THE Tories’ civil war over Brexit exploded into Scotland yesterday, with major differences exposed among senior figures north of the Border over Boris Johnson’s resignation speech.
Bitter acrimony in the party spilled on to the public domain in Scotland following the former Foreign Secretary’s personal statement in the House of Commons.
Shortly after Johnson’s speech Jackson Carlaw, the Scottish Tories’ deputy leader, could not contain his anger, describing the hardline Brexiteer as a “busted flush”.
READ MORE: Boris's speech an anti-climax from a man of no principles
READ MORE: What’s likely to happen with Brexit now?
READ MORE: This is the most likely independence timetable
However, at the same time, Scots Tory MP Ross Thomson, who had sat nodding behind Johnson as he delivered his speech, said it was “historic”.
Over 12 minutes Johnson savaged May’s blueprint for leaving the EU as “fantastical”, and insisted: “It is not too late to save Brexit.”
Scottish Brexit Secretary Michael Russell said Johnson’s words were “delusional”.
“Completely delusional & mendaciously self-serving,” he tweeted. “His words will strike few if any chords in Scotland. Moreover there is not a word of apology for the huge damage & distress that his arrogance has caused. I wouldn’t trust him to deliver the messages , let alone #Brexit.”
The speech was praised by former Ukip leader Nigel Farage and hardline Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, chairman of the European Research Group. The latter described it as “the speech of a statesman”.
During the speech Johnson urged the Prime Minister to tear up her “miserable” plans for close relations post Brexit with the EU and return to the “glorious vision” of Global Britain which she set out last year.
He stopped short of making a direct challenge to May’s position as PM and Conservative leader, but denounced the plan he himself had signed up to less than two weeks at Chequers and set out in May’s White Paper last week.
He denounced it as “Brexit in name only”, said it would leave the UK in a state of “vassalage” and demanded a return to May’s original red lines of total withdrawal from the customs union and single market in order, he said, to allow Britain “unfettered ability to forge trade deals around the world”.
He also accusing the Government of “dithering” over its Brexit negotiations, claiming a “fog of self-doubt” had descended on May’s stance to EU withdrawal since she first set it out in a speech at Lancaster House last year.
“It is not too late to save Brexit,” he said. “We have time in these negotiations.
“We have changed tack once and we can change again. The problem is not that we have 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 get another chance to do it right.”
May was not present to hear Johnson’s statement, as she was answering questions on Brexit from senior MPs at a long-planned hearing of the House of Commons Liaison Committee.
The Uxbridge MP made a point of praising “her courage and her resilience” and indicated he thought she could lead the UK to a successful Brexit – if she was willing to change tack.
But he was scathing about the Government’s handling of negotiations so far. He said it had failed to turn the Lancaster House speech into a firm offer; agreed to hand over £40 billion with no promise of a future trade deal; accepted European Court of Justice jurisdiction over parts of the withdrawal agreement; and allowed the issue of the Northern Irish border to dominate the debate.
He said he could neither support nor accept the Brexit vision which he and other Cabinet members signed up to at Chequers.
“Let us again aim explicitly for that 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,” said Johnson.
He said under May’s proposals, the UK was “volunteering for economic vassalage” and that Britons should be “great independent actors” on the world stage, not “rule takers”.
And he dismissed May’s facilitated customs arrangement plan for the Irish border as a “fantastical Heath Robinson” creation, complaining his own suggestions for technical solutions had never been “properly examined”.
His statement had been anticipated as a possible “Geoffrey Howe moment”, after the former foreign secretary’s resignation speech sparked Margaret Thatcher’s downfall. Journalists noted Johnson made his address from the same place where Howe had made his famous speech.
Responding to comments on social media that it could be building up to something, Carlaw interjected: “But it didn’t. The enthusiasm drained visibly from the surrounding faces as it rambled on.
“He stumbled through generalities and sat down a busted flush. Time to back @theresa_may & deliver the Chequers agreement.”
Thomson tweeted: “Historic and excellent personal statement from @BorisJohnson – There is still time to save #Brexit if the PM can hold to the pledges she made at Lancaster House. Absolutely spot on. #GlobalBritain.”
The Scottish Conservatives played down the divisions, with a spokesman saying: “Ross has always been clear about his Brexit views and, as an MP, he is free to express them.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel