It occurs to me that those of us who regularly read Dr Richard North’s EUReferendum.com, which, if you are reading this, I presume is all of us, are witnesses to a two-track debate. On one track is what passes for debate in the legacy media and on the other track is the debate on social media and the blogs regarding the best way to win the EU referendum and realise our vision for an independent Britain.

The latest legacy media distraction concerns the biff-bam personality clash between two of the groups competing for designation as the official “leave” campaign. One side says that the other side needs to “shut up”. So, the other side blows a raspberry and yells, “xenophobe!” This is the kind of tedious irrelevence that entertains the sheep who flock to the legacy media. Those of us who are fully committed to achieving Brexit should have better things to do with our time.

For what it is worth, I am of the opinion that what the politicians say or think is of, at best, secondary importance in this particular debate. Referendums provide a means for the electorate to give direction to government. The politicians have the same number of votes as the rest of us.

The public and the politicians both agree that Britain needs a new relationship with the EU. The question that needs to be answered in the referendum is ‘What form should that new relationship take?’ Should we choose to “remain” in the EU, accepting that Britain should play a subordinate role within the supranational (“above the nation”) EU institutions, or should we choose to “leave” the EU, embracing this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to correct an historic mistake and recast our relationship with the EU as one that is based on independent self-government and intergovernmental co-operation?

Until the legacy media turns its attention to serious matters, I see no reason to involve them in our debate.