Skip to main content

Johnson's forked tongue

If you listen to Boris Johnson speaking in the Republic of Ireland today you would think he was doing everything to avoid the 'failure' of a no-deal Brexit.   The UK Prime Minister now says a no-deal Brexit would be

 "a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible."


Yet, he still panders to the 'no-deal' lobby back home.  Those who always say 'leave means leave' or that they voted for no-deal.

Boris Johnson's position is disingenuous.  He has presented no new ideas for a deal, yet he says 'a deal can be found'.

Boris is deceiving the British people, which is why today he is proroguing parliament so he cannot be found out.

The 'failure of statecraft' has already been made.  It is made in the failure to address the very real issues arising from Brexit and our relationship with the EU moving forward.   It follows from the consequences of no-deal, with delays at ports leading to the insecurity of food supplies and medicines.   Boris Johnson knows the consequences of a no-deal Brexit because he has seen the assessments.  They are made in good faith by sector representatives.

The failure of statecraft is made in the cavalier brinkmanship the Prime Minister has adopted.  He has some faith that the EU will bow to his will.   The truth is very different.  The problems are real, and Boris has no answer for them.

Johnson speaks to the nation with a forked tongue.  He leads the hard Brexiters on in the quest for a 'clean break', no-deal exit from the EU.  Yet, he knows a deal is needed.  It is needed to deal with the Irish border problem.  It is needed for our continued trade with the EU.

This border problem is not invented.  It is key to the Good Friday agreement and the peace process.  The UK has a treaty with the Republic of Ireland to keep free movement across the border.  Boris Johnson knows this.

The failure of statecraft is Boris Johnson.

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 ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As