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

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