Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. America has supersized inequality. Political gridlock was bound to follow (Guardian)

US voters are split along an ever-widening faultline of wealth and poverty, so it's no wonder there's little hope of moderation in politics, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

2. Support for Obama: the Tories’ guilty secret (Times) (£)

Ministers lean more towards the socially liberal Democrats than the ‘fiscally mad’ and ‘extreme’ Republicans, writes Rachel Sylvester.

3. Clegg’s tit-for-tat retaliation could bring about the coalition’s end (Daily Telegraph)

The Prime Minister will have to hit back if his deputy deliberately kills off the boundary review, says Benedict Brogan.

4. A Romney presidency would be just fine (Financial Times)

The GOP candidate is more likely a moderate than a Tea Party radical, says Gideon Rachman.

5. Obama and Romney remain silent on climate change, the biggest issue of all (Guardian)

Despite hurricane Sandy, neither Obama nor Romney will speak about global warming, writes George Monbiot. The danger this poses is huge.

6. Britain and Germany are growing apart (Financial Times)

Berlin is losing patience with what it views as London’s intransigence on Europe, writes Janan Ganesh.

7. Obama or Romney - neither should expect to get much done in the Congress (Daily Telegraph)

America’s broken and hostile political system will seriously impede the actions of whoever is elected president, says Tim Stanley.

8. We need nothing less than a revolution to make the EU serve democracy and working people again (Independent)

Why isn't the left kicking off about an institution that is clearly damaging the interest of workers across the continent, asks Owen Jones.

9. The living wage tide is turning, but it's not enough (Guardian)

Paying the minimum required for survival is only part of the cure for Britain's dangerous levels of inequality, says Polly Toynbee.

10. Where materialism now rules, ‘Marxist morality’ might not find a place (Independent)

As Americans go to the poll today, China is going through its own transition, but by any impartial assessment, democracy remains a long way off, writes Jonathan Fenby.

Leon Neal/ Getty
Show Hide image

“Brexit is based on racism”: Who is protesting outside the Supreme Court and what are they fighting for?

Movement for Justice is challenging the racist potential of Brexit, as the government appeals the High Court's Article 50 decision.

Protestors from the campaign group Movement for Justice are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court for the second day running. They are against the government triggering Article 50 without asking MPs, and are protesting against the Brexit vote in general. They plan to remain outside the Supreme Court for the duration of the case, as the government appeals the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliament.

Their banners call to "STOP the scapgoating of immigrants", to "Build the movement against austerity & FOR equality", and to "Stop Brexit Fight Racism".

The group led Saturday’s march at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, where a crowd of over 2,000 people stood against the government’s immigration policy, and the management of the centre, which has long been under fire for claims of abuse against detainees.  

Movement for Justice, and its 50 campaigners, were in the company yesterday of people from all walks of pro and anti-Brexit life, including the hangers-on from former Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s postponed march on the Supreme Court.

Antonia Bright, one of the campaign’s lead figures, says: “It is in the interests of our fight for freedom of movement that the Supreme Court blocks May’s attempt to rush through an anti-immigrant deal.”

This sentiment is echoed by campaigners on both sides of the referendum, many of whom believe that Parliament should be involved.

Alongside refuting the royal prerogative, the group criticises the Brexit vote in general. Bright says:

“The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.”

A crucial concern for the group is that the terms of the agreement will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58 per cent spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41 per cent increase, compared with the same time the following year.

The subtext of Bright's statement is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a desicion of such momentous consequences. She also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.

This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. Bright insists that this, “is not a democratic process at all”.

“We want to positively say that there does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, not just a rushing through on the royal prerogative,” she adds. “There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.”

For campaigners, the use of royal prerogative is a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters, during the future Brexit negotiations. A ruling in the Supreme Court in favour of a parliamentary vote would present a small but important reassurance against these fears.