I don’t usually get to upset these days when I am unable to go onto a talk radio show to discuss Brexit. However, for me this issue is going to dominate the political landscape for generations to come and having voted for Brexit I want to take real ownership of my vote by remaining engaged in the debate. I was informed via a couple of friends of mine that there was a crowdfunding page doing the rounds with regards to challenging the legal legitimacy of triggering Article 50.
Now, much like the referendum legal opinion is split as to whether this process can actually be revoked. This is because the case has yet to be formally tested in a UK court and the only other active case has ironically made it to the European Court of Justice, but there is no verdict as of yet. So effectively what we have is a situation where the United Kingdom has held an advisory referendum, where over 17 million people have advised our government we would like to leave the EU. But there is no real legal standing or precedent for the decision, so there for this can be challenged in a court.
My annoyance has come from the coverage with in our main stream media and in particular LBC’s coverage especially on James O’Brien’s show from 10am- 1pm daily. I’ll put my cards on the table here, I enjoy this show. It’s one of my favourites. Usually the show is informative, intellectual and even sometimes enlightening. But on a recent programme LBC put themselves to shame and made me really question whether they want to debate Brexit with an integrity at all?
At around 1030 on November 2nd I called LBC to register my interest in talking to James about what is going on with Brexit. Having got wind of this potential court case I thought I could have added some real insight to the programme. I spoke to the researcher on the phone and explained who I was and where I was calling from, I then told her what my point was. I would assume at this point, this is where they decide they are going to call you back and have you on the show. I was told they would call me back, but for whatever reason the call never came.
During this time a call came in from York from a chap called ‘Paul’ and he was a fellow Brexit voter. It really is an astonishing listen, and if you get the time you should definitely give it a go. I just couldn’t and still can’t believe that this caller who has nothing to add to the value of the discussion was given airtime, yet I was denied. It’s almost like there is an agenda to tar the Brexit vote with stupidity so they allow these people on to discuss really complex issues with James. Why isn’t the station allowing listeners with more informed views on the programme? You have to wonder!
Such is the clamour from James especially on his show for a second referendum, you would have thought he would have been dyeing to know about this potentially game changing court case. Maybe he would have even given some of his hard earned cash to support the cause of Professor A.C Grayling and his team. It’s interesting for me and relevant because I was one of thousands who have asked the government for a vote on the terms of Brexit, besides why should the Politicians decide whether it is ‘deal or no deal’?
Alas, the government has completely denied this request so we are now left at the mercy of the ‘strong and stable’ leadership of Theresa May and her team. Even if we get to a position where the government could potentially strike any deal with the European Union, I see it being riddled with backslides and caveats so we end up staying in the EU. Making this whole process from start to finish a complete waste of time and money.
The EU has placed three clear negotiation points on the table before the political bloc will consider future trade talks, they are as follows;
• ECJ court jurisdiction on citizens’ rights post Brexit.
• Pay what is being called the Brexit ‘Divorce Bill’.
• Some sort of customs border with Northern Ireland.
Its important to remember, since we aren’t going to get a second vote that our own government also has polar opposite positions to all three of these negotiating points, so I would really love to know what it is they are actually talking about ??