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.

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 …