Skip to main content

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.

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