Sunday, February 21, 2016

The worst of both worlds 6: jumping the gun

Continues my occasional series of posts about the worst arguments and comments on both sides of the EU referendum campaign.

Regardless of what you think of the agreement which the Prime Minister secured on Friday after more than 30 hours of intense talks - and I'm one of those who thinks DC got about as much towards reform as we could possibly expect at this time, and that it was a great deal more than nothing, but nobody is suggesting it solved all the problems with the EU - it was pretty damn silly for people on both sides to demonstrate that they weren't paying any real attention by releasing their headlines or statements before the deal had even been done.

I have a lot of time for many of the people in "Conservatives for Reform in Europe" but someone in the organisation discredited what might otherwise have turned out to be a good argument when a letter praising Friday's deal was leaked before the deal had actually been agreed. And thereby creating the justified impression that the signatories would have been willing to praise the deal whatever it said.

Red faces all round on the "Remain" side.

But was the treatment of the agreement by "Leave" supporting newspapers any better?

It was transparently obvious that several newspapers such as the Express and the Mail were condemning a deal which they could not possibly have had time to analyse as it had not been agreed when the articles to which their headlines referred would have had to have been written. Basically the pro-Brexit newspapers - including the ones which enjoyed pointing out the "Conservatives for Reform in Europe" mistake - had done exactly the same thing the other way round.

Perhaps those responsible for both might have been better employed answering questions such as these which "Open Europe" posed for both sides:


Jim said...

Preferred relationship for UK with EU post Brexit?
which part, Brexit is a process not an event, but immediately after then its EFTA/EEA (same as Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein)

Would leaving boost trade opportunities?
Well not in itself, but nor would it hinder them as we would be keeping our access to the single market, what it would do, however, is allow the UK to negotiate its own future trade deals, something we cant do from within the political EU

Position on immigration
The problems are not really caused by Freedom of Movement within the EEA, so that's a red herring, its all about the push and pull factors from other countries, this is dealt with in stage 2 of Flexcit, for stage one we are happy to concede freedom of movement as single market access is more important.

Mechanism to leave
Hands power to who, what do you mean, whats the question?

Incorrect figures on budget savings
We never really quoted any within Flexcit, in fact we clearly state we are happy with an economically neural exit. Brexit is not a question of economics (as we are looking to keep single market access) Brexit is a political question, the question being "who should govern the UK"

UK has 12% of votes Not 8%
Well whoopie doo. sounds like a UKIP earthquake to me.

Seat back at top tables, see Flexcit

Stuck in unreformed EU
Yes, that is a real danger for the remain side, still waiting for their Plan showing what would happen should we remain.

last 2
Not really questions, primacy of UK law works with free trade, of course it does, though most regulations these days are set globally so we would use those, just like everyone else does.

Jim said...

But that is just it, Isn't it. If a reader of this blog can answer them off the cuff instantly like that, then what the heck are the campaigns playing at?

same thing goes for the remain side of course, but come on guys Up the game a little will you, please.

Chris Whiteside said...

I think that says it all about both campaigns