Skip to main content

Brexit's ghostly presence

It is still said by many that this UK general election is about Brexit.  In many ways it is, and no doubt Brexit, remain or leave, will influence voters.  But it hardly features in the debate at a national level.

So far, Boris Johnson is not attempting to make a case for his 'deal', or for a possible no-deal exit.  On the contrary, he has been busy trying to cover up the Tories appalling record in government: failure on the environment, failure on pensions, failure on social care, failing children's services, and a crisis in the NHS and in our schools.

Some might argue that such matters are of less concern if the economy was doing well after a decade of austerity, but it isn't.  The Tories have failed on the economy and, if anything, are now abandoning caution to the wind in an attempt to woo voters.

"Brexit haunts the election like a ghost"

One thing is missing is Brexit.  It haunts the election like a ghost, but few if any are discussing the details of it.   Remain and Leave alike get cross over tactical voting.  They exist in their ever deeper trenches lobbing grenades about who is best situated to win this or that seat.

Boris appears to spend more time with infants in primary schools and other such set-pieces than he does spelling out his position on Brexit.   When he tried to make a case, he got it wrong.  He appeared not to understand the consequences of his own deal and the border with Ireland.

The entrenched position of Remain and Leave seem at the moment to be benefitting Boris Johnso's chances.  The polls suggest a big majority in the House of Commons.   Leave has coalesced around the Tories now that the Brexit Party have all but left the scene.  Nigel Farage snipes from the sidelines, but that is where he is - sidelined.

Meanwhile, the 'remain parties' snap at Labour's Achille's tendon.   They appear more concerned with that than putting the case against the Tories.

Corbyn still gets criticised for not having a clear position.  This is silly.  His position has been clear since 2016, which is that there should be a negotiated customs union.  What has changed is that this will be put to the people in a second referendum.   That is clear enough.  It is also reasonable and might help heal the country.

"Corbyn's position is clear: a deal with a customs union and a people's vote to decide."

What will not heal the country is the entrenched 'do or die' position of the Liberal Democrats.  it becomes difficult to know whether they want a people's vote or not.  I imagine not - as their position is 'clear', to revoke article 50.   It is a position that ignores the many millions who voted to leave the European Union.   Under the LibDems, they would simply be told that we are staying and that is that.

The LibDems can adopt such a cavalier and irresponsible position because they won't form a government.   Their mission is to increase their numbers of MPs.   This is why they have leaflets telling untruths to voters in various constituencies with made up polling figures to suggest they are best positioned to win against the incumbent Tory.   It is what it is - lies.  It is deceitful, and it is more likely to end up with a Boris Johnson Brexit than not.  So it is a completely disingenuous campaign.

So, we have Boris avoiding talking about his deal and Jo Swinson being deceitful.  The only party clearly offering a people's vote is led by Jeremy Corbyn, and if you want a people's vote that is who you should support.

Then we might be in a position to have a real election about Brexit: a referendum where any deal for leaving can be put to the scrutiny and test of the people.

Let the people decide.






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

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

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