Popinjay Talking Heads.

Whose Referendum Preference?

A date that might be noted in the forgetful history of infamy might be Thursday 23rd June 2016. It is the day when the UK electorate take on board the act of making a referendum choice; if they make the wrong decision it will have long lasting implications far beyond the simple act of casting a periodic vote. This is unlike any form of national or local election, which can be overturned in five (or less) years, offering an immediate chance of changing the direction of the encumbering political scene. This choice may well exceed, in its finality and peril, that which brought the situation to this current point of 1975.

       

Over the next four mouths a number of political and media figures, some known, many not recognisable will be accosted to express their views on how to decide the future of the UK. Shall it remain a participant with the European Union or will choose to exclude itself. Everyone of voting age that chooses to exercise their vote should know that their vote will count; it will have a numerical impact, unlike a general election that is screwed with ineffective blocked votes in ‘safe’ political seats.

The arguments both for and against will be tormented to manipulate a fabricated truth. Opinions will vacillate and are likely to focus on probable 8 key areas, areas that each antagonist will explode to their fullest intent; such as trade, immigration, security, cost, law and employment (see 2). The hyperbole to be discharged from various participants is unlikely to produce any meaningful discussion and it is most likely to become disingenuous with some individuals propelled into the public eye who will have an agenda that is not compatible with their role as an elected representative

                                                                                            

This inflicting hubris is not a small matter but what should be examined of these people is just on whose behalf are they expressing views. It certainly cannot be on behalf of their constituents but they will use that base as a way of, in some cases, justifying their stance even though they will have just one vote like everyone else. But there the similarity with the ordinary voter ends. The media and vested interest will want to run news items that reflect their proprietor’s intent and they will put up as many publically know people they can cajole to make a ‘case’. These people will be screened and heard as Talking Heads pontificating on the possible knowns and unknowns of the poll decision and the ultimate effect it will have on the UK.

Up to now many of the notable persons will be MP’s and 30 of them will be members of the cabinet with so far 7 deciding to campaign against the corporate view of the cabinet. i.e. to exit. These MP’s (see 1) will have up to now presumably represented their constituents, at least that is the assumption on which they were elected but of course this has never been the case as they are compelled by the whip process to follow the government line, yet here they are, now exposed to be courted by the media for their opinions contrary to the all party view. There are many other conservative MP’s that will press for an exit with as few as 28 labour MP’s including notables like Frank Field and Bill Cash also pushing on the exit door, with of course UKIP. As it stands it seems that there will be a majority of MP’s that will argue that the UK is much better being a part of the EU than those attempting to break from it.

Whatever the views that will be expressed, at the end of the count, it will be the popular vote that will hold sway. However it may be advisable to hold a sceptic stance when listening to the various notable opinions and perhaps bear in mind some questions one might ask of them in relationship to the position that the majority of people will be faced with after the decision is taken.

If the exit succeeds or proves a mistake, what business interest do they the Talking Heads hold? (Some a lot) What financial resources, network, and support do these people have to enable then to survive a costly turmoil? (No paupers here) Can they absorb food and energy price increases? (No problem) Will they be personally affected; will they or their family life chances be impaired? (Most Unlikely)

All this for the ordinary, not rich or powerful will be very pertinent issues, people not blessed even with a plated silver spoon; but for Talking Heads? Fundamentally, exit is an at risk option for the majority, one does not know what the UK is getting into by taking the exit door; it is all guesses without any real substantive replacement options.

The same questions could be put to those MP’s that propose to stay in but in this case the outcome will be based on the existing position; little immediate change, it is a known status that has its problems but it has provided safeguards for the irritating proletariat and protection against executive, political, democratic abuses. It has been undoubtedly useful for the majority and there is scope to make it work better.  

Overall the outcome will be if it is the wrong one, that the impact will be paid for and be felt by the proletariat, the poor working class and just like the existing Credit Crisis austerity project, paid for by them to protect the establishment that caused many of the problems that the outs portray.

So don’t take the decision thinking about what is best for the country, the economy, or business; be wholly selfish, make it on the bases of what will be best for yourself, family, and your children’s future. The rich, the famous, those of affluent business connection will have the finances to ride a storm, so as ever beware of all the entire Popinjay Taking Heads!        

 (1)

Work and Pensions Secretary: Iain Duncan Smith, Commons Leader: Chris Grayling,

Culture Secretary: John Whittingdale, Northern Ireland Secretary: Theresa Villiers,

Justice Secretary> Michael Gove, Minister of State for Employment: Priti Patel

 Mayor of London and minister without portfolio: Boris Johnson

John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg .

(2)

Child benefit :- Child benefit payments to migrant workers for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries.

Migrant welfare payments: - The UK can decide to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants during their first four years in the UK. This so-called "emergency brake" can be applied in the event of "exceptional" levels of migration, but must be released within seven years - without exception.

Eurozone: - Britain can keep the pound while being in Europe, and its business trade with the bloc, without fear of discrimination. Any British money spent on bailing out eurozone nations will be reimbursed.

Protection for the City of London: - Safeguards for Britain's large financial services industry to prevent eurozone regulations being imposed on it

Sovereignty: - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change.

'Red card' for national parliaments: - It will be easier for governments to band together to block unwanted legislation. If 55% of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation it may be rethought.

Competitiveness: - The settlement calls on all EU institutions and member states to "make all efforts to fully implement and strengthen the internal market" and to take "concrete steps towards better regulation", including by cutting red tape.

Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic right of entry to UK.

Source Guardian

 © Renot +SS

242161715