Remember those adverts about how after Brexit we will be able to pursue closer ties to the Commonwealth, and out of the sheerest coincidence the 3 out of 53 countries they used to illustrate this were Canada, New Zealand and Australia
Whilst this seems largely true, it seems to my primitive understanding to lay down some stiff parameters around what ANY Withdrawal Agreement will look like, no matter who negotiated it. I mean what would a Labour one look like? Seems to me it would square off a form of Customs Union (which would look broadly similar to the one Theresa May has agreed), would look to push back on some of the state aid rules and look to be more protective over workers rights. Doesn’t seem radically different, although the distinctions would at least be a start. And that’s if they’re actually able to negotiate them in the first place. I mean Corbyn’s still hawking the “exact same benefits” line which, let’s face it, is fucking nonsense.
Top analysis from some woman who won The Apprentice once (I think it was her anyway) on Sky News this morning as she wanted to know why we didn’t get a bunch of top entrepeneurs to find a technological solution to the Irish border issue. Hey, and maybe they could have come up with a perpetual motion machine and found the Holy Grail while they were at it too!
This is all the more reason it needs to be rejected entirely, really. The more things are accepted and staked down, the more fucked we are… and the less chance we can’t, y’know, call the whole thing off.
I’ve seen that argument from leavers that think they are being oh so clever. ‘No no actually you are the racist ones…’
But I don’t remember the leave billboards promoting African and Indian immigration surprisingly.
I think this is what Jolyon was writing about the other day. Pretty galling that the government seems to be set preventing people from finding out whether Article 50 could potentially be reversed.
I like Sturgeon, all told (surprise!), but I tend not to hold her up as a political hero for the ages or what have you.
However. Compared to the collection of aimless dreck that’s currently swilling around in Westminster and Holyrood without two halves of a clue to rub together, she’s consistently a beacon of purpose and clarity.
It’s kind of enraging how far ahead of the pack she is insofar as it being teaser for how much better things could be if we weren’t suffering under the current collective shower.
Senior Labour figures could barely contain their glee last night at the sight of the governing coalition tearing apart at the seams. Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Trickett said the vote showed “we no longer have a functioning government.” Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell tweeted: “Constitutional custom and practice in this country dictate that if a party in government cannot command a majority in parliament, it should stand aside and allow the opposition party the opportunity to seek to form a government. We are now clearly moving into this territory.”
Aye, sock it to 'em!
Labour’s celebrations were somewhat muted, however, given it somehow contrived to lose the vote despite the DUP’s support. Labour whips were completely blindsided by the DUP’s decision to vote with them on the amendment, which had called on the Treasury to produce impact assessments of the budget on inequality and child poverty. As a result Labour failed to muster enough MPs, and lost the knife-edge contest by five votes. Among the absentees was one Jeremy Corbyn, who had put forward the amendment himself but was then given permission not to vote. Oops.
Hmmm. With a group as volatile as the DUP, and taking into account their recent statements, I think it’d have been prudent to account for the potential for them being useful idiots. It appears that angle had not been adequately considered.