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.
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