by Owen Bennet
By the time the EU Referendum Bill debate kicked off, both sides were nicely warmed up for the scrap. Appearing on BBC Radio 4’s World at One that afternoon, John Redwood remarked: ‘It would not be the end of the world if the government were defeated,’ while Bernard Jenkin had already told the BBC: ‘I think [ministers have] realised they’ve opened a bit of a Pandora’s Box, they will be looking for a way to resolve this. But the bottom line is they should restore purdah in this Referendum Bill.’
Away from the broadcast studios and in the Commons itself, the language was equally as strong.
‘Even people on the Yes side should not want their victory to be tainted by the perception of a fix,’ said Nadhim Zahawi, Tory MP for Stratford-on-Avon.
Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the Commons: ‘The fear is that the government at all levels – central and local – could use taxpayers’ money to support one side of the debate, potentially changing its course. The precedent that that would set in this country would be extremely unfortunate.’ He then added: ‘I have not once, in twenty-three years in the House of Commons, voted against my party on a whipped vote. I urge my Right Hon. Friend the Minister for Europe not to force those of us who are in that position to take an alternative course tonight.’
Yet, for all the plotting and griping of the Cf B MPs, the actual power to defeat the government did not lie exclusively in their hands, but also in the hands of their Labour rivals across the Commons floor. During Prime Minister’s Questions a week earlier, Labour’s interim leader Harriet Harman had grilled Cameron over his purdah plans, asking: ‘Why are they changing the law to exempt the government from the rules which are there to ensure the government do not inappropriately use public funds or the government machine in the short campaign. Will he think again on this?’
With questioning such as that, the signs looked good for the Tory rebels that Labour would back their amendment and the government would be defeated. But what they didn’t realise was how the suspension of purdah was causing just as many splits in the opposition as in their own party. Harman was opposed to Cameron’s plan, arguing that the referendum needed to be fair – and that suspending purdah would prevent that. Shadow Europe Minister Pat McFadden was reluctant to do anything that would align Labour with the Tory rebels – many of whom were on the right of the party – and also believed suspending purdah would be necessary for Cameron’s government to make the case for In. Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn, who had quietly supported holding a referendum for years, was in favour of getting the Referendum Bill through Parliament as quickly as possible in order to crack on with the actual campaign. With Harman wanting to join the rebels, McFadden wanting to see purdah lifted and Benn wanting to get on with it, the compromise position of abstaining on the vote was reached at the eleventh hour – shattering Tory rebel hopes of beating the government on purdah.
Speaking from the Despatch Box, McFadden explained why Labour had tabled its own amendment, calling on the government to clarify just what it would seek to do in the run-up to the referendum if purdah was suspended.
Jenkin was baffled, and asked McFadden: ‘Why has his party decided not to support Amendment 11, which would reinstate purdah, until he has received those assurances? Why is he letting the government off the hook – or is it part of a Euro-stitch-up to rig the referendum?’
He later added:
I am deeply disappointed that the Labour Party has abandoned all its principles, but we know that it is split on the matter. On Second Reading, it was in favour of scrapping purdah. At Prime Minister’s Questions, it was against scrapping purdah. Last night, Labour Members were going to vote for Amendment 11, but today they are no longer going to do so. I think that they are in a bit of a muddle, and I suspect that quite a few pro-EU Labour Members would like to help to rig the referendum in favour of the Yes campaign.
Even with the backing of the Scottish National Party and a handful of Labour Eurosceptics, there was no chance the government would be defeated. Just twenty-seven Tory MPs rebelled and backed Cash’s amendment – meaning the government won easily: 288 to 97.
That day’s battle may have been lost, but the rebels knew they would have another chance to take on the government when the Bill came back before Parliament in the autumn. While the margin of their defeat had been great, a rebellion of twenty-seven just six weeks into a new government was not a good look for any Prime Minister, and the summer would be spent negotiating with Lidington, Hammond and Cameron about a compromise agreement.
But Iain Duncan Smith, who abided by collective responsibility and backed Cameron despite his own personal misgivings, knew the government had narrowly got away with it. He warned the Prime Minister: ‘Labour will wake up to the fact that they have a major defeat of the government on their hands here over this and they won’t mind that at all. What they will discover is if they put a motion down, then the Conservatives will vote with them.’ Little did he realise that it was his own welfare reforms that would trigger such an act.
CHAPTER 10
Nigel Farage’s view on the purdah battle was simple: ‘With this vote on purdah tonight, Tory Eurosceptics have shown themselves to be gutless, spineless and useless,’ he tweeted (or rather, he asked someone to tweet on his behalf – Farage did not have a smartphone). A rebellion of just twenty-seven from a party which kept claiming it was full of Eurosceptics left him deeply unimpressed.
It had been nearly three weeks since Farage had met with Matthew Elliott for coffee at Claridge’s, and the UKIP leader had been busy. After repeatedly being told by Westminster politicians that he was toxic, divisive and would lose the referendum for the Out side, Farage decided to find out once and for all if that was true. He commissioned a huge opinion poll, surveying 10,000 people, to get a measure of not just his own popularity but that of other figures across the divide as well.
Farage recalls:
What was clear from that polling was that in June 2015 the most trusted person in the country on whether to Brexit or not to Brexit was David Cameron. His popularity was about 38 per cent at that time. I was second, and Boris [Johnson] and Theresa [May] were third and fourth. That’s where we were. Nobody else even troubled the scorer.
‘The key was: Did I put off the undecideds? No. But even more crucially: What was the issue that could switch how the undecided voted? And I think that poll was 36 per cent of them said immigration. Nothing came near.’
The poll confirmed three things for Farage. First, he was not toxic. ‘Yes, I’m hated by the establishment and the Remainers in an extraordinary way. Just extraordinary,’ said Farage. ‘But at least they know what I’m talking about.’ Secondly, immigration was the key issue that could win this referendum for Out – no matter what the ‘posh boys’ said. Finally, Cameron could not be allowed to have a free hand to go and make a deal with Brussels.
It was absolutely critical not to do what Business for Britain wanted to do and what Mr Carswell and Mr Hannan wanted to do and say: ‘Jolly good, David, off you go.’ No, no, no, no. As Chris [Bruni-Lowe] said to me: ‘If he goes unchallenged and brings back a deal, we’ve lost.’ He had just fluked a general election, he was very high in terms of people’s rating. Challenging the Prime Minister became a really important part of all of this.
While the polling was being carried out, Farage and Chris Bruni-Lowe climbed aboard the Queen Elizabeth cruise ship for the third annual Midlands Industrial Council jaunt on Saturday 13 June 2015. The three-day trip – leaving from Southampton and travelling to Guernsey and back – brought together politicians, campaigners, entertainers and businessmen from the political right. Tory backbenchers including Graham Brady, Daniel Kawczynski and the recent Cabinet minister Eric Pickles rubbed shoulders with Lord Ashcroft, General Sir David Richards and comedian Jim Davidson. Also on board was Matthew Elliott, who had returned from his honeymoon earlier that week. He was due to address his fellow shipmates on how Business for Britain was maintaining its ‘Change or Go’ stance ahead
of David Cameron’s first post-election European summit in Brussels later that month.
As the boat set sail, and with such a concentration of pro-Brexit figures, it didn’t take much persuading for Farage to give an impromptu speech. Wearing his Union Jack shoes, the UKIP leader extolled not just the virtues of Brexit, but why the campaign needed to begin immediately. Not everyone on board the boat agreed with Farage, though.
‘Daniel Kawczynski, who then voted to Brexit, said: “No, I’m a fanatical stayer-in-er, Nigel, your politics is awful.” He kept interrupting, saying: “Brexit will make us poorer. I’m Polish, I’ll get sent back,” and all that stuff. It was a major argument,’ remembered Bruni-Lowe.
Farage and his right-hand man were also having great fun working the decks and ‘tapping up’ people to back Banks’s campaign. ‘Elliott was freaking out,’ said Bruni-Lowe.
Bruni-Lowe and Elliott, who had known each other for more than five years, managed a few private conversations while the boat was sailing across the English Channel. They had a long Eurosceptic history, and the original ‘For Britain’ company – which was envisaged as the overarching body that would oversee all denominations, such as Business for Britain – was actually created by the pair in 2013. On a flight to America, Elliott and Bruni-Lowe had talked at length about how best to manage a successful Out campaign, and took inspiration from Barack Obama’s ‘For Obama’ brand which had helped him win re-election to the White House in 2012. When Bruni-Lowe and Elliott returned to England, they registered ‘For Britain’ with Companies House on 20 February 2013. With this shared background, Bruni-Lowe tried to offer Elliott some advice: ‘I told him to get Nigel in a room and say, “Nigel, we want to use you and UKIP, we’re going to figure out how we can use you in a way that doesn’t piss off people but we want to desperately use you.”’
Elliott recalls the conversation differently, and was left with the impression that UKIP was already preparing how to exploit a referendum defeat for electoral gain: ‘I remember him insisting that the referendum wasn’t winnable, blah blah blah, couldn’t be done. So my working assumption was basically that UKIP are working out how best to position themselves for after the referendum and do an SNP re-run.’
Bruni-Lowe’s response to Elliott’s claim was simple: ‘That’s complete rubbish!’
The Queen Elizabeth docked at Guernsey’s St Peter Port on Monday 15 June, and Farage and Bruni-Lowe decide to venture further into the island instead of listening to a presentation from the TaxPayers’ Alliance. While they were sinking ales in a pub, Elliott showed up, and again the trio began discussing the referendum. Farage repeated his view that immigration was the key, but Elliott remained unconvinced. Peace did not break out in Guernsey.
* * *
The next day, Elliott was back in London trying to hide his bemusement as he looked at Andy Wigmore’s business card. He was not expecting the Brexit campaigner opposite him with the big smile to also be a trade commissioner for Belize. At the same time as Elliott was looking at Wigmore’s business card, Dominic Cummings was introducing himself to Arron Banks and Richard Tice. Despite having met only a few months before, Banks and Tice were becoming quite the double act. Banks was mischievous and relished courting controversy, whereas Tice was more restrained and focused.
The group were in 55 Tufton Street, the home of Business for Britain, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the European Foundation and Civitas – all right-wing think tanks, all sharing office space under one roof. For Arron Banks – the multi-millionaire who liked to portray himself as anti-establishment – this was very much enemy territory.
They took their seats in the building’s front boardroom. It was Tuesday 16 June, the day of the first vote on purdah in the Commons. Sitting around the table, Banks, Tice and the permanently cheerful Wigmore set out not just the work they were already carrying out – branding, research, advertising plans – but also their future plans, which involved spending millions upon millions of pounds. Their operation would be big, in-your-face and impossible to ignore.
The trio were hoping that by demonstrating that they had fired the starting gun on an Out operation, Elliott and Cummings might be motivated to join them in actively campaigning. Despite the many differences between the two groups, Banks, Tice and Wigmore recognised that the very well-connected Elliott and Cummings knew how Westminster worked, had the ear of influential journalists and senior politicians, and would therefore be able to add another dimension to their plans.
But, much to their frustration, Cummings and Elliott stuck to their ‘Change or Go’ guns. The Prime Minister had to be supported in his renegotiation attempt, and then a decision would be made on whether to campaign to leave.
Banks had been prepared for this – he hadn’t really expected anything different. In the hours before the meeting, Chris Bruni-Lowe had called the businessman up to find out what exactly he was hoping to get out of the meeting. For Banks, the meeting had never been about merging, but just an opportunity to get into Elliott’s head. Bruni-Lowe and Nigel Farage, however, were both worried that Elliott and Cummings might persuade Banks to pull his operation and adopt their timetable.
‘Nigel and I were saying: “Elliott’s such a smarmy bastard he may win over Banks,”’ said Bruni-Lowe.
I rang Banks on the day and said: ‘Don’t get won over by Elliott.’ He said: ‘No, no, no, I’m going to go there and shit him up basically. I’m going to go there and frighten him and basically say I’m going to outspend you and spend my whole life terrorising you, effectively.’
The opportunity for Banks to cause carnage came when Cummings asked the businessman to trust his judgement over how to run the campaign.
Banks let rip:
To say it wasn’t a meeting of minds would be an understatement. I pointed out to him that I built six businesses from scratch and was considerably richer than he was, like a Harry Enfield character. His reply was along the lines of that he was a genius. I said: ‘Well, if you’re such a genius, why are you a second-rate spad working for government?’
With his goal achieved, Banks called Bruni-Lowe to tell him how the meeting had gone. ‘He rang me afterwards and said: “Elliott was bright red, his fists were on the desk. I’ve shit him up massively,”’ said Bruni-Lowe.
Elliott and Cummings might have been dragging their feet, but Farage was still itching to get the campaign going. On Wednesday 17 June – the day after not only the purdah vote but also the first meeting between Elliott, Cummings, Banks, Tice and Wigmore, the UKIP leader also tried to fire the starting gun.
At the launch of a pamphlet by UKIP’s International Trade spokesman William Dartmouth in Westminster, Farage attempted to smoke out other Eurosceptics, claiming there was ‘a little bit of paralysis’ in the Out campaign.
Additionally, in what was a change in tone from his Eastbourne speech twelve days earlier, Farage even admitted his own shortcomings.
As he put it:
I’m not for one moment making a bid to say, ‘Farage must be in charge of everything.’ I think it would be better if it was someone from outside the world of politics, who had no political baggage. When that structure gets set up and the official ‘No’ campaign gets put in place, we will put our shoulder to the wheel and make it clear we will work with anybody to achieve this goal.
He added: ‘As far as my role is concerned, look, not everybody likes me, I accept that.’
Less than twenty-four hours later, and UKIP’s deputy chairman Suzanne Evans essentially repeated his remarks on the BBC’s Daily Politics show in a discussion about who should lead the main Out campaign, saying:
Nigel is a very divisive figure in terms of the way he is perceived. He is not divisive as a person. The way he is perceived is having strong views that divide people. In that sense he is right [not to take a leading role]. I think it will be somebody else that fronts it.
Evans’s comments seemed innocent enough, but to Farage and his allies in UKIP
they were regarded as deeply unhelpful. Four hours later, party director Steve Stanbury sent out a directive essentially sacking her as a UKIP spokesman – her second dismissal in the space of a month after having been axed as the party’s policy director:
I have just spoken to Nigel and in light of Suzanne Evans’s comments on TDP I am issuing this directive.
From this moment onwards no one employed by the UKIP press office is to have any further contact with SE.
No bids are to be accepted for SE and she is not to be offered as an official UKIP spokesman.
No one is to brief SE or advise her on any issue.
Evans was baffled by the email, which was leaked to the BBC, but things took an even stranger turn the next day, when she was ‘unsacked’.
‘Suzanne Evans has not been sacked as a UKIP spokesman. The email seen by the BBC was issued without proper authority,’ read a statement issued by the UKIP press office. The fiasco took place over the same days that the cross-party exploratory committee, the group chaired by Bernard Jenkin every Wednesday, was announced, providing an unfortunate juxtaposition for UKIP: while the party claiming it had the infrastructure and organisation to win the referendum was sacking and unsacking people apparently at random, the politicians in Westminster were getting themselves organised into a functional fighting force. Add into the mix that UKIP’s entire press operation was at the moment being run from a Caffè Nero and Bruni-Lowe’s flat in Maunsel Street, and the party was hardly screaming out ‘professionalism’.
UKIP might have been tearing itself apart, but Banks’s ‘The Know’ operation was going from strength to strength. Advertising campaigns had been drawn up, slogans were created and, most important of all, significant money was lined up to fund it: £20 million, according to the Bristol-based businessman’s interview with the Telegraph on Sunday 21 June.