Simon Gibbs, who will eventually have his own proper samizdata by-line that does not run across the Atlantic and back, has something else to say:
News from the front line. This comes via a brace of energetic libertarians and their allies who were giving out Libertarian Home branded leaflets today on Oxford Street. The office-worker demographic which was missing from our previous visit was back in force and so the tone of the crowd became much more hostile. Not just taking the other stance in greater numbers, but becoming rude and a little shouty. It seems anyone more removed from the coalface than a shop owner is much more inclined to be a Remainer, and perhaps less friendly too.
This may be hearsay, but the Remain camp were apparently out elsewhere on Oxford Street giving out croissants this morning. We had picked up news (from the ice-cream salesman next to Charing Cross) that the Remain camp had also been out there giving out cakes a week or so earlier. The lady selling Lion King tickets – in the same spot – had apparently feigned agreement and claimed an illegitimate hot-dog. Main course, pudding and a bonus breakfast all served up by the Remain camp.
From where does the money for large quantities of free-food come from?
The statistics to hand have 47% of the population clearly in the second category, where our direct experience had ~90% voting Leave. It seems there is a pivot point somewhere in the range of C1 or C2 where Remain begins to out number Leave. Just as there is apparently a pivot point at age 43. Where exactly the pivot points are will determine the result, but I fear we will find it was a wealthy elite that keeps us in Europe. Divisions like that have consequences.
We don’t live in a society–nor has there ever been one as far as I know–where a wealthy elite outnumber ordinary people.
Can confirm: sitting in an office surrounded by Remainers.
According to the Grauniad, an attempt “to give out 600 croissants to commuters outside King’s Cross station … was thwarted when police intervened.”
Bribery eh? I thought that it was illegal, so we are Third World.
Dear Mr Gibbs
As suggested in the Guardian article linked above, an offence is committed if buying or attempting to buy votes with gifts of food etc. This is known as ‘treating’ in the trade.
The Electoral Commissions guidance for parliamentary by-elections, which almost certainly applies in other parliamentary elections and referenda, says this:
& search on “by-election-guidance.pdf”
It’s bribery if money or offices are offered (4.43). Both require an intent to act corruptly.
Hope this helps.
DP
Against all odds, today Iceland scored an epic victory in Euro 2016.
Let that be an inspiration for the UK tomorrow.
Getting back on topic: it seems that people on low-carb diets are being encouraged to vote for Brexit.
Snorri, you are clearly partisan there 🙂 but Iceland play England next, a return to the Cod Wars beckons, and an illustration of the importance of Davids facing down Goliaths.
Mr Ed: with apologies, i hope for an Icelandic victory (against all odds); but it doesn’t really matter, because the referendum will be over by then.
Snorri,
I too root for Iceland. The England team were too fragile to visit the Somme. I suspect that this was part concern at potential oafishness from some, part PC about anything resembling patriotism.
During the Cod Wars, it seemed perfectly right that Iceland should stick up for its waters, I could not see why the UK felt entitled to blunder onto their waters. They also had recently hosted Fischer(!)-Spaasky.
“Treating
4.44 A person is guilty of the corrupt practice of treating if they corruptly, directly or indirectly, either before, during or after an election, give or provide (or pay wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing) any food, drink, entertainment or provision in order to corruptly influence any voter to vote or refrain from voting.”
Normally, in the prosecution of a criminal statute (sorry, going by US standards here, which are all I know), the State must prove each and every listed element of a crime.
Aside from all other requirements (“ . . . directly or indirectly, either before, during or after an election, give or provide . . . “), how does one prove that the actor acted “corruptly”? It cannot be by the showing of any of the other elements of the crime, as this would render the word “corruptly” into meaningless commentary.
bobby b,
The same principles apply in England as to the ‘golden thread’ that the Crown (or the prosecutor) must prove every requisite element of the case. Over time, case law may develop from appeals which set out what sort of thing is to be regarded, e,g. as ‘corruptly influence’ as person to vote or refrain from voting.
I would guess that a campaign to increase participation regardless of which side could not be ‘corrupt’ as no side could be regarded as gaining from that, whereas here, there is an obvious eliding of a ‘treat’ with France and by association the EU and the benefits that it brings. I.e the message is ‘Membership of the wonderful EU brings you croissants, like these tasty treats, enjoy our gift’.
During the Cod Wars, it seemed perfectly right that Iceland should stick up for its waters, I could not see why the UK felt entitled to blunder onto their waters. They also had recently hosted Fischer(!)-Spaasky.
I thought Fischer-Spassky was a good decade after the first Cod War.
(Looking it up, the second Cod War was around the time of Fischer-Spassky. So we’re both right.)
So, is ‘Membership of the wonderful EU brings you higher housing and living welfare payments, enjoy our gift” also corrupt? Or does “corrupt” require advance payment?
I guess my point is, in the face of blatant vote-buying by specific promise of economic gifts by candidates, why is the croissant so evil?
bobby b,
The croissant was real, and a prior inducement. Has anyone accused them of offending a certain faith by representing its symbol in food?
Whatever Britain decides, it’ll be wrong! It will be the best of times, and the worst. you’ve got two equally-bad choices. May you choose wisely.
I being told quite a lot that it is a shame there is a referendum at all, because “ordinary people cannot grasp these issues”. The lack of self-awareness, the sheer arrogance and stupidity of this, is very revealing.
One thing has become clear to me which is that a lot of those who think they are clever, connected and well-informed have all the insight of a French aristocrat in about, well, 1788.
Does it say something about Scots that I don’t recall this kind of thing from the Scottish referendum. Instead, we got YES thugs coming into people’s gardens with boots and knives and slashing down NO posters that the householder had put there (some pictures here if you want them.)
The thugs were of course committing an offence. The commenters above show the bribers were doing the same – probably; if they were careful to say, “Have this free lunch, and here is some remain literature I’d like you to consider”, it may be they’d stay within the technicalities of the law.
While the secret ballot remains secret, neither of these tactics are likely to be overly effective. That the thugs had a downside for their cause was obvious in 2014. The bribers irritate those of us who think, “Wait a minute; where’s the money to pay for this coming from”, but not those to whom freebies are a ‘right’. The tactic certainly suits their overall campaign. “Give me your soul and I’ll make you rich” has morphed into “Let me keep your soul or I’m telling you, you’ll be poorer still.”
BTW months ago there was a comment here about office workers in central London being very closeted if they were Leavers. I can;t recall well enough to locate it but I mention it FWIW. We will know tomorrow; meanwhile, a bunch of office workers in a central London location may represent a very small demographic.
I am pessimistic having seen some social media posts from some ‘common people’, but I do recall in the 1980s at University, despite all the Leftist agitprop that a cluster of Student Union halls were awash with, and a large student population, there was a Conservative local councillor in the leafy neighbourhood.
Socialists thrive on violence and intimidation, most people understand that at heart.
Im of the opinion the vote might hinge on the expats.
UK may be close 50/50, but the expats will break 90% for remain.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
Well if you were offering stereotypical food, what would it be? Haggis and/or deep-fried Mars bars, washed down with Irn Bru?
Sitting in a Midlands office, most of my young(er – not liking the fact the comparative has entered my life in this way) colleagues are remain, but not all. Interestingly a couple of strong remainers at the start are voting to leave now – their faith has been damaged by the fact no-one has reaffirmed it with positive arguments, something I also have seen with the undecideds in my own family.
Looking at Facebook I note the impression would be my social circles (many of whom are socialists, liberal democrats, unaligned welfare-state spongers and many other things, but all of whom are fun people I like) are overwhelmingly remain. But I know my friends, and there is a lot of remain noise from those people who I know or expect will vote remain; there is nothing from those like me who will vote leave (and nothing, not even responses, from those I guess are undivided). This is not intimidation (my friends know my views and have as much concern about them as I do their views in turn) or shame, but simply that those of us voting leave are generally less inclined to try and persuade others of the correctness of our cause. I suspect this is the case in most places – leave are quieter, but not intimidated, because it is a personal decision, not signing up to some collectivistic ideal which encourages even sane people with good taste in pubs to evangelise.
And ultimately there is a lot of hope here – at least one close relative who associates with the same people has decided to vote leave because of the number of spurious arguments that have been thrown at her by friends. As the Jehovah’s Witnesses will tell you, the British people do not react well to being evangelised, so the fact one side is making the noise (and perhaps bending the rules) is not necessarily to their advantage – it might convince those swaying towards them to vote, but it also persuades those swaying away to vote against. Many of those who support Remain are inhabitants of the echo chambers that failed miserably during the AV referendum and the general election, and lost a lot of their support during the Scottish referendum – they hear others echo their views, but don’t get that much feedback from the likes of us, and certainly not from those who do not exist in their (and mine at least) normally middle-class liberal (in a good sense) circles. So ultimately they do not meet objections and fail to realise the weakness of their arguments, however technically correct they are…
Are the Gods seeking to flood out pro-Remain areas?
Somebody with photoshop skills needs to put Cameron’s face on a picture of Marie Antoinette.
I have to say, whilst I don’t make a huge amount of noise in the office, I do worry that such noise that I do make could land me in trouble. If job cuts should happen, and whilst I do not believe that a vote to leave should cause the economy any difficulty, I certainly do believe that Cameron and Osborne’s total failure to calm the public and plan for the event of an leave vote could lead to short term economic difficulties, no doubt I’ve moved up a notch on the list of likely firees.
I should add, for anybody who works in professional services, there is a strong incentive to believe in ‘experts’. After all, if you don’t believe in experts; who should believe in you? To be sure, there are a few who have pride and confidence (rightly or wrongly) in their capacity for independent thought (and I concede that such people may also vote for Remain, for their own reasons, whatever they might be) but the greater proportion will operate on a ‘join the dots’/turn the handle type level and see no reason to deviate from the prevailing consensus within their peer group.
I agree that those who support Leave are quiet. I recently listened to a couple of colleagues talking about the EU referendum (both Remain) but didn’t feel like speaking up myself. I am hardly shy of conflict (being of Celtic extraction I practically thrive on it) but for some reason I have rarely felt like engaging anyone in discussion about this referendum. I think it is because this referendum has virtually nothing to do with debate or discussion, appeals to unbridled emotion seem to be common on both sides of the “debate”.
Would appreciate it if some kindly admin would correct the formatting in the above – apologies.
Mr Ed, June 23, 2016 at 11:50 am: “Are the Gods seeking to flood out pro-Remain areas?” Well, it’s dry and pleasant in Scotland today, and, while one may hope for all things, I think Mr Ed’s weather gods would give it a downpour if really on the job.
On the other hand, we’re referendumed-out after 2014 and the quietness of the campaign here is striking. I was into Glasgow and out again by different routes over the weekend and drove the other way (north) today. I saw _one_ remain poster in a window, _one_ remain board by a field, plus a board saying ‘Remain’ outside a polling station today (now matched by an invitation to ‘Leave’ on a lamppost). I’m pretty sure the two ‘Remain’ boards were put there by a local Tory-party member obeying orders – I put it that way because of the contrast with the heroic work he put in for 2014. I also say a poster across a field gate saying “Jo Cox, RIP: justice, charity, toleration, peace”. And that is it as far as political signs went across a sizeable area that was _covered_ in signs in 2014.
Niall, I have been over a fair part of England for work the last few months, the only places with a Remain campaign evident, Oxford, Cambridge and London. And the odd Leave in a farmer’s field.
Over 57,000 ‘votes’ have been cast for the Referendum to be cancelled, the map to my mind correlates to concentrations of middle-class socialists.
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=123450
The homicide and major crimes squad?!
Rob,
Electoral offences are in theory regarded as major crimes.
I do not know about London – I have not been there during the campaign.
The people I was fighting in Kettering (the pro E.U. leaflets, posters and so on) were all Labour.
Labour, Labour, Labour.
And hardcore Labour – not the moderate Labour people (some of whom are patriotic – secretly on our side), but the hardcore Reds.
Corbyn people.
So much for “the Labour leadership not being committed to Remain”.
It was Labour moderates (not Corbyn people) who were, often only privately, on our side.
Paul Marks,
That should have been fairly obvious by the Labour MPs who fought for leave – none are Corbyn supporters, or close. Admittedly Dennis Skinner and a few others were also pro-leave, but that was a throwback (there’s a word used around Mr Skinner a lot) to the 1980s…