Skip to main content

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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