The Sunday newspapers are full of stories about the Russian connections of Aaron Banks, with details emerging of more meetings he had within the Russian ambassador before the referendum and gold mines he is said to have purchased in Russia. The Guardian have the story HERE and the Mail on Sunday is HERE. The Sunday Times also covers it but behind a paywall. I don't know if these allegations are true or not but more and more links seem to be coming to light. It all looks very murky indeed.
However, just to warn you, I note on a blog, in response to these stories and perhaps the growing nervousness on the part of Brexiteers, that there are suggestions the CIA funded the YES side in the 1975 referendum about staying in the EU. This is known in legal circles as "whataboutery" as a way of muddying the waters, to make your accusers look just as guilty of the offences they are accusing you of.
I confess I had never heard of this CIA link and this morning Google shows the claims come from a former Conservative MP Richard Body, in a book. But I also note this story from 1975 in the New York Times (HERE) again with Mr Body mentioned in it. There were "rumours" that the CIA did pay money to The European Movement after the war but in the early fifties, which I assume were probably true since the Americans wanted to foster better relations between European countries that had precipitated two world wars in the previous forty years, with the loss of thousands of American lives. Is it any wonder they were pumping in money and thought British involvement in Europe would be a good thing? But was it anything connected with the 1975 referendum? Probably not.
I suspect this is the grain of truth around which the Brexiteers will soon be constructing a mountain of lies.
Priti Parel is doing much the same thing with the Electoral Commission. Since Vote Leave is being investigated for overspending she has submitted a "dossier" of "evidence" that the Remain campaign also exceeded the limit (HERE). Note this is the second time she has tried to do this with the Electoral Commission rejecting her first attempt. This is more whataboutery. If she can muddy the water, even if the accusations are completely false, in years to come she can refer to them as if they were true.
You can tell people are in trouble when they begin the whataboutery, it is a sure sign of guilt. Otherwise, why do it?
