Yes, you, Philip Stephens Chief Political Commentator of the Financial Times.
An article, albeit a few days old, about Brexit from this font of wisdom begins: What do you mean by “out”? and continues: Would Britain stay in the single market or cut loose entirely? The question goes unanswered. The Vote Leave campaign has turned this silence into an article of faith. A sceptic, in the true senseof the word, might think they had something to hide. As it happens, the government too has not properly considered what would happen if a disgruntled electorate backed Brexit. It then states: A post-EU deal along the lines of that secured by the Norwegians, Icelanders or Swiss would leave the primacy of EU law intact while robbing Britain of any voice. At the other end of the spectrum, complete disentanglement would deprive Britain of preferential trade access to scores of third countries and remove all protection for the City of London.
We all know that Vote Leave (and Leave EU) haven’t the slightest idea about that on which they campaign; and that the Government hasn’t thought about losing the referendum, being as it will no doubt be ‘rigged’ in some way to achieve a ‘remain’ result. The article then repeats the old canard about Norway, for example, having no voice within the EU.
I have no intention of repeating the rebuttal of his assertions about Norway – they have been covered by me and a host of others – and as for Vote Leave and Leave EU, they are doing more harm than good to the exit cause; that last point again having been covered by those same others.
There is an ‘exit plan‘ which does in fact answer the question Stephens poses – perhaps the Government and Philip Stephens should go read it; the latter especially, before writing the ‘verbal excrement’ that he has.
It is apprciated that your average political ‘hack’ will write an article repeating the words that have been spouted by a politician and do so without query – but a political commentator? Surely one of those would put in the research to ensure that his/her article was factual and thus correct; and as a result, demanding respect for his/her efforts.*
*Afterthought: but then we can all dream, can’t we……….