Could Jeremy Corbyn please just call a vote of no confidence in the government so I can have a more concrete target for my indigence?
Is no-one going to call out Theresa May for now seeking a one-on-one TV debate with Corbyn over her crappy Brexit deal?
When May called the general election in 2017 – where the paramount two things people vote on are leaders and their manifesto policies – she refused to debate on TV. At that time, that short month which the public have to judge and choose their government and political representatives for the next five years, May intentionally avoided public interrogation and oversight. In the event she insisted Amber Rudd go instead, whose father had passed away just 2 days earlier.
Now, when the decision is for Parliament, to judge her on her government’s competency and the deal she has had two years to negotiate, and the wisdom and deceit of the Brexit referendum. When her Conservative government and party have lost all credibility and discipline and she is completely reliant on Labour MPs to pass her deal, since she’s lost the support of even her own ministers. Now she wants a TV debate where she can win a quick point with the public as it all becomes Jeremy Corbyn’s fault.
If the deal has any merits (and she must believe it has some, else she would surely resign) she should be in Parliament daily, engaging with the nation’s representatives in a clear, evidence-based debate on the future of this country, in order to convince enough of them, the ones whose job it is to assess and vote on it, as our elected representatives, to pass it through the House!
Some people have no shame.
It was a good edition of the World at One today. After all the depressing ‘your morbid intuition was right, paedophiles are everywhere‘ headlines, they reported on Blair and Major’s ideas for referendum v2 in a few years, had a moronic Brexiteer tell us how clubs should work, and then Nick Clegg said sensible things about pluralism, negotiation and liberalism. This has prompted me to write a little, five months on from that decision.
The High Court ruled yesterday that Parliament must vote on the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.
The government were attempting to pervert the constitution of the United Kingdom, and thanks to Judicial oversight, were stopped before inviting a dangerous, tyrannical precedent.
The following are posts made by family and friends, or friends of friends of mine on Facebook and other social networks in the 24 hours following the British decision to leave the EU.
They are presented here unedited and anonymised. If anyone would like to be credited with what they have said, or have their writing removed, please contact me as soon as possible.
As someone living in a timezone seven hours ahead of the UK, I didn’t wake up to news that the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. I sat and listened to hour after excruciating hour of results, predictions, comments and market reaction.
I subtitle this post, in the immortal words of Lord Kitchener, said as he encouraged men to enlist to fight in The Great War:
“Be certain that your so-called reason is not a selfish excuse”
Using two examples around data protection and privacy that I recently encountered, I will argue against the ever-popular opinion that European Union (EU) regulation is limiting Britain, and that leaving would benefit the majority of us.
At this referendum, many of the arguments by the leave side are focused on voting leave as taking an opportunity, free from the reams of European dictacts, laws and courts, to implement a newly imagined political future.
I’m all about asking the questions ‘how did we get here, why are things done this way, and how could they be done better?’, and so I support this honourable and necessary endeavour.
However, for this particular vote at this particular juncture the two issues I would raise are thus:
The European Union (EU) is boring. It is procedural and legalistic and dull. At university I took every opportunity to study any module that was not about the EU.