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.
This week, presenters of Amazon Prime show The Grand Tour (a follow-on from British cult classic Top Gear) have come under fire for their use of homophobic jokes and comments after the latest episode based in Columbia caused an online backlash. But is it really a big deal?
Clarkson, Hammond and May in a promo shot for the Amazon Prime show. Image courtesy of Amazon
In the episode in question, Jeremy Clarkson is seen driving a Jeep, which Richard Hammond and James May suggest that it is a ‘gay’ car. Hammond then details the makeover Clarkson should get to ‘match’ the allegedly stereo-typically gay car, which included moisturising, wearing some “nice chaps, suede but ventilated at the back” and complimenting his pink shirt.
The comments prompted an angry response from gay pop singer, social activist and podcast personality Will Young, who launched into a furious tirade on twitter.
Gay men . I DON’T drive a Wrangler Jeep. I DON’T wear pink shirts . I DON’T wear arseless chaps. You can be honest and funny without this ridiculous ‘lad’ ooh being gay and let’s laugh about it mentality . It’s repulsive and how DARE you do it and put it out @PrimeVideo
One of the tweets from Will Young, criticising the comments made on the show.
This isn’t the first time that stars of the show have been criticised for homophobia; in 2016, Hammond responded to a remark about a Magnum ice cream by stating “I don’t eat ice cream. It’s something to do with being straight.” The remark prompted frustration from LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, and criticism online.
If you have never experienced homophobic abuse, then the fact that these comments are being talked about at all may be baffling to you. You could be forgiven for thinking that the statements are harmless, that some jokes based on outdated stereotypes aren’t anything to get angry about. Of course, if these jokes happened in a social vacuum, then they may be excusable. Or at the very least, they’d be not worth mentioning at all.
But the simple fact is that these jokes do not happen in a vacuum.
They were written, spoken, edited and cleared for viewing in the same world that saw Empire star Jussie Smollett violently attacked because of his race and sexuality yesterday. The same world in which currently, at least 40 gay men sit in a detention camp in Chechnya after a ‘gay purge’ of their people.
Star of Fox’s award winning show Empire, Jussie Smollett, who was the victim of a homophobic and racist attack yesterday
If Will Young’s reaction to the remarks seemed extreme to you, that’s okay. Chances are that you grew up in the same quietly homophobic society that I did, where criticism of non-straight people can be seen all around you from childhood. Especially, in the media gay people have spent a long time being accepted as normal in the media we consume.
When this sort of language and behaviour is normalised, it leads to the normalisation of other, more harmful things. In a study carried out by Stonewall, it was revealed that 21% of LGBTQ+ people have been attacked in the last year. This figure doubles when looking solely at attacks on trans people. The question here has to be asked; where are they learning this bias from?
Of course, the blame for these attacks should not be put on The Grand Tour hosts. The comments are not violent in particular, but what they are is ignorant, and they only work to normalise the stereotyping of LGBTQ+ people. By mocking queer people, Hammond, Clarkson and May are excluding them from their content. They are assuming that gay people do not exist in their social vacuum.
While LGBTQ+ people are still being victimised, attacked, bullied and killed across the world for things they cannot change, any ignorant comment on a TV show should very much be criticised.
Trumps bid to see ‘America great again’ leaves government workers paid in beer, meals and even Broadway tickets!
It’s 33 days into the longest ever government shutdown in US history and the countdown continues on what appears to be a ceaseless case of Trump v. America. Imagine this, it’s a cold Wednesday morning, another day on the job. There are bills to pay, a family to feed and your own general well-being to sustain. You know there is a role to fulfil; a duty to serve your country as a government worker and yet you aren’t being paid, well at least not in money. What do you do?
For more than an estimated 800,000 government employees this is the sad reality and with the shutdown coming up to its fifth week, if the government doesn’t reopen today furloughed federal workers are looking at yet another week with no signs of a paycheck.
How did the government shutdown begin anyway?
The partial government shutdown began on the 22nd December when President Donald Trump, supported by his fellow Republicans, demanded a $5bn budget to fund a wall along the US-Mexico border. The demand then hit an impasse. A situation in which no progress could be made due to the disagreement between Trump and the Democrats.
Who is actually affected?
Well, the primary party to take the hit would be the government workers in the nine sectors that have shut down, some including the departments of Commerce, Justice, and the biggest area affected by this is the Transportation Security Administration.
From the beginning of Trump’s presidential campaign to his current reign in power, the construction of the wall has sparked mass discussion, more notably concerning the blatant discrimination towards the idea of a literal divide erected between two countries. The U.S. President who isn’t one to hold back when it comes to voicing his opinion took to Twitter today to share his new slogan: “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”. But it seems the backlash sparked by the thread of tweets wasn’t just about the plan going ahead, but rather his inadequacy to fulfil his promise during the campaign which placed funding responsibilities on Mexico.
As relentless and immovable as Trump may stand in his decision, it does not dismiss the fact that a country is suffering at the hands of a political cross-fire.
Is beer enough to keep payless workers on the job?
Thousands of government employees have turned to food banks for help with many urging others to donate various items from food to vouchers to beer.
Video:Source:Youtube/CBN
Famous musicians, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley from band KISS offered TSA employees free food from Rock and Brew restaurants in the airports they worked at and even ‘Beautiful the Carole King Musical’ offered free tickets on select nights. Yet for the workers who are under strain, the question still stands: ‘Is this enough to keep the government workers going and for just how long?’
This moment, unfortunate as it is, is an iconic event to be duly noted in history. A wall that was made to divide two nations, in turn inspiring a sense of community and cohesion, an entire nation joining forces to help those carry on doing their job. Trump may be trying to build a wall but it looks like his country is breaking down another.
Gillette’s controversial advert came as an affront to its main customer base, but is publicity ever bad and were men even the intended audience despite their predominant featuring?
Advertising is effective when it achieves the three R’s – Right Message to the Right Person at the Right Time. When adverts provoke controversy, they stimulate debate. This draws out the impression and makes it more impactful. As they say in Marketing: ‘A happy customer tells 3 people. An angry customer tells a thousand!’
How many times have you discussed with your friends or colleagues something new and different that had been encountered the previous day?
We haven’t seen much controversy in an advert for awhile until Gillette came along with their new slogan ‘The Best A Man Can Be’.
This may seem as if Gillette are jumping on the bandwagon of Woke Capitalism, where companies pretend to care about issues of social justice to sell products to people who ‘pretend’ to hate capitalism.
The advert insulted and angered many in its apparent foisting of collective guilt upon men for falling short in their ‘duties’ – a crude form of identity politics where nobody is an individual, just a constituent of the hive masculine organism, each equally culpable for the rest of their colony.
Contrary to appearances, this wasn’t simply Gillette picking what they considered the ‘winning’ side in the debate on masculinity and feminism to push their product sales or show supportive corporate responsibility .
Nor
was it a risky marketing tactic to deploy politically correct virtue
signalling.
Instead,
it represented a grandstanding display for their new product range under the
occluded veil of self-righteous moral indignation to capture lefty-millennials and
women.
Marketing in 2019 is an incredibly sophisticated science.
Sure,
the overall response is largely negative, but as the adage goes, there’s no
such thing as bad publicity. They sure hit the mark with stirring up some
controversy that’ll generate free publicity and extend their reach – a
marketing department’s dream.
Driven by personalised data harvesting that builds an image of what makes us tick. An incredible amount of money has been spent on how to brainwash individuals into buying products.
For
those who have been saying this advert was a risky move, it is not. There was
no risk involved. If there were any, they wouldn’t have aired it.
What if someone with a doctorate in consumer branding did their calculations? Figuring out that the guys who were offended by the commercial by and large wouldn’t bother to follow through on those accusations of boycotting.
But
on the other hand, Gillette would pick up x% more customers who were leftist in
political orientation and women.
They
took this all into consideration, largely that most men were too lazy to switch
brands. But on the flipside, we’ll pick up some more women, millennial leftie
SJWs and do-gooders.
If
they could get more men to buy Gillette razors by showing some woman with giant
boobs or a classic car, they would.
They
could not care less about leftist politics.
Consider
a board meeting with the heads of advertising, psychologists, marketing executives
etc. from Gillette and their parent company Proctor & Gamble.
An
ultra-capitalist company with one of the most valuable brands on earth.
Are they really going to say: “It’s time to hire a leftist cat lady with a track record of ads on how bras are oppressive and singing female genitals to make a bizarre and cringe worth commercial about leftist Identity Politics that’s sure to alienate many of our customers”?
“We
owe it to the world to make more people hate our company and the Social Justice
movement.”
Maybe the ad isn’t for the blokes?
The reality of the situation is that this advert wasn’t really targeted at men.
Procter and Gamble, Gillette’s parent company, dominates the household goods market. They’ve made several questionable ad campaigns targeting progressive millennial, upper-middle class women to push their products.
Gillette is also suffering stiff competition from the likes of Dollar Shave Club, Harry’s and Schick with lower price and higher quality, suffering a market share drop of 50-70%, it was forced to cut prices by 15% in the last few years to remain competitive despite its large advertising budgets and sports star campaigns.
The reality is: men don’t buy all that much.
Women purchase or highly influence 83 per cent of the non-business to business consumer goods in America. Globally, women account for $20 Trillion in annual consumer spending. Most of the income growth in the U.S. during the past 15-20 years is attributable to women, according to consumer specialist firm Nielsen.
Women
are earning more as they become better educated, participating in the workplace
and engaging in more independent ventures. Young women already surpassed young
men in earnings some time ago and are expected to make more than men overall by
2028.
Women
are also invaluable customers, with 92 per cent telling others about deals and
the items they find. Do men discuss the same? Do they heck!
As
far as advertising is concerned. Nobody gives a crap about advertising to guys.
Almost
all advertising is pitched towards women.
Even
men’s products are advertised to women.
Chances
are, if you don’t see a bikini or classic car in the commercial, that means men
aren’t buying the product, women are.
The
whole controversy is little more than a cynical, calculated marketing ploy.
Gillette
is one of the most valuable brands in the world, they wouldn’t risk compromising
that on anything.
For all the men out there infuriated by Gillette’s dubious moral high ground lecturing on how men should behave, they’d be well placed to ask themselves how this company could swing from having curvaceous female models in beyond skin-tight blue latex bodysuits as walking billboards for their product back in 2011.
Or even how Gillette were somehow better placed to lecture us all with their ‘pink’ tax on women’s products still going.
The ‘Pink’ Tax – Just for Women – Because they’re worth it?
So,
instead of appealing to more men to sell its razors and shaving cream, Gillette
makes a very manipulative emotional appeal to women because they are the people
who actually buy the products in the
majority of American homes.
Don’t
believe me?
Look
at two scenes from the advert itself.
Firstly,
the mother holding her tortured son as she deals with the trauma of helplessness
to combat a force beyond her ability to alleviate. No father and husband on
hand to console and guide, or an older brother to watch out for the young boy.
A setting more familiar for many women out there than they’d care to admit.
Still scene of mother consoling her tortured child
A
long zoom in here focuses on the intended market of the ad. It’s not men, but
women.
In
another scene, a slick-corporate sleazebag executive touches without consent
the single woman in a board room. Stuffed to the rafters with, once again,
white men, he proceeds to ‘mansplain’ her answer away with “what she’s trying
to say is…”. The shift to her look of disbelief and defeat echoes how many women
feel in workplaces with male bosses who feel entitled or simply dismissive of
their contributions or agency.
Mansplaining corporate exec
A
powerful message, you’d be inclined to agree.
Three times in 30 seconds we see how women are the victims of this ‘Toxic Masculinity’.
The
issue of bullying glosses over its universal human nature, and yet again, both
bullying and sexual harassment are conflated with masculinity, as though the
three are inseparable.
I
hear the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ tossed about as this coercive force in
society spoiling the party for everyone involved. You would be forgiven for
thinking they aren’t referring to one form, but to masculinity itself. Not once
is masculinity espoused as a virtue.
Invoking
common leftist talking points that women have no chance for advancement in a
structurally patriarchal, and by association, oppressive working environment, is
reinforced by imagery of unchecked bullying in the work-space. This gives rise
to sentiments that this is a company that cares for the difficulties women face.
If
you want to tell men to be honourable citizens extolling integrity and
compassion, great, we’re all for it. But treating the condition of being a man
as some form of original sin we must all seek absolution from wasn’t going to
be well received by the men.
Boys will be boys
The
play-fighting of the boys is different for men and women.
For
men this represents a form of socialisation, learning what force is necessary
and appropriate. A process of how to temper their natural strength compounded
with their naturally occurring aggression producing hormones. Communication
skills and self-control are developed, both toward boys and girls.
For
women, they aren’t raised with getting dirty, play-fighting or getting hurt.
The socialisation boys undergo looks like violence from their perspective.
Physical violence is deemed much more dangerous to women, thus should be
strictly prohibited in all its forms from their outlook. Gillette’s advert reaffirms
this subliminal belief in their mind, endearing women toward the company on a
subconscious level.
Get With The Programme
The
multiple TV screens moment is significant for its allusions to movies and tv series
to quickly deliver the backstory on plot events. That’s where you’re used to it
– fiction movies where they don’t have the time to give you all the backstory.
But when used in real life, it takes on a slightly different meaning.
Mental Trickery of the ‘backstory delivery’
The “everyone is talking about it” shot is a psychological pull to convince viewers of the gravity of a situation. By showing numerous broadcasts supporting the notion that the world is focused on a singular issue, it suggests that anyone not involved are part of the out-group. If you don’t agree with those who are very concerned by this, you’re not part of “the tribe” of good people, but part of problem – those in denial.
This is a very powerful mental trick because it triggers very
primal desires to be part of a community, as being rejected membership has conventionally
brought our species nothing but suffering and death. We’re evolved to want to
be part of the popular kids.
The association then, that bad things happen, mostly to women and kids; those bad things happen because men will be men, and that normal behaviours entrenched in masculine culture are the cause. Therefore, the only solution, men need to change, women absolve all responsibility. For some, this is a conniving expedience, for most a sigh of relief.
The only good men are the men who do the changing of everyone
else. But those men are still responsible for the collective hive of other men.
#Believewomen
The “We Believe” is invoked in
the advert as a phrase synonymous with Women’s Rights Groups (another signpost
to the intended market for the advert).
It’s short for “We Believe Women”.
#Believewomen deals with women coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.
Often, even in circumstances of legitimate sexual assault, women don’t come
forward in a timely manner, leaving little to no evidence available for
charging the perpetrator. This has led to the demand for bringing forth cases
of rape and sexual assault without evidence, or to put another way, without the
due process of law.
While sympathies are with those who believe this to be necessary
for those women needing justice, the practice has resulted in many cases of men
being expelled from college, fired from work, and as we aren’t likely to forget
anytime soon, the baseless accusations surrounding the Kavanaugh hearings.
Because some have used the movement to further their own vindictive ends, it
has decayed the positive intention with which it originated. Those who
manipulated their power have led to the movement being shunned by men’s rights
groups as an implicitly anti-male, misandrist crusade in stark contradiction to
the basic premise of our justice system – innocent
until proven guilty.
Professors Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning’s book ‘The Rise of Victimhood Culture’ goes some way to explain why and how for-profit companies like Gillette would deploy this victim narrative for females by conflating bulling and the love of an innocent child with the other of masculinity as this perverse oppressor oppressed relationship. They simultaneously ignore the bullying that is attributable to girls and women, which would never have gained the kind of emotional appeal they are looking for.
In doing so, they attempted to ingratiate themselves with a largely
female market.
We may see more chorus lines of
tautly toned feminine backsides bearing the Gillette moniker in trademark
corporate blue at motorsports circuits in future, but for the meantime,
outrage at masculinity is in fashion. Welcome to woke capitalism, enjoy the
ride.
McDonald’s, KFC and Pret a Manger have joined with UK supermarkets to warn that leaving the European Union with No Deal will result in “significant” disruptions to their supply chains.
The companies said in a joint letter sent to UK lawmakers on Monday that they will not be able to maintain the “choice, quality and durability” of food if Britain leaves the bloc without an exit agreement in place that protects trade with Europe.
The letter reads: “While we have been working closely with our suppliers on contingency plans it is not possible to mitigate all the risks to our supply chains and we fear significant disruption in the short term as a result if there is no Brexit deal.
Tesco’s distribution centre in Reading, England. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Image
In addition to the fast food makers, the letter was signed by representatives of most of the country’s biggest supermarket chains and the British Retail Consortium. The body represents more than 5,000 businesses in the UK’s retail sector, and its chief executive and chair both also signed
The food suppliers warn that crashing out of the European Union would “greatly increase import costs” and “put upward pressure on food prices.” They said that new tariffs would have a “devastating impact” on UK farmers.
The companies said they are stockpiling goods where possible, but “all frozen and chilled storage is already being used and there is very little general warehousing space available.”
In response, a spokesperson for the prime minister said the United Kingdom has a “high level of food security built upon a diverse range of sources including strong domestic production and imports.”The EU is important for food.
How much food comes from the European Union?
“Nearly one-third of the food we eat in the UK comes from the EU. In March the situation is more acute as UK produce is out of season: 90% of our lettuces, 80% of our tomatoes and 70% of our soft fruit is sourced from the EU at that time of year. “This complex, ‘just in time’ supply chain will be significantly disrupted in the event of no deal. Even if the UK government does not undertake checks on products at the border, there will still be major disruption at Calais as the French government has said it will enforce sanitary and customs checks on exports from the EU, which will lead to long delays.
“For consumers, this will reduce the availability and shelf life of many products in our stores.
”The top business figures say they are “extremely concerned” that leaving without a deal with the EU could result in higher tariffs, increasing import costs and putting upward pressure on food prices. They suggest one alternative – Britain setting import tariffs at zero, while UK farmers still face tariffs exporting to Europe – could have a “devastating impact” on farmers who also supply them.
English football is broken. The Premier League is the world’s fourth most lucrative sporting league generating $6.1billion in revenue – only America’s NBA, MLB and NFL generate more in revenue. However, despite having the most valuable footballing league globally, English football has struggled on the national stage.
The Premier League is one of the most competitive leagues in the world. In the last five years there have been three different winners and year-on-year the battle for survival is fierce. According to Deloitte, promotion to the Premier League is worth £160million, and this could rise to £280million if a promoted club survives relegation at the first time of asking. But perhaps that’s the problem. With so much money at stake, owners are quick to pull the trigger and sack managers without hesitation. As a result, managers are reluctant to give youth a chance, with their own job potentially at risk.
Unfortunately, English players suffer and more importantly with only 33% of players in the premier league being English, the national team has suffered. Youth hasn’t had a chance. In 2017, England won both the U-17 & U-20 world cup, with the likes of Phil Foden, Dominic Solanke, Rhian Brewster and Dominic Calvert Lewin showcasing real potential. However, since then only Jadon Sancho, Morgan Gibbs-White, Phil Foden, Ademola Lookman, Ainsley Maitland-Niles and Harry Winks have made more than 20 appearances at senior level in the Premier League.
The problem clearly isn’t a lack of talent. This month Callum Hudson-Odoi has surprisingly been the target of four bids from Bundesliga giant, Bayern Munich, the latest, an astonishing £35m. With Jadon Sancho and Reiss Nelson doing so well abroad, should we really be that surprised?
Last summer, England was buzzing as the national team reached the semi-final of the World Cup. Some may say England were fortunate to play Colombia ranked 11th and Sweden ranked 22nd on route the semi-final, before being knocked out by Croatia ranked 10th. However, overall, England came fourth, losing to Belgium in the third-place playoff – England’s best performance since Italy 1990, 28 years ago!
2018 World Cup champions, France, had an average squad age of 26, with their youngest player, Kylian Mbappe, winning the FIFA World Cup Best Young Player Award. Despite winning, the French squad had some notable omissions including Manchester United’s Anthony Martial, Manchester City’s Aymeric Laporte, Bayern Munich’s Kingsley Coman and Paris Saint-Germain’s Adrien Rabiot. These players are all under the age of 25 and would most certainly make the England squad if not start.
Six of Germany’s 2014 World Cup winning team were part of the U-21 team that beat England in the 2009 UEFA’s U-21 European Championship final. Of that England squad, however, only James Milner, Danny Rose, Theo Walcott and Joe Hart went on to reach at least 20 caps for England. “Here’s what became of the rest of that England team”.
The reality is the best national teams have domestic leagues with protectionist rules encouraging the development of youth players. The Premier League as a private company separate from the FA doesn’t prioritise the success of the national team, and with only 25% of Premier League owners being English, why should they?
Truthfully, there is more than one problem with English football, it’s not just the amount of money in the game or the structure of the league, but also decisions made at academy level. Many clubs release technically gifted players due to a lack of physicality. Leicester’s Jamie Vardy and Liverpool’s Andy Robertson were both released due to a lack of size. Alternatively, top tier Premier League clubs would rather stockpile players with potential, than allow them to play consistent senior level football, fearing their rivals would beat them to a potential ‘wonderkid’. Chelsea are the biggest culprits with over 40 players out on loan, including the likes of Michy Batshuayi, Tammy Abraham, Izzy Brown, Fikayo Tomori & Kenneth Omeruo.
So, What’s the Solution?
Honestly, there’s no easy fix to the various problems in English football. However, long term, the priorities of both the FA and the Premier League need to be closely aligned, with a core focus on the development of English players. The English national team needs depth to choose from rather than a squad of players that essentially choose themselves. If these problems remain unresolved, it could quite easily be another 28+ years before England reaches a World Cup semi-final again. It may be time to consider similar protectionist rules to Spain, Germany & France, whilst rules such as China’s limit of three non-domestic players per game may be excessive, it is clear that something needs to change.
Kay
Ajibade is a graduate of the University of Leicester with a honours degree in
Law. He is a chartered accountant, with a keen interest in sports, economics
and politics. As an unseasoned journalist, Kay is keen to cover modern day
developments at the forefront of global business.
Chidera Eggerue known commonly as The Slumflower is a writer and fashion blogger best known for her book, What a Time to Be Alone, and the widely successful online campaign #SaggyBoobsMatter. Born and raised in south London’s, Peckham she has quickly risen to fame and is also one of the biggest contributors to the #MenAreTrash movement. Personally, as a young black woman who grew up in similar conditions, I am often extremely reluctant to criticise or accept any criticism directed towards her or any other influencers of similar background as there are not many of us in the field that she is in . However, it is extremely naive of us as a community to uphold her as some kind of black omnipotent millennial spokesperson as it will only lead to disappointment, but is it too late? Have we already created a monster?
The Slumflower being praised by Elle Magazine for her #saggyboobsmatter movement
Often within her career, there are times when it can be said she has turned her back on her upbringing and main fan base. The most recent example of this being her piece in the Financial Times titled The joys of living alone which caused a stir with many saying that she was selling young people a dream. She was forgetting that not all of us (many of her fans) have the ability to live alone in their 20’s. Within the video she stated the pros of living alone portraying immediate relief without considering the hardships her working-class fans go through, being a working-class girl many people thought she was abandoning those who she represents the most.
However, it can be said that we are expecting too much from her. Evidently, she cannot please everyone.
Another instance of this was her piece with The Guardian titled Slumflowers Guide to Peckham: Londons coolest neighbourhood which caused a stir due to the recent gentrification happening in Peckham and many other London communities. Many working-class young people like The Slumflower live in Peckham and with the London housing crisis families are finding it increasingly difficult to afford the areas they once called home due to new developments. Fans felt that she was playing into the hands of gentrifiers causing more people to flock to Peckham in hope of a “hipster” setting rather than supporting her community and helping them fight against it. However, within the article, she advertises local businesses such as PAK’s Hair and Cosmetics and Peckham Plex, which can be said to be her showing her support to the community she grew up in.
Now for my personal viewpoint. As stated beforehand I am very reluctant to criticise The Slumflower as she represents girls like me in a place that I aspire to be one day. We do not have much representation in the public eye therefore, we automatically praise those who make it. The solution to this would, of course, be more representation but while we work on that, I do not believe we should have to take whatever we can get to feel represented. The content she produces is very straight, twitter timeline debate-esk which obviously does not represent every working-class black woman’s priorities. Her book, What A Time to be Alone, has some very valid points on boredom and online/offline personalities, it was cute but overall it was underwhelming. Unless you are a straight white woman going through a break up from the guy all your friends told you was trash the 3rd time he ghosted you for a month, and are now looking for your cultural awakening with some Nigerian idioms the book really will not do much for you. I believe the book is praised so much due to her identity of a working-class black girl who has made it big but content wise there is nothing spectacular to be viewed.
With that being said I can not fault her for truly securing the bag without really doing too much. Many young girls look up to her in terms of body positivity and she has encouraged girls to know their worth.
Pakistan could face alarming levels of water scarcity by 2025. As well as inheriting grave economic problems and a likely IMF bailout, Prime Minister Imran Khan is trying to crowdfund the building of two major dam projects. Akon is the latest celebrity to endorse the project in an attempt to galvanise donations from the ‘Pakistanian’ diaspora. But what is behind the initiative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9vBtRmSfaA
Pakistan has a water problem. Not only is Pakistan at risk of running dry by 2025, the IMF also reports that Pakistan has the world’s fourth highest rate of water use and with population growing at 2.4% per year, this places huge pressure on water resources. So what is the incoming Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) administration, led by PM Imran Khan, doing about it? The answer: crowdfunding.
Why crowdfund?
In July 2018, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar launched a crowdfunding initiative for the building of two dams in northern Pakistan, the Diamer Basha dam located in the Gilgit-Baltistan region and the Mohmand dam located in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). The total cost of these large-scale infrastructure projects has been estimated at $17 billion, funds which the country does not have.
Pakistan is in financial crisis and has been staving off an IMF bailout for the last few months. In September 2018, the Trump administration cancelled and permanently reprogrammed $300 million in aid that had been earmarked for Pakistan. A decision made by President Trump in January 2018 denouncing Pakistan’s “lies and deceit” with regards to its alleged collusion with terrorists, left the country high and dry and in financial turmoil. Couple that with the projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – named the Marshall Plan for Pakistan – which have been criticised for adding to Pakistan’s debt crisis.
However, Pakistan has been successful in leveraging funds from the gulf states. Sparking criticism, Pakistan attended a Saudi investment summit in Riyadh last October (The Future Investment Initiative) held by Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Recently, the UAE has agreed to loan $30 billion for development. These funds will cover Pakistan’s imports for some time, but the funding for a multi-billion infrastructure project to prevent water scarcity is simply not there.
What do the critics say?
Since Imran Khan took over the crowdfunding campaign from the Chief Justice in September, there have been a host of issues with the fundraising.
To date, less than 1% has been raised of the overall target, amounting to around $66 million (Rs.9.2 billion). If the annual fundraising amount is as good as $66 million per year it would still take over 200 years to reach the target. Notwithstanding the donation fatigue that Pakistani citizens, institutions and diaspora will inevitably face. The PM has been urging the overseas Pakistani community to donate to the fund, even suggesting that each overseas Pakistani should donate $1,000; so far, the global Pakistani diaspora has contributed only 8% of the total donation amount. Despite boxer Amir Khan’s support at a gala dinner hosted in Manchester last November, this is pretty low.
The tender for the smaller Mohmand dam has been awarded to a consortium comprising Descon- a Pakistani engineering multinational – and the Chinese Gezhouba group; ownership is 30% and 70% respectively. Contrary to the “all-weather strategic partnership”, the post-Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) era has been less lucrative for Chinese investors and some critics say that this joint award may help to warm relations with China. Even more interesting is the conflict of interest presented by former CEO of Descon (A.R. Dawood), who is now advisor to the PM on Commerce, Textiles and Industries. Although A.R. Dawood has appointed his son as the interim CEO, one of the opposing parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) – headed by Bilawal Bhutto- is petitioning for an investigation into the bid process to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
The now former Chief Justice also declared that the project is a national and patriotic duty and has previously hinted that opponents are traitors. Cashing in on the patriotic zeal, last year, Pakistan’s media watchdog (PEMRA) was directed by the Supreme Court to advise all broadcast channels to dedicate at least 1 minute for a Public Service Announcement to appeal for more donations to the dam project.
Although the narrative around the dam project seems straightforward in terms of allowing water storage and prevention of flooding, Dr. Daanish Mustafa, from the department of Geography at King’s College, stated that the project made no sense and that as well as potentially costing Pakistan up to 10% of its annual GDP there could be more efficient ways to address the water crisis.
While the government clearly wants to show its supporters that the money is being spent, the opening ceremony for the Mohmand dam has been postponed twice this month already. The critics of the dam are growing as these problems continue. One of Pakistan’s leading newspapers, Dawn, is throwing caution to impartiality and is calling for the end to the fundraising attempt. While the fundraising is expected to take decades, it remains to be seen how the crowdfunding will fare in the long term and especially as water management as a policy objective in the face of water scarcity still needs to be prioritised.
Homera Cheema is a writer based in Manchester. After some years working in aid in the UK and in field missions she is now undertaking an MA in Creative Writing at Manchester Writing School and writes reviews on author events, books as well as articles.
