Report comment

The "debate" seems to have gone slightly off the rails since this morning, probably due to all those Anons making our postprandial heads spin. I don't recall ever mentioning the subject of immigration. But let me quote this from today's Times (I admit I see the Times occasionally - but never on purpose): "I think it hard to see any significant credibility in an argument to stay [in the EU] or to leave constructed upon economics. If we stay or we leave, the fundamentals of the economy will be relatively unmoved" (Neil Woodford, described as "Britain's top fund manager"). Now, I know nothing of economics and had never heard of Mr Woodford, but his comment very opportunely endorses what I'd already said at 10.53am. I'm happy to place myself under the protection of his authority and rejoice to consider myself a Philistine, in Chesterton's definition of the word as "a man who is right without knowing why". At the very least, it is clear that the economic case for "Europe" is by no means proven. And if it has not been proved in 50 years I think we may be fairly confident that it never will. (By the way, my earlier reference to Nigel Lawson was an error for Norman Lamont, but the authority, the initials and the argument remain the same.)