End the righteous indignation on Brexit.

Given the country is equally divided, and parliament is supposed to be a representative body, then it is no surprise that parliament also is divided on Brexit.

We are told that this is an issue that is above party. Indeed it is, and that is why each of the major political parties is also divided on the issues.

Yet, party leaders are denounced for not being 'decisive'.

What kind of Brexit?

The country is still in the dark about the effects Brexit will have on the economy, and voters appear deaf to the pleas from those sectors most affected. It is as if it doesn't matter.

The decision to leave has been taken with little or no heed of the consequences. The people have spoken, and it is expected that those with concerns should 'shut up' and accept the 'democratic will' of the people. This has stifled discussion, and it has created confusion and frustration and has led to the current shambles in parliament.

We are told it would be wrong to question the judgment of voters. It is used as a trump card to stifle real debate and genuine consideration of the consequences.

Yet, if we are to get a sensible Brexit, we need to take care of the issues.

One truth we now know. 'Brexit' can mean a number of outcomes with different impacts on the economy and on politics. This is what the argument is about. Hard or soft doesn't really express this. The use of terms like Hard or Soft gives the impression that those wanting the 'softer' outcome are somehow reneging on the referendum vote.

Those who want a hard Brexit believe that a soft Brexit isn't 'real' Brexit because it doesn't bring back control to the UK. Remaining in the single market would mean we would have to adhere to rules made by the EU. But that need not be the case for the central issue of 'control' - the one that most concerned voters - the free movement of people.

Brexit not an ideal

Voters expect our representatives to get the best deal with our European partners. That will require compromise and pragmatism. The outcome will not be ideal because Brexit is not some ideal heaven on earth. Our economy has been aligned to the single market for decades and has benefited substantially from it.

The promised land, if there is one, will take a long time to build after Brexit. It will depend on the kind of deals we can do with the rest of the world for trade, but critically the kind of deal we can do with our big trading partner across the channel. It will depend on what kind of deal we do with the single market.

Yet, far from pragmatism, each side has elevated the issues with 'red lines' - No to this, No to that. By doing so, they rule out the very compromises necessary to move forward for the best outcome. This is not a time for the charge of the light brigade.

For Parliament and British people

If your leaders say that the 'will of the people' is paramount, then why not test that will? Work for the best possible deal, and then put it to Parliament and the British people. For only then will we be sure that it is what people want.

For all this is to be possible, Members of Parliament should be given the freedom to debate and vote free of party whips. The public should be properly informed of the potential consequences of any deal. The current shambles is not the way to get the best outcome. Righteous indignation is getting us nowhere.

Author: Ray Noble

Follow @Ray_Noble1

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'. Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...

The Thin End

Search This Blog