As displacement activity, as opposed to actually doing something practical as the country careers towards a cliff-edge Brexit, arguing about whether or not Jeremy Corbyn called Theresa May “stupid woman”, or said “stupid Tories” or “stupid people” seems to hit the spot.
* deep sigh *
It’s so much more courteous down the corridor in the House of Lords…
And the Press Team are still hard at work…
- Tory immigration plans would bring chaos, not control
- Corbyn must apologise for PMQs remarks
- Cable: EU planning reinforces PM must rule out no-deal
Tory immigration plans would bring chaos, not control
Responding to the Government’s immigration white paper, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Ed Davey said:
These Tory immigration plans would bring chaos, not control. Does anyone really believe that the Home Office can cope with a massive new temporary worker scheme? It already can’t cope with managing non-EU migration.
Every year, tens of thousands of employers would for the first time have to apply for visas – with all the costs, bureaucracy and delay the Home Office specialises in.
Britain’s immigration system isn’t broken because of the EU, it’s broken because Home Secretaries like Theresa May pandered to populism and failed to do their day job.
The Liberal Democrats demand better. We recognise the huge benefits of immigration and would fix the system so it works for everyone, not least by scrapping the Conservatives’ shameful hostile environment.
Corbyn must apologise for PMQs remarks
Responding to reports that in Prime Minister’s Questions the Leader of the Labour Party called the Prime Minister a “stupid woman”, Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse said:
If the allegations are true, it is frankly disgraceful behaviour by Jeremy Corbyn. This is unacceptable from anyone, let alone the leader of a political party.
Parliament must be held to the highest standards. Sexism in any work place is not acceptable and it is time Jeremy Corbyn left the 1980s behind.
Young women from up and down the country will have watched this exchange today and it is no surprise so many of them are put off participating in politics. If the allegations are true, Jeremy Corbyn must apologise.
Cable: EU planning reinforces PM must rule out no-deal
Responding to the European Commission’s plans for a no-deal Brexit, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Vince Cable said:
The European Commission should not be playing the same game of chicken as the UK Government.
We cannot allow British citizens in Europe to lose their right to live and work in the EU. Nor can we allow the damage that a no-deal Brexit would inflict on the UK economy and the EU alike.
It doesn’t need to be this way. I disagree greatly with the Prime Minister on a range of issues, but surely she would not allow the country to fall off the cliff with a no-deal Brexit? It is in the power of the Government to stop it happening.
The people deserve the option to say no to this mess and no to Theresa May’s discredited deal. That is why the Liberal Democrats are fighting for a People’s Vote, including the option to remain in the EU.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
John Stoa Original Art exhibition #dundeewestend
The Muesli Assassins
Nick Cook: England's forgotten spinner of the Eighties
Richard
Tristan Ward
Cllr Gordon Lishman
One Comment
I am puzzled by Vince Cable’s press release on the EU Commission’s risk management of the UK crashing out of the EU without any agreements. Would he prefer no preparation? Doubtless the EU Commission do have plans and that the planners have looked at what is available within the legal framework.
I am sure whatever is available would be very limited and not up for discussion. I have seen for example that there might be an arrangement to allow UK planes to fly to and from EU destinations, but not between EU destinations. Frankly, I am sceptical because outside the CJEU, I cannot see what the legal framework would be within which this could take place. Issues such as payments, safety and environmental standards and insurance demand a clear framework.
On Corbyn, at least this is one topic where we can be quite happily ignored; it is not even that obvious that what he might have said is sexist, unless we assume ‘woman’ to be a derogatory term (which is possible in some contexts). Although Corbyn may invite contempt, May’s blustering, too obviously rehearsed, fake stand up routine was in the circumstances a very trivial response and demeaning to the parliament. It is all part of a cynical strategy of avoiding hard questions (hardly from Corbyn though) and wasting time.