It probably isn’t too much of a stretch to say that for the vast majority of people, “purdah” might as well be a brand of cat food

And yet this arcane device (limiting the activity of government during a campaign period) is currently at the heart of what passes for the debate around the UK’s future relationship with the European Union.

Policy wonks and constitutionalists will maintain that the correct application of purdah is of vital importance to the upcoming national debate, and there is doubtless truth in this.

Those who wish to campaign for Britain’s withdrawal will also stress the importance of limiting the government’s ability to influence the referendum outcome with a flurry of speeches and announcements on EU policy during the official campaign period. This is a valid concern.

Read more: Cameron loses crunch vote over EU referendum as Tory backbenchers rebel

The problem, however, is that such technicalities – including the wording of the question and disputes over the designation of official campaign status – risk becoming a bewildering diversion from the central issue of the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Part of the blame for this festival of distraction must lie with Downing Street, which is refusing “to give a running commentary” on the status of its renegotiations.

Senior figures recognise the frustration caused by this disciplined approach. There are sound reasons why we’re not getting daily updates, but in the absence of at least some reassurance over the substance, it’s the technical details that will dominate media coverage and, by extension, the nature of the fledgling campaign itself.

We risk descending into months of what Westminster watchers call “process stories” – endless battles in the media over phrasing, tactics and strategy. The two campaigns themselves, In and Out (or Remain and Leave, as they should now be called), could fill the void created by Number 10’s reluctance to engage further on the details of reform by leading the charge from their own respective positions.

The problem is, they don’t want to fire their starting guns without a clearer sense of the timetable or without a firmer idea of what the reform package might look like.

If the government keeps saying “see previous statement” when quizzed over its renegotiations, we’ll be deprived of a broader debate, and in its place there will merely be process stories, week in, week out.