BORIS Johnson cemented his place as the Basil Fawlty of international diplomacy yesterday, when he seemingly compared French president Francois Hollande to an abusive Nazi prisoner of war guard.
Number 10 were forced to leap to the Foreign Secretary’s defence, insisting he had been making a “theatrical comparison”.
Earlier in the day, Hollande said there was no way the EU would allow the UK to have a better trade deal with Europe than it currently has.
Speaking during a visit to India, Johnson responded, accusing the French of trying to penalise Britain for having the audacity to leave the bloc.
“If Monsieur Hollande wants to administer punishment beatings to anybody who chooses to escape, rather in the manner of some World War Two movie, then I don’t think that that is the way forward and I don’t think it’s in the interests of our friends and partners,” he said.
His comments were condemned as “abhorrent”.
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband said: “Boris Johnson proves once again he’s not fit to be Foreign Secretary, showing you can be supremely clever and yet immensely stupid.”
The Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said the remarks were an “utterly crass and clueless remark from the man who is supposed to be our chief diplomat”.
There was support from Gisela Stuart, the German-born, leave-supporting, Labour MP, who insisted her Brexit campaign buddy did not mean to be offensive.
However, it would be best, she said, if politicians on all sides “just don’t mention the war”.
European Parliament Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt tweeted: “Yet more abhorrent and deeply unhelpful comments from Boris Johnson, which PM May should condemn.”
However, May’s spokeswoman said the brouhaha over Johnson’s comments were “hyped up”.
“He was making a point, he was in no way suggesting that anyone was a Nazi,” she said. “There is not a government policy of not mentioning the war.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court said its verdict on whether MPs should have a vote on the triggering of Article 50 would be announced next Tuesday. The Government has appealed against a High Court ruling that MPs should be given a vote, although reports earlier in the week suggested ministers were sure they would lose the case.
That announcement came just after Prime Minister’s Questions, where the SNP’s leader in Westminster Angus Robertson accused Theresa May of stringing the people of Scotland along, by ignoring their support for remaining in the single market.
May said she remained committed to working with Holyrood, and that the Scottish Government’s plans were to be considered at today’s joint ministerial committee on European negotiations.
“We will be looking at it seriously and working with the Scottish government on proposals they bring forward,” the Prime Minister promised.
Robertson then pointed to a Fraser of Allander report produced late last year saying Scotland leaving the single market would see incomes drop by £2,000 and an extra 80,000 people out of work.
“Does the Prime Minister believe that this is a price worth paying for her ‘Little Britain’ Brexit?” Robertson asked.
“His party is dedicated to taking Scotland out of the single market by taking it out of the United Kingdom,” May retorted.
Earlier in the day, David Mundell insisted the government was still looking at the Scottish Government’s proposals for Scotland’s place in Europe, and had carried out “line-by-line” analysis.
“The conclusion that we have reached is that there are a whole range of areas in which the Scottish Government and the UK Government are actually on common ground,” the Scottish Tory MP told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland.
“Many of those were mentioned by Theresa May in her speech – workers rights, protecting the rights of EU citizens that are already here, ensuring that we have common processes for dealing with criminal justice issues. We’re on common ground on a whole range of issues.
“Where we’re not on common ground ... is on the ideological issue of whether Scotland should somehow be separate from the rest of the UK.
“At the moment I have not seen evidence which would persuade me that there is a need for a Scotland-specific solution in relation either to market access or in relation to issues around migration.”
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