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.

Business For Elliott's Friends

We have previously established that after Elliott had been awarded the No2AV campaign, he appointed his friend and business associate Jag Singh as the Director of Digital Communications. Singh then appointed Message Space - the company in which he had a financial interest - as the campaign's digital agency. As EUReferendum.com notes: 

"Message Space was paid over £65,000, which including on 5 May – days before the poll – the biggest 1-day-blitz online ad buy in UK political history. One should note that Conservative Home - then under the proprietorship of Tim Montgomerie - was a major beneficiary".

It's also worth noting that Douglas Carswell, who has had a recent spat with Arron Banks over the former's support for the Elliott campaign, is also a customer of Message Space.

In addition to the £65,000 paid to Message Space (including one invoice for £17,000) Singh then went on to pay Strateusis well over £30,000, a Hong Kong company which he is a director. One such invoice, (below) showed a considerable sum of £20,000 for the vague term of "media planning". Interesting using the Hong Kong company meant he paid no tax on the money. Invoices for Message Space and Strateusis combined amounted to nearly £100,000.

Further invoices show yet another close associate of Elliott working for him in the AV Referendum campaign. We see that Dr Lee Rotherham was paid £4,166 (below), for "work undertaken". Rotherham advises The Taxpayers' Alliance on EU matters and has written at least two books with Matthew Elliott.

It's becoming perfectly clear that Elliott is completely unfit to lead any official leave campaign. Never has he advocated leaving the EU instead arguing that we stay in with unspecified reforms. More serious is the deep suspicion that his campaigns are being constructed largely to allow close friends to award themselves contracts.

However as Richard North says "should the [Electoral Commission] decide to ignore warning signs and make the award to the establishment grouping, there is always the prospect of a judicial review in the High Court".

Guido Fawkes And Matthew Elliott: Referendum Sharp Practices?

On the 23th anniversary of Black Wednesday, or in the terms of Brexiteers, more accurately described as White Wednesday we can see people personally committed to trying to exit the UK out of the EU in preparation for the upcoming referendum.

However with the Electoral Commission (EC) designating official "remain and leave" campaigns, there comes substantial funding - in copious millions. Here then as a consequence we get an indication that some who wish to be nominated are less interested in getting the UK out of the EU and more interested in enriching themselves.

Pictured above are Andrew Whitehurst, Matthew Elliott, Jag Singh and Paul Staines, co-founders of WESS Digital, the name being made up from the initial letters of their surnames. WESS Digital apparently specialises in:

...building digital solutions for political parties, think tanks, campaigns and candidates

With one of WESS' co-founders being Elliott this leads us neatly onto Business for Britain which in its own words is led by its Chief Executive...one Matthew Elliott. BfB has long ill-disguised ambitions to apply to the EC for official designation of the leave campaign. Naturally there are concerns that if successful in its EC bid, it will lead to contracts being awarded to companies where Elliott is the founder such as WESS. Elliot could end up negotiating external contracts with himself with taxpayers' money being his reward. A situation which would be a clear and unethical conflict of interest - fingers would essentially be in the till.

We are not comforted therefore to see previous where Staines and Elliott are concerned, who have an established relationship:

Regardless of his rather unorthodox past, Mr Staines has proved himself a force to be reckoned with. Matthew Elliott, founder of the TaxPayers' Alliance and a friend of Mr Staines, said: "If the Conservatives get into power at the next election they will owe as much to Guido as anyone in Conservative Central Office. But once they are in power, they'd better expect to get just as rough a ride from him as their predecessors."

For example MessageSpace is an enterprise where Paul Staines has a stake, and it is one where questions have been asked over the possible misuse of personal data. And by sheer coincidence during the AV referendum campaign spearheaded by Matthew Elliott we see this:

MessageSpace is drafted in by the NO to AV campaign to manage and run the digital side. Our co-founder, Jag Singh, is named Director of Digital Communications and Engagement for the campaign. We assisted him in drafting the digital strategy, and with the media buying and planning. It all culminates in the biggest one-day online ad buy blitz in UK political history. The NO to AV campaign garnered over 13 million votes to win the referendum.

We also see how WESS provides other services to Elliot based campaigns such as Taxpayer's Alliance. A very cosy deal indeed.

No wonder then Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes is increasingly becoming keen to disparage other potential rivals for the "leave" bid, (using similar tactics to Damien McBride who he derided viciously - but wasn't brave enough to publish the emails on his own blog) particularly Arron Banks and recently Pete North. Essentially attacking the author of EUReferendum.com via his own son.

It's perfectly clear that Guido has no idea how the EU works, as is evident by his restoration of hanging campaign without acknowledging the Europe dimension and that anyone who questioned Cameron's fake veto was dismissed as a muppet.

But then it's not principle, it's money. The issue of how our country is run is far too important to let it be hijacked by Elliott and his money grabbing friends.EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum 

EU Referendum Question Is Set To Change

Following on from concerns by the Electoral Commission this morning over the wording of the current yes/no question, Cameron has announced that he is prepared to change the question in line with the advice:

[The EC] said that the question should set out the alternative option of Britain "leaving the European Union", while giving people the option of choosing whether they "leave" or "remain" rather than a simple "Yes/ No".

Within half an hour of the announcement a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the government will table an amendment changing the question in line with the commission's proposals.

The Electoral Commission has always been consistent, since 2013, on the question it prefers:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The responses would be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ / ‘Leave the European Union’.

Research participants found this the most neutral of all the versions tested.

Given the report stage of the Referendum Bill comes up next week where further amendments can be made, the EC's timing also seems perfectly reasonable. 

Interestingly this leaves Arron Banks's pet project, TheKnow.EU, in a rather awkward position. This blog has yet to be impressed with "The Know". Their Twitter account contains misleading and selective quoting of newspaper articles, jingoistic rhetoric, and as Autonomous Mind says: "completely inaccurate assertions about the additional EU budgetary contribution demanded of the UK".

Despite the name it's clear Banks knows nothing about the EU and now it seems he knows nothing about getting the name right for a referendum either. It's entirely his fault - the consequence of being presumptuous by jumping in before the Referendum Bill has even been passed. If they can't get their own name right then there's not much hope for anything else from them.

The jostling for position by Farage, Banks and Mathew Elliot for leading the campaign to leave has only revealed what a low grade position we are currently in. Everything from Farage announcing the launch of a "no" campaign on the day the EC releases its advice to fundamentally misunderstanding the terms of being designated the official campaign to leave shows a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of what a referendum campaign will look like.

The location of amateursville is being determined by a triangulation of egos; Farage, Elliot and Banks. They want it about them not us and if it continues we will lose.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum

Why The Pro-EU Telegraph Uses The Term 'Norway Model'

A recent Telegraph editorial, which is an unashamedly pro-EU paper, not unsurprisingly includes information from the recently outed pro-EU think tank Open Europe:

At first blush, then, today’s report by the think tank Open Europe on the costs of EU regulations to Britain should push the prime minister to head for the exit. The burden of the costliest 100 regulations to our economy is £33 billion, it says. And while the apparent benefits total more than £58 billion, some £46 billion of this derives from three items “which are vastly over-stated”. Financially, it seems, we are losing out.

By reducing the argument down to cost and economics means that it becomes divisive for the eurosceptic movement to its detriment as Richard North notes:

The trouble is that EU regulation, and how much money we may or may not save from leaving the EU, constitute the type of "biff-bam" arguments that the media love to report. But the two sides getting bogged down in such arcane details is precisely the wholesale turn-off for the general public that we need to avoid. If we are going to make any progress, the economic issues should be neutralised and "parked", not endlessly chewed over by a bunch of hyperactive think-tank wonks and ill-briefed politicians.

What we are seeing, therefore, is incompetent campaigning from both sides – although the need to overcome the status quo effect imposes greater demands on the "out" campaign. Equal incompetence means we lose. Either way, though, the anti-EU movement is being poorly served. And if we can't even trash the OE nonsense, we deserve everything we get.

Similarly arguing that the EU can be reformed has the same effect when trying to win a referendum. No wonder the pro-EU Telegraph is so enthusiastic in adopting such tactics.

Interestingly, and far more dangerously, Business for Britain whose Chief Executive is Mathew Elliot who is very keen to be the official out candidate for a referendum uses precisely the same arguments and terminology as pro-EU Open Europe and the Telegraph. Business for Britain's daily email briefings are virtually identical to Open Europe's.

No doubt Tory central office will be over the moon if Elliot would be the official candidate for the out campaign in a referendum.

Any genuine euroscepetic knows that the EU hides in plain sight that its raison d'etre is all about political union and has been from the outset. To ignore that as a eurosecptic movement could be described as dishonest. Thus by neutralising the economic arguments it allows us to concentrate on the fundamental principle that the EU is all about political union by its own admission.

Neutralising the economic arguments involves invoking the Norway Option, and more specifically Flexcit, by adopting the off the shelf EEA solution as a temporary measure allows us to negate the inevitable FUD threat in a referendum.

And it is a threat that the pro-EU press such as the Guardian and City AM fully recognise. If they didn't they wouldn't spend so much time in trying to undermine the argument.

With this mind, it is interesting that the Telegraph uses the phrase "Norway model" rather than the usual term "Norway Option";

The so-called “Norway” model – leave the EU but remain part of the European Economic Area.

A quick internet search suggests why; a search for the term 'Norway Model' is likely to result in links to copious pretty Norwegian women:

Conversely a search for the 'Norway Option' results in this and this:

This is cynicism by the Telegraph of the highest order, and this is an example of the dirty tricks we face. The eurosceptic movement as a whole needs to wise up...otherwise we will lose.

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

There's no question that an "out" campaign in any referendum faces a significant challenge when it is against a very powerful EU movement which has the means and money to outgun us. There is also no doubt that unfair tactics will be used in abundance. In addition we mustn't forget that the "in" campaign in terms of argument and narrative only has to draw (to maintain the status quo) while the "out" campaign has to make the case for winning.

In many ways therefore we are disadvantaged - we are fighting against formidable odds yet as I have noted previously we do have advantages on our side. However with a referendum it's actually our own side, perhaps surprisingly, which is more likely to contribute to our potential defeat.

Earlier this week I had a very fine lunch with passionate anti-EU campaigners White Wednesday and Jason Kent - who is a local Oxfordshire UKIP member and general election agent. Among the many issues discussed there was one which expressed a sense of frustration that the "out" side is less than unified in coming together to adopt a winning strategy to leave. It's a frustration I fully share.

An intriguing problem is that the "out" side has long consisted of strong-willed individuals. But while the individuality and diversity of the "out" camp in many ways should be celebrated - a trait which is the antithesis of the borg-like EU - it's that very trait which often means we are usually nothing more than an 'unorganised rabble' unable to unify behind a coherent positive message or campaign; each with their own egos, own agendas and petty squabbles. Thus when we face a very formidable enemy such diversity will count against us.

The very informative 1975 referendum book by Butler and Kitzinger documents a little nugget which neatly and vividly illustrates this 'herding cats' problem back in 1975:

The main elements in the National Referendum Campaign (the anti-marketeers) were the Common Market Safeguards Campaign and Get Britain Out (GBO)...

There was considerable hostility between these two bodies; following the failure of either the Anti-Common Market League or Safeguards to fulfill an alleged promise to contribute to the cost of a bookstall at Blackpool for the Conservative Conference in 1973.

[GBO's] Christopher Frere-Smith and Richard Body had withdrawn from Safeguards...and Ron Leighton was recruited as full-time Director bringing with him all his Safeguards experience and contacts...

The 1975 referendum campaign could claim to have excuses for such failings though; they had no experience to draw upon and they had little time to prepare. In contrast we have no such excuses yet in many ways we seem determined to repeat many of the same mistakes that were made in 1975.

The crucial aspect of any campaign is to appeal to the waverers - the 'soft middle' - which is mostly decidedly undecided. Thus any "out" campaign which tries to appeal to the likes of Nick Clegg is a waste of time as indeed it would be to the readers of this blog and others. A situation we could consider was aptly summed up by the actress Julia Roberts who played a prostitute in the film Pretty Woman:

I appreciate the whole seduction thing you've got going on here, but let me give you a tip: I'm a sure thing.

Yet we get the sense that the eurosceptic movement in general cannot move outside a comfort zone - failing to try to appeal to those who are not a 'sure thing'. Instead they continually try to seduce those who have already made up their minds.

And this is where Flexcit comes in; by removing the uncertainty of exit, by negating the status quo effect and by circumventing big business self-interest who believe that the EU and the Single Market are the same thing we have a genuine chance of appealing to the soft important middle and winning a referendum.

But sadly we still see that the diversity of the eurosceptic movement means that many arguments have not changed in many years - it is a reflection of the lack of ability to move on; in stark contrast to the EU which has done so with subsequent treaties. Lisbon being the obvious latest one.

Thus it leaves us with old tired canards such as how many laws are made by the EU. This has been an obsession within the eurosceptic movement for as long as it has been about. Does it really matter if 64.6% of laws are made in the EU? And if so is that better than 64.5% or 55.8%. Is 9.8% acceptable? More importantly does it appeal to the public. Since the banking collapse in 2008 and the likes of Starbucks aggressively avoiding tax, the public mood could be said to be in favour of more regulation.

All a 'Westminster village' type campaign to try to determine the percentage of EU laws amounts to, quite bluntly, is a penis measuring competition within the eurosceptic movement as to who can come up with the most 'accurate' figure. Naturally this then leads to arguments within the movement over the exact figure inhibiting us from turning our fire onto the opposition. No wonder that Europhile campaigners are willing to engage in such a discussion; it helps divide us.

Yet not only does an uncoordinated rabble make for a incoherent message but its inherent weakness means it essentially vacates the territory leaving it vulnerable to be infiltrated by someone else with less than honest intentions.

When a referendum campaign starts, there has to be an official bid to the Electoral Commission to represent the "out" campaign where a very substantial amount of funding will be available. We saw the process of this with Scotland; Better Together whose official Campaign Director was Blair McDougall and Yes Scotland whose chief executive was Blair Jenkins.

It's here the weakness of the diversity of the "out" campaign can be exploited by the pro-EU establishment which can install and control the opposition general. Already we can see indications of this happening with Business for Britain and in particular Matthew Elliott.

BfB gives a "voice" to Roger Bootle who stitched up the IEA prize, and a platform to other supporters such as Alan Halsall, Neville Baxter and Robert Hiscox to name but three who have supported the recently publicly outed pro-EU think tank Open Europe.

More than a few in the eurosceptic movement are unimpressed with Elliott's ill-disguised ambitions to further his own career, as a potential MP, on the back of a referendum campaign, nor are they impressed with his sycophantic nature towards Tory politicians...obviously with his career in mind.

With Cameron exerting undue influence over Elliott, his abysmal record with NOtoAV where he had to be bailed out by senior members of the Tory party such was the nature of the poor campaign, nothing should worry the eurosceptics more than for Elliott to win the bid for the official "out".

By 'deliberately' losing the referendum he can be assured of Tory gratitude with rewards to match. If Elliott takes control in an EU referendum we would have lost before we started.

Thus elements of the eurosceptic movement has to grow up, accept the Boolean nature of a referendum and start preparing for a dirty fight if we are to win.