Saturday, 11 January 2020

Tory true colours confirmed


The Governent's Withdrawal Bill, which both Mrs May and Mr Johnson in their turns found so difficult to get through the previous Commons, has now passed the present one and is in the hand of the Lords.

There are at least two significant omissions in the present Bill,   and one serious distortion in an official government statement.

Before the election the government, including Johnson's government,  had accepted  a clause,  known as the Dubbs Amendment, which would allow unaccompanied refugee children stranded in the remaining 27 to join their families in the UK.  This has now  been withdrawn.  

Given our reasonably honourable historical  reputation toward refugees (Dubbs himself was welcomed as a Kindertransport guest) just what sort of a message does this send out to the rest of the so-called civilised world?  

Years ago Mrs May warned that the Tories were in danger of becoming "the nasty party."  This heartless, and profoundly inhuman  approach by the party that used to claim to be in favour of "the family" confirms there is no change in direction.

Johnson's government has also voted down an amendment which would have required them to negotiate for continued membership for UK students and apprentices of the EU's Erasmus+ scheme.  This gives financial and practical support to largely young people (though older ones can be included, as I discovered to my benefit) to enable them to explore the EU and its cultures.   This, they say, "will only happen if it is in our interest to do so."  How could it not be?  (Or maybe parents who can afford to send their kids to Eton don't really need it, and the rest don't matter.)

Finally, an official  government spokesperson has warned the Lords not to mess about with the Bill as "The country did deliver a very clear message that they want Brexit to be resolved."

The "country" did no such thing.  

Of the total electorate 53% voted for parties which were either opposed to Brexit or believed it should be put to a further referendum.  Only 47% voted for parties  in favour of "getting Brexit done."  Our primitive   electoral system has distorted this minority into a Commons majority of 80 and Johnson and his clique will crow that their actions represent the "will of the people."  

By continually pointing out this fallacy  we shall be jeered at as "poor losers."  True, in our inability to form a workable coalition of remainders to match the cunning Tory- Brexit party stitch-up we lacked the political flexibility to put our act togethe.

 But leaving the EU is by no means the will of the people, and will become less and less so as younger people move into the electorate.

By clever political manoeuvring this small clique of Brexiteers, "the bastards" as John Major called them, has seized control of the machinery of movement.  It is in fact a "coup d'etat."  The majority, we  "Remainers," must not just sit back and let them trash our national reputation and our children's futures.

3 comments:

  1. This, they say, "will only happen if it is in our interest to do so." How could it not be?

    It depends on the price, of course. If we got it for free then it would obviously be in our interests; if the EU demanded we pay a billion pounds for every UK student enrolled in the scheme it wouldn't be; somewhere in the middle there's the tipping-point between where the costs outweigh the benefits and where the benefits outweigh the costs, and that's what this is all about. It's what our relationship with the EU and its predecessor organisations has always been about (so we joined when the benefits to us outweighed the costs, and left when the costs, of reduced sovereignty as the EEC morphed into the EU, etc, outweighed the economic benefits).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you think that, if the costs of membership of Erasmus+ are greater than the benefits as calculated, the UK will offer am equivalent but less costly scheme for the UK' students and apprentices? I doubt if many of us will be holding our breath. And will the EU 27 each fund similar individual schemes to encourage their students and apprentices to study and work in the UK?

      Delete
    2. So you think that, if the costs of membership of Erasmus+ are greater than the benefits as calculated, the UK will offer am equivalent but less costly scheme for the UK' students and apprentices?

      I don't know the details of the Erasmus scheme so I don't know what 'similar' would mean so… maybe? Maybe not?

      I doubt if many of us will be holding our breath. And will the EU 27 each fund similar individual schemes to encourage their students and apprentices to study and work in the UK?

      I don't know. Do they fund individual schemes to encourage their students and apprentices to study and work in the USA, Canada, India, China, etc? If not why not? Would that not be beneficial? Why on Earth should an international academic exchange scheme be linked to the EU, anyway? Should it not be open to any country that wants to participate, whether they are in the EU or not?

      Delete