Cutting through the ‘waffle’

It was with interest that a few days ago I read this lecture by Sir Ivan Rogers. Of equal interest was another lecture by the same person about David Cameron, incorporated within which were links to similar lectures from  Charles Powell on Thatcher, Chris Patten on John Major, Andrew Adonis on Tony Blair and Stewart Wood on Gordon Brown.

In effect Rogers, Powell, Patten, Adonis and Wood were all ‘bureaucrats’; and bureaucrats appear to use twenty/fifty words when one would be quite sufficient – if you follow my drift. As such, I find that, particularly with Rogers, it becomes necessary for me to read two or three times anything he writes before I can begin to try to understand that which he wishes to convey – in other words, he attempts to write for the ‘Westminster Bubble’; not that those in that ‘rarefied’ clique would have the slightest understanding of the subject matter (but, yet again, I digress).

It seems to me that it is about time someone, within the ‘Westminster Bubble’ ceased attempting to be ‘all things to all men’ (ie, ceased being ‘nice’ thus not wishing to upset anyone and/or ruffle feathers) and decided to write in ‘plain English’ thereby connecting with the ‘man in the street’.

Here, once again, a little digression but one that is important.

Not one of the past Prime Ministers of this nation appeared able to see the  ‘wood from the trees’, regardless of that which they uttered for domestic consumption, where the question of membership of a supranational government was concerned. Why was this? Apart from, possibly Thatcher, they all, I would suggest,  had their eye on yet more power thus having an eye on advancement of their personal position on the ‘world stage’ through an appointment to the European Union. It is worth remembering that those  seeking power, at what ever level, said power provides them with the ability to control the minds of the masses; and thus advance their personal status, (with the help of the media – of course).

Within the Brexit debate’ there are two main aspects:

  • How does the United Kingdom cease being a member of the political construct of the European Union; and:
  • How does the United Kingdom continue to ‘trade’ with the Europe Union without ‘problems’.

Allow me to take a step back and return to the question at  the time of the Referendum on EU membership. David Cameron was ‘in power’ and, as such had the power to ‘rig’ the question on the ballot paper . I believe it reasonable to assert, bearing in mind my dealings with him on membership of the European Union, to believe he was a Europhile regardless of the ‘public front’ he presented – hence the ‘vagueness’ of the question the electorate were asked to decide.

There remains, within the current Parliament, a majority for the status quo where membership of the European Union is concerned, regardless of any counter argument . As with those who hold that view there are others who wish to terminate that ‘relationship’, likewise regardless of any counter argument. The hilarious position of both ‘camps’ is that neither have any ‘understanding’ of that which they espouse – much to the detriment of those for whom the best interests they are supposed to hold ‘at heart’.

There was nothing on that ballot paper that mentioned the political construct of the European Union where leaving the European Union was concerned; neither was there any mention of how ‘trade’ might continue ‘seamlessly’ – a word so beloved by our current Prime  Minister. Prior to the referendum what should have been explained to the electorate was how we, as a nation, could ‘leave’ the European Union, yet retain our ‘position’ within the European Union by rejoining EFTA/EEA, a position which would have given us the ‘control’ we were assured we should have. That this was, in fact, done by a blogger who published a paper by the name of FlexCit; the content of which must be known to all those involved with in government and its various departments.

We are now in the hands of a group of politicians, some of whom voted to remain. They have deliberately conflated the question of how leaving the European Union can be accomplished. They have confused leaving the political part of the European Union with the trading part of the European Union – again with deliberate intent. The  first requirement of public office should, in my opinion, be that of common decency. Were that the case our politicians would also be honest, possess integrity and be worthy of our trust. That they have none of these qualities can but show they are no more than a conniving bunch of crooks.

I make that last accusation without hesitation or of any fear of retribution. When I publicly accused David Cameron of being a liar, he did nothing about it. Neither will the current crop of crooks we have as MPs because so to do would mean their cans of worms would be opened for all to see – and that they will not do as it would mean the end of their scams and the end of them.

2 thoughts on “Cutting through the ‘waffle’

  1. David, as I said several times following the referendum in 2016, those in positions of power will make this matter all about themselves, that time is of the essence and we need to move quickly to start the leaving process.
    But they were given time to regroup and construct the leaving process to suit themselves. I don’t know how we should have done it or who should have done it but we the people should never have allowed them the space and time to prepare their plans to defeat us. You don’t give the enemy time, you keep hitting him with all you have until he’s either destroyed or surrenders.

  2. The use of language, to convey, confuse or impress? Yes it is odd that five people feel the need to explain the words of five past Prime Ministers. You would have thought this was not needed and the PMs could have got it right first time. Also despite the great effort of the explainers we are not much further forward. It’s a bit like setting out to tidy up a room but making it more messy instead. On the other hand perhaps this is a gift, a skill, and we are all better off for it!?

Comments are closed.