This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/26/boris-johnsons-brexit-rhetoric-condemned-as-mps-tell-of-death-threats-politics-live

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Boris Johnson's Brexit rhetoric condemned as MPs tell of death threats – Politics live Brexit: Bercow calls for end to 'toxic culture' after furious response to Johnson performance – live news
(about 4 hours later)
A lot of senior political journalists tweeting their shock at the tone of debate in parliament yesterday. Labour MPs remain furious about Johnson’s comments about Jo Cox, but many are now citing her memory to try to mend divisions.
I have never seen the House of Commons so angry. Nor have I ever seen a Prime Minister who so clearly believes that the rage of his opponents works for him I’ve been thinking very deeply about Jo Cox in the last couple of days, not least because I spent time with her sister yesterday. Jo was a future party leader and potential Prime Minister. She could have healed a divided nation and we would have been proud of her.
In all my 45 years of reporting - I cannot remember a more chaotic, divided, and disturbing period in British politics. We all have a responsibility to weigh our words but only one side talked of “surrender” and “capitulation” last night egged on by Tory press who call judges and remainers mutineers and saboteurs. All time low& insult to Jo Cox #moreincommon visionInbox full of emails like this pic.twitter.com/zos679RpwH
Then a government offering the opposition parties the chance to bring it down, but they turn it down, only for another party suggesting impeaching the PM - all accompanied by vitriolic screaming + shouting and the odd burst of wild applause I wish it hadn’t needed saying, but Jo’s murder didn’t happen in a vacuum but in a context, a context similar to today. @MrBrendanCox is spot on this morning and we should all heed his advice. https://t.co/WSIFosC90s
This is from Julian King, the European commissioner for security. In 2017 I made 1st speech in this Parliamentary session. In ‘proposing the loyal address’ I said, ‘The country expects our debates to be robust but there is room for consensus too. We should reflect on Jo Cox’s words about there being more that unites us than divides us’ #naive
Crass and dangerous. If you think extreme language doesn’t fuel political violence across Europe, incl UK, then you’re not paying attention https://t.co/VPmjPGfOr1 Duddridge refuses to be drawn on what circumstances the government would seek an extension to the October 31st Brexit deadline. He again repeats that the government will obey the law.
Luciana Berger has issued a letter to her constituents on Twitter telling them she would be stepping down as MP for Liverpool Wavertree, where she has served for almost 10 years, due to the challenges of “balancing personal and professional responsibilities”, particularly with young children. Brexit minister James Duddridge repeatedly saying the government will obey the law, but which one - the one which requires the PM to seek an extension or the one which says Britain leaves the EU on October 31?
She will be relocating to London after the next election and be standing as the Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Finchley and Golders Green. Hilary Benn says the government’s claims about obeying the law and not seeking an extension are not compatible. How can those things be reconciled, Benn asks.
Ahead of the next General Election, a letter from me to constituents about my future - pic.twitter.com/S1UGOoBHnA Duddridge says the PM really doesn’t want an extension. The government is breaking every sinew to get a deal. The government will obey the law, he says again.
Tomorrow’s Commons business: pic.twitter.com/pAMWNYwlva The Brexit minister James Duddridge insists the government “will obey the law”.
The Conservatives have also tabled a motion to be voted on this morning, to support shutting down parliament for three days next week to accommodate their party conference, despite the supreme court verdict. But asked how the prime minister can avoid asking for an extension under the Benn Act – or European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 – he says: “That is a hypothetical question I don’t want to be drawn into ...”
Outrage as Boris Johnson dismisses dangers of inflammatory language as ‘humbug’ Duddridge says the government will use “every bit of wriggle room” to get a deal.
Here is the moment that has so many people so furious. Four urgent questions have been granted today covering: the Benn Act, Hong Kong, arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the prime minister’s language and role.
Yesterday Labour MP Paula Sherriff attacked the prime minister for repeatedly calling the act put through parliament by Hilary Benn to take no-deal Brexit off the table the “surrender bill” and asked him not to use “offensive, dangerous, inflammatory language for legislation we do not like.” Four urgent questions:1. @IanMurrayMP - EU (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act2. @CatherineWest1 - Hong Kong3. @ChrisLawSNP - award of arms export licenses to Saudi Arabia4. @jessphillips - the Prime Minister's language & roleFollowed by one statement on international climate action pic.twitter.com/yj3W49uEG8
Recalling the memory of her friend Cox, she said many MPs had received death threats. The Speaker, John Bercow, has appealed to MPs to stop using toxic language.
“And let me tell the prime minister – they often quote his words, ‘surrender act’, ‘betrayal,’ ‘traitor’: we must moderate our language and it has to come from the prime minister first.” Opening today’s session in the Commons, Bercow says:
Johnson replied that he had never heard such “humbug” in all his life. He caused further outrage when telling Labour’s Tracy Brabin, who was elected to Cox’s seat following the MP’s murder by a far-right extremist a week before the EU referendum, that “the best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox and to bring this country together is, I think, to get Brexit done”. There is a widespread sense across the house, and beyond, that yesterday the house did itself no credit. There was an atmosphere in the chamber worse than any I’ve known in my 22 years in the house. On both sides passions were inflamed, angry words were uttered. The culture was toxic.
MPs (and it should be noted, mostly female MPs) responded by sharing death threats they have received, some of which directly quote Johnson. Some did so in the chamber yesterday, others on Twitter overnight. He says he has been approached by two senior MPs from either side of the house for a formal consideration of political conduct.
This week I received an anonymous letter to my constituency office here is what it said. @10DowningStreet might think we are "humbugs" about his words but they are literally being used in death threats against me. pic.twitter.com/au6E0v9CpI Pending consideration of that, he has granted a urgent question about the language used across the House. Bercow says it is not a partisan issue. It is about something bigger than party affiliation, he says.
Lib Dem leader @joswinson’s voice breaks as she tells MPs that she had to report to police today a threat to her child. Boris Johnson has already left the chamber. Bercow says: “Please lower the decibel level and treat each other as opponents rather than enemies.”
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of the day’s political news. John Bercow says the "toxic" Commons culture is "worse than any I've known in my 22 years in the House."The outgoing Speaker said two senior MPs have approached him about the issue and an "urgent question" will be debated later in parliament.More here: https://t.co/aIjrEOPmFX pic.twitter.com/9z5062D2X2
We return to the political fray after a day in which an unrepentant Boris Johnson sparked a furious backlash for repeating criticism of the supreme court judgment, and rejecting MPs’ pleas to moderate his “inflammatory” language. The former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has claimed it is parliament’s refusal to deliver Brexit that is fuelling anger in the country.
As you’ll no doubt recall, Johnson faced parliament yesterday after flying back early from New York when the Supreme Court ruled his suspension unlawful. Speaking to Sky News, he said opposition MPs were equally to blame for intemperate language in the Commons.
But Johnson was unrepentant as he addressed MPs and went on the attack, accusing Jeremy Corbyn of trying to thwart Brexit and running scared of an election. He also caused outrage by claiming the best way to honour the memory of the murdered MP Jo Cox was to “get Brexit done”. I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. Last night I watched when Labour MPs lined up, they were shouting that he was a liar, he was a cheat. It wasn’t about Boris Johnson, it was about the issue. The issue which they want to dance away from which is causing this is that when you promise the British people you will act on the result of the vote that they were given in 2016 and parliament goes on saying no, this is the fuel that feeds the anger and therefore it has to be resolved.
There was much criticism of Johnson’s language, yesterday, with MPs, particularly female MPs, imploring Johnson to be stop using words like “surrender”, “traitor” and “betrayal” in relation to Brexit, with the MPs saying these words had been used in death threats issued to them and their families. Johnson caused outrage by dismissing these concerns as “humbug”. Siân Berry, the co-leader of the Green party, and a member of the London assembly’s oversight committee condemned Cleverly’s suggestion that Johnson would ignore any summons over the Arcuri questions.
Yesterday and overnight, MPs were tweeting out some of the threats, including death threats, they have received, which directly quoted Boris Johnson. Speaking to the Guardian she said: “I don’t think anyone can really predict which laws the prime minister is going to obey. He has left himself basically in contempt of parliament. But we would expect him to comply with the law.
So, what happens now? “Seeing the prime minister last night suggesting that he won’t behave in a way that is appropriate is really disturbing. The prime minister’s one job is to effectively uphold the law and the fact that we have got one who is not doing that on a regular basis is very very disturbing. And that people are prepared to justify that is even more disturbing.”
Parliament will sit again today where there will be a “general debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate”. And Jacob Rees-Mogg said he would be making an “exciting announcement” in the Commons. So, we’ll all be on the edge of our seats for that – or lazily reclined across three seats, as the case may be. Berry challenged Cleverly’s assertion that ministers could ignore the assembly. She pointed out that it did have the legal power to compel the prime minister to appear.
As always, you can get in touch with me as I steer us through the early hours: I’m here on Twitter and my email is kate.lyons@theguardian.com We very rarely use our powers of summons. On the Garden Bridge we informally invited Boris Johnson, first in a letter, and then we sent a proper summons because we needed to hear from him.
Let’s go. We had to get advice on whether we could do that to a former mayor, but we could, so we did. And we would again.
Earlier this week the London assembly wrote to Johnson giving him 14 days to respond to the allegations about Jennifer Arcuri.
The letter from Len Duvall chair of the assembly’s oversight committee, said:
I read with concern the allegations set out in the Sunday Times yesterday that, when you held the office of mayor of London, you failed to declare a potential conflict of interest in relation to the awarding of public funds to Jennifer Arcuri.
As you will know, the London assembly is responsible for holding to account the office of the mayor of London.
Accordingly, I now write to ask that you provide, within 14 days of receipt of this letter:
– Details and a timeline of all contact with Jennifer Arcuri during your period of office as mayor of London, including personal, social and professional.
– And an explanation of how that alleged personal relationship was disclosed and taken into account in any and all dealings with the GLA and other parts of the GLA family.
James Cleverly suggested Johnson would ignore any request by the London assembly to appear before it to answer questions about his conduct as mayor of London over the tech businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri.
The assembly has given him 14 days to explain why sponsorship and favours were granted to Arcuri, a close friend of Johnson, without any declaration of interest being made.
Members of the assembly have suggested they could also summons Johnson to answer questions about Arcuri, as they did over the failed Garden Bridge project.
Asked whether Johnson would appear before the London assembly, the Tory chairman told Today: “The London assembly’s job is to scrutinise the mayor of London. When I was on the London assembly it was quite common for government ministers to refuse to appear.”
When it was put to him that the assembly had the legal power to summons members of the government, Cleverly said: “That is not my understanding.”
The Tory party chairman, James Cleverly, has defended the prime minister’s language in the Commons.
Speaking on Today he said he couldn’t see how the “highly charged” atmosphere in the house would calm down until Brexit was resolved.
Cleverly tried to claim the prime minister had not used the language of “betrayal” before being corrected.
He also claimed language on all sides had been intemperate and violent.
When Johnson accused the Labour MP Paula Sherriff of talking “humbug”, Cleverly claimed Johnson was responding to accusations that were untrue.
The rhetoric could be de-escalated if both sides calmed down and compromised, Cleverly said.
Asked whether Johnson would seek an extension to avoid a no-deal Brexit as set out in the Benn Act, Cleverly insisted that Johnson would obey the law. We will obey the law, Cleverly said, but he refused to say whether the PM would abide by the Benn Act. We will leave by 31 October, Cleverly said.
Luciana Berger, who joined the Liberal Democrats after leaving Labour, will give up her Liverpool constituency to fight for a London seat once held by Margaret Thatcher, PA reports.
The campaigner against antisemitism will contest the seat of Finchley and Golders Green in north London, a constituency with a sizeable Jewish community, at the next election.
The Lib Dems came third in 2017, 21,000 off the Conservative victor, Mike Freer, in a seat formerly held by ex-prime minister Mrs Thatcher for more than 30 years, albeit under a slightly different make-up.
Berger quit the Labour party in February, walking out with six other colleagues, and went on to form Change UK.
The constituency voted 70% to remain and Berger will be hoping her party’s recently approved policy of revoking article 50 if it wins a majority at the next election will make her a serious contender.
Her Jewish background could also play a factor in attracting voters who rejected Labour over concerns of growing antisemitism in the party.
Golders Green is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the capital, with kosher bakeries and a visible Hasidic presence on its high streets and in the adjacent Temple Fortune.