Leave voters are entitled to be angry

Those who voted Leave in the EU referendum are entitled to be angry. They have been repeatedly misled. But their anger is directed at the wrong side. They should be mad with Leave politicians who have either used Brexit for their own political advantage, as with Boris Johnson or with those who told them Brexit would be smooth: "Brexit means Brexit".

Nobody discussed the need for a deal with the EU during the referendum. Yet, as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, an agreement is necessary. It is needed for a variety of reasons, not least to resolve the problem of the border with The Republic of Ireland and the Good Friday agreement.

A deal is necessary to protect supply lines for businesses and for jobs. It is essential to ensure vital cross border collaborations on security and other issues.

Above all, Leave voters should be angry with politicians who asked them to vote but made no preparations for the likelihood that they would vote to Leave. That, in a nutshell, is why we are in this mess.

We have been badly let down by those who tried to resolve the problems of the Tory party by an ill-considered referendum.

Listening to the Attorney General in parliament today and his bombastic performance, he repeatedly used three words "the truth is." Now, why should that matter? It matters because "the truth" isn't. The truth has been secreted away, which is why the Prime Minister has been found with his proverbial pants down over prorogation of Parliament. He tried to circumvent the sovereignty of Parliament, and he owes us all an apology, and not least the Leave voters he has repeatedly misled.

The truth has been missing from the outset of this sorry saga of Brexit. The only thing one can say about it is that the voters have been misled, misled and misled again. They were misled in the referendum, deceived in the general election, and they are being misled now.

Leave voters should not vent their anger at those who want to remain, or indeed those who wish to leave with a sensible deal. They should vent their anger at those who use voter anger to their own political ends and risk breaking our constitution. Those who stoke up hatred. Those who would seek to undermine our judiciary and our parliament.

Leave voters should be angry with Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

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

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