Our team of researchers has taken a number of actions in order to ensure that this record is as comprehensive as possible. The lead researcher carried out an online search of Boris Johnson’s public record between 21st February 2016, the day he announced his pro-leave position on the EU referendum, and 22nd June 2016, the day before the vote. A further two researchers have checked the document by performing a second search in order to identify additional records.
The team used a range of search strategies including the use of key words and the customised date range function both within search engines and a number of individual websites associated with broadcast and print media organisations, social media and the London assembly. Johnson’s mayoral diary was also used to identify events at which he might have spoken during the period in question. Websites and platforms used in the search: London assembly record of proceedings; BBC online; ITV online; Sky online; The Guardian; The Telegraph; Facebook; Twitter.
Although the team have made every attempt to provide a full and accurate record, it is possible that some statements have not been included and that Boris Johnson spoke at some events for which online transcripts and reports do not exist.
Presentation of this report follows The Guardian house style. Notable exceptions are: interjections and interruptions in verbal transcriptions, which are presented as ‘- -’ ‘…’ or ‘-‘.
Where verbal record is included, it is transcribed ‘almost verbatim’: without ‘mms, ahhs, ohhs’ and with repetition of up to three words ‘but, but, but’. Where print material is included, any errors in capitalisation, spelling and punctuation reflect those of the original, not of the authors of this report. Where reported speech is included, it is presented either as a standalone quote or, where necessary, with qualifying text included in [brackets], paraphrased from the original, in order to provide context.
If we have missed anything that Johnson said during the Brexit campaign please let us know and we will add it to the dossier.
Here is every one of the 200,000+ words that Boris Johnson said or posted publicly between 21 February 2016, the day he announced his pro-leave position on the EU referendum, and 22 June 2016, the day before the vote.
As the Brexit project shifts from rhetoric to reality we share this transcript for anyone to use in the hope that the public, journalists and politicians can hold him to account for the damage he is doing to our country and continent.
The fastest way to search is using the ‘find’ tool in your browser. On your phone if using Safari, hit the share box at the bottom and go to ‘Find on Page’. If using Chrome, hit the ‘…’ in the menu bar and select ‘Find in Page’. On a computer, hit “Control” and “F” or “Command” and “F” if you’re on a Mac.
Find something interesting? Screenshot it and tag us on Twitter @bydonkeys or Instagram @ledbydonkeys.
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.”
And
[top]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]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 --
[top]“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]“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]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 $1 billion, 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://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153498932666317
And
[top]“Brilliant piece by my friend @nadhimzawahi”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/701816925161127936
[top]“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.”
[top]“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.”
[top]“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]“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]Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-in-europe-u-turn-rz6dm5p3b
[top]“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]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.
And
https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153512539266317
[top]Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452
[top]“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.”
And
[top]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.
[top]“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.”
[top]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]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][For fisheries and farming] “...the subsidies would be better tailored to their needs.”
[top]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
[top]“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]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]Source: Evening Standard
[top]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]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]“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]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:
And
https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153526811216317
[top]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 --
[top]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]“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]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]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]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]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]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]“my gt grandfather was briefly a fairground wrestler so I am dead keen, grassroots sport benefited 400k since 2008”
[top]“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
“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
“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
“Europe yes EU no. #askboris @aldwickbaypaul”
Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709364096458760193
“because the EU is an anti-democratic zone of low growth ...Europe yes, EU no #askboris @rcosgrove”
Source: https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/709365661043003392
“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]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.
[top]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]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.
[top]“Americans would never accept EU restrictions - so why should we?”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/709325934965477376
[top]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
[top]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]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]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]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]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]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 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.”
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.
[top]“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].
“Hope that everyone celebrating has a very happy #StPatricksDay”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/710452154994200578
[top][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][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.“
[top]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.
[top]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]Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/new-social-supermarkets-to-cut-food-poverty
[top]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]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][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.“
Available on Box of Broadcasts, requiring an institutional login: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0C3173A0?bcast=121287490
[top]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]Source: https://www.itv.com/news/2016-03-21/ids-should-have-stayed-in-cabinet-says-boris-johnson/
[top]“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]Churchfields School Council
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]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.
[top]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]“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]“Wishing you and your family a very happy Easter.”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/713715201149952001
[top]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.
[top][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.”
[top]“There you go folks: vote Khan, get Corbyn.”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/715597784859209728
[top]“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]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.
[top][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]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.
[top]“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.”
[top]“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][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]“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]“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=10153621808466317https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU8OV4r9WsQ
[top]“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.”
[top]“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]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
[top]“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]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.
[top]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
[top]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]Source: https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/721039421890502656?s=20
“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]“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?”
[top]“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]“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]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.
[top][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.”
[top]”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]“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]“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]“Great to kick start the morning with the troops campaigning in Wandsworth for @ZacGoldsmith”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/722824893482446848
[top]“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.”
[top]“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.”
[top]“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]“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]“The Evening Standard is right. Londoners deserve proper answers:”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/723164199887769601
[top]“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]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.
[top]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.
[top]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]“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?”
[top]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]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.
[top][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.”
[top]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
[top]“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]“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]“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.”
[top]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]“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][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.”
“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]“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]“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.”
And
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/30/boris-spending-london-economic-woes
And
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjFboRwGiqc
[top]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.
[top]“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]“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]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]“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]“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.”
[top]“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]“Tomorrow you choose London’s next mayor – so get out and back @ZacGoldsmith.”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/727963410412019712
[top]“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]“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]“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]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]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]“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
And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piihgjW_oAg
[top]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.
[top][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”.
[top]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]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]“…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]“…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”.
[top]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.
[top]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]Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-distances-himself-brexit-7954142
[top]“I think I'd look a bit of a wimp if I said no.”
[top]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.
[top][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.”
Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/boris-to-dave-somehow-or-other-weve-got-to-have-debates/
[top]“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.”
[top]“Of course our City fat cats love the EU – it’s why they earn so much”
Source: https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/732134275206762496
[top]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