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

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