New alternatives need to be found in light of disappointing measures to curb London’s knife crime epidemic.
When Raheem Kassam was interviewed by Sky News in early 2018 after pejoratively describing London as a “s***hole”, he was abruptly cut-off for simply using the same phrase the presenter, Gamal Fahnbulleh provokingly used numerous times when quoting Donald Trump’s view on some countries in Africa. It may be inappropriate to paint London with such colourful language on live television, but it is not far-fetched.
Anyone who decides to look at the crime statistics for the capital city and to those families who have had their lives torn apart, this would regrettably be the case. Sky’s avoidance of the topic is only one example of those we need to look to for answers. The very people who have a proclivity to shirk their responsibility when it comes to addressing London’s knife crime epidemic.
Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, recently declined an invitation to take part in a debate covering knife crime explaining away his absence by claiming it was first and foremost contingent on a representative from the government also appearing. When however, the Minster for Policing, Nick Hurd accepted the invitation Khan still failed to attend. Ultimately the debate, took place without the Mayor or Minister.
When knife crime is discussed, we increasingly see families mourning the death of a loved one taken far “too soon” and whilst this is both extremely tragic and moving, it is also frustrating when year after year, young people between the ages of 10-25 are disproportionately affected by knife crime whether they be victims or perpetrators. Knife crime is reprehensible and whilst public outcry has a rightful place in the media, this alone has not served as a deterrent. Nor should we expect it to.
Combined with Sadiq Khan’s proclamation that knife crime will take a decade to fix when in the first place since his tenure, crime has increased in almost every category according to Metropolitan Police reports and with austerity reducing the number of police officers, we find ourselves with a plethora of issues but few solutions. Our solutions however, need to evolve beyond perceived panaceas such as harsher sentencing and stop and searches which pay no attention to the more pernicious effects of such measures.
What do the stats say?
A recent Gov.UK report suggests that black people are 8 times more likely to be stopped and search in a time when in 2018 stop and search has been at its lowest. The same report also states that only 17% of stop and searches led to arrest meaning that far more people are searched than are necessary, doing the opposite to reconcile divisions between the police, youths and ethnic minorities who already feel marginalised with the rest of society. The proliferation of knife crime also creates an environment where people consider carrying knives themselves for protection. This is only exacerbated by the decreasing police presence due to austerity.
Clearly, there exists numerous trade-offs and many moving parts: greater number of police officers may deter crime and make people feel safe, but at the cost of an increase in the number of stop and searches. This, comes at the price of social costs that as statistics have proven, i.e. racially motivated and can be seen as deeply intrusive.
Rolling back austerity is only the start as it’s a disservice to inhabitants of London that they don’t feel safe and take matters into their own hands to protect themselves. Solutions should endeavour to tackle the root causes of knife crime and not the symptoms. It will involve confronting the susceptibility of young males to fall victim to it. This would mean more effective engagement with the youth that unpacks their psyche with their fascination for gang culture or music culture which today seems intertwined.
If this is not analysed carefully, harsher sentences will not guarantee an elimination of repeat offences. Offenders are likely to return to the same breeding grounds of violence that led them to prison in the first place. That is, if the prison itself is assumed to not be a nucleus for inspiring greater violence germinated by resentment towards authority and the police who may be perceived as scapegoats for the lack of opportunity. The Telegraph for instance reports that first time offenders make up 72% of offences, a record low, having steadily fallen since September 2009.
A more holistic approach therefore needs be targeted, one similar to the model followed in Glasgow. Of course, there would be no guarantee of the same results, but it will be a good start. Improving community outreach and increasing work opportunities provides an alternative path away from the enticement of joining gangs or contributing to violence.
The recent nine month suspended sentence of Skengdo and AM for performing their song “Attempted at 1.0” is counterproductive. Just as stop and search is seen as a paternalistic tool, restricting freedom of expression and criminalising drill music will only perpetuate further distrust with the establishment when it is the only voice many alienated youths have. This is not to say that such provocative lyrics should be condoned, but greater attention needs to paid to the context of the subject matter if we are to reach any long-term solutions.
Currently we’re not asking the right questions. Let’s not be fixated at the what, but the why. We’re being betrayed by those in power not “stopping and searching” below the surface. Knife crime takes a second to commit but there are considerable social and psychological factors and significant amounts of time before a knife is wielded, that influences the crime. We need extensive participation in positive dialogue from our leaders and fresh ideas. Einstein once said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Hopefully in the future, we can see common sense prevail before London over the next 10 years becomes a “s***hole”.
Joshua Raj is a journalist for TCS scribe. A student at Loughborough University, he also plays various sports. Well he tries to. Having lived most of his life in South-East Asia, Joshua is interested in comparative politics and finance after being fascinated with how ‘governance’ has been applied by the rising economies in the region. Particularly, how they differ from the Western in which they seek to reconcile their own brand of rigid politics with fluid free-market economic principles.
Only 1% of £100m donation to Cambridge University to be used to encourage intake of BME students: A futile attempt to challenge contemporary institutional barriers
Following billionaire David Harding’s announcement of a £100 million donation to Cambridge university, only 1% of that will be used on improving BME intake, with another 20% contributing to supporting “Debt free” degrees. In a society where institutional racism and classism is taking new forms by manifesting itself in xenophobia and low company recruitment statistics, are these donations enough to change institutions like Cambridge, and are we focusing on the right opportunity structures?
David Harding
According to the Financial Times, Cambridge University released statistics in 2018 showing that some of its colleges admitted no black students, or as few as one a year, between 2012 and 2016. Whilst 24% of white applicants are likely to be accepted, still only 12% of their Black counterparts will. This contradicts the optimism that we have seen throughout 21st century equality discourse. With the rise of the feminist movement, and government initiatives to close the socio-economic gap in class and race/ethnicity, assumptions have prevailed surrounding the apparent progress in countering institutional discriminative barriers. Yet these assumptions are blind to the continuing lack of equal access to opportunity structures that can close socio-economic gaps, especially in relation to race and ethnicity. The 1:20 ratio of how the £100m donation will be spent in relation to BME-Class barriers is a clear reflection of this. Race and Class are often being seen as two autonomous issues, without being acknowledged as two social categories that heavily intersect, so whilst white men may see it as their duty to help class barriers, race can be seen as an ‘out of bounds’ subject.
Last year rapper Stormzy launched a scholarship for Black students
More than just a black & white problem
The complexities surrounding the contemporary nature of racism and classism further manifests itself into a multi-dimensional problem following changing immigration patterns. Race and ethnic differences heavily transcend the traditional markers of plainly “black”, “white” and “asian”. A first generation white polish immigrant may feel institutional barriers to the same extent as a British born asian man; whilst the barriers may be different, they will still be felt. That polish immigrant cannot be said to experience white privilege in the same sense as those coming from a British background, albeit identifying as white. Thus, this is a scenario where institutional privilege and barriers clash. Similarly, a British born Pakistani will face different, and arguably less, institutional barriers to an Arab refugee. These instances act as examples of why we cannot just take class and ethnicity as two autonomous values, and consequentially, we cannot divide efforts into a hierarchy if we are truly trying to make opportunity structures more accessible. For example, a donation of £20m cannot be justifiably given to helping low income households, whilst only £1m is given to aid the admissions of BME applicants. The two issues are intersectional, and must be seen as universally as important as each other.
The effect of discriminatory structures also has a clear reflection into the representation of those of a BME or low income background in higher paid professions especially. Only 1.2% of city lawyers are black – relative to 2% of the population, whilst firms contain an over representation of lawyers from Asian and Chinese backgrounds to up BME figures. Class difference also prevails, with firms that have a trainee intake from 0-19% private school trainees having an average NQ (newly qualified) wage of £100,000, whilst those with a majority intake from public schools has an average NQ wage of less than £50,000.
Whilst of course these donations from those like Harding are making progress towards a more equal access to opportunity structures, we must ensure that the distribution of the money is done in a way which does not dismiss one cause as more important than another. We must also adapt our perceptions of institutional barriers to the changing social patterns we are seeing – it is no longer a clear boundary of privilege and non-privilege. To make real progress, we must recognise the changing complexities and take the measures to act accordingly in relation to them.
Porsche starred in the current specification 911 GT3’s send-off race as Aussie, Matt Campbell along with teammates – Dennis Olsen and Dirk Werner – win the 2019 Bathurst 12 Hour after a dramatic finish in which seven cars were on the lead lap, each representing six different manufacturers for a dash to the flag.
Driving for New Zealand was two time Le Mans winner, Earl Bamber. The winning Porsche was quicker than most manufacturers on the corners but lacked power on the straights compared to the more powerful Bentley’s, BMW’s, AMG’s and Aston Martin’s – also in their farewell races for the current specification chassis.
Brit, Jake Dennis, driving for the Switzerland based R Motorsport, led the restart until the final minutes of the race. Aston Martin were quicker on the straights but Porsche’s efficiency on the corners saw them pull off a last gasp win!
Team Schnitzer, who are still mourning the loss of ex-team boss, Charly Lamm, finished an emotional but disappointing fifth after leading six hours into the race and contending throughout. Team Schnitzer’s stunning performance and duel against Bentley was glittering, but wasn’t quite enough to give them the fairy tale ending they would have hoped for. The #42 BMW Schnitzer of Chaz Mostert, Augusto Farfus and Martin Tomzyk lost out to a hard but legal overtake by Campbell with half an hour remaining. A post-race investigation cleared the winning Porsche of any wrongdoing.
The M6 GT3 BMW Schnitzer in action
The #999 Gruppe M Mercedes finished third after starting from pole but felt robbed. Credit to the Herculean defense put by Raffaele Marciello to keep the #888 Vodafone Mercedes with Fresher tires at bay with 0.2 seconds between them. They were followed by the Schnitzer BMW and the first of the Cumbria based M-Sport Bentley’s. The KCMG Nissan GTR, driven by Oliver Jarvis from WEC fame, finished a distant seventh after unfortunate incidents crippled their run and the sister KCMG (originally sixth) took a penalty for swerving under the Safety Car- unlike Formula 1, this is prohibited in this series.
A gutted Andy Souleck looked like he was going to rejoin the field in third, when he unfortunately pressed the kill switch (a button that stops power going to the engine) and his Gen II Continental GT3 came to a complete stop for more than 40-seconds, eventually filing back into seventh.
Can’t sleep, I keep thinking about our race and how I managed to destroy a win for our team. I’m gutted, disappointed and frustrated and have no words to describe how bad i feel. My mistakes have cost us a dreamed victory and I can only apologize to all my team members. Sorry
The Class A Pro-Am division was won by the #51 Ferrari 488 GT3 of Pedro Lamy, businessman Paul Dalla Lana, and Mathias Lauda. The Grove Racing Porsche of Ben Barker and Brenton and Stephen Grove rounded out a comprehensive Class B win. Class C went to the #48 M Motorsport KTM, driven by Justin McMillan, Glen Wood and Dean Lillie, with the Invitational class conquered by Adam Hargreaves, Daniel Jilesen and Steve Owen in the #20 MARC Mustang V8.
What is The Bathurst 12 Hour?
Held at the picturesque and sprawling Mt Panorama Circuit, New South Wales, Australia.
For those not acquainted with Bathurst 12 hours, the race forms a part of the Intercontinental GT Championship. It aims to get manufacturers into racing either as a factory backed team or supplying their vehicles to customer’s eligible to race.
Bathurst 12 Hours and the Suzuka 10 hours can be individual events within the GT Championship, or can be part of events such as the 24 hours of Spa, under the World Endurance Championship. It also features other classes including the Pro-Am (a class with two professionals and one amateur as a team) and Class B with the GT3 Cup versions of the vehicles – essentially meaning the aerodynamics and power along with some driving features differ to the GT3 specs.
The 991 Cup CarThe Full blown 911 GT3
Class C features cars made to the GT4 specifications, the least powerful of all the GT classes. The recently concluded race featured the Austrian KTM GT4, the Yorkshire designed Ginetta G55 GT4 and a BMW M4 GT4. Culminating entries are the Invitational class entries which consist of the prototype entries (non-production vehicle entries) although Australian race team, MARC, entries were styled off the Mustang.
The Emphasis
We see moves like these, ever so often to decide crucial positions
Each of said classes aims to design regulations to concentrate on driver skills in some way or another. Natural advantages to some vehicles in terms of power, aerodynamics and agility is restricted based on the BOP (Balance of Performance) factor that’s set by technical and sporting rules.
This means that if BOP rules favour certain manufacturers or certain specifications of the cars based on tracks, teams can go through data logged by state-of the art data loggers to appeal and close the gap by having the BOP amended in their favour. These regulations are constant in different series run all over the world, including IMSA in the USA, SRO based in London and the the Blancpain Series run in Europe.
Parity, fairness and driver skills are the emphasis of these championships, which is why they are used as stepping stones to higher series such as Le Mans and Formula 1. Or simply, they serve as a fun way for experienced drivers to go for a last few spins in their favourite cars!T
Cracking Racing
Rutvik Bhaskar Perepa is a student at The University of Manchester working towards a MEng in Mechanical Engineering hoping to be on a placement after Year 3. He has had the privilege to travel around his home country, India and discover the rich heritage and diversity. His personal interests include Food and travel, history, Sport among many others. Often found in discourse on various issues ranging Engineering to Religious Practices, he never shy’s away from being expressive. He believes in being open minded, empathetic and analytical is the key to problems posed on a daily basis.
Banning digital devices in schools will heighten the inequality of access to digital careers
“It is not permitted to use your smartphone in the library.”
“Phones on silent, please. I won’t tell you again.”
If you’ve been out of high school for at least a year, the memories of having limited access to your phone have mostly faded — luckily for us, huh? But right now in primary schools, secondary schools and sixth form colleges across the UK, young people are regulated in how much access they have to their smartphones, and consequently the management of their digital lives. Can this continue in a digital world?
On 3rd February, Nick Gibb, the minister for school standards in England, informed the BBC that in his opinion, “schools should ban their pupils from bringing in smartphones”. Fortunately, this opinion was challenged by a parent of two teenagers, Peter Freeth, who stated that “The idea of getting rid of smartphones is about conformity” and equated students’ use of apps and streaming services on their devices with processes adopted by today’s ‘smart businesses’, and therefore essential to their leaning experience. Disappointingly, other parents did not share his views, one attesting that the smart ban increased kids’ ‘socialising’. Clearly, this parent did not acknowledge the amount of socialising her child does online.
The lack of understanding between generations is more commonly found in the parents of millennials (born 1981 onwards) and Generation Z (born 1997 onwards). To see this present in a Gen Alpha (born 2010 onwards) parent is a cause for concern. Surprisingly, a registered nurse was quick to advocate for the smartphone ban, stating that: “We need to teach children how to behave like the professionals they are striving to become. Ban the phones, they have no place in a child’s life.”
The professionals these Gen Z and Gen Alpha children are destined to become will require them to have their smartphones permanently in their hands. They will be using iPads, Chromebooks, virtual assistants, smart speakers, VR headsets. They will be working in digital marketing, UX design, product management, social media management, healthcare tech, software engineering and digital content creation. Of course, their access to these careers is determined by how well digital inclusion occurs in schools; particularly how schools in lower income areas weave industry exposure and skills into their curriculum.
The best prep for a UX design career: exposure to smart devices and digital design
The banning of smartphones is not just a problem for middle-class children. These devices have democratised a generation, and have the potential to eradicate social divides — if they are embedded into the curriculum. Far from being banned, schools in more deprived areas should be given a small budget to fund their access to educational technology.
A secondary school teacher in the independent sector was quoted as saying: “so let’s leave phones and laptops at home […] show them a different world in their lessons — one of books and pens.” Who, then, will be left behind in the race for digital inclusion?
Gig, platform, sharing, collaborative… let’s call a spade a spade. To many millennials, the gig economy is the temporary economy. We are subjected to the mainstream media’s diatribe, proclaiming that those who generate income from gig economy jobs for more than six months, are destined for a lifetime of ‘zero hour contracts’. The politically literate amongst us repeatedly chant that our generation will never have stable jobs and retirement savings.
We advocate flexible working. Why don’t we want it as our only option?
Does the gig economy help us jump the rungs of traditional corporate structure?
Gig Economy
A gig economy is ‘a free market system in which temporary positions are common and organisations contract with independent workers for short-term engagements’. It sounds simple. But, as is the case in the FinTech industry, a lack of regulation has caused what should be considered a form of flexible, lucrative working alongside a full-time job or entrepreneurial venture, to regarded with the same vitriol as unpaid internships. A Brexit distracted government has also neglected to make equipping this economy for the 21st century its main focus, despite an attempt to overhaul economic legislation in December of 2018, in the form of the ‘Good Work Plan’.
Here’s an extract:
‘Recommendation: We encourage the Government to think creatively on ways to improve pension provision amongst the self-employed, making the most of opportunities presented by digital platforms and the move to more cashless transactions. Response: This winter, the DWP will publish a paper setting out the Government’s approach increasing pension participation and savings persistency among the self-employed.’
In the amount of time that it takes for me to write this article, the tech-powered gig economy will have moved forward another 200,000 paces. Sorry, UK Gov — I think it’s about time us millennials followed in the footsteps of J.P Morgan and made a strategic investment in SmartPensions, rather than watch the government attempt to define legislation for a sector that is constantly evolving.
The real problem is that there is no arms-length body in place to oversee the organisation of the gig economy. It seems strange that freelance jobs in the digital and creative industries are treated the same as more traditional zero-hours contract work, such as washing cars or delivering food (both of which existed long before Deliveroo and Wash Doctors). Contracting or freelancing in software development and digital marketing can often generate more income that working full-time in the industry. It also has the knock-on effect of producing a more varied and future-facing CV.
Software development: a career on the go (except when you need to pop into the odd meeting).
So, senior software engineers and business directors receive these benefits from the gig economy. What about young people and lower skilled workers? To equip these vulnerable groups for the thriving, innovative and evolving digital gig economy, both adult and compulsory education require carefully selected industry placements and a full audit into resource provision, performed by a more tech focused consultancy like Accenture, instead of KPMG. Let’s see if it happens.
Grime artist Andy Anokye, aka Solo 45, has been accused of 22 counts of rape and five counts of false imprisonment. The rapper best known for the club anthem ‘Feed Em To The Lions’ was arrested back in 2017 on two counts of rape, one count of false imprisonment and one of causing actual bodily harm. After examining images on Anokye’s phone, the police contacted three more women who have come forward and accused the rapper of further rape allegations.
The first complainant had met the Boy Better Know star backstage at a Skepta gig, where the two exchanged contact and began a relationship. The woman accuses Anokye of being abusive towards her on many occasions with one incident involving the rapper stabbing her and pouring bleach into her mouth. Threatening to shoot her, Anokye held the woman hostage in his London flat and subjected her to a terrifying ordeal of rape and torment. Held hostage for five days, the victim finally escaped after phoning her mother and indicating that she was being held captive against her will. The victim explained that she felt helpless and that,
‘it got to the point where he did just whatever he wanted and I let him’.
Footage found on the rappers phone was shown in the court room, it captured Anokye giving a thumbs up while orally raping the heavily bruised victim.
Similar to the first victim, the second complainant accuses Anokye of imprisoning her in his hotel the first time she met him. She alleges that he threatened to waterboard her before ripping her shirt and raping her which he also filmed on his phone. The victim maintains that on the second time they met, the rapper expressed to her that,
‘some of the best sex we’ve ever had was when I am raping you’.
Anokye then proceeded to rape her again and recorded himself beating the victim. The two did not meet up again.
Prosecutor, Christopher Quinlin QC described the third victim as being Anokye’s ‘prisoner’ with her freewill being gone entirely. The victim was waterboarded and repeatedly raped by the rapper who then told her that he was sadistic and ‘got off making people cry’.
Afterwards he then filmed himself orally and vaginally raping the woman. Phone exchanges between the two was read out to the courtroom. One message from Anokye read
‘Forcing my c* up you’re a* turns me on’
Another text read
‘I can feel you hurting, I can see it but I don’t care’
The victim claims that she was reluctant to come forward to the police as she felt her family and friends would be subject to harm by Anokye.
The fourth and final victim stated that initially sex was consensual but soon Anokye became aggressive and condescending. She claims Anokye verbally abused her and had filmed himself raping her. Further events of physical abuse was alleged with one occasion said to involve Anokye pouring bleach on a cloth and proceeded to placing the cloth over her mouth. He then attempted to strangle the woman with her own coat. With encouragement from friends, the woman told a police officer about the abuse who then arrested the rapper.
Anokye maintains his innocence and states that all four of the woman were willing participants in ‘rough sex’.
Following calls by a number of the present coalition’s members, Israel will see an early election taking place in April, posing a possible threat to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet with the release of Israeli campaign videos, it’s clear that the videos reflect an unwavering racism towards Arab citizens and Palestinians by authoritative figures.
Many of the election videos overtly exploit stereotypes of Arabs and Palestinians, whilst bragging about the casualties of Hamas terrorists “achieved” by each candidate. The campaign video of Anat Berko, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, features a man dressing as a “militant”, whilst other candidates, such as Benny Gantz, list their “confirmed Hamas kills” and “achievements” in Gaza, with the number likely to be including Palestinian civilian casualties. This cause for concern further grows upon realisation that Gantz is one of the most popular candidates within the opinion polls, most likely to be the strongest threat against Netanyahu, whilst the latter is facing possible criminal charges for a long running corruption scandal.
The video ideas are likely to have stemmed from the launch of a number of security operations beginning in December. With the increasing number of Hezbollah tunnels trying to penetrate the North of Israel, there are fresh security concerns adding to those sparked by the continuance of “March of Return” protests. By including this “Good/Evil” narrative, Gantz and Berko easily play on the anxieties of the Israeli population.
However, this can not be used as an excuse for the perpetuation of racist stereotypes, fuelling already rife Islamophobia. The election videos, as well as the giant billboard erected of Trump and Netanyahu in Tel Aviv as part of Netanyahu’s election campaign, has turned the elections into a race of the right wing. With the growing support of Trump, the left wing parties of Israel, who have often depended on international support to back their cries for Arab rights, have been effectively silenced as realistic runners in the election. The Israeli Labour party, led by Avi Gabbay who used famous tv shows such as ‘Friends’ in his election video, has faced historically low placings in opinion polls.
The movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem and the claiming of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital by Trump seemed to be only the start of the spiral away from peace. The passing last year of the “nation state” law states that only Jews have the right of self determination in the country, and that Arabic will be demoted to a second language, which has caused accusation of apartheid by both Arabs and international human rights organisations. It also supports the building of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, an action that is overtly against international law – yet Israel is still yet to face any repercussions, and is unlikely to do so.
The politics of the Middle East is becoming more and more futile with growing tensions between Iraq, Iran and the USA; regardless of the result, the Israeli elections are likely to fuel these tensions even further, with the high possibility of a right wing candidate being elected acting as a potential catalyst for further conflict.
There has been much noise, pretty much all of it negative, about the Irish Backstop contingency included within the Withdrawal Agreement. Members of Parliament largely oppose it and are refusing to pass the Withdrawal Agreement through the House of Commons and the EU is refusing to renegotiate, leaving withdrawal negotiations at a standstill less than two months out from Brexit Day. We thought it would help to put together a brief explanation to the ‘Backstop’ to explain what it is.
What is it?
The Backstop is allegedly a brilliant piece of wisdom from Theresa May’s government[, according to Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister.
The Backstop is a contingency plan which comes into effect in the highly probable event that the EU and the UK do not agree on a trade agreement at the end of the transition period (The withdrawal agreement governs the relationship between the EU and the UK between the transition period, which is currently 21 months from the time the UK leaves the EU). Essentially, it keeps the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland invisible but has many conditions that MPs find unfavourable.
MPs are panicking about it as they know that a comprehensive trade agreement probably cannot be agreed within 21 months of leaving, despite Liam Fox’s promises that the trade agreement would be the “easiest trade deal in history.” Whilst the agreement should be easy in theory, it has taken the best part of two years to just come to get to our current position on the Withdrawal Agreement which only governs the transitional period. It will undoubtedly take a lot longer for a comprehensive grade agreement.
(1/5) The PM claims the EU is fast at making trade deals. This is not true.
The backstop conflicts with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty[. The UK government will be unable to create legislation in certain areas of customs applicable to Northern Ireland while the Backstop is in place.
It also creates a regulatory and customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. This means that any good/product that is being shipped into Northern Ireland from England, Scotland or Wales will be treated as if it is coming in from a third country.
The Backstop would also put the rest of the United Kingdom
at a competitive disadvantage to Northern Ireland. Companies would have an
incentive to be based in Northern Ireland or carry out activities in Northern
Ireland as any product or good created by
a company based there would be able to place goods on the EU market as if it originated
from within the EU. Companies based in
the rest of the UK would have to put their products through examinations and
overcome regulatory hurdles before being able to place their products on the EU
market.
What is the aim of
the Backstop?
The aim of the Backstop is to ensure that there will be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This point is particularly of importance and was commented upon by the Dutch Prime Minister in the link provided prior. Part of the Good Friday Agreement and as part of ensuring continuing peace in Northern Ireland would include making sure there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. If there were to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland it would damage North-South co-operation in areas such as transport, broadcasting and tourism, which both the UK and Ireland are constitutionally required to do. There is also a worry that a hard border could lead to “the Troubles” being reignited.
The Irish Government is of the opinion that the open border is the “most tangible sign of the peace process“. So it’s clear that some sort of mechanism is needed in order to maintain peace.
Pro-Brexit MP, Daniel Kawczynski, has provoked the wrath of hundreds on Twitter after tweeting a blatant lie in order to add to the anti-EU sentiment.
Kawcynski, who is of Polish descent and moved to the UK from Poland when he was 7, claimed that the UK did not receive any money under the Marshall Plan, whilst complaining about the attitude of the EU towards the United Kingdom.
Britain helped to liberate half of Europe. She mortgaged herself up to eye balls in process. No Marshall Plan for us only for Germany. We gave up war reparations in 1990. We put £370 billion into EU since we joined. Watch the way ungrateful EU treats us now. We will remember.
The United Kingdom, in fact, received 26% of the total amount paid by the United States under the Marshall Plan. The United Kingdom received $3.75 Billion dollars (around $26 Billion when adjusted for inflation), whilst France was the second highest recipient receiving about 18% of the total amount and West Germany in third receiving 11% of the funds freed by the United States.
The Marshall Plan was a United States initiative in which
they provided money to Western European countries in order to allow them to
rebuild following World War Two. It also had the secondary aim of reducing the
influence of communism in Europe. The Soviet Union had their own version of the
Marshall Plan, dubbed the ‘Molotov Plan’ which gave aid to countries within the
eastern bloc.
Other times Brexiteers have not been quite honest about the EU…
£350 Million per week for the NHS
Boris Johnson backed the now infamous £350 Million Pound more a week for the NHS if we leave the EU and continued to run with it. This lie was so misleading (and widely believed) that the chair of the UK statistics authority wrote to Boris Johnson stating that it is a clear misuse of official statistics.[ The Office for Budget Responsibility currently estimates that by the early 2020s the UK government will be £15 Billion a year worse off than it is now, so you would be forgiven for not understanding where this extra 350 million a week for the NHS would come from.
The United Kingdom is Liable for Eurozone Bailouts
Vote Leave (in a post full of Boris Johnson quotes), in a now deleted (but archived) page on their website, posted in June 2016 an article which stated that the United Kingdom would BE liable for bailing out the countries in the Eurozone. Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1360, which came into force in August 2015 essentially guaranteeing that the United Kingdom (and any other non-euro using member state) would be “fully compensated for any liability they incur as a result of any failure by the beneficiary Member State to repay the financial assistance in accordance with its terms.” While this point of law may have been unclear at one point, during and following the referendum it was quite clear that this assertion made by vote leave, was false.
The EU is preventing the United Kingdom from legislating for safer lorry designs
As recently as July 2018, Boris Johnson was still pushing a false narrative about the EU. In his letter in which he resigned as Foreign Secretary, Johnson said that while he was Mayor of London he wanted to push for legislation which improved visibility in lorries but was stopped short and told that the United Kingdom had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.
What Boris didn’t say is that during his second term as Mayor of London, in 2014, the EU moved to change the law on this and David Cameron’s government opposed it, which Boris was “deeply concerned” about.
Will there ever be a safe haven for black LGBTQ+ people?
On the 29th of January at around 7:20pm it was reported that Empire star, Jussie Smollett had been the victim of a MAGA hate crime in the early hours of Tuesday morning by various media outlets including CNN and TMZ.
Attackers were said to have shouted racial and homophobic slurs at the actor while pouring an unknown chemical substance over him and wrapping a rope around his neck before fleeing on the streets of Chicago. Media outlets initially attempted to deny the attack was due to race and sexuality . They were eventually forced to revise reports when it was clear the attackers were supporters of MAGA.
When Trump was asked about the attack he did not address that the attackers were supporters of his, but simply stated “That I can tell you it is horrible. I’ve seen it. Last night. It’s horrible. Doesn’t get worse.” and went on to make connections towards immigration and the wall plans along the Mexican border.
Although it can be said to be disrespectful to turn Smollett’s pain into a political debate the constant attack on Black LGBTQ+ lives cannot go undiscussed. Especially when the attack was politically driven under the slogan of the president.
As someone who identifies as a black LGBTQ+, I am extremely lucky to have a support system of people around me who love me and to live in a country where casual racism is not acceptable. However, many black LGBTQ+ people struggle with not only a lack of support from family when coming to terms with their sexuality but with the systemic isuses they face regarding their race too. Every year millions of Black LGBTQ+ people are made homeless due to their sexuality, often culture does not allow for them to be who they are. In a Stonewall study showed that 66% of Black LGBTQ people would like their faith groups to be more inclusive, showing how many of them feel ostracised from their family and religion because of their sexual orientation. Their lives are also at risk from racial attacks, these attacks occur more frequently towards gay men (like Jussie and trans women). Studies also show that 61% of Black LGBTQ+ people experience discrimination within the LGBTQ+ community, meaning that even within the community there is no refuge for them.
As a Black LGBTQ+ person I do not feel that LGBTQ groups are inclusive enough of us. In 2018 filmmaker Cherish Oteka paired with Stonewall to share the voices of BAME LGBTQ+ people and through their experiences of acceptance and exclusion we are now able to identify what we can do to ensure that there is greater inclusiveness within the community. Absolut UK also paired with many LGBTQ+ people of colour such as Nadine Artois and Tanya Compas for their 2019 #ADropOfLove campaign.
Campaigns like this are a step forward as they raise awareness of the problems that occur for black LGBTQ+ people that their white counterparts may not expereince. There are sadly not many large campaigns focused specifically on race which makes it difficult to discuss. Police are following up the leads to Jussie’s attackers and have brought two men in for questioning, sadly this is not usually the case and perpetrators of these kind of attacks are usually allowed to roam free.
From England’s success and inevitable fall in the FIFA World Cup, to Naomi Osaka putting the world on notice after her US Open victory against Serena Williams, 2018 marked a year of sport that the world would never forget. With 2019 underway, there have been some big sporting moments already; we bring you the top five sporting events to lookout for this year.
Wimbledon (1 – 15 July)
By Fergus MacPhee
Sunshine, showers, strawberries and cream, Pimms, celeb-watching and of course, world-class tennis. In the height of summer, crowds will once again flock to SW19 for one or all of the reasons listed here. Whatever their motive, Wimbledon is always a key date in every sports fan’s calendar, but there are a few things which could make 2019 stand out from the crowd.
Will he or won’t he?
One story set to dominate the next six months is whether Andy Murray will uphold his decision to retire in 2019. In his announcement, Murray was hopeful that he would make it to Wimbledon, but admitted that the Australian Open may have been his last tournament. After his five setfirst round defeat to Roberto Bautista Agut however, Murray cryptically suggested that he could reverse his decision after all. The main question is whether he will be fit enough to take on Wimbledon, and after undergoing a hip resurfacing operation this week, chances are looking slim that he’ll return in time.
Andy Murray posts on Instagram following his surgery. Source: Instagram
For the romantics, July could provide the possibility of one
last hurrah for arguably Britain’s greatest ever male tennis player. Or perhaps
2019 will give us the first Wimbledon of the post-Murray era and a glimpse into
the future of men’s tennis when all of the ‘big four’ eventually retire from
the game?
Osaka’s rapid rise
After the huge controversy and discussion surrounding Serena
Williams, it was easy to forget just how impressive Naomi Osaka’s US Open win
in September was. Not only did she beat a supreme competitor and 23-time Grand
Slam champion, but she did so at just 20 years old. Now after winning the
Australian Open, she becomes the only woman since 2001 to win her first two
Grand Slams back to back. Her powerful and consistent performances mean
she ends January as world No.1, a truly remarkable achievement in such little
time. She will now target further success at the French Open and Wimbledon; two
tournaments where she did not progress past the third round in 2018. At 21 she
has many years ahead of her, but admitted on Sunday that she is still slightly intimidated
by the grass surface at Wimbledon. One thing everyone is hoping for is a
rematch of that US Open final between herself and Serena. Even without
the added edge, there is an air of master vs apprentice surrounding this
match-up, with Serena still chasing the all-time Grand Slam singles titles
record of 24. If she is to equal this at Wimbledon, on current form, Osaka will
almost certainly be standing in her way.
Men’s title up for grabs?
With Murray potentially out of the running and Roger Federer having a poor year as he surely edges towards retirement, the battle for the men’s title could be an interesting one. Novak Djokovic is the undoubted favourite after his straight sets victory over Rafael Nadal at the Australian open, but if fit, Nadal will provide stiff competition. Outside of these two however, the picture becomes a little unclear and there should be a real opportunity for certain players to make a push into the latter stages of the tournament. The Australian Open gave the world a glimpse of this potential, with youngsters Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev making it to the semi-finals and fourth round, respectively.
Rugby World Cup (20 September – 2 November)
By Fergus MacPhee
September marks the start of the first ever Rugby Union World Cup to be hosted in Asia, with Japan this year’s hosts. Holders and record three-time winners New Zealand are still the current bookies favourites to take the crown, despite Ireland being voted 2018 World Rugby Team of the Year. Russia and Namibia represent the minnows at the tournament, with the spotlight particularly on Russia, who are making only their second ever World Cup appearance.
Will Japan embrace rugby fever?
One of the best stories to come out of the 2015 World Cup, was the extraordinary performances of underdogs, Japan. The Japanese became the first ever team to win 3 games at the Pool stage and fail to make it to the Quarter Finals. Their unforgettable last minute victory over two-time World Champions South Africa, was a moment that charmed and inspired fans the world over. Now, four years later, the country is gearing up to host its first ever tournament. There have been slight concerns over Japanese ability to fill the stadiums, which likely rests on how much national pride the team are able to stir up with their performances at the competition. The Japanese public fully embraced the women’s national football team in 2011 and with the Tokyo Olympics fast approaching next year, the Rugby World Cup provides a real opportunity to cement Japan’s place on the sporting map.
Eddie Jones takes centre stage
After their disastrous showing on home turf in 2015, England will be keen to put things right at this year’s tournament. Much of their hopes may rest on their manager Eddie Jones, who despite starting his reign with an outstanding 18-game win streak and back-to-back Six Nations titles, endured a pretty abject 2018, including their worst ever Six Nations performance, finishing in fifth place. England’s current predicament will look a little clearer after this years’ Six Nations, which kicks off with a daunting trip to Dublin on Saturday. There may be added incentive for Jones to succeed in Japan, as he will be returning to the nation he so brilliantly managed four years earlier.
Ireland’s shot at glory
While New Zealand are still the official favourites, on current form Ireland, would surely see anything less than an appearance in this year’s final as a huge missed opportunity. After their Six Nations Grand Slam in 2018, Ireland have progressed from dark horses, to bonafied contenders for the title. Their first ever win over the All Blacks in November prove that it is eminently possible. Much like England, this next month’s Six Nations will provide an acid test of their credentials, but it does feel like a case of now or never for Ireland.
FIFA Women’s World Cup (7 June – 7 July)
By Jireh Antwi
The 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup is sure to be a spectacle. Taking from the strengths of the last Women’s World Cup, this tournament has advanced in publicity and recognition on a global level.
The 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup in Canada saw USA win the trophy that they were strong favourites for. Carli Lloyd received the player of the tournament award, while Hope Solo received the Golden Gloves award. These two players were instrumental for the USA in defeating Japan 5-2 in the final. USAare already pitted as heavy favourites again this year, and if they win, this will be their fourth win in eight World Cup appearances.
This year’s FIFA World Cup will be held in France – a nation that loves football to the core! With the men’s team winning the 2018 World Cup, the nation will be in high hopes for the women’s team to replicate the same success. With world class players in Eugénie Le Sommer and Amandine Henry, this women’s team are sure to make a splash. However, being in Group A which includes South Korea, Norway and Nigeria, will be a challenging battle, but this French national side is a force to be reckoned with as they’re also favourites alongside second FIFA world ranked team, Germany.
This World Cup will feature debut appearances from South Africa and Jamaica. England, who has a good crop of players will also be there to stake their claim at tournament victory, but whether they can lift that prestigious trophy and bring football home is another story. Phil Neville will be leading the three Lionesses this summer as their main coach. The Three Lionesses kick off on 9th June in Nice against another World Cup debutant – Scotland. Argentina and Japan also feature alongside England in Group D.
Possible dark horses in the tournament are the Netherlands and Norway who both have intriguing squads with star players but the Oranje more so in 25-year-old Dutchwoman and Barcelona player Lieke Martens. The Netherlands won the Euro 2017 competition beating Denmark 4-2 in the finals, they could possibly take that winning mentality all the way to another triumph in France.
The hype for the 2019 Cricket World Cup is well and truly
on! It’s being held in England and Wales this year, and this tournament see the
return of the round-robin format last seen in 1992. Each team plays each other
once and at the end of these 45 matches, the top four teams advance to the
semi-finals.
Home team and favourites – England – have come a long way since the last world cup where they were bounced out by Bangladesh. England have every bit of the advantage they could ask for: home crowd support, familiar conditions and most importantly, a very strong side that is currently ranked number one in One Day International’s. They’ve also had four players included in the 2018 ICC Team of the Year.
Presenting the ICC Men's ODI Team of the Year 2018! ?
Over in the Indian dugout, things are also look extremely positive given their recent series win over New Zealand. The series drubbing in England seems a distant memory but will no doubt be in the back of Team India’s minds as they find the right combinations for the tournament. Hardik Pandya has made an immediate impact post his controversial appearance with teammate K L Rahul on a Indian talk show.
Pakistan are also looking to make
a strong claim for the world title, having clinched two major championships in
England in the 2009 T20 World Cup and the 2017 Champions Trophy. Pakistan aim
to find a work around for their inconsistent batting, but boast a Bowling
lineup anchored by Hasan Ali and Shaheen Afridi. South Africa remain a threat –
despite AB de Villers retiring – as they boast a strong batting line up, but an
inexperienced bowling unit, barring legend Dale Steyn.
Australia surely has more questions than answers after their defeat to India. Steve Smith’s injury in the Bangladesh Premier League does not help his chances before the World Cup, while David Warner still shows promise, his stint has been cut short by an elbow injury. The series against India did reveal the ugly truth, the previously legendary balanced Aussie Team is reduced to being dependant on two consistent and reliable anchors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3JBhT3sOu8
NBA Playoffs (13 April – 16 June)
By Rutvik Perepa
As we
approach the All-Star break, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the Western
Conference will produce some surprises as we see injuries impacting team’s
playoffs chances. For instance, Lebron James is set to take court again after
his groin injury that saw him miss 16 games. His team stands 9th in
the Western Conference, just outside of playoff contention but only 3 wins off
the Rockets in 5th. The Lakers find themselves needing a large win
streak if they wish to compete in the playoffs as they face a tough six game
stretch that sees them face the 76ers twice, Warriors, Kings, Celtics and the
Pacers.
The Pacers,
Heat and Hornets will most likely be bounced out of the first round in the East
as it stands. The East is shaping up to be a clear contest between current
favorites Milwaukee, the Kawhi Leonard led Raptors, the 76ers completed with
Jimmy Butler, the well rounded, but underperforming Celtics and the dark
horses, Brooklyn Nets. The Nets have been buoyed by a revived D’Angelo Russel,
and 6th man of the year candidate, Dinwiddie.
The Warriors, with their strengthened death lineup, establish themselves as favourites to rise from the West, and achieve the coveted 3-peat. The only solace for the competition is Draymond Green’s offensive decline and the lack of an experienced bench. The Nuggets, led by the extremely versatile ‘guard’ Nikola Jokic and shooting guard Jamal Murray, stand as one of the deepest squads but lack playoff experience. The Trail Blazers and Thunder are right up there and out for redemption for the previous year’s first round upsets. Lastly, the Rockets can make a run if Harden figures out how to mesh with Chris Paul and the team post his possession dominant scoring stint in addition to taking ample rest.
This season’s Premier League is shaping up to be the most thrilling we’ve seen in years, with only five points between the top three teams, the title race is wide open. Although favourites to win the league, Liverpool, currently sit at the top, their past experience of ‘slipping up’ when it matters most doesn’t bode well for their chances to clinch their first ever Premier League title. If Pep Guardiola’s men have anything to say about it this title race will be a battle to the very last game. At this point, every game is a cup final, especially for the likes of Fulham who are fighting for safety currently sitting 19th in the league, six points from safety.
Steven Gerrard’s costly slip in 2-0 loss against Chelsea that saw Manchester City go on to win the league in 2014. Source: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/584517/Liverpool-Steven-Gerrard-slip-video-Chelsea-emotional-hurt-forever-Premier-League
Tom Brady Goes for Sixth Superbowl Title
Superbowl LIII is fast approaching and all eyes are on New England’s Tom Brady as he goes for a record-making sixth Superbowl win. At 41-years old, Brady continues to defy the odds (and father time), the only thing standing in his way from doing it again is a resolute Rams team seeking for only a fourth franchise championship.
There is no soft opening for statistics like this. According to a report by Revolt Sexual Assault and The Student Room, 62% of students studying at a higher education facility in the UK will have experienced sexual assault in some capacity whilst studying at university.
8% of these students would have been raped, which is double the national average.
With such high numbers of assaults happening to those studying at higher education institutions, Universities should be well equipped to handle such matters carefully and efficiently. Anonymous reporting schemes, dedicated on-site specialists and concrete punishment structures are essential to ensure this happens.
The frustrating fact is that very few universities implement any of these strategies. Just 2 per cent of respondents in the above survey who had experienced sexual violence whilst studying felt able to report it to their university. Many were unsatisfied with the process.
These figures are alarming. An institution that can only help victims 2 per cent of their victims is not a safe one. What is valued so much higher than the safety of victims that could allow this dramatic failure of justice to happen? Are we just so far behind when it comes to having historic institutes brought up to date on important issues?
Or are universities simply handing out punishments that are far too lenient to protect their own interests?
This has been suggested as an explanation for a case in the news this week, in that expelled Warwick university students would be allowed to continue their studies after only a year of suspension, despite being given a ten-year ban following sexually derogatory comments made in a group chat.
The comments included rape threats and discussion of raping women from the university, including flatmates of some of the accused and disabled students. The chats also contained unsettling use of racist language, discussion of carrying out FGM (female genital mutilation) and paedophilia.
After the initial disciplinary investigation by the
university, five students were suspended; two were excluded for 10 years, two
were excluded for one year, and one was given a lifetime campus ban.
But a recent amendment to the penalties means that four of the five men will be allowed to return to their studies in September, sparking outrage online from students and parents of potential university attendees.
What’s more is that the university has admitted that their Director of Press was in charge of the initial investigation, casting doubt over the way the entire situation was handled. If this is true, the university could be found to have operated under a conflict of interest, putting the case in danger and the victims at higher risk.
Absolutely appalled at the way you’ve handled this and your treatment of the victims. My daughter won’t be going to Warwick #warwickuniversity
#warwickuniversity are teaching these men that their crimes dont matter and are excuseable. Even when victims are believed and with proof, we still allow no consequences for these horrfic actions. This is why so many victims remain silent. How dare you allow for this to happen.
Critics took to twitter to voice concerns over the university’s decision
In an open letter about the decision to let the boys return to the university, one of the students that had been targeted by the men in the chat said:
“Does the university want its students to feel that such
threats, comments and ‘jokes’ are acceptable and normal?
“You expect us to return from semesters abroad and
study alongside these men? You expect prospective students to continue applying
to a university that prioritises them over those of us who do not feel
safe?
“It is a source of shame for past, present and future
Warwick alumni that you lack the courage to stand by us.”
University of Warwick by Ben Firshman
A petition for the students to be banned from the university more permanently has now reached 24,000 signatures (at the time of writing), but the damage has already been done.
The University of Warwick has already demonstrated where their loyalties and commitments lie in this case, and it appears that so far, it has not done enough to protect the women that were affected and may continue to be affected by the men in this case.
Whether examining the country-wide statistics, or the case by case details, no one can deny that more assistance, attention and dedication needs to be given to making sure that victims of sexual assault and violence in higher education are taken more seriously.
I dread to think what it will take to make them listen.
Rape Crisis Helpline: 0808 802 9999 (12-2:30 and 7-9:30) rapecrisis.org.uk
Taking a look at the way things are going on Capitol Hill and in Westminster, we cannot help but fix our gaze on the heads of State: the President and the Prime Minister.
Both Theresa May and Donald Trump are being faced with issues and policies and just overall getting their desires across completely struck down and disregarded but their respective legislatures, yet both offer very different, almost opposing reactions.
Though the US government shut down has come to an end, Trump’s insatiable lust for his border wall has not subsided. According to the Independent, “Donald Trump has indicated he is likely to declare a national emergency when a federal government funding deal runs out later this month, dismissing talks with Democrats as “a waste of time”. The president said he had “set the stage” for action to sidestep congress to secure $5.7bn (£4.4bn) for a wall on the US-Mexico border, as the prospect of a second government shutdown looms. Mr Trump last week signed off on a federal spending bill that reopened federal government departments until the 15th of February following the longest shutdown in US history, and is still prepared to fire back. “
Meanwhile in the UK, May is scrambling to reach a deal before the deadline date as the Guardian recorded her defeat earlier in January as “the heaviest parliamentary defeat of a British PM in the democratic era” after her Brexit deal was rejected by a resounding 230 majority.
As if that wasn’t painful enough, “MPs have voted against a proposal to delay Brexit in order to prevent the UK leaving without a deal”, which was put forward by Labour MP Yvette Cooper but rejected by 23 votes. May continues to urge MPs to support another amendment that would bring “alternative arrangements to the controversial Irish backstop plan”. This was the key reason in the striking down of May’s Brexit deal and MPs were worried that it would leave the UK tied to the EU’s rules forever. Unsurprisingly, May stated that “she knew there was a “limited appetite” in the EU for changes to the deal, but she believed she could “secure it”, according the BBC news.
Both Trump and May are simultaneously dealing with rejection from their legislature but are both handling it differently. Here’s the challenging question: who’s behaviour is most effective?
Do we dare to say that Trump’s stubbornness, or better yet, assertiveness and diligence, is what we need in a political leader? That he does not roll over or cower in defeat when he has promised to build a border wall to limit illegal migration? If we blind ourselves to the day-to-day critiques on social and mainstream media made in regards to his policy, all we see is a tenacious President who refuses to back down on a policy based on an issue he’s passionate about without a fight.
On the other hand, May is in a place where she is desperately seeking bipartisanship and solid support on an appropriate Brexit deal that will please at least the majority of people both in and outside of Westminster. After having her first deal struck down, and surviving a vote-of-no-confidence that took place almost immediately after the historic defeat, May still continues to make the effort to get talking with Jeremy Corybn and to other party leaders, in an attempt to reach a mutual agreement.
Understanding both leadership approaches to rejection helps to educate us when seeking to vote for our next Prime Minister or President, looking at the prospect of political integrity in conjunction with the opinions we have towards their policy. One could argue however that the nature of the policy, the personalities of the leaders and the checks and balances of the legislative process have an impact on how both Trump and May approach their respective circumstances.
While not offering the same high drama and levels of government embarrassment as a fortnight ago, this week still provided plenty of intrigue and left the Brexit negotiations hanging on yet another knife edge.
At around 8.40 PM on Tuesday evening, the UK finally appeared to have gained some clarity on Brexit. Donald Tusk did not seem impressed by this epiphany and approximately 10 minutes later, any lucid feeling had dissipated and we were all left asking familiar questions once again.
My message to PM @theresa_may: The EU position is clear and consistent. The Withdrawal Agreement is not open for renegotiation. Yesterday, we found out what the UK doesn't want. But we still don’t know what the UK does want. #brexit
Parliament will likely remain in this state of limbo until the next vote on the Withdrawal Agreement on the 13th February. Nevertheless, the last few days have been significant and will shape the course of the next two weeks and beyond. Here’s the rundown of what it all means, after the latest ride on the Brexit merry-go-round.
Amendments, amendments, amendments
A breathless session in parliament on Tuesday night saw MPs voting on a total of seven amendments to the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. Overall, it was a good night for the government, as the Brady amendment (more on that in a moment) garnered a majority, while five of the other six were defeated. The first two of these, from Labour and the SNP respectively, aimed to stop a no-deal Brexit, with the SNP amendment including the added caveat of extending Article 50. Unsurprisingly, this was resoundingly rejected by a majority of 288, while Labour’s amendment went down by 31 votes.
Amendment number three saw pro-remain Tory Dominic Grieve attempt to give parliament control of the Commons for six days, in the run up to 29 March, in a bid to understand the Brexit parliament wants. The DUP came to Theresa May’s rescue on this one, leading to a majority of 20. May will be concerned however, that without their support, this would have been a big blow to her deal and leadership.
Yvette Cooper’s much talked about plan to give parliament Brexit control if no deal had been secured by the 26th of February was next. A defeat here by 23 votes was not as close as expected and plenty of eyebrows were raised at the 14 Labour MPs who defied party-line by voting down the amendment, causing it to fail. There was an air of Shakespearean tragedy surrounding this one, with some calling out the rebel MPs for vengefully stabbing Labour in the back, while the 17 Tory MPs who supported the amendment didn’t get off lightly either.
Any Labour front bencher that has failed to vote for the Cooper amendment needs to resign.
I'm sorry, but you can't sit on the front bench and fail to vote against No Deal.
Another attempt to extend Article 50 in the event of no-deal, from Labour’s Rachel Reeve was easily beaten by 32, before the first shock of the night. Where Reeve and others had all failed, the Conservative MP Caroline Spelman’s amendment, which simply aimed to avoid a no-deal Brexit passed, 318 to 310. Finally there was a concrete majority in the Commons against no-deal, although there is nothing legally binding to this amendment against Theresa May. If those in parliament were feeling confident about the direction Brexit was now going in, there were further reassurances after the final vote. Sir Graham Brady’s amendment was the main event of the evening and aimed to question if parliament would support a new deal where the infamous backstop was replaced by “alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border.” In a win for the government, this passed by 317 to 301.
Clear as mud
So, after all this time we now knew what kind of Brexit we were going to get… right? Parliament could confirm majority support against no-deal, and it also indicated that any new deal with the backstop removed could garner a majority in the House of Commons. Except it wasn’t that simple, as mere minutes later, the EU once again made it abundantly clear that the backstop is not up for renegotiation. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar echoed this in a phone call to Theresa May on Wednesday, in which he told her:
“The latest developments have reinforced the need for a backstop”.
Source: thejournal.ie
He was alluding to the Brady amendment and its mention of ‘alternative arrangements’ to the backstop, without explicitly saying what these arrangements are. Technology continues to be referenced as the answer to the backstop issue, but the problem here is that either the technology does not yet exist, or like ‘Blockchain technology’, has never before been used for border control. Jeremy Corybn pressed Theresa May on this matter during Prime Minister’s Questions. Here she was deflective at best and flakey at worst on the subject, which was met with huge jeers and laughter from the opposing benches.
So is the ball now back in the EU’s court?
Well, yes and no. It is in so far as to say the EU are the only ones with the power to remove the backstop from the current Withdrawal Agreement. Many Brexiteers have long been convinced that the EU will eventually make a U turn at the eleventh hour and agree to ease up on the issue of the backstop. While it is possible, the fact that the Irish government are in total agreement with the EU makes it very unlikely. The EU will not want to risk their own future relationship with one of their loyal members, so, for now at least, this does not seem to be an option.
For the time being therefore, the ball has been firmly passed back to the UK. In response, Jeremy Corbyn finally agreed to meet Theresa May for talks on Wednesday; a move which some feared were too little, too late.
“a useful exchange of views”
Source: Sky News
Interestingly, this is the conclusion May came to after her talks with Corbyn. We know the backstop would have been the key point of discussion, with the Labour campaigning for a new customs union and access to the single market. While eliminating any need for a backstop, Theresa May knows it would not be popular with her party or great portions of the British public, but has this week been a sign that she is softening to the idea? Again, probably not, but watch this space.
What next?
For the next few days at least, things will likely be quiet, as the government try to plot their next moves and make a breakthrough (I know) with the EU. Theresa May is well aware that she needs to bring something back to parliament on 13 February, so next week’s developments are sure to be enthralling. If May does not provide enough assurances or evidence of progress next week, then expect the amendments to come back thick and fast. Yvette Cooper’s in particular, will look to convince rebel Labour MPs this time round. On Thursday both Jeremy Hunt and Graham Brady more than hinted at an extension to Article 50, but make no mistake; the likelihood of no-deal increased tenfold this week too. All this with just under two months to go until the Brexit countdown reaches zero.
