This was never going to be a "free and fair" referendum. There is far too much at stake for the establishment to sit back and make it easy for us. But a reader's comment on the blog Friday week last, which ended up on the front page of the Sunday Times yesterday, indicates how dirty it is going to be.
Picked up by Owen Paterson, and run in the Mail on Sunday with an op-ed in his name, it also gets coverage in the Independent and elsewhere. The issue is that the government has proposed in the Referendum Bill the scrapping of the 28-day "purdah" period in the run-up to polling day, which will permit the government unrestricted freedom to campaign right up to the last minute - including sending out leaflets and pamphlets to every household â and even commissioning television adverts.
First introduced for referendums in the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, this "purdah" period has been a standard feature of referendums ever since then, including the Scottish independence referendum â to which the Act didn't apply.
"Suspension of 'purdah'", writes Paterson, "will allow millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to be thrown into the campaign at the last minute, swamping the 'no' side. It will leave a bitter taste to those who hold democracy dear". The real question, though, is why the government should be so insistent on breaking precedent, perpetrating this outrage to democracy.
The clue, if we actually needed one, is tucked in the response from the Downing Street spokesman, who claims that the EU referendum is different from the AV vote. "The restrictions have been lifted because this referendum is an absolutely fundamental part of our manifesto", he says. "The idea that the government should be restricted in the crucial final weeks on a key manifesto commitment and be made to switch to neutral wouldn't make much sense".
The intention is thus signalled with undeniable clarity â the Government intends to campaign right up to the last minute, sending out material to voters in an attempt to influence the decision, right up to polling day if it sees an advantage in so doing.
Why there should be this last-minute rush is not difficult to work out, especially for those who are familiar with the 1975 referendum. Then, the "purdah" period did not apply to what was the first ever national referendum. The Government took advantage of this by sending out to all households its own pamphlet on "Britain's New Deal in Europe" in the last ten days of May, only days just before the 5 June poll, in addition to the "yes" and "no" leaflets.
This is the crunch issue. It has the potential to define the legitimacy of the entire referendum and determine its outcome, as Mr Cameron takes the negotiations right to the wire. We expect him to refuse to reveal his hand until then, purely for his own tactical advantage. It will be aimed specifically at wrong-footing the "no" campaign and limiting the time available to assess the deal and campaign against it.
For the time being, though, the Conservatives are keeping their powder dry. Steve Baker, chair of Conservative for Britain (CfB), speaking on the Andrew Neil show yesterday, was adamant in public that his newly-formed group existed only, "to assess the renegotiation when it comes and prepare for an 'out' campaign because it seems inevitable that some will want one" (see video clip above).
Earlier that day, Foreign Secretary Hammond on the Marr Show had ruled out any substantial changes to the treaty (see video clip below), leading Baker to remark that, if that was the case, there would have to be an "out" campaign.
It would be remiss not to prepare for an "out" campaign he went on to tell Sky News, saying that he expects personally to be campaigning to leave the European Union. "It is not at all a surprise that some MPs wish to leave the European Union. That's well known", he says, but then stresses that, of CfB, "At this stage, it's not an 'out' campaign".
Nevertheless, despite tensions between Ukip and the Conservatives, Mr Baker believes "the eurosceptic movement in this country is now remarkable united". He adds that: "At some stage, there will need to be a single designated 'out' campaign and we'll see who is part of it".
Attempts, meanwhile, will be made on Tuesday during the second reading of the Bill to face down the Government and force it to abandon its proposals to scrap the "purdah" period. Hammond, though, is unrepentent, defended the arrangements, affirming that the government did not expect to be neutral in the referendum and ministers would expect to speak out in favour of Britain staying in a reformed EU.
Furthermore, the Treasury is expected to publish a series of economic "analysis papers" on Britain's relationship to the EU, replicating a contentious exercise it conducted during the Scottish independence referendum. Allies of George Osborne say he wants to see "an informed debate", although so far from the "yes" side, all we have seen is a flood of scare stories, fortified by an unending diet of lies and disinformation.
This reminds us that there will actually two separate â and separately funded - "yes" campaigns. There will be the designated campaign, and then the Government will be fighting its own battles, while also setting the terms of the debate and making the rules.
To overcome that, the "no" campaigning is going to have to be inspired, although the system is now so rigged that, if we don't manage to get "purdah" reinstated, we will have good cause to question the legitimacy of the entire process. In a fair fight, a "yes" answer â if that was what was delivered - would stand. But this is not going to be a fair fight.
