Boris Johnson savages Theresa May’s Chequers plan and says it’s ‘not too late to save Brexit’ in devastating resignation speech
BORIS Johnson savaged Theresa May’s Chequers plan and claimed it is “not too late to save Brexit” in a devastating resignation speech this afternoon.
He blasted the Prime Minister for "dithering" in the EU negotiations and allowing "a fog of self-doubt" to descend.
He was stood next to the spot where Geoffrey Howe delivered his devastating resignation speech in the House of Commons after quitting Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet in another Conservative party row over Europe.
The infamous intervention in 1990 contributed to Mrs Thatcher being toppled within weeks.
But today the former Foreign Secretary stopped short of calling for Mrs May to step down as Tory leader, and did not use his platform to launch another leadership bid.
Instead Mr Johnson, who exited the Cabinet last week, took an axe to her white paper - in the latest blow to the PM's fragile grip on power.
The key points from today's event are as follows:
- Boris Johnson urges Theresa May to ditch her "miserable" Chequers plan
- He said it left Britain in "miserable permanent limbo" and was "Brexit in name only"
- The former Foreign Secretary claimed it is “not too late to save Brexit”
- He delivered a “resignation speech” granted to exiting Cabinet Ministers in the Commons this afternoon
- In it he slammed the PM for “dithering” in the negotiations and going back on her Lancaster House vision
- But the leading Brexiteer stopped short of calling for her to stand down as leader
- Due to other statements pushing the speech back the PM was not even in the chamber to hear it
He began by praising his former boss, saying everyone who works for Mrs May will "recognise her courage and resilience".
But the leading Brexiteer turned on her - accusing her of going back on her Lancaster House speech on exiting the EU.
Mr Johnson said: "I thought it was the right vision then. I think so today.
"But in the 18 months that have followed it is as though a fog of self-doubt has descended.
"And even though our EU friends and partners liked the Lancaster House vision – it was what they were expecting from an ambitious partner - we never actually went to Brussels and turned it into a negotiating offer.
Described by Jacob Rees-Mogg as "the speech of a statesman", he went on: "Instead we dithered. We burned through negotiating capital.
"We agreed to hand over a £40billion exit fee, with no discussion of our future economic relationship.
"We accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court over key aspects of the withdrawal agreement.
"And worst of all we allowed the question of the Northern Irish border – which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble – to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate."
The former Mayor of London was entitled under parliamentary convention to make a formal resignation statement, which meant he cannot be heckled by MPs and can talk freely without taking interventions.
David Davis, who also resigned from the Cabinet last week, chose not to use this procedure, and instead made his first speech as a backbencher in a normal Commons debate.
He received permission from Speaker John Bercow to make the brief statement, which was expected to take place directly after Prime Minister’s Questions.
But it was delayed to the afternoon by several other statements - meaning Mrs May was not around to hear it.
Instead she was being grilled by MPs on the Commons Liaison Committee over her Brexit white paper.
Asked whether she will listen back later, she replied drily: “I’ll be doing my red box.”
A party source told The Times Mr Johnson had his "tail up" after the results of polling since his resignation have seen a rise in support amongst grassroots members.
And in another poll Mrs May’s position as Tory boss looked even more precarious as a survey by YouGov put the Conservatives down to 36 per cent – five points behind Labour on 41 per cent.
Mrs May had a tough day lined up after scraping through last night’s trade bill votes, facing her last PMQs before the summer recess before Mr Johnson’s intervention.
She then had to try and appease angry backbenchers at the meeting of the party’s 1922 committee - but appeared to come out of it unscathed.
In fact one of her backbench MPs publicly withdrew his letter calling for a leadership contest.
Simon Clarke reportedly said: “We’ve stared into the abyss in the last few days and we’ve got a decision to make about what to do.”
It was a much-needed boost for the PM after she was accused of ceding control of running the country to Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Former minister Anna Soubry said she had “full confidence” Mrs May, but added: "Problem is, I don't think that she's in charge anymore.
"I've no doubt Jacob Rees-Mogg is running our country."
Boris savages May for planning 'Brexit in name only'
Here is an abridged version of the former Foreign Secretary’s speech:
“None of this would have been possible without the support of my Right Honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Everyone who has worked with her will recognise her courage and resilience, and it was my privilege to collaborate with her in promoting Global Britain.
A vision for this country she set out with great clarity at Lancaster House on January 17 last year
A country eager as she said not just to do a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU – out of the customs union and out of the single market – but also to do new free trade deals around the world.
I thought it was the right vision then. I think so today.
But in the 18 months that have followed it is as though a fog of self-doubt has descended and even though our EU friends and partners liked the Lancaster House vision – it was what they were expecting from an ambitious partner, what they understood even though the commentators liked it, and the markets liked it (the pound soared) we never actually went to Brussels and turned it into a negotiating offer.
Instead we dithered. We burned through negotiating capital. We agreed to hand over a £40billion exit fee, with no discussion of our future economic relationship.
We accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court over key aspects of the withdrawal agreement and worst of all we allowed the question of the Northern Irish border – which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble – to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate.
So, Mr Speaker, after 18 months of stealthy retreat we have come from the bright certainties of Lancaster House to the Chequers agreement.
Put them side by side; Lancaster House said laws will be once again “made in Westminster”.
Chequers says there will be “ongoing harmonisation” with a common EU rulebook.
Lancaster House said it would be wrong to “comply with EU rules and regulations without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are”.
Chequers now makes us rule takers.
Lancaster House said we don’t want anything that leaves us “half-in, half-out” and that “we do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave”.
Chequers says that we will remain in lockstep on goods and agrifoods and much more besides with disputes ultimately adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.
Far from making laws in Westminster, there are large sectors in which ministers will have no power to initiate, innovate or even deviate.
After decades in which UK ministers have gone to Brussels and expostulated against costly EU regulation we are now claiming that we must accept every jot and tittle for our economic health – and with no say of our own and no way of protecting our businesses and entrepreneurs from rules that may be not in their interests.
We are volunteering for economic vassalage not just in goods and agri-foods but we will be forced to match EU arrangements on the environment and social affairs and much else besides.
And of course we all want high standards, but it is hard to see how the Conservative government of the 1980s could have done its vital supply side reforms with these freedoms taken away.
And the result of accepting the EU’s rule books, and of our proposal of a fantastical Heath Robinson customs arrangement, is that we have much less scope to do free trade deals – as the Chequers paper actually acknowledges.
And which we should all acknowledge, because otherwise we continue to make the fatal mistake of underestimating the intelligence of the public.
Saying one thing to the EU about what we are really doing, and pretending another to the electorate.
And given that in important ways this is BINO or Brino or “Brexit in name only” I am of course unable to support it, as I said in Cabinet at chequers, and am happy to be able now to speak out against it.
Mr Speaker, it is not too late to save Brexit. We have time in these negotiations, we have changed tack once and we can change again.
The problem is not that we failed to make the case for a Free Trade Agreement of the kind spelt out at Lancaster House
We haven’t even tried. We must try now, because we will not have another chance to get this right.
It is absolute nonsense to imagine – as I fear some of my colleagues do – that we can somehow afford to make a botched Treaty now, and then break and reset the bone later on.
We have seen even in these talks how the supposedly provisional becomes eternal
We have the time, I believe the PM has the support of parliament – remember the enthusiasm for Lancaster House.
And it was clear last night that there is no majority for going back to the customs union.
With good will and common sense we can address concerns about the Norther Ireland border and all other borders.
We have fully two and a half years to make the technical preparations – along with the preparations for a WTO outcome, which we should now accelerate.
We do not need to be stampeded by anyone, but let’s explicitly aim once again for the glorious vision of Lancaster House.
A strong independent self-governing Britain that is genuinely open to the world, not the miserable permanent limbo of Chequers.
The democratic disaster of “ongoing harmonisation” with no way out and no say for the UK.
We need to take one decision now before all others – and that is to believe in this country and what it can do.
Because the UK’s admirers across the world are fully expecting us to take back control, to be able to set new standards for technologies in which we excel, to behave not as rules takers but as great independent actors on the world stage; to do free trade deals for the benefit and prosperity of the British people.
That was the vision of Brexit we fought for; that was the vision the Prime Minister rightly described last year.
That is the prize. And if the PM can fix that vision once again before us then I believe she can deliver a great Brexit for Britain
With a positive and self-confident approach that will unite this party, unite this house and unite the country as well.