Skip to main content

Boris is playing games

There are no credible proposals, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson is playing games.  So much so that his statement to Parliament today had scant regard for the legal text of the plans he submitted. According to the Irish Prime Minister, they deviated significantly. 

The Prime Minister says the government is committed to finding solutions "compatible" with the Good Friday Agreement.   The Peace process he says is the "fundamental basis for governance in Northern Ireland and protecting it is the highest priority for all."

Yet, Johnson's proposals would run a coach and horses through the heart of the Good Friday Peace process. 

He says there will be "no hard border" with the Republic of Ireland. But this is predicated on electronic customs checks, which in turn depend on businesses working within the law.

I am not convinced that bootleggers will easily be found at their point of destination and checked, electronically or otherwise. 

The Border between Sweden and Norway is an example of how difficult creating a frictionless border can be. 

A frictionless border depends heavily on maintaining standard regulations on trade. Any deviation creates an opportunity for smugglers, and bootleggers exploit differences in policy.  That is what happens at the border between Norway and Sweden, and it is why border checks are necessary. 

Freedom to write our own rules is what attracted many to vote for Brexit. But Norway shows this also creates a business opportunity for criminals. 

Without border checks, the Irish border will become leaky, and there would be a flood of illicit goods crossing the border.  

Boris Johnson told the House of Commons there would be no border checks. That merely is being economical with the truth.   The checks will happen somewhere...but...not at the border. 

We can only conclude that Boris Johnson's proposals are not offered as a serious attempt to reach an agreement. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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,