I was in London yesterday, attending the fourth formal meeting of the Referendum Planning Group (RPG). We represent now six groupings: CIB, Bruges Group, Futurus and The Harrogate Agenda, plus EUReferendum.com and now, Restore Britain's Fish, formerly Save Britain's Fish, with John Ashworth at the helm.

Yesterday, we were discussing whether and when to launch our group publicly. However, while it was initially pencilled in for November, we have decided to delay it until February, on the basis that the noise level is too high at the moment. It will also give us more time to produce the short version of Flexcit, which we aim to publish at the time of the launch.

Our reason for pursuing the lead designation is that neither of the two high profile groups – nor Ukip – represent the entirety of the "eurosceptic" community. Furthermore, none of the groups are capable of planning and execute an effective "leave" campaign.

If we were to gain the designation, we would inject the missing component to the campaign – an effective strategy. But to ensure that the full range of activists is represented, we would act as a commissioning agent, contracting campaigning activities and functions to any group which is prepared to carry them out, and which we judge competent to do so.

By this route, we will be effectively offering the Electoral Commission the opportunity to force the different factions to work together. We would hold the £7 million expenses quota and, without our assent, other groups will not be able to incur expenses in excess of £700,000 during the referendum period.

When it comes to running the campaign, one of our strongest suits is that we are the only group to have adopted Flexcit, and thus are the only group promoting a comprehensible and credible exit plan. We will, therefore, be telling the Electoral Commission that we are the only group will be able to satisfy the statutory test of adequacy. None of the other groups have credible exit options.

We will also be able to point to a number of egregious failures, such as the ill-advised focus on EU costs by Vote Leave Ltd. This has spectacularly backfired as the claims have been contradicted, leaving us with a tedious squabble that is going nowhere.

The worry is that such inept campaigning will be reflected in the polls (and the final result). We are thus looking carefully to see whether any trends develop, such as that which may be emerging from ICM. 

In September, the company was recording 43 percent voting to remain in the EU, with 40 percent wanting to leave. Now, after a month of intensive campaigning and two launches by "leave" groups, the same pollster records 45 percent wanting to remain, and 36 in favour of leaving. 

If this does become a trend, we will be telling the electoral Commission simply cannot afford to have these groups making the running. Even their silence would be a better option.