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

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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,