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

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