It had not been the intention to post on the weekends – but such is the sense of watershed historical moment about this week that it was obvious that a note on the day would be needed.
Firstly to the New York Times which ran the following piece this morning and which was picked up by MSN and Yahoo News:
Having recently watched a shocking documentary on the partition of India, it’s tempting to enjoy and to rate this piece of Brit-bashing as highly relevant to the Brexit debate. Some of the points about the old Tory traditions are intriguing if not compelling.
Yet the writer fails to acknowledge that those same [current] Tory politicians were democratically elected by their actual real local constituents. And while the onus on political leaders to lead effectively [and this cohort of Tory politicans clearly aren’t] is accepted – there is nonetheless also an onus on the [British] electorate to inform themselves and to vote their brightest and best representatives to parliament. The Liberal Democrats ran on a second referendum ticket in the last British General election and this bid failed to get them elected. Therefore this NY Times article is as much a commentary on the failings of a British electorate [and how they place their votes] as it is a revelation about their British ruling parties. Ultimately the people get the Government they deserve. While it may be a thought-provoking piece, it’s hard to see what it really brings to the debacle.
Meanwhile back at the wall of mainstream British Media, someone called Keir Starmer – the shadow Brexit secretary – has stolen a bit of the limelight for himself by declaring A Second In-out referendum must be one of the options on the table. Crucially he sets out that it’s difficult to see how an extension to Article 50 can be avoided.
















