03/03/2016
Whatever else, this
second document only
partially analysed by us, is not a "dodgy dossier". For it thus
to be described by Iain Duncan Smith, even before he had seen it, is not an adult response. Nor is
Andrew Lilico's response at all helpful, when confronted with the challenge of producing our own detailed plan for Britain outside the EU.
Lilico's reply to the demand that we spell out what trading arrangements Britain would have â a Norway option, a Swiss option, a Turkey option, a Canada option, a WTO option, or something else (as explored in a government white paper out today) was expressed in one word: "balderdash" â although he originally chose "poppycock".
Elsewhere, we are
still seeing pundits declare that Britain could rely on negotiating a free trade agreement, totally oblivious to the substantive arguments that there is not time, within the two-year framework of the Article 50 negotiations, to conclude a satisfactory agreement.
Far from responding to the challenges posed by Brexit, therefore, it seems the leave camp is in denial. High profile figures are unable even to recognise the need for a coherent exit plan, and are a million miles from producing one.
This is despite the opportunity afforded by the Government's case. Based on a few rational observations, and rightly pointing out the limitations of some of the options, it is nevertheless thoroughly dishonest. More to the point, it is so slender that the arguments can easily be broken.
The leave camp, however, seems determined to pursue a suicidal path, bordering on the
incomprehensible, while Vote Leave still seems to be
failing to rise to the challenge of proving that it is really intent on leaving the EU.
Yet, despite that, we feel that some progress
has been made. Even if the noise makers in the leave camp are unwilling or unable to set out their case, the Government has revealed its own. It has presented us with an easy target and, through The Leave Alliance and our bloggers' army, we are well capable of scoring many a bullseye.
Over the next few days, therefore, I will continue my analysis of the latest paper, as indeed other bloggers
are doing, while
Ben Kelly makes the case in the
Telegraph.
That, I believe, is the appropriate response â cool, clinical demolition of the Government's flimsy case â not public schoolboy epithets which neither address the issues nor present the alternatives which are so very necessary.
As it stands, therefore, the Government has started the debate. We could have been ahead of the game, but we are not. But, while the noise makers do just that, we can at least respond, and let a grown-up debate ensue.
Defeating the enemy now looks easier than we might have imagined. Our own side, though, is an altogether different matter.
