Project fear

A few weeks ago, James Forsyth revealed David Cameron’s strategy for fighting the EU referendum: to campaign on the theme on security, rather than an economic argument. This is already backfiring badly. Britain’s security does not depend upon the EU, and the Prime Minister’s attempts to suggest otherwise are inflicting grave damage to his chances of winning the referendum. Yesterday, he threatened Britain with an influx of migrants if we vote to leave. His logic was that the deal agreed with France about policing Sangette was somehow dependent on EU membership. But, being a bilateral deal, it had nothing to do with the EU – as today’s Daily Telegraph reveals. It also

It’s early days, I know, but the Outers have convinced me. Britain will not collapse into chaos and penury if we leave the European Union. The Inners, meanwhile, have convinced me, too: there is no great, looming danger if we stay. Thus I have a question. What are we going to spend the next 18 months talking about? I don’t see it. I may be wrong, and often am. Here and now, though, I do not see the looming spark which will ignite the dry tinder of the Great British public into giving a toss. Which I think is something that people who are passionate about this argument, on either

Britain Stronger in Europe launched yesterday at a packed event in East London introducing a range of our Board members including Karren Brady, June Sarpong, Richard Reed, and Caroline Lucas. Since then, I’ve been asked repeatedly what sort of campaign we plan to run. In particular, people ask: 1. Will ours be a re-run of the ‘project fear’? 2. Is ours the campaign of ‘the establishment’? I will deal with each, but first, here’s a description of the campaign we will run: we will make a positive, patriotic case that it is in our national interest to remain in Europe because Britain is stronger in Europe and we will provide

Danny Finkelstein’s column in the Times today is characteristically elegant and incisive. In politics as in life he writes, “whatever apparent power and temptation lies with the adoption of the identity of victimhood it is ultimately destructive”. Since Finkelstein is pondering lessons that may be drawn from the life of Nelson Mandela it may not be immediately obvious that the conclusion he reaches has some relevance to the campaign for Scottish independence. I better elaborate, then. Much has been said about how and why Unionists need a better “narrative” when making the case for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. This is true. There is a need for a positive, optimistic,