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

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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha