13/05/2015
Already, the growing soap opera of the supposed renegotiations is dominating the headlines on the referendum. Now in the lead is the
Financial Times,
telling us that David Cameron's hopes for a far-reaching overhaul of Britain's relationship with the EU were dealt an early setback when Germany said the UK's partners would not be rushed into changing the bloc's treaties.
The
Mail puts it even more strongly, declaring that "Germany REJECTS demand for EU treaty change" â even though there have been no negotiations.
This very much chimes with my warning in the
previous post that the "colleagues" might not be too enthusiastic about rushing to Mr Cameron's aid. But the
FT goes a little further, indulging itself in personality politics, with a narrative about how Wolfgang Schäuble, Germanyâs finance minister, also lashed out at George Osborne's 'silly' and 'unnecessary' record of intervening over the eurozone crisis". Many in Brussels believe London intentionally sought to undermine monetary union, Mr Schäuble is said to have claimed.
Yet, not once since the election have I seen any serious attempt in the legacy media to identify the issues at stake in the referendum, although there seem to be little interest in the idea of reform â certainly to judge by the lack of comment on
City AM.
There, Mr Elliott is pedalling his usual nostrum, but also arguing for the Referendum Bill to be passed quickly, "to allow the government to focus on the most pressing issue of the renegotiation". Once the Bill enabling the referendum is approved, says Elliott, the focus will quickly turn to defining what type of EU relationship the public are to be offered.
Unwittingly, though, Elliott illustrates the paucity of the renegotiation agenda, laughingly described as Cameron's "positive vision for a new relationship with the EU". All that amounts to is "cutting red tape for SMEs and returning powers over social and employment legislation", and "changes that make our immigration system fairer".
Even were we to gain all this, though, it would not be anything like enough. Such changes do not address the fundamental issue of our subordination to a supranational authority, and no amount of negotiation will ever change that. We are wasting time even thinking about renegotiation.
There is great danger, of course, in following the siren voices that call on us to "wait and see" what Mr Cameron delivers before batting for the "out" campaign. By that time, the campaigning period could be nearly over, and we will have surrendered our principled opposition to the EU, fatally weakening our message.
With only a limited amount of time â and not anything like as much as we would like â we need to focus on fighting the campaign. We really cannot afford to sit back and wait for the Cameron fantasy to be played out.
Fortunately, it would appear that, under
electoral law, specifically the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, no organisation can succeed in an application to lead the campaign unless the Electoral Commission considers it "adequately represents those campaigning for that outcome". By no measure could those rooting for "negotiate and see" actually qualify to lead the campaign.
Interestingly, there is a rider to this requirement. If there is more than one application to lead the "out" campaign, the Commission has to designate "whichever of the applicants appears to them to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome".
However, there is still a requirement that the applicant chosen "adequately represents those campaigning for that outcome", and that is a crucial requirement.
As we saw with the
North East Regional Referendum, that embraces not only capability issues but also the quality of the message delivered. The Commission will also look at "the range of reasons for supporting the outcome", and make a judgement on them.
This could be of enormous importance when it comes to setting up the official "no" campaign, which can only be designated after the Referendum Bill has passed into law. Obviously, the group with a coherent and well-prepared arguments to support the "out" proposition will have the better chance of being designated, even if it isn't the largest or best-funded.
And it is issues such as these â not the idle prattling of the media - which are going to have the greatest impact on the overall campaign and our chances of success. Yet discussion of these issues will not find its way into the legacy media, where only trivia prevails and the journalists delight in muddying the waters.
