EU Referendum


EU Referendum: the opportunity awaits


28/09/2015



000a FT-028 campaign.jpg

Only someone with a slender grasp of referendum dynamics could believe that Britain's EU referendum was "potentially only months away", but that does not stop Jim Pickard and Sarah Gordon of the Financial Times writing in these terms.

The same duo also carelessly refer to the "out" campaign, adding to the list of witless hacks who have not been able to come to terms with the idea that this is a "remain-leave" campaign.

Nor does their story tell us much that we didn't already know - that one of the "leave" campaign groups is on the move. However the story does serve to confirm some details as it focuses on the "group likely to form the Out campaign", telling us that it "has hired staff, moved into new offices and is honing its strategy for a battle expected to be high in political drama".

Although Philip Hammond has cautioned against expectations that the referendum "would definitely take place in 2016", we are again referred to this "group likely to become the official Out campaign", and and informed that it is "taking no chances". It has already hired 15 people and moved into offices in Westminster Tower (home of the No2AV campaign). 

Although Dominic Cummings and other insiders have denied that Matthew Elliott would necessarily be the head, saying that the decision had yet to be made, the FT suggests that he has been appointed chief executive, vacating his role as CEO for Business for Britain. The group is now said to be looking for his replacement.

At number two, taking on the role of campaign director, the FT has Dominic Cummings himself, coincidentally publishing a blogpost which argues that "we need a campaign aimed far beyond the fraction of the population that already supports UKIP". The campaign that he has formed, he writes, "will go public shortly".

The communications team for this new grouping - under the title of Campaign to Leave - will be led by Robert Oxley, another transplant from Business for Britain, and Paul Stephenson, a former Conservative special adviser who worked with Mr Hammond and Andrew Lansley. He has been on the books since at least the beginning of this month.

The "exploratory committee" comprising interested parliamentarians from Conservative and Labour, with Douglas Carswell - which was supposedly setting the structure from the new group - is said to become the "parliamentary planning committee" for Mr Elliott's group, essentially a subordinate part of his empire.

According to the FT, the group staff will report to an as yet unnamed board, and their salaries have been capped. None of them will earn six figures. However, as The Boiling Frog points out, running a referendum campaign affords plenty of opportunities for personal enrichment, and to reward friends who can later return favours.

In terms of strategy, we are told that this group believes it must "work hard to get its message across to so-called A and B voters", which means avoiding the "classic" eurosceptic arguments "centred on immigration and the Brussels bureaucracy".

Their argument will have two main thrusts. The first is that "Britain suffers a loss of control from being in the EU, under the control of unelected politicians who cannot be thrown out". The second is that "the cost of being in the EU outweighs the benefits".

Interestingly, though, the Telegraph over the weekend had Charles Moore asserting that, only by convincing voters how "eurosceptic" he is, can Mr Cameron persuade them to stay in.

Moore has it that it is too late for the Prime Minister to say, "Actually, everything's fine in Europe. What's the fuss about?" He has to say, "Yes, it's pretty dreadful, but my negotiating skills have made it safe. We have a great new deal". If he pulls this off, says Moore, he makes the "leave" side look unreasonable.

It will take no great leap of imagination to surmise that Moore didn't think of this all by himself, but his appreciation of the situation is nevertheless spot-on. For his oeuvre, Cameron will agree that there is much wrong with the EU, out-complaining the eurosceptics - thereby neutralising both the points offered by Cummings.

Mr Cameron will then offer a new relationship – doubtless a heavily disguised associate membership – as his answer to the very problems that the Campaign to Leave and others have so assiduously highlighted for him. They will be paving the way for him to offer an attractive-looking settlement which outflanks the opposition.

However, with its pedestrian and largely uninspiring message, Campaign to Leave plans an official launch "within weeks", to add to the sum of tedium plaguing this issue. Perhaps fittingly, therefore, the organisers are not planning a traditional "glitz and glamour" press conference with famous names.

Despite this, and whatever the FT might think of Elliott's chances, the rival operation Leave.EU, with Arron Banks at its head, is still determined to pitch for lead campaigner status, when the Electoral Commission invites applications.

What Banks lacks in subtlety and experience – compared with the smooth Mr Elliott – he makes up for in determination and commitment. Not even his best friend will attest to Elliott's interest in getting the UK out of the EU, but no one can doubt Mr Banks's passion.

Principally, though, this is not about passion. The designated group will able to spend up to £7 million and, according to the commission, will be entitled to £600,000 in cash and kind, such as campaign broadcasts, a publicly funded grant and free mailing.

Crucially, designation is the turnkey to private donations, and gives access to huge flows of data. They become a valuable property for those collecting them, with substantial resale value. Loss of designation would substantially reduce the opportunities for data collection and the subsequent commercial exploitation of referendum spin-offs.

Thus, there is far more to this contest than simply who leads the referendum campaign. Data-mining is big business. Win or lose, this referendum presents massive opportunities for people in the right place, with the right access and the right skills – with everything dependent on Electoral Commission designation.

But as with 1975, there is more at stake what than the wealth of the participants. There is a greater sense of a battle being fought out in the corridors of power, long before the question is put to the electorate, making the "battle to lead" the crucial contest that will have a massive influence on which side is eventually victorious.

In that sense, depending on which group gets the designation may depend the outcome of the entire referendum.