Just in case you've missed it, there's some sort of referendum coming up, something to do with, "sovereignty," and, "taking back control," I'm not so reliably informed. And ostensibly by a group of people who really ought to be kept as far as is humanly possible way from any form of 'control.' It's sort of hiding behind the European Football Championship thingy, although you'd have to be living in a cave to have missed it. And if you're cynical, like I am, you might start to wonder whether even this, the football consideration, has been 'cleverly' factored in.
So, are people more or are they less likely to vote accordingly, during a period of international sporting confrontation? If we could be sure of the answer to this we might even be able to deduce which way the puppeteers want us to vote, then we would know to vote strongly against.
Following the arguments closely, I'm quite convinced that it's possible for one to vote with less clarity now than one might have been able to muster prior to the referendum date having been set. Such is the proffered 'information' into which we have been invited to delve.
I think that people are either unclear, or else they are angry. Yes, there's certainly fair deal of that, anger, spilling over into violence on occasion. I have no doubt that were my father still alive he would have been propelled to the voting booth, fuelled entirely by anger... oh and just that tiny hint of Daily Mail racism. Either way, he wouldn't have lived to endure any of the possible/probable consequences, simply foisted them onto the next generation. It's what the Daily Mail and my father would have wanted.
Speaking to people- amorphously and non-specifically- I'm more convinced than ever that many are simply hardened in their ways. And now they will be looking to have their prejudices 'confirmed' and consolidated by selecting any public figure who might happen to agree with their predetermined choice. Others remain frustrated or worried. Well you would wouldn't you, siding with either IDS or else Hunt? Jesus, what a choice, is there a third option, do we think?
I have seen much of the familiar cliched 'justification' cited in many an 'argument;' terms like 'loony left' and 'Corbynistas' have again been dusted down and wheeled out. That dreaded 'far left' contingent, curse that damned drive for free-at-the-point-of-delivery health-care, properly-funded education, human rights, affordable housing and public transport. Have these fools no idea what sort of Hell on Earth might result? Or else there is apparently 'scaremongering,' the term stapled to any choice with which we do not agree. Label it then, instead of challenging the contention with any spurious contention of our own. If nothing else we might come out the other side with a journalist's qualification.
So, I'm sort of comfortable with not being overly convinced by either side. Truth be told, I have this awful sense that, via a series of strategic polls, and choice media ownership, the usual covert manipulation, we might already have been outmanoeuvred.
What I feel to be the most representative argument is the one of impending uncertainty. That is that those who speak as if they are still unsure are the ones who have most carefully considered what is going on. Philip Hammond (remain) proudly stating that the UK will not be respecting the European Court's ruling on the impingement of Julian Assange's liberty suggests that the UK already has a fairly stubborn grasp of national sovereignty. Then again, to listen to the the likes of Gove (leave) talking about making up our own 'human rights' should chill anyone to the core. Tony 'rendition' Blair had one of those, his own set of 'human rights.'
That's the thing about human rights, Gove you idiot, it sanctifies the individual over and above the discriminatory actions of sovereign governments. But then listening really isn't his thing, is it? Why would a former Education Secretary need such a skill anyway?
Certainties for me, and there are precious few, are that:
(1) There will be a drop in certain share values, should anything change, so the pound will fall. Shareholders will not be looking to work in anybody's interests, other than their own. The 'shareholder' part of the statement is almost a truism, and as for the 'fall,' well that's already happening... a nation with precious few friends seeking to strike out alone and to forge precisely what?
Shareholders dictating things? How's that working out then?
(2) A second issue is that the EU have covertly been trying to implement TTIP and ISDS for months now. Indeed, if it weren't for some helpful digging and unearthing on certain other people's parts we might already have had this 'baby' dumped in our laps. It'd be one damned expensive baby too! Potentially, it could see the end of our NHS, as (s)he' chews away at far more than just the corners. This imposition could effectively see the privatising of the health service, piece by piece, with the additional implementation of legal rights to crippling compensation should we seek to protect the service against predation. Obama- already wading in to the 'debate'- is desperate to open us up to US interests, a sort of occupation by stealth! As we well know to our cost, 'legal rights' and 'moral choices' are seldom found to coincide.
Should this appear as a compelling reason to vote to leave the EU I should point out that, at a national level, we will still have the same people in charge, and that they're also big fans of TTIP and ISDS. By the time that all of the exiting Ts are crossed and the exiting Is dotted we could anyway already have been saddled. Two to three years it might take to leave the EU, so we have been informed.
(3) A third point for me would be that of the 'Human Rights Act,' and 'workers' rights.' I think that it would be fair to suggest that the current government are not great fans of the sort of red tape that might prevent a bit of casual firing, or impose something as inconvenient as a working contract or a living wage- unless hounded into doing so. I'm going to suggest that we don't hold our breath waiting for any momentous leap in state pensions or minimum/living wages.
Where the EU and the UK have come to blows on the issue of 'rights' I have invariably found the EU to have acted far more in accordance with anything that might resemble respect for the individual. The idea of any sort of 'Bill of Rights' as dictated by any UK Government of the last thirty-seven years does not fill me with a great deal of confidence.
Having recently 'toured' the countryside I've decided that I'll be voting the same way as the farmer with the largest billboard, because I hope to align myself with the same chap who recently waved a virtual machete under my chin, the last time I tried to negate some five foot nettles by wandering a full three metres off the public right of way. I wonder how that particular 'right' might fare?
At least the racists, the xenophobes and the Little Englanders are finally united.
Posts
