The madness behind rules of the millions we’re spending on EU vote

THE forthcoming EU referendum will be a defining moment in modern Britain, giving this country a long overdue opportunity to forge a new relationship with Europe.

Ever since I helped secure our opt-out from the euro during the negotiations over the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s, it has been clear that the federalist course pursued by the Brussels establishment is increasingly at odds with the instincts of most British people.

If the Prime Minister delivers on his pledge to engineer a ‘fundamental change’ in our relationship with the EU, it will represent a great personal triumph, placing our membership on a more stable and democratic footing. If he fails, the unreformed institutions will gallop towards greater integration, escalating tensions between Britain and the EU. The stakes could not be higher. I am happy to wait until the conclusion of David Cameron’s negotiations with the EU before deciding how to vote. However, the referendum must not just be fair, it must be seen to be fair. It will lose all legitimacy if it has not been fought on a level playing field.

Even if the Government enacts proper ‘purdah’ rules to stop the pro-European establishment from spending taxpayers’ money to advocate their cause during the campaign, there is still a significant unfairness – the huge imbalance in the amounts which the two sides are able to spend.

A 2000 law places a spending limit on each side, calculated by reference to the number of votes received by each political party supporting either side. Under this perverse Labour legislation, the lead organisations for both the ‘Yes’ campaign and for the ‘No’ campaign will each be entitled to spend £7million.

But on top of that the Conservative Party will be entitled to spend another £7million supporting ‘yes’ and so too will the Labour Party, while the Liberals will be allowed to support the ‘yes’ campaign to the tune of another £4million.

That totals £25million. But the limit for the ‘out’ campaign will be less than half that, only £11million: £7million by the lead body and £4million by Ukip, the only party officially supporting the ‘no’ campaign.

The Electoral Commission

obviously thinks these huge amounts of money might be spent by the ‘yes’ campaign since it has increased the limits from the amounts laid down in the 2000 legislation.

Even if the political parties don’t have that money now they could receive money from companies and EU institutions to enable them to spend up to the limits. There can be no doubt in whose favour the rules are weighted.

To many this will look worse than unfair – it will look like a stitch-up.

Worse still, there seems no accounting for the fact that many parties will be divided internally. There are likely to be many activists, voters and even MPs who disagree with the stance their party takes – but that is not reflected in spending limits.

Of course even if the playing field is levelled in respect to how much each campaign can spend, there will still be one body that finds itself subject to no spending or campaigning restrictions, despite its key role in the campaign.

The ability of the EU to use its budgets to affect the result of the vote, either directly or through intermediaries, is a serious challenge to the referendum process.

It is frankly absurd that while UK institutions, UK politicians and UK campaigners will find themselves the subject to rules about what they can spend, the EU Commission will be subject to precisely no restrictions on its activity.

DESPITE the pressure on public expenditure across member states, research has shown that the EU’s budget for self-promotion has increased significantly over recent years. Given the unique nature of the EU referendum, it is surely sensible to adopt a broader version of purdah which would also apply to EU campaign spending.

A group of cross-party MPs has already proposed an eminently reasonable amendment to the Referendum Bill, to be debated this week, which would put this into effect.

It is also important that the manner in which this decision is taken allows the Conservative Party to come together after the vote to continue providing the economic leadership and reforming zeal which Britain needs. Failing to adopt straightforward protections against an EU campaign would risk not only skewing the result, but also prolonging tensions in the Conservative Party after the referendum.

Mr Cameron has been the first PM in more than 40 years to try to change our relationship with Europe and to give the British people a say on the outcome. For this, he deserves congratulation.

The Government should now ensure spending arrangements for the campaign are right, as it is for the British people, not Brussels, to decide how to vote.

It’s not just unfair – this looks like a stitch-up