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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …