NICK: …and say we won’t buy your JCBs.

BORIS: …there is a lot of pressure put on people. But I think what’s amazing is how many businesspeople are willing to put their heads above the parapet. We had letters from 350 businesspeople saying, the other day, saying they want to come out. Most small businesses want to come out, because everyone, 100% of our businesses have to obey every rule, every jot and comma of the EU regulations, and yet only 6% export to the EU. Now I think we’d increase our exports, I think the evidence is that we would actually increase our exports to the EU if we came out of the legal, legislative morass of the single market. Now I’ll tell you my proof for that…

NICK: Now that’s very speculative isn’t it?

BORIS: I’ll tell you why I think that.

NICK: Go ahead.

BORIS: In the last 20 years or so, since the single market, well since 1992, when the single market started, it’s the countries outside, America, China, the Gulf states, 36 countries, huge numbers of countries all together, outside the EU, have done better in increasing their exports to the EU than we have, can you believe that?

NICK: Well yeah, because you just told me.

BORIS: It’s absolutely true. We talk about the scotch whiskey, scotch whiskey sales have grown less fast than sales of American bourbon into the single market. So, look at this thing.

NICK: That’s your mobile phone.

BORIS: My mobile phone. This is an American device made in China, and they all have access to the single market. That’s the future for us. Free trade, doing trade deals with countries around the world, generating hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

NICK: But why the change of heart from last year, before we go to calls for you? Because you were in favour of Europe.

BORIS: Because I always been idealistic about Europe with a capital ”E”, I lived there.

NICK: And about trading as well.

BORIS: I certainly think we need to step up our trading, and I think one of the disappointing things about our relationship is the slow growth in trade. And I actually think this would be boosted by coming out of this.

NICK: But you supported the single market, didn’t you?

BORIS: I do support access to the single market, I think that is valuable. But I think the problem with remaining within the EU system is that it’s not just about market anymore, it’s a gigantic political project, and you’ve now got the European court of justice deciding all sorts of things, who’s going to stay on our streets, whether we can deport terrorist suspects, and indeed people with very serious criminal convictions, people whose presence is not conducive to the public good, deciding all sort of aspects of divorce law, for heaven’s sake. What has this got to do with the single market? Nothing, it’s got out of control.

NICK: Let’s go though to some of the calls. Zelco is in Hammersmith, you’re through to Boris Johnson. Go ahead Zelco.

Zelco: Good morning Nick, good morning Boris.

BORIS: Good mooring Zelco.

ZELCO: Boris I have to tell you that twice I voted for you to be mayor of London, I thought you were great, a great mayor.

BORIS: Thank you Zelco, I know what you’re going to say.

ZELCO: However, I think you only lately show your true political colour, by choosing Brexit. Now a lot of people don’t trust you because of that. Now, I’ll give you chance now, in front of audience. If we Brexit, and we go into recession, would you have the political courage and dignity to go on TV, and in Japanese style, politicians say…

BORIS: Commit hara-kiri.

ZELCO: No, no, no, no hara-kiri, I made it wrong, I mean apologise.

BORIS: Well, of course Zelco, of course I will…

ZELCO: And will you leave politics after that?

BORIS: Well I don’t know Zelco, quite frankly what my political career holds, anyway this is far more important than any political career or life of any politician. Zelco, I don’t think that London has anything to fear from coming out of the EU. This is a very extraordinary economy and we can continue…

NICK: What about Britain though?

BORIS: …Neither does Britain, absolutely, a fortiori, Britain is the fifth biggest economy in the world, we have the opportunity to do new trade deals, and Zelco, when has our country ever gone wrong by believing in ourselves and our democratic institutions and trying to make sure that our votes count in elections? That is what this is about. And I know what you say about voting for me twice and then not voting for me again. My views haven’t changed, I’m a democrat. I believe in devolution. I believe that politicians should be accountable. When I was mayor of London, people knew who I was, and…

NICK: Your views have changed about being in Europe though.

BORIS: Actually, I’ve been consistently, if you look back, the most Eurosceptic journalist in the last 25 years or so.

NICK: 2014, you were still saying you believed in it.

BORIS: And what I hoped, and you’ll know this because we discussed it many times, was that we would get fundamental, far reaching reform. We got nothing of the kind, we got nothing of the kind, and I think that is generally accepted. So, I think the big choice is, do we stay in, and Zelco I can see, yes there are arguments for staying in, and the argument that I would make for staying in is that we don’t want to upset other European countries.

But we can counter that argument by saying look, we are passionately committed to Europe, we are passionately committed to the defence and to the security of Europe, and to cooperation on foreign policy, on all sorts of things. But I think the super national system of the European court of justice, of the parliament, is now out of control. They’re taking too many decisions in too many parts of our lives.

NICK: Quick response from you Zelco, then I must move on.

ZELCO: There are so many things which people would most agree with you. However, however, my question was would you apologise to people, would you be humble, would you have the dignity to say, sorry, I made it wrong.

BORIS: I would, because I don’t think it’s going to happen.

NICK: So you would bow on television if the economy goes through the floor in the event of Brexit?

BORIS: Well, I don’t think that it’s going to happen. I think what’s happening now, alas…

NICK: But you would, as Zelco is requesting.

BORIS: Of course, I think I’ve always been pretty humble about everything. The problem with that… yeah, we don’t want you sneering at that Nick, humble, well alright, OK, sometimes, I’ll allow that… the point I would make is that I think the current gloom is being induced by the project fear, and the whole nonsense coming from the remain campaign that Britain is somehow not strong enough…

NICK: You think they’re talking the markets down?

BORIS: I think they’re talking the country down, I really do, I think its most extraordinary…

NICK: David Cameron and George Osborne.

BORIS: This is the most powerful, dynamic urban economy in the world, London. Number one. By miles, and if we continue at this rate, we’re going to knock spots off absolutely everyone. We should be incredibly proud of what this city and country is achieving at the moment.

NICK: So why would David Cameron, George Osborne talk the country down?

BORIS: Well because I think they want to sow in the minds of people like Zelco, good people, the idea that we can’t do it in a different way, and that we can’t strike out on a more democratic path and achieve fundamental reform in Europe. And that’s because I’m afraid we’ve got locked into a logic of trying to defend the status quo, the sad thing is that the status quo isn’t really on offer because if you stay in this system now, it will continue to centralise.

NICK: Zelco thank you. Colin’s in Finchley. Colin, you’re on the radio, what’s your question to Boris Jonson?

Colin: Good morning gentlemen. I’m going to ask you a question sir, and I want you to answer it straight without waffling on. If your dream comes true, if your dream comes true, and we get out of the single market, will you be backing our prime minister or will you be after his veins?

BORIS: Colin, Colin, the answer, I can give you a very straight answer, I’m backing David Cameron to stay on, I’ve told him that repeatedly and I think I have said it on Nick’s show many times. And he’s saying that himself, and I think that’s what people will want to see.

NICK: In a difficult position though, wouldn’t he be, Mr Johnson?

BORIS: I think that actually he’d be in a very powerful position because he’d be, he’d be able to go to the other European capitals and say look, you didn’t give me enough, you didn’t take British demands seriously, now is the time, I’m afraid, to negotiate a fundamental change in our relationships. We’re going to come out of the whole super national structure, we’re going to stop being subject to the law-making of the commission and the European court, and we’re going to continue to participate and lead in all the other areas of European security building, but do it now.

NICK: But would that be before or after world war three? And financial Armageddon. That he’s predicted.

BORIS: Well I think that those things, as everybody, I think most people can see that those warnings are not well founded, and most people can now see that project fear has not worked, and I think most people in their hearts believe in this country, and we know that we will prosper…

NICK: And Mr Cameron doesn’t?

BORIS: I’m sure he does too, and I take great comfort in what he was saying only a few months ago, before the whole project fear thing kicked in, when he was saying that we would prosper outside of the EU.

NICK: We go to Bob in Tottenham, Bob you’re on the radio, good morning.

Bob: Morning Nick, morning Mr Johnson.

BORIS: Morning Bob.

Bob: I would like to vote leave, but my biggest fear is if our country really does well and our economy thrives, it’s in the best interests of all the mainland European governments to make sure we fail, because if we do succeed, it will be the death knell of the European Union.

BORIS: Bob I think it’s actually, I think many people are wondering about that, I think it’s not true at all and I think that actually what will happen is that they will see, there will be a great outburst of realisation that we’ve got it right. People will say, the emperor has no clothes, because it is antidemocratic, they’re facing huge economic problems in their own back yard and look what’s happening in the southern European countries.

And when it comes to the idea that they will give us punishment beatings Bob, which is what I think you’re suggesting, look, the Germans export every year, 820,000 cars made in Germany alone, that’s a fifth of their output, comes to Britain. We’re their single biggest market. I’ve talked about the vacuum cleaners that go form us to Germany and the JCBs. There is massive trade. Putting up tariffs would be suicidal; all these economic forecasts are based on the idea that somehow tariffs would go up. Why would the Germans put tariffs on UK goods, when tariffs on German cars alone would make billions of pounds for this country? They know they’re not going to, they know that’s not going to happen, it would be totally, totally counterproductive.

I think that they will say look, OK Britain, we understand your position. We understand and you’re a great parliamentary democracy, and fundamentally, it was too difficult for you to be squeezed into this united states of Europe in the way that we were proposing. It’s just not suitable for UK democracy. We’re going to cut you a different deal: you’re still going to be active leaders in lots of areas of European intergovernmental cooperation, but you’re out of the whole federalist project of trying to create a super state. And I think they will be grown up about it. And I think there are plenty of people around Europe, hundreds and millions of people who agree with us.

NICK: Haven’t you, thank you for that, haven’t you lost a massive vote this morning: David Beckham is going to vote remain.

BORIS: David Beckham I know, Sol Campbell, however, is firmly leave.

NICK: Well.

BORIS: Well, what do you mean “well”?

NICK: Well it’s not quite the same level as David Beckham, is it?

BORIS: John Barnes.

NICK: OK, right, still not quite the level of David Beckham. Which way is Jeff Hurst going to vote?

BORIS: I, I…

NICK: Do you remember that, you couldn’t remember who he was… we go on to other questions. Joanna’s in. Get Jeff Hurst’s vote, find out if he’s with Boris. That would be quite funny actually. Can somebody ring him up?

BORIS: No don’t poor fellow.

NICK: Don’t worry, he can take a phone call. Joanna’s in St Albans and you’re through to Boris Johnson, go ahead Joanna.

Joanna: Good morning Boris

BORIS: Joanna Hi, how are you?

Joanna: I’m very well, how are you?

BORIS: I’m very well thank you.

Joanna: Good. I’d like to know, a lot of people are concerned about free movement and immigration, I’d like to know how soon, do you think, if we do get out, do you think we can control our immigration, because there’s talk of a two-year renegotiation…

BORIS: That’s right.

Joanna: …and presumably people will still be able to flow through freely. And so surely there would be an even larger influx of people wanting to beat that date.

BORIS: Well I don’t think that would happen, I think that what you would see is normal patterns, but…

Joanna: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

BORIS: We would need for it we would need…

NICK: Go for it Joanna, go on.

BORIS: …we would need to get new arrangements in as soon as possible. Now we cannot do that, Joanna, as I am sure you are about to point out, as long as we are members of the EU. What we want to do, as I hope many people know by now, is to put in an Australian-style, points-based system, which is fair to everybody.

So you don’t discriminate against software engineers from Hyderabad or wherever, or paramedics from Australia, remember we had that crisis in the ambulance service and we needed to get lots of Australian paramedics in? There’s that family in Scotland at the moment that’s facing deportation at the moment.

NICK: To Canada.

BORIS: To Canada, because our immigration rules in this country are so unfair to people from outside the EU. Just a fairer system. And do something to check the massive flows from the 27 countries. Now Joanna, I cannot give you an exact timescale, but I can say that it will not come in on Friday morning, but it will come in as soon as it can be continently managed, I’m sure. And that is what we would be proposing to the government, it would be up to the government to put it in.

What’s interesting is in the last, week or so is now strongly that option is now being supported by the Labour party, and even Theresa May said something to the effect the other day. You heard Tom Watson, Harriet Harman… You know this is an argument, that in the last stages of this campaign, I think we are winning. The problem is, we cannot deliver it unless you vote leave on Thursday. Vote leave, take back control.

Joanna: I will, good luck. Thank you.

BORIS: Thank you.

NICK: Alright Joanna, thank you. Neil is in Amersham, you’re through to Boris Johnson. Neil.

Neil: Good morning, yes. I’m a supporter of remain. I will say this. Nigel Farage and UKIP have run a very effective, at least xenophobic, possibly racist campaign. It is a campaign that has generated, is generating, a huge number of votes for the official leave campaign, which you are a part of. Now, can you, in good conscience, accept the votes that that scurrilous, xenophobic campaign has generated for you, you shove them in your back pocket, and you, and Michael Gove, and Gisela Stewart walk away whistling, quite content, and at the same time, hold your…

BORIS: No. No, we have nothing to do with that campaign Neil, and what you have got to understand is…

NICK: What, with UKIP?

BORIS: No, Neil, this… the official vote leave campaign was given the mandate, the designation by the electoral commission. We have absolutely nothing to do with any other campaign, we’re fighting our campaign Neil, and my campaign is based on fairness, and people will remember that when I was mayor of London, I fought for the rights of immigrants in many ways….

NICK: So how would you characterise Nigel Farage?

BORIS: I don’t want to talk about any other candidate or any other…

NICK: What’s the problem you have with Mr Farage?

BORIS: I don’t want to talk about any other person on our campaign…

NICK: You’ve talked about David Cameron… oh, on your campaign.

BORIS: I want to talk about our vision.

NICK: So why is there bad blood between you and Mr Farage?

BORIS: I want to talk about our vision.

NICK: I got to ask you about the poster.

BORIS: And our vision is a positive vision for taking back control.

NICK: I have to ask you about that poster last Thursday.

BORIS: And on the poster, I didn’t like it. It seemed to be saying that these are bad people, coming to our country, that seemed to be the message, and I was profoundly unhappy with it. Neil, remember when I was first campaigning to be mayor of London nine years ago, I remember, people were saying that I was going to get the votes of the far right or something like that, and I said “well I don’t what their votes” Neil, and that’s what I said then, probably to you, Nick. [large amount of Latin] as we say on the vote leave campaign, OK.

NICK: Do you say that regularly on the vote leave campaign?

BORIS: We do. And my vision is a positive vision, and I tell you something, I think it’s only if you take back control, control of immigration, that you can neutralise extremism. And one of the reasons why you can see a rise in extremism and far right politics in Europe is because of a people’s feeing that they are not being consulted about immigration and about the numbers. And the politicians who are in charge are not doing anything about it.

NICK: But when Neil says you’re happy, you and your colleagues, Michael Gove and Gisela Stewart are happy to have those votes “in your back pockets”, he’s right, isn’t he? You need those votes if you’re going to get a Brexit.

BORIS: Look I’m fighting for a positive vision for Britain…

NICK: But you need every Brexit vote you can get…

BORIS: I’m fighting for a positive vision for Britain and I can only speak for the policies of vote leave.

NICK: But what would you say to Mr Farage’s supporters who are listening right now?

BORIS: I hope everybody will support us, and vote leave to take back control.

NICK: But its been like a lifetime’s work for Mr Farage, why are you so demeaning of his efforts?

BORIS: I’m not, I’m simply talking about…

NICK: You won’t even talk about the man.

BORIS: I’m here to talk about our campaign. You want to talk about everybody else.

NICK: Well he’s a prominent Brexit supporter.

BORIS: I want to talk about our campaign and what we have to offer.

NICK: When did you last speak? But you were talking, you were talking weeks ago, what happened?

BORIS: I want to talk about our campaign, I want to talk about our campaign.

NICK: Can I help build bridges in any way, what’s happened?

BORIS: What are you? Are you perhaps representing Mr Farage? Come on…

NICK: No, of course I don’t represent anybody, did you read my column on Sunday? I made that very point.

BORIS: Exactly. I want to talk about our campaign, it’s a positive campaign, and I don’t like some of… I’m with Neil actually, and I don’t like some of the xenophobic overtones, but I find it insulting to people that you can’t discuss the volume of immigration at all. I think some people, many people, are concerned by the…

NICK: So, this idea of him having a job in a Boris Johnson government, that’s never going to happen?

BORIS: Look, there is never going to be such as thing, quite frankly, so let’s just…

NICK: Never?

BORIS: Look, this is not about me…

NICK: So, one day.

BORIS: This is about a fundamental decision about…

NICK: You’ve got to keep me in work, you’ve got to be prime minister one day…

BORIS: This is about a fundamental decision the British people have to make, and I want to get back to what Neil has to say, because, you know he’s right to ask, can you discuss immigration in a grown-up way without pandering to prejudice. And I think you can, and my point is that actually what you can do is that you can reduce prejudice if you take back control.

And I’ll give you an example, and I made this point the other day, I think, and I don’t know, many people find this very very controversial, but I think it’s crazy that within our country that we now have 750,000 people, maybe half a million in London alone, who do not have papers to work in this country, who are here illegally, who in many cases have been here for a very long time…

NICK: You want the amnesty.

BORIS: …who cannot pay taxes, who cannot enter into civil society, who cannot be turned form strangers into citizens…

NICK: Isn’t an amnesty an endorsement?

BORIS: Well I would like to do, and I think its unfair on those people, unfair on society, I would like to take back control of that situation. And I think that if you’ve been here for more than 12 years, there should be forgiveness. And I believe…

NICK: So, as long as you’ve been breaking the law for long enough, it’s OK?

BORIS: And I’m sorry but I don’t see any reasonable prospect for deporting those people in those numbers, as long as you’ve been here 12 years.

NICK: So, as long as you’ve broken the law for long enough…

BORIS: I would certainly like to deport people who are breaking the law at the moment, but those who…

NICK: Unless they’ve been here for 12 years.

BORIS: Yeah, I think you’ve got to be realistic, and you know people, if you came to… imagine what would happen if the police arrived in a street and a family that had been living there for 12 years, or even more than that, 20 years, were kicked out, imagine that, and the grief from their neighbours, imagine the feelings of despondency that would… are you seriously saying that that is what should happen?

NICK: Well I’m not… I don’t think that that Canadian family should be kicked out…

BORIS: No, they shouldn’t they shouldn’t. So, I think you should be reasonable. I think you should deport people if they haven’t been here for a long time and are plainly breaking the law, but after a while…

NICK: 12 years.

BORIS: …it becomes… you’ve got to have some cut off date. That’s the one that I would put, that’s the one London citizens would put, I think that’s a reasonable thing to do. And to answer Neil, I’ve spent my time, when I was Mayor of London, fighting for the rights of immigrants in our city, and also fighting for London as a great multi-racial, multi-national cosmopolis, which is what it is. But you’ll only get support for that, you’ll only get support for that, if you take back control, and you can only take back control if you vote leave on Thursday.

NICK: Can we pause briefly for news here on LBC.

NICK: Right, coming to more questions in just a second.

BORIS: What have you got, you’ve got some terrible zinger, I know you’ve been chuckling to yourself…

NICK: Well, we were talking earlier that David Beckham of course is going to be voting to remain, and then you mentioned former England players John Barnes and Sol Campbell are for Brexit, and then I said well I wonder which way Sir Jeff Hurst, the man who won us the world cup, would go. And it is reported that you tried to sign up world cup heroes such as Jeff, Sir Bobby Charlton, Gordon Banks, and they said they didn’t want to help you. A snub.

BORIS: That was in the Daily Mirror, that was in the Daily Mirror, it was the first I’d heard of it, so I’m afraid I have no knowledge of that snub. I’m sure people administer snubs to me the whole time I don’t know about, but that one I really didn’t know about. I didn’t even know I was being snubbed.

NICK: Well, we’re getting hold of Sir Jeff to see how he’s going to vote. Right, Alex is in Richmond-upon-Thames, you’re through to Boris Johnson. Alex, go ahead.

Alex: Good morning you two.

BORIS: Good morning.

Alex: Now I’m a long-time conservative voter and a long-time Boris for mayor voter, and one thing that has really hit me today about the dirty tricks brigade, George Osborne has said that he has no plan for Friday if we vote Brexit. If that is true, that is absolutely disgraceful, and the man should consider his position.

BORIS: Well, Alex, I’ve thought about this a lot, and I simply can’t believe that it is true.

NICK: So he’s lying?

BORIS: Well, Jeremy Haywood is the cabinet secretary, the government of this country has a responsibility, the civil service of this country has a responsibility to produce a plan. And I think there’s a fantastic plan, we’ve tried to outline some elements of it. What we think at vote leave is that when we take back control of our borders, we begin work on the Australian-style points-based system, step one is that we think in the first few weeks you could begin informal discussions with our friends and partners about the negotiations.

You then after a few months probably empanel the negotiating committee, you begin the parliamentary work, the drafting of the amendments to articles two and three of the European Communities Act 1972, so you can assert the primacy of parliament over the European court of justice, so that people who’s presence is not conducive to the public god can be removed, and you start to look at what you could spend, the dividend, the money coming back to this country…

NICK: So you think there is a plan.

BORIS: Those are our plans.

NICK: No, but do you think there is or is not a plan?

BORIS: I think there certainly is a plan.

NICK: So why would George Osborne say otherwise?

BORIS: Well it may be he doesn’t have a plan, but it…

NICK: Hang on, so the chancellor of the exchequer isn’t part of the plan for Friday?

BORIS: The British government, I do find it incredible that the British government, with the polls where they are now, that that the British government, the cabinet secretary, the whole civil service is not actually actively working…

NICK: Incredible or irresponsible?

BORIS: I’m sure that they are working on some sort of sensible plans for…

NICK: Well then why would he say that they’re not?

BORIS: Well, there is a thing called project fear, and the idea is to try, and I think it’s bullying…

NICK: And this is Mr Osborne again, engaging in project fear. Refusing to rule out suspending trading on Friday, what did you make of that?

BORIS: One of the interesting things I’ve noticed in the polls is that people are increasingly confident in our abilities and increasingly dismissive of attempts to…

NICK: But trading, Mr Johnson, what would that say about Britain’s stock around the world? Suspend trading in the event that you are successful in our campaign. What have you done to our economy?

BORIS: Well I have to say that I think that our side of the conversation has been consistently talking up the economy. One of the most amazing things about the debate in the last few weeks, actually, has been that we’ve had a series of rather interesting stories on the good figures in employment, good figures on manufacturing, good figures on…

NICK: Well that might be because we’re in Europe…

BORIS: Well not, because they’re expanding around the world rather than to the EU.

NICK: But still we would find ourselves with trading suspended.

BORIS: And the government is relentlessly talking down, or the remain campaign, I should say, is relentlessly talking down the UK’s potential. I think it’s a mistake. This is a choice about democracy. I think it was Wolfgang Munchau, the commentator on the FT [Financial Times], who rather brilliantly said a few months ago, whatever the reasons are for staying in the EU, they are not economic. It is not actually, it is not about economics, it’s a political project, and it’s all basically to do with trying to lasso Germany, and making sure we had a way of tying Germany up, tying Germany down within the EU.

That was the whole concept. It was basically a French concept. We bought into it in the 1970s under Edward Heath, at a time when Britain was really feeling on its uppers, we didn’t feel we were, we counted for much in the world. We then had the supply-side revolution lead by Margret Thatcher, and Britain is now an absolutely world-beating economy. And the EU is becoming even more antidemocratic.

NICK: But back to my central point. If you’re successful, trading will be suspended. Trading will be suspended.

BORIS: Well I don’t believe that any more than I believe…

NICK: They can’t lie straight in bed, can they these two, Cameron and Osborne?

BORIS:…any more than I believe that there will be global conflict or any of the things that we’ve been warned of.

NICK: Alright, well we have some emails coming in here, Rachel in Bexley, would you have a veto on Turkey joining the EU?

BORIS: Well, the UK currently has a veto but…

NICK: Would you use that against Turkey?

BORIS: …is not content to exercise it. My plan, my proposal to everybody is that we should vote leave on Thursday and leave the EU to make the relationships it wants.

NICK: So, it’s irrelevant?

BORIS: Yeah it is. But what I would say is, to my fellow Turks, because you know I’m descended from Turks…

NICK: Yes, your grandfather.

BORIS: …is that we should have maximum free trade. What I don’t think we should have is complete free movement. I don’t see how that works, I think that’s nuts, and I think that’s what’s entailed by Turkish accession.

NICK: Mo’s in Edgware. Mo, you’re through to Boris Johnson.

Mo: Good morning Nick, good morning Mr Johnson.

NICK: Hello Mo.

MO: Basically Boris, there’s something I want to know, there’s something I hear about when we’re, if we do leave the EU, which is what I’m voting for, and that’s in order to negotiate EU deals, trade etc, that Mr Cameron can actually end up negotiating free movement in our country and that is to free trade, and that is why most people are voting to leave the EU. So, could that happen?

BORIS: No. Let me explain. Well I think it would be, there’s no reason at all why I think we should have free moment as part of the package, and indeed I think it would be impossible after a vote leave on Thursday for that to happen. And what’s been so interesting Mo, as I was saying to Nick earlier, is how many other politicians, just in the past week, have been listening to what vote leave have been saying, and have decided at the 11th hour to join us and say that actually the deal we got in February is no good, we haven’t got control of our borders, and the only way to do it is to vote leave and to take back control. People say we have to have an EEA or a Norway or something like that. Absolutely not, we can have a free trade deal with access to the single market, which I think would be massively beneficial to both sides.

MO: And other countries do not actually become sort of, none of the other countries can trade within the EU unless they have free movement so how can you say we…

BORIS: Well that’s not true, that’s true actually, it’s interesting you say that actually, that’s not true, because there’s a tariff-free area right the way from Iceland to the boarders with Russia, it’s a huge, huge tariff-free zone, Portugal to Turkey, but there’s a very big difference between free trade and the single market. The single market has morphed into a federal superstate, and that is the problem. And it is, their whole effort now almost, is to try and prop up the euro, which was a bad venture, by making it a much much more intricate and denser system of federal government.

And we cannot help but be involved in that if we stay in. We’ll have to help pay for it and we’ll be exposed to the very considerable migratory flows that we are seeing as a result of the poverty and suffering that the euro is causing. So, that’s why, one of the reasons why vote leave is the right option, and if we vote leave on Thursday, take back control, we can institute as I say this Australian-style, points-based system.

NICK: Quick response from you Mo before we move on.

MO: No, that’s exactly what I wanted to hear.

NICK: Exactly? Oh, I’m grateful. Let’s just do a couple more emails that are coming in. This is from Anthony in Kent. You’re very strong on your opposition to George Osborne. If it is a remain, does he keep his job as chancellor? And in leave I suppose too.

BORIS: Of course, of course, I hope I wasn’t being too strong there, absolutely and in either circumstance I suppose this. It is just a, it’s a referendum campaign that I think has been characterised by a lot of fearmongering from the remain side. And I think that actually when we vote leave on Thursday, one of the reasons why it will be so blissful in the dawn to be alive is that all the fear will stop. And all the kind of, and people will realise that it was all nonsense.

NICK: How much are you missing Baroness [Sayeeda] Warsi?

BORIS: Well, I agree with Sayeeda about the poster, and we’ve discussed that earlier on, I think it’s such a shame. I hadn’t realised she was such a major plank of our campaign, but…

NICK: Have you had extensive conversations with her about leave?

BORIS: No I haven’t, no. But I mean look, people…

NICK: What about the Johnson family?

BORIS: …people make different…

NICK: What’s going to happen to that cricket match this weekend? It’s going to be a bit divided isn’t it, the batting order?

BORIS: On the contrary, we are a nest of singing birds… We had a birthday party together on Saturday, everybody’s in a state of gluttonous heaven, and I think they’re all secret Brexiters myself, but anyway…

NICK: Why is Jo such a better cricketer than you?

BORIS: That is a very good question. He’s just basically better at cricket, there’s no getting round it, he is.

NICK: But at politics?

BORIS: And probably at tennis too, but all my brothers are probably better than me at sport.

NICK: But in the referendum you’re the right one?

BORIS: I think I’m right, and by the way… there’s no shortage of Johnsons. My brother Max is a firm leaver. He wants to vote leave, take back control on Thursday and he’s right.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JEOx_0I2g2g

[top]

21st June 2016: Boris Johnson takes part in the BBC televised The EU Referendum - The Great Debate

David Dimbleby: Good evening. Good evening and welcome to Wembley and the great debate, voting now only one day away in the most important decision the United Kingdom has been asked to make in a generation. And here in the SSE Arena several thousand voters divided equally between supporters of leave and remain have come together to listen to the final appeals of each side. All the main speakers here on stage were nominated by the designated campaigns. And speaking in favour of leaving are the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, the Labour MP... The Labour MP Gisela Stuart and the Conservative energy minister an Andrea Leadsom. Speaking in favourite of remaining in the European Union, the leader of the Conservative party in Scotland, Ruth Davidson. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. And Francis 0’Grady, general secretary of the TUC.

Also with us here in the arena, at the other end of the arena is Mishal Husain with other guests, who are going to be listening to what’s being said up here and commenting on it. Yes, I’ll be getting reaction from my panel of guests, representing leave and remain, business people, politicians and others, who’ve played a part in the referendum campaign. And I’m in the media spin room, where we’ll be getting instant reaction to the debate from political campaigners and from the press and fact checking with the BBC’s reality check team.

And if you want to take part from home in the debate on social media, you can use the hashtag BBC debate, go to BBC News, on Facebook, where you can post your questions and comments. There’s also an instant fact checking on our website bbc.co.uk/realitycheck. Now a few moments ago the two sides drew lots to decide who would start the debate. The leave side won and they’ve chosen Gisela Stuart, briefly, to summarise their argument.

Gisela Stuart: Ask yourself just one question, if we were not in the EU today would we join it? And if the answer is no, then on Thursday you will vote leave and take control. The European Union was a noble dream in the last century, but today, it has failed. It has turned into a nightmare. I’m a mother and I’m a grandmother and I think it is terrible that 50% of young people in Greece don’t have a job. The only continent with a growth rate lower than Europe is Antarctica.

By being in the EU, we lose control of billions of pounds every year. It doesn’t have to be like this. We can take back control over our laws. We can take back control over our taxes. We can take back control over our borders, immigration policy and security. You know, sometimes voting doesn’t make much difference. On Thursday, it really does. You will decide who makes decisions about the future of this country, so, take back control and vote leave. Thank you. Now to open the debate for the remain side,

DAVID: Thank you. Now to open the debate for the remain side, their choice, Sadiq Khan.

Sadiq Khan: Good evening. In just two days time, we will make the most important decision for a generation. Tonight, Ruth, Francis and I will set out the positive and patriotic choice to remain in Europe. You and your family will be choice to remain in Europe. You and your family will be both better off and safer. Your job will be more secure and your wages will be higher. The prices you pay in the shops will be lower and your rights at work will be protected.

As a lawyer, I learned to listen to the experts and follow the evidence. Well, the evidence is undeniable and all the experts agree we are stronger, safer and better off in Europe, even those who want us to leave admit that it’s a big gamble. If there’s one thing you should remember when you go to vote, it’s this: If we as a country decide to quit, then we’re out for good. There’s no going back. Being outwards and looking and forming alliances makes our country so great. I urge you to make the positive and patriotic choice and vote remain.

DAVID: Thank you. Now the questions that we’ve picked for debate tonight come from our huge audience, obviously they can’t all ask a question. But we’ve divided the questions up into three sections the economy, immigration and Britain’s place in the world. The key issues, those three key issues are what we’re doing. But what we want to do first, before we go to the questions, we want to give you an objective view of the issues that are at stake. So let’s have a look at the issues that both sides have identified on the economy.

DAVID: I’m going to try to give equal time to both sides tonight. Boris.

Boris Johnson: Thank you very much. I must say that I think it was extraordinary to hear that we would have tariffs imposed on us, because everybody knows that this country receives about a fifth of Germany’s entire car manufacturing output, 820,000 vehicles a year. Do you seriously suppose that they are going to be so insane, as to allow tariffs to be imposed between Britain and Germany?

I’ve been listening to businesses large and small, up and down our country, over the last few months. I’ve been amazed how many passionately want to come out of the single market, because of the rules and regulation that’s it imposes. 100% of UK businesses, even though only 6% only do any trade with the rest of the EU. I’m listening to some of the most extraordinary success stories of UK manufacturing -JCB, the makers of the fantastic diggers that are building this city, building roads and cities around the world. They want to come out of the EU and not just JCB, but James Dyson, the single biggest manufacturer of vacuum cleaners in Germany! All right, Boris. He wants to come out. Just let me finish this point. He’s telling the papers tonight that he thinks staying in would be an act of economic self-harm. The way to more wealth and more jobs is to leave, vote leave. Take control on Thursday.

SADIQ: I’m pleased you’re speaking to people, Boris, and I hope you’re listening too. One of the people you’re listening to is a chap called Patrick Minford, he’s your chief economic advisor. Now Patrick said and I quote, “Leaving will eliminate manufacturing. Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely we would most likely eliminate manufacturing, but this shouldn’t scare us.” Let me tell you Boris, to those 2.5 million who work in manufacturing, it scares them. It scares their family and it scares me. Thank you.

Ruth Davidson: Andrea, we are talking about British jobs and we have the highest level of employment in our country’s history. If you want to trade quotes, let’s talk about what your side have been saying. Boris Johnson, his chief economist says it will eliminate manufacturing. He also said the EU would generate an economic shock. Michael Gove says it will mean inevitably bumps in the road. He said he can’t guarantee that people won’t lose their jobs. “I cannot question that every person currently in work in their current job will keep their job”. Boris Johnson said, will there be job losses, there might or there might not. That is not good enough. That is not good enough.

BORIS: It hasn’t taken them long. It hasn’t taken them long... Hold on. They told us they would have a positive and patriotic case and they are back to project fear within moments.

RUTH: I want to protect British workers. It is positive. They have nothing positive to say. I want to... Hold on.

BORIS: Lord Rose...

DAVID: Everybody will have their chance, but if you speak one at a time, everybody here can hear and everybody at home can hear. Boris.

BORIS: Thank you. It was Lord Rose who said clearly that there would be no

shock, that things would go on as they are. Except for one thing. He said people on low incomes, as Gisela rightly said, would get a pay rise. He was supported in that view by somebody on the panel opposite. It is no less a figure, I will leave you to guess. Somebody said that in too many places immigration has driven down local wages. Now, who do you think that was on the panel opposite? It was Sadiq Khan. I think he was making a good point.

SADIQ: No I didn’t

BORIS: As a Conservative, and I’m a proud Conservative and a believer in free markets, the differentials in incomes in our country have become too great. It is wrong that FTSE 100 chiefs are earning 150 times the average pay of people on the shop floor. It would be a fine thing if as Lord Rose said people on low incomes got a pay rise as a result of us taking back control of our country and our system.

DAVID: We have a second question. It is on the economy and it is from Miranda, who is supporting remain.

Miranda: As a black British woman, I am grateful for the protections the EU has provided me in the workplace and in wider society. If we leave the EU, will this be the beginning of a slippery slope towards weaker employment and social rights in the UK?

Francis O’Grady: Can you promise us today that you will protect each and every single right that we won through the EU?

DAVID: Alright, that’s the question. Gisela.

BORIS: We have done already. Already.

DAVID: Boris?

BORIS: In addition, it beggars belief that the remain side cannot think of a single one of the EU’s multitude of regulations they would get rid of, not even the clinical trials directive, that prevents vital pharmaceutical work being carried out. The EU I’m afraid is a job-destroying engine. You can see it all across southern Europe and you can see it, alas, in this country as well. Gisela has rightly mentioned the case of Ford. I would also mention what happened to Tate & Lyle, who tonight announced they want to come out of the EU because of the destruction that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy has wrought upon them. Not just on jobs in London but in the developing world who want to export cane sugar to the EU. I would also... I would also... I would mention Tata Steel. We are told we cannot cut our energy costs to protect jobs in Steel. We are told we cannot cut our energy costs to protect jobs in Port Talbot because Brussels says no.

SADIQ: It’s a lie! Hold on.

BORIS: It is perfectly true.

DAVID: All right. Since we have a former mayor of London and the present mayor of London... I think we’ve heard an amazing amount of running down of our city and our country.

SADIQ: We’re proud of our city, we're proud of our country.

BORIS: The astonishing thing is that they underestimate our ability to do better deals if we’re left to do it on our own. Let me give you an example. Because of the EU system, our entire trade negotiating policy is consecrated, it's handed over to the EU commission, where only 3.6% of the officials actually come from our country. It is no wonder that they have not been, as Andrea rightly says, they have not done free trade deals with China, India, with all the growth economies of the world, including America, to the extent, to the point where we - where we - just one question. We cannot because the EU is in charge of our trade negotiations export haggis. We cannot export Haggis to America. Come on. Come on. All right.

I think the first thing we should do tonight in a discussion about immigration is celebrate immigrants and immigration and everything they do for our country. Because I speak entirely personally, they are, my family has benefitted massively from immigration and so, I know, have millions of people watching us tonight. The crucial thing, though, is to look in an informed way at what is going on, look at the numbers, look at the pressurethat is large-scale uncontrolled immigration is causing for public services, such as the NHS.

And the downwards pressure on wages that I’ve already mentioned and that Sadiq Khan has discussed. Look at the way in which we are forced by our imbalanced system to push away people who might contribute mightily to our NHS in favour of uncontrolled access to 510 million people from the rest of the EU. What we think should happen is an Australian-style, points-based system, so we get the people we need for the NHS and indeed all our other businesses and services and the only way you can do that is to vote leave and take back control on Thursday.

RUTH: Immigration is hard and it is really tempting to believe that there’s one single silver bullet like leaving the EU that can fix it all.

BORIS: Yes, take back control. I want to respond to some of the I think unnecessary invective we heard earlier on by pointing out that somebody on the panel opposite said only a couple of years ago, in the past we were too quick to dismiss concerns about immigration, even worse accuse people of prejudice. Who do you think that was? It was Sadiq Khan, again.

I do agree with Sadiq, you need a grown-up approach to this. I’m passionately a believer in immigration but it’s got to be controlled. When you’ve got numbers running at 330,000 net globally, 184,000 net from the EU, 77,000 coming without even the offer of a job last year, it’s obviously time to take back control, and the answer to your question is have the Australian-style points-based.

RUTH: Let me answer on Turkish accession and let me say this. It is not going to happen. It’s just simply not on the cards. Not my words, Boris Johnson said that on LBC Radio two months ago. Those were the words of Boris Johnson two months ago. What’s changed in two months, Boris? What’s changed in two months? It is simply not on the cards.

BORIS: It’s government policy. It’s government policy. As far as I know last time I looked, the government wants to accelerate Turkish membership. I think Gisela posed the dilemma clearly. It is something they want to happen in the year 3000 or something they wish to accelerate. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask people whether they would rather proceed on the basis of government promises on immigration, or whether they would rather take back control and institute a points-based system so that the electorate could actually hold the government to account? The problem at the moment... The problem at the moment.

DAVID: Boris! I’m trying to make a balance between the two sides.

BORIS: I was asked the question. Forgive me. Let me say directly to Sadiq Khan, I think there’s a lot of agreement around this panel. And they should come over and join our side. Everything I’ve heard tonight is their admission that something is wrong with our immigration system. There’s only one way to fix it and that is to take back control. Day after day, in the last week, we've seen senior figures in the Labour party Jeremy Corbyn this morning, he’s the leader… Said there was no way of controlling immigration as long as we’re in the EU. Tom Watson, Harriet Harman, they’re all finally accepting that the deal that was done did absolutely nothing to restore control of our immigration system to this country. There is only one way to achieve that.

There is only one way to achieve that and that is to vote leave and take back control and put in the Australian-style system that makes sure that we get the people that we need to help our business, our NHS, but do not… Let me tell you... let me tell you I think we’ve heard enough from project fear over the last couple of weeks, I really do.

I will give I will give you one statistic. They go on and on about the single market. Let me tell you, since the dawn of the single market, which I remember reporting, there have been, I think 1992 - January 1993, there’ve been 27 countries not in the European Union that have done better than the United Kingdom at exporting goods into the single market, there have been 21 countries that have done better at exporting services they include most of the growth economies of the world including: India, China and America.

The best place for us is to be out of this morass, this supreme legal system. Sadiq Khan is completely wrong. The European court of justice is the supreme legal authority in our country. From which, and he knows that because he’s a lawyer, he would not deny that. Deny it. You would not deny it. The European court of justice is acquiring steadily more powers. Under the Lisbon Treaty EU expended competencies by about 45 new areas of competence, and the European court of justice...

DAVID: And a united states of Europe?

BORIS: Adjudicating in home affairs matters of deporting terrorist suspects, divorce laws, for heaven sake, things that have nothing to do with the idea of a single market.

DAVID: And the united states of Europe. Boris, I have to leave you because you’ve gone on, a united states of Europe in 40 years, yes or no

BORIS: Remember what John Major said about the single currency. He said it had all the quaintness and implausibility of a rain dance and look where it is now, destroying jobs across the European Union. Let’s get out of this thing and we’ll do better, creating free trade deals. Vote leave and take back control.

APPLAUSE. Ruth? So that’s a no then. Even Boris Johnson doesn’t think

there is going to be a united states of Europe in 40 years’ time.

BORIS: There will be, there will be. There’s one now. I believe, alas, the EU is going in totally the wrong direction. It is a mistake for it to try to take on this defence component and try to evolve into a united states of Europe in the way that it is. And I remember vividly when it was given the task of trying to sort out the tragedy in the Balkans. You will remember what was happening in Bosnia. The EU was mandated specifically for four years.

The EU was given that diplomatic and indeed military task. It was a disaster, about a million people died. It was only solved when the Americans came in. I was there. I only solved when the Americans came in. I was there. I remember reporting it. And we saw what happened when the Dayton accords and Nato finally asserted primacy. That was the right thing. I do worry about our security on the streets of this city to get back to a point that was made earlier.

I think it absolutely extraordinary that the the European court of justice, not the court of human rights in Strasbourg, but the European court of justice in Luxembourg is telling our Home Secretary that she may not support people with serious criminal convictions to other European countries, or indeed people who’ve been arrested for serious terrorist offences, such as Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law law. I think it is absolutely amazing, and how the remain side have the cheek to come and tell us that we improve our security by staying in this organisation, I do not understand. The best way forward is to keep the European arrest warrant we could inter-governmentally. Thank you.

At the end of this campaign, I think you’ll agree, there is a very clear choice between those on their side, who speak of nothing but fear, of the consequences of leaving the EU and we on our side, who offer hope. Between those who have been endlessly rubbishing our country and running it down and those of us who believe in Britain. They say we can’t do it. We say we can. They say we have no choice but to bow down to Brussels. We say they are woefully underestimating this country and what it can do.

If we vote leave, we can take back control of our borders, of huge sums of monies, £10bn a year net of our tax-raising powers, of our trade policy and of our whole law-making system, the democracy that is the foundation of our prosperity and if we stand up for democracy, we will be speaking up for hundreds of millions of people, around Europe, who agree with us, but who currently have no voice. And if we vote leave, and take back control, I believe that this Thursday can be our country’s independence day.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1pV_RPLA2I

[top]

22nd June 2016: Boris Johnson tweets a picture of him at the Express and Star

“Grt to be back @ExpressandStar 2day-where I did a stint in the 80s. Thks 4 allowing me to set out case to #VoteLeave”

Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/745690709341179904

[top]

22nd June 2016: Boris Johnson comments within an article on vote leave website

“After the incessant doom mongering of the IN campaign, we now hear the truth from the “Voice of German Industry” - that they would be desperate for free trade after we Vote Leave. Of course EU countries will continue trading with us on a tariff free basis - they would be damaging their own commercial interests if they didn’t. That’s why EU politicians would be banging down the door for a trade deal on Friday.

”As Sir James Dyson said today, this is the last opportunity to regain control of our futures. If we want to take back control and have a more secure and more prosperous future, we have to Vote Leave on 23 June.”

Source: https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/german_industry_calls_for_free_trade_deal_if_we_vote_leave_tomorrow.html

22nd June 2016: Boris Johnson appears on Good Morning Britain

Piers: Sadiq Khan called you a big fat liar, Paddy Ashdown did not dissent from that description... are you a big fat liar?

Boris: Well I, listen, I can't say much about my weight at the moment Piers, but let's be clear, the - I think that what we were talking... what the remain campaign were talking about were the huge sums of money that we send to Brussels, and of that there could be no doubt, whatever. We send net, this year, last year, ten and a half billion pounds, that we're never going to see again. Some of it goes on Greek tobacco farming, some it goes on supporting bullfighting, for heaven's sake, in the Iberian Peninsula - that is not, in my view, a good use of UK taxpayers money. It could be taken back, we could take back control, and you would have a fantastic opportunity to spend that money in this country.

Piers: OK but Boris, but Boris, what Paddy Ashdown, Boris what Paddy Ashdown said, Boris, Boris, Boris, Boris you can't just keep talking when I'm trying to jump in, look, Paddy Ashdown said it's pretty rich of Boris Johnson, to be driving around in a German bus, with a figure on the - blazoned across it, which he knows is completely misleading, because he knows, that that amount of money is not actually what it costs us. He's got a point hasn't he?

Boris: No, because that sum of money, as we've exhaustively covered in this campaign so far, is entirely accurate, it is the sum that we cannot control that Brussels pre-empts - yes it is true that some of it includes the rebate, but you cannot rely on the rebate that will - that is dwindling, has dwindled and may not last beyond 2020, and it is entirely at the discretion of the rest of the EU. Secondly, yes of course there is a sum, a proportion, that is spent by the EU in this country on various projects - agricultural support and regional support and so on - at their behest and we think that money would be better directed by - better spent by people here in this country.

Susanna: So that £350m a week figure which you have emblazoned on the side of the bus is not the net figure, is it?

Boris: No. But we've... I've never, I think I've now been... and I think I probably said this to you, Susanna I don't know whether you were there, ages ago, I said this from the very beginning, this is the gross figure, and it's and it's... worthwhile to use the gross figure... because this is an argument about control, and about democracy.

Susanna: But you've started off the interview using a net figure, and now you're using a gross figure...

Boris: Yes, the £10.5bn is the net...

Susanna: Yeah, but £350m a week is an eye-catching figure, but it's not an accurate net figure.

Boris: I think £10.5bn a year is a very eye-catching figure, and with that you could do a huge amount to support our NHS, to support the priorities of people in this country, and you know, you mention a German bus here as though that was a knock-down in my argument...

Susanna: But Mr Johnson you are switching between gross figures and net figures in order to serve your own purposes - do you accept that?

Boris: No, I've been, I'm being very I'm being very very clear with people - and it is perfectly sensible to talk about - the gross figure every year is about £20bn pounds, and it's reasonable to talk about that, because that is the figure that we cannot control. It is spent - some of it is spent in this country by Brussels bureaucrats, some of it is - it comes in the fall back in the form of the rebate, but that is at the discretion of the EU, and most, some of it, half of it, we never see again - it just vanishes! And it is spent in a way that is extremely... dodgy. And in many ways and very often, as you know, it is the subject of corruption. So, that's a reasonable way of expressing it.

Piers: Okay. Boris, let me jump in... Boris, let me ask you something else... Okay... You've said, I think, this morning, that you would personally like to see a reduction in the net migration figures to this country - what you're not prepared to do, from what I've seen so far, is put a figure on that. David Cameron did put a figure on it - tens of thousands, and that has clearly been a complete sham. Why are you not prepared to restore confidence in people you want to go and vote for you, for Brexit, by saying I would like it to be under X amount, so that we know what we're getting with you?

Boris: Yeah... well I... well let me give you a... let me give you some figures, let me give you some figures, that I think are relevant - I think that the figure of 333,000 net at the moment from around the world - 184,000 net from the European Union alone - and 77,000 who are coming here without a job offer at all just coming on spec - I think those are too high, all right? And I think that what would make a difference, and what would help politicians to be more honest about this subject, is if we had some system of control, and at the moment it's not fair and it's not balanced.

Because we we push peers, we push away people who can be of great value to our economy: software engineers from Hyderabad, or whatever paramedics from Australia, but we have no way of controlling people who come from 27 other EU countries in very large numbers, and I think that is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the whole issue. If politicians take back control of our immigration system, they will be able to go to the country on the basis of consent for the immigration policies, we're working with business, working with industry, you'll be able to sort it out.

Piers: Let me read you something else. OK let me read you this, the front page ... Boris you're not on the debate last night with... I'm not David Dimbleby, you will be stopped. Boris you will be stopped during mid-sentence, otherwise you'll never stop talking.

Boris: Sorry. Go on. I can't hear you very well, Piers, but go on.

Piers: This paper, it says on the Daily Mirror, backing the remain camp, does say that after the most divisive, vile and unpleasant political campaign in living memory: do you personally have any regrets about the rhetoric that the Brexit camp has deployed about anything that you've done?

Boris: No I don't, I think... I invite you to scour my rhetoric for anything remotely divisive - I believe in immigration, I just believe in control, but that's the heart of this whole thing - what we're talking about, today and tomorrow, as we come to make this decision, is who runs this country, how our democracy works. And what's so sad is that the EU is morphing into a centralised united states of Europe, taking ever more power, with the European court of justice that makes decisions about things we never imagined would fall within the purview of the European court of justice - human rights, whether we can deport convicted criminals - all this kind of stuff, and I think it's a big chance for us to speak up for democracy in Britain and around here, but if I can just soften the point if I may Piers, democracy matters deeply to our economy, if you don't have demo... - if you can't kick them out, they'll continue to make terrible mistakes.

Piers: OK, you got a great cheer, you got a great cheer... last night Boris... Boris... We're running out of time... OK...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp2jUbNtNVA

[top]

22nd June 2016: Boris Johnson posts joint statement on vote leave website

A MESSAGE FROM GISELA STUART (LABOUR), BORIS JOHNSON (CONSERVATIVE) AND MICHAEL GOVE (CONSERVATIVE)

Let’s make history.

What is this campaign really about?

Our political system is stuck. Whichever party is in charge, the Government cannot sort out our problems or deliver their promises because they have to follow EU rules. If we want things to change we must take back control.

This vote is about whether the British public are able to choose the people who make their laws and spend their money.

If we vote to stay, we are voting to continue being ruled by people we cannot chuck out. We will keep losing control and money. Our children and grandchildren will find it harder to buy a house, to get their kids into a good school, to get a GP appointment, and they’ll be paying for the bailouts of the euro.

If we vote leave, it will be a glorious strengthening of our democracy.

We will take back control of our laws.

We will take back control of our money - our official EU bill is £350 million every week. We'll be able to spend our money on the public's priorities, particularly public services.

We will take back control of migration policy. Migration brings many benefits but we have lost democratic control. This is even more dangerous because there are five more countries in the queue to join. If we Vote Leave, we can introduce a humane and fair points-based system that does not discriminate against people based on the country they live in. The public will again be able to control migration policy at elections. Extremists will be neutralised and politics will be healthier.

The IN campaign has nothing to offer except threats and talking down Britain. They've spent month after month saying Britain is too weak to take back control. They’ve even claimed that a Leave vote will mean World War Three. They've given up on the EU improving. They admit it's rubbish but say we have to sacrifice democracy for trade.

This is defeatist and wrong. This referendum is not a choice between democracy and trade. Countries around the world trade with the EU without giving away control over their own laws.

Britain is a great country. We will be even greater if we take back control of our own democracy.

Finally, when you are talking to people - please reassure them that after we Vote Leave, there won't be a sudden change that disrupts the economy. The day after the referendum, nothing changes legally. We will talk to our friends in Europe and discuss the best way to agree a new UK-EU relationship. We won’t rush into it. When we do make changes we will make them carefully.

We may have to wait another forty years to get another vote. Imagine how much could go wrong by then. Britain is all about fairness. We believe that Britain will be a fairer country if we vote leave tomorrow.

If you're on our side, then please talk to someone you know and persuade them to vote for us. Download our app - it will save you time and will simply text the friends and family you choose, asking them to Vote Leave.

Please share this message, together we can change history tomorrow!

Best wishes

Michael Gove

Boris Johnson

Gisela Stuart

Source: https://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_for_a_fairer_britain.html

[top]

22nd June 2016: Boris Johnson discusses unpublished pro-EU article he wrote

“What it said was that actually, irrespective of my objections to the way the EU was going, in order to support my party and the prime minister it would be better to stay in and I thought, in the end that wasn't a good enough reason.”

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/brexit-eu-boris-johnson-second-column-remain-daily-telegraph-newsnight-bbc-473413

Table of Contents

FEBRUARY 2016

21st February 2016 - Boris Johnson releases statement in vote leave pamphlet with Michael Gove

21st February 2016 - Interviewed outside his residence, announcing his position on the leave campaign

22nd February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking as mayor of London to the London assembly

22nd February 2016: Appears in parliament as mayor of London, asks PM David Cameron a question

22nd February 2016: Tweets out a link to a Facebook post and Telegraph article

22nd February 2016: Boris Johnson writes a Facebook post (the same text as in the Vote Leave Pamphlet on 21st February, and which becomes a Telegraph article dated 16th March) - “Boris Johnson exclusive: There is only one way to get the change we want – vote to leave the EU”

22nd February 2016: Tweet sent out from Boris Johnson’s account praising Nadhim Zahawi MP, linking to:

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/02/nadhim-zahawi-mp-why-i-have-decided-to-vote-for-britain-to-leave-the-eu.html: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/701816925161127936

23rd February 2016: Boris Johnson attends HM the Queen’s visit to the Elizabeth Line

24th February 2016: Boris Johnson. speaking to reporters, echoes Michael Gove stating the Brussels agreement is not legally enforceable

25th February 2016: mayor Boris Johnson on the new Spurs stadium, as reported by the BBC

25th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaks in capacity as London mayor

26th February 2016: Interview with the Telegraph

27th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking to the Times, “Out is out”

29th February 2016: Tweeted a link to Facebook which contained a Telegraph article dated Sunday 28th February 2016

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson writes Telegraph Article: “Don’t be taken in by Project Fear – staying in the EU is the risky choice”

29th February 2016: BBC Newsline Mark Simpson interview, on the Irish border:

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaks in Northern Ireland

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking in a visit to Northern Ireland, responds to the PM via LBC

29th February 2016: Boris Johnson speaking in a visit to Northern Ireland

MARCH 2016

1st March 2016: Boris Johnson quoted in The Guardian

1st March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson publishes new report on London being Europe’s leading powerhouse

1st March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson’s introduction to the aforementioned report

1st March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson visits Northern Ireland and dismisses fears around border controls as a consequence of Brexit

1st March 2016: Boris Johnson appears on ITV The Late Debate

3rd March 2016: Boris Johnson mayoral visits Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar to open the new sixth form centre

3rd March 2016: Boris Johnson - People’s Question Time

4th March 2016: Boris Johnson interview with the Evening Standard

6th March 2016: Boris Johnson on the The Andrew Marr Show

7th March 2016: Boris Johnson on the cycle superhighway - press release

7th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook link of a Telegraph article:

7th March 2016: Boris Johnson writes a Telegraph article: “There is no conspiracy. The EU is completely open about its superstate plan

7th March 2016: Video about John Longworth

8th March 2016: Boris Johnson on City Hall’s staffers’ views on the EU referendum

8th March 2016: Boris Johnson on City Hall’s staffers’ views on the EU referendum

8th March 2016: Boris Johnson reflects on time as mayor in The Guardian

8th March 2016 Boris Johnson tweets out a Facebook video link about Lee Rigby

9th March 2016: Boris Johnson issues a mayoral statement on victims of gang and domestic violence

10th March 2016: Mayoral statement issued by a spokesperson to the mayor

11th March 2016: Boris Johnson gives a Brexit speech in Dartford with vote leave “win-win” speech

11th March 2016: Boris Johnson remarks after his Dartford speech on Brexit

11th March 2016: Sky news interviewing Boris Johnson about the Queen after his Dartford Brexit Speech

11th March 2016: Mayoral press release

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson expresses excitement over WWE coming to London

14th March 2016: Six tweets from Boris Johnson as mayor of London, from the official twitter account

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson relationship with David Cameron referencing BBC documentary

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson crowns Hillingdon employee Librarian of the Year

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson meets some young people of Newham

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out Facebook link of Telegraph link

14th March 2016: Boris Johnson posts on Facebook which later becomes a Telegraph piece (dated 16th March 2015)

14th March 2016: BBC documentary, Boris Johnson: The London Years, BBC1 London

15th March 2016: mayoral press release

15th March 2016: Boris Johnson appears on Nick Ferrari’s LBC Radio Show, Ask Boris

16th March 2016: mayoral press release to transform Royal Docks, east London

16th March 2016: Boris Johnson London assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) Oral update on the report of the mayor

16th March 2016: Boris Johnson for The Telegraph: “There is no conspiracy. The EU is completely open about its superstate plan”

16th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets to support Zac Goldsmith

17th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets out on St Patrick’s Day

17th March 2016: Southwark news reports on Boris Johnson’ lecture at the John Harvard Lecture

17th March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson speaking about the night tube

17th March 2016: mayor gives green light on train extension

18th March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson announces investment in colleges

18th March 2016: mayor Boris Johnson announces new ’social supermarkets”

20th March 2016: mayoral press release on the cost to the public health a third Heathrow runway

20th March 2016: Boris Johnson refloats Thames Estuary airport plan

21st March 2016: Boris Johnson on ITV Agenda, regarding Donald Trump

21st March 2016: Boris Johnson appears on The Agenda, ITV London

21st March 2016: Boris Johnson on ITV agenda on IDS, Personal Independence Payment cuts

22nd March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets condolences

22nd March 2016: Churchfields Junior School publishes correspondence with mayor Boris Johnson dated 16th March

23rd March 2016: Boris Johnson gives oral evidence in the Treasury select committee on the economic and financial costs and benefits of UK membership of the EU

23rd March 2016: Boris Johnson pays tributes to those affected by Belgium attacks

23rd March 2016: Boris Johnson records a message for Out & Proud

26th March 2016: Boris Johnson tweets Happy Easter

28th March 2016: Boris Johnson Telegraph column

31st March 2016: Boris Johnson April Fools Day secret plan

31st March 2016: Boris Johnson Tweets a Standard article linking Khan to Corbyn