Brexit – or Not? Fearmongering. Masters of Manipulating Public Opinion
years or so were decided by CA.
CA is said to have disappeared, however the knowledge on how to manipulate voters’ opinions – the algorithm to do so – is by now well known by Google, social media and, of course, by the world’s key secret service agencies, foremost CIA, NSA, MI6, Mosad, DGSE (France), BND (Germany) – and others, therefore beware of believing even in a shred of democracy in upcoming elections, anywhere in the world.
Will BREXIT
actually happen? – Chances are it will not. Almost three and a half
year after the UK vote, and two and a half years after the UK started
the exit process, the BREXIT “soap opera”, as it is often called – leave
or stay – continues.
Both, Theresa May and Boris Johnson – and so far, also the opposition Labor Leader, Jeremy Corbyn,
have assured British people they will respect their choice; no new
referendum, no Parliamentary vote; and instead, they foresaw negotiating
a “deal” with Brussels. If there is “no deal”, then BREXIT will take
place as a “No Deal, or Hard BREXIT” – so the erstwhile verdict – which
could change, of course, as just about everything that has been said and
agreed upon in the BREXIT saga. But what exactly is meant by a “deal”,
or a “no-deal”, for that matter?
Though, the
definitions of a “deal” are vague, a “deal” refers basically to a UK
exit from the EU under as smooth as possible conditions for both
business and individuals, meaning that current relationships, i.e.
business licenses, trading relations, residency permits, free exchange
of labor, would not stop at once, but a transition period would allow to
work out specific conditions. In fact, this is precisely included in
the Withdrawal Agreement (WA). However, the WA has not yet been ratified
by the House of Commons. Why not? – Is there a hidden agenda? Once the
WA is ratified, there is no way back? Is that it? – The Parliament’s
holdout for a 180-degree change from “leave” to “stay” – despite the
popular vote?
The WA
provides for a period up to 31 December 2020 after BREXIT actually
happens, or longer, if negotiated, to hammer out the post-BREXIT details
of trade, future tariffs, business licenses, transit of labor and
capital – and more – before the new UK – EU divorce rules would enter
into force. This is plenty of time to negotiate individual trade and
peoples (free movement) agreements with EU partner countries. Everything
– the current UK-EU relations agreements – would stay in place during
the transition period, i.e. for at least another 15 months (or longer,
if more time is negotiated as necessary), if BREXIT would take place on
31 October 2019.
Some of the
possible post-BREXIT bilateral negotiations have already started behind
the scenes, notably with China and the US and most likely with others,
like Germany and France. The UK could, for example, look at the Swiss
model. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, is de facto a EU
member, just without voting rights. Switzerland has currently more than
120 multi- and bilateral agreements with Brussels and the 28 EU members.
And this despite a three- time direct popular rejection of EU
membership by referenda (1992 – against joining the European Economic
Area – 50.3% against; in 1997 – EU membership referendum – 74.1%
against; and in 2001 on “EU access negotiations” – rejected by 76.8%).
Yet, Switzerland is still looked upon as a model for ‘democracy’ – where
people decide.
So, everything
is possible, direct negotiations with a selection (or all) of EU
countries, following the Swiss model, and / or a wider scale of by- and
multilateral negotiations with countries or trading blocks around the
world. Actually, Brussels has already hinted to the UK leadership at
starting bilateral negotiations with EU members, even though the
official line is “leave” or “stay”. No doubt, Brussels as well as
Washington would like to do everything possible to keep the UK within
the EU bureaucracy. The UK has an implicit reputation of being
Washington’s mole in the EU, representing Washington’s wishes in crucial
decisions – like when 10 new Eastern European member candidates had to
be admitted – or not.
Therefore, why
the hype about a “no deal” BREXIT? – Do people even understand what “no
deal” means? That it literally means – all doors are open for
negotiations during the transit period – and that nothing changes during
that period, which is even extendable, and, of course, that a myriad of
options to negotiate new deals with new partners are open after the
transit period, in the post-BREXIT phase.
It’s all fearmongering,
manipulation of public opinion, the stock market will crash, UK’s GDP
will contract by between 2% and 4% – depending whom you ask, and who
pretends having had all the details to calculate such nonsensical
numbers; that unemployment will soar, especially as UK citizens will be
expulsed from their EU host countries and come home to look for work –
and so on. These treats emanating from Brussels, as well as from the UK
elite, have of course only one goal in mind – No BREXIT; find a way to
reverse the people’s opinion and Referendum decision.
Entering the realm of intimidation, the British Government warns in a
“clandestine report” – “leaked” to the Sunday Times – that a Hard
Brexit (a “No Deal” BREXIT) will hit the UK with food, fuel and medicine
shortages. RT reports, this much-feared prospect is becoming
increasingly likely since the changing of the guard in Downing Street.
Yes, this is clearly part of spreading fear to coerce public opinion
against BREXIT. However, this could all be prevented by the British
Parliament voting for the Withdrawal Agreement which is part of the
sovereign deal – no approval from Brussels necessary – for any country
wanting to leave the EU. How come, this is never mentioned in the media,
thus preventing the public from knowing what the government could do to
avoid a Hard Brexit havoc?
There are also
other economic predictions, contradicting the fearmongers, and by all
accounts of logic, more plausible ones, namely that the UK would do much
better after BREXIT, free to deal and trade with whomever, no looking
over the shoulders by Brussels, no impositions of complex – and often
very costly – rules – frequently mere rules for the sake of rules – by
the European Commission. Regaining full sovereignty would do the UK
good, both economically and socially.
The UK could
also continue maintaining a relation at a distance with a body that is
often mentioned in the same breath as corruption; a body that has shown
little sympathy for solidarity among member countries. Examples abound,
Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal – were all “sanctioned” with
troika-imposed rescue packages (troika = EC, European Central Bank –
ECB, and IMF). It is also clear that Brussels favors a set of nations,
unofficially, of course, stronger, mostly northern nations that do not
have to follow the strict ECB debt limitation rules imposed by the ECB
and mostly applied to southern EU members. This amounts to an unspoken
two-tier arrangement. But these voices of reason, who would promote
BREXIT for the sheer long-term socioeconomic betterment of the British
citizenry, are not allowed to come to the fore. The media are controlled
by the “Stay” proponents.
BREXIT, stay or leave, is a delicate matter. Labor, hence Jeremy Corbyn,
has a tendency to favor “stay” – oddly, along with some of the
conservative Tories, for all the false, scare-evoking reasons propagated
– unemployment, reduction in GDP, gap in trading partners, and so on.
Then there is the extreme right, represented by Nigel Farage,
the boss of the very BREXIT party, who supports BREXIT for the wrong
reasons, anti-immigration, racism, bordering on xenophobia, a similar
reasoning as is used by Madame Le Pen in France, who also would like to
exit the EU for stricter border control – anti-immigration and racism.
Ditto, for Italy’s right-wing Lega Norte Deputy PM, Matteo
Salvini. This controversy of reason is confusing to the general public –
and possibly even to Jeremy Corbyn, who does not want to be associated
with Nigel Farage, has to vouch for “stay” – perhaps against his better
understanding of BREXIT’s socioeconomic advantages for Great Britain.
Of course,
there are plenty of ways to reverse the promises of former PM Teresa
May’s and today’s PM, Boris Johnson’s, assurances that the 2016 vote’s
result will be respected. The easiest one would be for the British
Parliament to revoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gives
member states the unilateral right to quit EU membership. That’s
precisely what the UK did, trigger Article 50 by the Prime Minister’s
decision after the BREXIT Referendum. Once this process was set in
motion, it was understood that it couldn’t be stopped – except by a
Parliamentary vote, canceling application of Article 50.
Today, that
option is fully on the table. It can be done equally unilaterally and
sovereignly by the UK, without the approval of the remaining 27 EU
member states. Should that happen – the status quo would win, the UK
would remain a EU member. No change.
Labor Leader,
Jeremy Corbyn has recently hinted about introducing a no-confidence vote
against PM Johnson. If Parliament accepts it, and if he wins, he would
become interim PM, calling for new elections which he expects to win.
His support base in the UK is growing, despite increasing – false –
accusations of anti-Semitism. If he would become PM, he could indeed
call for a new BREXIT referendum, or simply call for a vote against
Article 50. Bingo. And the UK would remain a EU member. Knowing about
Cambridge Analytica’s coercive methods applied to swing public opinion, a
new BREXIT Referendum would likely be manipulated in favor of “stay”.
By the way,
since CA’s admitted interference in the BREXIT vote, it is totally
conceivable that the 2016 Referendum result could be annulled as
invalid, and a new referendum be launched. It’s a miracle that so far,
no politician, no media, nobody, has talked about it.
In summary,
might it be possible that the outcome of the June 2016 Referendum came
as a surprise for the British Authorities and elite? Hence, the result
was simply not acceptable? Therefore, to preserve the illusion of
“democracy”, could it be possible that an entire complex construct had
be conceived and built over a period of some three years, in which
public opinion had to be confused to the point of losing track of the
details and of specific conditions for exiting the European Union – so
that it could be more easily swayed into the direction of the Master’s
wishes, while still pretending to be democratic? – Let’s wait and see,
but no surprise, if BREXIT doesn’t happen.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Peter Koenig
is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources
and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World
Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields
of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe
and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT;
Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from Pixabay
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2019
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment