This a post that could appear biased in favour of the left in British politics, but I assure you I would say the same thing were it the other way around.
What we've been seeing on the front covers of newspapers in the run-up to the election, such as The Sun on the 9th Dec, is exemplary of how our media doesn't seem to be performing its role as part of British democracy. The role of the media in democracies is to inform citizens in order to hold politicians to account for their actions, especially during any kind of vote. Despite knowing this, our major newspapers seem to biasedly report in favour of far-right politics, even to the point of being anti-democratic. This was blatantly obvious when Gina Miller brought her case to the high court and the Supreme Court of Justice decided to force the Conservative government to seek parliamentary confirmation on any Brexit deal. Whether you agree with Brexit or not, our high court and MP's play a crucial role in maintaining our democracy. Newspapers railing against them for doing their job appears to be an abuse of their power in my opinion.
In light of today’s election, please, we need to start thinking more critically about the information we receive whether it complements our views or not. Our country will be doomed if this doesn’t start happening soon. This goes for what we see in newspapers, magazines, TV, online and even what we hear in the pub because it's not all true.
Remember to vote!
Check out my article on tactical voting if you're not sure whom to vote for.
Written by Christopher Hofmann
After 3 long years of Brexit debating in parliament and 4 Brexit extensions, parliament has (un) surprisingly decided to take the decision back to the people by passing a law to hold a General Election on the 12th of December 2019. This is quite possibly the most important election of our lifetime. For many young people who did not have the chance to vote in the 2016 referendum or the 2017 snap election, this will be their first ever opportunity to vote in a General Election.
Was this the right move?
It was blatantly obvious that Boris Johnson had no more control over Parliament as his first 10 bills were defeated in the House of Commons. Johnson’s minority government had no chance of getting anything through. Perhaps it was the right choice to call an election. Although, what will happen if the election results in a similarly divided parliament? Maybe it is time that parliamentarians do their job by putting their differences aside and coming to a resolution on Brexit.
As our First Past the Post voting system encourages people to vote tactically and this is one of the most important elections of our generation, tactical voting will be a tempting choice this December. Putting a specific political outcome over your political affiliation is a tough decision to make. This is a symptom of the many failings of our political system. I will personally be looking into this option and will post an article about this soon!
No matter what, if you are able to vote, PLEASE register and turn up! This election will decide our future relationship with Europe and how we choose to progress with Brexit.
Written by Christopher Hofmann
Ireland’s deputy Prime Minister emphasises no more compromise is possible on the Irish Backstop in the current withdrawal agreement. Without the backstop in place, there is the fear of a reappearance of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This could lead to a breach of the Good Friday Agreement and could create uncertainty for the Northern Irish peace process. Critics argue against the backstop as should the UK and EU not reach an agreement of their future relationship, the UK would effectively remain in the EU customs union.
Rumours of government looking to enact martial law in the event of civil unrest after a no-deal Brexit have grabbed headlines today as government prepares itself for a no-deal outcome. Whilst confirming this was true, Health Secretary Matt Hancock also highlighted the government was “not specifically” looking into the possibility but only preparing itself if need be.
Are businesses leaving UK because of Brexit?
A number of businesses have recently been in the spotlight for moving or considering to move their operations out of the UK. Most controversially, Dyson founder James Dyson, who openly supports leaving the European Union, has announced the company’s relocation to Singapore. Although CEO, Jim Rowan, assures the move has nothing to do with Brexit but with “future-proofing” the business. Airbus CEO, Tom Enders, has released a statement condemning the state of Brexit negotiations. Calling them a “disgrace”, he threatened with the possibility of turning down future investment in the UK and moving factories. Even the BBC is said to be considering moving headquarters into the EU in order to allow it to continue broadcasting over the continent.
Since beginning of Term 1 2018/19 we hold bi-weekly radio talks on RAW1251am. We cover the latest Brexit and political developments in the UK and Europe and have guests talking about their work and views on current situations.
If you missed out, you can listen to them on our mixcloud!
This Friday, the Prime Minister delivered the finale in a series of speeches that have included contributions from David Davis and Boris Johnson, which been dubbed by the government ‘The Road to Brexit’. The Cabinet has stalled, diverted, and played for time with phrases like “ambitious managed divergence”, but finally Theresa May seems to have delivered a comprehensible vision for the future.
The speech represented a carefully measured truce between the two wings of the Conservative Party; a truce which had been hammered out over a Cabinet ‘away day’. The government is still pursuing a hard Brexit, with no reference to the customs union membership that Jeremy Corbyn backed earlier in the week; this fulfils the basic demands of the Brexiteers, including that crucial European Research Group (ERG) of 60 Tory MPs, a bloc whose support May must maintain in the event of a vote of confidence. On the other side, the speech indicated that the government would be pursuing the softest form of hard Brexit possible – it has accepted that there is not a rigid binary between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’, Brexit is better measured by a spectrum. May gave a substantial amount of detail, outlining a number of European agencies that her government seeks to remain part of, including medicine, chemical and aviation agencies and a close relationship with Euratom. However, despite promising that the UK would not be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice post-Brexit, she also said that it would be necessary to defer to the ECJ in some legal cases, which is likely to raise some eyebrows.
May wanted to use this speech to throw some cold water over the whole soft/hard Brexit dilemma and wake both wings of her party up to the reality of the situation. Overall, the speech has been greeted with applause from both sides – a rare occurrence for the post-election Prime Minister. The ERG has claimed it is “very relaxed” about her proposals. Pro-Europe Tory rebels such as Sarah Wollaston have supported the speech as a source of party unity. The chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier also praised the “clarity” of May’s plan (although without himself clarifying if the plan was acceptable to the EU).
However, there has been some opposition – notably from Labour who, while no longer being able to claim that a bespoke deal is off the table, due to their own position, argued that the proposals would harm industry and mean increased uncertainty for workers. They were supported by the TUC. Labour has also criticised the lack of progress on the Northern Irish problem, which was a visibly gaping hole in May’s speech. As the piece of the puzzle with the highest political and moral stakes, the obvious lack of solutions might throw the entire agreement into jeopardy. There have also been a group of senior British MEPs who have claimed that May has not made enough concessions to the EU and that this level of ‘cherry-picking’ simply isn’t a feasible negotiating position. The EU’s view on this clarified stance will become obvious when the next round of negotiations begins very soon.
As a final point, it is worth noting that this truce May has so carefully negotiated with her own party may subtly favour the hard Brexit wing. The technicalities of the agreement will not be set in stone in a post-Brexit environment, as the UK will have legally left the jurisdiction of the EU. It is therefore possible that May has succeeded in getting the ERG and other hard Brexiteers on side by appealing to their electoral appetites for the near-future. It is very possible that a Brexiteer successor to May, whether that be Davis, Johnson or Rees-Mogg, could re-align the details of the agreement post-Brexit and implement a more rigid ideological policy. All of this is futurology, but one thing is clear: this Tory truce is very, very temporary.
Jeremy Corbyn’s speech in Coventry this Monday, confirming Labour’s support of a customs union with the EU, has been billed a game-changer, and it would have been if the content of the speech hadn’t been slowly dripped out to the press in recent days. Keir Starmer, the Labour lawyer shadowing David Davis’ unenviable job, had virtually confirmed it (with a knowing smile) on last week’s Andrew Marr Show. Even so, as Corbyn himself insisted throughout his speech, this latest ‘development’ was only a reaffirmation of the Labour Party’s crystal-clear, unambiguous view on Brexit that had been unanimously established after the publication of Labour’s 2017 election manifesto. Or so Corbyn said, anyway. The fact that this announcement was treated with so much discussion did, however, indicate the deafening silence on Brexit that Labour has produced in recent months. For once, the public has been given a concrete fact that isn’t hidden behind several layers of jargon.
Membership of a customs union will greatly simplify two major problems facing the government. Firstly, the possibility of a hard border in Northern Ireland will be virtually eliminated, as a common trading area will satisfy the Irish demand for ‘frictionless trade’ (to which May has not so successfully aspired). Secondly, the economic benefits of a customs union will placate big business by eliminating the uncertainty of a tariff-riddled hard Brexit. However, the customs union is not a silver bullet - if Corbyn were in a hypothetical No.10, he would face opposition from both Brexiteers within his own party and in the DUP-led Northern Irish government, and from Remain-supporting Labour MPs who see this move as a precursor to support for single market membership in a few months’ time. Of course, there is no guarantee Corbyn would receive enough support from the Labour electorate for the plan, - he depends upon many voters who would class themselves as Hard Brexiters.
All of these problems notwithstanding, the decision on membership of a customs union (whether agreed 9 months or 9 days ago) has given Labour a spring in its step. On Wednesday, the unusual sight of a socialist proudly referencing support from the CBI (hardly a bastion of Marxism) at PMQs showed just how excited the Labour frontbench is about their new conviction.
Corbyn also had the never-before-possible privilege of taunting May about her lack of a plan - beyond the dubious “ambitious managed divergence“ without having his own argument thrown back at him. This renewed clarity is, regardless of your position, healthy for the debate; Labour is now able to effectively oppose the government’s Brexit position (or lack of) with the same vigour as they do on social policy.
The sceptical have pointed out that this is just political manoeuvring based on basic parliamentary arithmetic. A parliamentary vote on customs union membership is fast approaching, no matter how much May seeks to delay it. If Corbyn succeeds in whipping his own MPs into line and the crucial Tory rebels follow suit, May’s feeble, DUP-sponsored majority will be undermined. Many of the vultures circling around the Westminster bubble are arguing that such a blow to the government’s position should lead to May’s resignation. All of this is reliant on a number of ifs and buts: Corbyn would have to assert his authority over his own Eurosceptic MPs and the Tory rebels cannot be depended upon if a government defeat would mean opening the Pandora’s Box of a leadership election, or indeed the dreaded prospect of another general election. Additionally, there is no certainty that the EU will even accept Corbyn’s proposal of a bespoke customs arrangement. Regardless Labour has embraced pragmatism and, if May continues in her present ideological lockstep with her hard-line backbenchers, the crunch point that has seemed to slip further away in recent months may be a lot closer than May believes.
In this fascinating article Rhys Felton takes an in-depth look at how Emmanuel Macron's presidential election victory will impact Brexit negotiations. Macron was and is viewed by many as an outsider; his popular support is rooted in a social movement (rather than a party), and the liberal strand which underpins his political thought is a marked departure from previous president’s emphasis on ‘French exceptionalism’. Rhys argues we should view Macron’s appointment ominously as it will lead to uncomfortable parallels being drawn between Britain and France’s governance which will expose the flaws in Brexit. He also reflects upon Macron’s status as a ‘break’ from conventional French politics arguing that this will lead to a renewed commitment to the European project - Britain will no longer have a Eurosceptic neighbour. The article is well worth a read - France is Britain’s closest military ally and diplomatic and economic ties are also strong. Consequently, events in France have consequences for us in Britain even if these are rarely reflected upon.