Total Visits

Sunday, 30 August 2015

Leadership of the No to EU Campaign

Leadership of the No to EU Campaign

In the coming months the Electoral Commission will be deciding who to “designate” as “Leader” of the “No” Campaign in the EU referendum. The Leader of the campaign will also get the public funding for the Campaign of about £1,000,000!

Below is what the Electoral Commission say are the rules. I expect that the Electoral Commission will however be looking to appoint a Leader who they think is credible enough to pass muster but not credible enough to win! That is what John Prescott tried to do in his North East Assembly Referendum. The Electoral Commission no doubt now forgets that it is the Minister who appoints them!

“There is a statutory test in PPERA that the Commission must apply when assessing applications for designation:

* If there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome.

When we assessed applications for the Referendum on Independence for Scotland, we used a decision making process to apply a test, based on the criteria set out below. Based on the legislation for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union as it is currently drafted, we expect the Commission to take similar consideration into account during the designation process for the EU referendum.

* How the applicant’s objectives fit with the referendum outcome it supports

* The level and type of support for the application

* How the applicant intends to engage with other campaigners

* The applicant’s organizational capacity to represent those campaigning for the outcome, and

* The applicant’s capacity to deliver their campaign (including its financial probity)”


  1. In a state of shock and deciding how to respond to your previous article ' British counter-terrorism strategy to be used to enforce political correctness ' I discover you replace it with this tedious irritating article.
    This article may be of interest to electoral geeks but in no way can it serve to distract attention from the previous incredibly important article. The previous obviously sensitive article should have remained for longer so people could have come to terms with it's shocking disclosures. Why wasn't it? Every reply fom either concerned or indeed affected members should have been published!
    To an EU election issue still in flux and early days this article is ill timed and offensive to ED members as it trivialises the otherwise seriousness of the previous article!

  2. Sorry that you don't like it anonymous but the previous article is still there just like all my articles!

  3. I read yesterday that UKIP intends to conduct its own "Out" campaign. There could be mileage in taking a flag of truce to Nigel Farage and offering to join forces. (Their resources are greater than ours!)

  4. What is the point of having this EU Referendum? Since England is now filling up rapidly with mainland Europeans and their bourgeoning offspring, should we not as an alternative argue for a Referendum to get Europe(ans) out of England rather than England(GB) out of Europe? This suggestion may not be as silly as it first seems. Given the future demographic reality that high birth rate mainland Europeans residing in England ( eventually to out number the English ) will only vote to get "THEIR" England back into Europe some time in the not so distant future?

    1. Ethnic white Europeans are the least of our problems (as long as they are not Kosovo Albanians). Yes I prefer it if there was no immigration from Europe but there may come a time when we either have to unite or combine with another white country or die. I would far rather see England annexed by Poland than see it die under Pakistani colonisation. The expulsion of the pakistani muslims will be a priority and if we have to merge with another European country to do that then so be it because they way things are going we will become extinct anyway.


    2. Ever since the Siege of Vienna the Poles have been very anti-Islam.

    3. Francis, What people in Western Europe don't realise is that Eastern Europe spent century after century repelling Islam.
      The history of Eastern Europe is very complicated where three empires met, the Orthodox Russian Empire, the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Islamic Ottoman Empire. They actually met in the Balkans which is why that region has seen so many conflicts. The Catholic Poles are violently anti-Islamic as it was their Jan Sobieski who turned the tide by defeating the Ottomans at the Gates of Vienna in the 17th Century. Had it not been for this and their defeat at Poitiers in the time of Charlemagne then the history of Europe would have been very different. Anti-immigrant protesters in Munich yesterday said it would have been very different if the majority of the "refugees" were Christian and not Muslim. The East has had to protect Western Europe from Islam and now Western Europe via the EU is letting the Muslims into their countries, having let down their guard in the West and now being on a permanent terrorist alert.
      The Hungarians have arrested two "refugees" who turned out to be jihadist militants. How many more are finding their way in?

      As regards Pakistanis, I have just seen a woman on the BBC in Pakistan pleading that she is desperate to get to Europe.
      One of those interviewed recently had come from Bangladesh. These are not purely Syrian refugees but anybody from the third world trying to get to Europe for a cushy life. Why don't these people just pull their fingers out, work hard and long and show some initiative as Europeans have since the Middle Ages and just get on with it instead of whinging and running here to be looked after.

  5. The UN have kindly let David Cameron off the hook. Some of us are beginning to wonder whether the finding of the dead Syrian boy on that Turkish beach - note that Turkey backs ISIS - was shown deliberately to get Europeans to drop their anti-migrant resistance.

    Cameron was told he could not get his renegotiated terms for our staying in the EU if we did not take more refugees. He was in a double bind, more immigrants in the teeth of a no more stance by the natives or no better terms (ha, ha) for the forthcoming referendum. American corporations have said we must stay in the EU so the referendum will be a fraud. England is full to bursting. As for East Europeans, the only good thing you can say is that they are Europeans and will help preserve our national identity in a way that non-Europeans will not. But since we were not allowed to have a Japanese style "racist" immigration policy there is probably no hope of us remaining white by the end of the century.