Skip to main content

Put it back to the People

The people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly for their current relationship and cross border cooperation.  It was a historic political settlement made in good faith by the UK and Irish governments with the people of Northern Ireland.  That good faith is about to be broken.

Boris Johnson is proposing to tear up the agreement, either with his proposed 'deal' or with a no-deal Brexit.  He would do so regardless of warnings from across the political divide and from business and community leaders,  as well as the police and security services.

The Good Friday Agreement is in jeopardy.

There is a great deal of talk about 'honouring the referendum'.   But which referendum?  Do the people of Northern Ireland not matter?

Northern Ireland voted 71% for the Good Friday agreement, and they also voted to remain in the EU.  Their will and their future are now being sacrificed to keep Boris Johnson in Number 10.  Boris is willing to take Britain blindly into a no-deal Brexit without heed of the consequences, and particularly for the most impoverished families.

We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Our parliament is supposed to represent all our nations.   The votes of one nation should not trump those of the others.  We need a new political settlement.

Our nations fought together for justice and freedom against Nazi Germany.  Our countries have a long history, and we have prospered together.  We wave our flags with pride, but also that pride isn't merely symbolic.  It is pride in our parliamentary system, our democratic values.

Given that the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly for the peace process and the Good Friday agreement,  Johnson's proposed deal should be put back to the people.

Article 50 should be extended to allow any deal or 'no-deal' to be put back to the people.  Northern Ireland must not be sacrificed for the political ambitions of a bunch of politicians.









Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more