It is clear that Remain have been plotting their campaign
for some time. Cameron asked us to join him in supporting a “reformed” EU.
Brexit has taken a lead in the polls. Why?

Cameron has a reputation in some quarters as a political
animal. Before becoming an MP, his background was very much in the Conservative
party. He joined the research department aged 21 in 1988. Early on he worked on
briefs for Europhile Ken Clarke.

Within a few years, he was working on PMQs for John Major,
tipped as a potential Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, he lost out to
Jonathan Hill, who he later effectively appointed as an EU Commissioner in

Before embarking on a career in the private sector, Cameron
had two more significant positions. The first of those was under Norman Lamont,
Chancellor during Black Wednesday. Next was a spell under, Michael Howard, the
man he ultimately succeeded as leader of the party.

In the process, he beat Ken Clarke and eurosceptics David
Davis and Liam Fox. There must have been enough known about him at that stage
to convince the europhile wing of the party to vote for him.

On to his referendum project, arguably promising a
referendum EU secured enough votes from UKIP to form a majority government. The
aim of the vote was ostensibly to remain in or leave a “reformed” EU.

Much as Cameron may have been able to secure a vote within
his own party, his political skills on the international stage left him with a
statement of intent from a Council of Ministers that may never be ratified by
treaty. Reform was not reform, instead potential tinkering.

In to the campaign, evidence suggests that it was long in
the planning. Failures on immigration would have to be covered up. The focus
would have to shift, a strength of Cameron’s.

There are some features of the Cameron campaign, abetted
incidentally by his old Oxford
chum, Osborne. The centre piece would be from the incestuous connections that
Cameron had learned about during his Treasury days.

The Treasury would produce a report claiming doom and gloom.
Project Fear was born, supervised by godfather to one of Cameron’s children, Osborne.
The latter was to use his contacts and his position on various bodies to build
the report into a body of evidence.

First stop, the bank of England Governor, next the IMF on
which both Osborne and Carney sit. The IFS could be relied upon through
treasury connections anyone else would be out of step.

For his part, Cameron had some strengths. The soon to be
impotent USA
President had lunch with the internationally respected Queen. Along with 3
other EU powers, Britain’s
4th and majority deciding seat on the G7 helped to ensure a G7
statement. Their body of evidence to sacrifice our sovereignty has been paid
for by the British taxpayer.

The main arguments that he, and his sidekick Osborne have,
is that “body of evidence”. That probably accounts for the large part of his
tactics. Let’s have a look at what they are.

The most obvious Cameron tactic is to shift the question. He
“doesn’t accept the premise” or this is a “red herring”. The real issue is the
economy, therefore back to his pre-prepared declaration that he believes in the
dodgy evidence put together by both George Osborne and a certain David Cameron.
The plus side is “access to the Single Market”. Of course, negotiating that
access leads to a “decade of uncertainty”.

Next come the half truths. Leaving the SEM would lead to
tariffs on British products sold to Europe. The
other half of that particular truth is that that we import from the EU. With a
trade deficit worth around 10 times the national gross contribution to the EU
and over 20 times the net contribution. That gives us a bargaining power that
Cameron failed to capitalise on in his attempt at what he calls “reform”.

Cameron is easy to believe when he says “we won’t get a
better deal outside than inside”. Of course we won’t if we have a national
leader who can not negotiate from a position of strength.

Another of his half truths was on VAT. The side he presented
was that we did not have to raise VAT rates above the current levels. The other
half is that the UK
can not reduce VAT rates below 15%.

The next technique is designed to tap in to the listener’s
‘security’ needs. Cameron tells us that
he has been Prime Minister for 6 years, that he knows what he is talking about.
To some, the reassurance works, to others he patronises.

He usually tries to fit in the “I love my country” line too.
This is customarily followed up with reasons why the only thing to do, if you
love your country, is to do as he says. He tells us that we can not have access
to the EU markets because Germany
won’t let us. He may love his country but apparently not enough to stand up for

One of Cameron’s most used ploys is the line “we don’t know
what out looks like”. Of course we don’t. After a Leave result, the government
of the day has 2 years to negotiate. Cameron has not told us what his policy
would be for the last couple of years before the next election.

Arguably the most ironic part of Cameron’s strategy is to
fight a rearguard, telling us that Leave are “scaremongering”. This is from a
Prime Minister who has demolished the British economy with his prophecies of
doom. It is symbolic of his willingness to insult, a tribute perhaps to one of
his mentors, John Major.

Increasingly, Cameron uses pejorative digs, as he did over Syria and
calling those who disagreed as terrorist sympathisers. On the Commons he made
digs at Boris over divorce. Those who want to leave are “quitters”, the
hackeneyed phrase from Major’s days of “little Englanders, another irony given
the global outlook of the Leave camp.

Another thing, Dave, if a joke isn’t funny, don’t repeat it.
A DIY recession may have had potential at B&Q but if it fails then, it will
fail every time.

To conclude, there are some questions that Dave might like
to answer.

How will you meet your immigration targets if we remain?

You tell us that we have sovereignty and use VAT as an
example, that we have not had to raise VAT. Can we reduce VAT below 15%? Can
you guarantee removal of the ‘Tampon tax’?

You tell us that we don’t know what ‘out’ looks like. That
is not the point of a referendum, the Leave leaders are not the government. Can
you tell us what the future holds and what ‘remain’ looks like as the EU seeks
to expand its reach?

You have told us what ‘out’ looks like under you; recession, inflation, unemployment, no exports, falls in
tax receipts, inability to strike a trade deal, plague of locusts, war in Europe,
pensioner poverty and much more besides.

If, as you say, you love your country and are incapable of
delivering anything good for Britain,
will you stand aside now and let somebody capable, with a vision for an
independent Britain
take over on 24th June?