Skip to main content

Will no-deal diminish Britain's standing in the world?

A group of ex-British ambassadors have warned Boris Johnson that a no-deal Brexit will diminish Britain's influence and standing in the world. 

Of course, it would, just as it was declining rapidly before we joined the EU. The UK will become tied to the apron strings of the USA, just as we now seek to curry favour with Trump for a trade deal.  Boris Johnson pleads with Trump to 'be nice'. 




Before joining the European Union, Britain was the 'sick man of Europe', with a declining economy and influence in the world.  Do we forget the endless balance of payments problems and sterling crises?  Do we forget running to the IMF for bailouts?  

We have played a more significant role as a member of the EU than we would have been able to do outside it.  This is why Britain is now still a member of the G7.  The EU has enabled the UK to punch above its weight.  Instead leaving the EU we should be looking for ways to make that weight count on environmental issues and global trade.  We need to lead Europe not retreat from it.  

This does not make the EU perfect. It isn't. But I remain unpersuaded by the reasons and motive for leaving.  Leaving is based on a vague promise of good things to come if we are 'free' from the 'shackles' of the European Union.  

If I could be persuaded that we would have a greater impact on environmental issues, on world peace, and on sustainability, freedom, justice, eradicating poverty, then I would support leaving the EU. But I see no such arguments. I see a distorted history, bigotry, nationalistic rhetoric, the potential break-up of the United Kingdom, and dangerous jingoistic nonsense.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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