The
pro-staying in EU campaign has avoided some key mistakes from the AV
and Scottish referendums but is still making some significant errors.
What
it is doing right.
1)
It is not fronted by politicians.
2)
It is not only talking about economics.
3)
It is talking about issues that people care about.
4)
It is talking in language that people understand.
5)
It appears united, as much as it is so far getting any coverage or is
visible.
What
the In Campaign is doing wrong.
1)
It is not talking about ideas, positive ideals, principles or vision
but almost entirely about economics.
2)
It is being negative – in some if thankfully not most of its
literature.
3)
It does not say who they are.
4)
It does not say who is funding the campaign or where their money
comes from.
5)
It is talking mostly about money and cost-benefit, if not the
directly the economy and jobs.
What
it is doing right.
1)
It is not fronted by politicians. This was a blunder of the
pro-AV campaign (which would have been a pretty insignificant voting
reform in any event), and a blunder of the Better Together campaign
to prevent an artificial break up of the United Kingdom.
Britain
Stronger in Europe is headed by the former boss of Marks &
Spencer, Stuart Rose. He is a genuine successful businessman who has
been head of a thoroughly British company (founded by Jewish
immigrants). Karren Brady the football manager and business woman is
also a key figure. The agent is Will Straw, son of Labour minister
Jack Straw and one of the current generation of Labour Party dynastic
scions. But it makes sense to have an experienced campaigner running
the campaign. Though the ones running the AV and Scottish referendum
anti-breakaway campaigns were pretty hopeless. The populist nasty
right wing press and politicians, and populist anti-political
establishment Scottish nationalist establishment politicians ran
rings round them.
Lord
Stuart Rose does look like another old man in a suit, but nothing
like as badly as the old Tory politician who is a figurehead for the
antis. I don't dismiss the experience of age but here is where I
would have preferred some populist celebrity culture.
2)
It is not only talking about economics. The campaign is also
talking about Britain's role in Europe (the visionary part of its
message), security, about opportunity and sometimes about the
environment, about peace. The http://www.strongerin.co.uk/
website has the headline “Britain is stronger, safer and better off
in Europe than we would be on our own.” “More jobs and
opportunities” and these key phrases repeated “The benefits of
being in—a stronger economy, stronger security and stronger
leadership on the world stage”. If you click on the Menu button it
only has those tags along with “A Stronger Britain”. I happen to
agree; and maybe these key slogans will convince the undecided or
some antis that Yes, in reality, is the right answer. But they are
also the same slogans that the Leave campaign will be using, and
their brainwashed recipients of Daily Mail and Daily
Express propaganda (and many Labour supporters and figures
believe it too) are likely to agree with them deployed by the antis
because they say what they want to hear.
3)
It is talking about issues that people care about. Jobs, mostly
jobs, prices, and security and sometimes the environment. Its emails
include the slogan “Thank you for being a part of the campaign to
keep Britain stronger, safer and better off.” Sir Hugh Orde, the
former top police chief, argues that the EU is good for security. By
contrast, the pro-AV campaign both failed to explain what the
proposed reform was for and greatly exaggerated the possible
benefits. They sloganised and failed to explain either the detail or
get across why a change to the vote system was relevant.
4)
It is talking in language that people understand. The recent
newspaper that was distributed around the country was well put
together and clearly written, with a variety of stories on different
relevant issues affecting people. (The Guardian reports that
10M newspapers were to be delivered – presumably paid delivery by
the Royal Mail. I know copies went out in London, and city centre and
suburban Liverpool).
5)
It appears united, as much as it is so far getting any coverage
or is visible. The anti-EU campaign meanwhile is split and arguing
amongst itself over who or which faction is top dog. I don't believe
in unity being needed for the sake of unity. The press, party
leaders, and opponents are obsessed with that – genuine
disagreement and debate is normal in any group. The antis however
seem to like fighting amongst themselves almost as much as they like
hating the EU, presumably because they are such a coalition of people
with completely different ideas about what they believe in, and only
agree on what they are against. Hopefully the In campaign can put a
positive vision of a modern, pluralist, tolerant, thriving country
that plays a key part in Europe and on the World stage. The best of
Britain, not the best of mythical 1950s Britain.
What
the In Campaign is doing wrong.
1)
It is not talking about ideas, positive ideals, principles or vision
but almost entirely about economics. It is almost entirely
talking about jobs – rational arguments about the cost to people of
leaving the EU and the financial benefits of being in. But making
almost the same mistake that the Better Together campaign made of
leaving the idealistic, principled, visionary side to the breakaway
campaign. True it will be hard to make creating a pro-reformed
European Union a romantic vision, unlike the wilful nostalgia and
rose tinted glasses of the antis, or the 'all things to all people'
Independence campaign, but for some of us the vision of a peaceful
united Europe is a romantic vision we would like to see. Living life
in peace. Instead of the anti-vision of constant conflict (albeit not
literal conflict thankfully).
Stronger
In fails to adequately promote the successes, and extreme present
necessity of European countries to all work together in a grown up
way. Further it fails to promote reform or the need for reform. Sure
this referendum cannot deliver reform but the Yes side cannot ignore
the flaws of the EU and the areas where reform is badly needed. The
tabloid anti-European Parliament and bloated Brussels bureaucrats may
be completely awful myths but some of the criticism is fair. There is
nothing on the In website answering lies about the EU or
misinformation. Where are people likely to look to fact check? Where
can they? – there aren't even links here. Yet the campaign is
already failing to be completely truthful, by overegging the pudding.
The newspaper and website cite the EU abolishing mobile phone roaming
charges but it hasn't abolished them yet, as customers obviously know
if they travel abroad. Why on Earth didn't they just tell the truth –
the very good truth that the EU has massively cut mobile phone
roaming costs and is going to abolish them. I think it was MEPs who
did most on this (but it may have been the Commission).
There
is a Mythbusters page in the newspaper, but it is a list of
simplistic generalisations. A list of 6 'UKIP MYTH' statements with
typical statements like those UKIP and their parrots come out with,
but no answer to real specific anti-EU myths. The criticism and bad
reputation of the EU is most undeserved but partly deserved –
failure to acknowledge the latter being a key problem of official
pro-EU material. (There's no search facility, making the website of
limited use).
2)
It is being negative – in some if thankfully not most of its
literature. The advert on Facebook is negative – immediately apt to
be designated as 'scaremongering' by the antis. “What would leaving
Europe mean for YOU and YOUR family?” “there will be pain”. It
exposes the negative possible consequences identified by leading
Leave EU figures, but it simply seems negative. Negative arguably
worked for anti-AV, and for the anti-England, Wales, Scotland, NI
split, but it is unlikely to convince the stuck in a 1950s idealised
Britain older generation, and ignorant anti-difference younger
people, that there is something good to vote for. The website does
promote more positive messages. While I am no fan of NUS it is good
to see the NUS President represented as the EU has been great for
generations of students having more opportunity to widen their
horizons than ever before. Many others on the Facebook group have
called for more positives in the campaign.
3)
It does not say who they are. The campaign newspaper does not say
who the people behind the campaign are – to that extent, a glossy
newspaper, it looks like party political or marketing PR. They miss a
trick by failing to mention prominent supporters, although some
business people and ordinary people are included. It looked like
glossy political marketing even if the content was quite good. There
is no human touch to encourage you to get involved. There is nothing
about who set up the campaign (because presumably it was mostly
actually lead by party political activists, as well as a few
pro-Europe activists). Whereas the antis will eagerly roll out their
populist figureheads. Worse, the website fails to include this
information where there is no excuse for a lack of information and
lack of openness. The Facebook group under 'About' is a blank.
There's also no address. Ok, it's online and points you to the
website but it would take seconds to put up the information.
4)
It does not say who is funding the campaign or where their money
comes from. Neither the newspaper or the website includes this
information. There is nothing about where the money to fund the
campaign came from or comes from. Sure, failure of the anti-electoral
reform funders to out themselves as rich Tory donors, corporate
raiders and newspapers barons didn't harm the campaign because the
public believed the drivel they spouted. But the pro-EU campaign has
to be totally above board – because of the bad reputation of the
EU, and because the antis will show their nasty anti-social
tendencies. Articles in the
FT, on the BBC, and on Sky
inform that it has received large amounts of money from big financial
institutions and banks.
5)
It is talking mostly about money and cost-benefit, if not the
directly the economy and jobs. See (1) above. A case about economics
is not going to win people over in hearts and minds. If people feel
after the referendum that they've not had a fair vote – like in
Scotland or in the previous referendum on membership of the European
Economic Community, people feel somehow cheated – then there will
be limited acceptance of the result and regular renewed calls for a
new referendum leading to more instability in our national political
debate of the kind that undermined John Major's government and has
bubbled as a hot and cold war in the Tory party under Cameron. People
need to feel they are making a well informed positive choice. The
evidence on prices is important. I'm entirely convinced that prices
in real terms for most things now are cheaper than at any time in my
lifetime because of our membership of the EU. But is that enough to
get people out to vote For?
I
entirely agree with the reforms that David Cameron is trying to
negotiate. I think his recent agreement announced by Donald Tusk is a
good place to start for a fairer, more cost effective, improved EU.
Maybe when (I hope) Cameron achieves a better deal, some real wins,
the In campaign will at least promote these reforms as a victory for
Britain and for reformers and genuine pro-Europeans everywhere. After
all, Mrs. Thatcher's win on Britain's rebate helped her and the
Tory's image for years. Concessions from those who do not want to
relinquish excessive EU level standardisation may be the defining
achievement of David Cameron's Prime Ministership, just as Tony
Blair's sealing the peace in Northern Ireland was his most important
positive historic legacy.
I will reproduce this post on my website with a few extra notes, omitted here.
