22/07/2015
Ostensibly, the "yes" side has beaten its opposition to the punch in appointing an executive director of the all-party umbrella organisation that will fight to keep the UK in the European Union.
This,
we are told is Will Straw, failed Parliamentary candidate for Rossendale and Darwen and what passes for a high- profile figure in the Labour party â one of the hereditary aristocracy who sustains the train-wreck that the part has become.
Alongside Straw is Conservative peer Lord Cooper, one of the founders of the polling firm Populus, with a reputation for finding the key messages and groups that needed to be swung to prevent the Scots voting for independence. These two are joined by failed Lib-Dem strategist, Ryan Coetzee, the man who brought Nick Clegg to defeat and helped the former leader to oblivion.
Other key figures announced are Lucy "the liar" Thomas, campaign director for
Business for New Europe and Greg Nugent, director of marketing for the London Olympics. Lord Sainsbury is providing initial funding for the organisation.
In what is probably a sensible move, mirroring the Conservative strategy for the 1975 referendum, Labour has decided that it will run its own campaign, headed up by the former cabinet minister Alan Johnson â a man who is not going to provide much of an
intellectual challenge to the "no" campaign.
The
Guardian claims that it is not yet clear how much energy the Labour party will put into the all-party effort, as opposed to its own, the inference being that "senior Labour figures" have yet to work out how they are to milk the campaign for maximum political advantage. But then, it must also be left to the new Labour leader, when elected, to decide on strategy.
It will, of course, be up to the Electoral Commission to decide if this grouping is to become the designated lead campaigner for the "yes" side, but in many respects, the choice is irrelevant. The real leader of the "yes" campaign is David Cameron and it is he who is going to be calling the shots.
Interestingly, a spokesperson for Straw grouping tells us that: "The executive team are a young group who welcome the referendum and will organise it around a positive view of Britain's future strength in Europe and the world. They will draw on their experience of politics and business without being locked in the past".
We are then informed that it is "drawing together all the various strands of opinion that wants to keep Britain in Europe". Says the spokesperson, "We support the need for reform. The campaign will develop in a number of stages, in the first phase more engaging and enquiring. We want to sponsor a strong, factually based debate in the country".
This is ironic given that the "Lying Lucy" campaign so far has specialised in its own brand of tedious mendacity, raking over tired old memes that bear only a chance association with anything that resembles the truth.
One suspects that its main function will be to keep the putative "no" campaign engaged and distracted, keeping the debate focused on the trivial and away from any substantive issues which might inspire and engage the public.
As the
Financial Times points out, the "no" side
is still divided, with the media citing "Business for Britain" and Arron Banks'
TheKnow.eu cited as the main contenders, but with others in the wings.
However, much of the campaigning â on both sides â will be irrelevant if the "colleagues", as expected, stick to their late 2017 timetable for announcing a new treaty process (possibly with a treaty convention in the Spring of 2018), whence a "core group" for the eurozone will be centre stage, with associate membership on offer for the UK and other non-euro members.
Introduced at a late stage in our referendum campaign, that is doubtless why Mr Cameron wants to
abolish purdah, allowing him to feed in a game changer only weeks before the poll, with the "no" campaign completely unprepared.
That, at least, may be Mr Cameron's expectation, and it remains to be seen whether the "no" campaign will be able to rise to the challenge and devise a response which is able to match the apparent attractiveness (and safety) of associate membership.
Given the lacklustre and derivative tenor of "no" campaigning we have seen to date, there is no good reason to expect that the eurosceptic movement will be able to deliver, but at least we've been able to warn of one potential "play" to which we might be exposed.
The crucial issue now facing us is that, if Mr Cameron does put associate membership on the table, the "no" campaign will no longer have the option of avoiding putting its cards on the table with a firm alternative (if it ever did). To prevail against this play, we are going to have to come up with a fully-worked exit plan, with the potential to deliver more than Mr Cameron can promise.
Our greatest danger is that the associate membership will also be on offer to Norway and Switzerland, and the other EFTA states, backed by the prospect of the EEA being dismantled, in preference to and EU split into "inner" and "outer" circles.
With both the Norway and Swiss options potentially no longer on the table, and the "outer ring" spun by the "yes" campaign as a trading association alongside Norway and Switzerland, we will need to make our alternative offer very good indeed.
If Mr Cameron then goes for the second referendum ploy, telling us that this coming referendum is simply the opportunity to elect for associate membership, with a chance to vote for the detail in a second referendum â keeping the option of voting to leave open â one can easily surmise that the bulk of the electorate will find his offer very attractive.
Such a possibly certainly does suggest that the make-up of the "yes" campaign announced yesterday is a matter of supreme irrelevance. Bigger events are afoot, and they will determine the shape â and most likely the outcome â of the campaign to come.
But that notwithstanding, forewarned is forearmed. If we can rise to the challenge, my belief is that we now have a better chance of winning.
