More incisive analysis you’d find in Hello than most of this drivel on both sides
Amazing how many people don’t understand the basics of the arguments for the side they claim to support, let alone the other side.
This is from Ivan Rogers Britain’s EU Mandarin, in a speech to Hertford College
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/poli ... -to-brexit
It sets out the issues pretty well and in great depth. I suspect Rogers comes to the wrong conclusions but he does clearly understand the issues.
As anyone not indulging in immigration rhetoric or turgid, unimpressive banalities about cosmopolitan remainer values knows, it comes down to the treaty of Lisbon negotiations in 2011 to shore up the single currency.
The direction of travel for EU institutional & political integration was for those members of the monetary union at the expense of those members whose only interest was in the single market I.e. didn’t have the EURO
Rogers puts it thus:
“In the post Monetary Union world, he was right to think that virtually all of the subsequent necessary further integration steps of the monetary union members would be driven by the imperatives of the currency union, not those of the single market.”
He thinks Cameron got significant concession in the renegotiation, given the environment and the partners he had to deal with; conversely you might argue how wise it is to align your interests with them in the first