Skip to main content

No Brexit Sense

I really don't understand why we didn't approach Brexit sensibly. There was a mad rush to invoke article 50 and set the process in motion. It was a signal to voters that the result of the referendum would be 'honoured', and with a lot of macho grandstanding. But no planning for Brexit had been made. The voters gave an answer that wasn't anticipated.



Complex trade deals take ten or more years in the making. They are also politically entangled. Brexit is a more complex trade deal because it involves disentangling our institutional arrangements, not just trade but our politics. So much of our security depends on cooperation with European institutions we helped establish, and many of these collaborations we would wish to continue.

This is why treating the EU as an 'enemy' in the negotiations has been so foolish. They are our partners. 

We should have considered that any transition would be politically difficult. Instead of making the transition 'as short as possible' we needed a long transition to protect businesses and jobs. A customs union and alignment with the single market would have been a sensible approach.

Of course, it would mean we would continue to accept regulations made in Brussels, but as a transitional arrangement, it would have solved the problem of the border in Northern Ireland and allowed us to negotiate our future trading relationship with the EU. 

It would also have given time for reflection, for debate and time to heal divisions.  Instead, the Leave and Remain camps have entrenched in all-out war - it is now no-deal or remains.  This has divided the country and runs the risk of blindly jumping ill-prepared from the cliff edge. 

Now we face leaving with no-deal. No arrangements for the future. You cannot unravel 40 years of political and economic cooperation in three years. Those politicians who say otherwise are not being honest with us.
Labels:

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

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...
2 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