Part 1: The Prospect of a Referendum as viewed from 2011

A Personal view by Edward Spalton

Foreword by James Higham

Edward has been at this Independent Britain goal far longer than most, certainly long before I and many in UKIP have – his involvement stretches back to the mid to late 60s.

Some links:

At Conservative Woman:

A hostile view by a Snopes type site:

An article by Edward in another field we also touch on:

Edward Spalton, “Scientists invented the global-warming conspiracy“, This is Derbyshire, August 03, 2010

Free Nations long version of Germany Calling


An old independence campaigning friend contacted me, saying that he thought that I had originally opposed the whole idea of a referendum and asked what I had said about it.

That had not been my view but I had perhaps been somewhat more cautious than others in my approach and so looked it up.

It is salutary to review one’s appreciation of the situation at the time from one’s then limited viewpoint, across the perspective of years and the valiant efforts of others to see how it turned out in the big picture – what I got right and what I got wrong.

My memory was also jogged by Dr. David Starkey who recently mentioned the referendum which rejected the “alternative vote” system and by a recent article concerning the Electoral Reform Society which played an activist role in that campaign.

This is dealt with in section 8 of the article. Not many people know that some local authorities outsource parts of their electoral responsibilities and the practice should be closely scrutinised.

I also recalled that, some years before, a German colleague had provided information about a British local authority which had outsourced nearly all of its administration to a German conglomerate company which had a rather unsavoury past and a politically active present.

These articles are appended. Whether an independent country should allow parts of its administration to be undertaken by foreign firms – or firms which may be sold to foreigners – is a matter of deep concern.

Lastly I have to own up to being neglectful of my own advice in section 11. Like most of the pro independence organisations, we relaxed after the [2011] referendum victory – rather as if we had been a victorious political party in a general election, confident that our government would carry out its manifesto pledge to leave the EU.

In defence of colleagues and myself, I should add that the effort of the referendum campaign had been more intense and demanding than anything we had done before and it would not have been possible to keep up that level of effort indefinitely. Nonetheless, we took our eye off the ball.

The two appendices before we begin:

Part 2: Privatisation and Subcontracting of Electoral Services

Interestingly, I’ve also come at this Bertelsmann for the paedo health pamphlet they distributed in Germany:

Part 3: Germany Calling

An EU “in/out” Referendum, right or wrong?

24 March 2011

This is a critique for quiet consideration within the pro-independence movement. An “in/out” EU referendum may well be part of the mechanism by which Britain eventually leaves the EU but we know that the EU protagonists regard “in” votes as final and binding and “out” votes as merely provisional.

For some idea of the likely forces of manipulation which would be available to the “in” side, I ask people to refer to the
Eurofacts Document “How they swung it in the early Seventies” and to the Anthony Royle report, now released under the Thirty Year rule, of the press and public relations campaign waged by HMG to influence public opinion in favour of EEC membership at that time.

This is in the evidence section of the “Case for Treason” website for which a link is given in my letter published in the “Euro Realist”.


Firstly I acknowledge the contribution which the Democracy Movement has made to the pro independence cause. I have distributed many of their leaflets, arranged meetings at which they were represented and have been very grateful for their input over the years. The DM has been the prime mover of the People’s Pledge campaign for a referendum.


My main concerns about an “in/out” referendum are set out in my
September letter which appeared in “The Euro Realist” and they apply just as much to the People’s Pledge campaign as to any other.


Before writing that letter, I consulted Dr. Anthony Coughlan of the Irish National Platform who has experience of both winning and losing referendum campaigns concerning the EU. I did not put the question to him directly but he did not mention receiving any approach from British referendum campaigners (which he surely would, if he had). I am sure our country’s foes will have learned the Irish lesson of what wins and what loses a referendum and was rather surprised that the independence campaigners had not thought to do so.


Dr. Coughlan gave his opinion that the weight of “outside” money and influence rather than the officially awarded public funding to either side for the short period of the official campaign before the poll was what decided the result. In a time of economic uncertainty, it was “the fear of the people, not the will of the people” which determined the result.

Whilst he was careful not to try to tell us what to do, he gave his opinion that an “out” referendum could only be carried with any certainty by the whole-hearted support of the party in government, using all its many influences. If a referendum
campaign were to be fought, he believed it would be wiser to
campaign for the referendum on the Lisbon treaty (promised by all parties) or (say) The European Arrest Warrant or the Common
Fisheries Policy (from which the Conservatives once promised our release).

A favourable vote in such a referendum would (I paraphrase) throw such a spanner in the works as to come close to an
“out” vote. Yet, if lost, it would merely be a lost battle and not a lost war – which would certainly be the case if an “in/out” referendum resulted in an “in” vote.


To fix wholly and solely on an “in/out” referendum is to declare the chosen means of fighting to an enemy who will have the advantage of making the dispositions of his far superior forces of money, influence and persuasion well in advance and of fixing the time of the engagement to his best advantage. It will not be a fair fight. Most of it will take place long before the immediate campaign before the poll – without rules and with all the advantage to big money and entrenched influence.

Reports of the way in which this was done in the Seventies are available but I have seen no evidence that they have been taken into consideration by any pro-referendum campaigner.

The responses I have heard or had reported to me are “Public opinion is moving our way” (equivalent to “we hope something will turn up”)and “That is a completely separate issue” (to actually getting a referendum).


Now, I think that a referendum – or pressure for one – may well be part of the mechanism by which we leave the EU – but it is not essential nor the only one. A parliamentary majority of one would be sufficient.

As far as I know, nobody has given thought to an American-style write-in campaign to MPs, maintained and sustained
over time. All eurosceptic organisations have urged their members to speak and write to their MPs but there has never been any serious organisation to build a disciplined core of (say) 2 dozen people in every constituency to keep the issue before MPs and press perpetually. Individuals have written, gone to see their MPs, asked a question at a meeting and usually got a dusty answer.

Then they have retreated to the comfort zone of like-minded eurosceptics to complain about it and the MPs (for the most part) have heard nothing more. So they can say with all truthfulness (or as much as can be expected) that “Europe” is not an issue which troubles their constituents.


I am writing this personally and not as a view of CIB but I can
assert this. CIB has for years issued invitations for the Democracy Movement to attend its committee meetings. They have always been brushed off with “too busy”.

Perhaps this is unfair, but I get the impression that they feel that we volunteer provincials are beneath consideration though worthwhile summoning as spear carriers when our betters have decided what we should do.

Nonetheless, if I had thought the campaign was the right thing to do, I would have supported it to the hilt immediately. CIB also tried repeatedly to arrange discussions with the other main referendum campaign but appointments were either refused or cancelled after having been made.

I was horrified to hear of the attempt of Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell, in front of press representatives, to bounce the Better Off Out Campaign into disbanding and joining with Keith Vaz, Caroline Lucas and other choice europhile specimens in a “Better with a Referendum” campaign.

Whilst the Better Off Out campaign does not commit its members
to any binding course of action, MPs who join it know that they do so at the cost of forfeiting any prospect of promotion. With the commitment downgraded to merely demanding a referendum, that might no longer apply.

If pro independence MPs were persuaded join the government, they would be lost to the movement. The Pledge campaign makes no distinction between MPs and candidates who are committed to EU withdrawal and those who believe deeply in EU membership and think that a referendum is a good way of locking us in.

It will therefore promote rabid federalists as being equally as desirable candidates as solid sovereignists.

Hannan’s behaviour is the sort of putsch which some of us have seen attempted before, destabilising other soundly pro-independence organisations and rendering them less effective.

It can only have happened with support or encouragement of the People’s Pledge.

Similarly, Keith Vaz is such a known careerist that he would not have offered his support to the People’s Pledge without clearing it with the top leadership of the Labour party . One of the Democracy Movement’s best leaflets was in the style of a detergent advert – “New miracle Vaz won’t wash”.

He still doesn’t. I think it possible that Labour may use
the campaign to show “Tory splits” on Europe. Mr Cameron might then “do a Wilson” and call a referendum earlier rather than later to lance the boil of Tory euroscepticism – and he could easily win. He nailed his colours to the EU mast on Al Jazeera.


A referendum will be held shortly on the “Alternative Vote” system.

The Electoral Reform Society is funding the “yes” campaign massively with money and with the loan of staff. This is a straw in the wind.

The society has a commercial subsidiary which offers “electoral
services” to public authorities. My own council uses it for part of the registration of electors. It is highly profitable and would get massively more so, if a more complicated voting system were introduced. There are hundreds of such “Third Sector” organisations (as officialdom calls them), now with greater freedom to promote political objectives than they had under the old Charities legislation. Many are lavishly funded by the EU.

As far as I know, there has been no attempt to list, quantify and evaluate the electoral pressure which such organisations could apply in an “in/out” EU referendum – on either side. It is worth noting that there are moves in the EU parliament to allow EU funds to be used in referendum campaign within member states and that the proposals for pan EU political parties are quite well developed.


Neither, as far as I know, has anybody considered institutional bias in the electoral process itself.

The postal voting system is known to be demonstrably corrupt, especially in culturally enriched areas. The few cases that have come to court are probably just the tip of an iceberg. There is a widespread feeling that the process of voter
registration may have been compromised by outsourcing to private companies. Private Eye identified one such company with close links to the Labour Party.

Then there is the Electoral Commission itself. I have not had the opportunity to refresh my memory but I believe that there is a statutory requirement in the Elections Political Parties and Referendum Act for the Commission to “inform” people
about the institutions of the EU.

That can be interpreted in various ways and nobody who has received the reports of the Irish National Platform on the extreme partiality of the Irish electoral authorities could feel easy about the possible behaviour of this archetypal New Labour quango in a crucial referendum.


In my opinion, anybody starting out with the intention to win a
referendum to get us out of the EU would have begun by dealing with such considerations as a first priority before even thinking of campaigning for a referendum. It is the elementary duty of any commander who means to win to “appreciate the ground from the enemy’s position”, work out what forces the enemy may reasonably be expected to have and to assure himself of having at least local superiority to defeat them decisively.

If he hasn’t got that, he may fight a spoiling action or retreat – but that is not a possibility in a referendum campaign which is a win or lose, frontal assault. On present showing, it could easily turn out like the Charge of the
Light Brigade. As a French general remarked of that occasion “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre”.

We cannot afford such an heroic failure, however magnificent.


None of the proponents of an “in/out” referendum appears to have given any thought as to how the process of disengagement from the EU would be carried out, if an “out” vote by the electors were achieved but the government in power remained composed of “old style” politicians who were reasonably comfortable with life under the EU and not passionately and totally committed to leaving it.

Even with a firm political commitment by a majority of MPs to independence, the degree of stubborn inertia in government departments and official bodies would be enormous with huge numbers of civil service apparatchiks and quangocrats able to ambush even an enthusiastic government into repeated pitfalls and disasters.

With a less than enthusiastic government and parliament, the situation would be a happy hunting ground for functionaries of the “Yes, Minister” type to wrong-foot their nominal political masters repeatedly in the highly intricate business of disentangling constitution and administration from the EU web, which has been woven for over fifty years to prevent any such thing from happening.

We now have politicians and officials who look like us and talk like us but whose main loyalties have been elsewhere for decades. The present situation could not have occurred without them.

The inertia of vested official interests in (say) the Foreign Office would be enormous. The extent to which long-established official attitudes within departments can frustrate even a determined government with a large majority has been demonstrated repeatedly over the years.

To take a domestic example, the Thatcher government set out to reverse declining standards in state education with the idea of insisting on a basic national curriculum to ensure that, at least, the “Three Rs” were taught in schools. The “progressive” educational establishment was able to ambush this simple idea and turn the national curriculum into a complicated, prescriptive, jargon-laden monster which is now a major part of the problem.

At vastly greater expense and effort, state schools continue to turn out a high proportion of  unemployable, near illiterates and innumerates who form the basis of the permanent class of welfare claimants and petty criminals.

The doctrinaire educational establishment was able to divert and defeat the attempt to raise standards and to deceive not very bright politicians by “rising standards”, manufactured by making the exams easier.

How much greater is the opportunity for that sort of obstructionism in untangling a project like the EU which affects so many departments of state and entrenched official interests? A referendum victory would be entirely hollow without MPs or government committed heart and soul to making independence a success and willing to confront and, if necessary to sack, obstructive officials – even if they are Permanent Secretaries.


If a referendum is called, whether soon or late, you can be assured that CIB will strain all its energies and use every available penny provided by the generosity of our members, living and dead, to achieve a vote for independence but that alone will not deliver independence. It will only be the beginning of an almighty struggle, amounting to revolution against the new system of government, created in the last forty years.

In the meantime, I believe it is best to continue our efforts to influence opinion in favour of independence – both within Parliament and elsewhere, taking every opportunity from the increasingly desperate and ultimately unsustainable crises to which the euro currency will be subject.

We should also seek help from our members and the wider movement to develop a positive vision of an independent Britain and its place in the world.

– by Edward Spalton