CleggvsFarage: the aftermath and fallout (2)

Much has been written and appeared in the media following the CleggvsFarage debate, some of it valid but in the main including a great deal of partisan rubbish – and both views have missed the most important aspect of the question about whether or not the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Not only has that most important aspect been ignored, but so have the individual components of that question. Clegg based his case for continued membership of the European Union purely on economic terms, completely ignoring the aspects of democracy, national independence and how we are to be governed. Farage touched on all three of those points, yet failed to bring them all together into one coherent and easily understandable argument – and in so doing totally missed the fundamental point; of which more in a moment. 

 It then follows just why do television and radio continue to present programmes wherein, within the time frame allowed, it is impossible for those panelists taking part to provide a lucid response to questions posed of them – or is this part of a plot to ensure that complex questions, such as membership of the EU never will be fully discussed. What is the point of what are in effect public information services if they just permit lies to be broadcast – do not those public information services have a duty to their listeners/viewers to correct misinformation? It is necessary to then question the form of language that our political class use, their phrasing and content. Again, what is the point of making what are, in effect, grand sweeping statements encapsulating words that to the average listener/viewer are incomprehensible?

Neither does it help when those who are able to have nearly an entire page in a broadsheet newspaper to offer a dispassionate view about the UK’s membership of the European Union then fills his allotted space with with rubbish content. Enter Charles Moore, previously Editor of the Telegraph. It is noticed that in the comments section, peter63 finds it astonishing that an intelligent person like Charles Moore can be in two minds about Brexit. On the face of that written today to couple the words ‘intelligent person’ with the words ‘Charles Moore’ could be held to be an oxymoron – and Moore admirably demonstrates that where the word ‘moron’ is concerned, ‘oxy’ is but one prefix that can be used, there being, it would seem, moore available.

FHS, how can one claim to be a eurosceptic of 30 years standing; be opposed to rule from abroad; still believe that the EU table is the top table; acknowledge that Norway, as a non-member, can prosper both globally and in the single market – yet be in two minds about whether membership of the EU is a good or bad thing? Moore is but another classic example of someone who doesn’t think about things he doesn’t think about. It seems to have escaped Moore’s attention that the reason why millions of people do not quite know what they think is because no-one has ever explained, in words of one syllable, both sides of the argument – nor does Moore appreciate that he is one of those guilty of wasting the god-given opportunity presented him so to do. One can only presume the lure of Black and Barclay monthly cheques interfered with his thought processes.

In his article Moore mentions that there are two forms of membership available – unfortunately this poor hack does not even realize that the two forms of membership about which he writes bear no resemblance to the two forms which will, I believe, shortly appear on the horizon. He ends his article questioning whether our Leaders are telling us the truth – which begs the question whether Moore is both blind and deaf as well as dumb. Since when has any politician told the people the truth?

As I pointed out in my preceding post, democracy and sovereignty are two words which are not getting a mention in this debate about our membership of the EU. For the benefit of those in doubt on that question (in which Moore obviously must be included), ultimately, where the CleggvsFarage debate is concerned, at the end of the day the entire question of the UK’s membership of the EU boils down to three basic options:

  • Do we wish to remain a member of a supranational body in which we, the people, have no daily control over those who implement laws by which we are governed and which affect our lives and who we cannot throw out of office,or;
  • Do we wish to cease that arrangement and return to a situation wherein we still have no daily control of those who implement laws by which we are governed and which affect our lives – albeit that we can, every five years, throw out of office those with whom we disagree and elect another group of people who will enjoy the same ‘privilege’ as the previous lot, or;
  • Do we change the system of democracy under which we are governed and move from what is a state of serfdom to a position where we actually control the one aspect of human life that is individually finite – our life in all its facets: locally, nationally and internationally.

Until someone decides to raise those three options further discussion twixt Clegg and Farage – or between any other two politicians – remains what it ndoubtedly is: vacuous verbiage.


2 Responses

  1. In2minds says:

    “why do television and radio continue to present programmes wherein, within the time frame allowed, it is impossible for those panelists taking part to provide a lucid response to questions posed of them”

    Ah yes, a feature of the Today programme, “I shall have to hurry you” snaps Humphrys, leaving some poor soul to condense a complex subject into a sound-bite so the football results can be read in detail!

  2. WG says:

    How I miss the likes of Brian Walden, a man who pursued every politician’s arguments. down every confusing alleyway, and when cornering them, skewering them with the killer question.

    I may have a rose-tinted view of yesteryear but for anybody with a slight interest in politics Weekend World was a must. Whether today’s viewers would have the attention span to take in an hour long conversation on politics is impossible to assess, but I would suggest that the childish, and deceitful, manner in which politics is presented now makes any such programme un-viewable.

    It’s one of today’s political evils that we know what any given individual is going to say before they open their mouths – someone like Walden wouldn’t have allowed them to get away with just soundbites and think-tank mantras.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012