Boris Johnson would have preferred not to be the center of attention this Wednesday, against his natural instinct. Britain’s dominant politician on the stage for decades could not hide his irritation as the seven MPs who make up the House of Commons’ Privileges Committee chimed in with their questioning. His task was to determine whether the former Prime Minister “willfully or recklessly” concealed from Parliament the truth about the banned Downing Street parties while in custody.
“I am here to tell you with my hand on my heart that I have not lied to the chamber [de los Comunes]. In making these statements, I did so in good faith and based on what I honestly knew and believed during that time,” Johnson assured, before swearing to “Almighty God” with his hand on the Bible that he was ready be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of the committee. Pictured behind the former Prime Minister was David Pannick, the respected lawyer who is preparing his defense and has already received around €250,000 in funding from the government.
But the truth takes on an amazing elasticity in Johnson’s hands. And the story he told himself about those fateful days clashes with the perception of the British public regarding the Partygate scandal. Johnson has detailed the intense work he and his team faced at the time, assuring committee members that despite number 10 Downing Street “a cramped one, they have tried at all times to comply with the social distancing regulations imposed during the pandemic.” , narrow eighteenth-century residence.”
Johnson employed a two-pronged strategy that only partially worked. His performance was broadcast live on British television. Three hours of purgatory, during which the politician was aware that his future was at stake. If the committee decided to suspend you as MP for 10 days or more, you would almost certainly lose your seat. A candidate replacement procedure would be activated in your constituency.
On the one hand, the ex-premier wanted to ridicule the idea that the events reflected in the photos released by the media were actually a party. “I know public opinion has gotten the idea that these are photos obtained in a covert way, obtained from the press, and pixelated in a sinister way. However, most of these were taken by the official Downing Street photographer,” explained Johnson, who nevertheless admitted that they could give the impression of “doing something that other citizens could not do”.
Before a panel that sometimes didn’t believe his words, but also couldn’t elicit a clear self-incriminating statement from Johnson, the ex-prime minister justified the drinks-filled tables with the need to “fix the ship’s course”. ” ” and encourage the team every time someone was given a small farewell party. “If at those press conferences where his lectern said ‘hands, face, space’ [lavarse las manos, usar mascarilla, mantener distancia social] If you were asked if companies could break distancing rules to throw farewell parties, what would you have said?” Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin asked the former Prime Minister. “If the recommendations could not be met perfectly, they were entitled to a reduction. That’s what the recommendations said, and we actually had a lot of mitigation,” Johnson replied.
Subscribe to EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
subscribe to
“Weak” recommendations from consultants
Johnson began to lose reason and patience when lawmakers questioned his main line of defense. Time and time again, he had told them, his advisers had “assured” him that Downing Street would follow the recommendations made during the lockdown. Those recommendations, the committee’s chair, Harriet Harman, had suggested were “a bit flimsy” as a line of defense. “If I’m going 100 mph and the speedometer says I’m going 100 mph, it would be a little weird to defend yourself by saying, ‘Someone told me that’s not the speed,’ wouldn’t it ?” Harman Johnson said. .
Curiously, it wasn’t the chairman of the committee, whom the former prime minister accused of being biased early in the investigation over the tweets he published against him, that managed to drive Johnson insane. Conservative Jenkin exposed the blatant nonsense of his party colleague’s statements: “If I were accused of breaking the law and had to dispute it in the House of Commons, I would seek the advice of a solicitor. I would seek the advice of someone competent and independent,” he accused Johnson, as the former prime minister insisted what his political advisers were telling him was enough. “It’s all nonsense. Complete nonsense. I consulted the most relevant people and they all held high positions,” Johnson replied, clearly irritated.
However, the politician has tried to put some distance between himself and all his allies, who in the days leading up to the performance had defined the committee as a rigged court (Kangaroo Court). The questioning of the Privileges Committee has irritated Speaker (President) of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle and many MPs. Also conservative. Alberto Costa (Scot, Italian parents) and Charles Walker, two of the four Tories serving on the committee, urged Johnson to distance himself from statements that undermine the legitimacy of the parliamentary body. “No one should intimidate or pressure a colleague,” the former prime minister said, but he reiterated that the “legitimacy of this committee will be judged by the citizens themselves, depending on the evidence they are capable of contributing.” Until the last minute, Johnson has insisted there is not a shred of evidence that he deliberately lied to Parliament about Partygate.
Follow all international information on Facebook and Twitteror in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits