EU Referendum: The People Versus Cameron

As we can clearly see above with Conservative MP Owen Paterson's answers in a BBC Newsnight interview last week he demonstrates conflicting loyalties. A loyalty naturally to the Tory party, (and his boss Cameron), which largely wishes to remain members of the EU, a loyalty to Dominic Cummings and Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave Limited who are increasingly showing no interest in leaving, and a loyalty to the campaign to leave the EU.

It's this contradiction of conflicting interests which meant Paterson was unable to put forward a convincing case for the UK leaving the EU when being interviewed; he was trying to ride two horses at once rather unsuccessfully.

This is an interesting and revealing example of the contradiction since 1973 within the Tory party where some party members who wish EU exit have traditionally placed loyalty towards an inherently europhile party above trying to demonstrate the case for an independent Britain. This has led to the enduring "policy" of the nonsense of so-called EU "reform" - a continuing pretense that it isn't the Tories' fault that the EU has somehow diverged from a so-called common market.

Meanwhile outside Westminster the EU has always made it clear it was about political union from the outset and any reform to the contrary is little more than asking for a barking cat:

In respect of the European Union, this principle [of barking cats] is as important as it is profound. As a treaty organisation, steeped in history and protocols, with its own embedded "political DNA", its behavioural pathways are fixed. There are certain things it will do, there are things it can do. And there are things which, under any circumstances, it will never do - because it cannot. 

Thus by the EU's own political DNA, to give the UK the "reforms" it allegedly wants is a complete non-starter.

So while the BBC's Evan Davis is clearly in favour of EU membership given that his questions posed to those arguing in favour of EU membership meant a much easier time that those arguing against, the lack of Tory party clarity on the issues helps the remain campaign.

A national referendum though is not a general election campaign. A referendum allows the people to have the opportunity to lead and the politicians have to do as they are told - direct democracy - a plebiscite, where the people rather than the politicians make the decisions.

There are no constituencies, no tribal loyalties with the electorate and the use of tactical voting becomes redundant. Politicians themselves have only one vote like the rest of us, and with most MPs supporting remain - aided and abetted by a pro-EU supporting media - the referendum becomes a contest between the people against the pro-EU establishment.

The dynamics are thus different to a general election, where the electorate are de facto electing a Prime Minister to run the country; in 2015 for example it was a contest between Cameron and Miliband. However a referendum is not about electing a leader, it's about the people having a say over policy.

Thus American Gerry Gunster who has been hired as Arron Banks' referendum adviser, rightly says that a leave referendum campaign should not have a leader as it is prone to the vulnerability of attacks on a target.

With this in mind it is evident that when being outnumbered or outgunned in a physical confrontation it is often a successful method to isolate and take out the vocal leader at the front. As Sun Bin, a Chinese military strategist observes:

To Catch The Bandits First Capture Their Leader

[This] means that you first have to take out the leader of your strong enemy. After that; your whole enemy will lose the fighting spirit and will flee or surrender and will defect to your side and that leads to a great victory.

And it's here the leave campaign has a potential advantage. The establishment will be represented not by the remain campaign, which is little more than a pantomime horse - a decoy - but instead by Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service, David Cameron. Incumbent of office and titles confer upon Cameron prestige; a prestige which gives him authority.

The remain campaign, therefore will have a leader whilst the leave campaign, if it plays its cards right, will not. The real enemy will not be the EU but Cameron. And as Sun Bin observes above we have to capture the leader. It becomes necessary to strip him of the prestige of office and attack him personally, perhaps making it very personal.

The essence of trust in this referendum is vital. We know from experience Cameron is not to be trusted - cast iron guarantees. We also know he never wanted a referendum because he wants to remain a EU member:

"I don’t want an ‘in or out’ referendum because I don’t think out is in Britain’s interests.”

Therefore the question ultimately comes down to whether Cameron can trusted or not. He has limited options and is betting the bank on a new EU treaty with the option of Associate Membership. But the new treaty cannot be delivered in time for the 2017 referendum, so Cameron will only be left with promises of future change not yet defined. A very weak hand.

This makes an exit plan for the leavers essential. With Flexcit we can present a better offer of a new relationship with the EU, in contrast to Cameron.

In addition having an exit plan, and one which potentially is part of winning referendum campaign, means the leave campaign will have a mandated plan on how to leave. This will ensure that there can be no stitch up should we win. A danger otherwise would be that post Article 50 the subsequent negotiations are little different to EU Associate Membership. A second referendum on the outcome of negotiations will keep the government honest.

So as per Sun Bin, Cameron is the target, take him out and we take out the remains.

Stupid

Nigel Farage and Shami Chakrabarti were on BBC's Andrew Marr this morning reviewing the papers. Naturally the subject of the EU was broached, over Milly Dowler and capital punishment, the Greek crisis and the Olympic ticket farce. This prompted Chakrabarti to comment (from memory, the transcript's not yet up):

"It's amazing how you manged to get the EU into every subject".

Now I wonder why that would be? You would hope that eventually Miss Chakrabarti might work out the answer for herself, but probably not.

One-Nil To The Internet

From the Daily Mail:

Andrew Marr's decision to end the farce of his own super-injunction was welcomed by MPs and critics yesterday who said he had been 'hypocritical' to hide behind a cloak of secrecy while quizzing public figures.

Yet us bloggers already knew this, a fact which upset Marr very much:

"Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all. A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people. OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night."

Marr's apology is the equivalent of "I'm only sorry because I've been caught out".

We've Got 'Em Rattled

From Andrew Marr:

"Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all. A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people. OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night."

This from the renowned Brad Pitt look-a-like Andrew Marr who once used a super-injunction to prevent the press from revealing his affair.

Less the words of wisdom from an experienced journalist more the rantings a man who knows his profession is under siege. The cosy consensus of the BBC, Guardian and the rest used to dictating the agenda is being threatened and they don't like it one bit. People can now by-pass the traditional lines of authority on what is or is not news and find out for themselves. Yes many things on the internet are puerile or nasty but the best blogs will always rise to the top. It's called democracy and often it gets a little messy.

And if Marr and his ilk want someone to blame then I suggest they find the nearest mirror. It's the blogosphere that has led on many issues while the MSM has stayed schtum. They have failed in their duty as the 'fourth estate' - nature abhors a vacuum and the blogosphere is filling that vacuum.

hattip: Iain Dale

The 3 Fs

Whatever one thinks of Peter Mandelson, he is (allegedly) very good at what he does politically. His demolition of Andrew Marr was great telly and a case in point.

His book on New Labour: The Third Man, however, going by the extracts in the Times (from the Guardian*) is a big disappointment:

Senior cabinet members joked three Fs at centre of election campaign should be 'futile', 'finished' and 'fucked'

The disclosure in the Times lifts the lid on an open secret at Westminster over the past year: that the vast majority of members of the former cabinet had believed Brown was leading them to a catastrophic defeat. Mandelson told David Miliband on Remembrance Day last year that Labour could not win with Brown if nothing changed, as the then foreign secretary raised fears of a major defeat.

Is that it? Mandelson in his 'warts 'n' all' book merely confirms what we already knew? That Brown was, and is, unfit for high office.

Thanks but we kinda worked that out for ourselves.

* I don't pay for the Times online because paying for newspapers doesn't mean better journalism, the cover price usually only pays for the paper, the printing and the distribution. Advertising does the rest. It's a point of principle I suppose on my part against nonsense like this.

UK faces EU fines over London air quality

Last Friday the European Commission turned down a request from the UK Government for more time to comply with EU limits on pollution in London, which is in breach of Directive 1999/30/EC.

The UK is now facing legal proceedings and the threat of up to £300m fines after the European Commission ruled that:

"air quality plan for this particular zone did not meet the minimum requirements of the Directive for a time extension".

London Mayor, Boris Johnson will now be under pressure to bring forward his draft Air Quality Strategy, which was based on the assumption that an extension would be granted until 2011.

Laura Gyte, Friends of the Earth's solicitor, said:

"The UK has known about these limits for years - we are delighted that the EU has rejected the Government's bid to carry on polluting."

I'm afraid that I can't share in the delight that the elected UK Government, and the elected London Mayor have been overruled by the unelected EU Commission.

Interestingly, Boris Johnson was interviewed on the Andrew Marr show yesterday, during which he mentioned in great detail the cycling initiatives outlined in his Air Quality Strategy, but strangely the involvement of the EU and the decision of the EU Commission on Friday were not.