Engaging in double speak has become a routine means of communicating amongst politicians. Whilst obfuscation is used to confuse the public and distort their understanding of events (notably Brexit), occasionally a granule of truth winds its way into the narrative which serves to offer a more accurate picture of where members of parliament stand on an issue.
Brexit has dominated political discourse in the UK ever since the original referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU was announced three years ago.
Most recently, we have seen an attempt by Conservative party ‘rebels‘ to remove Prime Minister Theresa May from office fail, the withdrawal agreement negotiated by May’s government comprehensively rejected by MP’s, and a subsequent vote of no confidence in the government defeated.
What these events have done is solidify the impression that parliament is at an ‘impasse‘ over Brexit. But as I have argued in previous articles, what this ‘impasse‘ is actually doing is creating the necessary conditions for a second referendum (a ‘people’s vote‘) to become a reality.
Gradually all other options are withering away to leave going back to the ballot box as the only remaining solution. A referendum therefore assumes the appearance of being an organic occurrence rather than a premeditated outcome.
Here is how a referendum could find itself in the statute book in the next few weeks:
The key aspect to whatever Theresa May puts before parliament is that it will be amendable, meaning MP’s can table amendments to the plan in an attempt to influence the next steps in the Brexit process. One of those amendments is expected to call for a second referendum. Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, is due to table the amendment.
January the 29th is when MP’s will vote on Theresa May’s ‘plan B‘. It represents the first opening for a referendum to be called. If we surmise that over the next few weeks a second vote will officially be in the works, it would then become about what question parliament would put to the British people. This is the area in which politicians have been practising to deceive.
Ask those calling for a ‘People’s Vote‘ their perspective on a no deal outcome, and they will tell you how it would be the height of irresponsibility. An eventuality that the House of Commons should in no way countenance. Why, then, does Chuka Umunna and company wish to see this option dismissed by MP’s, but presented as part of a referendum? It is a question that no broadcaster has thought to raise.
The People’s Vote campaign continues to promote that the only way to prevent leaving the EU without an agreement is to consult the public. This is nonsense if we consider that in the event of a referendum, the electorate will likely be granted the option of leaving on World Trade Organisation terms. Sections of MP’s would view this option as reckless, butin my view the argument that ‘hard Brexiteers‘ need to have their voice heard in a referendum would win enough support.
As noted previously, Lord Kerr is on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission, whereas Chuka Umunna is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. What we are witnessing are representatives of globalist institutions frequenting both sides of the argument. On one hand they have successfully managed to implant into people’s consciousness that no deal would be disastrous, yet on the other have advocated that those same people should have the choice of engineering said disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment