Chris Booker In ST On Mighty Form.

As we watch the continuing farce of David Cameron’s forlorn bid to negotiate “a new relationship” for Britain with a “reformed EU”, only two things can be said with any certainty about what is going on. One is that the crisis-racked EU now looks such a weird and dysfunctional entity that, if we were not already in it, the vast majority of the British people would not vote to join it. But the other is that, on present showing, when Mr Cameron’s referendum comes, most people would be likely to vote, without any obvious enthusiasm, for Britain to stay in.

Does Mr Cameron think he can win his vote for us to remain on the basis of whatever vacuous little deal he has struck with his EU colleagues?

This is partly because of the fear, promoted by the “In” camp as virtually their only argument, that, if we were to leave, we would somehow “lose influence” and be excluded from trading with the single market. But it is due even more to the failure of the assorted “Out” campaigners to get their act together and come up with aproperly worked-out and positive vision of how well Britain could thrive as an independent nation – while still retaining completely free access, as other independent countries have, to the single market.

Not only does Vote Leave (the group which has fancied itself as the front-runner to lead the Out campaign) seem to be falling apart in bitter internal strife, but its leading figures seem so confused as to what they are campaigning for that some even cling to the hope that, if Cameron pulls off a satisfactory “deal”, they could somehow argue for us to remain in the EU as an “associate member”. This, though, would firmly rule them out of being “designated” for the lead role, since the law is clear that any group so designated must be committed unequivocally to the proposition voters are being asked to support.

ADVERTISING

Less noticed, however, is the bizarre situation which has now arisen over the timing of the referendum. Even before the so-called “referendum period” itself can begin (which must be “at least 10 weeks”), the Electoral Commission recommends that there should, in fairness and for administrative purposes, be at least “six clear months” between the necessary legislation and the start of the battle. This opens with a six-week “designation period”, when various groups bid to be chosen to play the lead role for each side. Only when these two have been “designated” can the campaign proper begin.

But it now seems Mr Cameron is so keen to get the referendum hurried on as soon as possible that the initial six-month delay period is to be scrapped (although the Electoral Commission assures us that it would still very much wish it to be included). Furthermore, the Government now wants the “referendum period” of 10 weeks to include the six-week “designation period”, which could leave only four weeks for the campaign proper.

When people wake up to what seems to be going on, there will be uproar, because this would allow only a ridiculously short time for the two chosen groups to organise their supporters, recruit donors, prepare and circulate their publicity material, arrange meetings and broadcasts, and heaven knows what else.

Does Mr Cameron think he can get away with this and still win his vote for us to remain, on the basis of whatever vacuous little deal he has struck with his EU colleagues? It falls so laughably short of anything he promised when talking about that “new relationship” with a “reformed EU” that the whole episode is bound to be regarded as even more of a farce than it is already.

He may have pulled off a short‑term fix to the problem he thought he was facing two years ago (the rise of Ukip and the anger of his Eurosceptic backbenchers), which set all this in train. But the whole charade will soon be seen as so shabby and meaningless that any hope that it will have “settled the European issue for a generation” will be as empty as his cynically stitched‑up little victory.