Skip to main content

Deal or no Deal? That is the question.

The problem with Boris Johnson's strategy on Brexit is that he has closed his options.  His government have devoted so much attention convincing Brexit supporters that Britain would do great if it left the EU without a deal, that it is now difficult for him to justify a deal.  Why bother with an agreement if 'no-deal' is such a good proposition?

The answer, of course, is that a deal is necessary, and even if the UK left without one, a trade deal with the EU would have to be negotiated.  Just as the UK would need a trade deal with the USA, so also it would require an agreement with the EU.

So, none of this political mess is really about a deal or no deal.  A future trading arrangement with the EU will take time to agree.  That is so for all trade deals.  They are years in the making.

The argument, now, is about the "backstop"; the arrangement that would kick in if a trading arrangement isn't forthcoming.  The backstop is necessary to keep the border with Ireland open.

This is not a problem invented by the EU to keep the UK in the EU.  An open border is a commitment made in a Treaty with Ireland and is an essential part of the Good Friday peace agreement. It allows free movement across the border.

The primary concern is that it hands control to the EU to determine whether or not the backstop remains in place.  It 'traps' the UK in a position where it has to accept EU regulations but with no say in what those rules are.  It is a tricky problem.

The EU has passed the ball to the UK government to come up with a workable alternative to the backstop - something that would keep the border open.  Boris Johnson accepted the challenge to come up with an alternative. But as far as can be seen, little or nothing has been put on the table.

This does not mean a deal is not possible before the 31st October deadline.  Unless the government has taken leave of its senses, some kind of fudge is still a possibility.   Boris will dress it up to look good and tell the country he has fulfilled the wishes of voters and delivered Brexit.

Who knows? This might be a winning strategy, but for the dog barking at the door.  Nigel Farage has made it clear that he would campaign against such a deal -  and that might be enough to tip the balance against Johnson winning.

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