How Boris Johnson defends each of his partygate statements to parliament

Published

2 years ago

March 21, 2023

admin

Boris Johnson has admitted he inadvertently misled parliament in a series of statements he made in relation to partygate.

But setting out his defence ahead of an appearance at the privileges committee tomorrow, the former prime minister insisted his comments were delivered “in good faith” and that he believed them to be true at the time.

It’s his response to allegations he broke the Palace of Westminster’s rules, as set out in a book called Erskine May’s Parliamentary Procedure, which says: “The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.”

Here we take a look at each of the three Commons statements the committee is investigating and set out Mr Johnson’s explanation for how he played by the rules:

Alleged rule breach 1

Date: 1 December 2021

What Boris Johnson said: “What I can tell the right honourable and learned gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in Number 10.”

His defence: Mr Johnson said he became aware the Daily Mirror was planning to run a story on alleged lockdown breaking at a gathering on 30 November 2021 – around the time of the Omicron variant and new restrictions being voted through Parliament.

He said his director of communications, Jack Doyle, came to see him that evening about an email the paper’s political editor had sent – his diary recorded this meeting between 6pm and 6.05pm – making allegations about four parties.

“I did not see the email myself and the only event I can recall Jack mentioning in any detail was the one held in the press office on 18 December 2020, which I had not attended,” said the then PM.

“The email mentions two other events – on 13 November 2020 and 27 November 2020 – which I do not recall Jack bringing up but I accept that he may have. These were ones that I had attended.”

But he said had Mr Doyle mentioned them, he would have been “confident” they had complied with the COVID rules at the time due to his own attendance.

Back to 18 December, and Mr Johnson said he felt it was “implausible” the COVID rules had been broken.

After hearing Mr Doyle’s description of the gathering, Mr Johnson said he believed it.

And in his evidence to the privileges committee, he sought to add context to the experience of Downing Street staff.

For the then PM, drinking wine at a person’s desk was not rule breaking under the rules he had brought into force.

The press was briefed “COVID rules were followed at all times” and Mr Johnson said he “did not anticipate that this would be a big story”, even saying he was “surprised” when Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer raised it at Prime Minister’s Questions on 1 December.

Sir Keir asked: “As millions of people were locked down last year, was a Christmas party thrown in Downing Street for dozens of people on 18 December?”

Mr Johnson responded: “Based on the conversations that I had had the previous day and that morning… What I can tell the right honourable and learned gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in Number 10.”

And while he said he meant to repeat the exact line given to the Daily Mirror the night before, he said he did believe all guidance had been followed based on his understanding of the rules.

He said: “I did not mean that social distancing was complied with perfectly in Number 10, but this was not required by the guidance.”

He said he “relied on my knowledge of those events for the periods which I attended”.

He also added: “Number 10 and the Cabinet Office are very large departments. I believed that if anyone witnessed something that they considered to be illegal or contrary to guidance, I would have been made aware of it.”

Evidence supporting him: Mr Johnson said it was fair to accept he believed everyone was following the rules and guidance because “this belief was shared by many others” – pointing to six individuals.

The names of three of them – all Number 10 officials – have been redacted, but his principle private secretary, Martin Reynolds, his official spokesman (later promoted to director of communications) James Slack, and Mr Doyle were named.

In his written evidence to the committee, Mr Reynolds wrote that he and others “involved in organising and attending the gatherings” believed they were following regulations and that decisions “were taken in good faith and were reasonable on a common-sense reading of the relevant regulations”.

He also said he believed “all senior staff in Downing Street”, assumed the events were lawful too, both political staff and civil servants, saying: “They spoke at, attended or were aware of some, or all, of the gatherings. The attendees included some of those responsible for the regulations. I believe in-house lawyers were copied in to some invitations.”

In an interview that came as part of Sue Gray’s partygate investigation, Mr Slack said: “I honestly don’t think that anyone who was in that room was breaking any rules. They were with their colleagues who they sat with all day every day for 12 hours.

“Were there additional elements to that? Yes. That was a reflection of the specific circumstances of the end of the year. Everyone in the office knew that they were public servants and wouldn’t have done it if they thought they were breaking rules.”

Mr Johnson also cited a WhatsApp conversation between him and Mr Doyle on 10 December, where the then PM said: “Is there a way we could get the truth about this party out there.”

In conclusion, Mr Johnson said: “In hindsight, I accept that my statement to Parliament on 1 December 2021, although reasonably and honestly believed at the time, did mislead the House.

“If I had been aware of this information, I would obviously not have stood up in Parliament and said what I said.”

Alleged rule breach 2

Date: 8 December 2021

What Boris Johnson said: “I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken – that is what I have been repeatedly assured.”

His defence: The day before Mr Johnson made this statement to the House, the footage of Allegra Stratton joking about a lockdown event taking place on 18 December 2020 in Downing Street was published by ITV.

The then PM said he had “not previously seen this video” and it caused him “immediate concern”, but in the evening Mr Doyle sent him a WhatApp saying: “I think you can say ‘I’ve been assured there was no party and no rules were broken’.”

Mr Johnson said he later called Mr Slack “who I regard as a man of great integrity and who was in the building on the evening of 18 December 2020”, and he also confirmed that the rules had been followed.

But as he “remained concerned”, he decided he needed to commission an investigation to “find out precisely what happened at the event in question”, and spoke to cabinet secretary Simon Case that night, asking him to carry it out.

Mr Johnson received another WhatsApp from Mr Doyle the following morning with a proposed wording for a statement: “I sought and was given reassurance no rules were broken and no party took place.”

The details were thrashed out in an email chain “which involved numerous civil servants and advisers”, and after a large meeting, a statement was agreed.

The PM went to the House and ahead of PMQs said: “I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured.”

He also confirmed the independent inquiry, which was due to be led by Mr Case – before he was later found to have attended a gathering and recused himself.

In his evidence to the committee, Mr Johnson said: “This statement was entirely accurate, and I do not believe that the House has been misled by it.”

He said the statement “related exclusively to the event on 18 December discussed by Ms Stratton – “the focus of the media storm”.

And he said he told MPs “what I honestly believed based on my own understanding, and what I had been told by others – but I acknowledged that the truth would be established independently, and that I might subsequently be found to have been wrong”.

Evidence supporting him: First, Mr Johnson included Mr Doyle’s interview with Sue Gray over what he had told the PM about the events.

Asked if he gave the repeated assurances, Mr Doyle said the pair had a conversation “and the only thing I said to the PM was that I didn’t regard this as a party and we didn’t believe the rules had been broken and that’s what we said at lobby – the rules is a judgment for others, it was not an organised party”.

The then PM also said the “repeated assurances” he was given were witnessed by two Tory MPs – Andrew Griffiths and Sarah Dines.

And Mr Reynolds said: “I believe that reassurances were provided by some of the senior communications team staff who were present at the event, including Jack Doyle.”

Alleged rule breach 3

Date: 8 December 2021

What Boris Johnson said: “No but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”

His defence: In the same PMQs sessions, Labour MP Catherine West asked Mr Johnson whether there had been a party on 13 November amid rumours of a fresh story.

It was later confirmed a leaving party did take place in Downing Street on that date – though rumours of a “victory party” taking place in the PM’s flat the same day Dominic Cummings left his post have been denied.

Replying to the MP’s question though, Mr Johnson said: “No but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”

In his evidence, Mr Johnson said: “I appreciate that the meaning of this statement is not entirely clear. At the time, I did not know what event Catherine West MP was referring to, and it remains unclear.”

He revealed he did attend two events on that day, but again said he believed he had acted in line with the rules.

Evidence supporting him: Again it is principle private secretary Mr Reynolds who Mr Johnson uses to back up his claims.

In his statement to the committee, Mr Reynolds said: “I believe that at the time the story broke in November 2020 there was a collective belief in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street that we had operated within the rules during lockdown and that any events which took place had been legitimate, work-related gatherings”.

World

Inside a NATO base in Poland – as residents bordering Russia say ‘scare tactic’ is needed

Published

4 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

Inside a NATO base in Poland - as residents bordering Russia say 'scare tactic' is needed

Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.

Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.

Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.

It doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory.

“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.

“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.

“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”

Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.

He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.

Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.

We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.

Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.

They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.

And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.

“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”

As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.

NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.

Not the case, Captain Dwan says.

“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.

“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”

With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.

But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.

They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.

Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.

On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.

But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.

In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.

“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.

Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.

World

Asianmarkets bounce back after Trump pauses higher tariffs for most countries – despite increasing those on China to 125%

Published

10 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

Asianmarkets bounce back after Trump pauses higher tariffs for most countries - despite increasing those on China to 125%

Asian markets have reacted positively after Donald Trump paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on most of America’s trading partners for 90 days, despite the US president increasing those on China to 125%.

There have been fears of a global recession and stock markets around the world had plummeted after Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on Wednesday 2 April.

However, Japan’s Nikkei share average was up 8.2% by 3.50am BST, while the broader Topix had risen 7.5%.

Similarly, the S&P 500 stock index had jumped 9.5% and global markets bounced back following Mr Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that the increased tariffs on nearly all trading partners would now be paused.

Tariffs latest: Trump gives reasons for pausing some tariffs

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said the “90-day pause” was for the “more than 75 countries” who had not retaliated against his tariffs “in any way”.

He added that during this period they would still have to pay a “substantially lowered” 10% tariff, which is “effective immediately”.

It is lower than the 20% tariff that Mr Trump had set for goods from the European Union, 24% on imports from Japan and 25% on products from South Korea.

The UK was already going to face a blanket 10% tariff under the new system.

Mr Trump said the increased 125% tariff on imported goods from China was “effective immediately”.

He added: “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the USA, and other countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”

What’s in Trump’s tariff pause?

Here’s what Donald Trump’s tariff pause entails:

‘Reciprocal’ tariffs on hold

• Higher tariffs that took effect today on 57 trading partners will be paused for 90 days

• These include the EU, Japan and South Korea, all of which will face a baseline 10% duty instead

• Countries that already had a 10% levy imposed since last week – such as the UK – aren’t affected by the pause

China tariffs increased

• Trump imposed a higher 125% tariff on China

• That’s in addition to levies he imposed during his first term

• China had hit the US with 84% tariff earlier today, following tit-for-tat escalations

No change for Canada or Mexico

• Canadian and Mexican goods will remain subject to 25% fentanyl-related tariffs if they don’t comply with the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement’s rules of origin

• Compliant goods are exempt

Car and metal tariffs remain

• Trump’s pause doesn’t apply to the 25% tariffs he levied on steel and aluminium in March and on cars (autos) on 3 April

• This 25% tariff on car parts does not come into effect until 3 May

Sectors at risk

• Copper, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals are expected to be subject to separate tariffs, in the same way autos are

Hours after Mr Trump announced the pause on tariffs for most countries, a White House official clarified that this did not apply to the 25% duties imposed on some US imports from Mexico and Canada.

The tariffs were first announced in February and Mexico and Canada were not included in the “Liberation Day” announcements.

Hours before the 125% tariff on China was revealed, Beijing said it was increasing tariffs on US goods by 50%.

It meant tariffs of 84% would be enforced on US goods – up from the 34% China had previously planned.

China ‘want to make a deal’

Asked why he posted “BE COOL” on Truth Social hours before announcing his tariff pause, Mr Trump told reporters at the White House: “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line.”

“They were getting yippy, you know, were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid,” he added.

Mr Trump continued: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how to go about it.

“[They’re] quite the proud people, and President Xi is a proud man. I know him very well, and they don’t know quite how to go about it, but they’ll figure it out.

“They’re in the process of figuring out, but they want to make a deal.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the walk back was part of a grand negotiating strategy by Mr Trump.

“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” she said, adding that the news media “clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also insisted Mr Trump had strengthened his hand through his tariffs.

“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” he said.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Mr Bessent said Mr Trump decided to raise tariffs on China because Beijing hadn’t reached out to the US and instead increased its own levies on US goods.

Downing Street said that the UK will “coolly and calmly” continue its negotiations with the US.

A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “A trade war is in nobody’s interests. We don’t want any tariffs at all, so for jobs and livelihoods across the UK, we will coolly and calmly continue to negotiate in Britain’s interests.”