EU Referendum: We've Won!

Jean Monnet, Arthur Salter, Robert Schuman, Ted Heath, Nigel Lawson, John Major, Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Geoffrey Howe, Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Nick Clegg....

Your boys took one hell of a beating

EU Referendum: Leave And Embrace The 21st Century

The photograph above is my vote on a ballot paper on the EU referendum. After circa 40 years I have at last had the opportunity to register my objection to membership of an anti-democratic political union - a union which is a relic of an early 20th century project attempting to solve a problem which no longer exists.

Should we remain then we will have another round of further integration as per the draft treaty of the Fundamental Law of the EU

http://eureferendum.com/documents/fundamentallaw.pdf

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: Like A Candle In The Wind

Above is a screen print of a recent American publication - National Enquirer - which has made forthright allegations regarding the songwriter Elton John's private life, more specifically the circumstances over his married life.

It is an issue which has now become a Westminster one - vexing the UK media who are currently unable to report explicitly the implied sordid details as they are obviously desperate to do so.

Conversely the National Enquirer is able to be so publicly indiscreet by virtue of being protected by the American Constitution, it can go where the UK media fears to tread, restricted by domestic privacy law - a law heavily inspired from Brussels but fully enforced by a very compliant British establishment.

This lack of ability to report what is common knowledge worldwide on the internet has lead to a series of articles in the UK media, particularly the Daily Mail, spitting feathers at its inability to name Elton John and crucially his married partner Furnish, as part of an injunction.

With this in mind we note that the website PopBitch gives a detailed insight on how newspapers, and therefore readers, can circumvent injunctions by laying down many clues for the readers to follow while not being in contempt of court.

However and much more interesting for this blog is not Elton John's private life - we couldn't care less about that - it is the observation of the vigorous manner the media have attempted to frame the issue as one of free speech, a deceptive attempt for the media to portray itself as upholding the principles of the fourth estate.

This is contentious. Instead it seems that it is details of Elton John's private life which is the media's concern not the responsibility holding the establishment to account which the fourth estate apparently prides itself on doing.

Free speech is something this blog fully embraces, it is the sunlight that exposes the powerful. But we are left in a position where we have to question the direction of the sunlight from the legacy media. Where is the Super Trooper being aimed at? Celebrities? Or trying to inform us on how our country is governed.

The answer resides in the so- called journalistic principles regarding Cameron lying about "vetoing" an EU treaty in 2011 which never happened, or that Cameron's so called negotiations earlier this year were less than impressive and involved directly lying to Parliament or that there's an exit plan which is doing the rounds in Whitehall which is being comprehensively ignored.

In addition why, for example, has the Daily Telegraph have a editorial block on the word "Flexcit" - the only publicly available feasible EU exit plan - being used in its articles by Telegraph paid authors and why has the media failed to report that the Electoral Commission has allowed itself to be completely bullied regarding the time scale of the referendum to the extent it fully capitulated with no fuss.

The legacy media cannot be unaware not least due very often to the comments under the articles which robustly alert them to their mistakes; comments which are often patronisingly dismissed as"below the line". Perhaps in this context can we consider it more than a coincidence that the revamped pro-EU Telegraph website no longer accepts comments. A change which has occurred just before an EU Referendum?

We are tempted to conclude therefore that regarding the UK media if Elton John truly wants a private life then all he needs to do is have a photograph of him prominently holding up a copy of Flexcit. The self censorship of the media will do the rest for him.

It would have been more effective and would have been a hell of a lot cheaper.

EU Referendum: All We Need To Know About Cameron

The Cam Sham? Rule One Of Politics Is Never Trust A Tory

If Cameron was expecting favourable headlines this morning regarding his so-called negotiations then he will be sorely disappointed. Dubbed a "Cam sham" the tone of the coverage illustrated by the front pages above has been savage and rightly so. Cameron's so-called negotiations have been exposed for the nonsense they currently are.

As EUReferendum superbly dissects, despite Cameron's boast there are "substantial changes", there are no economic safeguards, no migrant safeguards, no end to "ever closer union" and no red card. Economic safeguards, ever closer union and red cards all require treaty change, a treaty which so far has every sign of having been put on hold. Cameron's migrant safeguards amount to little more than the UK having permission to ask the EU Commission for permission. I presume the Commission's permission will be delivered to Cameron "by fax".

Yet it could still get even worse for Cameron. Lost Leonardo notes that these non fundamental reforms "may not even be the end of Mr Cameron’s humiliation. The proposals now have to be assessed and picked over by the 27 other EU Member States, which may raise further objections in the upcoming European Council meeting, later this month".

Initially this leaves us rather optimistic that a referendum can be won. Without any kind of 'meaningful reform', and I use the term loosely, the polls have long suggested that the leavers will win.

But and there is a very significant but and it's one which leaves us distinctly uneasy. From experience and from studying the 1975 referendum there were certain expectations of Cameron's strategy. Substantial reform of course was never on the cards and so our anticipation of a deal was low, but delivered with plenty of spin.

In addition we expected plenty of theatre (preferably during late 2017 when the UK holds the rotating Presidency of the Council of Ministers), expectation management and the last minute reform rabbit out of the hat. All helped along by a "Pauline conversion" by the so-called right wing press such as the Mail who have always supported EU membership while not making it obvious. No where was this more apparent than over media reports of Cameron's phantom veto - which never happened.

We also have to consider that Cameron is being advised by the Civil Service, EU bureaucrats and other countries such as the United States, none of whom we should underestimate particularly as they all have vested interests in us staying in.

Yet despite that Cameron doesn't even seem to have managed to reach the very low bar he set himself, has left himself open to humiliation and instead of a last minute attempt at a big white rabbit has allowed the internet to have five months to completely ridicule his plans before a June referendum (if he is planning one).

Further concerns come to the fore when Boris Johnson, arch Europhile, suggests that "David Cameron 'made the best out of a bad job' as he refuses to praise EU deal".

Are we being played? Experience most certainly suggests we are. This appears too easy. Too good to be true. Is the ground being laid for something bigger.

Undoubtedly it could be that Cameron has made a complete pig's ear of this referendum and the negotiations. Cameron's form on the matter so far suggests this is perfectly possible.

Yet...we have to remember rule one of politics applies....never ever trust a Tory.

EU Referendum: A Letter To The Electoral Commission

Despite the widely publicised recommendation last year by the Electoral Commission over a change in referendum question, many newspapers still refer to the referendum as a "In / Out" option leading to potential confusion. Thus the following letter has been sent to the Commission;

Dear Electoral Commission.

I am writing to you regarding aspects of the media coverage of the forthcoming EU referendum which I feel could be improved.

On 1st September 2015 the Electoral Commission recommended a change to the proposed question from an “In/Out” question to a more balanced “Leave/Remain” response. The Government and Parliament readily agreed to these recommendations.

The reason for these recommendations was highlighted by Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission in the press release. She noted:

“Any referendum question must be as clear as possible so that voters understand the important choice they are being asked to make. We have tested the proposed question with voters and received views from potential campaigners, academics and plain language experts. 

‘Whilst voters understood the question in the Bill some campaigners and members of the public feel the wording is not balanced and there was a perception of bias. The alternative question we have recommended addresses this”.

Given that the Electoral Commission’s recommendations were widely reported at the time by the media, it is of some concern that the media and newspapers in particular continue to frame their referendum pieces in an “In / Out” context rather than the actual “Leave / Remain” options on the ballot.

This has potential for confusion for voters which may undermine the very balance that the change of question was attempting to address. As the Electoral Commission revealed in its ‘Media content analysis’ report in August 2011 on the AV referendum in May 2011: “The news media play a crucial role in informing voters about the issues, alternatives and candidates in an election”.

In addition according to the Editor's Code of Practice issued and enforced by IPSO, "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information". As the question was changed for the sake of "clarity" continuing to frame the debate as "In / Out" is potentially misleading.

With this in mind I feel there is a case that the Electoral Commission reminds editors of newspapers of their responsibilities, as part of the process of a free and fair referendum, and that they try to avoid unintentional and unnecessary confusion by accurately reporting the question.

I thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely

TBF

EU Referendum: The Disintegration Of Vote Leave?

It's a poor reflection on the so-called reporting skills of most of the legacy media that the dynamics between Leave.EU and Vote Leave is seen as infighting. Describing it as in-fighting heavily implies that both camps have the same objective but simply disagree over method.

But as has readily become apparent over some time Vote Leave has no intention of advocating leaving the EU; a deceptive position of theirs which has been excellently exposed by Mr Brexit. Instead this is a battle to prevent a Tory plant campaign winning designation which has the suspected intention of sabotaging the referendum.

If I was Mr Cameron wanting to win a referendum then an obvious tactic to deploy is make sure the opposition was under my control. And it's within this context we must see the actions of Vote Leave who have shown no explicit intentions to leave the EU despite being given many public opportunities to do so. Their evasiveness is their admission.

Yet with the designation debate raging on the internet - largely ignored by SW1 - it comes as no surprise that the media has rather belatedly woken up and are reporting on the dysfunctional nature of Vote Leave. Its dysfunctional nature is not least due to one of its directors Dominic Cummings, which has come to a head this week. The Times (£) reports:

The leaders of one of the campaigns to take Britain out of Europe were the target of a botched coup this week as infighting among Eurosceptics reached new heights. MPs tried to oust Dominic Cummings, the campaign director of Vote Leave, and Matthew Elliott, its chief executive, at a board meeting of ministers and donors on Tuesday.

Bernard Jenkin, a Tory MP involved with the organisation from the start, made the move after pressure from MPs who objected to the way in which Mr Cummings was running it. The plot was foiled after Mr Cummings got wind of it in advance, tipping off friendly board members and altering the agenda to make it harder for Mr Jenkin to mount his putsch.

One source said: “There was an attempted coup against Dom and Matthew. Bernard was trying to get the board to sack Dom and Matthew. Dom and Matthew are adamant there will be no merger with Arron Banks’s campaign [Leave.EU], which some MPs are pushing for. It was seen off. The money men said no. The board has been quite clear: both are staying in post.”

Another source denied that the coup attempt was dead.
“Cummings and possibly Elliott are on the way out. It’s just a matter of time. My money is on Cummings resigning by the weekend.”

With a temporary failed coup, we begin to see signs of a fight back by Cummings with friendly briefings to various journalists such as the Evening Standard:

A Tory MP faces pressure to quit the board of Vote Leave after he led a failed coup against one of its leaders.

Among the chaos we also see via the Spectator, a magician's "look at this hand" distraction:

The ‘in’ side’s shockingly bad start in the EU referendum campaign
Their data is dodgy, they disregard the facts and their leaders are lazy

The same Spectator whose commissioning editor Mary Wakefield just happens to be married to one Dominic Cummings a director of Vote Leave.

Yet Vote Leave's complete unsuitability for designation has been well rehearsed online for some time; with Elliott's previous No2AV campaign's "sharp practices", enriching colleagues and friends and less than convincing data protection practices.

In addition we can see that Elliott's previous enterprise - Business for Britain has not only been apparently sending incorrect information to Companies House but was potentially trading whilst officially dormant. The latter is a criminal offence and a complaint by a Labour MP has been filed with HMRC

Vote Leave is also being hit with numerous suits over breaches of data protection and libel. And complaints are soon to emerge with Ofcom that Vote Leave's appalling website contravenes disability discrimination laws "which ensures that websites are accessible to blind and disabled users". This consideration is particularly important when applying for taxpayers' money.

To add to the shambles that is Vote Leave there have been long running concerns over Matthew Elliott's Taxpayer's Alliance charitable arrangements which has cast a long shadow. The Guardian reported in 2009:

A campaign group which claims to represent the interests of ordinary taxpayers is using a charitable arm which gives it access to tax relief on donations from wealthy backers. 

The Conservative-linked Taxpayers' Alliance, which campaigns against the misuse of public funds, has set up a charity under a different name which can secure subsidies from the taxman worth up to 40% on individuals' donations. 

In one example, Midlands businessmen said they channelled funds through the Politics and Economics Research Trust at the request of the Taxpayers' Alliance after they asked the campaign group to undertake research into policies which stood to damage their business interests. The arrangement allowed the Taxpayers' Alliance to benefit from Gift Aid on the donations, a spokesman for the donors said.

It is understood that further official complaints have been made to reopen the investigation.

Interestingly Guido Fawkes has thus far remained silent on these matters. Westminster backbiting and scandal has always been his bread and butter. Yet with the potential of a major scoop ahead of the media, given his close contacts involved, there has only been silence. Perhaps that's a reflection of his financially compromised position.

It's becoming clearer that the Vote Leave camp is disintegrating - it is now an organisation engaged in warfare. It's a wonder how it could ever now be designated.

But the myopia of a London based media assumed, and still assume, that Vote Leave will be a shoo-in. That is now looking unlikely with Cummings increasingly resembling toast.

EU Referendum: Cummings And Goings

In the spirit of Private Eye's long standing "lookalikes" feature I can confirm that the picture on the left is an alien from the film Mars Attacks and that the picture on the right is Dominic Cummings.

And it's in today's Private Eye we note this piece on the current status of Vote Leave who wish to apply for the official designation for the leave campaign (scanned in - click to enlarge):

There are some interesting nuggets within Private Eye's article such as:

The officials present, even the Prime Minister himself could not quite believe what a wimp [Cummings] was

The bigger problem though for the leavers, largely overlooked by Private Eye, is that Vote Leave do not want to leave the EU - they only wish reform; they only wish remain. When push comes to shove all the Tories will rally around party and Cameron before country.

We've noted this phenomenon before in a previous post which is further confirmed in a Spectator article by Daniel Hannan a director on Vote Leave - his party's deception laid out in plain sight. Mr Brexit does the business in taking Hannan's deception apart...

Daniel Hannan and Vote Leave are continuing to take people for fools. Associate Membership is not some privileged position outside the EU. A two tier property is still a single building. Membership is membership. Britain would remain part of the EU second tier, remain bound by the ECJ, continue to receive and implement directives from Brussels.

The only difference is that the full members will take decisions and further integrate to service their place as Euro currency users. Associate Membership only exists as a concept to enable this deeper integration while keeping non Eurozone countries under Brussels' control. So what Hannan is doing is trying to position continued EU membership as something other than that. He's being completely disingenuous.

He is being a loyal director of Vote Leave (since 22 Dec 2015). That group has always wanted a reform deal, of the type they always demanded in their guise as Business for Britain. They never call for or endorse Brexit because they want to remain in a 'reformed' EU, and everything they do is geared to achieving that outcome. Even Dominic Cummings' notion of a second referendum only exists to reverse a vote to leave after further EU talks and some more crumbs from the table.

If you want genuine Brexit, Hannan and Vote Leave are not on your side.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Vote Leave is a front for Conservative continual membership of the EU. This is somewhat understandable.

What would be the best way to win a referendum for the pro-EU Tories? Infiltrate and hijack a leave campaign, supported by your media mates, which is going for designation ...

EU Referendum: Vote Leave, Vote Remain

As any genuine leaver of the EU knows, from long bitter experience, the first rule of politics is never ever trust a Tory. The second rule of politics is to follow the first rule.

With an impending referendum on the UK's membership of the EU it is becoming increasingly apparent that the obsessive SW1 party political nature of Westminster has failed to grasp that a referendum is a vote by the people. And within this context they, and the legacy media, has failed to appreciate fully that the internet has changed everything.

With this in mind we can see that the referendum is beginning to smoke out the faux Tory eurosceptics who have always hidden behind a comfort blanket of party politics.

General elections have allowed the Tories to express anti-EU views whilst not having to be in a position to actually advocate leaving. This lack of action not words has gone back decades. A lack of action reflected in Tory anti-eurosceptics trying to do what they have always done; making lots of noise expressing reservations over EU membership but ultimately, through loyalty, backing a pro-EU party.

The forthcoming referendum however has forced closet Tory europhiles out into the open illustrating the narrow fallacy of tribal loyalties. With a referendum now based on boolean outcomes weasel party political words (with personal ambitions very much in mind) simply don't cut it and are increasingly looking ridiculous.

A classic example is Tory MEP Dan Hannan. He has made his career out of eurosceptic rhetoric which suits the Daily Telegraph. Yet despite his copious media appearances expressing so-called Tory euroscepticism, this blog has rarely been convinced of his anti-EU principles.

Hannan has a long history of convoluted intellectual gymnastics where our membership of the EU is concerned. When we have to go over the top he's going to be found wanting.

We see a classic example of this in an interview from December 2015 on the BBC's Daily Politics programme with Hannan (1:55 mins):

DP Jo Coburn: "To be honest, Dan Hannan, there would be nothing that would satisfy you?"

Hannan; "Not true...I have repeatedly set out what I think would satisfy most people. Parliament should ultimately be sovereign, in other words the EU should not be able to automatically strike down parliamentary statutes. And we should have freedom to trade with more EU countries. And we should be able to opt out of some of the areas of EU policy that have nothing to do with economics or trade such as criminal justice, environment, defence and agriculture and fisheries - if we can get those things everyone would be in favour with it".

There we have in plain sight Hannan loyally supporting the Cameron and Tory line explicitly arguing that he favours EU membership albeit under nonsense 'reforms'. None of what he says would be necessary if we actually left. But to soften us up for the Tory line he lays the eurosceptic groundwork at the beginning of the interview before knifing us with the killer pro-EU mantra.

This becomes acutely relevant when via Companies House records from 5th January we see a number of new Directors being appointed to the largely Tory backed Vote Leave, one of whom is a certain Mr Hannan (click to enlarge):

Thus Vote Leave has appointed a "remain reformer" in Hannan. On its own it maybe a mistake but Vote Leave is also run by Matthew "supports a two tier Europe" Elliott and Dominic Cummings whose contortions over Article 50, as Mr Bexit makes clear, makes him not only a liar but is deliberately using distortion to back reform not exit.

To appoint one EU reformer may be regarded as a misfortune; to appoint two looks like carelessness, to appoint three looks like a Tory pro-EU stitch up. Vote Leave is fundamentally not fit for official designation.

Vote leave, vote remain - the message is clear.

Farage: I've Made A Terrible Terrible Mistake

Under the scrutiny of the media, and potentially more crucially the harsh spotlight of the internet, Nigel Farage has had to embarrassingly backtrack on his allegations that attempts on his life were made.

The Ukip leader said he should never have spoken out about the wheel falling off his car, after questions were raised about the so-called assassination attempt

Such accusations clearly should never be made without substantial evidence. It appears that Farage has "shot from the hip" as he always has been inclined to do. It's a trait he has played on within the concept of being "honest" in contrast to other politicians. It's a strategy that worked when speaking to the converted and outside mass media scrutiny.

However with a higher profile and the intense spotlight of the forthcoming referendum it's difficult to conclude that his comments could be anything other than damaging for Brexit if he's associated with the leavers.

Farage's comments also leaves UKIP's de facto mouthpiece Breitbart in a difficult position:

 Rightly it criticised the hypocritical media when it comes to mistakes:

If Breitbart London had made a faux pas as large as the Guardian, the Independent, LBC, and the Huffington Post – we’d be laughed out of every shitty, Westminster drinks reception for weeks on end.

But then whoops:

I confess, UKIP leader Nigel Farage told me about this specific concern [assassination] over his car in November of last year. Off the record, not for reporting. “Fine,” I sighed. After the, “Oh my God, are you okay, mate?” obviously.

Farage has now admitted such claims are a "terrible terrible mistake". If true then Raheem Kassam is not the first, nor will be last, to be dropped in it by Farage where loyalty is an unusual concept. I wonder if Breitbart will follow its own advice.

That such a story made the rounds does though neatly illustrate the decline in standards in the UK media. The Mail on Sunday published the claims without critical content; a claim which was reproduced by the mainstream media at the time with no critical analysis. It took the internet to take the claims apart.

Ironically for a man who understood the need to bypass the legacy media when trying to establish UKIP as a credible political party in the late '90s - he used public meetings as a means of negating the hostility of the media - the internet has passed him by.

Of additional concern is news that Farage, having made a "terrible mistake", has now gone public regarding advocating a "public protest" on new alcohol guidelines - this from a man who spends a lot of time in the pub.

This then is all about Farage and not Brexit. It's becoming clear that the sooner he is distanced from the leave movement the better.

UKIP: May Contain Loose Nuts.

The forthcoming referendum, which is very likely to be held in late 2017, will have to be a vote by the people against the establishment if we are to leave. That the media attempt to couch a referendum within the context of party politics misses the point entirely; politicians will have the same vote as the rest of us in a poll that is not about electing a political party.

It's for this reason this blog has largely ignored UKIP since May 2015; if the leavers are to win the referendum then party political baggage has to be left at the door regardless of the party allegiances.

However Farage has made it clear that he wishes to take a prominent role in the referendum so his UKIP party protestations are going to have an effect on the outcome. This is especially so when the BBC will undoubtedly use him for interviews, thus adopting the same tactic as it did in the 1975 referendum when only clearly diversive leavers were interviewed, such as Tony Benn and Enoch Powell. This tactic allows the BBC to claim they've upheld impartiality while discreetly undermining the anti-EU position.

So it becomes essential that the leave movement doesn't come across as diversive or lay itself open as an object of ridicule. Thus it is with some depression that we see this morning that Farage claims that he was subjected to an assassination attempt:

Nigel Farage fears he has been the victim of an assassination attempt after his car was sabotaged, causing a terrifying motorway crash.

The Ukip leader careered off a French road after a wheel on his Volvo came loose while he was driving from Brussels back to his home in Kent.

When the police arrived at the scene, they told him that the nuts on all of the wheels had been deliberately unscrewed...

The story was the prominent story on the Daily Mail website first thing this morning, but it gives an indication how little they take the claims seriously that the story dropped much further down the website by mid-morning.

The story also appears to have been given little credence by other media outlets as well - the BBC news has led with flooding stories throughout its television output. It would be tempting to regard this as anti-UKIP bias but a party leader of the country's "fourth party" facing a genuine assassination attempt would have led the media agenda. But it has not.

More likely the story hasn't been taken seriously because Farage's claims have a number of significant questions hanging over it. Why, for example, has Farage:

• ...decided to take no further action, despite "the mechanics were absolutely certain of [foul play]". This after Farage has received "death threats"
•  ...only published the story now, not at the time in October 2015?

That Farage believes loose wheel nuts is an assassination attempt is revealing regarding his priorities and overlooks other possible causes. Loose wheel nuts on a car would tend to lead to a "knocking" noise before it becomes a danger, so there would be significant vibrations which would become more acute and apparent under braking. A visit to a local garage would be normal under these circumstances surely? For reassurance if nothing else.

There are a number of reasons wheel nuts could potentially fail. For example a car can go in for a service and the wheel nuts haven't been tightened properly - garages can be hit and miss in quality of customer service. Even among professionals at the pinnacle of elite sport can prove that they can cock up when it comes to loose wheel nuts.

Another explanation perhaps unlikely, though not impossible, is the potential that persons were attempting to steal the alloy wheels early on but were disturbed during the process leaving the wheel nuts loose.

However more interesting is to note that in 2010 Volvo issued a recall regarding wheel nuts which applied to Farage's Volvo V70 (click to enlarge):

"It has been identified that the standard wheel securing bolts may not have undergone the correct hardening process. This will result in corrosion, a noise and/or vibration. If this condition is not rectified, there is a possibility that the wheel may become loose and detach".

It's interesting that Farage's claim has emerged on the first Sunday of new year - a day of the week traditionally associated with political stories - rather than October last year when it apparently happened. Cynically the timing might not be unexpected, particularly with a party which is clearly fundamentally split and an attempt to shore up his position by trying to define the new year narrative.

Further questions emerge that if Farage has had indeed death threats in the past, as he claims, then why was he driving himself?

Facing death threats mean surely hiring a chauffeur would be a logical option. Not only does it provide a witness but hiring a chauffeur has other benefits. It allows politicians to work during long road trips, it absolves politicians of responsibility during an accident especially if it's politically sensitive and anti-terrorist driver training is virtually compulsory for chauffeurs to top political and business figures in Europe. Surely a priority if facing death threats.

Predictably, in light of Farage's comments, UKIP supporters are making hay on social media with claims reinforcing an invidious belief that the EU is "evil" trying to kill eurosceptics rather than dealing with the issue that the UK's membership is entirely voluntary by Parliament. Our problem lies at home.

Even on a very basic level the EU won't try to kill Farage for the same reason the IRA didn't try to kill Ian Paisley. The IRA were canny enough to appreciate that Paisley was the ultimate recruitment sergeant for their movement. The same applies to Farage.

Thus comments in today's article have simply left the leave campaign open to ridicule, inevitably picked up by social media as mere hyperbole. But Farage's hyperbole is nothing new as we saw with his comments on immigration regarding M4 traffic.

It's clear we either support Farage or we support Brexit - the two are mutually exclusive.

EU Referendum: Merry Christmas And Looking Forward To 2016

2015 is nearly over - a year which proved to be pivotal confirming that a referendum will take place in 2017 allowing us the chance to remove ourselves from the insidious supranational organisation known as the European Union.

Despite a number of pre-election predictions to the contrary, including from UKIP's Farage,that Cameron could not be trusted to deliver on his referendum promise if he won the general election in May, political reality suggested very strongly in advance that he had no choice.

And so it's proved, with 2015 being the year that a Royal Assent has recently formally approved an EU Referendum Bill. This will be the first referendum in over 40 years on the EEC/EU and so we, the British people, have a belated chance to decide how our country is run 40 years after the 1975 referendum. There can be no excuses now.

On an optimistic note so much has changed since 1975, not least that crucially we now have the internet. And with the internet there's is no hiding place when the likes of William Hague, among many other Tories, pretended in the past that they were Tory eurosceptics only to betray their gullible party supporters as they have always have done.

The referendum is likely to turn out to be a contest between the people versus the establishment (not unlike the Scottish referendum) and we have the freely available tools to spread the message easily.

This blog has been comparatively quiet recently, yet that is not a reflection on the what is happening behind the scenes. We are likely to have a fascinating year ahead, one which can help change the dynamics of the eurosceptic debate.

Meanwhile thank you to everyone who has read and commented on my blog in the past year. Have a fantastic Christmas and wonderful New Year. We'll be there on the other side in 2016.

EU Referendum: Another Reason Why June 2016 Poll Is Unlikely

Despite frequent articles from journalists of the legacy media suggesting there could be a referendum as soon as June 2016, the Electoral Commission has made it perfectly clear (page 17) this cannot be possible as ten months must elapse between Royal Assent of the Referendum Bill and the poll.

The Electoral Commission recommends a six-month gap between passing of the law and the start of the referendum campaign. If then the referendum campaign includes designation, the combined campaign period would need to be four months, (page 6). Four months plus the six-month gap gives us the ten months.

With the Referendum Bill unlikely to receive Royal Assent before Christmas and the recommendation of a ten month window, as highlighted by this blog and EU Referendum, all but rules out a 2016 poll and certainly it rules out a June 2016 poll.

The Electoral Commission is a statutory body and thus its recommendations can be subject to judicial review. Recommendations have to be taken seriously as evident by its statutory advice over the referendum question change. The lack of reference to the Electoral Commission's recommendations by the UK media does bring into question its integrity and its less than candid nature.

Yet in addition to the Electoral Commission recommendations, another factor comes into play regarding a June 2016 referendum and it is one which has a more political significance than a legal one.

June 2016 is when UEFA is hosting its football championships in France. The draw, which involved three of the four Home Nations was made on Saturday, where one of the fixtures will be England versus Wales. Here then we will have a month of football in European wide tournament held in France - an EU member state which is a crucial and pivotal part of the EU.

With media build up to a tournament involving England it would seem inconceivable that Cameron is going to dump a referendum on the UK during a month long celebration of football particularly when a significant number of the electorate will have priorities more focused in a warm month on football, beer and barbecues.

A referendum held in these circumstances would almost certainly impact on turnout, and the results could be heavily influenced by how successful, or indeed not, the Home Nations performed during the tournament. Cameron would not want the referendum result to be influenced on the uncertainties of the mood of the nation over the fortunes of the unpredictability of football.

How a football tournament can influence politics can be seen during the debate on Scottish devoltuion in the 1970s:

The sharp rise in nationalist support, which registered in the first of the two general elections of 1974, prompted the Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to make a commitment to devolution.

On June 22 Labour's Scottish executive met to ratify the Downing Street proposals on devolution. Unfortunately this was also the day of the Scotland V Yugoslavia World Cup football match and only 11 members turned up. Most of those who stayed away to watch the football were pro-devolution. This gave the anti-devolutionists their chance to throw out the proposals.

Perhaps learning the lesson we see four years later, in 1978, that the Hamilton by-election was moved to Wednesday 31st May 1978 as the opening game of the 1978 World Cup was on the Thursday 1st June. This was the last time a by-election was not held on a Thursday.

In addition to Euro 2016, we see that a month later in August the 2016 Olympic games will be held in Brazil (and the Paralympics in September). Following on from a media narrative on how England and the other Home Nations have conducted themselves, attention will then turn to the Olympics with the lead up consisting of headlines of variations on the obligatory theme of whether the stadia and infrastructure has been built yet.

2016 will be a summer of sport. With a Prime Minister having such a weak hand in terms of his EU referendum it's very unlikely he is going to risk having his message overwhelmed by a narrative concerned with other priorities.

EU Referendum: Americans Should Stay Out.

This blog largely stays clear of American politics as the nuances and subtle dynamics of another country's politics are often lost to those have not resided in the country for many years.

The reverse is, of course, true and we saw a wonderful example last year when Labour MP Emily Thornberry resigned over tweet regarding Dan Ware displaying England flags outside his house. What was understood to UK political observers was less so to those across the pond - this was clearly evident from the Washington Examiner comment editor Philip Klein at the time:

This becomes more evident when it comes to the EU. Seen partially through the prism of the UK, America is a step removed and have no direct experience of what it's like to live under a supranational government.

With this in mind perhaps it is not the wisest move to appoint as a referendum strategist an American, which is what Leave EU has done in the form of Gerry Gunster. And so it's proving. As EU Referendum observes this is a man whose only experience of winning referendums is by aligning himself with the status quo camp, and has shown no knowledge of the EU and "even has no direct knowledge of British politics".

Employing an American also presents another problem.

As we have seen already other countries are going to interfere in what should be a purely domestic vote on our own democracy. The United States, which has its own selfish motives in keeping the UK in the straitjacket of the EU, will be at the forefront of this interference as this intervention in June earlier this year demonstrates:

The UK must stay in the European Union to continue to have influence on the world stage, US President Barack Obama has told the BBC.

He said the UK's EU membership "gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union".

And nor will it be just utterances by the US President. As was the case in 1975, there will inevitably be active financial assistance to keep the UK in:

Sir Richard Body: "After I became joint chairman of the Get Britain Out Council two Americans came to see me in 1975 with a large bundle of papers. They were, they claimed, CIA agents who deplored their country's methods in interfering in the affairs of a good ally. What they had brought were copies of documents which showed that a dedicated federalist, Cord Meyer, jnr. was to become head of a CIA station in London for the duration of the Referendum "to do what it takes" to secure a "Yes" vote in favour of Britain remaining in the EEC. The papers showed that the CIA had already given the European Movement considerable sums of money, but now multinational corporations which had been assisted by the CIA were to be persuaded to fund the "Yes" campaign through indirect channels".

The United States should be told to mind its own business, yet with the Leave EU campaign having an American as the main strategist in a UK referendum diminishes the obvious retort that Americans should stay out of UK's domestic matters.

EU Referendum: Blogging Matters

Recently we have made some minor housekeeping adjustments to the blog, and there are some more changes to make. Added to the side column is a contact form where I'm happy to take questions or offer advice to any reader who wishes to start out as being a blogger as part of the campaign to remove ourselves from the EU.

We have made changes to the blogroll where I'm more than happy to included any blogs I've inadvertently missed out. Just let me know via the comments or by the contact form. Some videos which are no longer relevant to a referendum campaign have also been removed.

With the thus far disappointing nature of both the Vote Leave Ltd and Leave.eu efforts, both of whom are attempting to "own" the referendum with sometimes crass and puerile stunts. A referendum has to be won by the people, not "owned" by a leader.

It therefore looks like UK exit from the EU will have to increasingly rely on those who use the internet outside Westminster. Here then independent blogging can be but one tool in this fight. Using this medium we can build communities and use blogging to brief in plain sight.

While not having the prestige of the legacy media and sometimes not the numbers it can seem that blogging has a limited effect in terms of publicity. But as bloggers we can make a huge difference. With this we are reminded of the "CiggyBusters" campaign in 2010 for example where Medway Council took fright after complaints by an internet campaign not least by the now defunct blogger Corrugated Soundbite.

We also see how effective a bloggers' campaign was against Open Europe which prompted Open Europe's Mats Persson to write a deceitful article in the pro-EU Daily Telegraph in response. In addition we see how the video campaign 10:10, No Pressure by Franny Armstrong fell apart quickly when faced with bloggers and the power of the internet.

Here we're minded to think of Rochester Castle which is pictured above. One of the interesting features of Rochester castle which can be seen in the picture is one of the towers is round while others (the other three) are square.

The reason is the consequence of the 1215 siege by King John during the Baron wars. The round south east tower was initially square like the others. During the siege the south east tower was undermined destroying the foundations of the tower which was supported by wooden props.

These props were then burnt with pig fat causing the tunnel to collapse and subsequently the tower. When the tower was rebuilt castle defensive technology had moved on resulting in it being built round rather than square.

In this sense blogging is a means of undermining the castle of lies, with a relatively small but very effective team.We can take down the castle walls by tunneling underneath.

EU Referendum: Children At Play

Dominating the headlines (but almost certainly for only one day if that) are reports of a stunt by two students sneaking into Cameron's address to the CBI and heckling him regarding the pro-EU bias of the CBI. One of the students confessed that the stunt was "the most terrifying thing I've done in my life". We'll leave that comment to speak for itself.

It is of course true, and well documented, that the CBI is most definitely pro EU and always has been. They were a significant force during the debate over whether the UK should join the Euro. This was natural with a project which could have been seen as economic in nature (though it wasn't) but with the question of ultimate exit from the entire EU political project they will be an irrelevance come the poll. This is especially so if we remain, on a interim basis, part of the single market as per the Flexcit exit plan.

Such nuances though have passed the students by, and they have reduced what should be a level of campaigning based on intellectual foundations down to 'heckling' which is then easily dismissed. All publicity is not always good publicity.

The stupid crass stunt allows Cameron to take the moral high ground and thus appear statesman-like rightly dismissing a stupid schoolboy prank for what it is, being easily branded as fools by a Prime Minister who has gone to the country and won an election against the odds. This when conversely we need to strip Cameron of inherent prestige in order to win.

Conformation has come from Guido that it was apparently organised by Vote Leave Ltd  - Guido of course would have inside information as he is closely linked with Vote Leave Ltd and Matthew Elliott not least due to potential financial benefits for himself.

And revealingly it was representatives for "Students for Britain" who protested on behalf of Vote Leave Ltd - their website notes:

Students for Britain is a new campaign pushing for fundamental reform of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. We want to amplify the voice of young people across the country who feel that the EU is not working for them, and is in need of radical reform.

Here we go again; a Matthew Elliott based campaign wishing reform not exit. How ironic that an essentially pro-EU student group is protesting against the pro-EU CBI.

This is exactly what happens then a campaign has a no strategy, and has to instead indulge in meaningless stunts to look active. A pressing concern is that Vote Leave has to appear active to keep its sponsors content who are funding an expensive operation out of Westminister.

Ultimately this is coming across as a campaign which is not taking a coherent intellectual argument to the country but a Westminster bubble activity based on crass stunts.

EU Referendum: Leave.EU Gets It Wrong Again.

My previous post about Leave.EU's ill-advised tweet regarding Guy Fawkes suggesting they were advocating murder attracted some criticism not least from commenter AndrewZ who noted:

You will only damage your own credibility with that kind of hyperbole.

My comment in response outlined the danger to the leave movement when it makes such comments:

People's true feelings are often expressed using humour. We remember the 10:10 video campaign which featured people being blown up. They said it was a joke but Franny Armstrong's subsequent comments showed she clearly meant it.

More importantly though, the EU referendum has a huge number of vested interests riding on it. Therefore when we enter the campaign proper (particularly if polls show a strong leave vote) then the fight will be very dirty.

The leave.eu is going for official designation and if it wins it will come under sustained and vigorous attack. -no-holds barred. If it produces tweets like that then they will be condemned across the establishment in precisely the language I have used above.

Dismissing it as silly is no excuse, there's going to be no prisoners taken during this fight and the criticism leave.eu will face with tweets will leave this blog piece looking mild by comparison.

It's a warning to Banks' of what he can expect

And so it proves on Remembrance Sunday again resulting from a tweet posted by Leave.EU:

Campaigners who want Britain to leave the European Union sparked a furious row today after using Remembrance Day poppies to attack Brussels.

Organisers of the Leave.EU campaign were branded 'shameful', 'disgraceful' and 'disgusting' for posting a tweet which said suggested staying in the EU would 'give up values for which our ancestors paid the ultimate sacrifice'.

Critics said Remembrance Sunday should not be used to score political points before the tweet was deleted.

I didn't anticipate such evidence to back up my previous post would happen so soon.

And this is how a referendum will be played out - every misguided tweet will be highlighted, reported and taken out of context. Deleting said tweet by Leave.EU is an admission that it is portraying itself as a bunch of amateurs.

This referendum is going to be a brutal fight, yet both of the leave campaigns attempting to win official designation are showing a worrying lack of appreciation of this reality.

EU Referendum: Leave.EU Promotes Murder?

As today is November 5th, we'll see plenty of fireworks which are less a celebration of Guido but more that he failed. The celebration is not one of an attempt of Parliamentary democracy but instead is one against a reactionary religious terrorist who failed.

Thus it's interesting that Guido's blogging namesake celebrates his apparent "anti-establishment" credentials while being a fundamental part of the establishment while trying to enrich himself on behalf of the taxpayer.

With this in mind we see with absolute astonishment, Arron Banks' Leave.EU operation tweet the above advocating to blow up EU institutions. There are no arguments, nor debates, but instead a tweet advocating destroying buildings which would pose a considerable risk to people in it.

Leave.eu is promoting murder. Perhaps it's us but how this helps the leave campaign win a referendum quite escapes us.

It's less a gunpowder plot and more the Leave.EU has lost the plot.

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.