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.

Demolition

Despite on a personal level having a great view of the Didcot cooling towers coming down, for some reason I failed to capture decent footage on my mobile phone. Thus instead I've uploaded footage from a mate who was camped in a field nearby (1:05 mins in):



Interestingly the Express noted on the demolition that:

About 1,000 earybird [sic] spectators gathered to watch the fall of Didcot power station, which has stood in Oxfordshire for more than 40 years.

Yet the 1,000 'earlybird' figures put forward by the Express were contradicted by the Daily Mail, the Independent and the Guardian which reported identically:

Hundreds of locals are thought to have defied the guidance issued by power company RWE npower to stay away from the site and watch the demolition via a webcam livestream.

Given that the power station can be seen for miles around, the figures reported spectators gathering to view the demolition are undoubtedly completely wrong. The area where I chose to watch the spectacle was standing room only - filling up from midnight onwards five hours before the actual event.

Plenty of other areas surrounding the power station were the same in terms popularity. Thus there was no way of accurately judging the number of locals given the scale of the viewing area which amounted to a large part of the county.

Again we see a media not interested in facts just making up spectators figures to suit lazy journalism.

Losing The EU Referendum

Let's not beat around the bush, without a fully worked-out policy and strategy on how to leave the EU any referendum on EU exit will be lost for those who wish out. It's as simple as that. And should the "outers" lose it's game over for at least a generation, probably more. We won't have another chance - it won't be a "best of three".

We don't actually need to have a referendum - there was no referendum to enter the EEC (EU) - and there needs to be no referendum to leave. Yet we must acknowledge that the reality of current political momentum which suggests strongly that our exit will hinge very decisively on one being called.

So should a referendum be called, we face an extremely unfair fight against a pro-EU and ignorant media (including the Express and the state broadcaster), an unfair fight against all of the main political parties, an unfair and dishonest fight against FUD and the need to overcome the "status quo" effect which has an inbuilt advantage of around 20%.

It's imperative therefore that there should be a reassuring policy on EU exit which attempts to alleviate any concerns. This involves invoking Article 50, parking the economic issue temporarily via EFTA/EEA membership, and campaigning on the political (democracy) issue alone giving us a fighting chance.

On Article 50 at least we thought that the UKIP's position was settled when Farage confirmed at least twice that the Article would have to be invoked. But despite being a one man party he clearly isn't in total command when UKIP literature is being distributed contradicting him in the run up to the Euro elections.

Such confusion and a lack of available policy on UKIP's website means the "Life on Mars" option is still alive and kicking as Witterings from Witney notes:

Yesterday evening The Boiling Frog and I spent some time on twitter trying to convince three Ukip supporters that that which they were tweeting was pure fantasy. We were presented with statements such as the old canard that repeal of ECA 1972 meant the UK was free of EU membership; that abrogation of ECHR would mean the EU would promptly rescind the UK’s membership of the EU; and that a new trade agreement could be placed on the table within 24 hours for signature. In our attempted ‘debate’ matters are not helped when it is suggested that I should Go and smoke another spliff – leave it for the rest of us to sort out the mess; neither when I am called a supercilious tit in the comments to this post. Such ignorance is indeed a tad terrifying. 

That somehow 40 years of integration and hugely complex international agreements can just be undone in 24 hours really does defy belief.

More crucially failure to confront the nature of our exit by UKIP inevitably leads to split messages. And split messages don't win referendum campaigns, in the same way split parties don't win elections as per the 1906 General Election when the Conservatives lost by a landslide which was largely attributed to a party split over free trade.

The lack of a policy by UKIP leads this rather incoherent interview with UKIP councillor - who defected to UKIP from the Tories - Suzanne Evans. She was asked by Andrew Neil on the BBC's Sunday Politics if UKIP had published a "roadmap" if the vote was a yes to leave.

Suzanne Evans response was; "wouldn't that be great?" Well yes it would actually, which begs the question why has it not been done?

Some argue that UKIP is an "amateur party" with limited funds in contrast to others, but that of course is no excuse. Seventeen shortlisted entrants to the Brexit prize produced papers on precisely that issue within four months including one from a 15 year old boy. A damning indictment on UKIP's failure to produce one in twenty years with well-paid MEPs.

As Christopher Booker observes in the Sunday Telegraph:

It is equally disturbing that a party founded on a desire to extricate us from the EU should have no properly worked-out policy for how this could be done. Ask Ukip what are the practical steps whereby we could achieve a successful exit from the EU, and the answer is little more than a blank stare and empty platitudes. 

Andrew Neil pressed Suzanne Evans further on whether UKIP had a "roadmap". Her answers remained very unconvincing stating that she's "not a legal expert on this" and that "we could come out quickly or there's a longer route as well". Then the question put to Suzanne was "but have [UKIP] published any of that detail". The response being;

"well...not, not that I have read but there are ways to do it..."

Then Suzanne continues that UKIP want to revert back to 1975 to "what people voted for". This despite the EEC was never an economic project nor a common market. The Treaty of Rome makes this perfectly clear:

"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"

With Suzanne's statement to effectively revert back to a "golden age" that never existed she then gets caught out...Andrew Neil rightly asks her that the vote in 1975 involved the "free movement of people" which goes against a party which is now chasing the BNP vote on immigration. What a mess...

No doubt some will see this as another gratuitous anti-UKIP piece. My philosophy though was always been clear right from the outset when I joined the party - "my loyalty is to the cause not to any party". In its present guise UKIP are damaging the cause and for that reason I can no longer support them.

UKIP's current stance will lose us the referendum, the choice is increasingly becoming clear; it's either the party or EU exit. The two are no longer compatible.

Judas Express

Despite the above front page, the Daily Express's stance of UK exit has always been dubious. It has been little different to other papers in its coverage of EU matters making many of the same basic errors and assumptions. It ignored for example the EU's hidden hand behind many of the changes to the Royal Mail.

Today's Express editorial confirms our suspicions. It could be suggested that it has performed a U-turn but that would have required the paper to have been genuinely eurosceptic in the first place. Straight out of Cameron's handbook we get this:

[Ukip] is defined by what it is against: it wants to withdraw from the EU, retreat into a UK that no longer exists, hoist the drawbridge and turn its back on the people who are our allies and largest trading partners.

In an increasingly fractious world, with the Russian bear growling ominously in the east and conflict in the Middle East, would it not be better to stay among the people who are essentially our friends?

And we know what's coming, yup... reform:

Of course the EU is riddled with problems.

There is waste and corruption on an industrial scale, a bloated bureaucracy, unelected officials with a sense of entitlement and grotesque expense accounts, and a tendency to meddle in the affairs of member countries.

Surely it would be better to try to make reforms within the EU rather than just throwing it all away?

Should we not return to the very fundamentals of what the EU should be and work to build an institution of which we can be proud?

Despite that the EU is exactly what it set out to be; that it is designed to be unelected, designed to meddle in the affairs of member states and reform to make it different to how it was designed is a complete and utter non-starter. It is sometimes a wonder how British national newspapers can write such unmitigated crap with a straight face.

What it confirms though, as if we didn't already know, that in any referendum campaign the out side will have no friends in the media, not even the Express. One possible antidote to this of course would be to have a half-decent website...

Bob Crow

Naturally it is with a little shock to learn that the RMT leader, Bob Crow has died suddenly this morning – though I guess the manner of his passing is not entirely surprising. Many words undoubtedly will be expressed about his legacy which means there is little I could add that is of use to the extensive coverage that will ensure.

Typically for a rather forthright chap he divided opinions and so he does in death, going by the torrent of comments – split as they are by so-called “left” and “right”. Londoners obviously will probably have more passionate views than others.

Yet many of the venomous comments on the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph website seem to have forgotten that, like him or not, he was against the EU and our membership of it. He saw the insidious organisation for what it is and its impact on the working class members he represented.

Given his often uncompromising stance on other issues undoubtedly his eurosceptic views were genuine, as illustratrated by the No2EU party which he led, unlike the views of the more Judas goat like politicians we have become used to.

And so in that sense that's how this blog would like to remember him by.

EU Crackpots?

No matter how widely known and quoted the phrase "never believe what you read in newspapers" is, it often remains a surprise at how regularly the lesson it provides is ignored. This maxim is particularly true - doubly so in fact - when it comes to all matters EU.

Have genuine and hugely damaging examples of EU law and newspapers will ignore it. Throw them a bone of an inconsequential report that shows the EU up as nutters and they lap it up with gusto. Here we have a classic example from the Daily Express.

Despite it being a newspaper that advocates EU exit and despite its chief political commentator, Patrick O’Flynn putting himself forward as a UKIP candidate, it makes exactly the same errors as all the other papers. It appears to be completely incapable of putting forward a detailed and comprehensive case for EU exit. It ignored for example the reasons for VAT on pasties, despite being alerted to it in 2012 on twitter with acknowledgment. So in this spirit we come to the Daily Express's latest tabloid-style EU outrage. It thunders:

MEDDLING Euro politicians have put forward “crackpot” plans to force Britain to give gypsy women seats in the House of Commons.

Undoubtedly quite shocking if true, yet alarm bells always begin to ring when phrases such as "crackpot" and "meddling" are used. The EU does not "meddle", it is part of our country's government. Its job is to make laws for us, a process our country has fully signed up to, albeit without the full commitment of the British people. Unsurprisingly continuing to read on reveals more inconsistencies:

A report outlining a quota scheme is set to go before MEPs and may soon be adopted by the European Parliament.

If it becomes law, all the political parties in the UK will have to impose female gypsy candidates on the electorate and get them into ­Parliament.

For those who have followed the mechanics of EU institutions for some time would have already spotted the 'deliberate mistake'. But with this the Express has no desire to inform its readers, instead it wants to appeal to those who are used to “Parliament” making laws in the UK and who are unversed in the machinery of EU law.

EU lawmaking begins with the executive - the EU Commission - which is the only body that has the ability to propose new laws, and it can only do so with a legal basis that is outlined within EU treaties. The Commission proposes a draft law to both the EU Parliament and the Council which ultimately has to be approved by both bodies. 

This is 'ordinary legislative procedure', formally known before the Lisbon Treaty as 'co-decision' - the main legislative procedure by which EU directives and regulations are adopted. Article 294 lays the procedure here on page 197. The simplest way of describing the procedure is that it has three potential stages, or readings, and eight termination or exit points, for legislative outcomes - five exit points mean the act is adopted, three mean the act is not adopted.

With this in mind we immediately know that any report that goes before MEPs for possible adoption lies well outside the EU legislative procedure - it is not part of the lawmaking process. A quick look at the report itself confirms this:

In other words it is a non-legislative report and is non-binding. Nothing more than a kite flying exercise, which appears to have little support, it's nothing more than a Westminster Hall debate. Interestingly the Express carries quotes from UKIP MEP Gerald Batten:

Ukip Euro MP Gerard Batten said: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot legislation from the EU. 

Only it's not legislation, it's not even close - a UKIP MEP should know this and he should be telling the British public that this is the case - informing the debate for exit. But he chooses not to. Batten continues:

"But if adopted, it’ll put yet more legal obligations on countries such as Britain with generous benefits systems. I can guarantee that when this goes before the European Parliament it will be voted for by a majority of MEPs. Ukip MEPs will of course vote against, but if we want to protect ourselves against the EU then we simply have to leave.”

Again he falls in line with the Express' article, clearly implying that adoption by the EU Parliament will place "legal obligations" on the UK. This is simply not the case, he should know better than this. But I guess this is the same chap who writes a paper that advocates a UK exit without invoking Article 50 - a policy of just ripping up international agreements which would be disastrous...a view that is now against official UKIP policy.

"A Powerful Reputation For Accuracy"

So says Lord Leveson, regarding journalists:

During a speech at the University of Melbourne, he insisted there was an important difference between mainstream journalists with "a powerful reputation for accuracy" and bloggers and tweeters who were "no more than electronic versions of pub gossip".

Yet in the last 24 hours has been extensive coverage across the media - using cut 'n paste' - highlighting a video purporting to show a Golden Eagle trying to snatch a young child. The Daily Mail went as follows:

Kidnapper from the skies. The terrifying moment a golden eagle 'swooped down and snatched up a toddler' as he played in the park.

That same link now has headlines that have changed depicting a different story thus pretending it was right all along - because the footage is a fake. So much for accuracy, as this blog in the Guardian points out:

Shame on you, Guardian, for sharing fraudulent video with an unsuspecting public, thereby promoting misunderstanding of birds and fear of nature.

It goes onto detail the reasons why it's clearly a fraud - it obviously isn't a Golden Eagle and the baby looks suspiciously like a doll - before concluding the piece as follows:

All this evidence, taken together, means that this video is a golden teaching moment. It also means that the Guardian blew it by posting this video without including any analysis from a video expert as to whether it's real or ... artificially manufactured. Further, the Guardian blew it by not including comments from either an ornithologist or a birder as to whether this video portrayal is even plausible.

This is irresponsible journalism. By posting this video, the Guardian is actively promoting and reinforcing the public's misinformation and fear of birds of prey, and further alienating the public from nature. Publicly sharing this fraudulent video without any expert commentary serves to undermine the education and conservation efforts of many excellent organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology.

Ouch. Good to see Leveson was such a master of his brief.

Misleading

Following on from the Leveson Report, Newsflash from the UK has nicely spotted this from the European Commission political officer Marie-Madeleine Kanellopoulou, based in the EU's office in Westminster (ex Tory HQ) reported as saying,:

"We are following the Leveson inquiry to see the outcome. In the UK we have to deal with a very euro-sceptical British public and that's not helped by the hostile audience in the British press.

We want to engage with the media, with stakeholders and non governmental organisations.... but repeated mis-representation in the media was making communication of the true facts about EU policy difficult...

We are trying to rebut EU myths in the press but it is not easy because the Press Complaints Commission has a limited remit".

Apparently it's all the newspaper's fault we're Eurosceptic, if only they could make the media more compliant, we'll all be happy Europeans. Funny thing also about so-called Euro myths is the EU's rebuttal of them are ironically myths, we've been here before.

But then this has never been about establishing the truth.

A Bun Fight

Today some report by a Lord, a member of the establishment, will recommend legislation by other members of the establishment, to regulate the press - also members of the establishment - who will then moan that fellow members of the establishment shouldn't tell them what to say.

Despite that, members of the establishment known as the press who have for years self-regulated themselves on behalf of other members of the establishment, known as the government, preventing the consequences of many polices entering the public domain, or at least limiting the damage, in publicity terms, will complain that their right to 'bias by admission' should not be regulated by other members of the establishment.

Other members of the establishment, aka Cameron, will defend members of the establishment known as the press because it is in his interest to do so on behalf of the establishment known as the Government.

Further members of the establishment, will gloat in the demise of another membership of the establishment even though they employed a rampant peadophile, and were defended by other members of the establishment. Phone hacking, being a complaint brought about by members of the establishment, will complain that the establishment infringes on their privacy but also uses the said same establishment to further their careers.

But at least the comforting factor is that all members of the establishment agree with membership of another establishment.

Meanwhile the rest of us are fucked....

An Uphill Battle

It's long been my view that a referendum on EU membership is far from a foregone conclusion and will probably put back the cause for years.

Over the last couple of days has further confirmed that view. Two stories have agitated the MSM to a great degree reflecting popular anger, however they are stories which also do not acknowledge the dead hand of Brussels that lies behind them. A trait that is very common.

Firstly there has been much consternation over the dramatic increase in Royal Mail stamps. But what's not mentioned is that many of the recent problems of the Royal Mail, including the dramatic rise in the cost of stamps, stem largely from EU Postal Directives - a point that was made here and expressed very clearly by a Government review of the postal services in 2008. See here, page 19 onwards. However in the MSM? Not an 'EU mention' at the time.

And secondly there's also George Osborne's extension of VAT for all hot food as per his recent budget. Now VAT is, as Autonomous Mind rightly says, an EU Tax:

This concerns the proposal in Gideon Osborne’s coagulation budget to impose VAT on hot take-out food.  Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the governance of this country will know Value Added Tax is a European Union matter and that member states must impose a VAT rate – currently with a minimum standard rate of 15%.

VAT is one of the most obvious and long-standing EU interferences in our life. Therefore any major changes will almost certainly have the dead hand of Brussels behind it. And so it proves as Richard North demonstrates:

And there gripped the cold, mindless jaws of the VAT Sixth Directive, of which the ECJ had so cruelly reminded us. To their horror, HMRC have confronted their worst nightmare. If the fish fryers are selling hot food rather than services, and have to charge VAT on it, so does everybody else who sells hot food.

That is what the Sixth Directive says: you can't charge different rates of VAT on the same goods. If a member state charges VAT on some hot take-away foods, it must charge the same rate of VAT on all hot take-away foods. They must, therefore, all be charged at zero rate or the standard (higher) rate. And, of course, Georgie opted for the higher rate, taking in the (hot) puddings and pies.

The acknowledgement from the MSM? Er...nowt, nothing. Now, I've often wondered whether large scale omission of EU matters in our country by our MSM is due to laziness and ignorance or a deliberate 'conspiracy of silence'. A Twitter exchange today with Daniel Knowles from the Daily Telegraph suggests the former.

Daniel Knowles has blogged about the recent VAT changes, couching his piece in the classic, and politically self-comforting style, of Tories are rich and toffs:

This morning, the Conservatives have no such luck; for raising tax on Greggs Cornish pasties, George Osborne is described as a "modern Marie Antoinette". In its leader column, the newspaper says that "unlike Sun readers", he and his Cabinet colleagues, "don't worry how to pay for food, rent or petrol. If they ever have done, they certainly can't remember how it feels now". For a moment, I thought I was reading the Daily Mirror, or at least a Dan Hodges blog post.

Daniel misses the point of course, it's not the love of being a toff that is the reason but the Tory love of the EU that has led to this change. A point I mentioned to him on Twitter with revealing responses. Firstly we had the usual "No one cares about this because of the EU":

As I've pointed out before people do care about the EU because it affects the majority of the top ten issues that they care most about. But then Daniel is not even "sure this is an EU issue at all". FFS, call yourself a journalist? No of course VAT isn't, not at all. Then we get this:

Apparently the Sun doesn't mention the EU so that's all ok then? Because the Sun is the Oracle when it comes to all matters EU. But then...we get to the final flurry:

Let's remind ourselves that the self-proclaimed "Assistant Comment Editor at Telegraph.co.uk. who writes about politics and economics" thinks Thatcher introduced VAT for ideological reasons. Oh dear, oh dear. I had moments of doubt whether he was taking the piss or being serious. But I've not a reply since when I highlighted his mistake.

And if that's bad enough then there's today's Daily Express. In 2010 the Daily Express ran with this front page below:

The Daily Express is the only British paper to openly advocate complete withdrawal, whilst the Daily Mail and the Telegraph still want in. Yet today's front Daily Express looks like this:

Despite two EU open goals, the Daily Express in the print edition does not mention the EU once regarding the price of stamps, nor (scanned here) on page 2 in relation to VAT on 'hot foods'

The Express has editorials on both matters:

SINCE the advent of the internet making the nationwide delivery of ordinary post pay its way has become more challenging.

Many fewer letters are sent these days so economies of scale are less effective than they once were.

The Royal Mail also has to cope with private competitors plundering the lucrative business despatch market, so the scope for subsidising letter delivery from other very profitable activities is also limited.

And yet the one thing that will hasten its decline is round after round of massive rises in the price of stamps. There is still a lot Royal Mail can do to become more efficient but it doesn’t even seem to want to try.

Not everyone is able to access the wonders of email and almost everyone does, on occasion, need to use the post.

That the organisation that ushered in the Penny Black should now be anticipating the £1 first class stamp suggests it has lost the plot.

And:

THE revelation that Chancellor George Osborne cannot remember the last time he ate a hot pasty offers a rare political opportunity for Labour.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls would be fully justified in making some fact-finding trips to hot food takeaways.

Although by the looks of things he probably already has.

So the so-called Eurosceptic "we want out" Daily Express, even in their editorials, cannot bring themselves to mention the EU on issues which clearly agitate their readers. With EU friends like this who needs enemies?

Absolutely hopeless.

"10 German Bombers..."

As Richard North wrote on Wednesday "Anti-German sentiment is still only skin-deep in much of British society" and with Cameron meeting Merkel today in what has been described as a tense meeting so it proves. Following on from recent copies of the Express and the Daily Mail, today's Telegraph (pictured above) indulges in a non-too subtle form of 'hun-bashing'. As a result I'm already suffering from 'Godwin's law overload' trying to follow the Euro crisis - and it's still only mid-morning as I write.

But nevermind, apparently German plots are afoot to deny us our say... which is nonsense. If we wanted a referendum in this country we can jolly well have one, there's little the Germans or anyone else can do about it. The real reason we won't get one lies a lot closer to home; more specifically David '3-line whip' Cameron. That somehow the Germans are preventing a referendum that Cameron really wants is ludicrous - at least it gives him someone to blame though.

Not that any of this will prevent outbursts that the EU is really a Fourth Reich or ODESSA-on-steroids. The reality is much different, as revealed by even only a cursory look at the EU's French origins and the consistent manipulation of the EU by France for its own ends, a classic example being the CAP. Rather than a plot, the Eurocrisis has meant that Germany has been reluctantly dragged kicking and screaming into the current limelight primarily because it holds by far the biggest chequebook.

If the EU was really a German plot then this Eurocrisis would not exist. Instead we would have a fiscal union dominated by Germany, playing by German rules, solving at a stroke the fundamental flaws in the currency - the markets would be popping champagne corks.

However we have a crisis because she is doing precisely the opposite. Germany faces an impossible choice between accepting fiscal union, and thus giving up sovereignty (which the German Constitutional Court has ruled illegal) or facing the breakup of the Euro resulting in it being a pariah in the EU - taking the blame for its collapse. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

All of this 'Nazi' blame game though conveniently overlooks the fact the real enemy lies elsewhere. It doesn't reside in Berlin, nor Paris, but in London - Whitehall. The EU never attacked our castle walls with copious Trebuchets and forced entry, instead we lowered the drawbridge, lifted the portcullis and invited them in. Not only that, we also laid on the biggest banquets, gave them the best rooms and told them that they could stay as long as they liked.

One of the first rules of battle is to know your enemy, and if we can't even get past that then we are doomed to lose the war (oops did I mention the war?).

Eg Hitler

I was searching the Daily Express website for an EU story, and the suggested option in the search field for typing in 'EU' came back with this (click to enlarge):

However other searches come up with different suggestions in 'search the Daily Express' field.

Express Overwhelmed By Support

The Daily Express reports today that the response to its 'get out of the EU' crusade has been very positive:

MORE than 100,000 people have signed up to the Daily Express’s crusade for Britain to quit the European Union, it can be revealed today.

The newspaper has received a deluge of our special crusade coupons calling on David Cameron’s Government to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EU.

Support has hit six figures in just over a week since the historic crusade was launched. It is on course to become the fastest growing campaign in newspaper history.

I'm not sure by the last line whether it means all newspapers or just in the Express's history, but either way it's good news and a sure sign that the Express has successfully tapped into people's concerns which hitherto have long been ignored.

The Withdrawal Method

The Daily Express continues today in fine form with its crusade to leave the EU, however there's one article I would query:

BRITAIN could quit the European Union virtually overnight to herald a new era of independence and freedom, campaigners declared yesterday.

Quoting Douglas Carswell:

They poured scorn on Britain is now so tied in, departure is impossible. Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: “It would be relatively straightforward. The idea it would be a hugely complex process is just not true.”

New rules attempting to stop nations quitting the EU were introduced three years ago under the controversial Lisbon Treaty. A new two-year departure process was introduced in a bid to discourage any bolt for the exit door as support for the union sank across Europe.

...once the parliamentary procedure was complete, EU bosses could do little to stand in Britain’s way.

The Express article makes it seem as if it's a simple case of repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Before Lisbon that was true, however the ratification of Lisbon changes that position significantly. It's no longer that easy and here's why.

Countries exiting international organizations are covered by the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties. Article 56(1) states (my emphasis):

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

So if there's no specific provision for exit then members states can be free to leave by terminating the treaty, and as no EU treaties have had any such provision before Lisbon, then previously we could have simply repealed the ECA and it's bye bye EU.

However, Lisbon is different because it does have a provision for exit via Article 50:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Therefore it's covered by Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties (my emphasis):

The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.

We are bound therefore by international law to follow the method laid out in Lisbon. Either by negotiating our exit with the agreement of the other 26 member states (unlikely) or failing that enduring a 2 year 'cooling-off' period during which, as Lisbon Treaty Article 50(4) above makes clear, we would have no participation in EU affairs at all although still technically a member state. The EU, could then during that period (out of spite) pass all sorts of financial, and other, penalties on us.

Our exit is likely to be costly and painful. We were stitched up by the French, twice over, on the way in and undoubtedly we will be stitched up on the way out.

Better Off Out

So says today's Express:

THE Daily Express today becomes the first national newspaper to call for Britain to leave the European Union.

From this day forth our energies will be directed to furthering the cause of those who believe Britain is Better Off Out.

The famous and symbolic Crusader who adorns our masthead will become the figurehead of the struggle to repatriate British sovereignty from a political project that has comprehensively failed.

hattip: All Seeing Eye

Update: I've purchased a paper copy, it took ages as all the newsagents near me had sold out of the Express (but not the other papers). Now I've not bought a paper copy of the Express for a very long time, so this maybe normal thus I'm reluctant to read too much into this but it appears encouraging. Anyway you can sign a petition here or print off further vouchers from here.