The Morality of Compromise

Moral Maze

BBC

Religion & Spirituality, Society & Culture

4.5 • 609 Ratings

🗓️ 15 November 2018

⏱️ 43 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The Prime Minister’s Brexit plan is now on the table, but the table is looking very wobbly. We learned this week that the Chequers proposal, backed by cabinet ministers in July, was not so much a lollipop as a spoonful of castor oil, an “undesirable compromise” to be grudgingly accepted rather than greeted with enthusiasm. When the deal goes to Parliament for approval, will MPs and peers have a moral duty to support Theresa May's compromise, however unsatisfactory they believe it to be? Some will say ‘No, it’s a matter of moral principle to reject it,’ either because it’s not what the country voted for or because it’s not in the nation’s interests, or both. Others will accept that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be very different from the idea; it’s not a yes-no question any more, it’s a deck of political and economic priorities being shuffled and dealt round a crowded poker table. If ever there was a time to play the odds and cut our losses, they insist that this is it. Compromise can be a dirty word, especially where moral conviction is involved. To concede any ground in a deal is to risk being accused of weakness or lack of principle. Conversely, those who refuse to give ground can be seen as impractical or downright mulish. In our politics, our business deals and our personal relationships, how should we balance flexibility and integrity?

Producer: Dan Tierney

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	You're listening to a programme from BBC Radio 4.
0:03.4	Good evening. It was Otto von Bismarck, arguably the architect of the modern Europe we're trying to leave,
0:08.8	who said that politics was not just the art of the possible, but the search for the next best.
0:14.7	Theresa May's Brexit withdrawal deal, the cause of such sound and fury this week,
0:19.2	is necessarily a compromise,
0:21.2	as all negotiation, short of unconditional surrender, are bound to be.
0:25.4	To many of those who think the deal is not what was voted for,
0:28.3	or not in the nation's interests, or both, it's a moral duty to reject it.
0:32.9	Concession is not just weakness, but lack of principle.
0:35.8	For others, a compromise has its own moral value,
0:38.9	as well as delivering the best or, at any rate, least unsatisfactory result
0:43.2	in these circumstances in the long run.
0:47.0	Brexit is many things, a high-stakes poker game
0:49.5	with a crowded table and a deck of political and economic priorities.
0:53.8	But this week, it's also
0:55.0	become an ethical argument about the morality of compromise. Not just Brexit, beyond politics
1:01.9	even. How do we balance flexibility and integrity? That's our moral maze tonight. The panel,
1:06.7	Claire Fox from the Academy of Ideas, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo,
1:11.8	Shiv Malik, co-founder of the Intergenerational Foundation, and the historian Tim Stanley,
1:16.9	Michael Portillo, quite an evening. Do you see a contradiction between flexibility and integrity?
1:25.6	Compromise is the daily coinage of politics, but compromise takes its toll on principle and it whittles away trust in politicians.
1:35.8	I mean, compromise is a virtue until it's seen as a vice.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of BBC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.