EU Referendum: and yet another poll
Sunday 18 November 2012
 As an adjusted figure, removing the "don't knows" from the equation, that gives us a 65-35 percent split, giving the outers a 30 percent majority. That is slightly better than the last poll which gave us a 63-37 percent split and, while it is interesting, it is probably not yet sufficient to guarantee a win, should we be given an "on-out" choice. A margin of about 35 percent is probably the safe minimum. Even then the figure is almost certainly very soft, as the bulk of the vote comes from the Conservatives. They split 68-24 percent in favour of leaving. Given an "renegotiation" option, this cohort would probably vote tribally, and given a Conservative government support for renegotiation, we could see the "out" vote collapse. Nevertheless, the results are sufficient to invoke an editorial having the Observer squawking about the dangers of leaving.
A complete exit, it says, will be a disaster at every level. Britain's mass car industry would head to low-cost countries that have remained in the EU, and much other manufacturing, such as Airbus, would follow. The financial services industry would be regulated on terms set in Brussels and be powerless to resist.
British farmers, who had "prospered under the Common Agricultural Policy", would find "they become dependent on whatever mean-spirited British system of farm support that replaces it". Farms will survive by industrial farming, devastating the beloved English countryside. Tax avoidance and evasion would reach crippling levels as our economy becomes increasingly wholly owned by foreign multinationals that make tax avoidance in Britain central to their business strategy. This is very useful as an indicator of what sort of propaganda we might expect from the europhiles, and Readwald offers some counter-arguments. However, while some of the europhile claims are indeed nonsense, for a variety of technical reasons, our manufacturing output could be hard hit if we failed to negotiate a sound exit agreement. This is why, of course, it is vital to promote a negotiated exit based on an Article 50 settlement, tied in with membership of the EEA and the nationalisation of all unadopted EU law and secondary treaties. That way, we can affirm that the day after leaving the EU nothing will have changed. The main effect our departure would (and should) be to allow us to commence the careful process of transition from being an EU member to full independence – and also to work towards more democratic governance in the UK. Thus, if the europhiles are going to work on the fear factor, we have all the answers. Given a hearing, we can reassure people that there is no down-side to leaving. But, we are going to have to fight for that hearing, especially if any "no" campaign is hijacked by a "false flag" operation. In this basis, we are thinking in terms of the Harrogate Agenda bidding to become the official "no" campaign leader, making sure that the fear factor is removed. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/11/2012 |
Police Commissioners: in a world of his own
Sunday 18 November 2012
 What makes this worse is that Burns-Williamson was already a member for 13 years of the county's police authority which he now replaces. Thus he moves up to get 100,000+ a year for doing something he was already doing, all on the basis of a mandate from less than one fifteenth of the electorate. The magnanimous winner, however, managed to spare a little time to be "critical" of the government over how the elections had been held. It was this, in his view, resulted in a low turnout. But, he says, "It is now up to me and the other 40 police and crime commissioners elected today to establish themselves and legitimise this post by listening to everyone who relies on their local police force". Booker, however, puts this low-grade apparatchik in his place, pointing out that it wasn't government incompetence the kept people at home – or brought them out to spoil their votes (8,000 of them, including myself, in West Yorkshire). Nor indeed was it "apathy", which is the favourite meme of the moronic BBC which brought in what amounted to a voters' strike, but – as Booker tells it – contempt for the entire process. Certainly, high in my mind was the continued fatuity of holding elections in such a vast area where there is clearly no single community of interest that could be regarded as a demos. Nor does the process confer any specific power to the people. It merely places an expensive official in place instead of a committee, on the basis of a laughable and wholly unrepresentative mandate. Burns-Williamson, though., is going to prove even less suitable for the office if he actually believes in the foolish notion that he is dealing with a local police force. He will be deciding policing priorities over an area of 800 square miles, with a population of 2.2 million, containing five metropolitan districts and including the cities of Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax and Wakefield, with a combined spend of over £400 million. However, says Booker, with the election of 12 non-party commissioners, Thursday was the day when, more clearly than ever, we showed the political class, which for so long has treated us with such contempt, that our only response is to reciprocate. That Burns-Williamson thinks he can now "legitimise" the post just goes to show how detached from reality our political class has become. How we re-establish democratic control over that class, which rules our lives as surely as if we lived in a one-party state, though, is one of the greatest political challenges of our age, Booker says. And that is where the Harrogate Agenda comes in. While the apparatchiks play, we are quietly building our revolution. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/11/2012 |
Booker: that "dirty little secret"
Sunday 18 November 2012
 Looking at the comments on Booker's column though, I don't think the full enormity of the findings have been properly understood as we see DFID paying £520,000 of taxpayer's funds – ostensibly allocated to the foreign aid budget – to a third party organisation, of which the BBC is part. That money was then used, with the full knowledge and approval of DFID, for activities which included lobbying the BBC on climate change. Thus, it isn't only the BBC that is in the frame here. As much part of the story is that huge amounts of public money are being used by government departments to lobby the BBC, seeking to change its broadcasting priorities and policies. For sure, one mustn't lose sight of the BBC diemsion but, if you look at this smoking gun you will see appalling misuse of public funds. Identified in this one report is a DFID allocation of £468,000 to "Media Research", paid to an organisation of which the BBC is part, plus other jaw-dropping activities. This is the other "dirty little secret". The government as well as the BBC is implicated in this scandal, one which the legacy media has so far not thought fit to publish – with the notable exception of the Booker column. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/11/2012 |
Posts
