Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. America on the edge of a 'fiscal cliff'? No, it's the right peddling scare stories (Guardian)

The economic abyss is a distortion peddled by the US right and Obama's Democrats – just like Britain's left – need to counter the myth, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

2. The BBC can be brilliant - despite its shambolic army of suits and bean-counters (Daily Mail)

The corporation worked much better when it was much smaller, as it should now become again, writes Max Hastings.

3. Obama proves you can win in tough times (Times) (£)

On both sides of the Atlantic, voters want economic toughness and social liberalism, says George Osborne.

4. Police commissioner elections: hardly The Wire, but they still really matter (Guardian)

Not voting for a police and crime commissioner on Thursday means turning your back on the frightened and vulnerable, says Gaby Hinsliff.

5. The downfall of David Petraeus may be a blessing in disguise (Independent)

Obama now has more freedom to exert his will in the military sphere, writes Mary Dejevsky.

6. Let the public run our national broadcaster (Daily Telegraph)

The BBC can weather this storm if we eradicate its culture of moral smugness, says Tessa Jowell.

7. China and US navigate in risky waters (Financial Times)

The narrowing of the power gap between the two countries is already raising tensions, writes Gideon Rachman.

8. Osborne needs to show a little love to the squeezed middle (Daily Telegraph)

Reforming the 40p tax rate would reward those who have borne the brunt of austerity, writes Benedict Brogan.

9. Only when the BBC decides what it is for will it be able to regain trust (Independent)

The failures of Newsnight have nothing to do with budget cuts, writes Dominic Lawson. Even the least well-funded local newspaper would have done better than this.

10. Investigative journalism must live on despite the Newsnight crisis (Guardian)

The world would be a worse place without investigative journalism, but lack of funding is a real danger for this craft, writes David Leigh.

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.