What next?

This hollow fabric either must enclose,
Within its blind recess, our secret foes,
Or ‘t is an engine rais’d above the town,
T’ o’erlook the walls, and then to batten down.
Somewhat is sure design’d, by fraud or force:
Trust not their presents, nor admit the horse.

Virgil’s Aeneid

Richard North, presuumably out of frustration, writes in an article entitled EU Referendum: Invincible stupidity and frivolity about the inability – or even the wish – to face facts that are exhibited by political commentators and our media. He ends with these words: But if this is the way the campaign is going to be fought and reported, the temptation to walk away from it begins to look overpoweringly attractive.

For some time now it has been obvious that the forthcoming referendum on the UK’s EU membership is in the process of being ‘managed’ in order to achieve the result that the political class desire; namely a ‘Yes’ vote to remain a member of what is an odious political construct. This is underlined by another article from Richard North; one entitled: Reading the runes. In this article he links to one from Autonomous Mind, this entitled: EU renegotiation: For Cameron, all the world’s a stage.

Talking as I do to school sixth formers to promote the case for leaving the European Union and the need to ‘re-construct’ the present system of democracy, I am struck by one fact. Obviously not one pupil has known life ‘outside’ the European Union; and more importantly, of the teachers I have met, neither have they. One also has to feed into this the ‘input’ that the European Union has into our education system (Captain Euro – witness: The Norway option is not an option – and this). Read that quote by H.L. Mencken once again, please (one from decades ago): A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes….. – and then ask yourself why the current wish for votes in the forrthcoming EU referendum be given to 16 & 17 year-olds.

Why is it I get the feeling that we, the ‘knowedgeable’ section of the public, are being taken for fools? Why is it that I also get the feeing that the ‘unknowledgeable’ section of the public are being taken for the fools they so obviously – and unfortunately – are? As Autonomous Mind writes: the EU referendum is not being ‘rigged’?

Because those of us who have any understanding of democracy are, through the ageing process, becoming a dwindling number, it is perhaps understandable that the belief we may as well ‘pack up shop and go home’ – and thus accept the inevitable – is growing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 thoughts on “What next?

  1. As an avid reader of the four best eurosceptic blogs (yours of course, Richard North’s, TBF and Autonomous Mind) I find a common theme is an intolerance of any view that is slightly outside Richard’s Flexit plan. I myself believe in Flexit but I think we should also accommodate the views of Dan Hannan, Ruth Lea and, of course, Farage as allies in the common cause of freedom from the EU. Criticism that I have read recently of Hannan especially has, I think, been mean-spirited. He may advocate a Swiss style option for future trade but to treat him as a Judas goat is ridiculous. I have (sadly) spent most of this evening watching his speeches and debates on youtube and I can only comment that he is an articulate supporter of our cause. Of course the detail of our exit is important, whether it be through reliance on the WTO, Swiss style trade agreements or the Norway option (permanent or temporary), but so to is the principle of freedom and democracy as expounded by Hannan. Just because he sees a different trade arrangement, post exit, as preferable doesn’t make him an enemy.

    1. To a certain extent I can agree wth the sentiments you express; however the proposals that Hannan and Lea make can be considered a tad flawed.

      Where I do agree most defiinitely is the point that repetitive (and fairly often) criticisms of those like Hannan are unecessary and can be viewed as boring. Yes I have criticised both Hannan and Lea, however in comparison to some bloggers I would suggest my criticisms have been rare.

  2. Why is it so hard to establish who funds the Captain Euro propaganda – their site only refers to “Partners”, one in particular heavily weighed towards Global governance.

    The problem with their approach – “We are right, you are wrong” – only ever leads to war or subjugation.

    Every time I set eyes upon the main character in this propaganda cartoon I have a nagging vision of lines of blue-eyed, blonde-haired teenagers, and the eventual resulting SS or Soviet style types knocking on doors at 3a.m. in the morning.

    How these people live with whatever idea of morality they have is beyond me.

    Another quote may be apt: “The one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history”

  3. The problem with propaganda is it works on the masses, and the masses accept schooling as what every child should experience (it allows them to go to work to earn enough to keep them Just Over Broke and not be bothered about educating their own). Thereby ensuring new generations of masses are fed propaganda.

    Free thinkers are few, and always compromised as they too are chained to the system in so many ways. As someone who has seen petitions fail, demonstrations fail, communicating with authoritative figures fail, and voting fail, the brave blogs that encourage free thinking can themselves fail in joining as one and spreading counter propaganda measures.

    This individual who had no college or university education, who left school aged 15, has had a myriad of different jobs, lived on the street, dodged the excesses of officialdom, has learned enough to shun main stream media, politicians promises, bar room banter, and has no voice that is likely to be listened to in just about any quarter. What’s left? Do we watch our hopes wither as we are beaten by ignorance and cunning? I see no-one to trust.

  4. “…it is perhaps understandable that the belief we may as well ‘pack up shop and go home’ – and thus accept the inevitable – is growing?”

    Given the circumstances, it is very understandable. ‘Packing up shop and going home’ is one response to a general disinterest from prospective customers. Another, of course, is to examine one’s stock to see if something better and more marketable would attract attention and kick-start some business.

    In this respect, I would have thought the golden rule of marketing is that if one’s product is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (or is unlikely ever to exist), no matter how well-made it is, it will never sell.

    For example, one could laboriously construct an ‘intricate framework for future relations between Britain and the EU’ and promote it as an essential solution to the problem of “no-turning-back” once Article 50’s two-year negotiations are triggered. Unfortunately, there are two flaws in this model. The first being that Article 50 contains not the slightest hint of there being no-turning-back as a condition of its use. In fact, the label on the article’s tin leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that its use, throughout, is on an entirely voluntary basis. The second flaw (rather embarrassingly) is that whole purpose of using Article 50 is (drumroll…) to build an ‘intricate framework for future relations between Britain and the EU’ – from the bottom up – tailor-made for Britain – and employing the only people in a position to do the job… the EU and UK governments.

    Of course, one could take these home-truths on board and adjust one’s stock accordingly… Or, one could continue railing at how ‘dumb’, ignorant’, ‘clueless’ (etc, etc,) one’s non-existent customers are (before, inevitably, packing up shop and slunking off home).

    BTW, there’s a thorough unpicking of Article 50 at http://exeunt.co.uk/ It provides context and outlines a workable solution for an inclusive and effective exit campaign.

    1. A fair comment, Sir; and a point well made. I shall take a look at your link and return to respond.

      1. @ David. A fair comment, Sir; and a point well made. I shall take a look at your link and return to respond.

        Thanks David. I look forward to reading your response.

  5. Like David I too can see what irks David Whittaker, or at least I think I can. However, my thoughts are that politics is rather a rough and tumble game and criticism is to be expected, this applies to the PM and down to the lowliest blogger. While I have respect for those who ‘do things’ there has to be balance. As we saw with the original competition many people felt encouraged and wrote an exit plan and submitted it. So it must be that both the quality and practicality of those plans varies. But how are we to judge this?

    My observation is that, just about, exit plans are all we have. There is, for example, no campaign literature or a structure to deal with this. And it is a huge weakness. Consider the consumer who goes to buy a new car, they are persuaded by a sales brochure and not by the fact the car has a workshop manual. So an exit plan is not the only requirement here. In the ‘outers’ camp there are some very clever people, hopefully not too clever by half and so spend all their time and energy infighting. This makes us look about as worthy as the Labour party slugging away trying to find a new leader.

Comments are closed.