Burning Beasts

It's all the rage in Sarah Palin's Alaska

Hello! And welcome to a blog. Because there definitely aren't enough blogs already. The remit for this particular blog is quite broad (essentially anything that happens in the world which I or anyone else thinks is a bit odd). But never mind! I am rarely put off by the alarmingly unspecific.

So the point is to seek out the daft/pointless. Preferably from obscure local papers from around the world, but I'm not going to be strict. Also, please send me your tip-offs. I might introduce Regular Features. Such as: Columnist of the Week; Distant Outpost Story of the Week; Most Pointless News Story of the Week; that kind of thing. Any ideas welcome.

But to kick off, all the way from the home of Sarah Palin and the Juneau Empire, the third largest newspaper in Alaska no less, it's (drum roll) HEADLINE OF THE WEEK!

Burning Beast: Local woman goes meat camping

Meat camping? As in, tents made of chicken fillets with lamp chops as tent pegs? Sadly no. Says Tamara Murphy, organiser of the festival: "I always wanted to go to Burning Man." Apparently she could never make it though. The solution? "We'll just make our own Burning Man."

Burning Man = music, desert and dancing.

Burning Beast = goat stew, smoked rabbit and salmon heads.

So when she says, we'll just make our own Burning Man, that's not really what she means is it. She actually means we'll do something completely different but use the word Burning and have a festival which is all about cooking an extraordinary amount of different animals. I bet you never get anyone at the Burning Man telling you to "try the cartilage behind the eye" though.

 

 

 

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Something is missing from the Brexit debate

Inside Westminster, few seem to have noticed or care about the biggest question mark in the Brexit talks. 

What do we know about the government’s Brexit strategy that we didn’t before? Not much, to be honest.

Theresa May has now said explicitly what her red lines on European law and free movement of labour said implicitly: that Britain is leaving the single market. She hasn’t ruled out continuing payments from Britain to Brussels, but she has said that they won’t be “vast”. (Much of the detail of Britain’s final arrangement is going to depend on what exactly “vast” means.)  We know that security co-operation will, as expected, continue after Brexit.

What is new? It’s Theresa May’s threat to the EU27 that Britain will walk away from a bad deal and exit without one that dominates the British newspapers.

“It's May Way or the Highway” quips City AM“No deal is better than a bad deal” is the Telegraph’s splash, “Give us a deal… or we walk” is the Mirror’s. The Guardian opts for “May’s Brexit threat to Europe”,  and “May to EU: give us fair deal or you’ll be crushed” is the Times’ splash.

The Mail decides to turn the jingoism up to 11 with “Steel of the new Iron Lady” and a cartoon of Theresa May on the white cliffs of Dover stamping on an EU flag. No, really.  The FT goes for the more sedate approach: “May eases Brexit fears but warns UK will walk away from 'bad deal’” is their splash.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The government is coming under fire for David Davis’ remark that even if Parliament rejects the Brexit deal, we will leave anyway. But as far as the Article 50 process is concerned, that is how it works. You either take the deal that emerges from the Article 50 process or have a disorderly exit. There is no process within exiting the European Union for a do-over.  

The government’s threat to Brussels makes sense from a negotiating perspective. It helps the United Kingdom get a better deal if the EU is convinced that the government is willing to suffer damage if the deal isn’t to its liking. But the risk is that the damage is seen as so asymmetric – and while the direct risk for the EU27 is bad, the knock-on effects for the UK are worse – that the threat looks like a bad bluff. Although European leaders have welcomed the greater clarity, Michel Barnier, the lead negotiator, has reiterated that their order of priority is to settle the terms of divorce first, agree a transition and move to a wider deal after that, rather than the trade deal with a phased transition that May favours.

That the frontpage of the Irish edition of the Daily Mail says “May is wrong, any deal is better than no deal” should give you an idea of how far the “do what I want or I shoot myself” approach is going to take the UK with the EU27. Even a centre-right newspaper in Britain's closest ally isn't buying that Britain will really walk away from a bad deal. 

Speaking of the Irish papers, there’s a big element to yesterday’s speech that has eluded the British ones: May’s de facto abandonment of the customs union and what that means for the border between the North and the South. “May’s speech indicates Border customs controls likely to return” is the Irish Times’ splash, “Brexit open border plan “an illusion”” is the Irish Independent’s, while “Fears for jobs as ‘hard Brexit’ looms” is the Irish Examiner’s.

There is widespread agreement in Westminster, on both sides of the Irish border and in the European Union that no-one wants a return to the borders of the past. The appetite to find a solution is high on all sides. But as one diplomat reflected to me recently, just because everyone wants to find a solution, doesn’t mean there is one to be found. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.