Millionaire actors, artists and politicians campaign for Remain vote to protect their grants

282 assorted luvvies, millionaire actors, artists, expats, politicians, knights, dames and largely unknown "creative industry" employees have put their names to a letter for the mad cows at the BSE campaign saying how awful it would be if the EU no longer subsidised the arts.

Like other infamous Remainiacs such as Richard Branson and Barack Obama, these millionaires and taxpayer-subsidised national treasures are completely insulated from the effects of EU membership on the UK. They spend most of their time on the other side of the Atlantic and when they pop back to their Surrey mansions and Kensington town houses they don't see groups of tracksuit-clad eastern Europeans hanging around shopping centres all day. When they send their kids to £1,000 a month private schools their education isn't suffering because teaching resources are being put into trying to educate kids who don't speak English. They don't have to worry about hundreds of thousands of cheap workers flooding the labour market driving up unemployment and driving down wages. When they get their weekly shop delivered from Fortnum & Mason (or Waitrose if they haven't quite "made it") they don't have to worry about inflated food prices. When they're squirreling their money away in tax havens they don't have to worry about taxes going up to pay for the consequences of being in the EU.

The letter says that EU funding, access to the EU market and EU freedom of movement are essential to the survival of the UK creative industry. But the EU doesn't have any money of its own, they just give away our money after wasting £1 in every 4 to fraud and bureaucracy. We also don't need to be in the EU for actors and artists to work in another country or to access the EU market. We export Bollywood stars to India and villains to Hollywood but they're not in the EU. We import soap operas from Australia and box office series from America and they're not in the EU. We have a plethora of digital TV channels from all over the world, including China, India, Nigeria and Qatar - none of which are in the EU.

We don't need to be in the EU to fund the arts, to sell our TV and art abroad or for actors and artists to come here and work. In film, TV and theatre the UK is the only major player in the EU and second only to the US on the world stage. The idea that we should shackle ourselves forever to a political project whose founding objective was to abolish the nation state and create a European Federation because some millionaire actors and political activists - many of which have received millions from the EU in grants and even appeared in a brochure advertising EU arts grants - think it'll be easier to get money out of the EU than the British government is preposterous.

Project Fear claims Brexit will mean holidaymakers paying thousands in medical fees

The mad cows at the BSE campaign have claimed that leaving the EU will mean big bills for anyone getting ill on holiday because we will no longer have access to the EHIC card.

Except Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all members of the EHIC scheme but aren't members of the EU and the NHS has reciprocal agreements with Armenia, Australia, Barbados, Bosnia, British Virgin Islands, Falklands, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Jersey, Macedonia, Montenegro, Montserrat, New Zealand, St Helena, Serbia and Turks & Caicos which allow British citizens to also get medical treatment in those countries as they would in EHIC countries.

Tens of thousands of journeys abroad are made every year by UK residents with the USA being the third most visited destination. Visitors to the USA don't get free healthcare, they buy travel insurance or increasingly get it included with their bank accounts. You can pick up £15,000,000 of health cover for a 7 day trip to the USA for under £23 for an average family of four (we checked) so EHIC is hardly a deal breaker when you're paying thousands for a family holiday.

BSE claims EU membership is having a seat at the "top table"

The mad cows at BSE have come up with this dodgy graphic to tell people that leaving the EU will mean we won't have a seat at the "top table".



You might be wondering what leaving the EU has got to do with the United Nations but they don't mean the 193 member global organisation with a presence in almost every country in the world, the "top table" is apparently in Brussels with its mere 28 members.

The UK is an active member of the UN with one of the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council and the UN Trusteeship Council. We are founder members of NATO and the Commonwealth, members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Western European Union, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the G20 and G8 and many more.

Far from losing a seat at the "top table" when we leave the EU, we will regain our World Trade Organisation seat which we had to give up to allow the EU to conduct all our trade negotiations for us. In terms of trade, the WTO is the top table. In terms of diplomacy and international relations, the UN is the top table. The EU is a 28 member regional body accounting for just 17% of the global economy and a fifth of that is down to the UK.

Multi-millionaire BSE chairman wants to keep us in the EU to keep wages low

The chief mad cow at the BSE campaign to keep the UK shackled to the undemocratic, bankrupt EU has admitted that he wants us to stay in to keep wages down.

Lord Stuart Rose, the former chairman of Marks & Spencer and a Conservative peer, told a select committee of MPs that leaving the EU would push up wages for low paid workers and that wasn't necessarily a good thing.

Asked "On immigration and impact on wages, if free movement were to end following Brexit is it not reasonable to suppose that we could see increases in wages for low skilled workers in the UK just off the back of the economic impact of free movement on wages?" by Labour MP, Wes Streeting, he responded:

Well, if you're short of labour the price will frankly go up. So yes, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

Lord Rose has a personal net worth of around £34m and was paid £1.13m a year as chief executive of Marks & Spencer.

Baroness Brady claims foreign players wouldn't play for English clubs if it wasn't for the EU banning mobile phone roaming charges

Baroness Karren Brady, one of Cameron's "man of the people" TV personality peers and a pro-EU Britain Stronger in Europe (BSE) campaigner, has made the bizarre claim that leaving the EU will damage football clubs.

Brady has claimed that footballers will be put off coming to the UK if they have to have a visa or if we didn't have cheap flights and phone calls to other EU countries. With average wages in the Championship at over £4k a week and an eye-watering £44k a week in the Premiership, cheap flights to Magaluf and mobile roaming charges aren't exactly going to be a deal clincher.

Brady is correct in saying that some clubs - those in the lower leagues primarily - would find it difficult to bring in players from abroad if they had to get visas but it's a non-argument. Most footballing nations are already on the visa exemption list and there are specific visa rules for footballers to ensure only top flight players come here which say that a player must have played for his country in at least 75% of its competitive A team matches of which he was available for selection, during the two years preceding the date of the application and that the player’s country must be at or above 70th place in the official FIFA world rankings when averaged over the two years preceding the date of the application.

It is pure fantasy to suggest that the UK would impose visa restrictions on EU countries when we leave the EU but playing their silly game, what would be the consequences of clubs having to apply for visas? Premiership and Championship clubs they are unlikely to experience any difficulties bringing over the players they want because they're top flight clubs taking top flight players from other top flight clubs. League 1 and League 2 clubs might find it difficult to bring so many foreign players in but that's a positive thing for domestic football. The lower leagues are where we should be incubating home-grown talent, training future premiership and international stars. League 1 and 2 clubs rarely, if ever, compete in international tournaments so there's no need to bring in footballers from around the world to bolster their squad. Anything that forces lower league clubs to invest in home-grown talent is a good thing.

Using football to try and make people scared of leaving the EU is a clever move by the mad cows at the BSE campaign but their dystopian vision of the future is so far fetched that nobody is going to take it seriously. We know that the EU has forced up prices of flights with its "green" taxes, we know that mobile phone companies have passed on the cost of abolishing roaming charges to consumers and we know that we're not going to impose visa restrictions on EU countries when we leave. Their outrageous claims on the number of jobs and amount of investment that would be lost when we leave the EU are based on the ridiculous scenario of the UK ceasing all trade with the EU and similarly their preposterous claims that it would damage football are based on the British government imposing visa restrictions on EU countries when we leave which simply isn't going to happen.

Baroness Brady should stick to her day job advising Lord Sugar which mentally unstable sociopathic Apprentice contestant is least likely to stab their future colleagues with a pair of scissors to get a promotion and leave the politics to sensible people.

Leicester City Council plans pro-EU campaign in breach of DCLG guidelines

Labour-controlled Leicester City Council has voted to spend taxpayers' money campaigning to stay in the EU in spite of government guidelines forbidding them from doing so.

The Department for Communities & Local Government issued the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity in 2011 setting out what local authorities can and should do with regard to publicity as well as what they mustn't and shouldn't.

In the code of practice local authorities are reminded that they mustn't campaign at all in the 28 days prior to an election or referendum, should be as objective as possible, should present both positions on contentious matters in a fair manner and should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters or supports or opposes a particular option during periods of heightened sensitivity such as during a referendum campaign.

A complaint has been sent to DCLG; you may wish to do the same.

I read today that Leicester City Council has voted to campaign for the "remain" side in the EU referendum. This is clearly in breach of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity issued in 2011 which says (paraphrasing):

1. Any publicity should be as objective as possible
2. Any publicity should present both positions on contentious matters in a fair manner
3. The local authority should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters
4. The local authority should not issue any publicity which supports or opposes a particular option during periods of heightened sensitivity

Please confirm that you will investigate this matter and advise Leicester City Council of its obligations and responsibilities to remain impartial on the subject of the EU referendum as a matter of urgency before any taxpayers' money is spent on the political campaign.

Tax dodgers Goldman Sachs donate 6-figure sum to BSE

Goldman Sachs, one of the big American banks that was involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal that devastated the US economy, has donated a six-figure sum to the Britain Strong in Europe (BSE) campaign.

It's pretty ironic that the BSE mad cows have spent the last few years attacking banks like Goldman Sachs for their excesses, demonising anyone involved in banking and blaming them for the failings of their economic policies but all is forgiven with a hefty donation to their campaign to keep us in the EU.

The president of the EU Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is one of the tax-dodging bank's former executives and Goldman Sachs has made hundreds of millions out of advising Greece and other bankrupt EU countries how to bail out their banks, steal from their citizens and hide their debts without breaking the rules for staying in the €uro.

Goldman Sachs has no interest in what is good for this country, they are protecting a lucrative revenue stream in advising EU countries how to lie and steal.

BSE remainers try to poach economists from Vote Leave campaign

The mad cows at BSE have emailed members of the Economists for Britain group, which is backing the Vote Leave campaign, to ask them if they are "comfortable being associated" with the campaign when Economists for Britain has previously said that it wants fundamental changes to our membership of the EU.

From: Will Cousins
Sent: 06 January 2016
To:
Subject: Economists for Britain

Dear Professor xxxxxx

My name is Will Cousins, and I work in the press office of Britain Stronger In Europe, the main cross-party organisation campaigning to keep Britain in the EU in the forthcoming referendum. I emailed you shortly before Christmas.

You are listed as a supporter of Economists for Britain, part of the Vote Leave campaign which wants Britain to come out of the EU.

I wondered if you were comfortable being associated with that campaign? Economists for Britain describes itself as giving “a voice to Britain’s economists who want to see fundamental changes made to the terms of our EU membership.” If it is your view that the EU requires fundamental change but that the answer is not for Britain to leave, do please get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Will Cousins

Press Officer, Britain Stronger in Europe

Clearly Economists for Britain are clever enough not to be duped by Cameron's false promises and know that fundamental changes to our member of the EU are never going to happen. It's not as if there aren't some big clues such as every EU leader telling Cameron the answer is no or there being no legal basis for the return of powers from the EU thanks to the ratchet clauses in the Lisbon Treaty.

Any economist that thinks that remaining shackled to the world's fastest-shrinking economic bloc and one of the most over-regulated protectionist political unions needs to reconsider their career choice.