Last week, I couldn’t help but feel a deflating sense of deja vu. It began on Monday morning when I turned on the Today programme and heard the head of the In campaign, Sir Stuart Rose, getting tied up in knots about statistics. It ended on Friday evening with reports of the prime minister rushing to Brussels for panic meetings on his renegotiation.

I can’t be the only one who is beginning to think that we have been here before: a business and political elite making a passionless case, trading in the currency of fear and seeking late deals to save the day.

I am sorry to say it but the EU referendum campaign feels like Scotland all over again. The difference is, this time, the stakes are twice as high.

Put simply, Brexit means break-up – not just of Europe, but of the UK too. If a majority in England votes to leave, pressure will build for a second independence referendum to open a path back to the EU for an independent Scotland. But the tremors of Brexit will be felt further afield, boosting the nascent nationalism we see all over Europe. It will pitch us straight into an uncertain and fragmented world.

For today’s generation of pro-UK, pro-Europe politicians, this is the definitive event of our political lives. And yet, in Westminster, there is a curious lack of urgency. With months to go, we are in real danger of repeating many of the mistakes of the 2014 referendum. Nobody is sounding the alarm or doing much about it. This bigger picture is being seen very much through the lens of more parochial battles.

On the Tory side, the main event is the Cameron succession and there is a lot of hedging of bets going on. You get the sense that some senior Tories are holding back from nailing their colours to the mast on Europe until they know how it will play in the leadership race (yes, I’m talking about you, Theresa). It goes without saying that Labour’s focus has been too inward-looking for too long. If politicians on all sides don’t snap out of it quickly, we could be on a trajectory to leave.

I know that I might not be the best-placed person to deliver lectures on what makes a successful campaign right now, but I do have experience of knowing when campaigns are going wrong. And that’s why I am raising the alarm. I want better campaigners than me to take the In campaign by the scruff of its neck, breathe life into it and bring home what is at stake for us all.

A good start would be to put different voices front and centre. There is a fetish in politics of getting business people to the front of campaigns like this. But some might argue that one of the problems of the EU is that it is run more for big companies than it is people. So let’s hear more from younger people studying or working abroad who don’t want to be branded Little Englanders for the rest of their lives; and from people in their 80s and 90s, who saw the rise of nationalism in Europe in the first half of the last century and who can attest personally for the success of the European project in bringing peace and stability.

In short, we need to hear a bit of passion and fight for the pro-European cause. We also need the pro-Europeans in the government to up their game significantly.

I agree with those who say that immigration will be the decisive issue of this campaign. And, so far, Cameron has completely botched the handling of this debate.

Europe has been gripped by the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. But that hasn’t stopped our prime minister stomping around European capitals with his own list of demands. Britain appears blinkered and self-absorbed and, right now, that is not a good look.

Cameron has extended his offer of help to refugees and we applaud him for that. But the distinction he continues to draw, between refugees in the region and those in Europe, is a false one. There are 26,000 unaccompanied refugee children across Europe. Most British people, regardless of their views on the wider immigration debate, would see a moral duty to reach out a hand to them. And, if we supported our neighbours better, I suspect we would get a better hearing on our own renegotiation demands.

But Cameron’s failure on migration goes beyond the refugee crisis. His renegotiation looks messy and his message is muddled. All he has succeeded in communicating to Europe is a sense of opposition to free movement and an obsession with benefits.

I support the need for reform of EU migration. But we need to start making a much clearer and convincing case for it.

It must start with the positives. We can’t say often enough that, overall, EU free movement across Europe is hugely beneficial to our economy and society. We need to remind people that it is a two-way street: every year, millions of Brits take advantage of the ease with which we can live, work and holiday and Europe.

Next, we need to be more forensic about the problems. Politicians have a tendency to talk about EU migration as if it is universally good or universally bad. But neither is true. The simple truth is this: the impact of free movement on rural and former industrial areas is very different from the big cities. They can experience rapid change, as agencies bring in whole shifts to carry out low-paid work. In those places, free movement has held down wages and put pressure on public services. Our failure to talk honestly about that leaves politicians looking out of touch.

So what are the solutions? There are simple and practical things we should be calling for. The areas most affected are often the most deprived parts of the country. But they get no extra help from Westminster or Brussels to deal with the pressure on primary schools or GP surgeries. So we should call for an EU rapid migration fund to support these areas. On wages, agencies shouldn’t be free to undercut plumbers, electricians and plasterers by bringing people in on the minimum wage. So let’s have EU rules that protect the going rate for skilled workers and make sure free movement works for people rather than companies.

The truth is that the ability to abuse free movement rules to undercut wages is a bigger driver for inward migration than benefits. But Cameron has focused all his energy on benefits when he should have been talking about wages, possibly because he is too close to the big businesses that have held wage bills down. However, reform on wages would go much more with the European grain and stand a greater chance of success.

If we were to refocus the referendum in this way, it would be much more positive and effective. The argument that we should go quiet about Europe’s weak points won’t work on the doorstep. It is only by talking honestly about the real effects of free movement – on wages and public services – that we will win back the people at risk of becoming protest voters rebuking an out-of-touch elite.

The only saving grace is that the Out campaign looks in even more disarray. So we have a chance to get our act together. But there can be no delay. Brexit means break-up. If we want to stop it, we must start campaigning now with honesty, purpose – and passion.

Andy Burnham is shadow home secretary