You are reading a single comment by @aggi and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I'm not sure I get the link with inequality
There's a strong theory that one of the big drivers for the Brexit vote wasn't really wanting to leave the EU specifically but, for a lot of working class people, the feeling that they were being left behind. Inequality has increased, many people are living in poverty, austerity, politicians are becoming more remote, etc.
The Brexit vote was their chance to say fuck you, you can't ignore us now. Unfortunately very little has actually changed to address this.
aggi
Ah thanks, I'd missed that on the ECJ.
I'm not sure I get the link with inequality but I do know it's worse here than in Italy - 20% v. 8.4%. And the Italian government tried to reduce it by running a 2.4% budget deficit next year so they could pay a limited universal basic income, including benefits to the unemployed (not an unreasonable ask you might think), but were stymied by the EU. Which is therefore not very popular in Italy right now.
What Starmer did is in parliamentary terms was genuinely historic. It's the first time the House has found ministers in contempt of Parliament, ever, and the full legal advice is not usually given out, so not only is it unprecedented for the government to be found in contempt but it's a fundamental constitutional convention that neither the fact, nor the content, of Law Officers’ advice is disclosed outside Government without the Law Officers’ consent.
When the legal advice was published yesterday Lord Keen of Elie claimed for the government that "The release of this advice does not set a precedent for any future release of Law Officers' advice." That's clearly not the case IMO but IANAConstitutionalL.
Yes I agreed with @aggi on the stealing Brexit bit, I was just letting my own opinion in there.