Playing Catch-Up

This recently published Guardian article describes how “Britain could retain access to the European single market and considerably more national sovereignty if it joins the European Free Trade Association (Efta)”. That is, according to the President of the EFTA Court.

The article notes that EFTA/EEA member countries participate in “decision-shaping” procedures, which have a considerable influence on EU rules at an early stage in the legislative process. The article also alights upon the fact that the EFTA Court is a separate entity to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and that, unlike the ECJ, the EFTA Court is not superior to national courts.

There is more.

However, the focus of this post is not the fact that several years after published Flexcit, and still more years after The Bruges Group published a pamphlet about The Norway Option, elements of the legacy news-media are beginning to reflect on the realities of EFTA and the EEA agreement.

The mistakes and omissions in the Guardian piece are arguably even more important.

Here I would remind readers that the Guardian is a commercial product, which attracts an audience, and thereby advertisers, at least partly on the basis of a brand that makes allusions to accuracy and open-mindedness. This is not the Sun or the Express or the Mirror. The Guardian is not a “comic”. The Guardian is a “broadsheet”; a so-called “quality newspaper”.

The article’s fourth paragraph reads as follows:

Efta currently consists of Norway, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland. Together with the EU member states they form a trading zone called the European Economic Area.

Obviously this is incorrect. The European Economic Area (EEA) agreement does not include Switzerland and terms like “trading zone” are best avoided in this context, if only because they do not really mean anything.

You know that, I know that, why then does the “Diplomatic Editor” of a national daily newspaper not know that?

Errors of this kind are regrettable at the best of times. But, for a senior journalist to be struggling with basic definitions nearly 18 months after the Tories won a general election on the back of a promise to hold an “In/Out” referendum—and six months after an historic vote for Britain to leave the European Union—is unforgivable.

This is not a small matter. People who know this subject do not make these kinds of mistakes. Understanding the differences between the EU, the EEA and EFTA is foundational.

There are complex issues to be resolved as part of leaving the EU. There is no time to waste hand-holding lazy hacks who have not put in the work. It is time to jettison the dead weight.

This was our referendum and our Brexit. We need to make the effort to inform ourselves and map a route to an acceptable destination. The current crop of politicians and the legacy press do not have what it takes.

2 thoughts on “Playing Catch-Up

  1. Sometimes I wonder if there had been a better, happier path we could have taken for all concerned. One where we stayed in the EFTA and not joined the EU. The EU stayed as a smaller but more equal group of nations and formed their federation, the former soviet controlled nations joined Britain and the others in a free trade business oriented commonwealth that enjoyed an excellent relationship with the EU.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I wonder about that, but with the state the country was in with poor economic performance in the 60s and over-mighty unions and high inflation in the 70s, there was a lack of confidence in the UK. Generally countries in continental Europe were doing well and there seemed to be a hope that the problems, which UK politicians appeared to have no belief in their own abilities to fix, would be dealt with by some poorly defined process of diffusion.

    My guess is that if Heath hadn’t manoeuvred us into the EEC, then it would have happened later. Don’t forget that at one time the Divine Margaret was enthusiastic about what became the EU. Also the Conservative party top brass had been keen on The Project since the late fifties.

    I don’t see too much point wondering about what might have been and the alternative path of history we would have followed. History is full of things like this. Had the US Navy Ordnance department tested their torpedoes properly and later, had they listened to submarine commanders who found the magnetic influence fuses didn’t work, as well as other problems, then they wouldn’t have wasted two years and many lives mucking about with duff torpedoes. In view of the incredible success of the US submarine corps once they had reliable torpedoes, the war could well have been shortened.

    You can argue that in the case lessons about procuring reliable ammunition are to be learned from the US torpedo fiasco and it’s a useful thing for those involved in procurement generally to bear in mind.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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