EU Referendum: The Cameron Ploy

 

We have noted before the advantages the leavers have over the 1975 referendum campaign. One of course is the internet, another is the Electoral Commission, which has gone some way to ensure that the ballot paper and the question will be relatively neutral which is in contrast to 1975. 

Crucially another advantage we have is a weak opposition general in the form of Cameron. It's clear he did not want a referendum nor does he want to leave the EU. That he has offered a referendum against his wishes was more a reflection of his political weakness at the time not his view that he thinks he's confident that he can win it.

We know this because he has made a serious of political mistakes. His referendum offer was made due to pressure from backbenchers in the belief that such a promise would win help him the 2015 election - and it was an offer made regardless of what concessions Cameron thought he could agree from Brussels. It is very likely he chose 2017 as the UK takes over the Presidency of the Council of the EU rather than any other consideration.

Cameron's fundamentally weak position is exposed by his change of strategy three times since promising a referendum, changes made necessary by the EU not wishing to bend over backwards to accommodate UK demands:

Initially Cameron attempted to hijack a new EU treaty - Fundamental Law - a treaty which was, and still is, necessary to try to resolve the Eurozone crisis. Confident in 2013 that a new treaty was imminently forthcoming, and all the indications at the time suggested it was, Cameron attempted to hijack it with the threat of a UK veto unless demands for reform and repatriation of powers were met. His Bloomberg speech in 2013 made this clear. In response the EU 'parked' the treaty temporarily to nullify the threat.

Rebuffed by the EU on this Cameron had to change tack and attempted to try somewhat limited reform via Article 48. Here he narrowed down "reform" to cover one subject, and one subject only – immigration. The idea being that against all the odds Cameron could pull off a quick treaty and come home in triumph, waving a piece of paper while at the same time shooting UKIP's immigrant fox.

Yet realistically all he could achieve would be minor treaty changes, he knew though that upon bringing his "deal" back from Brussels, we would be waiting to dissect it and tell everyone that it doesn't match his "promise".  Thus the need to remove the purdah period which would give Cameron the opportunity to spring the so-called "deal" on us at the last minute, leaving us little time to scrutinise it.

It's interesting therefore to note the eagerness in recent days with which Cameron has conceded the Electoral Commission's advice on the question and particularly on purdah. This suggests strongly that any kind of Article 48 renegotiation, or indeed any other, before a referendum is no longer a central part of Mr Cameron's strategy. The outcome has become irrelevant:

David Cameron is backing down on his refusal to impose a period of “purdah” in the runup to the EU referendum in a concession to his Eurosceptic backbenchers. It is understood the changes will impose purdah with a few exceptions to allow ministers to carry on with essential business.

This then leaves only Associate Membership, via a new Treaty, which amounts to nothing more than a re-branding of what we already have. Here we have clear indication from Cameron that it will be sold to us as a "looser" relationship:

"I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it"

A "looser relationship" that would mean a two tier arrangement as noted by the Times without the term Associate Membership being used:

[David] Owen [author of Europe Restructured] argues — surely correctly — that David Cameron’s idea of removing ourselves from a commitment to “ever closer union” should be a much more ambitious proposal. The prime minister should argue for a community restructured into two parts: the eurozone and the single market. Or to put it another way, the Union and the Community.

The eurozone — the Union — would acquire, in addition to the powers the EU already has, much greater fiscal control. And it would gradually develop the democratic institutions necessary to exercise that control with consent.

Owen’s idea of a Community would bring together EU members outside the eurozone, including the UK, with countries such as Norway, Iceland and, he argues, Turkey, in a looser free trade area clearly based on independent nation states.

The ground is being laid therefore for Cameron to pass off Associate Membership as his own idea despite that it's been part of a draft EU Treaty since October 2013. And within in this looser relationship - which would seek to bring in Norway, Iceland and Switzerland thus abolishing EFTA and the EEA - the UK will be seen as a leader in the outer ring, while the inner ring, or inner core, form the eurozone.

In reality this new arrangement will be the B-road rather than the Autobahn to "ever closer union". Yet despite that the journey maybe slower the destination is still the same. And it will be a reality Cameron seeks to hide behind curtains, rather like the Wizard of Oz, pictured above. It may seek to be impressive but Cameron has an extremely weak hand. Pull back the curtains and we're left seeing clearly a little man pretending.

All we need to do is pull back the curtains.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum 

Greece And The Euro: A Matter Of Politics Not Economics

"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe"
(Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank) 

"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community: the decision is of an essentially political nature"

(Felipe Gonzalez, a Spanish former PM, 1998)

"Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises."  

(EU founding father Jean Monnet)

As the eurozone goes through one of its periodic 'difficulties' there's much fuss being made about a possible Greek exit, or Grexit. Today "Greece faces a critical 24 hours as European leaders hold an emergency summit in Brussels that could break the deadlock around the country's debt crisis".

We have of course been here many times before and naturally such speculation results in a media plethora of economic analysis, graphs and statistics and goodness what else.

There's often incredulous analysis on why Greece hasn't yet left Euro and go it alone and why it should; the economic case is one which is largely obvious.

Yet to make such an economic case is to miss the point entirely. What is so often overlooked is that the euro, and indeed the EU, is a political project not an economic one. And as the quotes above make clear the EU, and its member states, make no secret of this. But despite proclaiming its political intentions so publicly it is a damming indictment that we can no longer rely on the UK media to even acknowledge this simple fact, which perhaps reflects the prevailing UK view in general.

But it's in this political context we must see the Greek crisis. The euro has always been a political project to achieve its "ever closer union" as per the opening sentences in the Treaty of Rome 1957. "Ever closer union" is the utter founding principles of the EU; they meant it then, they mean it now.

To achieve full political union requires salami tactics or the Monnet method. Normally with a currency union we should start off with political union first and then economics. However due to the difficulties of achieving the political union part first the EU quite deliberately put the cart before the horse. By doing so they ensured the euro was a flawed project from the outset.

By making it flawed meant it was inevitable that it would encounter a series of crisis. Each crisis needs a solution and that solution, if we may call it that, invariably would be a call for 'more europe'. More Europe, more power, more integration. Thus step by step a series of euro problems allows the march towards further integration to continue unabated.

What could not be achieved explicitly by the front door would be achieved less obviously via the back door on the back of an economic Trojan horse - of ultimately economic misery. The euro is the extension of engrenage or 'the Monnet method' writ large:

The Schuman Declaration was presented by Schuman on 9 May 1950 (9 May was later to become Europe Day). Monnet and Schuman believed that it was through economic integration that political integration would eventually be achieved, via a process called spillover. Monnet and Schuman were thus the first functionalist theorists of Europe. Indeed, this process of integration is often termed the 'Monnet method'.

Yet much of this obvious point seems so beyond our own media who seem to be willing the Greece to exit to reinforce their misplaced, wrong and self-important analysis that the EU is all about economics rather than deal with the real issues as they are.

Thus despite all the brinkmanship and threats of Grexit, ultimately someone will put up some money, more than likely Germany, to paper over the cracks and the eurozone crisis will be left on hold until a new treaty comes along. Bailouts are de facto fiscal transfers - essential for an economic union to succeed. All that is needed is to make them official via a new treaty.

It's with some irony that the UK is aggravating the Greek crisis by having a referendum in 2017. By doing so it is holding up the new treaty to try to resolve the euro crisis; the Fundamental Law of the European Union which now has to wait until the "English question" is settled.

Despite the dreadful economic statistics Greece will stay in, politics and EU integration ambitions ensures that it must.

"Third World Europe Finished"

The Sunday Telegraph reports that Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone "has become the latest high-profile business leader to write off the stagnating economy in Europe":

“Slowly but surely what I predicted about Europe is happening. What I said 10 years ago is that it would soon become a third world economy."

We don't of course dispute the thrust of Ecclestone's views. In charge of a global 'circus' which takes in five continents, nineteen countries and draws in a global television audience measured in the hundreds of millions", he is well placed to understand the stagnation of "little Europe" in contrast to the economic realities of globalisation.

And this matters to the UK because, despite F1 being a global business, its home is in the UK, notably in an area known as "Motorsport Valley" - its contribution to the UK economy not insignificant:

Now almost 3,500 companies associated with motorsport are based in Motorsport Valley, employing around 40,000 people. That represents around 80% of the world's high-performance engineers.

The industry continues to grow, with companies in Motorsport Valley producing an estimated turnover of £6bn, of which £3.6bn is exported. 

But this endorsement from 'Bernie' comes with a caveat. Ecclestone's business deals are...erm... somewhat less than candid. He once donated £1 million to the Labour party in an attempt to exempt F1 from tobacco advertising. Having achieved that exemption he then got his money back, leading to this infamous quote by Tony Blair:

"I think most people who have dealt with me, think I'm a pretty straight sort of guy and I am." .

Then we have Ecclestone paying off German judges with £60 million to end a very damaging bribery trial which would end his tenure in F1. A tenure that has left a sport in crisis with two F1 teams now in administration, and 'Bernie' admitting he doesn't know how to fix the crisis.

Views from a man who in charge of a multi-billion pound industry is out of touch with the need to adopt a social media outlook. Ironic really in a ruthless sport where technology is king, that same technology which is passing the old man by.

In this sense Ecclestone's views on Europe and its problems are not helpful. Rather like Richard Branson who claims exit for the UK would be disastrous, we have two less than candid business leaders with reputations tarnished slogging it out over the economic case for EU membership - with no altruistic intentions intended. Thus with Ecclestone's intervention for the outers it's a case of; "with friends like this..."

As Richard North notes the EU is a political project not an economic one:

...while Osborne is pretending we joined the EU "economic proposition" when, quite obviously, we joined a political project.

Everybody is pretending here that their particular corner of the EU is something it isn't, and then to cap it all, Osborne joins with his boss in lusting after something neither of them can have – a reformed EU. One of these days, these people are going to grow up, face reality and talk about the EU as it really is, rather than they would like it to be – or think it should be. Then, perhaps we might just start making some progress. But, as always, it would be unwise to hold our breath.

In this sense the message therefore to the likes of Ecclestone and Branson is mind your own business.

Scotland And The EU

Today, in what appears to have been a low key affair, the Scottish first minister Alex Salmond launched his government's independence blueprint, calling it a "mission statement" for the future. Yet on first reading not a great deal has changed in the Nationalist's flawed case. The same problems remain as I noted here - there's still no coherent case on the issue of currency for example:

Alex Salmond has been pilloried after unveiling a blueprint for Scottish independence that assumes the English would continue to share the UK’s ‘crown jewels’ including the pound and BBC programmes.

Today's announcement appears to have been nothing more than a rebranding exercise. Certainly on the vexed issue of whether Scotland would remain members of the EU and if they would still retain the UK opt-outs on the Euro are still in doubt. The Referendum White Paper argues:

If we vote for independence, the eyes of the world will be on Scotland as our ancient nation emerges – again – as an independent country. Scotland will become the 29th member of the European Union...

Of course, as we are well aware, it cannot be both an independent nation and a member of the EU. Those two positions are completely incompatible. But crucially what the paper doesn't address convincingly is how Scotland will remain members of the EU on the same terms as it has now.

In Scotland's favour there is a kind of precedent that echoes their potential position and that is the one of Greenland. Greenland as part of Denmark joined the then EEC in 1973, despite 70% of the Greenlandic votes having been against membership in that referendum. However when Greenland gained home rule in 1979 it still remained a full member of the EEC. It wasn’t until it had a separate referendum on leaving in 1981 that it decided to leave. Even then it still has a special relationship with the EU as part of its overseas countries and territories.

Yet the EEC has moved on and we are now post Lisbon, so there is now no real precedent for how the EU should deal with a region of a member state seceding from the European Union, a situation the white paper itself acknowledges:

Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union provides the legal basis, and defines the procedure, for a conventional enlargement where the candidate country is seeking membership from outside the EU.

As Scotland joined the EU in 1973 this is not the starting position from which the Scottish Government will be pursuing independent EU membership. Article 49 does not appear to be the appropriate legal base on which to facilitate Scotland’s transition to full EU membership.

This though is at odds with earlier comments made by EU Commission President Barosso who is of the opinion that Scotland would have to reapply for membership:

A letter from Mr Barosso to the House of Lords economic committee, which is examining the independence question, also confirmed his position that a new independent state would "become a third country with respect to the EU".

"What I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."

Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: "Yes.".

Ploughing on regardless convinced Article 49 does not apply, the white paper argues that there would be a "continuty of effect":

We recognise that specific provisions will need to be included in the EU Treaties as part of the amendment process to ensure the principle of continuity of effect with respect to the terms and conditions of Scotland’s independent EU membership, including detailed considerations around current opt-outs, in particular the rebate, Eurozone, Justice and Home Affairs and the Schengen travel area.

So apparently all an independent Scotland has to do is pursue membership of the European Union by seeking an amendment to the EU treaties rather than applying as a new member:

The alternative to an Article 49 procedure, and a legal basis that the Scottish Government considers is appropriate to the prospective circumstances, is that Scotland’s transition to full membership is secured under the general provisions of Article 48.

Article 48 provides for a Treaty amendment to be agreed by common accord on the part of the representatives of the governments of the member states.

Article 48 is therefore a suitable legal route to facilitate the transition process, by allowing the EU Treaties to be amended through ordinary revision procedure before Scotland becomes independent, to enable it to become a member state at the point of independence.

The problem is that Salmond with his assertions of "seeking an amendments to the EU treaties" via article 48 is now entering 'David Cameron territory' with his similar claims of trying to achieve the goal of repatriating powers. Article 48 is here - it only allows the EU treaty to be amended by unanimous consent.

This then becomes a paper which assumes the UK and the EU will agree with whatever Salmond demands. Unanimous consent which requires agreement of the UK - that Scotland has voted to leave - and countries like Spain, Belgium and Italy who have their own separatist problems and would be determined not to encourage further such sentiments. One suspects therefore Salmond's chances are going to be close to zero.

It illustrates yet again the problems of an ill-prepared independence case. It's difficult to see as a consequence any other option than Scotland voting to remain members next year particularly factoring in the status quo effect. But the lessons, which are so relevant to an EU referendum, are still not being learnt south of the border.

Thus sadly those who campaign to leave the EU are currently doomed to failure.

Update: Captain Ranty is not too impressed either, expressed in his own inimitable way.

Article 50: No Sudden Movements

No country is an island (with apologies to John Donne). 

Geographically the UK is very obviously an island with all the benefits that brings, although not quite as comprehensively as is often imagined. However in many other senses such as economically, militarily and politically the UK is anything but.

The UK occupies a remarkably unique position in global affairs. It is the only state which is a member of the G8, G20, the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. In addition the UK is a nuclear power and, despite current difficulties, has one of the largest economies in the world. We may no longer be an imperial power, but "punching above our weight" sometimes seems to be an understatement.

Thus it is clear that a country the size and importance of the UK leaving the EU is going to have very significant political and economic ramifications which will reverberate around the world. Greenland leaving the then EEC in 1985 is one thing, the UK leaving the EU now is an entirely different matter altogether. Just the effects on the EU alone would be profound, not least in reversing partly the political momentum for ever closer union and thus showing a different path for other member states. Other countries such as Ireland and Denmark may follow us out. We would be creating a precedent.

So while some arguments ensure over legal details such as whether "the Commission can do what they like in the two year process under Article 50" - it can't as I noted here, here and here - there are significant consequences that transcend the dry legalities of leaving.

One thing stock markets dislike intensely is uncertainty which is why market sensitive data is often released over a weekend when they are closed; thus any unilateral exit by the UK especially with no plan and no warning would clearly send the FTSE, the Dow Jones, the Nikkei et al smashing through the floor on a plummet trajectory.  Tearing up international agreements on an ad hoc basis is likely to lead to stock market crashes and history tells us where stock markets crashes end up.

We've had plenty of evidence on the sensitivities of the market during the Eurozone crisis, for example when, to the complete surprise of virtually everybody, including his own parliamentarians, Greek prime minister George Papandreou called a referendum to approve a EU bailout deal in November 2011:

Global stock markets dropped sharply as investors sold off shares after Greece's shock decision to hold a referendum on its eurozone bail-out package thratened to intensify the region's debt crisis.

London's FTSE 100 index of leading shares dropped more that 2pc, with markets in Germany falling, France, Spain and Italy sliding between 2.7pc and 4pc.

And not just the stock markets, the bond markets have also played an important part of the eurozone crisis. More so as bond markets generally have large power over countries again typified by the fate of Eurozone countries such as Spain, Italy and Portugal.

So we come to Chancellor George Osborne whose entire strategy is effectively betting on being able to borrow on the bond markets at rock bottom rates. Osborne’s recovery plan is based on the hope that rates will stay pinned to the floor, and given that we're borrowing £3,000 a second he (and we) can’t afford for borrowing costs to overshoot, which they most certainty will do in the event of uncertainty regarding sudden exit from the EU. Escalating borrowing rates as a result are very likely to make Greece's situation look like a picnic in comparison..

And not just the bond market, there's also the sterling and the forex market, any movement on EU membership by the UK will have dramatic impact on the value of GBP, with economic consequences for us all.

So to leave without an orderly exit in place, in times of a fragile world economy, will have adverse economic consequences also for other countries to the ultimate and obvious detriment of our own. Any immediate destabilisation of EU membership by any member state would impact on the Eurozone undoubtedly dramatically ensuring it enters yet another crisis furthering affecting the UK economy.

Thus we have an international duty, in our own self interest if nothing else, to make sure our exit has to be as smooth and as structured as possible, and that can only be achieved by showing the international community we honour international agreements and are willing to follow due process. Undoubtedly an extensive period of foreshadowing our intentions beforehand is likely to be necessary to allow politicians across the world, the economy and the markets to price the change in.

Purely taking an English stance by seeking comfort in quotes from the Magna Carta and other Constitutional Acts which apparently bind their Parliamentary successors and hoping for the best without consideration of the UK's position in the world simply will not wash...

"If You Fail To Plan Then You Plan To Fail"

Passing by without too much of a murmur south of the border is the Scottish independence referendum due to be held in September of next year. The relatively lack of comment is in direct contrast to the significant implications for the rest of the UK should the Scots wish to go it alone, not least on the thorny issue of the EU; would a breakup of the UK make our EU membership null and void? I've not heard a convincing answer on that one yet.

That aside, the referendum campaign has thrown up some interesting parallels to a potential EU referendum post 2015 and some lessons we can learn from. It should be noted first that there are one or two differences; with the except of a couple of forays by Cameron north of the border the Westminster establishment has largely refrained from interference. In addition polls consistently show Scottish voters supporting staying in the union, rather than exiting. Factor in the "don't knows" and the inherent "status quo effect" of around 15%, then it's clear the SNP and Alex Salmond has a very difficult, if not impossible, task. One suspects that Salmond has been forced to call a referendum earlier than he might have wished due to his success of winning a majority in 2011, leaving him little political choice.

Yet the useful parallels are imbued in a campaign that wishes to seek exit from a union it is a member of, a break from the status quo against the wishes of the establishment. Thus using the Scottish referendum as a dry run in anticipation of an EU one, it is immediately clear the effect major errors have on success or otherwise. Throughout it's becoming increasingly apparent that the SNP has no coherent exit plan in place which is compounding their already poor position - their case has been unraveling.

The referendum may have come earlier than Salmond hoped, but he seems remarkably unprepared given that the SNP is a party that has been in existence since 1934, and Salmond has been its leader since 1990 (albeit with a 7 year hiatus between 2000 and 2007).

Perhaps the lack of detail was the reason that Salmond preferred initially to concentrate on a sense of Scottish national identity and patriotism culminating, just before last year's Olympics, in the rather ridiculous phrase Scolympians:

In a bizarre intervention, the First Minister has devised a new group name for the Scottish athletes at the games that studiously avoids any British connotations.

Mr Salmond issued a good luck message urging everyone to cheer on the “Scolympians”, an inelegant combination of the words “Scottish” and “Olympians”.

Earlier this week, he issued a press release congratulating Sir Chris Hoy as being chosen as the Olympic flag-bearer for Team GB without mentioning the team’s name. 

But the scrutiny won't go away nor can it be papered over by vacuous appeals to national identity and scrutiny is what is now happening. For years the SNP has suggested that they received legal advice that an independent Scotland could remain in the EU and as a consequence inherit the UK's opt outs such as the Euro. Salmond went as far as to confirm it categorically (10:30 mins in):

The BBC’s Andrew Neil asked the First Minister on March 4 if he had sought legal advice. Mr Salmond replied: “We have, yes.

But it turns out that was never the case, as the Scottish Sun waded in with the headline "EU Liar":

THE SNP were forced into a humiliating climbdown yesterday after finally admitting the government had never taken legal advice on Scotland’s entry to the EU after independence.

The party’s referendum chief Nicola Sturgeon announced they were dropping a bid to block demands for them to reveal law experts’ guidance.

The Nats’ challenge has already cost taxpayers £12,000 as they battled to keep the details secret.

For a country to split while still being members of the EU would be uncharted territory legally, however many including the EU Commission, are of the opinion that Scotland would have to reapply for membership:

A letter from Mr Barosso to the House of Lords economic committee, which is examining the independence question, also confirmed his position that a new independent state would "become a third country with respect to the EU". 

"What I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."

Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: "Yes.".

Which then throws up the question of what happens to Scottish exports to the Eurozone while renegotiation was happening, given that they would have no right of access to the Single Market in the meantime as they immediately become a "third country". Exports would simply stop overnight. Such a possible scenario is a damning indictment of the SNP's lack of preparation and as a consequence has been hugely damaging to their cause.

Another big question is what happens to currency. This question has long been a problem for the nationalists. They have at various times supported an independent Scottish currency or even been cheerleaders for membership of the Euro. Currently they have instead settled on a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, a policy that seems to be a hasty response to changing circumstances, not least the Eurozone crisis. In short a least worst option.

But this comes with its own problems. It requires agreement of the rest of the UK and there's no guarantee of that. Also, as the Eurozone is painfully aware, currency union requires political and fiscal union to work. So there would need to be budgetary and fiscal constraints in place, a common system of banking regulation, so that the lender of last resort is not underwriting the debts of financial institutions over which it has no control. The UK will inevitably insist on tight controls on Scotland’s ability to borrow, and on its ability to vary the structure of its taxes. It will be political union in all but name. An independent Scotland would have no influence over the Bank of England but would still effectively be under its control, thus making a mockery of independence. Another ill thought-out policy.

Then there's the issue of the welfare state. A vote to leave the UK would be a vote to leave its institutions, including Department of Work and Pensions and the services it provides. A report backed by SNP ministers warned that pensions are at risk:

The study, by the Scottish Government expert working group on welfare, said creating a new system immediately after independence would be so complex that there would be a “significant” chance claimants would not receive their money.

This would also affect millions of pensioners and welfare claimants in England, the report claimed, because their payments are processed at Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) offices in Scotland.

But the report’s authors were forced to admit they did not know how the Scottish benefits system would be administered after [transitional period] because they had too little information about the policies that would be pursued.

The lack of detail means for Salmond that fear, uncertainly and doubt will be the deciding factor in the referendum - dull detail matters, not empty rhetoric. The lack of preparation will put back Scottish independence for generations meaning Mr Salmond, undoubtedly against his wishes, will die a UK citizen. It has turned into a campaign where professionals are knocking seven bells out of the amateurs as Jim Sillars in the Holyrood magazine observed (my emphasis):

These inherent fault lines should have been addressed long before there was any launch of a Yes campaign. The lack of what I call “the Bible” – that is, a document based on asking all the difficult questions and providing the answers, which then delivers solid well researched, intellectually tight material for activists to use – is proving fatal. Currency, EU membership, Nato, pensions both state and private, are but four examples of work not done or sloppy thinking.

Given the woeful performance of the SNP leadership so far, it is a foolish gamble to believe that when they produce the civil service-created White Paper in the autumn, that it will fix things. There needs to be a much wider involvement in the production of a “Bible” without which Westminster will continue setting the agenda and continue to run rings round the Yes side.

It all sounds so wearily familiar, but at least we've been warned. In an EU referendum we also need to provide a "Bible" that answers difficult questions such as the one posed by Autonomous Mind:

On Day One of [unilateral withdrawal] how will British goods will be landed in continental Europe and sold into the EU market.

Otherwise we follow Salmond down the path of glorious failure.

Invest In The Eurozone?

While reading in the Telegraph a report of the inept performance that was England last night, one is amused by the adverts that appear underneath (pictured above)

One wonders if it's 5 days early, a Freudian slip by the pro-EU paper or the Telegraph's odd way of mocking the Cypriots?