Boris johnson

Meet Boris Johnson, Britain’s new chief trade negotiator. I admit it is an effort to imagine Boris in that parish, haggling with dry regulators over technical barriers to trade like phytosanitary rules and mutual recognition of standards in nuclear engineering. Yet Boris has great aspirations for Britain’s future trade deals, and his gusto is certainly needed if the UK is to replace its current market integration with Europe. Yet relish for the Brexit cause hides neither his confounding story about Britain’s future in trade policy nor his obvious ignorance of the matter. Unfortunately, his fellow Brexiteers do little to suppress the suspicion that, on post-Brexit trade policy, they really have no idea what they are talking about.

When I was 18, I had my first tutorial on Anglo-Saxon history. I cannot remember the details but the don talked of the king of Mercia, or some such, marrying his daughter to the son of the king of Northumbria, or somewhere or other, because of the political advantages the union would bring the two crowns. The teenage Cohen listened appalled. 'You mean,' I cried, 'they didn’t love each other?' In a voice so acid, it might have burnt through the hull of a battleship, the don hissed: 'I do not subscribe to the Mills & Boon school of British history.' After that encounter, I stopped subscribing too. Views of the veracity of the man it appears will be our next prime minister fall into two camps.

It is good that Matthew Parris has taken on Boris. The Mayor has had too easy a press in many quarters. There is a good reason for this: he is one of us. There is a bit of the Bullingdon in Fleet Street: we are often too disinclined to attack our own. Matthew Parris acknowledges this, and the vitriolic nature of his Times column on Saturday is an attempt to redress the balance. But for me, my objection is not that Matthew has gone over the top in his attack on Boris – it is that his line of attack is fundamentally wrong. The same is true of Nick Cohen’s blast yesterday on the same subject. Let’s brush over Matthew’s complaint that a man who once supported Clause 28 has no right to boast on an LGBT ‘out and proud’ video.

This time last year, Matthew Parris was about the only commentator predicting that the Tories would win a majority. In his Times column today, he says he is now beginning to think that Britain will vote ‘out’ – and he looks at the consequences. Specifically, Cameron’s likely resignation and a summer Tory leadership campaign with Boris Johnson as the favourite. It all might feel a bit premature, but Matthew Parris is one of the most prescient writers in Britain (as Spectator readers know). If Britain does vote out and Cameron quits, then Boris would be the favourite (see graph, below). And then, gloves would come off.

While Boris Johnson is firmly behind the Out campaign in the EU referendum, his father Stanley, sister Rachel and brother Jo are all backing Remain. So, has the difference in opinion led to any family conflict? Last night at a French embassy Jo -- the minister for science and universities --  appeared at first to hint at such problems. He gave a speech, which he began in French, on the great row now gripping the nation and tearing families apart: ‘Everybody must declare their position. Families are divided; brother against brother... I speak of course of the crucial debate for the French language; whether or not to abandon the circumflex.

George Osborne’s battle to become Conservative leader may well be tougher than the battle he faces from the Labour opposition. The Chancellor delivers his eighth Budget tomorrow with only 31 percent of Britons believing he has done a good job as Chancellor. The backdrop for his set-piece speech is perhaps more troubling: only 26 percent say their personal finances are better off than last year and 31 percent think the economy has improved. And yet, despite this, Osborne and Cameron have a 15 point lead over Labour’s team on economic trust. While Osborne has received many plaudits for moving to the political centre ground after May last year, he has seen only small benefit so far.

As the EU referendum campaign wears on, the rules of engagement from both sides are becoming clearer - or at least the rules that both sides would like to use for engagement. The Inners are in favour, unsurprisingly, of throwing everything they can at the campaign to keep Britain in the EU. The Outers are annoyed that the Inners are doing this, though their surprise often seems exaggerated: they cannot really be shocked that a government would try to do everything to stop a change that it thinks is a bad thing for the country. Today Boris Johnson sets out one of the rules of engagement that Brexit campaigners would like to see, which is no foreign governments being dragged into this.

Lord Ashcroft is celebrating his 70th birthday at the Grosvenor House Hotel and Mr S is honoured to be one of the guests. William Hague, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith, Penny Mordant and even Tom Watson are amongst the guests at perhaps the most lavish birthday party anyone will host in London this year. His 50th and 60th had people talking about them years afterwards, so no one expects his 70th to disappoint. There are actors hired to be paper boys, brandishing fake newspapers with headlines about the noble lord suing anyone who suggests he has turned 70. Ashcroft doesn't seem to mind self-mockery either. Blofeld, the cat-stroking Bond villain that he is often compared to, has been invited.

I accept it may take an effort to imagine Charles Moore dressed in a recyclable hemp skirt and organic cotton kimono, his body adorned with the bangles, tattoos and piercings of a genderqueer National Union of Students diversity officer. But you should try. No, really, you should. Students are not the only ones who lock themselves in safe spaces and no-platform all who disturb their doltish peace with argument. The poor dears of the Eurosceptic right are every bit as precious. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Moore, of this parish, found the courage to overcome the subaltern status a hierarchical society has imposed on him, and bring us a survivor's testimony on behalf of himself and all his friends.

Boris Johnson’s admission to Andrew Marr that Brexit ‘might’ cost people their jobs has quite inevitably been seized upon by the ‘In’ campaign as a sign that a vote to leave would put people’s livelihoods at risk. The Mayor of London came on the show to make the positive case for Britain leaving the European Union. It was his first big challenge as one of the key figures in the Out campaign, and as James argued yesterday, he needs to match David Cameron’s efficacy in putting his side’s case across. He did give an entertaining interview in which he scrapped with Andrew Marr over who had ‘sovereignty’ over the programme, and he did offer some good examples and illustrations of why he wanted to leave. https://soundcloud.

Pro-Brexit Tory Cabinet Minister would, I suspect, not be complaining about the government’s referendum campaign tactics if they didn’t fear that they were effective. Whatever you think about how he has done it, David Cameron has driven the risks of leaving the EU up the agenda this week. He has pushed the Out campaign onto the back foot. This is what makes Boris Johnson’s appearance on Marr tomorrow morning so important, I argue in my Sun column this week. Out need Boris to drive their agenda as successfully as Cameron is pushing IN’s. The interview is a big moment for Boris too.

Boris Johnson’s attack on David Cameron’s EU deal as achieving ‘no real change’ is part of the very high-profile campaign that the senior Tories campaigning for Brexit are waging. They have covered the media over the past week with interviews, quotes and rebuttals to every claim that the Prime Minister and his allies have offered. What is interesting about Boris’ comments is that he is trying to take the debate back to the question of whether Cameron actually got anything in the renegotiation. The Prime Minister has rather pointedly moved on from talking about that, focusing now on the dangers posed by a ‘leap into the dark’, which requires a debate about Britain’s overall membership, rather than the changes he has secured.