Corbyn's sensible position on a Brexit deal?

Jeremy Corbyn's position on a Brexit deal is a sensible one, whether or not people agree with it. But no doubt it will be criticised from all sides. Corbyn is set to frustrate those who wish for an entrenched position on either side of the fence.

They want it all to be simple. Either you are in or out. Corbyn now asks an interesting question: shouldn't we wait and see what deal can really be achieved with proper negotiation? He also dares to suppose that, with the right kind of arrangement with the EU, we "could be" better off out. Note that he doesn't say we would be. He simply thinks we should consider it. After all, if we could get a "good" deal, it might make it possible to heal a divided country and rescue the United Kingdom from a constitutional crisis.

Today on BBCs Marr show he teased out the distinction between those who support the EU as a matter of principle and those who want to remain but do not like the move to an 'ever closer union'.

The problem is Brexit has been considered as a binary issue, yet we have three divides on Brexit. First whether to be in or out, but we also the more important division about what we are in it for and what role we wish to play in Europe.

There are many who wish to remain in the EU but who are concerned about the ever-closer integration. I am one of them. Political integration is not the answer to everything.

This does not mean I don't support the EU on principle. I do. It is vital that European countries working together to foster democracy, civil rights and environmental protection. But this is not necessarily best achieved by creating an unwieldy 'United States of Europe'. People need to feel empowered in relation to the issues that affect them.

This is why 'take back control' was such a powerful slogan in the EU referendum. The EU became the whipping boy for all the problems in the United Kingdom, and Brexit a miraculous cure. It was a simple message, we will be better off "free" from the "shackles" of Brussels. Get us out at all cost.

No amount of analysis of that cost will change that message. Food shortages, medicine shortages, business closures, unemployment, on and on the list goes...but to no effect. In the end, such statistics have nothing to do with the central issue of British "sovereignty."

Would "hard-remainers" accept any kind of deal? Only, perhaps, when faced with no-deal. But in reality, they never wanted any kind of deal. They want to remain, just as much as "hard-leavers" want to leave.

So Corbyn is probably on a hiding to nothing, even as he presents perhaps the most honest answer to the problem, which is to see what kind of deal we can get, and then let the people decide.

If Labour now adopts a simplistic remain at all costs position, along with the Liberal Democrats, then we are left with a deepening rift. A general election could then produce another hung parliament but with the Tories elected on what they consider a mandate to take the UK out deal or no-deal. That is a recipe for disaster.

My heart is in remain. Currently, in a people's vote, I would vote remain. After the referendum result, all the main parties said they accepted the result but that we should leave with a deal. Abandoning that position is not good for our democracy, and nor would it with certainty produce the result remain would wish for. Perhaps we should give deal a chance.

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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery. Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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

The Thin End

Search This Blog