Saturday, 28 May 2016

Remain Unravelled

"And in one tweet - the premise that we must be ruled by the EU in order to collaborate on important matters unravelled before the eyes of the electorate. Lost in the moment, the PM didn't even realise that he had just surgically debunked himself"

Admit it, the Merkel hand thing is starting to look like it's a compulsion issue


Take a look at the following tweet. It's typical of the automated factory churn which we see spewing from the PM's lips. Like some cheap, unremarkable pate oozing out of a dull grey food grade nozzle in a factory in Swindon. It's meaningless trite sentiment which doesn't serve the people - it promotes the status of the PM. Virtue signalling for the elite.

A game of 'context' - the opening move

This kind of nauseating and needless jaw flapping, suspended in the context of the EU referendum, enrages seasoned Leave campaigners because it splashes in the face of common sense. Insultingly, it ascribes the duties associated with responsible national governance to an organisation which despises the notion of the nation state. Without giving ourselves away to the EU none of these matters or issues, all of which we expect a government to carefully manage on our behalf, can be achieved.

It's a revolting notion - that suddenly we have become so enfeebled that we can no longer stand on our own two feet. Instead, we must be cradled in the arms of a larger entity and suckle on its breast as it mothers us in to submission.

Fool me once

Except I've mislead you by taking that tweet right out of context. Let's pull back and take a look again:

He's not talking about the EU (for a change)


You know where this is going? You have to think to yourself for a moment -  why does the original tweet in the context of the G7 matter at all. The answer is that there's a profound kernel of truth embedded in it which, when expounded unravels the PM's repeated assertions about the need for us to remain in the EU.

Time and time again, he and his wilful cohorts have banged the drum shouting that 'terrorism - the migration crisis - trade - anti-corruption - health' are all reliant on the UK handing over competencies and responsibilities to the European Union. Like a bullhorn pressed to your ear, the repeated rasping pronouncements from Remain have reminded us, crowding out reason and common sense in the process, that no issue of substantive importance can have a positive outcome without us first prostrating our nation in front the EU Commission.

Yet Cameron's tweet declares the polar opposite. Canada, Japan and the United States are all G7 nations - and the PM has declared that we can act inter-governmentally with the G7 to 'get things done' on matters which have repeatedly been used in the most incendiary manner during this referendum debate. There's no suggestion here that the USA, Japan and Canada must be brought in to the fold in order to 'get things done'. We accept that we hold no rights over them, yet through mutual trust we will work together for better outcomes.

Fool me twice

At the instinctual level, we all know the immutable truth here.

Dismembering the sovereignty of our nation is not a pre-requisite for collaborative action. In the cold light of day, it's an absurd notion that few would readily accept without the crowding hysteria trumpeted by the elites of the Remain campaign. To suggest we must abandon ourselves in order to progress and overcome the trials of the modern era sounds more like an obscure cultist act than it does a measured step taken in the interests of the people.

These assertions


After a veritable carpet bombing that would have made even the US military blush, you'd think that these assertions would have hit home by now. No opportunity - without the EU offering it to us. No safety - without the EU protecting us. No security - without the EU holding us close to its bosom.

If any of this were true, then it would have penetrated the electorate like red hot shrapnel by now and atomised the spirit of the Leavers. So why, after this prolonged Civil Service backed campaign of 'shock and awe' are there so many people still prepared to leave in spite of such a large number of talking heads telling them to do otherwise?

Because as well as forgetting the primary cause from which they sprang (that of national representation), the majority of politicians have submitted to a group think mentality which is now clearly ignoring a huge political problem which MUST be dealt with and not ignored. Namely:

  1. Half the people in the UK obviously think there's sizeable problem with the EU - so much so that they won't be moved. John Curtice writes here (http://whatukthinks.org/eu/project-fear-success-or-failure/) that Remain have made little or no ground, in spite of the horrendous carnival of doom which they've plagued the airwaves with for the last sixty days.
  2. Therefore, it follows by any conceivable measure that the EU needs reform. Don't just look toward the sizeable discontent in Britain for this. There must be circa 200 million disaffected people across the continent wondering how such a dysfunctional bureaucracy has wrestled control away from their own national governments. To suggest that 'the project' can somehow move forward and carry the people with it without itself being prepared to change is an act of blinkered estrangement.
  3. Yet the EU is not reformable or moveable. Whether it's a Dutch referendum rejecting closer ties with the Ukraine - or David Cameron begging for a small handful of tepid and largely insubstantive declarations, nothing is reformed or yielded unless it goes to serve the furtherance of the EU. Case in point, in order to secure his rather meagre and famished referendum 'reforms' from the EU, Cameron was forced to surrender a veto over further Eurozone integration. This he willingly did, without even first getting the EU to submit to treaty change.
If, as a politician, you ignore these considerable issues and continue along the uncritical path then you are no longer serving your constituents, you're serving your own self interest. Congratulations, you're now in the ruling class of the new aristocracy. Pray there are no French style revolutions in our time.


Saturday, 21 May 2016

The Wealthy Few


"Naturally, when it comes to the most important political decision in your life, you're going to want to hear from Knightley and Cumberbatch in order to get a steer. Personally, although their meaningful and well thought out pro EU narrative has illuminated so many - I'm waiting to hear what The Chuckle Brothers and the Milk Tray man have to say before I finally decide"



The Abbey Road album came out in 1969 - three years before joining the EEC
NB - I half inched that picture from the BBC. As they force me to to pay a license fee tax, surely I'm entitled to pinch a photo of David Cameron re-enacting the famous Abbey Road walk - enjoyed by four of the finest musicians the UK have ever known, in a period before we were signed up to the EEC by Ted Heath. No irony there then.



What are Remain talking about?

Anything but the reforms. That's what Remain are busy focussing on right now. Devoid of content, the reforms have been consigned to the dingy cupboard out the back and are now but a distant echo that bounces back in the meaningless and irritatingly dishonest phrase 'a reformed europe'. You know, that prop wheeled out by the Prime Minister pretending that he advanced the nation's interests forward in the EU after a herculean wrangling session with other member nations; The result of which required no treaty change and left more than just Bernard Jenkin saying 'is that it?'

Instead, every sinew of the Government and civil service appears to have been channelled towards stirring up a scenario where they believe they can kill off the spirit of Brexit by endorsement. Perhaps tiring of falsely attributing every known human right to have its roots in EU legislature, now it's the turn of the rich and famous to tenuously attribute the success of practically everything to the EU. Herded under the stage lights by the Remain campaign, we're presented with a host of 'iconic' stars suggesting to us that, by means that the average person could hardly fathom, somehow being in the EU makes the entertainment industry 'more creative and more imaginative'.


Seeing stars

Not content with enjoying our money at the box office, they like to remind us that plenty of additional money is freshly plucked from the groves in the EU garden and sent their way. Let us ignore for one moment the notion that the EU actually has no money, other than that which we give to it from our own pocket.

Rolling around naked in piles of money must become tiring after a while, hence the sound of the people of the UK agitating to leave the EU must have aroused their instincts and inspired them to put the crowd back in their place. Never mind that many of them live privileged lives that the rest of us could only dream of; that they have second, third and forth homes dotted around the globe; that they're not stuck on a creaking island which is having both sovereignty and democracy slowly boiled away over time.

And this is the weapon that Remain have chosen to wield. Whether it's Keira Knightley trying to pout us in to place under the supranational auspices of the EU, or David Cameron trumpeting bullshit assertions in a costly tax payer funded carnival - they  hurl their thunderous affirmations at us, backed by friends in the media who ensure peak coverage and then vanish in to the shadows when the Leave campaigners turn up for the fight.

Properly defend the EU? Or just virtue signal from afar?

Keira Knightley won't stand and debate the honesty of a project which has, by guile, managed to guzzle competencies from nation states to the point where the national parliamentary clout has become emaciated. Jude Law isn't going to tell us how the EU is going to maintain financial viability without folding the Eurozone in to a proper federal entity. Benedict Cumberbatch isn't going to come forward with a plan to heal the weeping sore that is over 50% youth unemployment in Greece after the troika gouged out the nation's assets in order to save the Euro.

Graduating straight from the university of champagne socialism, none of them will apologise to your children or to mine for putting the narrow interests of their profession before the right of the next generation to hold the law makers to account. And if there's ever been a lesson to be learned from this referendum, it's that money protects money - at any cost.

And David Cameron is no different. Blurting out continual visions of dystopia on Brexit - his absurdities avoid direct cross examination and the confrontation of debate because he says what he likes, the press oblige and then he scurries off to prepare his next scare story. Never letting himself be manoeuvred in to a position of danger. Anyone would think that he's frightened of someone shoving the 'renegotiation' custard pie in his face.

Elementary my dear Watson

Truth be told, it is all a little bit bewildering. What are we, as Leavers, to make of what we're seeing? What would Sherlock deduce from all this?

  • You're seeing a well organised Remain campaign benefiting from a civil service that's spending your money to achieve the PM's goals.
  • You're seeing 0.0001% of the population who probably have a significantly larger proportion of the nations wealth telling you that as well as throwing money at them, the EU is responsible for boosting creativity and imagination. Although the mystery of these processes have baffled scientists for hundreds of years, it's nice to formally know the EU now has competency for our minds as well now.
  • And you're seeing people abuse their status as admired entertainers in order to convince you to forget your principles.
Do they seem such benevolent people now? No?

A remedy for the madness

There is a simple remedy to all this madness. It's context. The reality of the referendum is that you hold as much power in your hands as the rest of them. Forget their red carpet walks and jet set lifestyles for a moment. When it comes to the ballot, that money cannot buy them any more votes than the one you have. The referendum is as much your stage as it is theirs, whether they like it or not.

Thankfully, you can dispel their beguiling charm simply by voting to leave in June. They may need the EU to prop up their faltering sense of imagination, but we certainly do not.

Sunday, 1 May 2016

How do you solve a problem like Korea?

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
" ..  
Attributed to the Nazi Propaganda machine of World War 2.

From: The Sound of Brexit

Throughout the non-tribal histories of human nations, propaganda of one sort or another has been used to coerce and cajole populations. Whatever authority is governing, it seeks out an emotive nerve to jar and then sets about it to provoke a much wanted response. One which suits the aims of the establishment, moving the needle gently in the right direction.

Lies needn't be small and palatable - they can be whoppers, so long as the falsehood is repeated and asserted by enough 'credible' faces for long enough. Eventually, the poison will seep in and overcome any sense left in the intended target.

It's a battle of attrition where the instantiation of the lie as a common 'fact' is more important to those who will benefit from the result than it is to those who have to judge its credibility. The former bombards the latter, using the tools of authority - position and statesmanship to continually assert - crowding thought, rhyme and reason until all mental resistance is sapped away. Eventually as the weak willed give in to the assertion, those that are still left questioning are no longer prepared to stand out from the crowd and argue against the now commonly held position.

There are plenty of falsehoods that have travelled down the referendum river over the last year, yet none so huge as the insidious and repeated notion that sovereignty does not hold the value that you think it does. If propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at manipulating views and perceptions then we're seeing a classic example of it in motion.

As a fundamental pillar of the Leave argument, it was always going to be a challenge for the Remain campaign to try and tackle, yet they have chosen to fight, using their biggest hitters and a wave of disinformation that could sink a cruise-liner. The days of the honest debate on this matter are over and those of us on the Leave side find ourselves not just fighting for the democratic future of our country - but to liberate the moral compass at the helm of our democratic institutions in order to save us from being dashed on the spiny rocks of an Orwellian nightmare.

Whereas a lot is up for debate in this referendum, the one certainty that the Leave campaign have is that if we walk away from the EU, we would regain our true sovereignty and restore levels of control and accountability that the nations outside of the EU still enjoy. It is the kernel at the heart of our campaign - a truth so unquestionable that nobody would think that the point would need to be defended.

Yet with brazen audacity, the Remain campaign has chosen to attack the very notion of sovereignty by redefining both its meaning and its values as a way to pull the rug from underneath the opposition.

The Assertion

Amazingly, for a man who has a first class Honours BA degree in politics, David Cameron allowed himself some leeway regarding the definition of sovereignty back in February of this year, where a fawning Andrew Marr let him freely suggest that when leaving the EU "You have an illusion of sovereignty but you don't have power".

Anyone who has observed this man campaign for any length of time can spot the 'tells' that differentiate between a policy he honestly believes in and a well rehearsed, strategic lie. This was one of those transparent moments.

What was a simple matter of national governance without interference from a greater authority, suddenly became a very different issue. Cameron questioned whether our sovereignty would be 'real' and then muddied the waters further by conflating sovereignty with power. If you can stomach a grown man attempting to deliver a complete reversal of logic whilst keeping a straight face in front of camera - it's still available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624753

This acted as a springboard for the Remain campaign to challenge sovereignty with 'pooled sovereignty' - that by throwing our chips on to the table with all the other nations, somehow it gives us greater oomph. That's how things are done now - you've got to be in it, to win it etc etc.

Yet Remain decided that the 'pooled sovereignty' claim was not enough on its own. John Major, who no doubt felt snubbed at being upstaged by the IDS resignation last time he attempted to intervene in the referendum (Marr Show appearance cancelled), stepped forward to suggest something quite bizarre. In an interview with the BBC, he said "If you want undiluted sovereignty in the modern age, when everybody is interconnected, then go to North Korea because that is where you will get it."

Amazingly, he repeated the statement in the same interview saying  "... in the modern world, the modern world of interconnectivity, the modern world with the economy that now exists, you have to share sovereignty or you find yourself isolated and weaker."

Interestingly, Chuka Umunna used very similar words just three days earlier in the Spectator Brexit debate in the London Palladium: "As for sovereignty, if you took the Leave campaigners argument, the most sovereign nation in the world would probably be North Korea – because they don’t work with anyone."

Desperate Images

When we think of North Korea, we imagine a dilapidated Communist anachronism, filled with grey concrete infrastructure and a half height, malnourished population so oppressed by the state that wiping your arse in the wrong manner would probably mean life in the gulag. This? This is the picture that Remain are trying to paint of the alternative? Think also about the repeated use by Major of the notion of 'interconnectivity'. The irony. The former PM is suggesting that the modern thing to do is to align our nation with 27 others on the basis of our geo-locality (in the age of the internet) - allowing a 1950's concept of bureaucratic federalism to assume our governance right at the moment when global bodies like the WTO and UNECE are blossoming.

Here is a man who is so out of touch with the world that he belongs out in the Kuiper belt.

As we appear to be lacking a manual in 'voluntary pooling of sovereignty', we're left with some questions.

  • If pooling sovereignty is so good, why are no other countries outside the EU following such a program?
  • How much sovereignty is it right to pool and for how long?
  • What checks and balances are put in place?
  • How do we reverse that pooling with minimal disruption to our country?
  • Surely for a nation to pool resources or competencies that it allegedly still owns, it would only be done where there is mutual benefit? Hence we could withdraw or veto where it is not?

The Dead Pool

Pooling sovereignty or surrendering it? There is a difference. Naturally, you're left wondering - how can you pool something which you no longer own? It's a non sequitur. Instead, you give it up and someone else pools it because they now own the rights and competencies in question. It's often put that pooling sovereignty is a sacrifice worth paying to get things done in the modern world, yet this is a bit like chumming up your own legs and pouring the chunky mess in to the South African sea, just because you want to get on with the Great Whites of this world. You lose yourself in the process.


Why Sovereignty Matters ...

.. Is the wrong question. Sovereignty isn't something that should need to be justified. It's a natural state for most countries all around the world. The question should be - why do we need to give it up? Were we the aggressors in the last two world wars? Why can we not collaborate bilaterally on an intergovernmental basis instead? Surely it can't be that bad, after all - David Cameron had to resort to intergovernmental arrangements during his now much exposed EU non-renegotiation. The deal that's not worth the paper it's written on is locked in a UN safe rather than having gone through the arduous and cumbersome process of EU treaty change. That in itself should speak volumes.

Summary

What does this gross manipulation of truth and perception say about the character of the people prepared to peddle the propaganda? Do we really want to live in a UK where the kind of illiberal nonsense we've witnessed can be dished out by an elite political class without deafening repudiation or derision?

A referendum should be a hallowed moment in any democratic history. It's where the government step back over a matter of grave importance and the people are allowed to have their say - directly. As part of this principal right, the people should be free to chose, without being subjected to an Orwellian mental siege.

Yet this blatant corruption of meaning is a sign of a rotten institutional authority, determined to warp perception in order to get what it wants at all costs. Never mind the people's right to assess the facts - to analyse and synthesise a truth of their own. Through techniques known best by dictatorships around the world both old and new, Prime Ministers past and present tell the lie - that black is white, that up is down and that sovereignty is not of use until it's been given away.

So when we raise the spectre of North Korea, with its half starved citizens filling their empty bellies with handfuls of grass and its concentration camps that consign the helpless to a fate worse than death - it leaves us with our final question.

Which approach would the Kim Jong's of this world favour the most? A vision of a country where the people of a nation were able to directly elect and hold to account those people that made the laws of the land? Or a nation mesmerised and coaxed in to submission by 'big lie' techniques previously employed some of the most vile and repugnant individuals the world has ever known?


Footnote - as for the quote at the top of this page, it's no small irony that this attribution appears to be a little white lie in itself.