F For Fail

I despair of the British legacy media. Rather than inform themselves about the EU renegotiation by reading sources who understand how the EU works and how David Cameron’s EU “renegotiation” is likely to play out, these self-important parasites read only one another and publish articles that add to the confusion that they create in the first place.

Occassionally, one of the flock will emit something half-way sensible—law of averages, I guess. Borrowing the collective brain-cell this weekend is CapX editor, Iain Martin, who regails us with the above, to which my response is: Yes, go on, and…?

In an effort to encourage the slow kid to arrive at an answer of his own accord, here are a few questions for Iain Martin and his ilk:

  1. Do you think that David Cameron will campaign for Britain to leave the EU under any circumstances?
  2. Do you think that David Cameron intends to win the EU referendum when he campaigns for the “remains”?
  3. Would a “four year migrant benefit ban” be sufficient to convince a majority of the British electorate to support continuing EU membership for Britain and win the referendum for David Cameron and the “remains”?
  4. Did David Cameron’s letter to European Council President, Donald Tusk, set out more proposals than just a “four year migrant benefit ban”?
  5. Do you think there could be more to the “renegotiation” ploy than just a “four year migrant benefit ban”? Didn’t it say as much in the letter that you and your colleagues dismissed as “trivial” only last week? Well, what do you think?

If British journalists had half a brain they’d be dangerous.

2 thoughts on “F For Fail

  1. I think you can ask: do you want a future of an endless succession of arguments with the EU over how we spend our own tax money, or would you prefer a new arrangement that makes such arguments much less likely.

    If you prefer the second, the issue of benefits is the *least* important of Cameron’s positions. Get the other three, and we can start to run our own affairs once more.


    • I agree that the benefits issue is the least significant of Cameron’s proposals. The media making that the central issue betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about what the other proposals would mean in practice.

      However, I do not agree that getting the other three would mean a return to running our own affairs. Britain’s courts and therefore the British parliament would still be subject to the rulings of the ECJ. Britain would still have no option but to accept the compromise position of the EU28 in international trade talks with third-countries and in the intergovernmental forums where technical regulations are agreed.

      Running our own affairs would mean leaving the EU and forging a new relationship along the lines of that of Norway and Iceland as part of the EFTA/EEA. Co-operation not subordination.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s