EU Referendum


Brexit: the poison seeps out


25/03/2018




The Observer is going to town today, ripping into the Brexit "leave" campaign with rare gusto, publishing four pieces online in anticipation of the print copy hitting the streets.

These are a spin-off to the reports on Cambridge Analytica, with one of the stories providing a backdrop to the rest. It is headed: "Keep your enemies close: the splits and infighting behind the Leave campaigns". To this, the sub-heading adds: "The battle of the Brexiters has resurfaced in revelations over the use of campaign funds".

On top of that, we have a lengthy piece on the Channel 4 website which declares: "Brexit campaign was ‘totally illegal’, claims whistleblower".

As the details emerge, it is an ironic reflection that, as a registered campaigner, I was investigated by the Electoral Commission for failing to make a zero return on their approved form, and was considered for prosecution. I had actually made the return by e-mail because I could not log on to their dysfunctional website, but that was not good enough. I had committed an offence by not using the correct form, and had to be hunted down like the common criminal that I am.

Meanwhile, as it subsequently transpires, all sorts of dark deeds were being perpetrated by the official, state appointed Vote Leave campaign. Dirty money, apparently, was flowing freely – with what appeared to be the full knowledge and blessing of campaign organisers Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings.

Topping that, most likely, illegally acquired personal data were being misused for campaign purposes, with oceans of money being thrown at Cambridge Analytica and/or associated companies – now claimed to be in excess of spending limits.

None of this, of course, was of the slightest bit of interest to the Electoral Commission, until it was pushed into action. And even then, none of the details currently emerging have come to light as a result of the Commission's investigations. However, readers will be appalled to learn that, despite weeks of intensive investigation, the Commission let me off with only a warning for my heinous crime.

As to the Observer pieces, the particular relevance of the featured story it pulls together a narrative detailing some of the infighting and other unpleasantness that went on between leave factions, prior to and during the referendum campaign.

It opens by reminding us that "acrimony, distrust and recrimination have ravaged the battle over Brexit since the summer of 2016", yet "in the run-up to the EU referendum, the same toxic atmosphere characterised the relationship between some of the groups campaigning to secure Britain's EU exit".

"The constant warring", says the Observer "meant that they often appeared to be engaged in comic levels of factual infighting worthy of a Monty Python sketch". Leaving the EU was about the only thing they could agree on, but some now credit the fact that the groups were aiming at different groups of voters with helping to secure the shock result.

The two main groups were Vote Leave, which eventually went on to win the support of the Brexiters in David Cameron's cabinet, and Leave.EU, backed by prominent Ukip figures and bankrolled by Ukip donor Arron Banks. The former was headed by "lobbyist" Matthew Elliott and Michael Gove's former special adviser Dominic Cummings. 

We hardly need any reminding that there was no love lost between the groups but the Observer does recall that Banks said that Elliott and Cummings were "two of the nastiest individuals I have ever had the misfortune to meet" and that he "wouldn't put them in charge of the local sweet shop". Says the newspaper:
The increasingly bitter dispute was not just down to the big personalities involved. There was also a major prize at stake – the race to become the official "Leave" campaign group. The winner would gain greater spending powers and media time. Official organisations were granted up to £600,000, campaign broadcasts and free mailing. They were also allowed to spend up to £7m, instead of the £700,000 limit that applied to other registered campaign groups in the run-up to the referendum.
I remember this well, and seriously did not want Vote Leave to get the nomination. The trouble was that Leave.eu – fronted by Arron Banks, was no better. And our small group, the Leave Alliance, did not have the financial resources to make a credible bid. That left us the task of introducing Flexcit to these warring tribes. No wonder we had such little success.

The acrimony the dominated the groups also caused splits within political parties. While Nigel Farage was an early backer of Leave.eu, Ukip's only MP at the time, Douglas Carswell, backed Vote Leave. There were even reports of staff in Vote Leave headquarters shredding documents for fear that they were being spied upon by their pro-Brexit rivals. Banks has gone on record that he ordered a private detective to follow Elliott.

"The strategic differences were clear" claims the Observer, which argues that Vote Leave initially wanted to run an economy-focused campaign capable of winning over those considering voting for Brexit, but concerned about the consequences.

The group, it says, "soon identified that its most successful message was the pledge to use money currently sent to Brussels to fund the NHS". Meanwhile, Leave.EU would release starker, more right wing messages designed to appeal to Ukip voters and ensure that staunch Leavers cast their vote. Immigration, supposedly, "was their key battleground".  

In actuality, Vote Leave was a Tory-funded coup. Its primary purpose was never to win. First and foremost, its job was to run the campaign in such a way as to avoid causing damaging, long-term splits to the Conservative Party. 

As to strategy, polls and focus groups had been telling us that if David Cameron came back from Brussels without a credible "reform" deal, he would lose the referendum. When he not only failed to bring anything of substance home, but lied about it, we were poised for an easy win.

Vote Leave, however - anxious to avoid "blue on blue" - deliberately avoided using our most potent weapon. Instead, it featured its fatuous £350 million "lie on the bus". And basing its own campaign on a lie, it was in no position to call out Cameron's lies, either on the "EU reform" or his later dissimulation on what he insisted on calling the "Norway model". Through this, Vote Leave nearly lost us the referendum.

With the strong Tory bias within Vote Leave, it was unsurprising that there was soon internal strife. Labour and Green supporters, relegated to the sidelines, with no say in campaign strategy, left the group – showing its cross-party credentials to be a fraud. The Labour Leave group was at one time a supporter of Vote Leave, but leading members eventually broke away to campaign independently.

Says the Observer, with the infighting at its peak, some figures – including Farage and some Tory MPs – eventually threw their weight behind another organisation, Grassroots Out. The group's garish green ties became a feature in the Commons. One of its rallies saw the unlikely speaking lineup of Farage, Labour MP Kate Hoey and former Respect MP George Galloway.

As the referendum progressed, Leave.EU threw its weight behind the grassroots movement in a failed attempt to become the official pro-Brexit campaign. And if all that wasn't confusing enough, there was also BeLeave – the outfit now at the centre of inquiries.

Now, the Observer tells us with scarcely concealed glee, "the confusion that characterised the campaign groups has resurfaced, and questions are being asked about the precise nature of the relationship between them – and how they used the funds they received".

When it comes to the money, and the huge spend on "big data" though, no one is actually able to put forward any convincing arguments that this actually achieved anything. Much is made, for instance, of the fact that President Trump's campaign used big data techniques, but it must also be remembered that he lost the popular vote. Trump, as a referendum, would have failed.

Enormous claims are made of these techniques, and the use of social media but, when we caught a glimpse of how the system was supposed to work, it was singularly less than impressive. They had very little idea of what they should be saying.

Then, to put it bluntly, if social media was that powerful a tool of persuasion, by now my cupboards would be full of bootleg Viagra, I would have had several penis enlargements, be dating Russian "babes" and be planning to meet a Nigerian gentleman who wants to give me several million dollars.

With every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming credit for the referendum result, what the pundits forget is that the withdrawal campaign had been going for more than forty years. The referendum was but the very last stage of a long process, with the campaign the least important part of it.

Many of us remain convinced that we won in spite of the state-appointed Vote Leave. They did us no favours at all and their lies we disowned as not in our name. Who knows what a properly based campaign might have achieved – it could hardly have done worse than the train wreck produced by Elliott and Cummings.