Boris Johnson restates threat to abandon Northern Ireland protocol, saying Good Friday agreement more important – live

Read More

The Swedish delegation to the EU seems determined to start a caption competition.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesperson strongly hinted that time was running out to find a negotiated deal with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol.

Asked if this week was the last chance to avoid the UK unilaterally amending the protocol, the spokeperson replied:

I’d never put a definitive timescale on that. I don’t think that would be helpful. But we have been working at this for 16 months, and we are at a position where the proposals put in front of us do not improve things. In fact they are a backwards step.

The spokesperson declined to say if the government had modelled the potential economic cost of a trade war, saying he was “not going to get into speculation about what might happen down the line”.

Asked if the government was drawing up new legislation to allow it to abandon parts of the protocol, as has been widely reported and as the Queen’s speech yesterday hinted, the spokesperson replied said:

I wouldn’t get into, on any issue, the ins and outs of policy development. This is something we’re looking at closely, it’s a serious issue, all options are on the table.

It is understood proposed law would allow businesses in Northern Ireland to disregard EU rules and regulations and remove the power of the European Court of Justice to rule on issues relating to the region.

And here are the main points from the press conference on the new mutual security assurance with Sweden.

Johnson said the new agreement would bring Sweden and Britain even closer. He said:

It’s an agreement that brings our two countries even closer together.

It will allow us to share more intelligence, bolster our military exercises and further our joint development of technology.

The many carcasses of Russian tanks that now litter the fields and streets of Ukraine thanks to Swedish-developed, British-built NLAWs certainly speak to how effective that co-operation can be. But most importantly, this is an agreement that enshrines the values that both Sweden and the UK hold dear, and which we will not hesitate to defend and, as you put it so well Magdalena, when we were out on the lake – we are now literally and metaphorically in the same boat.

He sidestepped a question about whether Britain would use its nuclear weapons to protect Sweden under this agreement. In response to a question on this, he said:

When it comes to our nuclear deterrent, that’s something we don’t generally comment upon. But what I’ve made clear is that the it’s up to either party to make a request and we take it very seriously.

But, in response to an earlier question, he said that the UK would provide assistance if asked by Sweden. Asked what help might be provided during the period while Sweden waits to join Nato (when it is likely to be more vulnerable, because a country could attack without inevitably triggering a Nato response), Johnson replied:

The declaration really makes it clear. Upon request of Sweden, the UK will of course provide assistance. What matters primarily is what Sweden decides to request.

What we’re saying is that we are long-standing friends of Sweden, we are massive partners and supporters of Sweden, we share the same ideals, the same values. Sometimes things should go without saying but they’re worth saying. It’s worth emphasising that, if Sweden were attacked and looked to us for help and support, we will provide it. But it’s up to Sweden to make the request and spell out exactly what support is requested.

He said that he would support a Swedish bid for Nato membership and that the UK would be as “useful” as it could.
Magdalena Andersson, the Swedish prime minister, said her country was safer as a result of the new assurance. She said:

Are we safer with this declaration? Yes, we are. Of course this means something. This is important whatever security policy choice that we make in Sweden [ie, whether it joins Nato or not].

Although most of the press conference was devoted to the security assurance signed today, Boris Johnson also took a question at the press conference about the Northern Ireland protocol – another international deal he has signed, but one he is now threatening to abandon. (See 12.54pm.) If the Swedes noticed this irony, they did not say anything about it.

At his press conference Boris Johnson was asked, for the first time in public, about Keir Starmer’s decision to say he will resign if fined by the police for breaking lockdown rules. Asked if that was the right thing to do, and if he was acting dishonourably by not resigning himself, Johnson just claimed he had move on from that. He replied:

We’ve moved, we’re trying to move beyond all that, we’re trying to focus on the issues that really, not least the war in Ukraine.

This is what Boris Johnson said at his press conference in Sweden when asked if it was wise for the UK to be threatening a diplomatic war with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol.

On the protocol … the most important agreement is the 25-year-old Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is crucial for the stability of our country, the UK and Northern Ireland. And that means things have got to command cross-community support.

Plainly the Northern Ireland protocol fails to do that. We need to sort it out.

Back in the Commons, Priti Patel, the home secretary, has just finished. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is speaking now. She says she was amazed Patel refused to take any of her interventions during her speech. She said, in 25 years as an MP, she had never seen a cabinet minster refuse to take questions from their opposition shadow in a Queen’s speech debate. She wondered what Patel was afraid of.

Cooper then went on to say that Boris Johnson did not even talk about crime in his speech on the Queen’s speech proposals yesterday.

Q: How strong is this compared to Nato’s article 5. Would the UK support Sweden with nuclear weapons? And what help will the UK get?

Johnson says the assurance works both ways.

Nato membership is a different matter, he says. He says the UK will support whatever action Sweden decides upon.

As for the nuclear deterrent, he says he does not normally comment on that. But it is “up to either party to make a request”, he says. He says he takes this very seriously.

And that’s it. The press conference is over.

Q: What would the UK provide to Sweden under this declaration?

Johnson says it would depend on what Sweden asked more.

Restating his point about how the two countries are already allies, Johnson says sometimes things that go without saying are worth saying.

Magdalena Andersson, the Swedish prime minister, says her country is safer as a result of this assurance.

Boris Johnson is holding a press conference in Sweden now.

Q: What does the new security assurance mean?

Johnson says it is in some respects no more than a statement of the obvious.

Britain and Sweden are allies. Faced with a request for help, one country would help the other.

He says Sweden and the UK already cooperate together militarily.

He says this is “the foundation stone for an important development in our relationship”.

Q: In the light of the Ukraine crisis, is it really the right time to provoke a row with Europe over the Northern Ireland protocol?

Johnson says the Northern Ireland protocol threatens the Good Friday agreement. It needs to be sorted out.

The Good Friday agreement is the more important of the two agreements, because it is older, he suggests.

UPDATE: Johnson said:

On the protocol … the most important agreement is the 25-year-old Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is crucial for the stability of our country, the UK and Northern Ireland. And that means things have got to command cross-community support.

Plainly the Northern Ireland protocol fails to do that. We need to sort it out.

Diana Johnson, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, asks Patel if the government will ensure that Rasso (rape and serious sexual offences) units are in every police station.

Patel indicates that the government already favours this approach.

In the Commons Priti Patel, the home secretary, is opening today’s Queen’s speech debate, which is focusing on crime and justice matters.

She opens the debate with an attack on Labour, criticising the opposition for not supporting some of the government’s previous crime measures and claiming Labour defend murders, paedophiles and rapists “with no right to be here”.

She is referring to the proposal for a bill of rights, that is meant to make it easier for the government to deport foreign offenders.

Boris Johnson is signing mutual security assurances with Sweden and Finland. He has signed the Swedish one with Magdalena Andersson, the country’s prime minister, this morning, and he will sign the Finnish one when he is in Helsinki later today.

Sweden and Finland are currently outside Nato, although both are about to apply to join, in response to Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. But they are already members of the Joint Expeditionary Force, a loose military alliance set up by the UK which is dominated by Nordic and Baltic countries.

In a press statement explaining what the new security assurances mean, No 10 said:

The declarations will see a step-change in defence and security cooperation between the UK and each country, intensifying intelligence sharing, accelerating joint military training, exercising and deployments, and bolstering security across all three countries and northern Europe.

They will also see the UK bolster its collaboration on traditional threats facing all three nations, while working also with Sweden and Finland to tackle new geopolitical challenges, such as hybrid and cyber threats.

Commenting on the assurances, Johnson said:

We are steadfast and unequivocal in our support to both Sweden and Finland and the signing of these security declarations is a symbol of the everlasting assurance between our nations.

These are not a short term stop gap, but a long term commitment to bolster military ties and global stability, and fortify Europe’s defences for generations to come.

Danny Shaw, the BBC’s former home affairs correspondent, has been covering Tom Pursglove‘s evidence to the Commons home affairs committee on the Rwanda asylum scheme. Here are some of the key points.

Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal migration, claimed that over the longer term the plan would have a significant deterrent effect on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats – but he would not a put a figure on what the impact might be in terms of numbers.
But Pursglove also admitted that the plan was “not a pancea”.
He conceded that if any Ukrainians crossed the Channel in small boats, they could potentially be sent to Rwanda under the plan.
He refused to say how much the government would pay Rwanda per asylum seeker.
He refused to accept there was a “systematic” problem with human rights in Rwanda.

The Scottish government has said that it should it should have the right to veto any proposed changes to the Human Rights Act because of its importance to devolution.

In the Queen’s speech the government confirmed its plans to pass a bill of rights that would overhaul aspects of the Human Rights Act. Christina McKelvie, the Scottish government’s equalities minister, said this should only be passed with Scotland’s approval. She explained:

The Human Rights Act has successfully protected rights and freedoms across the whole of the UK for more than 20 years. We will continue to robustly oppose any attempt to replace it with a bill of rights.

The safeguards provided by existing legislation protect every member of Scottish society. They are an essential feature of a democratic society founded on the rule of law.

These rights are also at the heart of the devolution settlement. Changes must not be made without the explicit consent of the Scottish parliament.

At the same time, the Scottish government is showing human rights leadership by protecting and enhancing our rights and freedoms. Future Scottish legislation will extend human rights safeguards even further.

When Westminster is legislating on matters that affect the devolved governments, it tries to obtain their “legislative consent”. But it does not always succeed and can, and sometimes does, legislate against their wishes.