Skip to main content

Brexit and the bogeyman

So, here we are, still. No further forward and time running out. Boris has met Merkel and that French president bloke, Macron (a very tasty name, like a macaroon). Boris went firmly stating that they (THEY) 'drop the backstop', to which they deftly replied: "you come up with a solution to the problem and we will drop the backstop!" Boris accepted the challenge to do so in 30 days. It sounds almost biblical. In 30 days he shall make heaven on earth! 



What this demonstrates is that Boris doesn't have a solution to the backstop problem, any more than did Mrs May. If he had such a solution he would have presented it.

He also acknowledges that there is a problem. The backstop wasn't invented to spite us. It was invented (if that is the right term) because of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. Most of us think peace in Northern Ireland is important and the kind of Brexit we have is important. This is why we need a deal. This is why Boris is trying to get one...or not as the case may be. Will he, won't he? Let's call the whole thing off!

Some cynics believe he is simply trying to pass the blame for no-deal to the EU. "It was all his fault, Miss. He punched me first!" That kind of tactic. This is the EU as a bogeyman story.

Comments

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

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
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more