Absent Without Leave? The missing elements in the referendum campaign with two weeks left

It has now been 15 weeks since David Cameron announced the date of the EU referendum. It has dominated British politics ever since. With a mere 15 days left before the ballot itself, what is worth reflecting on is what and whom have been essentially missing from the campaign, why this might be the case and what significance might come to be attached to it once the result has been announced. We live in exceptionally strange political times and as such, as with Sherlock Holmes’s observation in The Adventure of Silver Blaze, it is the dog (or, in this saga, dogs) that did not bark that are revealing./p>
The list of items and individuals who might be included in those absent without leave are as follows.
The Prime Minister’s terms of renegotiation
The referendum date was only declared after an EU Council meeting at which the Prime Minister sought to extract a specific set of concessions from his 27 colleagues which would then allow him to determine that the UK had achieved a “special status” within the EU and hence he could recommend continued membership of it. Yet almost four months on, those “terms” appear to be all but invisible in the debate about the UK’s relationship with the EU and that silence is as much on the Remain side of the argument as it is with the Leave campaign. Even Mr Cameron barely refers to such matters as the UK’s opt-out on the objective of “ever closer union”, the supposed extra protection that he won for EU members who are not within the single currency bloc, the additional authority for national parliaments to “red card” decisions made in Brussels that they do not like or the provisions for the use of an “emergency brake” to limit the rights of EU nationals inside of the UK to claim benefits.
The debate has instead revolved around both macroeconomics and security for the Remain side and immigration and sovereignty for the Leave lobby. It is as if all of the nine months or so between the Conservative victory last May which started the search for a new settlement with the EU to the three days of seeming high-drama back in February were of absolutely no importance whatsoever to the ultimate decision on membership. All of which raises the interesting point as to how hard the Prime Minister will really push his partners on the fine print of these measures if Remain wins on 23 June.
The fate of the euro, external migration into the EU and the revival of Russian nationalism
If one were to ask either elites or mainstream electors in most of the other 27 EU countries what were the most important challenges facing Europe right now, it is far from clear that the possible exit of the UK from the EU would be the most pressing priority that they identified. Depending on where they were located, the answers would probably be instead (a) the continuing uncertainty about the fate of the euro as the Greek situation is far from resolved, Portugal has a government that deeply dislikes the austerity which its predecessor accepted as the price of financial support and Spain is about to hold a second election in six months which might see the radical Podemos/United Left alliance, which is also profoundly hostile to Eurozone orthodoxy, become the pivotal player, (b) external migration in to the EU as a result of the instability in Iraq, Syria (especially) and Libya and (c) the revival of Russian nationalism as Moscow continues actively to undermine the Ukrainian regime. Yet none of these really “big picture” questions have had more than a cursory airing in this country. The insularity of the discussion in the United Kingdom speaks volumes to the extent to which the UK is intellectually semi-detached from its European neighbours. If this separation continues to be seen after the referendum ends, then even a vast Remain victory will not end the UK’s isolation in Europe.
The Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary
This is a referendum about whether or not the UK should still be in the EU in which the issues of immigration and the impact on UK business have been absolutely central. One might have thought on this basis that the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary would have been – and would have wanted to be – major figures in the national discussion. In all three cases, however, the truth appears to be the opposite. Philip Hammond has barely been spotted at all in a campaign where the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been the dominant Conservatives in the Remain crusade. Theresa May has so far delivered one substantial speech in the last 15 weeks in which she offered a fairly lukewarm endorsement of the EU, but with that aside that she thought the UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (the precedent for such a move being Greece under the dictatorship of the Colonels) which while not directly related to EU membership hardly suggests a huge enthusiasm for continental politics. Sajid Javid has at least had the bona fide alibi that he has been seeking to save the British steel industry ever since Easter but even allowing for this his almost complete absence from the referendum campaign is striking.
In all three cases there is some logic in these senior figures being content to keep their distance. Mr Hammond is well aware that he is eminently disposable whatever the outcome of the referendum. Ms May has a shrewd sense of where the balance of sentiment within the parliamentary and wider Conservative Party lies and being seen as a reluctant Remain advocate may serve her ambitions well. If Mr Javid can manage to salvage the Tata situation (where he appears to be making some progress) and emerge from the referendum exercise without having made any enemies, then his prospects of becoming the next Chancellor irrespective of whom the next Prime Minister is will be even brighter.
Jeremy Corbyn
It would be unfair to describe the Labour leader as “invisible” or “absent without leave” in the whole referendum campaign but his interventions, such as they are, have been exceptionally idiosyncratic. He has refused to be seen on the same platform with any Conservative and has not displayed much enthusiasm for being on the same stage as any Blairite. His assertions in favour of membership have either been arguments that seem esoteric (such as a speech last week in which he pointed out that the EU had a commendable record on cleaner beaches and the size of the bee population) or have been an appeal to stay in the EU not because it is a virtuous organisation as it stands but that it could be one if only it abandoned fiscal restraint and embraced worker’s rights wholeheartedly. It is little wonder that some opinion polls have suggested that only half of those who would currently vote for Labour at an election can state with accuracy and confidence what its official position is on the EU.
It is reasonable to conclude that Mr Corbyn’s real interest lies elsewhere (tightening his control over his party). He is doing just enough that his critics cannot blame him if the Remain cause either loses or wins by a disturbingly narrow margin but not doing so much that Labour supporters would feel it is an absolute imperative that they turn out to vote en masse (which if they did would help the PM). One senses that Mr Corbyn would welcome a 51%-49% Remain win and so continued Tory turmoil.
The Liberal Democrats
Not just invisible but almost totally forgotten. The old Liberals were the first political party in the UK to endorse EU membership back in the 1950s. They are united in their advocacy of the UK remaining in the EU and on the basis of passion and principle. Yet their abject defeat in 2015 means that they are spectators in this spectacle. Tim Farron had his one outing of note on Monday. Quite sad, really.