By participating in the EU, the UK has a voice in the affairs of its closest neighbours and, with them, those of the world. Yes, outside the EU, the UK (or maybe England alone) may decide its own laws. But it will lose that voice. The option of leaving the union while seeking to enjoy the present access to markets, even if it were feasible, would be the worst of both worlds: EU rules without a voice in the EU. A clean exit would be better.At this stage in the campaign, there are two possibilities when we see various assertions. It;s either wilful distortion or ignorance. The former being tactical. Wolf uses the words "even if it were feasible" in relation to an EEA Brexit settlement. Unless Norway is a figment of my imagination, it is most feasible indeed.
We'll skip over "worst of both worlds" nonsense because it's the tiresome "fax democracy" meme in different garb, and examine the assertion that "A clean break would be better". He says:
In a campaign in which the Leave side is incapable of agreeing on alternatives, while the Remain side need only point to a workable status quo, the latter should win.
Except the one thing the eurosceptic aristocracy are agreed on, along with the braindead Leave.EU, is that it should be a "clean break". The notion that we should have a staged exit seeking to minimise the risks (with the compromises this entails) is absolute anathema to them. It has been attacked from all sides, failing to understand that the so-called "clean break" option is anything but clean. It's the opposite. It's boneheaded. Redwood, Bannerman and Lea are simply not on this planet.
So we have to wonder if this is the usual ignorance that the FT labours under, or whether this is a tactical nudge for leavers to officially embrace The Suicide Solution? Being that the case, they need not bother, because Vote Leave advocate this exact option and as we see from the retweets below, Arron Banks is sending a clear message that Brexit kamikaze floats his boat too.
But I doubt the FT is actually that sophisticated. What it smells like is the usual ignorance of the complexity and depth of the Brexit issue, along with a singular unwillingness to explore it. It seems the reluctance to examine the details or consult any expertise is not confined to the eurosceptic mob.
This perhaps explains the media's insistence that the Leave side should have a leader. They would rather reduce it to a presidential style battle of personalities rather than fully explore the issues. That is not surprising since they have so little aptitude for it. It's certainly safe to say that the FT is wasting our time.