This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2016/mar/01/eu-referendum-why-is-sturgeon-crying-foul-over-remain-campaign

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
EU referendum: why is Sturgeon crying foul over remain campaign? EU referendum: why is Sturgeon crying foul over remain campaign?
(about 1 hour later)
Chin up, the EU referendum campaign will be all over in only 16 weeks. When genies are let out of bottles it’s hard to stuff them back. I’m already fascinated by the sheer opportunism of some arguments being deployed to cry foul before a 23 June vote is cast. Yes, Nicola Sturgeon; I don’t just mean Brexit “Baloney” Boris, I mean you too. Chin up, the EU referendum campaign will be all over in only 16 weeks. When genies are let out of bottles it’s hard to stuff them back. I’m already fascinated by the sheer opportunism of some arguments being deployed to cry foul before a 23 June vote is cast. Yes, Nicola Sturgeon, I don’t just mean Brexit “Baloney” Boris, I mean you too.
We can dismiss Mayor Johnson’s tirade against David Cameron’s “Project Fact” document. Boris is winging it, as he usually does. Let’s take something apparently more substantial, the complaint that Cameron is somehow breaking Whitehall rules. He’s let his cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy “Mr Fixit” Heywood, announce that ministers who propose to campaign for a Brexit won’t get access to official papers supporting the remain campaign.We can dismiss Mayor Johnson’s tirade against David Cameron’s “Project Fact” document. Boris is winging it, as he usually does. Let’s take something apparently more substantial, the complaint that Cameron is somehow breaking Whitehall rules. He’s let his cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy “Mr Fixit” Heywood, announce that ministers who propose to campaign for a Brexit won’t get access to official papers supporting the remain campaign.
Talk about having your cake and eating it, Iain Duncan Smith and co! It’s not hard to see why Heywood did it. The civil service is there to implement government policy, which is to stay in the EU. It’s not a game, at least not for Cameron and the reality-based community. No 10 has made a mess of its Europe policy, but at last Dave is playing to win and stay on board.Talk about having your cake and eating it, Iain Duncan Smith and co! It’s not hard to see why Heywood did it. The civil service is there to implement government policy, which is to stay in the EU. It’s not a game, at least not for Cameron and the reality-based community. No 10 has made a mess of its Europe policy, but at last Dave is playing to win and stay on board.
Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell (self-effacing, state-educated and soft-spoken) popped up on the BBC to explain. Heywood’s ruling is what happened when a Labour cabinet minority (seven members) were given dispensations to campaign for an out vote in the 1975 referendum. All very civilised, similar compromises were made during the 2010-15 coalition, where Lib Dems and Tory ministers disagreed, for instance on the electoral reform referendum in 2011. Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell (self-effacing, state-educated and soft-spoken) popped up on the BBC to explain. Heywood’s ruling matches what happened when a Labour cabinet minority (seven members) were given dispensations to campaign for an out vote in the 1975 referendum. All very civilised. Similar compromises were made during the 2010-15 coalition, where Lib Dems and Tory ministers disagreed, for instance, on the electoral reform referendum in 2011.
But the Brexit campaign thrives on a sense of grievance; it’s important to feel hard done by. I don’t blame many voters who feel that way, it reflects tough experience in hard lives and leads them to vote for Farage or Trump, the sort of rascals who know nothing about their lives but have a good line in outrage. But the Brexit campaign thrives on a sense of grievance; it’s important to feel hard done by. I don’t blame many voters who feel that way – it reflects tough experience in hard lives and leads them to vote for Farage or Trump, the sort of rascals who know nothing about their lives but have a good line in outrage.
But it’s no excuse for Nigel Lawson, a clever man who has enjoyed a highly successful career. A speechwriter in his youth for Harold Macmillan, he was Margaret Thatcher’s chancellor until they quarreled over his shifty monetary policy. Lawson (84 next week) is using his surplus energy to campaign against the EU and climate change policies. Challenging orthodoxy is always a good idea, but this former City journalist is notably unqualified to pronounce on science. But it’s no excuse for Nigel Lawson, a clever man who has enjoyed a highly successful career. A speechwriter in his youth for Harold Macmillan, he was Margaret Thatcher’s chancellor until they quarrelled over his shifty monetary policy. Lawson (84 next week) is using his surplus energy to campaign against the EU and climate change policies. Challenging orthodoxy is always a good idea, but this former City journalist is notably unqualified to pronounce on science.
But trade is, at least, a matter for rational debate. EU regulation can be irksome and sometimes pointless. Brussels, Paris and Berlin have handled their banking crisis very badly (which is why the eurozone is struggling). It has also mishandled the refugee crisis, which threatens the Schengen zone of passport free movement, indeed the whole EU future. While failing to reform its banks it is busy attacking hedge funds, mostly UK-based, not to blame for the bank crisis of 2008-9. No wonder some hedgies are backing Brexit. But trade is, at least, a matter for rational debate. EU regulation can be irksome and sometimes pointless. Brussels, Paris and Berlin have handled their banking crisis very badly (which is why the eurozone is struggling). It has also mishandled the refugee crisis, which threatens the Schengen zone of passport-free movement – indeed, the whole EU future. While failing to reform its banks it is busy attacking hedge funds, mostly UK-based, not to blame for the bank crisis of 2008-09. No wonder some hedgies are backing Brexit.
But mention of the eurozone raises another aspect of the irrationality at the heart of this campaign: the outers’ strange obsession with the elusive concept of sovereignty, something Ted Heath apparently “gave away” when Britain joined the common market in 1973.But mention of the eurozone raises another aspect of the irrationality at the heart of this campaign: the outers’ strange obsession with the elusive concept of sovereignty, something Ted Heath apparently “gave away” when Britain joined the common market in 1973.
Oh really? One of the four major fault lines in Europe of recent years involves the single currency, which Britain declined to join when Gordon Brown prevailed over Tony Blair. It so happens that Cameron and George Osborne are following similar austerity policies to the eurozone, but that’s the choice of our elected government. Oh really? One of the four major faultlines in Europe of recent years involves the single currency, which Britain declined to join when Gordon Brown prevailed over Tony Blair. It so happens that Cameron and George Osborne are following similar austerity policies to the eurozone, but that’s the choice of our elected government.
Schengen and all those economic migrants mixed up with those refugees fleeing for their lives? We declined to join Schengen’s 26-country vision of a border-free Europe.Schengen and all those economic migrants mixed up with those refugees fleeing for their lives? We declined to join Schengen’s 26-country vision of a border-free Europe.
Quite separately, Labour got it wrong after the “Visigrád” eastern European bloc joined the EU in 2004 and did not (as France and Germany did) impose transitional restrictions on their citizens moving to Britain was our government’s judgment, not a Brussels diktat. Too many people, notably Poles, , came too quickly, fuelling the Ukip/Brexit flames. There are lots of positives but experience varies. Surely that accounts for current hostility to more migrants/refugees? Quite separately, Labour got it wrong after the “Visigrád” eastern European bloc joined the EU in 2004 and did not (as France and Germany did) impose transitional restrictions on their citizens moving to Britain. This was our government’s judgment, not a Brussels diktat. Too many people, notably Poles, came too quickly, fuelling the Ukip/Brexit flames. There are lots of positives but experience varies. Surely that accounts for current hostility to more migrants/refugees?
Last but not least of the fault lines is the Iraq war (2003) and its dreadful fallout. Again, Britain exercised the sovereignty Heath was supposed to have given away to defy key EU partners and join the US-led invasion. That’s the thing about a sovereign state, it can make and unmake treaties. If we vote for Brexit, article 50 of the Lisbon treaty will be triggered to facilitate our departure. Last but not least of the faultlines is the Iraq war (2003) and its dreadful fallout. Again, Britain exercised the sovereignty Heath was supposed to have given away to defy key EU partners and join the US-led invasion. That’s the thing about a sovereign state, it can make and unmake treaties. If we vote for Brexit, article 50 of the Lisbon treaty will be triggered to facilitate our departure.
Sturgeon’s EU speech to the Resolution Foundation on Monday may be the best example of the contortions in which the rival campaigns are finding themselves, albeit this time on the remain side, at least ostensibly. The Scottish first minister made a dignified social democratic case for continued EU membership, not so different in some ways from Jeremy Corbyn’s ITV interview in which he said he was “not on the same side” as Cameron, despite backing the in campaign.Sturgeon’s EU speech to the Resolution Foundation on Monday may be the best example of the contortions in which the rival campaigns are finding themselves, albeit this time on the remain side, at least ostensibly. The Scottish first minister made a dignified social democratic case for continued EU membership, not so different in some ways from Jeremy Corbyn’s ITV interview in which he said he was “not on the same side” as Cameron, despite backing the in campaign.
Fine, but she combined it with an attack on Cameron’s feeble renegotiation and the “Project Fear” tone of his campaign so far, so reminiscent of the “miserable, negative fear-based campaign” against Scottish independence, she said.Fine, but she combined it with an attack on Cameron’s feeble renegotiation and the “Project Fear” tone of his campaign so far, so reminiscent of the “miserable, negative fear-based campaign” against Scottish independence, she said.
So Sturgeon makes a good case for Scottish and UK EU membership, for cooperation and many other benefits, the kind of points the no camp was making against Scottish independence. She hopes Britain will remain in because that would be best for an independent Scotland (as it would be for Ireland).So Sturgeon makes a good case for Scottish and UK EU membership, for cooperation and many other benefits, the kind of points the no camp was making against Scottish independence. She hopes Britain will remain in because that would be best for an independent Scotland (as it would be for Ireland).
But she highlights two weaknesses in Cameron’s campaign: his weak renegotiation deal (true) and his emphasis on negative campaigning, as false as it was in Scotland’s referendum. “Project Fact” was right about the yes campaign’s financial weakness, wasn’t it? But she highlights two weaknesses in Cameron’s campaign: his weak renegotiation deal – true – and his emphasis on negative campaigning – as false as it was in Scotland’s referendum. “Project Fact” was right about the yes campaign’s financial weakness, wasn’t it?
Now why would Sturgeon want to highlight weaknesses in a campaign she says she supports? Could it be because she really wants the UK to leave, setting up (maybe) another Scottish independence referendum? Not that, surely?Now why would Sturgeon want to highlight weaknesses in a campaign she says she supports? Could it be because she really wants the UK to leave, setting up (maybe) another Scottish independence referendum? Not that, surely?
Sixteen weeks to go.Sixteen weeks to go.