EU Referendum


EU Referendum: strategic errors


07/10/2015



000a YouGov-007 leave.jpg

The growing certainty that we're in for the long haul, with no prospect of there being an early referendum, highlights one of the major strategic errors of the "leave" campaigns. The organisers are starting too early and dissipating their energies on fruitless public activities.

Given that we are going to need huge numbers of volunteers and paid staff, the early effort would be much better expended on recruiting (even if we don't yet know how people will fit into an overall structure) and then training. Like any large and successful enterprise, there is an absolute need for a trained "workforce", and it is a grievous error to believe that we can put them into the field without adequate training.

Interestingly, when I was once involved in a mass-training programme for a major corporation, with all senior staff required to attend a course and take an examination (which they had to pass to keep their jobs), one of the first candidates was the managing director.

The man told us (the lecturers) that he should set an example and, in any event, he was probably as ignorant as the rest of his staff. He passed, of course, and there are many supposed "high fliers" who could with advantage emulate his humility. The depth of ignorance of those who presume to lecture us is tragically apparent.

But if this is a major (if unrecognised) error, to add to the original sin of going to early, then it is only one of many. The strategic errors come in legions. 

The huge mistake being made, though, is in failing to define the near objectives of the campaign, within the context of the overall aim of winning the referendum as a step towards leaving the European Union. Actually, this is not one mistake but several, it that the key elements of the fight are, as earlier defined, to identify the schwerpunkt, to contain the thrust and then to mount a successful counter-attack.

To successfully deal with the first point, though, demands that we are able to decide who the enemy is in the first place, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by random noise and irrelevances. Unfortunately, some of the players can't resist the temptation to engage in irrelevant skirmishes that simply waste energy and confuse the public.

As British Influence are keen to exploit, we see from the recent YouGov poll that a 51-33 percent majority of Conservative Party voters in favour of leaving reverses to 56-29 percent in favour of remaining in:
David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms.
The key word is, of course, "relationship" – that is the schwerpunkt. As long as the campaign groups obsess about anything and everything other than this, they are making a grave strategic error. No matter how diligently crafted, propaganda about the perils of EU membership will be swept aside.

The likes of Dominic Cummings can belatedly wake up to the perils of the ECJ, and start issuing dire warnings about the implications of recent judgements to the EU referendum, but he completely misses the point.

We can expend huge energies telling people how ghastly the EU really is (for those who don't know already), but this is water off a duck's back. Mr Cameron will simply tell us that he "feels our pain" and agree with us. In that, he will be joined by his "eurosceptic" Chancellor, who will hijack our concerns and use them to his own ends. 

The only real effect of the anti-EU propaganda, therefore, will be to pave the way for the Prime Minister, who will offer his "new relationship" as a means of solving all our problems. All we will have doe is provide him with a platform from which he can launch his mission "to save Britain". 

The failure to understand this is yet another error to add to the list - a huge lacuna which effectively means that most of the campaigning is having an effect opposite to that intended. And despite the transparency of Mr Cameron's objective, and the timescale into which he is locked, there is no indication that the different groups are preparing to focus on the only issue that counts – the value or otherwise of the "relationship" he will be offering us.

Then, in terms then of a counter-offensive, there is not even the slightest evidence that serious preparations are being made by the high-profile groups, or that the need for a focused attack has even been recognised.

But the need could not be more pressing. The YouGov poll that had Conservatives switching in their droves also had 38 percent wanting to remain in the EU as against 40 percent wanting to leave, switching to 47 percent "remainers" and 29 percent "leavers" when confronted by a Prime Minister bearing gifts. Clearly, unless we address and then tackle the "relationship" issue, we are not going to prevail.

Even then, our travails are not over. Explored yesterday was the means by which we must deliver our message. Without that capability, no amount of intelligence or strategy will come to our aid.

And there, while the technology of communication provides us with valuable tools, the way minds are changed is through human relationships and trust. People either trust us, or they trust the Prime Minister. That is what this referendum will come down to.

Putting this all together, long-term readers will recall my warning that the default outcome of this referendum is that we lose. It is going to take an exceptionally skilled campaign to reverse the odds – currently 47-29 percent against, after Mr Cameron has exercised his magic, according to YouGov.

For all that, the referendum is winnable. But campaigns in the hands of amateurs, riddled with strategic errors, are not going to hack it. The efforts currently being expended, far from helping, are actually handicapping the fight. That puts even more onus on us to beat Cameron's strategic deception. We could do with a little help.