EU Referendum


EU Referendum: observations on a long campaign


02/10/2015



000a BBC-002 Referendum.jpg

"The infighting among Eurosceptics is unlikely to end anytime soon and the longer it goes on, the harder the job of winning the referendum becomes", proclaims the Spectator, demonstrating an alarming lack of understanding of the current situation.

As it stands, the pundits who so confidently predicted that there would be an early referendum (from the same stock who predicted a hung Parliament and that Greece would drop out of the euro) have been confounded. We are now looking to the long haul (as indeed was always the case).

This means that we have enough time to deliberate on some of the core issues and, in particular, how we are going to win. As an example of lightweight analysis, we can always go to the BBC, but there are depths to the contest which the media will never explore.

For this referendum, we are going to have to revise some of our assumptions about how we fight. A long campaign, lasting two years or more, requires a different approach than does a quick-fire snap referendum.

More specifically, we have time properly to consider who we would like as lead campaigners representing the "leave" proposition, and what sort of campaign we would like to see fought. Such issues will have a profound effect on the conduct of the campaign, possibly determining the outcome. It is important to have them explored as thoroughly as possible.

Thus, this really isn't a case of "infighting" making the job of winning a referendum harder. The Spectator is totally off the wall. If those running the campaign are to have the confidence of activists, contested issues must be brought out into the open and argued out, before the campaign proper gets under way. It is far more preferable to do this, than come to a false consensus for the sake of some notional unity, only to have the schisms erupt at a crucial point in the campaign.

In the extra time we have available, we can thus tackle the cosy assumptions of the media and the Westminster élites that the campaign is necessarily going to be run by Matthew Elliott, with Dominic Cummings – the current favourites. We do not have to accept that they have a God-given right to take charge, dictating the strategy and tactics to be employed.

Even if this pair were the best, most skilled people in Britain – which they demonstrably are not – it is necessary to shine some light on the designation process. We need a public debate about the relative merits of different applicants.

In that context – whether good or bad - we owe Arron Banks our thanks for making a contest of the designation, cutting across what might otherwise look suspiciously like a cosy establishment stitch-up as their golden boys are groomed for stardom and slid effortlessly into place.

Looking at the nature of the campaign to come, we are already beginning to understand that our enemy is not the EU per se. If we win, we are still going to have to deal with it, and make deals with the members. The real enemy is our own Prime Minister. He will be making the case for us to stay in the EU, and doing his best to turn the campaign to his advantage.

To tackle the campaign effectively, therefore, the Prime Minister has to be the main target. And here, we have to ask some very serious questions about the intentions and capabilities of the Elliott nexus. The group most likely will comprise a core of loyal Conservatives who might find it difficult to mount an all-out, no-holds-barred attack on their own party leader.

It would be much easier and safer politically for the likes of Mr Elliott to confine their campaigning to the EU, even if the focus is ineffective and leads to failure of the campaign. In order to prevail, we will need people willing and capable to go for the jugular, even if means inflicting lasting damage on the Conservative Party.

Discussing possible outcomes and strategies in this way gives us a better insight into the weaknesses and limitations of existing contenders. And if Matthew Elliott looks unpromising, so too does the other main contender, Arron Banks. On him, though, we have to reserve judgement. He personally may not be fronting his campaign. It may be a yet-to-be-appointed campaign director, no doubt working with strategists Goddard Gunster. Between them, they could vastly improve the quality of the Banks effort.

So far, so good, but the final choice of lead campaigner will be made by the Electoral Commission (EC). And, whatever one's views might be of this organisation, it is a creature of the law. It will apply the statutory criteria set out in the Political Parties, elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Section 109 sets out those criteria, effectively two hurdles in a contested application. Firstly, the EC must determine whether the applicants adequately represent those campaigning for the outcome. Then, if two or more pass that test, the prize goes to "whichever of the applicants appears to them [the Electoral Commission] to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome".

Self evidently, the first is a qualitative test and the second is quantitative. Thus, neither Elliott's Campaign to Leave nor Arron Banks's Leave.EU can necessarily rely on their numerical strengths. First, they must pass the quality test.

It is here that a well-founded Referendum Planning Group (RPG) could have the advantage, if it is able to demonstrate qualitative superiority, coming in "under the radar" while the other two slug it out in public.

Either way, the designation process affords the opportunity for applicants to make statements as to why other applicants should not be chosen, both in absolute and relative terms. The Electoral Commission can thus expect to receive weighty dossiers setting out the demerits of competitive applications. Members of the public are also entitled to offer their views, in support of applications or opposing them..

Implicit in the evaluations will assessments of whether individuals taking senior management roles satisfy the "fit and proper person" requirements applied to those receiving public money - with £600,000 on offer. These focus on the applicants' honesty, integrity, suitability and fitness, the latter relating to qualifications, skills and experience.

Arguably, those who boast about making "a fortune" from data mining opportunities during the campaign, might have a hard time convincing the Electoral Commission of their suitability, or that they are focused on winning.

Should the EC decide to ignore warning signs and make the award to the establishment grouping, there is always the prospect of a judicial review in the High Court. One good reason for making an application is to confer "locus", which will permit a formal complaint to be made the judiciary.

Thus, purely on the Darwinian basis of the survival of the fittest, the public has every reason to be grateful that there is an active controversy over the "leave" campaign designation. The more robust the selection process, the better the winner is likely to be. Against a "remain" campaign designation, which is likely to be uncontested, this is likely to confer an advantage to our side.

In any event, given the free market credentials of many "leave" campaigners, they cannot really object to a competition, and certainly not Mr Elliott, who recently observed that:
We are seeing the death throes of a Westminster élite who happily live a life of luxury at taxpayers' expense, while spending ever-growing amounts of taxpayers' cash, and they don't like it one bit.
We wouldn't like to think that Mr Elliott was a member of that "Westminster élite", happy to live "a life of luxury at taxpayers' expense". That would never do. He and anyone else applying for designation should be required fully to justify their selection, and as far as possible in the open.