Boris Johnson's defence to all of this, I am afraid to say, is cobblers. THREAD
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1456574922717794305
The guidance for the register of MPs interests can be seen here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cm… and the relevant paragraphs are 35c and 25a.
35c deals with visits outside the UK and says you don't need to disclose "Visits wholly unconnected with membership of the House or with the Member's parliamentary or political activities (e.g. family holidays)." 
Johnson's defence is that 35c applies. But as @AngelaRayner (rightly) points out, how can the donation be wholly unconnected with Johnson's parliamentary or political activities when Johnson gave the donor a peerage and a political post?
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1456577953685508100
But when you look at para 25a the analysis is clearer still. 25a is dealing with the same phrase ("related to membership of the House or to the Member's parliamentary or political activities") and it says: "If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered."
I don't see how one can sensibly argue that "there is no doubt" that Zac Goldsmith's gift of a stay in his lavish villa to Boris Johnson is unconnected to Johnson's parliamentary or political activities.
The TL;DR is that Johnson has (I think clearly) breached his obligations to register his financial interests.
It's almost like his decision to support Owen Paterson and undermine the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament was somewhat self-interested.
It's almost like his decision to support Owen Paterson and undermine the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament was somewhat self-interested.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
