You are here:   Boris Johnson > Debunking the EU Referendum Myths
 

Myth No. 3: Infighting nearly cost Leave the referendum

In a short film made for the BBC after the referendum, Vote Leave’s Matthew Elliott said that one of his challenges during the campaign was “fighting UKIP”. It may have struck viewers as odd that the man behind the campaign to take the UK out of the EU saw UKIP, the only serious political party committed to leaving the EU, as somehow not on his side. And yet, to the despair of many long-time Brexiteers, much of the year that separated the general election and the referendum was dominated by Leave disunity. At the heart of the feud was a colossal personality clash between, on the one hand, Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings, the latter notoriously difficult to work with, who together ran Vote Leave, and Arron Banks, a hot-headed Bristol-based businessman and UKIP backer who co-founded with Richard Tice Leave.EU, a second Brexit campaign.

We have seen hundreds of confidential emails sent between key Brexiteers in the build up to the referendum campaign. The revealing exchanges demonstrate the stunning deterioration in relations between the Elliott and Cummings camp, and Arron Banks. In June 2015 they were politely arranging an informal lunch at Shepherd’s, a politicos’ haunt in Westminster, to discuss how they might work together on the vote. Within a few months, accusations of briefing against one another and lying began to fly back and forth. (“Either pack it in or we will properly go at it,” Banks tells Elliott at one stage.) Last October, when Vote Leave’s website went live, Banks emailed Elliott: “If this is your best shot, you should be shot . . . for goodness sake get a grip.” High-profile Leave donors, who worried that petty rows might cost them their once-in-a-generation opportunity to leave the EU, had to intervene, soothing egos and appealing for calm.

When it became clear that the Banks camp would compete (ultimately unsuccessfully) with Vote Leave for designation, the animosity spilled into the public domain, with Banks baiting his rival as “Lord Elliott of Loserville” on social media. In May, Banks sent the mobile telephone numbers of Elliott, Cummings, Douglas Carswell MP and others to his supporters, urging them to pressure the “backstairs crawlers behind the creaking Vote Leave operation” to include Nigel Farage in the BBC’s Wembley Arena debate. It was no surprise that stories of the Leave leaders behaving like ferrets in a bag, squandering the referendum they had called for, became a theme of the campaign.

There was undoubtedly a tremendous amount of bad blood between the camps. But, as counterintuitive as it sounds, the divisions that exasperated so many on the Leave side in the end worked to their advantage. The pressure being applied by Leave.EU — and the threat of humiliation if they did not win designation — appears to have focused Vote Leave minds early on. If competition meant sleepless nights for Elliott and Cummings, it also meant a better Leave campaign. Over at Leave.EU, Banks’s determination to beat Vote Leave meant he spent heavily in late 2015 and early 2016, only amplifying arguments against EU membership.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Lawrence JamesAnonymousL
August 29th, 2016
10:08 AM
Why no reference to the tales of the swarms of libidinous, scimitar brandishing Turks poised to sweep towards Britain ? Perhaps the Bashi-Bazouks were deterred by the rumour of the European army mustering and, in some versions, ready to crush anti-Eu dissidents here and on the continent. Uhlans did not appear in Upminster, but the possibility added to the rumours.

Alan Cochrane
August 26th, 2016
12:08 PM
In this otherwise illuminating debunking of what they call the EU referendum myths, I am very much afraid that their conclusion that Project Fear didn’t work in the Scottish referendum and so shouldn’t have been tried in the EU version, shows that Michael Mosbacher and Oliver Wiseman have misread the lessons from north of the border. The plain fact is that the rubbishing of the nationalists’ economic plans, which given the subsequent collapse in the oil price and the concomitant £15 billion ‘black hole’ in the Scottish economy now looks extremely mild. The over optimistic miscalculation of Scotland’s future was reckless in the extreme and could not have been left unchallenged by the No camp. The fact that it was stupidly dubbed ‘Project Fear’ by an apparatchik in the Unionist camp detracts from its efficacy only in respect of the bad press it subsequently attracted. Complaints about it stemmed both from émigré Scots in London who wanted more passion – and in one case more music – in the anti-Nat battle and from English Tory politicians who didn’t understand what was going on in Scotland but thought they knew better anyway. But the plain fact is that the constant attacks on the nationalists’ pie-in-the-sky, back of a fag packet projections, orchestrated in the main by Alistair, now Lord, Darling, worked and worked extremely well. The nationalists’ main gripe as regards the entire operation mounted against them appears to centre on the fact that Darling, Chancellor Osborne and Governor Carney, as well as the leaders and finance spokesmen for all the Unionist parties said in words of one syllable that an independent Scotland could not retain the pound. ‘But it’s as much Scotland’s pound as anyone else’s’ complained Alex Salmond, ‘ so why can’t we use it?’ Unfortunately for his cause, the political leaders in Wales and Northern Ireland, whose peoples also share sterling, were stern in their lack of support for their fellow Celt. Thus was this and every claim of the Nats – Project Fib as some came to call their promises of an economic nirvana – ruthlessly denounced and dismissed, yet Mosbacher and Wiseman suggest that Project Fear was actually responsible for increasing the pro-independence as the campaign progressed. It is true that the opinion polls narrowed but Darling, for one, always insisted that the final result would be closer than the early opinion polls suggested. If we are looking for myths to debunk, may I suggest that the biggest of all in relation to the Scottish referendum is that the result hinged on the extra powers promised for the Scottish Parliament by all the Unionist politicians. This massive extension of Holyrood’s responsibilities, rushed through in what can only be described as hopelessly indecent haste, by Lord Smith’s Commission was a panic measure, pure and simple. And a panic measure that wasn’t needed. Opinion poll evidence suggests pretty conclusively that it was Alex Salmond’s lack of a credible economic policy that did for him, not promises of extra powers: or in other words - It was Project Fear wot won it. Still, I digress. Living in Scotland and voting for Remain, like the bulk of my compatriots, my knowledge of the how Brexit won in England is sketchy. However, whilst the Brexiteers shamelessly tried to terrify the horses with their ludicrous ‘£350 million for the NHS’ claim, I think Mosbacher and Wiseman got it right when they said that by keeping shtum about their economic plans the Leavers didn’t allow the kind of detailed examination to which Project Fear subjected poor old Alex Salmond’s. Why the Remain camp did not concentrate on exposing that glaring omission in the Brexit case is something only its leaders can explain. Alan Cochrane Edinburgh

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.