Skip to main content

Allow Boris to compromise but let's vote

Boris it appears is about to compromise on the backstop to do a deal on Brexit.  Such a compromise is good and should be encouraged because leaving the EU without a deal would be catastrophic, and, despite his rhetoric, Boris Johnson knows that to be so.  But an agreement must be put back to the people to decide.

Accounts running in the press today suggest he is willing to reproduce Mrs May's former compromise on a Northern Ireland customs union with the EU.

This is a deal Brexiteers, such as Rees Mogg,  described as

“completely cretinous, impractical, bureaucratic and a betrayal of common sense.”

But let's not stop Boris compromising.  It is far better for the country that a deal is done.  But such an agreement must be put back to the people.

A deal put forward by those in government who once described it as cretinous, impractical, bureaucratic and a betrayal of common sense needs to be approved by the people.

Is it really what people thought would happen when they voted to Leave in 2016?

Just a few months ago Boris Johnson and the  Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees Mogg said it was not.

It is also becoming clear that the details of the proposal will need time to pin down.  Rushing through a deal simply to hit the 31st October deadline would be foolish.

Both parliament and the British people need time to scrutinise the detail of any deal.

Parliament must insist that the Brexit deadline now be extended to give sufficient time for the deal to be adequately negotiated and for that deal to be put to a fresh referendum.





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