EU Referendum: Flexcit, Obama And Boris

“America would welcome it if Britain should apply for full membership in the [EEC], explicitly recognising that the Rome treaty was not merely a static document but a process leading towards political unification.”(George Ball Under-Secretary of State for JFK 1961)

It's been well documented, even by its own internal Wilson report, that the UK public broadcaster is less than impartial when it comes to reporting on the EU accurately.

And it's also well documented that the United States is keen on UK membership of the European Union for reasons that are less than altruistic as the above quote illustrates very clearly. The US was always going to interfere, it wishes to have a relationship with a nation state with whom it has historical connections but which is subordinate to a supranational body.

All of the above has been perfectly evident from years of experience and from the studying

the mistakes and lessons laid bare in the wonderful 1975 Referendum book by David Butler and Uwe W. Kitzinger which with unerring and unintentional accuracy predicted many of the same problems 40 years ahead. The book is freely available on the internet,

With this in mind therefore we note this report from the BBC:

The BBC's opening website paragraph is this:

At a town hall meeting in London, US president Barack Obama told 500 young people to "reject pessimism, cynicism and know that progress is possible".

Obama hasn't mentioned specifically the EU, but the phrase of "rejecting pessimism and cynicism" makes it transparent of what his message is, given his previous statements during his current stay in the UK.

And then follows a relatively long piece BBC about Obama which includes interviews with an "international relations student" who's "a non-binary person", an "ethnic minority president of the Oxford University Conservative Association" and "a campaigner on disability and violence against women". All of which sounds very progressive and positive.

When we consider the recent fuss about the "debate" - if we can call it that - with Boris Johnson's ill informed intervention regarding Obama's comments on UK membership of the EU, describing the lame duck US President as "part-Kenyan", the inference and context of Obama's recent comments becomes obvious. The debate is being framed as a well meaning progressive Cameron against an idiot colonial and out of date Boris.

Obama is using well rehearsed emotional issues to attempt to isolate the Brexit campaigners as those who are not normal without, in this report, having to mention the EU. Thus the BBC doesn't have to show "balance" in this particular piece as part of its referendum reporting.

In this sense the referendum is going according to plan. It is a repeat of 1975. It's not like we weren't warned. We knew the BBC would be unfair, we knew the media be unfair, we knew Cameron would lie and we knew American and other countries would interfere.  We knew this.

And that was the point of an exit plan - it allowed us to launch an effective pre-emptive strike. By having a progressive positive plan we would have negated the effectiveness of an American President's intervention.

Instead we are increasingly being lumbered with Boris, a politician without a clue who this blog has long been less than convinced that he is a Eurosceptic Tory - if that term is not an oxymoron.

It's within this context it becomes increasingly difficult to tell whether Boris' current disastrous intervention in the referendum campaign is the result of idiocy or perhaps more cynically an attempt to hijack the leave campaign and deliberately ruin it, The latter would be very much in keeping with his and his family's well established pro-EU views.

The outcome though as it currently stands is the leave campaign loses, Failing to learn these lessons of the obvious mistakes of the past are now coming to pass....again.

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.

EU Referendum: BBC Speculate On An April 2016 Poll

Allegra Stratton, Political Editor reported on BBC Newsnight on the 1st September that an early referendum might be possible in April 2016. She begins:

[The] Conservative Party look like they're in a bit of a hurry. I am told that some of David Cameron's advisers are looking at the idea of an early Europe referendum, possibly as early as next April [2016].

Apparently, according to Stratton, the Tories are in a hurry as to try to outmaneuver Corbyn should he win the Labour leadership. Here we can clearly see the BBC is unable to escape from the confines of UK domestic "biff-bam" personality politics over what is the most important and powerful vote the UK public have in their lifetime - membership of a supranational organisation.

Not that we would know it from the BBC but it's a decision that will have enormous ramifications on the UK's economic and political relationships with the rest of the world.

Stratton then continues to justify her 'insider knowledge':

For the government to have a referendum in the middle of April the following elements have to fall into place like absolute clockwork. They have to kickstart the campaign in early February; that allows for the legal minimum of 10 weeks that they have to have for any campaign...That means that this legislation is receiving Royal Assent in early January or mid January... Government insiders believe this very tight schedule is possible but difficult.

We wouldn't dispute the implication that the EU Referendum Bill is unlikely to receive Royal Assent before Christmas. Yet the assertion of allowing for "the legal minimum of 10 weeks that they have to have for any campaign." clearly overlooks the recommendations of the Electoral Commission (EC).

Here we have to look at the EC's report on the Scottish Referendum which we previously noted (my emphasis):

... that in planning for any future referendums, not only in Scotland but also those held across or in other parts of the UK, governments should aim to ensure that legislation (including any secondary legislation) is clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners, the Chief Counting Officer, Counting Officers or Electoral Registration Officers.

Thus "a reasonable period" according the Electoral Commission amounts to six months, as it argues to allow for (again my emphasis):

The benefit of this additional time was passed on to campaigners, EROs and COs in preparing for their respective roles at the referendum:

Campaigners were able to engage constructively with the legislative process and had time to develop an understanding of the relevant guidance and rules, before they came into force. EROs and COs benefitted from sufficient time to put robust plans in place for the delivery of their responsibilities under the legislation, from targeted public awareness activity to the booking of polling places and the training of staff.

In addition the Electoral Commission also recommends (again my emphasis):

2.39 Following the 2011 referendum on additional powers for the National Assembly for Wales and the Parliamentary Voting System for the House of Commons, we recommended that for future referendums the detailed rules should be clear at least 28 weeks in advance of polling day, based on a statutory regulated referendum campaign period of 16 weeks.

Stratton fails to take into account the EC's recommendations that six months is required for the designation process - to nominate the official "remains" and "leavers" campaign.

Thus a April 2016 poll is now impossible on the current timescale. It's disappointing to say the least when a highly paid BBC journalist doesn't know the basics and doesn't inform us. Then again this is exactly why the legacy media were caught out when the EC recommended changing the question, despite the EC's reservations being made public in advance.

Thankfully we have the internet...EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum 

EU Referendum: Media Bias

During the 1975 referendum all the newspapers bar one – the communist Morning Star – supported EEC membership. Such positive support in the media for staying in the EU would be almost identical today, liberally sprinkled with FUD, as illustrated above, with possibly the dubious exception of the Daily Express. Even the likes of the supposedly eurosceptic Daily Mail has made it clear, in editorials, that it supports EU membership:

Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe — and particularly not at a time like this, when withdrawal would add immeasurably to the uncertainties threatening our recovery and rocking the confidence of the markets.

The economic FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) has already started in earnest. Courtesy of the BBC across it's broadcasting outlets we have this from Bank of England governor Mark Carney:

[He] has said that the UK should hold its EU referendum "as soon as necessary".

"We talk to a lot of bosses and there has been uncertainty whether it's for the election or the referendum," said Mr Carney on the BBC's Today programme.

Analysts fear businesses may delay making investments while there is uncertainty over Britain's future in the EU.

"FUD, FUD glorious FUD" means that if we are to win a referendum, it is essential to negate it by making it clear that the UK will remain in the Single Market post exit for the time being as to make it economically neutral. It remains our only hope of clearing the first hurdle required to ultimately win.

But it’s certainly obvious that it will be a significant challenge in trying to overturn the message of the establishment, media and FUD, all of which will be heavily funded. Not least because the eurosceptic movement is so divided with no coherent message.

Certainly this was the experience of the early 1970's with our entry into the then EEC where pro-market lobby groups were co-ordinated under the umbrella of the European Movement part funded by the EU Commission to act as an integral part of the government campaign.

Efforts were made, by the Heath government, to bring the media on board particularly the BBC where eurosceptic presenters were dismissed in favour of more sympathetic ones. Less competent or more divisive spokesmen were chosen by the media, and the BBC, to represent the "out" campaign for negative effect.

We are, therefore, in danger of being greatly damaged by FUD, and currently we are losing the FUD war - it's being created faster than can be responded to by various media outlets including blogs. Richard North notes:

Talking yesterday to a senior politician, he observed that the "out" campaign should already have a rapid rebuttal unit up and running, to deal with this sort of thing. To my mind, it is an indictment of Ukip, which should already be equipped to handle false claims.

Thus the "out" campaign is going to have to establish its own permanent rebuttal units to monitor and counter media FUD. This was a tactic very successfully adopted by New Labour in the lead up to their landslide victory in 1997. Peter Oborne's book on Alastair Campbell observes (page 134):

[Campbell] put into effect the new electoral technology which New Labour had imported from the United States: the giant media war-room, the 24 hour monitoring of television, radio and press outlets, a rapid rebutal serivce, a savage clampdown on MPS and Shadow ministers who spoke out of turn...Labour's ferocious internal discipline was the key to its success.

In stark contrast to the [Tories]...Labour MPS were prevailed upon to limit their public utterances to the bland platitudes imposed upon them by the party machine.

...what gave Labour complaints the edge was that they were inevitably well-researched and sensibly focused. The vigilance was extraordinary. Roger Mosey, then the editor of the Today programme, recalls: 'If you had a line that Labour didn't like on the 6.30am bulletin you got called instantly. Often Labour complaints had some substance...if there was a glimmer of an inaccuracy they were onto you.'

This gives an indication of the ruthlessless required to win a referendum, particularly if the odds are stacked against us. The internet and social media becomes the key.

In addition with newspapers we have a complaints procedure, which obviously anyone can use. Post-Leveson what was the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has now become the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and we will address the significance of this with a subsequent piece.

Here we will concentrate on television broadcasters. The 1975 referendum, being the first nationwide poll of its kind in the UK, presented broadcasters with hitherto unknown dilemmas of balance and responsibility. Up to that point, in general elections, broadcasters used the existing strength of parties in MPs, or in votes, at the last election as a guide in establishing the priorities of the coverage.

The White Paper of February 1975 offered no particular formula or solution, instead its 'advice' was one of hope rather than one born out of regulatory oversight (page 19):

4.9 The Government are confident that the IBA and BBC will exercise editorial discretion designed to ensure that there is a fair balance between the opposing views in news and feature programmes. The broadcasting authorities may also decide to run a series of short "referendum broadcasts" analogous to party political broadcasts. In this way an equal number of short periods of television time would-be"made available to the main campaigning organisations in the two or three weeks before polling day.

The Government would welcome such an initiative.

Whereas in 1975, the government was "confident", hardly an endorsement of rigorous oversight, now we have regulatory authorities in place regarding the impartiality of broadcasters.

With the establishment of the Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003 and the establishment of the Electoral Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 the broadcasting oversight is more structured which means that crucially it is an avenue where we can complain. Ofcom provided examples of this oversight during the Scottish referendum.

With regard to Ofcom, broadcasters should ensure that they comply with Section Five: (Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions):

To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.

And broadcasters also have to comply with Section Six (Elections and Referendums) of the Code:

To ensure that the special impartiality requirements in the Communications Act 2003 and other legislation relating to broadcasting on elections and referendums, are applied at the time of elections and referendums. 

In addition, there is the prohibition of political advertising in Section 321 of the Communications Act 2003:

(2) For the purposes of section 319(2)(g) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political advertising if it is:

(a) an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature;

(b) an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or

(c) an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.

(3) For the purposes of this section objects of a political nature and political ends include each of the following:

(a) influencing the outcome of elections or referendums, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;

This applies to the multitude of local television and radio outlets with the exception of the BBC which is overseen by the BBC Trust.

In the 1960's JFK embraced the relatively new medium of television to great effect, this in contrast Barack Obama who embraced the new medium of the internet in 2008. His internet campaign was crucial to winning the Presidency.

We can therefore learn the lessons of using a new medium to try to keep the old medium of broadcasters "honest", or by simply by-passing them. Thus in the UK we can embrace the internet in the same effective way and with regulatory bodies in place over the traditional legacy media  the internet allows us as individuals to facilitate a campaign to ensure some resemblance of impartiality. The simple use of Twitter has worked before

Thus unlike 1975 we now have the internet and everything that comes with it; smartphones, Twitter, Facebook and forums. The establishment no longer has a monopoly on information. Scotland revealed the significance of this development. The independence campaign was a dry run of how an EU referendum would be conducted and it showed comprehensively that unofficial campaigns centered on social media was very powerful.

By using the internet to lobby regulatory bodies, each one of us can make a small but significant difference.

What Happened To British WW2 POW Camps?

As part of my history degree, which I completed some 20 years ago, I was tasked to write a 20,000 word dissertation during my final year on a subject of my choice.

I chose what was then a relatively little-studied subject of UK prisoner of war camps during the second World War. At the time the 50-year rule had just lapsed so many a happy hour was spent in Kew's National Archives studying and documenting WW2 official top secret documents which had just been released.

Although the history of the British in German POW camps is more familiar to us, not least through popular films such as The Great Escape and The Wooden Horse, less well known is the fate of the Germans and Italians, their treatment and the escape attempts in camps based in the UK.

Indeed the subject was so bereft at the time of books on the subject that much of my dissertation had to be derived from primary sources such as; official documents, site visits such as to Easton Grey Camp based at Malmesbury, Wiltshire and personal interviews across England, Jersey and France.

With this in mind I thought I would mention this piece on the BBC website which has an interesting, albeit rather brief article, on this very subject.

BBC License Tax Bullies

It is well documented that the state broadcaster known as the BBC has an institutional left wing bias, or more accurately perhaps we should describe it as has having a Guardian-based (London centric) bias - which is not necessarily the same thing.

More objectionable, from this blog's point of view, is BBC bias regarding membership of the EU - this becomes acutely apparent with its EU coverage. Leaving aside the techniques it used in the early '70s of removing "anti-marketeer" broadcasters at the behest of the then Tory Heath government, subsequent and various internal reports have detailed the fundamental lack of BBC impartiality.

The BBC's own internal reports acknowledges albeit very reluctantly the problem of EU coverage - this is evident in the infamous Wilson report for example. The BBC's "we've listened but we'll do nothing" response to the Wilson Report is very familiar to any of us who have complained - as taxpayers our impotency is laid bare by BBC's stock answers which amount to little.

The Wilson report is not the only accusation of BBC pro-EU bias - further independent analysis of BBC coverage of EU matters has delivered more damning evidence:

Consistent airtime imbalance between advocacy and presentation of the Europhile perspective and the Eurosceptic case in an overall ratio of 2:1.

Consistent presentational bias (in the limited time allocated) through treating Eurosceptic opinion as extreme rather than as an alternative policy approach ñ reflecting and supported by public opinion ñ to membership of the EU.

Poor journalistic standards, including inaccurate reporting of statistics and sources. For example, the BBC Programme Complaints Unit has acknowledged that figures on Irish inward investment were used misleadingly.

The wrong use of these figures influenced the coverage of the second Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice in October 2002.

Of course it's not helpful trying to persuade us that the BBC is impartial when it receives millions from the EU itself; funding which it tries to hide. Those of us who have fought for many years know the BBC pro-EU bias, and certainly I experienced it directly as a Parliamentary candidate in the 2010 election on a number of occasions.

Further suspicion of its significant lack of impartiality comes when we consider that the BBC, being a state broadcaster, was immune from EU single market competition rules in 2002:

Finally, part 5 gives Ofcom tough competition powers to act concurrently with the Office of Fair Trading. Ofcom will be able to use general competition powers, but we are also retaining, very importantly, sector-specific competition rules for broadcasting—a vital part of protecting markets that do not deliver key policy objectives purely by leaving them to competition alone. Ofcom will have flexibility to use sector-specific powers, but it will not use them where it would be more appropriate for it to use general competition powers.

Of course we would argue that the BBC can be as bias as it like except for the simple fact that its funding in the main comes from threats to send UK citizens to jail on failure to pay its television tax. Thus it has an inherent principle that it should be bound to be impartial. Failure to do so makes it morally right to withdrawal our funding.

It then clearly fails, and with this in mind it's odd then to observe that a nation which comprehensively rejected a poll tax under Margaret Thatcher is largely willing to accept what is a poll tax on a widely used item which provides information. A poll tax which is regressive and so affecting the poorest the greatest.

Aside from being regressive it is a television poll tax which enables the BBC to essentially be immune from market forces - no-one has to take responsibility for institutional and systematic failings.

In addition to the lack of accountability, it also means that the BBC has the power to try to bully those who do not conform when it comes to paying the television tax. YouTube has a plethora of examples of bullying when it comes to collecting the television tax.

Nothing can demonstrate this culture better than the BBC's notorious and sinister 'Big Brother' type propaganda; "We know where you live". Oddly this particular BBC advert for its license fee, which was withdrawn after protests, has proved to be harder to find on the internet than we would reasonably assume for a relatively recent campaign,

And it is for these reasons I no longer pay my license fee and I haven't for around five years. Using a PlayStation 3 (PS3) or now a PS4 to view television programmes on demand removes me from the need to legally have a license. In addition I have withdrawn TVL's implied right of access to my property and that so far seems to have done the job in terms of being harassed. I rarely receive reminder notices nor have I ever had a "visit".

Yet just this week a young single mum, who has three children and lives not far from me, has been on my doorstop in tears. I have known her for over 10 years. Financially restricted she doesn't pay her tv license.  Yet while she was briefly visiting her neighbours, a TVL Visting Officer (VO) entered her property having been let in by her 11 year eldest child. There where no adults in the property at the time. As a consequence TVL are trying now to use evidence gained as a result against her.

This completely contrary to the guidelines which are perfectly clear:

Entry To Premises.

7.0 When there is admitted or suspected evasion, or where the interviewee claims that there is no television, the VO should ask permission to enter the premises in order to confirm this.

Premises must never be entered when the only person present is a child/minor.

We would view that entering a property with only minors present would not only be a legal problem but also one which a VO would consider puts them in a position of vulnerability regarding accusations of inappropriate behaviour. How revealing that didn't occur to him in his enthusiasm to fulfill a target.

The requirement to pay for a TV license comes under the Communications Act 2003 and Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended). A licence is not needed simply for holding a television set itself, but merely makes it an offence to watch or record television programmes as they are being broadcast including on other platforms such as; satellite and cable channels, mobile phones and the internet.

So how ironical that it's not the bullying nature of the license fee collectors that will undermine the BBC...but technology, which is embraced by the BBC itself.

"500 Years Of Democracy"

I stumbled upon this rather short film by the BBC - shown above- which is about the Swiss relationship with the EU. It allegedly reports on...

"...the Swiss psyche and its complicated legal arrangements with the EU. Some Eurosceptics see the Switzerland as model for a potential future UK-EU relationship, if Britain were to cut, or loosen, its links with Brussels."

How a film that only lasts 2mins 43 seconds long can expect to examine all the "complicated legal arrangements" is an interesting concept. But I guess the only way to gauge is to watch it. The film doesn't start off well - indulging in cliché and inaccuracy:

"...Switzerland's relationship with the EU is a bit like a cuckoo clock - a bit in and a bit out. In Europe but not in the EU."

Ah a "Swiss cuckoo clock". Despite that the cuckoo clock is German in origin regardless of Orsen's Welles' famous speech in the film The Third Man. Yet more importantly is the tone of the BBC film. While quickly rattling through a basic summary giving the apparently obligatory 'pros and cons' it comes the following conclusions:

But Eurosceptics say the referendum ranks alongside the scenery and the chocolates - it's one of Switzerland's attractions.

And in response to Dieter Freiburghaus arguing in support of the Swiss relationship:

Thanks Dieter but many would suggest the idea of a more detached Swiss style arrangement is...well... totally cuckoo.

It would be difficult to think of a more sarcastic pro-EU partisan based sign off to a film.

Despite the unbelievably patronising sentiments of the BBC piece, the facts though do indicate that the Swiss option is not great for the UK.

The Swiss option was born out of a fudge – a consequence of the refusal of the Swiss to join the European Economic Area (EEA) in the ‘90s and their subsequent refusal to join the EU. Instead trading arrangements with the EU are based on a series of "pick and mix" bilateral agreements with over 120 agreements in place.

And while there are some significant advantages - democracy, the Swiss as seen recently can reject EU measures in a referendum - the arrangements are also seen as unnecessarily and fiendishly complex. Bilateral agreements are far too complex and time-consuming to administer. And indeed rather than maintaining distance from the EU it has proved to be a means of moving Switzerland closer to the EU  - about 40 percent of Swiss legislation derives from EU rules.

Overall, the Swiss approach – which includes the Schengen Association Agreement (SAA) - is regarded as unique to the country. It is an exception, developed over time, rather than a recognised formal model of EU relationship.

And because of difficulties it is not seen as an example that can be readily applied to the UK. MPs from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, found on a visit to Berne in 2013 that the EU did not wish to continue with the current system (page 77):

It was stressed to [the UK] in Berne that the EU did not wish to continue with the current system of EU-Swiss bilateral agreements. For the EU, they are too complex and time-consuming to administer.

More importantly, the EU considers that, without any provision for Switzerland’s automatic adoption of new legislation in areas covered by its bilateral agreements, and without any dispute settlement mechanism, the current system creates “legal uncertainty”.

In December 2012, the EU said that “the approach taken by Switzerland to participate in EU policies and programmes through sectoral agreements in more and more areas [...] has reached its limits and needs to be reconsidered. Any further development of the complex system of agreements would put at stake the homogeneity of the Internal Market”.

Since December 2010 the EU as been refusing to move forward on any further bilateral agreements that Switzerland might seek until the Swiss Government agrees to establish an overarching institutional framework that would ensure the homogenous interpretation and application between the EU and Switzerland of the relevant Single Market rules. Professor Schwok suggested that the “Swiss model no longer exists because the EU wants its relationship with Switzerland to move closer to the EEA benchmark”

So although the Swiss model has its benefits it is very unlikely to be repeated. But naturally in a film of only a couple of minutes long the BBC did not even attempt to explore any of these issues in detail. One could consider this just an oversight yet we have evidence of the BBC dismissing other EU exit options based on lies.

I guess the BBC would consider this little film as part of having to fulfil their "neutral" quota, but it does demonstrate come a referendum our state broadcaster cannot be trusted to give us all the details in what is a complex subject.

Instead it resorted to patronising partisan soundbites.

At Last, One's Got Through

For those who watch the BBC's Have I Got News For You programme will be familiar with the "Missing Words Round", where newspaper headlines are displayed with certain words blanked out. Contestants have to guess the missing word.

So in that spirit let’s have a game of TBF’s “Missing Words Round”. From the paragraphs that follow try to guess the missing words in the BBC website headline above…and no cheating.

The BBC reports that:

“a grassroots initiative” [sic] to protect the quality of Europe's drinking water and stop it being privatised has got on to the agenda of EU lawmakers in Brussels”. It is the first European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to reach that stage, the European Commission says.

Ah our old friend the European Citizens' Initiative which was an 'innovation' of the Lisbon Treaty, and is laughably aimed at increasing democracy in the EU. So in the spirit of democracy I’ll produce a quick guide here on how to follow the procedure to “encourage” the EU Commission to legislate on matters that concerns EU citizens (my emphasis throughout):

• First you need find out if the initiative or idea is an EU Commission competence and that the proposed initiative is not manifestly contrary to the EU values as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. If not it immediately fails.
  
  
• Then a citizens' initiative has to be proposed by a citizens' committee composed of at least 7 EU citizens old enough to vote in European Parliament elections and living in at least 7 different member states. The committee must designate from among its members a representative and a substitute to speak and act on their behalf. These will be the contact persons who will liaise between the committee and the Commission throughout the procedure.
  
  
• Then before organisers can start collecting statements of support from citizens, they have to request the registration of their proposed initiative on this website. This includes providing personal details of the 7 required committee members (full names, postal addresses, nationalities and dates of birth), indicating specifically the representative and his/her substitute as well as their e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. And documents that prove the full names, postal addresses, nationalities and dates of birth of each of the 7 members of the citizens’ committee.

I hope you’re keeping up at the back…(and I have simplified this procedure somewhat).

• At the time of registration and throughout the procedure, organisers must provide up-to-date information on all sources of support and funding worth more than €500 per year and per sponsor.
  
  
• Organisers who wish to collect statements of support online must build an online collection system, accessible through their website, to ensure that data complies with EU data protection legislation.

Phew! Now we got that far, we can get going and collect some signatures:

• As soon as the registration of the proposed initiative has been confirmed, organisers can start collecting statements of support from citizens. They have 12 months to collect the required number of statements of support (1 million overall including a minimum number in at least 7 member states – see Minimum number of signatories per member state).
  
  
• Don't forget in order to collect statements of support, organisers have to use specific forms which comply with the models for the statement of support form set out in Annex III of the Regulation on the citizens' initiative, and which include all required information regarding the proposed initiative.

One the signature process is over, we then need a certification to prove the number of valid statements:

• Once organisers have collected the necessary statements of support, they must ask the competent national authorities in each member state where they have collected statements of support to certify the number of valid statements of support collected for that country. 

This must happen within 3 months. If we complete these hurdles (and there a number of others as well) we can submit the initiative. In a further 3 months following the submission of the initiative:

• Commission representatives will meet the organisers so they can explain in detail the issues raised in their initiative.
  
  
• the organisers will have the opportunity to present their initiative at a public hearing in the European Parliament.
  
  
• the Commission will adopt a formal response spelling out what action it will propose in response to the citizens' initiative, if any, and the reasons for doing or not doing so.

The Commission is not obliged to propose legislation as a result of an initiative, and the first ever petition to fulfil all the previous criteria didn't count. No wonder that when looking the website we can see clearly that in a population of 500 million, there aren't many petitions. The only ones that exist are as follows:

• 7 open
• 7 closed (failed)
• 6 withdrawn
• 5 failed due to lack of support
• and just 1 that has successfully been submitted to the Commission

After all that, did anyone guess the missing words? To delay not a moment longer, the answer is:

And just in case there is any doubt where the BBC's sentiments lie, further down the article states this:

European Citizens' Initiative: Direct democracy tool launched in April 2012

How the BBC has come to this conclusion is a wonderment to behold. Particularly as Switzerland, via (proper) Direct Democracy, recently backed a proposal to bring back strict quotas for immigration from EU countries. And now they are paying the price of the EU’s disappointment.

The EU Standard?

In the London Standard today we have a puff piece in support of the European Union; "The European  debate: Do you know your EU rights?

As is clear by the picture below it states the article has been written "in association with the EU"

Biased it undoubtedly is, putting forward arguments in support of membership of the EU in terms of the many “rights” of being an EU citizen. The usual suspects in terms of arguments appear - such as free movement, food labelling and discrimination, despite that the last category is largely dealt with by the non-EU court, the ECHR.

At this point it's worth noting that the London Standard is still partly owned by the supposedly eurosceptic Daily Mail.

In addition the London Standard notes in the same article:

EU regulations also cover environmental concerns...

That we can agree on - it most certainly does especially when it deliberately allows the flooding of the Somerset Levels, introduced by a 2007 Directive and consciously adopted by the Environment Agency in 2008, which then sought to increase the frequency of flooding in the area as Richard North points out:

Unacknowledged by either government, the media or even Chris Smith in his current diatribe, this policy was given legislative force, not by the Westminster parliament but by an EU directive 2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks.

There, in recital 14, we saw spelled out the requirement that flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. But, “with a view to giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity”.

There, writ large, was Defra’s “making space for water” policy and all that was needed for an already Green-dominated Environment Agency to abandon the Somerset Levels.

Richard's article is very much worth reading in full. But interestingly moving on down the article on the Standard we have this (my emphasis)

The debate went digital last month when European Commission vice-president Viviane Reding, the commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, reached out to EU citizens in an online dialogue streamed live on YouTube.

Ms Reding says: “The internet connects people around the world. It is thus the perfect place for Europeans to come together, exchange views and debate issues which affect each and every one of us.”

So why is the Commission doing this now? Because Europe is at a crossroads and the coming years will be decisive for the future course of European Union.

It's further evidence that we have yet again ill-disguised EU code in a UK paper for "treaty change". Treaty change that is going to reform the EU for more integration a change that the UK's political establishment has not come to grips with yet or will not publically acknowledge.

The language is self-evident; "at a crossroads" and "the coming years will be decisive". Naturally everything requires "more Europe". Further European integration hidden in plain sight.

The article concludes with the self-confessed Europhile, comedian Marcus Brigstocke (a hero of the BBC):

“I always vote. The EU is the best place to be to ensure we are each given equal opportunities. It’s important to say that we’re not there yet, but being a member has delivered better employee rights, gay and women’s rights and a Human Rights Act which protects us all.”

Of course what Brigstocke doesn't say when he condems those who critise the EU as xenophobic is the biggest right of all is to be able to hold a government to account and that the EU is structured deliberately to prevent such a right. This is a right that the founding father of the EU, Jean Monnet, made perfectly clear should be denied.

It’s always odd that those who condemn those who criticise the EU’s lack of democratic accountability are in fact by default criticising the founding father of their beloved project (Jean Monnet) - a man who wished it to be undemocratic.

Sometimes you can't make it up...

Carswell Goes Native

On 17th April 2012 Douglas Carswell was interviewed by the BBC regarding his criticism of the government's decision to tax charitable donations. At around 01:19mins in Mr Carswell was asked the following question by a BBC presenter:

"But this is your Government, would you vote against it, if you had a chance?"

Carswell in reply says:

I point out that I'm not a member of this Government...I sit on the backbenches, I'm a member of the Legislature, my job is to hold this Government to account.

We are tempted to be stirred by such sentiments especially as Mr Carswell's commitment to reform and holding the government to account is so 'genuine' he co-wrote with Dan Hannan The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain which proposed electoral reforms arguing:

I want the voters to have the ability to sack lazy, self-serving MPs by triggering by-elections. I want the people to help set the Commons agenda, and veto politicians and their endless folly. But I still think you need a legislature.

Once you’ve made the Commons properly accountable to the voter - and government properly answerable to the Commons – good luck to any MP who ignored what their local voters thought.

So an impression is made of a man committed not only to EU exit but also significant political reform. Yet fast forward on nearly 2 years (as we get ever nearer to an election) and what a difference. In an interview with the Spectator he has this to say in contrast:

“What is it we now want, guys? We’re going to face a reckoning with the electorate in just over a year’s time. We’re two points behind the Labour Party. We can do this – we really can do this. If we lack discipline, we’re going to have five or six appalling years in opposition to dwell on it”

The Spectator concludes as a result of the interview:

Here’s a sneak preview of what was supposed to be a debate about the wisdom of rebelling – but ended up being Carswell explaining why he believes his colleagues should now stop defying the government, and support the PM.

Thus it becomes clear that when faced with the prospect of the Conservative party losing the next election, Mr Carswell reverts back to type and becomes a loyal party member worried about losing his seat, losing power and the Tories not being in government. "Holding this Government to account" on behalf of his constituents - which he admits is his job - now becomes a 'luxury' he cannot afford. He complains of our "rotten political system" but then as his interview illustrates neatly he has become part of it.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised, after all this was the same man who stated in 2012 (my emphasis):

One of the reasons I backed David Cameron to be party leader early on in his leadership campaign was because I wanted to see a different kind of Conservatism. I still do – and I’d vote for him to deliver it if there was a leadership contest tomorrow.

The same man who signed a letter proposing for a national veto on EU laws despite that such an idea is a complete non-starter, the same man Witterings from Witney identified as a hypocrite in 2011 and the same man in the Spectator's podcast (6 mins in) who argues that Cameron will give us a referendum in 2017, despite that the timetable is completely impossible to meet.

So rather than being "a member of the Legislature, [whose] job is to hold this Government to account", Carswell merely demonstrates clearly the lack of separation of powers within Parliament, whereby loyalty to a party overrides proper scrutiny of a government.

We need the Six Demands:

3. Separation of powers: the executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly.

Nelson Mandela

Whatever one's opinions on the man, it was inevitable when Mandela died the news would be saturated with wall-to-wall coverage, particularly by the BBC, to the exclusion of everything else.

And so it has proved and for that reason I have largely avoided reading the news today, although undoubtedly some bad news has been “buried”. I can’t bear to read of nauseating tributes by celebrities, by “devastated” people on Twitter who have never met him and by politicians jumping on a bandwagon as demonstrated by Gordon Brown who, without any self awareness, claimed Mandela taught him courage. At times like this I’m almost ashamed to admit I agree with Rod Liddle.

However the purpose of this post is to award the most shameless, self-publicity seeking, crass tribute of the day to…Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA.

Take The Morning Off?

With the UK apparently braced for severe storms and heavy rain overnight, former BBC weather television presenter Michael Fish has advised people to take the morning off work:

“These strong winds…are going to be unfortunately at around getting up time and rush-hour time,” Mr Fish told Sky News on Sunday morning.

“So the message we’re trying to convey at the moment is to delay your journey just by two or three hours in the morning and then you should be safe.” 

I'm sure he thinks he means well, but it's interesting that he worked for the government funded Met Office and the BBC - funded under law by virtue of a tax. Both largely immune to the dynamics of an economy.

Conversely of course to those who are self-employed such an option means not getting paid, and to those who run SMEs means employees not turning up to work thus impacting on turnover.

But no matter just take the morning off...

EU, Norway And BBC Bias

That the BBC is bias when it comes to all matters EU won't come as a surprise to most. And so it proves again with the film above by Matthew Price, the BBC's "Europe" correspondent as spotted by Richard North. 

Posing the question: "Would Norway's special EU arrangement work for Britain?", Price wastes no time in effectively dismissing the idea in terms which would greatly please pro-EU Cameron himself, including the old canard that Norway has "no say". Price's exact words are (1 min in) - and it's worth bearing these words in mind:

Norway has to obey the trading rules of the European Union,. And yet, unlike the 28 member countries that make up the EU, it has no say in what those rules actually are. They are, literally, imposed by Brussels".

This assertion is, as readers of this blog will be aware, entirely false. Richard ponders whether the BBC feels it necessary to lie so freely is not just because of inherent bias but also in part because of ignorance. Well there's only one way to find out, ask the man himself...which I duly did last night via twitter.

My first tweet began:

Price's subsequent reply was interesting:

Straight away he admits Norway can "lobby to affect EC proposals". Now, that's somewhat different to his assertion that it has "no say". By using the term lobbying Price is clearly referring to the fact Norway, and other EEA states, sit on EEA committees and help formulate Single Market rules from the outset. 

The term "lobbying" is downplaying the EEA member's role in this by some distance, yet even that term alone is still an admission that his report is wrong. Thus this is a Norwegian position that he is clearly aware of but chose not to mention in his report. Price justifies the omission instead with the argument that Norway complains of a "democratic deficit". This implies that being members of the EU somehow would solve that deficit, an implication which is ludicrous - even the EU itself acknowledges the "democratic deficit" problem for EU members.

I next put to him that Norway has a veto, again I receive another very 'interesting' response:

And there we have an admission from a BBC reporter - Matthew Price - that he is fully aware that Norway has a veto, again undermining his report that Norway has "no say". He somehow tries to justify this by saying that the EEA agreement would swiftly unravel as a result of EEA states exercising this right. We know this to be untrue.

Norway has used its veto when it came to the 3rd Postal Directive - a Directive the UK had no option but to implement via the 2011 Postal Services Act. The EEA agreement did not unravel. In addition Norway has threatened to use it on other occasions, a threat that enhances its negotiating position when sitting on EEA committees. Again somewhat different to the argument of "no say".

I then put to Price the issue of Norway having a greater say on the WTO than the UK which is represented by an EU "common position":

That Norway assimilates 75% of EU law into national law is a reflection of Norwegian democracy not a reflection of its lack of say within the EEA, as I noted here. We also have an admission that Norway does indeed have a say on the international stage - it has "pushed back" GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms). And indeed they have (my emphasis):

Despite the close relationship between Norway and the EU through the EEA Agreement, which inter alia means that Norway is part of the internal market for trade in goods, Norwegian authorities have so far pursued a policy on marketing of GMOs that differs significantly from that of the EU. Given the fact that Norway is depending on the political will of the EU in order to continue its cooperation with the EU through the EEA Agreement, which gives Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein a unique possibility to participate in political processes within the EU, it is remarkable that Norway has been willing to deviate from the policy of the EU on such a politically important issue as the marketing of GMOs. This indicates the extent to which Norwegian politicians have considered GMOs to be a major political issue. 

So at the end of a relatively short twitter exchange, Matthew Price has admitted that Norway has a veto, helps formulate EU laws from the outset and has a say on international laws which could be contrary to the EU's position. This in stark contrast to what he says in the report above:

...[Norway] has no say in what those rules actually are. They are, literally, imposed by Brussels".

It should be remembered at this point that I'm querying the sentiments of a supposedly "impartial" BBC reporter, yet if I didn't know better I would think I was arguing with pro-EU Cameron. The responses I encountered are exactly what I would expect - and have received - from those who support EU membership and disagree with the Norway model - the same model which is a convenient antidote to the economic 'hang onto nurse' arguments.

Bias laid bare...a complaint is on its way.

A Weapons-Grade Clown

How anyone takes Alex Jones seriously has always been a mystery to me, further proof if required that the man is an idiot on the BBC's Sunday Politics:



Well at least the BBC will take comfort in interviewing another raving lunatic against the EU thus doing more damage to the 'out' movement by association. Expect more of this the closer we get to a referendum.

"A Powerful Reputation For Accuracy"

It is of little wonder that the media cannot grasp the complexities of our membership of the EU when they fail to even try to grasp the basics of a Football Club's boardroom politics, particularly when it involves poker games between rich men, one of whom happens to be the founder of a gambling site called Betfair.

I will spare my readers of most of the details, just give a quick summary. First we come to the, very well funded, BBC who breathlessly reports this on 17th January:

Swindon Town has been put up for sale in order to avoid administration, with debts thought to be around £13m....Around £9m is set to be wiped from the deficit if Swindon enter administration for a third time in their history, but they may then face a points deduction.

Strangely enough there's not one quote in the BBC piece that backs its assertions up and seems instead to be based on this:

When asked if he could guarantee the club could avoid administration, Patey responded: "Not a single chairman in the country could do that." 

Still, it feeds into the lazy narrative that Swindon has had a long and dubious history of financial problems. Yet since a successful takeover in 2008 it doesn't owe a penny to creditors who are knocking on the door, doesn't have an overdraft, doesn't owe the taxman.

The main creditor is Swindon’s owner Andrew Black and it exists in the form of soft debt of his own money. Swindon’s current situation is that Mr Black, the main shareholder, for personal reasons has decided to sell, and it’s been that position for many months.

But the BBC, in their wisdom, ran with Swindon financial 'crisis' story, picking up on a quote which was taken out of context. As a result it has lead to constant accusations from other media outlets that are of a very untrue nature. No wonder Swindon Town received an apology and damages from the Football League Paper, for blatant libel. And now today the Daily Mail has this:

Paolo Di Canio is facing an increasingly uncertain future at Swindon, amid claims the financially stricken League One club will go into administration in the next 24 hours. 

A desperate search for new investment to help offset debts of around £13m appears to have failed and left club bosses fearing they may have little alternative but to call in the administrators. 

As a consequence, Swindon’s entire first-team squad would be put up for sale, in a move that would leave Di Canio agonising over his next move.

But...oh dear...

A DEAL has been reached which will see Swindon Town taken over by a consortium led by Jed McCrory subject to Football League approval, the Advertiser understands.

It is believed that the new owners and the current board, led by Andrew Black, will hold joint responsibility in the running of the club until the deal is ratified by the authorities.

Still, "a powerful reputation for accuracy" is what the media has, despite that you get a far more accurate picture of what's going on from a humble internet forum.

Update: Just simply marvellous:

Today's report in the Daily Mail which suggested Swindon Town's players were all up for sale and that the club was about to be plunged into administration appears to have been the result of an erroneous email.

The Advertiser has learnt that an agent issued the missive, which intimated that every member of the Town squad was available for transfer, last night.
The Adver has also been told that several agents have been claiming to represent players who are not their clients.

Control C + Control V Journalism

Currently the main headline on the Daily Mail website is the one pictured above. Topical you would think given that a fluttering of snow has fallen in this country in the last few days.

In 2010 the BBC reported this:

Reading carefully one notes a familiarity of phrases.

Nonsense On Stilts

Even BBC's Nick Robinson is openingly mocking Cameron's EU referendum position (ignoring the superfluous use of the phrase "in other words"):

You hear David Cameron saying on Today people feel increasingly left out of the debate, you hear him say he wants the country to give its full-hearted consent. Ha! You say, yes he's going to give us a referendum on Europe at last.

But just be a little careful - the prime minister has ruled out an in/out referendum now on Europe. In other words a choice now about whether we stay or go - he's ruled it out before the next election.

In other words, what we learned from the Today programme interview, which is a dramatic shift - we'd had hints and nudges before - is that he has set out how we might get that referendum on Europe after the next election, but there is a series of ifs:

• If he wins the next election alone (in other words doesn't have to get this past Nick Clegg)
• If he can persuade other European countries, particularly Germany that they need and want treaty change
• If Britain can then get what it wants in negotiations
• If he thinks he can then win a referendum

If all that happens, well then, yes, there will be a referendum which he thinks will approve a new better settlement for Europe.

But his difficulty in giving that big speech on Europe in about a week's time is what if he's wrong on any one of those ifs?

Because then the pressure will remain on him from within his party and from outside, not least the UK Independence Party, saying they are not willing to wait for those ifs, saying they are not willing to wait all that time, saying that they are not willing, in other words, to trust him.

Saying, in short, "we want our choice now".

But essentially, what has happened today is that the prime minister has shifted to say you WILL get a referendum one day - in certain circumstances.

A Stitch Up

Calling England picks up on further evidence that the 'Great Debate', as Ted Heath called entry to the EEC between 1970 -1975, was fixed and particularly "engineered to produce a yes vote [in 1975], funded by the CIA" And surprise surprise the BBC helped in the deception "by removing anti-EEC broadcasters and providing extra air-time for the pros together with slanted pro-EEC programming."

From a pamphlet titled Britain Overseas Spring 2000, the relevant extract below begins page 12 (Calling England's original link seems broken but here it is via Wayback Machine):

Tucker: I went to the European Movement, and talked to them, and they helped to put the funding together for breakfasts which we held at the Connaught Hotel. Ernest Wistrich (Director of the European Movement) was there, actually to be briefed in many ways. Norman Reddaway (an official at the Foreign Office) was
the person given to us by the Government, as our liaison man and he came to the breakfasts.

Cook: The Information Research Department (of which Norman Reddaway was a member) at the Foreign Office seems to have had links with the intelligence community. Certainly, earlier in his career Norman Reddaway’s Information Research Department played a part in destabilising the Sukarno regime in Indonesia in the 1960s.

Tucker: During that time … we got an extra five minutes on the ITN News in the evening added for us to give information.

Cook: That five minutes came out of a direct negotiation with (ITN News Editor) Nigel Ryan at one of those breakfast meetings?

Tucker: Yes – I mean it was a wonderful, wonderful news opportunity.

Cook : And Radio?

Tucker: Jack de Manio was a (Radio 4 Today programme) presenter who was terribly anti-European, and we protested privately about this and he was moved.

Cook : By Ian Trethawan, Director of BBC radio and a known friend of Edward Heath.

Tucker: We issued a newspaper, called the ‘British European’, edited by that famous cartoonist, Phillip Zick, and we distributed massive numbers of them freely. We used to have, for instance, in the Summer, on the beaches, young women giving them away and they used to wear T-shirts with the message ‘Europe or Bust’.

Cook: T-shirts, a newspaper, bumper stickers, posters, a pop song, not to mention breakfasts at the Connaught Hotel. Making friends and influencing people on this scale never comes cheap. So who was picking up the tab?

Spicer: Within business and industry there was a great deal of support and of course money … the figure of £5 million has been bandied about … which flooded in to the European Movement and to the Conservative Group for Europe.

Cook: And who paid for the breakfasts at the Connaught Hotel?’

Spicer: I think this was … you have to talk to Geoffrey Tucker.

Cook.: Who paid for the breakfasts?

Tucker: Well, I’ve never had much knowledge of the funding. The European Movement certainly paid for some of them. I don’t know …

Cook: It is sometimes alleged that the funds that came to the European Movement had come in rather curious ways from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the United States. Is that something you’ve heard?

Tucker: Yeah … and I was absolutely astonished by it. I was rather tickled about it. Frankly, I didn’t care where the money came from. I didn’t know about it. It could come from anywhere as long as it was there to do the job.

Cook: That allegation that the CIA was involved in promoting a united Europe. It was the simplest of questions which led to the most surprising discovery about Edward Heath’s campaign to persuade the British people that to join the EEC was in their best national interests. Who paid for the European Movement? Who financed the publicity campaign?

And:

Aldrich: I was absolutely astonished to discover that the library had the entire archive of a CIA front organisation which documents from start to finish funnelling millions of dollars into Britain – with all its accounts, with all its receipts and correspondence, for example from British Labour MPs to individuals in American intelligence organisations. So I was absolutely astonished when I opened these dusty brown cardboard boxes not considered to be terribly important … and discovered one of the most exciting intelligence archives of the post-war period.

Cook: That begs a question – why was Washington so interested in Western Europe?

Aldrich: The US had invested a great deal of money in European recovery with the idea that only a recovered Western Europe would be able to resist Soviet encroachment … and the US was keen to see a federalist Europe because it views Europe almost in its own image. The Americans continually talk about the United States of Europe.

Cook: So if the CIA were bankrolling European Union, how come no one noticed who was paying the piper?’

Aldrich: The whole accounting structure of the European Movement was designed to hide the fact that CIA money was coming in. And the way this was done was to have a core budget which covered the fairly mundane activities of running the European Movement’s office, paying for the cleaners etc. All this came out of money that was generated in Europe. The CIA money was hidden by putting most of the operational costs, for example, the European Youth Campaign, into special budgets which were not subject to the normal accounting procedures. It was possible to hide CIA money and to make sure that most people in the European Movement were unaware that this CIA money was coming in. Very few people at the top were actually aware of where this funding was coming from.

And nothing has changed since:

America has publicly voiced its concern about the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union, stating that London's "voice" within the EU is "critical to the United States".