Skip to main content

Tory failure on Brexit

The Tories failed to deliver Brexit.  They will point to others as the cause of that failure, but it was their divisions and their lack of vision that made it impossible.   Their bluster cannot hide that truth.  Two prime ministers with two failed deals.

It need not have been like this.  The Tories could have reached out to the opposition benches in parliament and delivered Brexit.   Yes, it would have involved compromise,  but it would have fulfilled the pledged to respect the referendum result.

No doubt the Tories will enter the general election saying they are the only party that can deliver Brexit.  Why would voters believe them?

The do or die tactics of Boris Johnson have failed to deliver.   He would not and could not have his withdrawal agreement scrutinised.   Instead, he has delayed Brexit, and there is no guarantee that the result of the general election will deliver it either.  

First, Mrs May tried to use Brexit for party advantage by calling an election in 2016.  She lost the Tory majority.

Then she failed to compromise with Labour and other parties to get Brexit done with some form of customs arrangement with the EU.   She had no idea what she wanted and no vision for the future.

It was Tory rebels who brought her down.  It was Tory rebels who prevented her from getting her deal through parliament.  She fell, to be replaced by Blustering Boris.

The number of Tory MPs who had the whip removed, many former members of the cabinet, are a testament to why Boris also failed.  

The Tory party have failed the country and failed on Brexit.  It is time for a fundamental rethink.

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As