boris johnson

Boris & The Burka: Free Speech or Dangerous Attack?

Monday 6^th August 2018. The Telegraph publishes an article by the former foreign secretary opposing a ban on niqabs and burkas in the UK. In that same article, Boris Johnson goes on to refer to Muslim women wearing such headwear as looking like “letter boxes” and “bank robbers” – comments which, since the article’s release some weeks ago, have led to a media storm, backlash from his own party, and, many argue, an emboldening of Islamophobic voices. But just what was Johnson trying to say; and what are the likely long term implications of his words?

In the article in question, Johnson opposes a full ban in the UK, claiming that it would be interpreted as “intended to make some point about Islam”. The ex-foreign secretary also asserts that he disagrees with “telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business”. However, he argued that some “restrictions” did seem “sensible”, and it is from these – or rather, from Johnson’s lively and bombastic language – that controversy has arisen.

Johnson argued that a woman who turns up to school or university “looking like a bank robber” should be asked to remove their burka or niqab, just as Johnson said he would feel entitled to ask the same of a constituent who attended an MPs surgery. He also added that businesses should be able to enforce this in their dress code.

His apparent defence of a woman’s right to wear a burka was further undermined by comments that “it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes”, and that it was “weird” to do so.

Since the article was published, there has been outcry from the public, media and politicians alike. Johnson has been called on to apologise by Theresa May, Lord Eric Pickles, and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi amongst other senior Conservative figures. He is however yet to do so.

Johnson has been called on to apologise by senior Conservative figures – he is however yet to do so.

The Conservative party has issued an independent panel to investigate the complaints made against Johnson and to ascertain whether the party code of conduct has been breached. In the meantime, Johnson remains MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and The Telegraph continues to publish his weekly column.

The Conservatives and Islam

Johnson’s comments have led some to question future relations between the Conservative party and Muslim voters.

Historically, British Muslims have been far more likely to vote for the Labour party than the Conservatives on the whole. In the 2015 general election, it is estimated that just 25% of Muslims voted for the Tories, whilst 64% voted Labour. In addition, in the 2017 election, all of the 25 constituencies estimated to have the largest Muslim populations re-elected Labour MPs with increased majorities.

Furthermore, numerous allegations of Islamophobia within the Tory party have arisen. In May 2018, the Muslim Council of Britain wrote an open letter demanding internal investigation within the Conservatives following what it describes as “more than weekly occurrences of Islamophobia in the party last month”.

Johnson’s article seems to have further perpetuated a narrative of prejudice within the Tory party, and some party members argue that this is self-sabotaging. Conservative Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who became the first female Muslim cabinet minister in 2010, has previously suggested that a loss of support amongst Muslims and ethnic minorities has contributed to the Tories losing ground in recent elections.

Strengthening voices of intolerance?

Whilst many public figures have been quick to express their disgust at the comments of what they see as a “pound-shop Donald Trump”, many have also defended the former foreign secretary.

Numerous polls conducted since the article hit headlines have indicated that a majority of the public don’t believe Johnson need apologise. Results from a ComRes poll published in the Sunday Express revealed that 53% of those surveyed felt the MP shouldn’t face punishment, whilst a Sky Data survey indicated that 60% of respondents thought his comments were not racist. The Daily Mail also reported that the vast majority of its reader’s letters supported Johnson’s comments.

Johnson’s article seems to have further perpetuated a narrative of prejudice within the Tory party

Many defendants of the article feel that it was simply an expression of free speech- a freedom often in contention with political correctness. However, the concern for others is that Johnson has diminished the freedoms of those at the brunt of his jokes.

In an article written for The Guardian, Baroness Warsi expresses her fear that by belittling Muslim women, Johnson has validated the views of the alt-right, leaving British Muslims more vulnerable to hate crime. Indeed, there is evidence to support this. Boris Johnson’s official Facebook page has become flooded with Islamophobic comments in recent weeks. The online abuse includes worrying inflammatory attacks on Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and calls to ban Islam. And this comes at a time in which hate crime is on the rise. In 2017 there were 1,201 reported Islamophobic attacks in the UK- the highest number on record and a 26% increase on the previous year.

For a man who was one of UK’s key representatives to the world until a matter of weeks ago to demean those that fall victim to these attacks with relative impunity may very well cause voices of intolerance to become louder and potentially more aggressive. Many share Baroness Warsi’s fear that “the odd bit of toxic campaigning ends up in attacks on our streets”.

Doubtlessly, Johnson’s article was an almost genius work of rhetoric. In it, he presented a liberal argument in favour of expressive freedoms, written in the language of the alt-right. His refusal to apologise, perhaps frighteningly, implies that his choice of wording was not incidental. Instead, it seems deliberately divisive at a time when the Conservatives and wider post-Brexit society are already deeply fractured, and also perhaps represents an attempt keep his name in the headlines following his resignation from his powerful cabinet position.

Yes, freedom of speech is foundational to democracy and must always be defended, of course. But is it not the case that free speech exists to protect citizens against their governments?

This is not only entirely irresponsible of a powerful politician – it is extremely dangerous.

Because this seems to be a case of a politician attacking a group of citizens to gain political ground. Johnson’s exercise of freedom of speech appears to have taken a minority group as collateral in order to galvanise voters’ support from the right. This is not only entirely irresponsible of a powerful politician – it is extremely dangerous.

Towards the end of the article which has sparked so much debate, Boris Johnson writes that we must not “play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations”. The irony (or not) is, that in his calculated words and his subsequent refusal to apologise, it seems that it is Mr Johnson himself who has done exactly that.

Stuck on Mount Brexit

Theresa May likes her walking holidays. She reportedly decided to call last year’s general election on one such venture in Snowdonia. She may not have visited her other favourite (the Swiss Alps) this year because it seems as though she is there already- climbing a huge mountain, with little grip, and rather a big crevasse on the other side.

The legacy that any new Prime Minister inherits from their predecessor has a huge bearing on how they will ultimately be remembered. The mess May has inherited has few parallels – the country is still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis, social divisions are deep and we face the biggest administrative task since the war to boot.

The mess May has inherited has few parallels

The promises made by Vote Leave, which she chose to make her own, are the most toxic legacy of them all. Vote Leave and the Conservative Party have promised an inconsistent triad of policies – leave the single market, leave the customs union and avoid additional physical infrastructure on the Irish border or a border in the Irish Sea. This is the root of all the mayhem we have seen in recent weeks.

The Chequers proposals are an attempt to get out of this jam. For now, the illusion that all three promises can be kept is being maintained through the complicated ‘facilitated customs agreement’, under which the UK would collect EU tariffs and then reallocate the money back to Brussels – but the assumption across Westminster is that those plans will get the boot from Brussels and that some form of customs union will be agreed.

The explosive reaction to the Chequers plan, and the fact that hindsight is 20:20, means many of the Prime Minister’s previous decisions suddenly make some sense. The desire to avoid or delay the day of reckoning with backbenchers who think the inconsistent triad can be upheld is the story of the past two years – from the attempt to stop parliament having any say over the Brexit process, to the decision to call a snap general election and the endless attempts to fudge the issue and kick the can down the road in its aftermath.

Theresa May’s Cabinet ahead of talks at Chequers

The reckoning has now arrived. David Davis and Boris Johnson’s resignations suggest that the Tories are now irrevocably split; between former Remainers who broadly welcome the Chequers proposals, Brexiteers who say we just have to leave and worry about the future relationship later, and Brexiteers who are prepared to sink Mrs May’s proposals. The fact that neither Davis, Johnson nor Eurosceptic backbenchers can come up with their own workable proposals is almost beside the point. The Tories’ civil war over Europe, which has been rumbling on since Margret Thatcher’s day, may now be decisively won by one side or the other.

There’s a chance that the chaos and splits at the top could lead to May giving fewer concessions to Brussels. The mood music from the Commission in the immediate aftermath of Chequers was cautious optimism, accompanied by a clear message that many of the proposals may prove difficult to implement. Since the resignations, Brussels has gone into submarine mode – saying as little as possible to ensure May isn’t toppled. Since there is so little time left for negotiations, the EU’s main focus is secure a transition period with a ‘backstop’ solution for the Irish border, avoid no deal and push the rest of the detail into the transition period.

And when this is all, hopefully, wrapped up and the struggling PM has finally reached the summit, she has to look over the other side. It’s not pretty. Indeed, there are very few ways that she can get down unscathed and secure a safe landing.

The mood music from the Commission in the immediate aftermath of Chequers was cautious optimism

The reason for this lies in the most serious mistake Theresa May has made as Prime Minister – and it has nothing to do the Brexit talks or the calling of the general election. Since the crash, no party has been in the sweet spot of being trusted to manage the economy effectively and deliver a more compassionate society, and this explains why no single party has won a comfortable majority in parliament since 2005. Before the election, the Tories clocked up 20 point poll leads because voters largely believed that May was a very different type of Tory, which was crystallised by her rhetoric about ‘burning injustices’. When given the chance to put the flesh on some bones of this in an election manifesto, we instead got the dementia tax, fox hunting and proposals to take away free school lunches rather than anything that was positive.

With the onset of a hung parliament, it has become clear that any Brexit option would be extremely difficult to get through parliament. No option is supported by a majority of MPs, and any deal looks doomed even though, legally, the only alternative to leaving with a deal is to have no deal. Labour is guaranteed to whip its MPs to vote against whatever is proposed with the hope that it would trigger a general election, while it looks like enough Tory backbenchers are so ideologically opposed to the Chequers plan that they would be willing to risk an election. Whatever May brings back is extremely likely to be voted down. This could trigger a second referendum, an election, a frantic new round of negotiations, a fudge which pushes the substantive issues into the transition or no deal – but as this is Brexit, a fudge is most likely.

Fasten your belts because this whole thing will just go on, and on, and on. The tragedy is not that our GDP will be a bit smaller and our voice on the international stage will be slightly quieter, but that the real issues facing Britain will continue to be overlooked.

Boris Johnson’s Charm Offensive of Latin America

The Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has returned from his five-day Latin American tour of Peru, Argentina and Chile that was conducted from the 19th to 23rd May.

The tour gave Prime Minister Theresa May some much needed breathing space to attempt to affirm her government’s position regarding what form the UK’s exit from the European Union will take, especially as the Cabinet is still in a state of paralysis over what Britain’s relationship with the customs union will be once the transitional period ends in December 2020.

But also, the trip was an opportunity for Johnson to revive and reinvigorate the beginnings of new UK trading relationships with Latin America. This is because if the Government implements its promise to the customs union, she will be able to strike up her own free trade deals with other sovereign states.

Johnson’s tour started in Peru where he visited the Amazon and discussed environmental issues with President Martín Vizcarra. Johnson’s travels involved launching a UK-funded solar energy project to provide energy for a school located in the Amazon, and the Foreign Secretary also affirmed the continued technical assistance the UK would be providing for the Pan American and ParaPan American Games scheduled to be held in Lima in 2019.

Also, during his trip, Boris found the time to feed some manatees, pet a baby monkey and a sloth, finishing off by dancing with a local schoolteacher. Johnson seemed to enjoy his visit, historically being the first foreign secretary to visit the country for fifty years.

The second phase of Johnson’s trip involved visiting Argentina, where he met with Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie and other government ministers to lay a wreath at the “Monument to the Fallen” to honour those who had died on both sides, British and Argentine, as a result of the Falklands War of 1982.

the Cabinet is still in a state of paralysis over what Britain’s relationship with the customs union will be once the transitional period ends in December 2020

On the 22nd May, Johnson at a press conference with Faurie commented on the continued collaboration that was occurring between the two nations. Johnson talked about how Argentine and British policy was similar in terms of a desire to establish an “intelligent reinsertion” back into the international sphere as the two countries adopt a globalist attitude towards free-trade.

Boris was pleased to exclaim that the “British people are already the second biggest consumers of Argentine wine… and that is before we have begun the free-trade deal that we hope to achieve together”.

Naturally, there was sensitivity regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, but both ministers were adamant that this disagreement would not get in the way of the commercial interests of the two nations. Before Boris left, he had meetings with President Mauricio Macri and praised the economic strategy of the administration.

The third leg of the Foreign Secretary’s whistle-stop tour of Latin America involved visiting Chile on the 23rd May where Johnson discussed with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Roberto Ampuero, the aspirations of the UK to establish greater ties with the trading bloc of Mercosur and to develop a closer relationship with the Pacific Alliance.

Boris Johnson’s five-day trip of Latin America was portrayed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be one of optimism

Both ministers found common ground concerning the importance of increasing bilateral trade between the two nations, especially as Chile is the UK’s third largest export market in Latin America behind Mexico and Brazil.

Regarding global issues, Chile and the UK both condemned the behaviour of Nicolás Maduro, President of Venezuela, regarding the circumstances of his re-election and expressed concern regarding the political dissolution of the Venezuelan people under his governance.

The Foreign Secretary also stood side-by-side with President Sebastián Piñera vis-à-vis the need to strengthen the international community’s commitment to the rule of law and its condemnation of the Assad regime in Syria’s recent use of chemical weapons in Douma in April.

Boris Johnson’s five-day trip of Latin America was portrayed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be one of optimism as the Foreign Secretary promoted the autonomy that Britain will have once she leaves the single market and the customs union, being able to negotiate her own bespoke trade deals.

Johnson seemed confident that once Britain leaves the restrictions of the EU she will be able to “[take] back control of [her] tariff schedules” enabling Britain to engage in more global trade due to being unhindered by the self-interest of individual member states of the EU27 and the European Commission.

However, this optimism for a truly “global Britain” jars with the reality that Argentina, part of Mercosur, has been attempting since 2000 to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and the free-trading nations of Chile, Peru and Argentina will negotiate hard if future trade negotiations are to take place with the UK.

This is especially true since, currently, the UK provides only around 1% of imports in Argentina, Peru and Chile, respectively; nevertheless, the Foreign Secretary, during the course of the tour, was confident that, for the economic prosperity of the region and the UK, this figure would increase post-Brexit and that mutual gains could be achieved between the UK and her Latin American partners.

May’s Mistakes

After over one hundred days of her tenure as Prime Minister, and following some rather damning leaks of her talks concerning Brexit, it is necessary to assess Theresa May’s performance so far. Unelected and, in some cases, unwanted, May has had to tread carefully with the British public thus far, watering down many of her views regarding issues such as leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Her situation is volatile – she holds her position with no mandate, leading a party that was utterly divided no more than four months ago. Nonetheless, we must hold her accountable for the many questionable actions she has taken thus far.

Unelected and, in some cases, unwanted, May has had to tread carefully with the British public.

One of May’s very first actions gained global scrutiny; she appointed Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary. A decision akin to appointing a toddler as chancellor, she was internationally questioned and laughed at. A man who has been repeatedly reprimanded for his inappropriate choice of language when dealing with foreign diplomats, he was far from the natural choice for Foreign Secretary. While it may too soon to class this as a mistake, few are optimistic about his chances. It is, then, fortunate that his role has been somewhat reduced by the creation of a Ministry for Brexit.

If you recall May’s stance during the campaign for the Brexit referendum then I would be rather impressed. She made little effort throughout, clearly a ploy to remain neutral and emerge in a position of power post-referendum. Since she assumed the role of Prime Minister, she has been nothing but optimistic about Britain’s chances outside of the EU. Asserting that Britain will prioritise control of its borders over remaining in the single market, May made many who voted leave rejoice, and the rest of us weep. This arrogant over-nationalism that plagued Britain for decades is the cause of leave’s victory, and fuels the over-optimistic idea that our economy will survive outside of the single market. It seems that May embodies this same arrogance. This decision has been another catastrophic mistake, having already plummeted the pound down to a new depth, and causing major corporations to become uneasy with Britain’s economic position. Yet May’s optimism continues.

Her undying optimism was not always present as we have recently learned. Tapes of talks she gave to employees of one of London’s leading banks, Goldman Sachs were leaked only a few days ago, and paint a completely different picture of May’s opinions about Brexit. In the talk, she expresses concern for both Britain’s economy and safety if we leave the European Union. Expressing her views much more strongly than she did to the public, May voiced fears that British companies would seek to relocate to the EU. Then why is May optimistic about Britain’s chances now? Has she somehow found reassurance in the crash of the pound? No, she is no more optimistic now than she was in her talks to Goldman Sachs, but she has to appear so. Both for the benefit of Britain’s economy, to give investors and businesses confidence in the UK, and to further her own career: May must be seen to appeal to those who voted leave.

The most recent mistake on May’s part comes in regards to Russia. For years, Russia has used Spanish ports, both in Europe and Africa, to refuel her battleships. While this was not a problem while Russia was dormant, a sleeping bear, times have changed. Russia’s involvement in Syria, namely in aiding Assad’s regime in its fights against the rebels, is more apparent than ever. This aid can involve copious amounts of bombing raids by Russian aircraft. Russia recently requested that Spain allow her to refuel several naval vessels carrying aircraft at one of their ports. Spain agreed, and was met with instant backlash from the European community; Russia obviously intends to use these aircraft in their bombing raids in Syria, which results in murdering of thousands of civilians.

European leaders were in uproar, except ours. May refused to condemn Spain for their actions, saying that Russian vessels could ‘go where they please’, a dangerous statement to be making in the current climate of Russian aggression. Michael Fallon, defence secretary, has since condemned Spain for their actions, showing a divide in May’s cabinet, and a non-committal attitude from herself regarding foreign policy. Russia has recently mounted the largest number of troops on its border with Europe since the cold war, and yet May sees it as appropriate to offer Putin a free pass concerning his naval vessels. May’s judgement has to be brought into question when she is making decisions such as these.

So with mistake after mistake already under her belt, why is she still in the job? The answer is simple; she is an excellent politician. As slimy as a garden slug, she makes David Cameron seem as honest as Mother Theresa. May cannot help but to dodge questions and bend the truth to suit her needs. Reality is redefined at the whim of Theresa May, or so she would have you believe. Increasingly, Jeremy Corbyn is making light work of their exchanges at the dispatch box during Wednesdays’ Prime Minister’s Questions. May has run out of script, citing her regular lines such as ‘Brexit means Brexit’ has served her well so far, but will do so no longer. Her façade has begun to crack and Corbyn will waste no time exposing these imperfections.

When May enacts article 50, she is effectively handing in her resignation with two years notice.

The concern, then, is that if Corbyn manages to take advantages of May’s shortfalls, so too will Europe’s finest. The Brexit negotiations, if they occur to the same standard as May’s previous acts, could potentially land Britain with slightly greater control of her borders, but a stunted economy. We have much to look forward between now and the next general election, if May can even last that long. It is unlikely she will last past the end of Brexit negotiations; so many people want so many different things that she will find it virtually impossible to make everyone happy, even within her own party, and so there is a great chance of a leadership coup, but a greater chance of an orchestrated resignation. When May enacts article 50, she is effectively handing in her resignation with two years notice.

EU Referendum 2016: Boris makes a gamble

Boris Johnson has gambled his long-standing ambition to become Britain’s next Prime Minister by joining the campaign to leave the European Union, putting himself at loggerheads with David Cameron and George Osborne. In a move that will electrify the referendum campaign, Mr Johnson decided to back a ‘Brexit’ (British exit) despite personal appeals from Mr Cameron to support his position. We are lead to believe that through his actions Mr Johnson believes that the European political project was in danger of loosing proper democratic control.

Unlike some of those backing a Brexit, Johnson raises the possibility that Britain may not ultimately leave the EU in the event of a leave vote. He in fact calls for Britain to have a deep and co-operative relationship with the EU.

His decision will entice the referendum campaign and came as a major blow to David Cameron just one day after the Prime Minister called the June 23 vote.

It sets the stage for a leadership campaign that looks likely to see Mr. Johnson face off against George Osborne, the Chancellor, for the chance to succeed Mr. Cameron when he steps down. This now causes even deeper divisions within the Conservative Party as many conservative MP’s have let Mr. Cameron know their own stance on the EU referendum. For example, Stroud MP, Neil Carmichael, says ‘I hope other Conservative party members follow my lead and vote to stay in the EU’.

Cameron is therefore seeing opposition within his own party about the EU and now he must deal with the shock of Boris’ change of heart. Johnson’s decision is bound to deepen the party’s internal rift but, given Boris’ importance is routinely overestimated, whether he will be the enormous asset the leave side calculates he will be is another matter. It was vital to see the referendum and the internal Tory battle as unique in their own two ways but some newspapers believe that Johnson’s antics might precipitate an early general election. While it is thought that the referendum would make life hard for some pro-Cameron MPs in the constituencies, Johnson’s influence is arguably overstated in comparison to the bigger issues facing the UK and the EU.

some newspapers believe that Johnson’s antics might precipitate an early general election

The public are surprised at Johnson’s sudden change of mind due to the fact that in the past he has written a lot about the importance of staying in the European Union and it seems as though he is perhaps putting his personal leadership ambitions above the national interest.

Johnson believes that there is a way that we could actually get a better deal that does more for Britain and restores some control to the people in this country. However, it’s hard to believe the mayor’s words when he has advocated staying in the EU for so long.

The leave campaign has now been boosted by the Mayor of London which could potentially boost his bid to be the next Conservative leader. For someone who has been mayor of London since 2008 and who was re-elected in 2012, he’s certainly not under the radar. In fact, opinion polls have shown that the public view him as the second most credible politician on this issue behind Prime Minister Cameron. However, Boris’ support for a ‘brexit’ has increased concerns over the risk of Britain leaving the EU weighing on the pound because until recently, the sterling has been a popular choice with investors around the world. Our economy has outperformed many others, interest rate rises looked imminent. However, not only have our economic fortunes dimmed, we now have a date for an EU referendum – June 23.

The impact of the ‘Boris Bombshell’ was very much felt. There’s no doubt that Boris Johnson’s decision to support the campaign to leave the EU triggered a sell-off. Investors view his declaration as making the prospect of an “out” vote more likely. He is, after all, a very popular politician.

Some would have you believe that this is proof that investors also believe that Britain outside the EU would be a poorer nation and a less attractive place to invest. This is a harder punch to land, not least because there’s no definitive proof that that would be the case.

Investors view his declaration as making the prospect of an “out” vote more likely

First and foremost, the fall in the value of the pound feels like a reaction to the heightened risk of the unknown. Human beings don’t tend to like change or uncertainty, and investors (usually) are human beings. My belief, and it is not a particularly controversial one, is that the prevailing view of investors is that Britain will vote to remain in the EU. So in the coming days expect financial markets to be very sensitive to any news which hints at a different outcome. But even when you step back and have a look at the data, you notice that the pound has been weakening. The prospect of an interest rate rise has diminished, the likelihood of a Brexit has incrementally increased – both are being felt.

The Prime Minister has characterized a decision to leave the European Union as “a leap in the dark.” That feels like a fair comment. So students of Exeter- you have four months to decide whether it’s a heroic or a foolish one.

Despite Boris Johnson’s turn around and the increase in support in polls for the out campaign, there still remains a great deal of reasons why we most likely will not leave the EU. To understand the dynamics that strongly favor an “in” vote, start with the politics. Until this month’s deal, Britain’s leaders were not seriously making the case against Brexit. After all, Prime Minister David Cameron and his government had to pretend that they would contemplate a breakup if the EU rejected their demands.

Under these circumstances, it is impossible for either Labour politicians or business leaders to advocate an EU deal that Cameron himself felt he was not yet ready to promote. The Out lobby therefore enjoyed a virtual monopoly of public attention. This situation may briefly persist, even though the EU deal has now been agreed, because Cameron has no wish to antagonize his party’s implacable euro skeptics until it is absolutely necessary, but as the referendum approaches, this political imbalance will abruptly reverse.

One reason is Cameron’s decision to release his ministers from party discipline during the referendum campaign. Initially viewed as a sign of weakness, Cameron’s move has turned out to be a masterstroke. Having been offered the freedom to “vote your conscience” on the EU deal, most significant Conservative politicians – with the notable exceptions of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – have come around to supporting Cameron.

Cameron’s move has turned out to be a masterstroke

As a result, the out campaign has been left effectively leaderless and has already split into two rival factions – one driven mainly by anti-immigrant and protectionist sentiment, the other determined to concentrate on neo-liberal economics and free trade.

It can be confidently predicted that as the political tide turns, the British media and business opinion will follow, mainly because of direct financial interests. For example, Rupert Murdoch, whose outlets dominate the media landscape, needs membership in the EU single market to consolidate his satellite TV businesses in Britain, Germany, and Italy. Another powerful motivator for Murdoch, as well as for other media proprietors and business leaders, is to be on the winning side and to maintain good relations with Cameron, unless they see overwhelming evidence that he will lose.

In a challenge that pits one of Britain’s most popular politicians against the prime minister and deepens the divide in Cameron’s party, Johnson said his boss has failed to deliver fundamental reform with an EU deal.

It would be interesting to see how much of an effect Johnson, a political showman whose eccentric persona masks a fierce ambition to succeed Cameron, will have on the outcome of the EU referendum as well as the elections in time.