Afternoon summary
- Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, has said that Labour will not “play politics” with the investigatory powers bill. Explaining why the party would be abstaining on the bill when MPs vote at second reading this evening, he said the party was not ready to support it yet.
The government’s bill is not yet worthy of support because there are significant weaknesses in this bill.
But he also it would be irresponsible for Labour to vote against it.
The simple fact is Britain needs a new law in this area. Outright opposition, which some are proposing tonight, risks sinking this bill and leaving the interim laws in place. To go along with that would be to abdicate our responsibility to the police, security services and, most of all, the public, and I’m not prepared to do that ... I am not seeking to play politics with this bill or to drag it down.
- He said it was “lazy” and “insulting” to refer to the bill as the “snooper’s charter”.
I do not think our mission is helped by misrepresentation. In my view it is lazy to label this bill a “snooper’s charter”, or a plan for mass surveillance. In fact, it is worse; it is insulting to people who work in the police and in the security services. It implies that they choose to do the jobs that they do because they are busybodies who like to spy on the public rather than serve the public. Well, I don’t accept that characterisation of those people. It is unfair and it diminishes the difficult work that they do to keep us safe.
- Theresa May, the home secretary, has described the bill as “world-leading”. Opening the debate, she said:
This bill will provide world-leading legislation, setting out in detail the powers available to the police and intelligence services to gather and access communications and communications data.
She also said it had been improved since it was published in draft last year.
The revised bill is clearer, with tighter technical definitions and strict codes of practice. It includes stronger privacy safeguards, bolstering protections for lawyers and journalists’ sources. It explicitly prevents our agencies from asking foreign intelligence agencies to intercept the communications of a person in the UK on their behalf unless they have a warrant approved by the secretary of state and a judicial commissioner. It reduces the amount of time in which urgent warrants must be reviewed by a judicial commissioner, cutting it from five days to three, and it strengthens the powers of the new investigatory powers commissioner.
- May has claimed that privacy is “hard-wired” into the bill.
In its scrutiny of the draft bill, the intelligence and security committee quite rightly concluded that privacy protection should form the backbone of legislation in this most sensitive area. That is indeed the case and privacy is hard-wired into the bill.
It strictly limits the public authorities that can use investigatory powers, imposes high thresholds for the use of the most intrusive powers, and sets out in more detail than ever before the safeguards that apply to material obtained under those powers.
That’s all from this blog for today.
Later I will be launching a new blog to cover tonight’s Guardian Events EU debate, with Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg, Andrea Leadsom and Alan Johnson.
Thanks for the comments.
Burnham says he wants Britain to be a country that gives individuals privacy, but also collective security.
He says he thinks that balance can be achieved in this bill, provided there are changes to it.
And that’s it. Burnham’s speech is over.
I will be posting a summary soon.
Burnham says he wants the judicial commissioners to have exactly the same powers in terms of being able to refuse a warrant as the secretary of state.
Burnham says the Home Office should commission a review of the proposals relating to bulk interception powers. That report should be available for MPs to study at the bill’s report stage, he says.
Burnham says the bill allows too many agencies to access internet communications records. Do the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission really need this power, he asks.
Sir Edward Garnier, the Conservative former solicitor general, asks Burnham if the thinks a judicial commissioner would really approve the granting of a warrant to bug a trade unionist.
Burnham says this is exactly what happened in the past.
He says that is why he wants to take out protecting the UK’s economic wellbeing as a justification for the use of these powers.
Theresa May intervenes. She asks Burnham to confirm that he is not questioning the independence of the judiciary.
Burnham says that is not what he is saying.
He is saying that the bill goes too far in terms of setting out criteria that could be used to justify surveillance.
Burnham says he does not think the police should be able to access internet connection records for any crime, such as a motoring offence.
The test should be higher, he says. This power should only be available in relation to serious crimes, he says.
Burnham is now running through the changes Labour wants to see in the bill.
First, Labour wants to see a greater emphasis on privacy.
Second, it wants the bill to do more to protect the rights of certain professions.
David Davis, a Conservative, says the bill just protects conversations between MPs and their constituents. He says it should go further, and protect conversations between MPs and whistleblowers.
Burnham agrees.
He says the bill says the prime minister needs to be consulted about warrants affecting MPs. The bill should go further, and say the prime minister must approve these warrants, he says.
This is from my colleague Tom Clark.
Weird feel of the debate in the HoC, where snooper's charter is about to coast through is that it's all about whether Lab for or against
— Tom Clark (@guardian_clark) March 15, 2016
Burnham is now talking about the Shrewsbury 24 case, which he raised in a Commons debate last year.
He says it is cases like this that make Labour MPs nervous about handing more powers to the police.
Burnham says in recent years there have been concerns about how people like journalists, campaigners and victims like the Lawrence family have been spied on by police.
He says, although it has not been proved, he thinks the Hillsborough victims’ families, also believe they were spied upon by the police.
Burnham says total opposition to the bill tonight would not be responsible.
Alan Mak, a Conservative, asks why Labour will not back the government.
Burnham says the bill is not yet worthy of support.
He says he does not want to play politics with the bill.
He wants to get changes to the bill. And when it gets those changes, Labour will support the bill.
He says Labour wants to be constructive.
He says it is lazy to label this bill as a “snooper’s charter”, or a charter for mass surveillance. Worse, it is insulting to the police, he says, because it implies they want to go around snooping on people.
Andy Burnham's speech
Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, is speaking now.
He says surveillance laws need to be updated.
But he says the government has not get the right balance yet.
Updated
Edward Snowden, the American internet surveillance whistleblower, is urging MPs to vote against the bill.
Britons, note how your MPs vote today on #IPBill. A vote in favour -- or abstention -- is a vote against you. https://t.co/hn1CEW2bQ3
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 15, 2016
He is citing the letter in today’s Guardian as evidence of why the bill is flawed.
Practically the entire legal community of the UK has signed a letter declaring #IPBill "not fit for purpose." See: https://t.co/Xbv1GioElc
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 15, 2016
May says she has agreed that the bill will be reviewed within six years.
The plan is to appoint a committee to review how it is operating after five years.
Nicola Blackwood, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons science committee, says May has not addressed all the concerns the committee raised about the bill in its report. For example, firms want to know their costs will be reimbursed.
May says the government will reimburse “100%” of the costs of internet service providers.
She says that the committee wants an assurance that that will be permanent.
But no government can bind its successor, she says.
May says the only new power in the bill is the one that can require internet service providers to keep internet connection records (ICRs).
But ICRs do not provide a full record of someone’s web browsing history, she says.
She says the Home Office has spent a long time discussing this with internet service providers.
And the government will reimburse “the full, reasonable operational costs”, she says.
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, asks May if she agrees that the Speaker should be consulted about any application to bug an MP.
May says such a warrant would have to be approved by the prime minister, as well as by the secretary of state and a judicial commissioner.
May says those MPs who think that judges always just rubber stamp warrant applications have clearly never had any dealing with British judges.
Joanna Cherry, the SNP’s justice and home affairs spokeswoman, says the reference in the Guardian letter to “generalised access to electronic communications contents” is a reference to bulk warrants.
Kenneth Clarke, the former Conservative home secretary and justice secretary, says the judicial commissioners approving warrants will only be able to check that the appropriate procedures have been followed (the judicial review test), he says.
Ex home sec, Ken Clarke, presses Theresa May on whether judicial 'double-lock' on intercept warrants is going to be more than a rubber stamp
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) March 15, 2016
May says the judicial commissioner will see the same information as the secretary of state. They will be able to assess whether the warrant is proportionate.
Clarke asks if the judicial commissioners will be able to ask for extra information about a warrant if they want it.
May says they won’t. If they are unhappy, they can refuse to approve the warrant.
UPDATE: This is from David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation.
Home Sec says #IPBill judges will decide level of scrutiny and will see same ev available to her. If info lacking, judge will not approve.
— David Anderson (@terrorwatchdog) March 15, 2016
Updated
David Davis, a Conservative, says under the current system the home secretary has to approve more than 2,000 intercept warrants a year. How long does she spend scrutinising each one?
As long as is necessary, May says.
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, quotes from a letter in today’s Guardian about the bill. It says the bill “gives gives public authorities generalised access to electronic communications”, he says. But does May accept that that is wrong. Because of the warrant system, that is exactly what the bill does not allow.
May agrees.
May says the bill will introduce a double-lock on warrants, and ensure they require judicial backing.
May says the bill will ensure that intelligence agencies cannot use their relationship with overseas agencies to sidestep UK law.
The Conservative MP David Davis, one of parliament’s leading libertarians, has been tweeting about the bill.
The #IPBill will have its second reading today. Parliament must use this debate to raise concerns on the Bill as it stands.
— David Davis MP (@DavidDavisMP) March 15, 2016
May says the bill limits the public authorities that can use surveillance powers, sets high safeguards for their use, and limits what can be done with the information obtained.
May says the scrutiny the bill has received “may well be without precedent”.
It will provide world-leading legislation, she says.
She says the current surveillance legislation contains a sunset clause, which is why a new bill is needed.
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, asks if it right to reduce the number of oversight commissioners from three to one, particular in the light of the number of miscarriage of justice cases that occur.
May says the commissioner will have commissioners working under him or her. She says oversight will be enhanced, not reduced.
Theresa May's speech
Theresa May, the home secretary, is opening the debate.
She says there has been extensive consultation on this issue over the last three years.
She thanks the joint committee on the draft bill for its work, and says “the majority” of its recommendations have been accepted by the government.
Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, has been tweeting about Labour’s decision not to vote against the investigatory powers bill at second reading.
I want to see major changes to #IPBill. Will set out plan later to get them. My judgment is this will achieve more than outright opposition.
— Andy Burnham (@andyburnhammp) March 15, 2016
MPs debate the ‘snooper’s charter’
MPs are just about to start debating the second reading of the investigatory powers bill, the so-called “snooper’s charter”.
Here is the Guardian’s preview story.
And here is how it starts.
Labour is facing calls to help other opposition parties kill off the government’s new surveillance laws, after the SNP and Liberal Democrats said they would vote against the legislation.
Labour plans to abstain on the investigatory powers bill at second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday because it supports the main aims of the legislation, but it wants the government to include greater privacy protections.
Lib Dem and SNP critics of the bill want Labour to take a tougher stance against the legislation, which would give the state powers to force communications firms to store individuals’ internet connection records – the addresses of websites visited – for 12 months.
The Liberal Democrats, who blocked the legislation under the last coalition government, said Labour’s decision to abstain was “gutless” and called on the party to reverse its decision.
Lunchtime summary
- David Cameron has accused Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign of “making it up as they go along” in relation to what would happen if Britain left the EU. Cameron was picking up on remarks Johnson made in his LBC phone-in this morning in which Johnson appeared to partially backtrack on his claim that Britain should seek a free trade deal with the EU like Canada’s.
- Johnson has said there is no danger of Turks getting free movement rights within the EU. He made the comment in his LBC interview, undermining a key claim that Ukip has been making. In his interview Johnson also became involved in an on-air spat with Labour’s Chuka Umunna who rang the programme to challenge him over the EU.
- Labour has suspended Vicki Kirby, the activist at the centre of a row over anti-semitism. The Labour MP Wes Streeting suggested that party should have acted sooner. He told the Press Association.
I am only sorry it has taken the intervention of a number of MPs and resignations by party members. At this stage I think Jeremy Corbyn needs to answer some serious questions about the effectiveness of Labour’s NEC on these issues.
Mandelson says leaving the EU could undermine the Northern Ireland peace process
Lord Mandelson, the Labour former business secretary and former European commissioner, gave to a speech to the British-Irish Chamber of Commerce this morning. There were two main lines.
- Mandelson claimed that Boris Johnson was living in a “fantasy world” if he thought it would be wise for Britain to negotiate a Canada-style trade deal with the EU. Pointing out that he was trade commissioner when talks on the trade deal started in 2005, he said:
This agreement offers nothing like unhindered access to the single market. Farmers face restrictions, carmakers face cumbersome rules over which they have no say. Some EU tariffs are phased out only after seven years.
There are 700 pages of exemptions from free trade, with vital sectors such as audio visual and air transport excluded.
And as Canada is outside the Single Market it has no input to EU regulations, meaning its products, for example medical equipment, must be approved by EU authorities before they can enter European markets.
Most significant of all, financial services are not ‘passported’ into the EU. If we had similar terms, this would spell disaster for Britain’s financial sector ...
What Boris doesn’t understand – or wilfully ignores – is that trade deals are elaborate compromises from which those with the greatest negotiating power benefit most and countries even of our size and proximity ultimately have to settle for what they’re offered.
That’s the real world rather than the fantasy world Boris and his fellow Brexiters occupy.
- Mandelson said leaving the EU could undermine the Northern Ireland peace process.
The EU has been, as it is elsewhere in the world, an enabler of peace in Northern Ireland and a fundamentally stabilising presence in Ireland’s recent history ...
There are still difficulties, of course, but common membership of the EU provides practical support as well as a common framework which unquestionably supports the peace process. Why would we sacrifice such a steadying force in favour of uncertainty and unknowns? ...
It is unclear what the border arrangements [between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland] would be in the unprecedented situation of the UK leaving Europe – and everyone would want to work to avoid border posts and elaborate checks – but the re-imposition of a formalised border would be a radical departure from the established strategy of administrations in Dublin, Belfast and London.
Anything, in my view, that strengthened a sense of separation between Northern and Southern Ireland – physically, economically, psychologically – has the potential to upset the progress that has been made and serve as a potential source of renewed sectarianism.
Updated
The Treasury has criticised the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) for giving MPs a 1.3% pay rise this year, the Press Association reports.
Ipsa has confirmed that the increase will take effect from next month - less than a year after politicians received a back-dated 10% hike to £74,000.
By contrast workers such as NHS staff and members of the armed forces have been limited to 1%.
In a letter to Commons Speaker John Bercow, chief secretary to the Treasury Greg Hands stressed that he recognised the watchdog’s independence.
But he added: “The government’s policy is for public sector pay to increase by 1% per year, and its position on increases in MPs’ pay, at a time when difficult decisions are being taken elsewhere to reduce the deficit, has not changed.
The part of MPs’ pay we do control - ministerial pay - has been frozen until 2020.”
Under the pay package introduced by Ipsa, MPs salaries are uprated annually in line with increases in average weekly public sector earnings.
However, those figures are typically higher than the 1% cap because they include bonuses and promotions.
Labour suspends Vicki Kirby
Vicki Kirby, who has been at the centre of a row over anti-Semitism, has been suspended from the Labour party pending an investigation, a party spokeswoman said.
On the Daily Politics Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, has just welcomed the news. He said he wanted Labour to make it clear that it had no tolerance of anti-semitism, Islamophobia or any other form of racism.
Updated
David Cameron has been tweeting about his visit to Felixstowe.
With 100 days to go, I'm in Felixstowe explaining why Britain is stronger and safer if we vote to "Remain" in the EU pic.twitter.com/2PL1BpX0pC
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) March 15, 2016
The Telegraph’s Michael Deacon has found fresh evidence that reinforces David Cameron’s claim that Boris Johnson is not being 100% consistent on the EU.
Boris today: "There's no reason why we shouldn't do a [trade deal with the EU] very rapidly indeed." Boris on Feb 7: pic.twitter.com/Ppf5LyzPaY
— Michael Deacon (@MichaelPDeacon) March 15, 2016
Cameron accuses Johnson and Leave campaign of 'making it up as they go along'
Here is the key quote from David Cameron’s speech in Felixstowe where he attacked Boris Johnson for what he said today about the UK getting a Canada-style free trade deal with the EU. (See 10.57am.)
Cameron said the Leave campaign could not say what relationship the UK would have with the EU if it left. First they refused to answer this question, he said. Then they said they wanted full access to the single market. Then they proposed a free trade deal like the one Canada has negotiated with the EU.
But a Canada-style free trade deal means you do not have full access for your financial services, you have to pay tariffs on your cars, you don’t have full access for your farmers’ produce. So it’s not a great deal for Britain.
Canada is a country 4,000 miles away from the continent of Europe that does 10% of its trade with the European Union. We are a country just 20-odd miles from the continent of Europe and we do 50% of our trade with the European Union. So a Canada deal is not the right deal for us.
Now today the leaders of the Leave campaign are saying they don’t really want a Canada deal at all, that they were not right about that. They are literally making it up as they go along. They are rolling the dice. They are taking a risk. And they are taking a risk with people’s jobs, taking a risk with families’ finances, and I don’t think that is good enough for the British people.
David Cameron is doing one of his EU Q&A events in Felixstowe.
He has just picked up on Boris Johnson’s comments about Canada today, and accused the Leave camp of backtracking, and making it up as they go along.
I will post the quote shortly.
Boris Johnson's LBC phone-in - Summary
Here are the main points from Boris Johnson’s LBC phone-in.
- Johnson insisted that the chances of Turkey joining the EU were very slim - and that even if it did join, Turks would not get free movement rights. He said that Turkey had been a candidate to join since 1963 and that thought that Turks were going off the idea of joining. (He has relatives in Turkey.)
I think the chances of the Turks readily acceding to the European Union are between nil and 20%.
When pressed on whether the chances were really as high as 20%, he replied
Probably lower than that ... It is not going to happen in the forseeable future.
And then he said that, even if Turkey did join, it would not get free movement rights.
If it were to happen, what you would not get is anything to do with free movement. That is where people are rightly spooked at the moment. The idea of suddenly 75m Turks, and all those coming into Turkey, notionally having the right to visa-free travel to the EU - that is simply not on the cards.
This is significant because some Leave campaigners, particularly in Ukip, have been highlighting the prospect of Turkey joining the EU as a strong argument for leaving.
Johnson also suggested that he would like the UK to become an associate member of the EU along with Turkey.
William Hague wrote a very interesting piece the other day suggesting that there could be a future for Britain joining with Turkey as not an EU member, but an associate member. I thought that was interesting.
- He clarified his position on wanting the UK to have a Canada-style trade deal with the EU, saying there were just “elements” of the deal he liked. At an event on Friday he clearly cited Canada as a model the UK should follow. Today he said:
I think there are elements of the Canada deal I like. We should do a British deal ... There are elements of the Canadian deal that show, in my view, that the Remain campaign are, as usual, trying to panic people.
- Johnson had an on-air row with Labour’s Chuka Umunna over the EU. Umunna phoned in to ask a question, and he argued with Johnson about the merits of a Canada-style free trade deal. Then Johnson challenged Umunna to admit that he he once said 50% of UK law came from the EU. Umunna denied this, but Johnson told him not to “weasel around”, to “man up” and to admit that he had said it. A Hansard quote from 2011 suggests that Johnson was right (although one could argue that there is a difference between regulations and primary legislation).
Boris and Chuka Umunna on @LBC. Chuka strongly denies ever saying 50% of legislation comes from EU. Chuka in 2011: pic.twitter.com/wfAfFJCPQP
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) March 15, 2016
- Johnson said it did not matter “too much” whether Grassroots Out (GO) or Vote Leave secured designation as the official Leave campaign from the Electoral Commission.
I think it does not really matter too much who comes out on top of this one, provided that we all get together and work to that end.
(Johnson’s allies in Vote Leave probably feel rather differently about this.)
- He rejected the claim from Lt-Gen Ben Hodges, head of the US Army in Europe, that Nato could be undermined if the UK were to leave the EU. He said:
David Richards, the former head of the British Army, thinks completely the opposite, and I happen to agree with him ...
One of the anxieties about the EU and its pretensions to try to create a superstate with a military arm as well is that it undermines the utility of Nato.
- Johnson said the story about the Queen getting angry about having to listen to a pro-EU “sermon” from Nick Clegg sounded “plausible”. Asked about this, he said:
I have to admit that I find that plausible.
That is a deep truth. The one thing that makes one an absolute raging Eurosceptic is listening to Europhiles droning on about how there’s nothing else we can do and we are locked in this prison and we have got to stay and receive our punishment beatings until kingdom come.
If she did throw a wobbly in response to a Euro sermon from the former leader of the Liberal Democrats that, I have to say, at a human level, I can understand how she felt.
But I don’t think that can be taken as authenticating the story.
- He said the government’s decision to go ahead with Crossrail 2 was “an amazing step” for London.
I hope people really understand the significance of this. What fools we would look if we weren’t by 2018 already well down the track with Crossrail 2.
Nick Ferrari says this is Johnson’s last phone-in as mayor.
Q: How will you feel when you leave?
Very sad, but very proud of what he has achieved, he says.
He says he took office at the time of the crash. Now London is on top of the world, he says.
He talks about meeting a boy recently who got a scholarship as a result of the mayor’s music fund. That boy’s life is now on a different track, he says. There are more young people in employment than ever before.
And that’s it.
I’ll post a summary soon.
Q: What would the timetable be for Brexit?
Johnson says the existing treaties would stay in place for two years. There would be no need to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, he says.
Q: How did Cameron reply to your text saying you were backing Brexit?
Johnson says he cannot remember.
Boris on how PM replied to his Brexit text: "I can't remember, the blessed veil of amnesia..." Yeah right! #AskBoris
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) March 15, 2016
Q: What would happen to Britons living in the EU if Britain left?
Johnson says there is no reason why they should lose their rights.
Q: Why did you open fire on President Obama?
Johnson says he did not open fire on Obama.
Obama is welcome to visit the UK, he says.
But he was making the point that America would never surrender its sovereignty.
Q: Will you meet Obama when he comes to the UK?
Johnson says he would like to, but he thinks it is “highly unlikely” that he will get a meeting.
He quotes from an article John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, has written in the Telegraph saying he would back Brexit.
Nick Ferrari says this is the same John Bolton who defended the Iraq war.
Q: What do you feel about Turkey joining the EU?
Johnson says he thinks the Turks are going off the EU. He has cousins in the Turkish goverment, and he speaks to Turks.
Q: Turkey is becoming a bit of a rogue state. It has invaded Iraq.
We would never dream of invading Iraq, Johnson jokes.
He says he is “troubled” by some of the things going on in Turkey.
Turkey has been a candidate for joining the EU since 1963.
He says the chance of Turkey joinin gis between 0 and 20%
Q: As high as 20%
It is not going to happen, he says.
And certainly not with free travel within the EU. That is not going to happen.
He says William Hague recently suggested that Turkey and Britain could both be associated members of the EU. That would appeal to him, he says.
Q: The head of the American army in Europe says that Nato would be damaged if Britain left the EU?
Johnson says other people take different views. He says David Richards, the former head of the army, thinks the opposite.
Updated
Q: Was it a good idea for Top Gear to do that stunt by the Cenotaph?
Johnson says he was “surprised” by that. He says one of the strengths of London is that more movies and TV programmes are filmed here than almost anywhere else in the world. It is catching up with Los Angeles and New York, he says. That is partly because of the government’s tax breaks.
Johnson says the government will give the go-ahead for Crossrail 2 in the budget this week. That will be an amazing development for London, he says.
He says it will cost about £27bn. But London will be able to pay for about half of that, he says.
Johnson says Britain would have more flexibility over VAT if it left the EU.
For example, it could get rid of the tampon tax, he says.
Boris Johnson sasy "ultimately " he wants the Tube to be a 24/7 service across the entire network
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) March 15, 2016
Adam Bienkov from politics.co.uk says Boris Johnson was right to say that Chuka Umunna once said half of UK laws come from the EU. (See 9.14am.)
Boris and Chuka Umunna on @LBC. Chuka strongly denies ever saying 50% of legislation comes from EU. Chuka in 2011: pic.twitter.com/wfAfFJCPQP
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) March 15, 2016
Q: How do you feel about what the Queen said about leaving the EU?
Johnson says the Queen seems to be a huge fan of the Elizabeth line, the new name for Crossrail. That is all he knows about the Queen’s views.
Q: Is it a boost for the campaign?
Johnson says he cannot comment. The great thing about the Queen is that she is above politics.
Q: What about this story saying the Queen got so fed up with a sermon on the EU from Nick Clegg that she through a wobbly?
Johnson says he can believe this.
If this story is true, he can understand how she felt, he says.
Boris adds: "One thing that makes one a raging Eurosceptic is listening to Europhiles droning on saying we have to take our beatings."
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) March 15, 2016
Updated
Johnson says the UK should take the opportunity to leave the EU now. It would be “catastrophic” not to, he says.
Johnson takes a call from Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP and former shadow business secretary.
Q: You proposed a trade deal with the EU like Canada’s. But that took seven years to negotiate, and does not cover services?
Johnson says the Remain campaign are “freaked out” by talk of the Canada option.
There are elements of the Canada deal he likes, he says.
But he says he would like a British deal.
- Johnson clarifies his position on a Canada-style trade deal with the EU, saying he would not want the UK to copy it in its entirety.
He says Canada got rid of about 97/98% of tariffs.
He says the EU will not impose tariffs on the UK.
The Remain campaign are running this country down, he says.
Umunna says it is Johnson who talks Britain down. He denigrates Britain’s influence in the EU. Umunna says he is a Londoner; Johnson is our mayor. Michael Gove is a man of conviction. Johnson brought a circus to his house to announce his decision. This is not about you, he tells Johnson.
Nor is it about you, says Johnson.
He says the EU is “less and less democratic”.
He challenges Umunna to admit that he said 50% of UK laws come from the EU. Umunna denies this.
Updated
Nick Ferrari tries to get Johnson to say when he last spoke to Nigel Farage about unifying the Leave campaigns.
Johnson won’t say when if he and Farage have had a conversation with this since Johnson came out in favour of Brexit.
Boris Johnson's LBC phone-in
Boris Johnson is hosting his LBC phone-in.
Q: Do you think the two Leave groups, Grassroots Out (GO) and Vote Leave, should unite?
Johnson says he understands the point, but he thinks it is now up to the Electoral Commission to decide which group it wants to designate as the lead campaign.
It does not matter too much who gets the nomination, provided they work together, he says.
The main thing is to get the arguments out in front of the people, he says.
He says Project Fear is “a load of old cobblers” and a “millennium bug-style scare story”.
- Johnson says it does not matter too much which group gets designated as the lead Leave campaign by the Electoral Commission.
- He says Project Fear is a “millennium bug-style scare story”.
There are 100 days to go until the EU referendum and this morning Sir Lynton Crosby, the Australian political strategist who was instrumental in helping the Conservatives win a majority at the election, has intervened, offering advice to those campaigning on each side. He normally charges for his advice, he sometimes jokes, but today he has set it out in a column in the Daily Telegraph.
Looking at new polling suggesting that Leave has a two-point lead, but a seven-point lead when likelihood to vote is taken into account, he says that Remain needs to stress the economic risks of leaving, while Leave needs to stress the risks posed by mass immigration if the UK stays in.
Poignantly, the challenge for both campaigns is the same: to raise the importance of the referendum outcome and demonstrate to their voters that there really is the potential for Leave to win.
A third (31 per cent) of voters who are undecided or likely to change their mind say their biggest hesitation in voting Remain is the potential for uncontrolled or increased immigration.
Critically, nearly a third (28 per cent) of Remain voters who are likely to change their mind are concerned about the risks of immigration.
But a similar proportion (30 per cent) of voters who are undecided or likely to change their mind say their biggest hesitation in voting Leave is the damage it might cause to the UK economy. This is almost as big a hesitation for Leave voters who are likely to change their mind, where a quarter (25 per cent) cite it, as it is for Remain voters who are likely to change their mind – where a third (36 per cent) cite it ...
The key framework of this campaign is risk. While much has been made of Project Fear, the reality is that voters see risk on both sides.
The risk of leaving is the damage that could be caused to the UK economy. The risk of staying is the uncontrolled immigration that could result.
This sums up the choice that voters are facing: are the economic risks of remaining in the EU bigger or smaller than the impact of uncontrolled immigration that voters believe could result?
This advice will not surprise the Remain camp. But it will be more contentious for Leave, where there is a split between the Grassroots Out (GO) camp, which is keen to highlight the immigration issue, and Vote Leave, which is more queasy about this.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, hosts his LBC phone-in.
10am: Lord Mandelson, the former Labour businesss secretary and former European commissioner, gives a speech on Europe.
Around 12.40pm: MPs begin debating the second reading of the investigatory powers bill.
Later this evening Guardian Events are holding a debate on the EU referendum, featuring Nigel Farage, Andrea Leadsom, Nick Clegg and Alan Johnson. I will be covering that on a separate live blog. The event starts at 7pm, but the debate itself does not get going until 8pm.
As usual I will also be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
If you think there are any voices that I’m leaving out, particularly political figures or organisations giving alternative views of the stories I’m covering, do please flag them up below the line (include “Andrew” in the post). I can’t promise to include everything, but I do try to be open to as wide a range of perspectives as possible.
