In the coming months the Electoral Commission will be deciding who to “designate” as “Leader” of the “No” Campaign in the EU referendum. The Leader of the campaign will also get the public funding for the Campaign of about £1,000,000!
Below is what the Electoral Commission say are the rules. I expect that the Electoral Commission will however be looking to appoint a Leader who they think is credible enough to pass muster but not credible enough to win! That is what John Prescott tried to do in his North East Assembly Referendum. The Electoral Commission no doubt now forgets that it is the Minister who appoints them!
“There is a statutory test in PPERA that the Commission must apply when assessing applications for designation:
* If there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome.
When we assessed applications for the Referendum on Independence for Scotland, we used a decision making process to apply a test, based on the criteria set out below. Based on the legislation for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union as it is currently drafted, we expect the Commission to take similar consideration into account during the designation process for the EU referendum.
* How the applicant’s objectives fit with the referendum outcome it supports
* The level and type of support for the application
* How the applicant intends to engage with other campaigners
* The applicant’s organizational capacity to represent those campaigning for the outcome, and
* The applicant’s capacity to deliver their campaign (including its financial probity)”
Robert Henderson
One thing about the coming EU referendum is certain: it will be a much fairer fight than that which occurred in 1975 when the stay-in camp had captured most leading politicians including all the party leaders, all the mainstream media and most of big business . In addition, the stay-in side then had funding which utterly dwarfed that of the get-out campaign and, not content with that advantage, used the government machine to produce its own pamphlet on the renegotiations to go alongside those of the stay-in and leave campaigns. Perhaps most damaging was a lack of preparation for the vote by those who wanted to leave the EEC.
Today we have an established mainstream party Ukip unequivocally urging a vote to leave, substantial support within both the Tory and Labour parliamentary parties, including frontbenchers and senior backbenchers. In addition influential business voices such as Lord Bamford of JCB Ltd and business groups such as Business for Britain are raising their voice to both allay fears that the British economy would collapse in a heap if we left the EU and advertise the considerable costs, both economic and political, which membership of the EU entails. There are even signs that the unions may be turning against the EU with the leader of Britain’s largest union Unit, Len McCluskey, suggesting that Britain might have to pull out if the EU’s labour legislation is watered down as a result of Cameron’s renegotiation.
There is a further important difference between 1975 and now. In 1975 Britain had been in what was then the European Economic Community (EEC)for less than three years. There was little for voters to go on to say whether the EEC was going to be a good or bad thing. Nor was the EEC anything like as intrusive as the EU is now. Today the British people know that the EU has not turned out to be the driver of economic growth that was promised in the 1970s, but a supranational entity in which the Europhile political elites are willing to ruthlessly enforce their will to achieve their end of a United States of Europe (is the only honest interpretation of the Treaty of Rome) regardless of the effects this has on ordinary people, something of which the people of Greece are now only too savagely aware.
It is true that David Cameron is doing his best to fix the result. His government has announced that the civil service will not have to cease publicly commenting on the referendum for the last four weeks of campaigning before the referendum and the proposed referendum question –Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? – is clearly biased because it emphasises membership as the status quo and gifts the YES vote to those who want to remain in the EU.. Perhaps most importantly, the spending rules in the referendum are slanted to favour those parties which will be likely to support a vote to stay in. But none of these disadvantages are set in stone and could be challenged as the European Referendum Bill makes its way through Parliament or by judicial review. Moreover, even if all these pro-stay-in pieces of jigger-pokery remain unchanged they will not be insuperable obstacles to a vote to leave because our circumstances are so very different from those of 1975. . There is also a possibility that Cameron will carry through his threat to insist that all those in his government must support whatever terms he decides to put to the country or resign. However, that would backfire if many did leave the government or Cameron backed down on his threat. Either way he would look weak and strengthen the impression that leading politicians are increasingly wanting to leave the EU.
It is vital not to panic over polls which show that a majority will vote to stay in the EU. Since Britain joined the EEC the polls have regularly swung violently. The determining factor will be political leadership or perhaps more exactly what the British elite – politicians, mediafolk, businessmen, academics – say in public . The vast majority of electors do not make their decisions by careful unemotional analysis of abstruse economic data or ideological belief, but on basic emotional responses such as fear and hope. If there is support for leaving the EU, or even just an acknowledgement that leaving would not be a disaster for Britain, from a broad swathe of those with a public voice, enough of the general public are likely to be persuaded to vote to leave to win the referendum.
At the heart of the OUT campaign must be Britain’s complete inability to control her borders while we remain in the EU. Polls consistently show that immigration is one of the major concerns of the British public and, when the politically correct inspired terror of speaking honestly about race and immigration is taken into account, it is odds on that immigration is the number one issue by a wide margin. A British Future report in 2014 found that 25% of those included in the research wanted not only an end to immigration but the removal of all immigrants already in the UK and a YouGov poll commissioned by Channel 5 in 2014 found that 70% of those questioned wanted an end to mass immigration. If Britain leaves the EU it will not only allow the legal control of EU migrants but also removes from British politicians any excuse for not controlling immigration generally.
Putting immigration at the heart of the OUT campaign would also have the bonus of appealing to the Scots through a subject on which they feel much the same as the rest of the UK, that is they are opposed to mass immigration. That is important because the SNP are trying to establish grounds for Scotland having a veto over the UK leaving the EU if Scotland votes to stay in the EU and either England or England, Wales and Northern Ireland vote to leave. The larger the vote to leave the EU in Scotland is, the less moral leverage they will have for either a veto over Britain leaving the EU or another independence referendum.
The other central plank to for the campaign should be the fact that it does not matter what Cameron obtains by his renegotiation, because whilst we remain within the EU any concessions given now may be reversed at a later date by the EU, most probably in cahoots with a British government consisting of Europhiles. “Legal” guarantees such as Britain’s opt-out for the Social Chapter were rapidly undermined by using EU workplace health and safety rules to impose much of the Social Chapter.
Nigel Farage does not need to be the campaign’s sole leader , but he does need to be a very prominent part of the leadership. If he does not take a lead role the OUT campaign is likely to end up in the hands of people who have bought into the politically correct view of the world. That would mean the immigration card will not be played with the vigour it demands or even played meaningfully at all.
More generally, what this campaign needs is emphatic, unambiguous and above all honest unvarnished explanation of what the EU represents, It needs Farage at the forefront of the OUT campaign to set that tone. No one else will do it.
Robert Henderson
One thing about the coming EU referendum is certain: it will be a much fairer fight than that which occurred in 1975 when the stay-in camp had captured most leading politicians including all the party leaders, all the mainstream media and most of big business . In addition, the stay-in side then had funding which utterly dwarfed that of the get-out campaign and, not content with that advantage, used the government machine to produce its own pamphlet on the renegotiations to go alongside those of the stay-in and leave campaigns. Perhaps most damaging was a lack of preparation for the vote by those who wanted to leave the EEC.
Today we have an established mainstream party Ukip unequivocally urging a vote to leave, substantial support within both the Tory and Labour parliamentary parties, including frontbenchers and senior backbenchers. In addition influential business voices such as Lord Bamford of JCB Ltd and business groups such as Business for Britain are raising their voice to both allay fears that the British economy would collapse in a heap if we left the EU and advertise the considerable costs, both economic and political, which membership of the EU entails. There are even signs that the unions may be turning against the EU with the leader of Britain’s largest union Unit, Len McCluskey, suggesting that Britain might have to pull out if the EU’s labour legislation is watered down as a result of Cameron’s renegotiation.
There is a further important difference between 1975 and now. In 1975 Britain had been in what was then the European Economic Community (EEC)for less than three years. There was little for voters to go on to say whether the EEC was going to be a good or bad thing. Nor was the EEC anything like as intrusive as the EU is now. Today the British people know that the EU has not turned out to be the driver of economic growth that was promised in the 1970s, but a supranational entity in which the Europhile political elites are willing to ruthlessly enforce their will to achieve their end of a United States of Europe (is the only honest interpretation of the Treaty of Rome) regardless of the effects this has on ordinary people, something of which the people of Greece are now only too savagely aware.
It is true that David Cameron is doing his best to fix the result. His government has announced that the civil service will not have to cease publicly commenting on the referendum for the last four weeks of campaigning before the referendum and the proposed referendum question –Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? – is clearly biased because it emphasises membership as the status quo and gifts the YES vote to those who want to remain in the EU.. Perhaps most importantly, the spending rules in the referendum are slanted to favour those parties which will be likely to support a vote to stay in. But none of these disadvantages are set in stone and could be challenged as the European Referendum Bill makes its way through Parliament or by judicial review. Moreover, even if all these pro-stay-in pieces of jigger-pokery remain unchanged they will not be insuperable obstacles to a vote to leave because our circumstances are so very different from those of 1975. . There is also a possibility that Cameron will carry through his threat to insist that all those in his government must support whatever terms he decides to put to the country or resign. However, that would backfire if many did leave the government or Cameron backed down on his threat. Either way he would look weak and strengthen the impression that leading politicians are increasingly wanting to leave the EU.
It is vital not to panic over polls which show that a majority will vote to stay in the EU. Since Britain joined the EEC the polls have regularly swung violently. The determining factor will be political leadership or perhaps more exactly what the British elite – politicians, mediafolk, businessmen, academics – say in public . The vast majority of electors do not make their decisions by careful unemotional analysis of abstruse economic data or ideological belief, but on basic emotional responses such as fear and hope. If there is support for leaving the EU, or even just an acknowledgement that leaving would not be a disaster for Britain, from a broad swathe of those with a public voice, enough of the general public are likely to be persuaded to vote to leave to win the referendum.
At the heart of the OUT campaign must be Britain’s complete inability to control her borders while we remain in the EU. Polls consistently show that immigration is one of the major concerns of the British public and, when the politically correct inspired terror of speaking honestly about race and immigration is taken into account, it is odds on that immigration is the number one issue by a wide margin. A British Future report in 2014 found that 25% of those included in the research wanted not only an end to immigration but the removal of all immigrants already in the UK and a YouGov poll commissioned by Channel 5 in 2014 found that 70% of those questioned wanted an end to mass immigration. If Britain leaves the EU it will not only allow the legal control of EU migrants but also removes from British politicians any excuse for not controlling immigration generally.
Putting immigration at the heart of the OUT campaign would also have the bonus of appealing to the Scots through a subject on which they feel much the same as the rest of the UK, that is they are opposed to mass immigration. That is important because the SNP are trying to establish grounds for Scotland having a veto over the UK leaving the EU if Scotland votes to stay in the EU and either England or England, Wales and Northern Ireland vote to leave. The larger the vote to leave the EU in Scotland is, the less moral leverage they will have for either a veto over Britain leaving the EU or another independence referendum.
The other central plank to for the campaign should be the fact that it does not matter what Cameron obtains by his renegotiation, because whilst we remain within the EU any concessions given now may be reversed at a later date by the EU, most probably in cahoots with a British government consisting of Europhiles. “Legal” guarantees such as Britain’s opt-out for the Social Chapter were rapidly undermined by using EU workplace health and safety rules to impose much of the Social Chapter.
Nigel Farage does not need to be the campaign’s sole leader , but he does need to be a very prominent part of the leadership. If he does not take a lead role the OUT campaign is likely to end up in the hands of people who have bought into the politically correct view of the world. That would mean the immigration card will not be played with the vigour it demands or even played meaningfully at all.
More generally, what this campaign needs is emphatic, unambiguous and above all honest unvarnished explanation of what the EU represents, It needs Farage at the forefront of the OUT campaign to set that tone. No one else will do it.
Even MPs who represent English seats but who are not English like the Welsh Mrs Cheryl Gillan sometimes stick up for their constituents. What do you think?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150609/debtext/150609-0002.htm
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1081
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con):
“I hope that the Government will resist the call for the triple lock, quadruple lock—or whatever we are going to call it now. I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the disaggregation by UK constituent nation of the EU budget contributions and receipts. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that it clearly shows that although the average cost across the UK in the last year for which figures were available was £48 per head, when that is disaggregated, we see that the real burden falls on England. The cost of membership is £72 per capita in England, whereas in Scotland, it is a mere £2; in Wales minus £74; and in Northern Ireland minus £160. So the devolved nations, which are effectively feather-bedded against the real cost of membership, should not be allowed to slant the results of any referendum by demanding an individual country lock on any result.”
The actual debate can be viewed here, with Mrs Gillan speaking about 14 minutes 37 seconds in:
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/035a053e-b29e-4a3a-a1d9-3916a6a5cce7?in=12:40:21
Alex Salmond misrepresented opposition to a Referendum on continued EU membership being determined by the vote in each nation as meaning, by extension, “that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get a vote at all.” The analogy with the USA is absurd.
This ‘disaggregation’ sets in context the positions of rUK in respect of EU Membership.
Robert Henderson
Speakers:
Tim Aker (Ukip MEP)
John Redwood (Tory MP)
Peter Oborne (Associate editor of the Spectator magazine)
The meeting was very well attended with in excess of 200 people present, many of whom stayed despite having to stand. Particularly pleasing and encouraging were the number of young faces, which made up perhaps a quarter of the audience. The audience was very animated and a positive forest of hands were going up when questions were taken.
The order of the speakers was Aker – Redwood – Oborne. However, for ease of summary of their views both in their speeches and in answer to audience questions I shall deal with them with them in this order: Redwood – Aker – Oborne.
John Redwood
Redwood was so out of touch with the feeling of the audience that he came close to being booed. As it was there were frequent cries of “no”, “rubbish” and general murmurings of dissent as he asked the audience to trust Cameron’s honesty in his attempt to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU and put forward a plan for the OUT campaign which side-lined Nigel Farage . (The traffic of audience disapproval was countered by support for Redood , but judged by the noise made those against him were more numerous than his supporters).
Redwood said that he believed in Cameron’s honest intent in his negotiations with EU. Consequently, he would not make up his mind whether to vote to leave until Cameron had completed his negotiations. I think most people who have followed Redwood’s voluminous pronouncements on the EU will be more than a little surprised by his adoption of such an equivocal position as the referendum approaches. Redwood’s words were all the more unexpected because he began his talk by denouncing the fact that membership of the EU meant elected governments – most notably Greece at present – could not do what their electors wanted even if they wished to. An important question arises, if Redwood is undecided about which way he will vote how can he be part of the OUT campaign? Indeed, if Cameron gets concessions which Redwood deems enough to persuade him to vote to stay in, presumably he will be campaigning with the stay in camp.
While Redwood’s unwillingness to directly dismiss Cameron’s stated aim as a sham is understandable, he is just a backbencher who is unlikely to find a place in a Cameron cabinet in a Parliament where his party only has a small majority. These circumstances mean Redwood has considerable freedom to speak his mind. In this instance he could have said something along the lines of “The Prime Minister is sincere in his desire to reform the EU but I am sure we all know in our hearts that this is a lost cause. Therefore, I have no doubt that I shall be voting to come out of the EU” or even better “ I shall be voting to leave the EU regardless of what is offered by the EU because for me the question is not about renegotiating our term of membership but of Britain being a sovereign nation state”. Either statement would be consistent with what Redwood has said over the past few years.
Redwood also failed to describe in any detail what he would consider would constitute sufficient changes to the UK’s relationship with the EU to make him vote to stay in. Neither Aker nor Oborne challenged him on this and no audience member who was called to ask a question raised the subject. However, the subject is academic in the long run because it really does not matter what Cameron obtains by his renegotiation because whilst we remain within the EU any concessions given now may be reversed at a later date by the EU.
Perhaps most disturbing for those who wish the UK to leave the EU as a matter of principle, that is, those who wish our country to be a sovereign nation again, was Redwood’s strategy for the OUT campaign. Redwood adopted the line that Nigel Farage should not lead the OUT campaign because, he claimed, Farage is a marmite politician who will alienate large chunks of the waverers as we approach the referendum. In fact, Redwood gave the impression he would rather see Farage completely excluded from the OUT campaign.
Redwood’s scheme for the OUT side consisted of not frightening the voters with vulgar non-pc talk about immigration or being brutally honest about anything relating to the EU. Of course it is true that the undecided and faint-hearted supporters of leaving the EU will have to be appealed to in the right terms. The mistake Redwood is making is to imagine that the right terms will not include putting immigration controls at the heart of the OUT campaign. Polls consistently show that immigration is one of the major concerns of the British public and when the politically correct inspired terror of speaking honestly about race and immigration is taken into account, it is odds on that immigration is the number one issue by a wide margin. A British Future report in 2014 found that 25% of those included in the research wanted not only an end to immigration but the removal of all immigrants already in the UK and a YouGov poll commissioned by Channel 5 in 2014 found that 70% of those questioned wanted and end to mass immigration. .
Putting immigration at the heart of the OUT campaign would also have the bonus of appealing to the Scots through a subject on which they feel the same as the rest of the UK, that is they are also opposed to mass immigration. That is important because the SNP are trying to establish grounds for Scotland having a veto over the UK leaving the EU if Scotland votes to stay in the EU and either England or England, Wales and Northern Ireland vote to leave. The larger the vote to leave the EU in Scotland is , the less moral leverage they will have for either a veto over Britain leaving the EU or another independence referendum.
Why is Redwood putting forward the idea that Farage should be kept out of the limelight? It cannot be simply to damage Ukip in the interest of the Tory Party because there will be no general election for years (probably five years) . Could it be personal spite against Farage on Redwood’s part because they have quarrelled? I doubt it because I cannot recall Redwood and Farage having had a serious disagreement. How about Redwood being contaminated with the politically correct imprinting on the subjects of race and immigration with the consequence that he thinks Farage’s views on these subjects are simply beyond the Pale? This is much more likely. Interestingly, such a view echoes that of Douglas Carswell who said of Nigel Farage’s comments about foreign HIV patients costing the Earth: “I think some of the tone that we deployed – for example the comments about HIV I think were plain wrong. Wrong at so many levels. Not just wrong because they were electorally unhelpful but just wrong because they were wrong.”
Redwood added fuel to the fire of the audience’s discontent by adopting a patronising tone adorned with a supercilious smirk to anyone who disagreed with him and refused to answer when he was asked to comment on what he would do and think if Farage did lead the OUT campaign. The smirk became particularly pronounced at this point.
Tim Aker
Unlike Redwood and Aker was very forthright and uncompromising, dealing pretty roughly with Redwood whose positions he treated with undisguised incredulity as he pointed out the impossibility of the EU giving Cameron anything substantial and the folly of trying to sideline Farage. He pointed out that without Farage and Ukip there would be no referendum, a simple truth because before Ukip began to make substantial inroads into the Tory vote Cameron had shown no serious interest in a referendum.
In his speech Aker made all the right sort of political noises likely to appeal to most electors : immigrants reduce the wages of the low paid; the unemployed of other EU states are being dumped on the UK; the need for positive patriotism; a vote to remain in the EU would betray future generations; billions in Aid went to foreigners while some of our own people went to food banks ; England was being Balkanised through the city regions being forced on the country by Cameron; it is time to get rid of the Barnett Formula and so on. All of this produced in Redwood and Oborne the kind of facial expression that people adopt when they have encountered an unpleasant smell. That alone told you that Akers is on the right path.
Peter Oborne
Oborne gave a very poor speech. It largely consisted of backing up Redwood’s objections to Farage and Redwood’s plans for the OUT campaign. He described Akers as misguided and predicted that Farage would bring to the ballot box only the 14% or so who voted Ukip at the General Election. That claim was simple nonsense because a general election and a referendum are chalk and cheese, and there are many Euro sceptics in other parties, even some in the LibDems. To assume that Farage would cause such people to vote to remain in the EU or to abstain is absurd.
However, Oborne was strong on the need to have spending restrictions during the referendum campaign and made the interesting claim that Rupert Murdoch will be coming out for the stay in the EU side because Murdoch has re-established his close association with the Tory Party.
What needs to be done
Nigel Farage must not be shouldered aside but put in the forefront of the OUT campaign. Not only is he an increasingly effective public performer, especially in debates, unless he takes a lead role the OUT campaign is likely to end up in the hands of people such as Redwood and Carswell who have bought into the politically correct view of the world. What this campaign needs is emphatic, unambiguous and above all honest explanation of what the EU represents . It needs Farage to set that tone.
Immigration must be at the heart of the OUT campaign because it is (1) the issue which concerns more voters than any other issue and (2) it cuts across party and ideological lines in a way no other issue in the referendum will do.
Setting spending limits must be made a priority and should be agreed and put into operation by the end of 2015. The Europhile political elite will doubtless try to restrict spending limits to a short period before the vote is held.
The fixing of the EU referendum by the Europhiles has already begun with the choice of a palpably biased question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” The bias comes from both the trigger word “remain” and the fact that the status quo has captured the YES answer. Ideally a judicial review should be launched as soon as possible. If Ukip could fund it, that would be a most effective way of exercising control over the OUT campaign.
What should the question be? The original question put into European (Referendum) Bill was “Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?” That is much less biased because it does not overtly ask electors to vote for the status quo.
An alternative would be a double question with a box to mark against each question, for example
I wish Britain to be a member of the EU
I do not wish Britain to be a member of the EU.
Even that is not perfect because there is the problem of the order in which the questions come (being first gives a slight advantage).
Above all the OUT campaign needs to get its skates on as the referendum could be upon us quicker than we think, perhaps by the end of 2016 if Cameron has his way.
HOW FAIRLY WILL CAMERON’S IN/OUT EU REFERENDUM BE CONDUCTED?
I notice that in the last few days we have had a number of articles from the Europhiliac media, like the Times Leader on Tuesday May 19th, talking up the prospect of having the In/Out Referendum next year, probably next May.
The noteworthy fact is that it is the Europhiliacs in the Conservative Party who generally want to get it over with quickly rather than many of their more Eurosceptic voices. The Eurosceptics want the referendum in 2017. This set me to thinking why that would be? I also started to consider how the referendum would be conducted.
The Eurosceptic argument for having the referendum in 2017 was to allow David Cameron a full and reasonable opportunity to negotiate repatriation of powers to Westminster. Thus if nothing sensible is offered Eurosceptics will be able to prove that the EU is un-reformable and thus we are better off out.
In the meanwhile, however, of course various voices within the EU, including Angela Merkel and the President of the EU Commission, Jean Claude Junker, have made it clear that there will be no meaningful negotiation with substantial powers being returned. In these circumstances it is easy to understand why Europhiliacs would want to get the referendum over with as quickly as possible before voters can start to build-up resentment that so little is being offered, which, of course, would help in building a head of steam for British exit from the EU (“BREXIT”).
Then of course there is the serious question of what version of the electorate will be given the entitlement to vote in the referendum. I notice that some, particularly Labour and SNP voices, are currently saying that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, who of course have had the “benefit” of 10 years of Europhile propaganda, at public expense in their schools and are therefore thought to be likely to mostly vote in favour of staying in.
There is however the wider question of whether the electorate will be restricted to just British citizens or the General Election franchise which includes Irish citizens as well and various other categories, including some Commonwealth voters. Particularly and rather more alarmingly whether it will be the local government franchise which would include all those EU citizens who have registered on the electoral roll. If the millions of EU citizens resident in the “United” Kingdom are permitted to vote then that will make it much more unlikely that the vote will be in favour of “BREXIT”. The franchise will therefore be a crucial battleground. David Cameron appears to have indicated recently that he has conceded the Eurosceptic demand for the franchise to the General Election one but we all need to check the Bill’s wording on this when it is published.
Then there is the question of how the EU referendum itself will be conducted. Perhaps the model to consider is the referendum organised by John Prescott when he was Deputy Prime Minister. This was when Prescott hoped to start the process of breaking up England by getting a democratic mandate to separate the artificially created “Region” of the North-East. Labour had recently gerrymandered this “Region” to give itself a permanent majority (N.B. John Major’s original “Northern Region” gave the Conservatives an impregnable majority by including Cumbria).
It is worth remembering that in that referendum the preamble to the question which was put on every ballot paper miss-stated as fact a number of inaccuracies and misleading claims designed to encourage people to vote in favour. There was widespread protest, including even the usually useless Electoral Commission, but nevertheless that wording was included in the Act which meant that it had to be on the ballot paper by law. The question itself was somewhat loaded as well in favour of a Yes vote, all of which gave Labour, it thought, the best chance of winning that referendum.
If loading the question and misleading the voter wasn’t enough then they also thought that they wanted to make the referendum a conquest between North-Easterners and Tory “toffs”. So even though Neil Heron, the metric martyr, had got a highly successful No campaign going and was undoubtedly almost single handedly the principal reason why the result was a No vote, nevertheless Labour manipulated the setting up appointment of a No campaign so that a Tory millionaire businessman, John Elliott, was put in charge of it.
I notice on Twitter and Facebook that some over excitable UKIPers seem to think the pro-BREXIT campaign might be led by them with Nigel Farage. I would be very surprised if that was the case. I think it is much more likely that Cameron will engineer it so that it is led by a Labour figure. By doing this he will aim to split Labour on the issue and make it as repellent as possible for Conservative loyalists to vote in favour of BREXIT.
The most credible leader from the Labour side of the BREXIT campaign would be Frank Field. For that reason I think he will be excluded and the appointee will be a less credible Labour figure but one who has at least some Eurosceptic credentials. Would you like to speculate on who that person will be?
I suspect also that the time period given for the referendum will be short so that the BREXIT campaign cannot really get going and the amount awarded to the Yes and No campaigns will be kept to the statutory minimum with the smallest permitted ceiling on spending by third parties. This will allow the Europhile media to have the maximum influence possible.
The leading media organisation in trying to influence the public to vote to remain in the EU will of course be that media outlet which has by far the largest and most dominant market share of all in our media, this is of course the, partly EU funded, BBC. It doesn’t require any imagination to guess which result the BBC will be supporting!
However event though the cards will most likely be stacked as heavily as possible against a Yes to BREXIT result that should not lead us to total despair. In the North-East referendum 79% voted to reject the break-up of England despite all the cards being stacked against that result. Despite also the BBC’s efforts on behalf of the Labour Party in the recent General Election, we now know that many of our fellow citizens weren’t taken in. The big question is whether that will happen again this time. What do you think?
On the 18th February I attended, at David Campbell Bannerman MEP’s invitation, a conference that he had organised at Europe House, the former Conservative Party Headquarters at 32 Smith Square in London. The conference was entitled ‘Alternatives to EU Membership: What are the UK’s options?’
The conference was extremely well planned, supported and very interesting with a series of interesting speakers. We had the history of the relationship between the UK and the UK and, indeed of Europe, generally extending back over the last 2,000 years from Adrian Hilton, AKA the blogger, Archbishop Cranmer. His speech can be found here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc4AElHRAw&list=PLhBwLqL-Q9j9LAg45qcCuWJCZVfcjRvyM&index=2 and is well worth listening to.
The meeting was chaired by Tim Montgomerie currently of the Times and formally of Conservative Home, who was kind enough to welcome me personally and assured me that he supported an English Parliament and wished the campaign every success.
We heard from Ruth Lee, from Martin Howe QC and interestingly from Heming Olaussen, leading No to EU campaigner, and also Thomas Aeschi, member of the Swiss Parliament for the Swiss Peoples Party, as to what the situation is in terms of resistance to EU membership in both those countries. Also from David Campbell Bannerman himself and also from Sir Bill Cash MP.
There were also impressive contributions from Matthew Elliott, John Mills, leading Labour Eurosceptic, and Dr John Warmould, an expert in the motor manufacturing sector, recorded messages from Owen Patterson MP and Niall Gardner, of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, an entertaining speech from UKIP’s Earl of Dartmouth MEP and also a great speech from Christopher Chope MP. All of these speeches can be found by following the YouTube links.
The upshot of the meeting was also useful for the Eurosceptic Cause, as it became clear there is really a very simple option which does not depend on anyone else agreeing to anything. We could simply leave the EU and there would be an automatic access to the fundamental agreements governing world trade under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation.
Other options would simply give rise to the sort of confusion which did not help the ‘Yes’ side in the Scottish Independence Referendum, as we would be left arguing that we need the agreement of particular people and trying to convince people that the negotiations would proceed favourably.
Bill Cash pointed out that because the UK does not have a written Constitution and the fundamental rule of parliamentary sovereignty (that one parliament cannot bind the next), means that there is nothing constitutionally to stop us simply repealing the European Communities Act, which means that the UK is automatically out of the EU.
Therefore with that simple constitutional step the UK would be back amongst the trade nations governed by the World Trade Organisation. No doubt also, given the balance of payments, we would also be able to get favourable terms with the EU in due course in any case. The only part of the economy which needs special consideration is the motor industry which may need special support negotiated with the industry leaders.
This clarification is of course great news from the point of view of the campaign to leave the EU, since it makes all the arguments much simpler and much easier for everyone to understand.
What do you think?
 |
|||||||
|
Devolution and an in-out referendum – UKIP Daily
In part 1 I looked at the UK electoral arithmetic which suggested that England might well vote to leave the EU while one or more of Scotland, W…
|
|||||||
|
Preview by Yahoo
|
|||||||
