13/10/2015
The great mystery of the moment is: where is Elliott? Although joint owner of "Vote Leave Ltd", with the Second Cummings, his name is absent from their train-wreck of a
website and he did not appear on the Marr Show, as some of us expected.
Some of the reasons why this might be so are picked up by
Mr Brexit, questioning the suitability of the business owned by Elliott and Cummings to lead the official "leave" campaign.
That this comes on the same day as the launch of the unfortunately named
Britian Stronger in Europe is no coincidence. Despite their high profile launch of a new trading name for the
In Company Limited, it remains the case that the choice of the organisation to lead the "leave" campaign is far more important than the existence of a group which is entirely irrelevant to the referendum campaign.
In any event, an organisation that is so dire that even the
Guardian is mocking it is not exactly going to be anything other than a noise-maker, even if they have managed a
professional website.
The brutal fact of this campaign is that Mr Cameron, with the backing and advice of the European Union and its supporters, is the real opposition. The In Campaign Ltd serves merely to keep the "leavers" distracted and occupied, focused on irrelevancies while the real agenda is assembled by Mr Cameron, who can move in when the time is right, and take the high ground.
With almost Lemming-like determination, however, you can see Richard Tice of Leave.eu fall into the trap, as LBC
gleefully reports a "blazing row" on air, between him and "Lying Lucy" Thomas, now deputy director of BSE (Britain Stronger in Europe).
What Tice has clearly not understood is that the legacy media has become part of the entertainment industry, and a good "shout-up" is regarded as the essence of good broadcasting, irrespective of the issues raised. The danger for us is that the public walks away bemused, in which case the
status quo rules.
As for the Elliott-Cummings enterprise, with a
chutzpah that borders on extreme hubris, they are
drawing attention to the fact that Laura Sandys is one of three directors of the In Campaign Ltd, while retaining her position as chair of the European Movement â thus suggesting that EU money is involved.
On the basis that people who live in glass houses not throwing stones, however, it is perhaps a little unwise of the Elliott-Cummings duo to question ownership of the campaigning companies, when
Vote Leave Ltd is their sole property. Perhaps the gofers who wrote the press piece don't know who their masters are.
So far, though, both "leave" groups are making every mistake in the book, getting bogged down in detail, and making questionable claims that can be easily disputed by the other side. All they are doing is providing exactly the sort of biff-bam entertainment that the media want. And, as entertainment, it contributes little to the success of the campaign.
The
Times thus has it that the fight over Britain's future in Europe "is shaping up as a bewildering boxing match with many seconds and a single punch-drunk contender".
Apart from anything else, the groups have not registered that this is going to be a long campaign. After the first year of the rivals trotting out claim an counter-claim, the public is going to be bored silly. People will walk away from the debate and it will be very hard to entice them back.
Despite this, one hears criticism from the SW1 clever-dicks that Owen Paterson's interventions â the latest one of which
is here - are "too techie". Yet he is one of the few commentators who is offering something new and different. In an increasingly sterile debate, characterised by stale arguments and boring statistics, he is the one breath of fresh air.
Furthermore, what he has to say gets to the heart of the debate, talking about about Codex, the IPPC, the OIE, ILO, WTO and UNECE. Bluntly, if people don't know anything about these things, then it is about time they leaned â these are part of our government. Owen's critics need to grow up and confront
the realities of globalisation.
As Pete North
points out, even when it comes to trade, the EU is not very good at it. Our strongest suit is that EU is no longer a law-maker but a "law taker" (
as Pete explains). We need to ditch the middle-man which gives us 1/28th of a seat at the top table, and reassert our rights to take full part in the global bodies where decisions are really made.
Broadly, "Eurosceptics" need to grow up as well, and think twice about their obsession with sovereignty. Reading
this would be a good start, followed by a review of Churchill's comments in the
Schuman Plan debate in 1950. Then, he said:
We are asked in a challenging way: "Are you prepared to part with any degree of national sovereignty in any circumstances for the sake of a larger synthesis?" ⦠The Conservative and Liberal Parties say, without hesitation, that we are prepared to consider, and if convinced to accept, the abrogation of national sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together.
Once again, as
Pete observes, we need to be ditching the eurosceptic baggage and breaking out into pastures new. Two years is a long time to keep up the momentum. We're not going to survive on a diet of bickering. There is more to this debate than bleating about EU costs and airing the usual facile mantras.
