Brexit clash: Furious Hammond to shame Johnson over EU plan - ‘Job on the line!' PHILIP Hammond is set to throw down the gauntlet to Boris Johnson by vowing to “fight and fight again” to save the Tory Party from Brexit extremism.
In a highly provocative speech at the Mansion House in the City of London on Thursday evening, the Chancellor will warn that the incoming prime minister is almost certain to face the same parliamentary deadlock over the departure from the EU as Theresa May.
He will predict her successor - almost certain to be the former foreign secretary - could be forced to trigger a second EU referendum or general election as the only way to break the deadlock.
“If the new Prime Minister cannot end the deadlock in Parliament, then he will have to explore other democratic mechanisms to break the impasse
The chancellor is to challenge the remaining Tory leadership contenders to lay out their "Plan B" if their Brexit proposals falter when one of them becomes prime minister. Philip Hammond will also hint a second referendum could be needed to break the current deadlock over the UK's departure from the EU, scheduled for 31 October. In a speech in the City of London, Mr Hammond, who has not declared who he is backing, will claim a no-deal Brexit could hit the public finances, risk the break-up of the UK and damage the economy.
The latest in the Conservative leadership contest and a theme of "revenge" features widely on many of Friday's newspaper front pages. "Boris gets his revenge" is the Daily Mail's headline. It reports that former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been accused of lending the votes of his supporters to Jeremy Hunt, after Michael Gove wrecked his previous campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party. A friend of Mr Gove tells the paper he has been the victim of "dark dealings". The Daily Telegraph has the same story under a similar headline: "Boris exacts his revenge", while the Daily Express describes Mr Gove being knocked out of the leadership contest as a moment of "sweet revenge" for the frontrunner. The Times goes further, claiming that Mr Johnson's supporters "boasted" about their revenge on Mr Gove. It quotes one unnamed MP as saying: "Gove stabbed us in the back - we've stabbed him in the front". "Was the result fixed?" asks the Guardian. It says Boris Johnson's camp believes Mr Hunt, who is dubbed "Theresa in trousers" by some at Westminster, will make a less formidable adversary than Mr Gove.
The Financial Times comments that Conservative MPs were once labelled "the most sophisticated electorate in the world". But after a day of dark rumours of skulduggery, one MP sighed: "Better to say we're the most duplicitous." The Daily Mirror complains that after the latest round in the Conservative leadership race, "shameless Johnson " or "callous Hunt" will be the next prime minister - and voters don't get a say. But the Daily Telegraph thinks that finally the country has what it needed three years ago: a public contest for the leadership of the party. It sees the vote as an historic opportunity to remind the candidates what the voters think beyond the world of Westminster.
Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin makes brilliant no deal Brexit point on BBC Question Time TIM MARTIN, the founder of the popular Wetherspoons pub chain used his appearance on BBC Question Time last night to launch a passionate defence of a no deal Brexit.
Carney dismisses Johnson trade claim on no-deal Brexit
LONDON (Reuters) - Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has dismissed a claim by Boris Johnson, the frontrunner in the race to become prime minister, that Britain can avoid the hit of European Union trade tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Carney told the BBC that leaving the EU without a transition deal should be a choice taken with "absolute clarity" about what it would mean for Britain's economy, which would sustain both short- and long-term damage. Many companies were not fully ready for such an abrupt shift, he said. Johnson has said that world trade rules include a provision, known as Article 24 of the GATT, that permits trade to continue unchanged between two parties if they so decide. But Carney said such an arrangement applied only when a trade deal was in place or about to be in place. "So... we should be clear that not having an agreement with the European Union would mean that there are tariffs, automatically, because the Europeans have to apply the same rules to us as they apply to everyone else," he said. Carney has previously warned about the economic impact of a no-deal Brexit, prompting anger among Brexit supporters
Varadkar comes clean over Brexit threat and admits IRELAND would implement no-deal border LEO Varadkar yesterday conceded that a no-deal Brexit would force Dublin to throw up a hard border in order to protect the European Union.
Photographs of Boris Johnson and his girlfriend dominate the front pages, after their neighbour called police to report a noisy argument between the couple. According to The Sun, the former mayor of London's bid to become prime minister is "in chaos" following the incident, which the paper describes as "a blazing row". The deputy political editor of the Daily Express, Sam Lister, says this morning's headlines are the sort of upset Mr Johnson's team have been desperate to avoid and will underline demands from opponents that he should face rigorous scrutiny. "Mr Johnson will now need to ditch his policy of avoiding tough questioning and come out into the open", he writes, "if he is to have a chance of keeping his leadership bid alive". 'Suitability to lead' The paper's editorial calls on the former foreign secretary to "get his house in order" and understand that running for the highest office in the land "is a serious business". The Times says the revelations have "reignited concerns about Mr Johnson's suitability to lead the country", but admits it is "far from clear" how the latest turbulence in his private life will play with Conservative party members "who have so far shown little inclination to condemn his moral frailties". The Guardian was the first paper to report Mr Johnson's argument on its website yesterday and also leads on the story.
He appears to have a large majority of Tory members in favour of electing him as our next PM.
His tendency to self destruct, is maybe the only thing that will stop him winning the leadership contest.
Last nights events may have begun this process, although it is difficult to predict the Tory memberships reaction to these events.
One of the errors made by Theresa May was to threaten both sides of the Tory Party, with a different outcome. This could only ever work as a short term strategy, as at some point you have to choose a definitive solution. So threatening one side with no deal, and the other side with no Brexit, could only be maintained in the short term.
It is difficult to see how Boris could have solicited such diverse support without maintaining this strategy. What happens when he has to come clean? His categorical statement that we would leave without fail on 31st October, deal or no deal, allowed him to gain support from the hard line ERG members. Yet on his first public appearance after coming out of hiding, on the BBC debate, when Emily Maitlis asked the candidates to raise their hands if they were guaranteeing to leave in October, he failed to do so. His reply, stating that this was eminently feasible did not seem to amount to a guarantee.
It is impossible to see how he can maintain the support of the hardline no deal leavers, in addition to the soft Brexit remainers, subsequent to being forced to come clean.
His Brexit policy is incoherent.
Most people are aware that the biggest stumbling block to the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, is the backstop.
His solution as outlined in a speech he made last week is to kick the backstop down the road. He maintained that his plan was to detach the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement, and negotiate a solution during the future trade negotiations. This is despite the fact that the EU have clearly said on numerous occasions that there would be no further negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement or the backstop.
So his solution seems to be to achieve a majority support for Theresa Mays WA in Parliament by removing the backstop, and gaining EU agreement to this. This will be dependant on finding a solution to the backstop in the future, despite the fact that the Tory Government, which he was a part of, have been unable to accomplish this during the last 3 years.
Good luck with that.
Tim Martin appeared on Question Time on Thursday, and continued to spout his nonsense. He made three points which were completely incorrect. I fail to see how it has been possible for him to continue preaching so much boll0cks.
His first point was that we would not have to pay the EU the £39billion, that we have agreed to pay them.
Firstly the figure of £39billion is now incorrect, as it will have increased by £1billion per month during the 7 months extension since the end of March.
Secondly the figure includes, money that has already been spent, future projects that will be completed during this budget period that we are already committed to, future obligations like pensions etc, that are unavoidable.
Part of the obligation refers to our contributions during the transition period, which may be avoided if we left on a no deal basis, but would be a small saving in view of the chaos this would cause.
To suggest that we would save the full amount is an absolute lie. The EU would categorically take us to court to recover the money, and undoubtedly win the case.
Any suggestion that this action would make the EU more amenable to striking a trade deal would seem to be the height of optimism.
This policy in relation to Wetherspoons would seem to be the suggestion that they could increase profits by not paying their suppliers. When the likely outcome would be that existing suppliers would refuse to supply any further goods, and take them to court to recover the outstanding money. Whilst any replacement suppliers would be reluctant to deal with them, whilst this policy continued.
His second point was that regaining control of our fishing would somehow improve the industry. Yet we sell 60% of our fish to other EU members tariff free. A no deal exit would involve a 20% tariff and therefore make us much less competitive, and surely in the long term put an end to us supplying EU members.
To suggest that an ability to catch more fish creates an immediate improvement is a naïve view. You cant ignore the fact that you still need customers to purchase these fish. You should also take into account that we would lose fishing rights in European waters, that a 20% tariff is unlikely to improve sales, and that EU quotas have made a huge improvement to fish stocks.
His third point was regarding the elimination of tariffs. This is a lie. It would be impossible under WTO rules, unless we were extremely close to a free trade agreement with the EU, which is obviously not the case, and also on the condition that the EU were in complete agreement. So we don't pay the bill and they agree to our demands, unlikely to happen.
The man is obviously not stupid, he is a qualified Barrister. I cant understand his motivation for preaching this nonsense.
While Corbyn continues to sit on the fence, Boris sits on both sides. Nether can continue in the long term.
This may result in Boris becoming PM for the shortest period in history, providing he can behave for long enough to actually get there.
He appears to have a large majority of Tory members in favour of electing him as our next PM.
His tendency to self destruct, is maybe the only thing that will stop him winning the leadership contest.
Last nights events may have begun this process, although it is difficult to predict the Tory memberships reaction to these events.
One of the errors made by Theresa May was to threaten both sides of the Tory Party, with a different outcome. This could only ever work as a short term strategy, as at some point you have to choose a definitive solution. So threatening one side with no deal, and the other side with no Brexit, could only be maintained in the short term.
It is difficult to see how Boris could have solicited such diverse support without maintaining this strategy. What happens when he has to come clean? His categorical statement that we would leave without fail on 31st October, deal or no deal, allowed him to gain support from the hard line ERG members. Yet on his first public appearance after coming out of hiding, on the BBC debate, when Emily Maitlis asked the candidates to raise their hands if they were guaranteeing to leave in October, he failed to do so. His reply, stating that this was eminently feasible did not seem to amount to a guarantee.
It is impossible to see how he can maintain the support of the hardline no deal leavers, in addition to the soft Brexit remainers, subsequent to being forced to come clean.
His Brexit policy is incoherent.
Most people are aware that the biggest stumbling block to the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, is the backstop.
His solution as outlined in a speech he made last week is to kick the backstop down the road. He maintained that his plan was to detach the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement, and negotiate a solution during the future trade negotiations. This is despite the fact that the EU have clearly said on numerous occasions that there would be no further negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement or the backstop.
So his solution seems to be to achieve a majority support for Theresa Mays WA in Parliament by removing the backstop, and gaining EU agreement to this. This will be dependant on finding a solution to the backstop in the future, despite the fact that the Tory Government, which he was a part of, have been unable to accomplish this during the last 3 years.
Good luck with that.
Tim Martin appeared on Question Time on Thursday, and continued to spout his nonsense. He made three points which were completely incorrect. I fail to see how it has been possible for him to continue preaching so much boll0cks.
His first point was that we would not have to pay the EU the £39billion, that we have agreed to pay them.
Firstly the figure of £39billion is now incorrect, as it will have increased by £1billion per month during the 7 months extension since the end of March.
Secondly the figure includes, money that has already been spent, future projects that will be completed during this budget period that we are already committed to, future obligations like pensions etc, that are unavoidable.
Part of the obligation refers to our contributions during the transition period, which may be avoided if we left on a no deal basis, but would be a small saving in view of the chaos this would cause.
To suggest that we would save the full amount is an absolute lie. The EU would categorically take us to court to recover the money, and undoubtedly win the case.
Any suggestion that this action would make the EU more amenable to striking a trade deal would seem to be the height of optimism.
This policy in relation to Wetherspoons would seem to be the suggestion that they could increase profits by not paying their suppliers. When the likely outcome would be that existing suppliers would refuse to supply any further goods, and take them to court to recover the outstanding money. Whilst any replacement suppliers would be reluctant to deal with them, whilst this policy continued.
His second point was that regaining control of our fishing would somehow improve the industry. Yet we sell 60% of our fish to other EU members tariff free. A no deal exit would involve a 20% tariff and therefore make us much less competitive, and surely in the long term put an end to us supplying EU members.
To suggest that an ability to catch more fish creates an immediate improvement is a naïve view. You cant ignore the fact that you still need customers to purchase these fish. You should also take into account that we would lose fishing rights in European waters, that a 20% tariff is unlikely to improve sales, and that EU quotas have made a huge improvement to fish stocks.
His third point was regarding the elimination of tariffs. This is a lie. It would be impossible under WTO rules, unless we were extremely close to a free trade agreement with the EU, which is obviously not the case, and also on the condition that the EU were in complete agreement. So we don't pay the bill and they agree to our demands, unlikely to happen.
The man is obviously not stupid, he is a qualified Barrister. I cant understand his motivation for preaching this nonsense.
While Corbyn continues to sit on the fence, Boris sits on both sides. Nether can continue in the long term.
This may result in Boris becoming PM for the shortest period in history, providing he can behave for long enough to actually get there.
What happens if the UK refuses to pay the 39 billion 'Brexit bill'? Are we obliged to, and where does the number come from?
UK would be taken to the International Court and would be a permanent pariah in the WTO for reneging on its agreed debts. The debt comes from past monies unpaid; money for continuing projects signed up to, and pensions of civil servants and MEPs. Ironically, Farage gets a £150K severance package plus a £73K pension when he gets ejected from his MEP non-job in March. It would shame the country which has always been honourable in repaying its debts. “My word is my bond”. UK does not pay its way it survives by borrowing and credit card debt. It survives by the ‘kindness of friends” (Bank of England) to prop up its annual deficit and £2 Trillion national debt for which it pays £43B a year interest. If lenders believe UK will not honour its debts, why would they lend UK a penny of their “hard earned” money? As in 1976, UK may have to call in the IMF to bail the Government out. UK could not negotiate with the EU for a free trade deal if the bill was not being paid off. The huge extra cost of permanently trading on WTO terms with the EU would kill farming and car manufacturer as well as many, many small UK businesses. Inflation in UK would rocket and the £ sink even lower. The EU is the huge trading block every country wants to do trade deals with and keep good will with their existing deals. UK is way down the list for trade deal ambitions so they will tend to side with the EU and keep UK out of any new deals. EU says you choose UK or us.
That these idiotic Brexit ultras can feed the mirage of non-existent trade deals, losing 160 vital EU preference trade arrangements with non-EU countries and also promote reneging on our debts at the same time, shows how absolutely worthless their arguments for the benefits of Brexit are.
Tim Martin appeared on Question Time on Thursday, and continued to spout his nonsense. He made three points which were completely incorrect. I fail to see how it has been possible for him to continue preaching so much boll0cks.
His first point was that we would not have to pay the EU the £39billion, that we have agreed to pay them.
Firstly the figure of £39billion is now incorrect, as it will have increased by £1billion per month during the 7 months extension since the end of March.
Secondly the figure includes, money that has already been spent, future projects that will be completed during this budget period that we are already committed to, future obligations like pensions etc, that are unavoidable.
Part of the obligation refers to our contributions during the transition period, which may be avoided if we left on a no deal basis, but would be a small saving in view of the chaos this would cause.
To suggest that we would save the full amount is an absolute lie. The EU would categorically take us to court to recover the money, and undoubtedly win the case.
Any suggestion that this action would make the EU more amenable to striking a trade deal would seem to be the height of optimism.
This policy in relation to Wetherspoons would seem to be the suggestion that they could increase profits by not paying their suppliers. When the likely outcome would be that existing suppliers would refuse to supply any further goods, and take them to court to recover the outstanding money. Whilst any replacement suppliers would be reluctant to deal with them, whilst this policy continued.
His second point was that regaining control of our fishing would somehow improve the industry. Yet we sell 60% of our fish to other EU members tariff free. A no deal exit would involve a 20% tariff and therefore make us much less competitive, and surely in the long term put an end to us supplying EU members.
To suggest that an ability to catch more fish creates an immediate improvement is a naïve view. You cant ignore the fact that you still need customers to purchase these fish. You should also take into account that we would lose fishing rights in European waters, that a 20% tariff is unlikely to improve sales, and that EU quotas have made a huge improvement to fish stocks.
His third point was regarding the elimination of tariffs. This is a lie. It would be impossible under WTO rules, unless we were extremely close to a free trade agreement with the EU, which is obviously not the case, and also on the condition that the EU were in complete agreement. So we don't pay the bill and they agree to our demands, unlikely to happen.
The man is obviously not stupid, he is a qualified Barrister. I cant understand his motivation for preaching this nonsense.
While Corbyn continues to sit on the fence, Boris sits on both sides. Nether can continue in the long term.
This may result in Boris becoming PM for the shortest period in history, providing he can behave for long enough to actually get there.
The EU Common Fisheries Policy has helped, not harmed, UK fisheries With an In/Out referendum on the horizon, we take a look at one of the EU's most maligned and misunderstood policies.
Fishing quotas are leading to stock recovery
It is also worth noting that even now, when stocks are being rebuilt, the UK industry’s gross profit margin has increased from a healthy 15% in 2008 to 35% in 2014 and now stands at €367 million, the highest in the EU. For the UK fishing industry, EU management seems to be delivering benefits despite protests coming from the UK itself.
There’s a good reason for non-British boats in our waters
You may have read that foreign countries are in our waters and catching all the British fish. While the whole concept of “British fish” is nonsensical to begin with, it’s worth exploring how quota is allocated between countries in the EU.
In addition to this, the proposal to ban foreign vessels as some have advocated is likely to be incompatible with international law as many fishing rights stretch as far back as the Middle AgesIn addition to this, the proposal to ban foreign vessels as some have advocated is likely to be incompatible with international law as many fishing rights stretch as far back as the Middle Ages. Calls for such a ban also don’t acknowledge that British boats also operate in other nations’ waters regularly to fish, sell at foreign ports and undergo vessel repairs. The UK fishing industry itself opposes such a ban.
Which fishing vessels receive quota is a national decision
Many ports around the UK only have a small fraction of the vessels they once had, but blaming the EU here doesn’t make much sense. First, technological changes have led to a reduction in the number of fishing vessels in developed countries both inside and outside the EU. Second, vessel decommissioning schemes from the EU actually helped many fishers and coastal communities through a difficult transition as quotas lessened. Third, one of the most significant issues for small ports is how quota is allocated between different fishing fleets and this is a national decision.
Consider the controversial Cornelis Vrolijk, a Dutch-owned 114-metre vessel that holds 23% of total English fishing quota. While the quota concentration is shocking, it is not a result of EU management; the vessel is deemed English under UK law and any quota assigned and requirement to land a certain share of fish in the UK is therefore set by the UK government itself.
What would Brexit mean for the UK’s fishing industry?
It is not a view shared by the Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss, who says she “firmly believes UK fishermen are better off inside the EU”. She believes it is “wishful thinking” to suggest that Britain can get a better deal for its fishermen outside of Europe. Britain, she says, has only 13 per cent of the EU’s total sea area, but is allocated 30pc of the total quota and our trawlers fish in Irish, German, French and Dutch waters with catches worth about £100m a year. She has warned that Britain would not have automatic and immediate freedom to control its own waters if it left the EU – and would still have to comply with the bloc’s restrictions without having any say over them.
Supporters of EU membership also point out that 66 per cent of UK seafood exports go to EU countries and that seven out of the top ten countries that Britain exports to are in the EU. They say industry profits are going up from 271 million euros gross profit in 2013 to 367 million euros gross profit in 2014.
They say that while many small vessels in the UK are suffering from low quotas, the UK has the second largest quota allocation in the EU and leaving the EU could result in a “tragedy” of overfishing and trawlermen’s livelihoods could suffer during years of bureaucratic wrangling. “Fish aren’t British or French or Spanish – they’re just fish and they don’t respect national boundaries,” said Debbie Crockard, the MSC’s senior fisheries policy advocate.
“An exit from the EU could unpick the largely successful efforts that have already taken place to ensure we can continue to enjoy a fish supper,” Ms Crockard said.
He appears to have a large majority of Tory members in favour of electing him as our next PM.
His tendency to self destruct, is maybe the only thing that will stop him winning the leadership contest.
Last nights events may have begun this process, although it is difficult to predict the Tory memberships reaction to these events.
One of the errors made by Theresa May was to threaten both sides of the Tory Party, with a different outcome. This could only ever work as a short term strategy, as at some point you have to choose a definitive solution. So threatening one side with no deal, and the other side with no Brexit, could only be maintained in the short term.
It is difficult to see how Boris could have solicited such diverse support without maintaining this strategy. What happens when he has to come clean? His categorical statement that we would leave without fail on 31st October, deal or no deal, allowed him to gain support from the hard line ERG members. Yet on his first public appearance after coming out of hiding, on the BBC debate, when Emily Maitlis asked the candidates to raise their hands if they were guaranteeing to leave in October, he failed to do so. His reply, stating that this was eminently feasible did not seem to amount to a guarantee.
It is impossible to see how he can maintain the support of the hardline no deal leavers, in addition to the soft Brexit remainers, subsequent to being forced to come clean.
His Brexit policy is incoherent.
Most people are aware that the biggest stumbling block to the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, is the backstop.
His solution as outlined in a speech he made last week is to kick the backstop down the road. He maintained that his plan was to detach the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement, and negotiate a solution during the future trade negotiations. This is despite the fact that the EU have clearly said on numerous occasions that there would be no further negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement or the backstop.
So his solution seems to be to achieve a majority support for Theresa Mays WA in Parliament by removing the backstop, and gaining EU agreement to this. This will be dependant on finding a solution to the backstop in the future, despite the fact that the Tory Government, which he was a part of, have been unable to accomplish this during the last 3 years.
Good luck with that.
Tim Martin appeared on Question Time on Thursday, and continued to spout his nonsense. He made three points which were completely incorrect. I fail to see how it has been possible for him to continue preaching so much boll0cks.
His first point was that we would not have to pay the EU the £39billion, that we have agreed to pay them.
Firstly the figure of £39billion is now incorrect, as it will have increased by £1billion per month during the 7 months extension since the end of March.
Secondly the figure includes, money that has already been spent, future projects that will be completed during this budget period that we are already committed to, future obligations like pensions etc, that are unavoidable.
Part of the obligation refers to our contributions during the transition period, which may be avoided if we left on a no deal basis, but would be a small saving in view of the chaos this would cause.
To suggest that we would save the full amount is an absolute lie. The EU would categorically take us to court to recover the money, and undoubtedly win the case.
Any suggestion that this action would make the EU more amenable to striking a trade deal would seem to be the height of optimism.
This policy in relation to Wetherspoons would seem to be the suggestion that they could increase profits by not paying their suppliers. When the likely outcome would be that existing suppliers would refuse to supply any further goods, and take them to court to recover the outstanding money. Whilst any replacement suppliers would be reluctant to deal with them, whilst this policy continued.
His second point was that regaining control of our fishing would somehow improve the industry. Yet we sell 60% of our fish to other EU members tariff free. A no deal exit would involve a 20% tariff and therefore make us much less competitive, and surely in the long term put an end to us supplying EU members.
To suggest that an ability to catch more fish creates an immediate improvement is a naïve view. You cant ignore the fact that you still need customers to purchase these fish. You should also take into account that we would lose fishing rights in European waters, that a 20% tariff is unlikely to improve sales, and that EU quotas have made a huge improvement to fish stocks.
His third point was regarding the elimination of tariffs. This is a lie. It would be impossible under WTO rules, unless we were extremely close to a free trade agreement with the EU, which is obviously not the case, and also on the condition that the EU were in complete agreement. So we don't pay the bill and they agree to our demands, unlikely to happen.
The man is obviously not stupid, he is a qualified Barrister. I cant understand his motivation for preaching this nonsense.
While Corbyn continues to sit on the fence, Boris sits on both sides. Nether can continue in the long term.
This may result in Boris becoming PM for the shortest period in history, providing he can behave for long enough to actually get there.
Why GATT 24 won’t help a no-deal Brexit UK Trade experts say Tory frontrunner Boris Johnson is wrong
Unicorns are still running free in the Tory leadership contest and some candidates seem determined to keep chasing them — particularly when it comes to how the U.K. would fare in a no-deal scenario. A line from front-runner Boris Johnson during the leadership debate on Tuesday was a case in point. He was challenged by Rory Stewart — who was knocked out of the race Wednesday — over colossal tariffs on lamb if the U.K. leaves the EU without a deal. Johnson resurrected a WTO myth that has had trade wonks pulling their hair out for months.
"There will be no tariffs and there will be no quotas," Johnson declared. "What we want to do is get a standstill in our current arrangements, under GATT 24 or whatever it happens to be, until such time as we have negotiated the FTA." There's no disputing that Article 24 of the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade exists. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage and other Brexiteers have touted it as a way to keep tariff-free trade flowing across the Channel even if the Withdrawal Agreement is never ratified by the British parliament and there is therefore no Brexit transition period. According to Brexiteers, the legal text keeps tariffs at zero for several years when a free-trade agreement is being negotiated.
However, Article 24 only applies to countries who are on the verge of finalizing free-trade agreements with each other — a situation the U.K. would certainly not be in on November 1 this year, whether there is a deal or no deal. Pro-Brexit group Lawyers For Britain is now making a somewhat fanciful call for a mini-FTA in order to pave the way to using Article 24. And there's another massive stumbling block to all of this: The EU would need to be on board, too. European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström told Reuters less than a week ago that the idea is "completely wrong" and that no deal would definitely mean tariffs. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has set out weighty conditions for trade talks to begin if there is no deal.
Boris Johnson is on nearly all the front pages - but the headlines won't make comfortable reading for his campaign team. "Why won't Boris tell us what happened?" asks the Sunday Express next to a picture of a troubled-looking Mr Johnson with his hand on his brow. The row at the home of his girlfriend, Carrie Symonds, has prompted the Tory leadership contest to erupt into acrimony, according to the Sunday Times. It points to comments by his rival, Jeremy Hunt, who warns that Mr Johnson doesn't deserve to lead the country unless he answers questions about his character. And the paper quotes an unnamed cabinet minister - close to Theresa May - who believes the former Foreign Secretary's colourful private life makes him a security risk, because he could be vulnerable to blackmail by other states. The Sunday Telegraph gives more details of the couple who taped the dispute during the early hours of Friday morning. It says one of them is a pro-EU theatre producer and writer who once bragged on social media about making a rude gesture to Mr Johnson. The Sun says that nobody should be in any doubt that the former foreign secretary was the victim of a left-wing stitch-up.And it mocks the concern of Ms Symonds' neighbours, noting this was so great they immediately gave the recording to the Guardian. Nevertheless, the Sun believes Mr Johnson was wrong to duck questions about what happened, arguing he needs to put the incident behind him.
Don't be fooled by the promises – none of the Tory leadership candidates can deliver what they pledge It’s not just on Brexit that they’re overpromising, but also their pledges to cut taxes, a traditional Tory tune which will appeal to members but leave the winner with a big headache about how to deliver them
Sensational email to Tory boss alleges MPs were bullied into Boris Johnson vote EXCLUSIVE: Police will be called if Boris Johnson supporters are found to have intimidated voters in the leadership contest
He claims one MP reported receiving a phone call from his local association chairman threatening to pass a motion of no confidence in him if he did not vote for Mr Johnson. Mr Morris said national electoral laws should apply to the leadership vote.
He wrote: “This is intimidatory behaviour. These are very serious tactics and could lead to criminal prosecutions. I want a categoric assurance these kinds of activities will not continue.”
Hunt ramps up pressure on Johnson to explain police visit
Jeremy Hunt has increased the pressure on Boris Johnson to explain why police were called to his home after a row with his partner by warning that the Conservative leadership frontrunner “needs to show he can answer difficult questions”.
Boris Johnson's claim that world trade rules could be used after Brexit to avoid tariffs "isn't true", cabinet minister Liam Fox has said.
The international trade secretary, who is backing Jeremy Hunt for leader, said the EU will apply trade tariffs.
Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Fox rejected Mr Johnson's claim that the UK could secure a 10-year standstill in current arrangements using an article of the EU's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade known as "Gatt 24". "It isn't true, that's the problem," he said. Mr Fox said Mr Johnson's argument that a new free trade agreement could be negotiated during an implementation period "doesn't actually hold". "If you don't get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament, there is no implementation period during which we can do anything at all," he said.
"Secondly, if we leave the European Union without a deal the EU will apply tariffs to the UK because you can only have exemptions, as described, if you already have a trade agreement to go to. "Clearly if we leave without a deal it's self-evident we don't have that agreement, so Article 24 doesn't hold in that circumstance." But he said a no-deal Brexit is the "legal default position" and the UK will have "no negotiating capital" if it is ruled out. Justice Secretary David Gauke, who had been backing Rory Stewart for leader until the international development secretary's elimination, also criticised Mr Johnson's Brexit plan, saying it was not "credible".
As his personal troubles dominate the front pages for another day, the concerned expression of Boris Johnson - clasping his hand against his mouth - appears on the cover of the Metro. The paper says pressure is mounting on the Conservative leadership challenger to "come clean" about the argument that saw police officers called to the flat he shares with his girlfriend, Carrie Symonds. The Sun claims the couple were on the verge of splitting up earlier this month and have had four "explosive" rows in recent weeks, including what it calls a "huge spat" when Mr Johnson apparently got home late after a night out. The Mirror goes further - suggesting that he's mulling over a reconciliation with his estranged wife, Marina Wheeler. An unnamed source tells the paper: "This is a classic example of Boris wanting to have his cake and eat it".
The Daily Mail says Mr Johnson and Ms Symonds have now fled their south London home because anarchists are camped outside with banners, using the incident as an "excuse to protest against the Conservative party". Friends of the couple think it may be impossible for the former foreign secretary to ever return to the property in Camberwell, but insist that he has no intention of ending their relationship. "The events of the past few days have made them stronger than ever," says one source who adds: "They really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense". Hospital failings According to the Guardian, a great-nephew of the NHS founder, Nye Bevan, died after two hospital trusts made serious mistakes during his treatment for lung cancer. The paper says doctors diagnosed Roderick Bevan at the end of 2016 while treating him for another condition - but didn't offer him radiotherapy for another 15 months, by which point the cancer was incurable. An inquest concluded that "neglect" played a part in Mr Bevan's death. The two NHS Trusts involved - in Leicester and Lincolnshire - have apologised.
Comments
PHILIP Hammond is set to throw down the gauntlet to Boris Johnson by vowing to “fight and fight again” to save the Tory Party from Brexit extremism.
In a highly provocative speech at the Mansion House in the City of London on Thursday evening, the Chancellor will warn that the incoming prime minister is almost certain to face the same parliamentary deadlock over the departure from the EU as Theresa May.
He will predict her successor - almost certain to be the former foreign secretary - could be forced to trigger a second EU referendum or general election as the only way to break the deadlock.
“If the new Prime Minister cannot end the deadlock in Parliament, then he will have to explore other democratic mechanisms to break the impasse
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142710/brexit-news-tory-leadership-contest-boris-johnson-philip-hammond
The chancellor is to challenge the remaining Tory leadership contenders to lay out their "Plan B" if their Brexit proposals falter when one of them becomes prime minister.
Philip Hammond will also hint a second referendum could be needed to break the current deadlock over the UK's departure from the EU, scheduled for 31 October.
In a speech in the City of London, Mr Hammond, who has not declared who he is backing, will claim a no-deal Brexit could hit the public finances, risk the break-up of the UK and damage the economy.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hammond-no-deal-brexit-could-break-up-the-uk/ar-AAD8SLc?ocid=spartanntp
The latest in the Conservative leadership contest and a theme of "revenge" features widely on many of Friday's newspaper front pages.
"Boris gets his revenge" is the Daily Mail's headline. It reports that former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been accused of lending the votes of his supporters to Jeremy Hunt, after Michael Gove wrecked his previous campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party.
A friend of Mr Gove tells the paper he has been the victim of "dark dealings".
The Daily Telegraph has the same story under a similar headline: "Boris exacts his revenge", while the Daily Express describes Mr Gove being knocked out of the leadership contest as a moment of "sweet revenge" for the frontrunner.
The Times goes further, claiming that Mr Johnson's supporters "boasted" about their revenge on Mr Gove.
It quotes one unnamed MP as saying: "Gove stabbed us in the back - we've stabbed him in the front".
"Was the result fixed?" asks the Guardian. It says Boris Johnson's camp believes Mr Hunt, who is dubbed "Theresa in trousers" by some at Westminster, will make a less formidable adversary than Mr Gove.
The Financial Times comments that Conservative MPs were once labelled "the most sophisticated electorate in the world". But after a day of dark rumours of skulduggery, one MP sighed: "Better to say we're the most duplicitous."
The Daily Mirror complains that after the latest round in the Conservative leadership race, "shameless Johnson " or "callous Hunt" will be the next prime minister - and voters don't get a say.
But the Daily Telegraph thinks that finally the country has what it needed three years ago: a public contest for the leadership of the party. It sees the vote as an historic opportunity to remind the candidates what the voters think beyond the world of Westminster.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48713959
Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin makes brilliant no deal Brexit point on BBC Question Time
TIM MARTIN, the founder of the popular Wetherspoons pub chain used his appearance on BBC Question Time last night to launch a passionate defence of a no deal Brexit.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1143316/BBC-Question-Time-Brexit-news-Wetherspoons-Tim-Martin-no-deal-leave-EU
LONDON (Reuters) - Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has dismissed a claim by Boris Johnson, the frontrunner in the race to become prime minister, that Britain can avoid the hit of European Union trade tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Carney told the BBC that leaving the EU without a transition deal should be a choice taken with "absolute clarity" about what it would mean for Britain's economy, which would sustain both short- and long-term damage.
Many companies were not fully ready for such an abrupt shift, he said.
Johnson has said that world trade rules include a provision, known as Article 24 of the GATT, that permits trade to continue unchanged between two parties if they so decide.
But Carney said such an arrangement applied only when a trade deal was in place or about to be in place.
"So... we should be clear that not having an agreement with the European Union would mean that there are tariffs, automatically, because the Europeans have to apply the same rules to us as they apply to everyone else," he said.
Carney has previously warned about the economic impact of a no-deal Brexit, prompting anger among Brexit supporters
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-must-clear-no-deal-052014884.html
LEO Varadkar yesterday conceded that a no-deal Brexit would force Dublin to throw up a hard border in order to protect the European Union.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1143623/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Ireland-irish-border-backstop-Leo-Varadkar
Photographs of Boris Johnson and his girlfriend dominate the front pages, after their neighbour called police to report a noisy argument between the couple.
According to The Sun, the former mayor of London's bid to become prime minister is "in chaos" following the incident, which the paper describes as "a blazing row".
The deputy political editor of the Daily Express, Sam Lister, says this morning's headlines are the sort of upset Mr Johnson's team have been desperate to avoid and will underline demands from opponents that he should face rigorous scrutiny.
"Mr Johnson will now need to ditch his policy of avoiding tough questioning and come out into the open", he writes, "if he is to have a chance of keeping his leadership bid alive".
'Suitability to lead'
The paper's editorial calls on the former foreign secretary to "get his house in order" and understand that running for the highest office in the land "is a serious business".
The Times says the revelations have "reignited concerns about Mr Johnson's suitability to lead the country", but admits it is "far from clear" how the latest turbulence in his private life will play with Conservative party members "who have so far shown little inclination to condemn his moral frailties".
The Guardian was the first paper to report Mr Johnson's argument on its website yesterday and also leads on the story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48727620
He appears to have a large majority of Tory members in favour of electing him as our next PM.
His tendency to self destruct, is maybe the only thing that will stop him winning the leadership contest.
Last nights events may have begun this process, although it is difficult to predict the Tory memberships reaction to these events.
One of the errors made by Theresa May was to threaten both sides of the Tory Party, with a different outcome. This could only ever work as a short term strategy, as at some point you have to choose a definitive solution. So threatening one side with no deal, and the other side with no Brexit, could only be maintained in the short term.
It is difficult to see how Boris could have solicited such diverse support without maintaining this strategy. What happens when he has to come clean? His categorical statement that we would leave without fail on 31st October, deal or no deal, allowed him to gain support from the hard line ERG members. Yet on his first public appearance after coming out of hiding, on the BBC debate, when Emily Maitlis asked the candidates to raise their hands if they were guaranteeing to leave in October, he failed to do so. His reply, stating that this was eminently feasible did not seem to amount to a guarantee.
It is impossible to see how he can maintain the support of the hardline no deal leavers, in addition to the soft Brexit remainers, subsequent to being forced to come clean.
His Brexit policy is incoherent.
Most people are aware that the biggest stumbling block to the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, is the backstop.
His solution as outlined in a speech he made last week is to kick the backstop down the road. He maintained that his plan was to detach the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement, and negotiate a solution during the future trade negotiations. This is despite the fact that the EU have clearly said on numerous occasions that there would be no further negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement or the backstop.
So his solution seems to be to achieve a majority support for Theresa Mays WA in Parliament by removing the backstop, and gaining EU agreement to this. This will be dependant on finding a solution to the backstop in the future, despite the fact that the Tory Government, which he was a part of, have been unable to accomplish this during the last 3 years.
Good luck with that.
Tim Martin appeared on Question Time on Thursday, and continued to spout his nonsense. He made three points which were completely incorrect. I fail to see how it has been possible for him to continue preaching so much boll0cks.
His first point was that we would not have to pay the EU the £39billion, that we have agreed to pay them.
Firstly the figure of £39billion is now incorrect, as it will have increased by £1billion per month during the 7 months extension since the end of March.
Secondly the figure includes, money that has already been spent, future projects that will be completed during this budget period that we are already committed to, future obligations like pensions etc, that are unavoidable.
Part of the obligation refers to our contributions during the transition period, which may be avoided if we left on a no deal basis, but would be a small saving in view of the chaos this would cause.
To suggest that we would save the full amount is an absolute lie. The EU would categorically take us to court to recover the money, and undoubtedly win the case.
Any suggestion that this action would make the EU more amenable to striking a trade deal would seem to be the height of optimism.
This policy in relation to Wetherspoons would seem to be the suggestion that they could increase profits by not paying their suppliers. When the likely outcome would be that existing suppliers would refuse to supply any further goods, and take them to court to recover the outstanding money. Whilst any replacement suppliers would be reluctant to deal with them, whilst this policy continued.
His second point was that regaining control of our fishing would somehow improve the industry. Yet we sell 60% of our fish to other EU members tariff free. A no deal exit would involve a 20% tariff and therefore make us much less competitive, and surely in the long term put an end to us supplying EU members.
To suggest that an ability to catch more fish creates an immediate improvement is a naïve view. You cant ignore the fact that you still need customers to purchase these fish. You should also take into account that we would lose fishing rights in European waters, that a 20% tariff is unlikely to improve sales, and that EU quotas have made a huge improvement to fish stocks.
His third point was regarding the elimination of tariffs. This is a lie. It would be impossible under WTO rules, unless we were extremely close to a free trade agreement with the EU, which is obviously not the case, and also on the condition that the EU were in complete agreement. So we don't pay the bill and they agree to our demands, unlikely to happen.
The man is obviously not stupid, he is a qualified Barrister. I cant understand his motivation for preaching this nonsense.
While Corbyn continues to sit on the fence, Boris sits on both sides. Nether can continue in the long term.
This may result in Boris becoming PM for the shortest period in history, providing he can behave for long enough to actually get there.
UK would be taken to the International Court and would be a permanent pariah in the WTO for reneging on its agreed debts.
The debt comes from past monies unpaid; money for continuing projects signed up to, and pensions of civil servants and MEPs. Ironically, Farage gets a £150K severance package plus a £73K pension when he gets ejected from his MEP non-job in March.
It would shame the country which has always been honourable in repaying its debts. “My word is my bond”.
UK does not pay its way it survives by borrowing and credit card debt. It survives by the ‘kindness of friends” (Bank of England) to prop up its annual deficit and £2 Trillion national debt for which it pays £43B a year interest. If lenders believe UK will not honour its debts, why would they lend UK a penny of their “hard earned” money? As in 1976, UK may have to call in the IMF to bail the Government out.
UK could not negotiate with the EU for a free trade deal if the bill was not being paid off. The huge extra cost of permanently trading on WTO terms with the EU would kill farming and car manufacturer as well as many, many small UK businesses. Inflation in UK would rocket and the £ sink even lower.
The EU is the huge trading block every country wants to do trade deals with and keep good will with their existing deals. UK is way down the list for trade deal ambitions so they will tend to side with the EU and keep UK out of any new deals. EU says you choose UK or us.
That these idiotic Brexit ultras can feed the mirage of non-existent trade deals, losing 160 vital EU preference trade arrangements with non-EU countries and also promote reneging on our debts at the same time, shows how absolutely worthless their arguments for the benefits of Brexit are.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-the-UK-refuses-to-pay-the-39-billion-Brexit-bill-Are-we-obliged-to-and-where-does-the-number-come-from
Tim Martin appeared on Question Time on Thursday, and continued to spout his nonsense. He made three points which were completely incorrect. I fail to see how it has been possible for him to continue preaching so much boll0cks.
His first point was that we would not have to pay the EU the £39billion, that we have agreed to pay them.
Firstly the figure of £39billion is now incorrect, as it will have increased by £1billion per month during the 7 months extension since the end of March.
Secondly the figure includes, money that has already been spent, future projects that will be completed during this budget period that we are already committed to, future obligations like pensions etc, that are unavoidable.
Part of the obligation refers to our contributions during the transition period, which may be avoided if we left on a no deal basis, but would be a small saving in view of the chaos this would cause.
To suggest that we would save the full amount is an absolute lie. The EU would categorically take us to court to recover the money, and undoubtedly win the case.
Any suggestion that this action would make the EU more amenable to striking a trade deal would seem to be the height of optimism.
This policy in relation to Wetherspoons would seem to be the suggestion that they could increase profits by not paying their suppliers. When the likely outcome would be that existing suppliers would refuse to supply any further goods, and take them to court to recover the outstanding money. Whilst any replacement suppliers would be reluctant to deal with them, whilst this policy continued.
His second point was that regaining control of our fishing would somehow improve the industry. Yet we sell 60% of our fish to other EU members tariff free. A no deal exit would involve a 20% tariff and therefore make us much less competitive, and surely in the long term put an end to us supplying EU members.
To suggest that an ability to catch more fish creates an immediate improvement is a naïve view. You cant ignore the fact that you still need customers to purchase these fish. You should also take into account that we would lose fishing rights in European waters, that a 20% tariff is unlikely to improve sales, and that EU quotas have made a huge improvement to fish stocks.
His third point was regarding the elimination of tariffs. This is a lie. It would be impossible under WTO rules, unless we were extremely close to a free trade agreement with the EU, which is obviously not the case, and also on the condition that the EU were in complete agreement. So we don't pay the bill and they agree to our demands, unlikely to happen.
The man is obviously not stupid, he is a qualified Barrister. I cant understand his motivation for preaching this nonsense.
While Corbyn continues to sit on the fence, Boris sits on both sides. Nether can continue in the long term.
This may result in Boris becoming PM for the shortest period in history, providing he can behave for long enough to actually get there.
The EU Common Fisheries Policy has helped, not harmed, UK fisheries
With an In/Out referendum on the horizon, we take a look at one of the EU's most maligned and misunderstood policies.
Fishing quotas are leading to stock recovery
It is also worth noting that even now, when stocks are being rebuilt, the UK industry’s gross profit margin has increased from a healthy 15% in 2008 to 35% in 2014 and now stands at €367 million, the highest in the EU. For the UK fishing industry, EU management seems to be delivering benefits despite protests coming from the UK itself.
There’s a good reason for non-British boats in our waters
You may have read that foreign countries are in our waters and catching all the British fish. While the whole concept of “British fish” is nonsensical to begin with, it’s worth exploring how quota is allocated between countries in the EU.
In addition to this, the proposal to ban foreign vessels as some have advocated is likely to be incompatible with international law as many fishing rights stretch as far back as the Middle AgesIn addition to this, the proposal to ban foreign vessels as some have advocated is likely to be incompatible with international law as many fishing rights stretch as far back as the Middle Ages. Calls for such a ban also don’t acknowledge that British boats also operate in other nations’ waters regularly to fish, sell at foreign ports and undergo vessel repairs. The UK fishing industry itself opposes such a ban.
Which fishing vessels receive quota is a national decision
Many ports around the UK only have a small fraction of the vessels they once had, but blaming the EU here doesn’t make much sense. First, technological changes have led to a reduction in the number of fishing vessels in developed countries both inside and outside the EU. Second, vessel decommissioning schemes from the EU actually helped many fishers and coastal communities through a difficult transition as quotas lessened. Third, one of the most significant issues for small ports is how quota is allocated between different fishing fleets and this is a national decision.
Consider the controversial Cornelis Vrolijk, a Dutch-owned 114-metre vessel that holds 23% of total English fishing quota. While the quota concentration is shocking, it is not a result of EU management; the vessel is deemed English under UK law and any quota assigned and requirement to land a certain share of fish in the UK is therefore set by the UK government itself.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/eu-common-fisheries-policy-has-helped-not-harmed-uk-fisheries-0/
What would Brexit mean for the UK’s fishing industry?
It is not a view shared by the Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss, who says she “firmly believes UK fishermen are better off inside the EU”.
She believes it is “wishful thinking” to suggest that Britain can get a better deal for its fishermen outside of Europe. Britain, she says, has only 13 per cent of the EU’s total sea area, but is allocated 30pc of the total quota and our trawlers fish in Irish, German, French and Dutch waters with catches worth about £100m a year.
She has warned that Britain would not have automatic and immediate freedom to control its own waters if it left the EU – and would still have to comply with the bloc’s restrictions without having any say over them.
Supporters of EU membership also point out that 66 per cent of UK seafood exports go to EU countries and that seven out of the top ten countries that Britain exports to are in the EU.
They say industry profits are going up from 271 million euros gross profit in 2013 to 367 million euros gross profit in 2014.
They say that while many small vessels in the UK are suffering from low quotas, the UK has the second largest quota allocation in the EU and leaving the EU could result in a “tragedy” of overfishing and trawlermen’s livelihoods could suffer during years of bureaucratic wrangling.
“Fish aren’t British or French or Spanish – they’re just fish and they don’t respect national boundaries,” said Debbie Crockard, the MSC’s senior fisheries policy advocate.
“An exit from the EU could unpick the largely successful efforts that have already taken place to ensure we can continue to enjoy a fish supper,” Ms Crockard said.
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/eu-referendum-brexit-mean-uks-fishing-industry/
Trade experts say Tory frontrunner Boris Johnson is wrong
Unicorns are still running free in the Tory leadership contest and some candidates seem determined to keep chasing them — particularly when it comes to how the U.K. would fare in a no-deal scenario.
A line from front-runner Boris Johnson during the leadership debate on Tuesday was a case in point. He was challenged by Rory Stewart — who was knocked out of the race Wednesday — over colossal tariffs on lamb if the U.K. leaves the EU without a deal. Johnson resurrected a WTO myth that has had trade wonks pulling their hair out for months.
"There will be no tariffs and there will be no quotas," Johnson declared. "What we want to do is get a standstill in our current arrangements, under GATT 24 or whatever it happens to be, until such time as we have negotiated the FTA."
There's no disputing that Article 24 of the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade exists. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage and other Brexiteers have touted it as a way to keep tariff-free trade flowing across the Channel even if the Withdrawal Agreement is never ratified by the British parliament and there is therefore no Brexit transition period. According to Brexiteers, the legal text keeps tariffs at zero for several years when a free-trade agreement is being negotiated.
However, Article 24 only applies to countries who are on the verge of finalizing free-trade agreements with each other — a situation the U.K. would certainly not be in on November 1 this year, whether there is a deal or no deal.
Pro-Brexit group Lawyers For Britain is now making a somewhat fanciful call for a mini-FTA in order to pave the way to using Article 24.
And there's another massive stumbling block to all of this: The EU would need to be on board, too.
European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström told Reuters less than a week ago that the idea is "completely wrong" and that no deal would definitely mean tariffs. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has set out weighty conditions for trade talks to begin if there is no deal.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-gatt-24-wont-help-a-no-deal-brexit-uk/
Boris Johnson is on nearly all the front pages - but the headlines won't make comfortable reading for his campaign team.
"Why won't Boris tell us what happened?" asks the Sunday Express next to a picture of a troubled-looking Mr Johnson with his hand on his brow.
The row at the home of his girlfriend, Carrie Symonds, has prompted the Tory leadership contest to erupt into acrimony, according to the Sunday Times.
It points to comments by his rival, Jeremy Hunt, who warns that Mr Johnson doesn't deserve to lead the country unless he answers questions about his character.
And the paper quotes an unnamed cabinet minister - close to Theresa May - who believes the former Foreign Secretary's colourful private life makes him a security risk, because he could be vulnerable to blackmail by other states.
The Sunday Telegraph gives more details of the couple who taped the dispute during the early hours of Friday morning.
It says one of them is a pro-EU theatre producer and writer who once bragged on social media about making a rude gesture to Mr Johnson.
The Sun says that nobody should be in any doubt that the former foreign secretary was the victim of a left-wing stitch-up.And it mocks the concern of Ms Symonds' neighbours, noting this was so great they immediately gave the recording to the Guardian.
Nevertheless, the Sun believes Mr Johnson was wrong to duck questions about what happened, arguing he needs to put the incident behind him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48734021
It’s not just on Brexit that they’re overpromising, but also their pledges to cut taxes, a traditional Tory tune which will appeal to members but leave the winner with a big headache about how to deliver them
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-leadership-contest-brexit-boris-johnson-rory-stewart-tax-cuts-a8965316.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/19/philip-hammond-say-second-referendum-could-way-break-impasse/
EXCLUSIVE: Police will be called if Boris Johnson supporters are found to have intimidated voters in the leadership contest
He claims one MP reported receiving a phone call from his local association chairman threatening to pass a motion of no confidence in him if he did not vote for Mr Johnson.
Mr Morris said national electoral laws should apply to the leadership vote.
He wrote: “This is intimidatory behaviour. These are very serious tactics and could lead to criminal prosecutions. I want a categoric assurance these kinds of activities will not continue.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sensational-email-tory-boss-alleges-16798626
Jeremy Hunt has increased the pressure on Boris Johnson to explain why police were called to his home after a row with his partner by warning that the Conservative leadership frontrunner “needs to show he can answer difficult questions”.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hunt-ramps-up-pressure-on-johnson-to-explain-police-visit/ar-AADisGt?ocid=spartandhp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/politics/boris-johnsons-poll-leads-vanish-as-loud-altercation-with-partner-deals-major-blow-to-tory-leadership-bid/ar-AADigl6?ocid=spartandhp
Boris Johnson's claim that world trade rules could be used after Brexit to avoid tariffs "isn't true", cabinet minister Liam Fox has said.
The international trade secretary, who is backing Jeremy Hunt for leader, said the EU will apply trade tariffs.
Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Fox rejected Mr Johnson's claim that the UK could secure a 10-year standstill in current arrangements using an article of the EU's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade known as "Gatt 24".
"It isn't true, that's the problem," he said.
Mr Fox said Mr Johnson's argument that a new free trade agreement could be negotiated during an implementation period "doesn't actually hold".
"If you don't get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament, there is no implementation period during which we can do anything at all," he said.
"Secondly, if we leave the European Union without a deal the EU will apply tariffs to the UK because you can only have exemptions, as described, if you already have a trade agreement to go to.
"Clearly if we leave without a deal it's self-evident we don't have that agreement, so Article 24 doesn't hold in that circumstance."
But he said a no-deal Brexit is the "legal default position" and the UK will have "no negotiating capital" if it is ruled out.
Justice Secretary David Gauke, who had been backing Rory Stewart for leader until the international development secretary's elimination, also criticised Mr Johnson's Brexit plan, saying it was not "credible".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48736975
As his personal troubles dominate the front pages for another day, the concerned expression of Boris Johnson - clasping his hand against his mouth - appears on the cover of the Metro.
The paper says pressure is mounting on the Conservative leadership challenger to "come clean" about the argument that saw police officers called to the flat he shares with his girlfriend, Carrie Symonds.
The Sun claims the couple were on the verge of splitting up earlier this month and have had four "explosive" rows in recent weeks, including what it calls a "huge spat" when Mr Johnson apparently got home late after a night out.
The Mirror goes further - suggesting that he's mulling over a reconciliation with his estranged wife, Marina Wheeler.
An unnamed source tells the paper: "This is a classic example of Boris wanting to have his cake and eat it".
The Daily Mail says Mr Johnson and Ms Symonds have now fled their south London home because anarchists are camped outside with banners, using the incident as an "excuse to protest against the Conservative party".
Friends of the couple think it may be impossible for the former foreign secretary to ever return to the property in Camberwell, but insist that he has no intention of ending their relationship.
"The events of the past few days have made them stronger than ever," says one source who adds: "They really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense".
Hospital failings
According to the Guardian, a great-nephew of the NHS founder, Nye Bevan, died after two hospital trusts made serious mistakes during his treatment for lung cancer.
The paper says doctors diagnosed Roderick Bevan at the end of 2016 while treating him for another condition - but didn't offer him radiotherapy for another 15 months, by which point the cancer was incurable.
An inquest concluded that "neglect" played a part in Mr Bevan's death. The two NHS Trusts involved - in Leicester and Lincolnshire - have apologised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48740185