22/09/2015
Bill Emmott, former editor of
The Economist, writes in the
Financial Times of the coming EU referendum campaign, saying that "we need clarity from the eurosceptics". This is from a member of a europhile fraternity that seems to specialise in lies and distortions, but one can almost see Emmott's point when he writes:
Listening to a senior Tory eurosceptic talk to a group of Japanese businessmen recently about what would happen on a Brexit, it became evident that at the heart of much eurosceptic thinking there is a huge incoherence, a contradiction or perhaps a source of division that is being papered over. It concerns sovereignty and the single market.
However, the basic mistake is to listen to "a senior Tory eurosceptic", a member of a species so far removed from reality that they cannot possibly represent anything but their own narrow vision.
That a former editor of the
Economist should go to this source to test the waters, though, is typical of the breed. It is a breed that shares the same narrowness of vision, believing that the only debate worth reporting is that in which they partake.
In fact, these self-referential "élites" still haven't got used to the idea that this is a referendum, where the question is not decided by professional politicians and their hangers-on, but by the people. They will make up their own minds independently of what their "masters" want.
To that effect, outside their control â or ken â there is are entirely separate debates going on, some so much better informed than the so-called experts as to occupy a completely different dimension. And it is these debates which will determine the outcome of this referendum, not the chattering
ignorati.
It is with some relief, therefore, that we hear that the Conservatives
have decided to adopt a position of neutrality during the referendum campaign.
This is from the Conservative party board, which has reportedly "unanimously agreed" to follow the recommendation of the Prime Minister that Conservative Party Headquarters and the Party remain neutral. In practical terms, this means that CCHQ and the Party will not seek to be a permitted participant in the referendum.
This, of course, does not prevent individual constituency associations from deciding to campaign, or exclude any individual party member. But it does help to reinforce the fact that the decision belongs to the people â not the politicians or the political parties.
Illustrating why we will be better off, we see the
ignorati at work in
Conservative Home. In offering its own dose of drivel, it has Chris Heaton Harris (former MEP and now Tory MP) telling us of his "best guess" that the referendum will be on 15 September 2016.
This "brilliant" analysis, one finds, neglects entirely the evident lack of enthusiasm the "colleagues" have shown for Mr Cameron's renegotiations, and the minor detail that they focused increasingly on negotiating their own new treaty.
Further confirmation of this comes from
Euractiv, which is picking up on the same intelligence we recorded
yesterday, with the Commision starting to lay the groundwork for the next stage of eurozone integration, claiming there is "political appetite" in European capitals to start discussing reforms, following the French and German elections in 2017.
For Mr Cameron to go to the country in September 2016 would, for us, be ideal. It would mean confronting the Prime Minister with empty hands, with nothing to offer. In that contest, we would surely win â something he will not willingly allow.
Had the likes of Heaton Harris and Bill Emmott widened their reading, taking in the likes of
Lost Leonardo and the increasing range of quality bloggers, such as
White Wednesday and
The Boiling Frog, they might actually appreciate this, and stop making fools of themselves.
But such people do not venture out of their tiny circles. They confine themselves to their "prestigious" sources, those which meet with their approval, communing with the equally myopic legacy media - only to get things consistently wrong.
As
Pete writes, that supporting the EU want us to be subordinated to an entity whose main concern is the survival of the Euro currency along with whatever else that entails.
We are being asked to gamble our future on an undefined vision of the EU - on the word of a man who has failed to accomplish any meaningful reform. At the very least it means more of the same but with fewer rights than before and our prime minister is just a passenger in the process.
That's why the silly prattle from our "élites" is so wearing and futile. And that's also why we need to have our own campaign. If we are to make our own decisions, we must deal with the fact, not their hand-me-down opinions.
