Cicero's Songs is a blog by a LibDem of the liberal persuasion. He's usually very sensible, but today there is a startlingly silly piece about the EU.
I see that the more rabid conservative bloggers are advertising a meeting of the Bruges Group over the weekend that intends to discuss policies for "a post EU" Britain.
You might expect to see such immaturity on the amusing Guido Fawkes blog- but I was moderately surprised to see the same event given equal coverage on Iain Dale's blog.
This is not much better than name-calling. Why "rabid"? Why "immature"? There is not a shred of explanation for the use of these insults. What is immature about wanting to leave the EU, or indeed for discussing what life might be like outside its embrace?
The EU is an organisation of which Cicero himself has elsewhere recognised the failings:
The European Union seems to have become a bloated failure, bogged down in over regulation and elitist projects that do not connect with the general population.
Surely immaturity and rabidity lies in sticking with a bloated failure, not with demanding withdrawl?
He continues with the, now traditional, accusation of triviality:
[T]he majority of British Conservatives can no longer have a sensible debate about the costs and benefits of membership of the European Union and have taken the maximalist position of complete withdrawal...
This seems to be a standard tactic of EUphiles - roll the eyes and say that rational debate is impossible. This is surely nonsense - plenty of bloggers are filling their postings with detailed argument about the costs and (purported) benefits of the EU. EU Referendum anyone? And what about the more formal critiques of the costs of membership?-
The Civitas report on the costs of membership, which found that the UK would be better off out by between £17 and £40bn per year, was linked to by precisely zero LibDem bloggers. No attempt to engage in debate there then; not even rolling of the eyes.
Patrick Minford recently published a report estimating the costs of EU membership as £25bn a year. Again, I have been unable to find a single LibDem linking to the press release at the IEA, Tim Worstall's related article, or any of the numerous other articles discussing Minford's work. So where is the LibDem debate?
Cicero goes on to describe Conservatives:
Either they are fools who do not understand the vast political and economic costs that withdrawal would inflict on the UK, or they are hypocrites who know those costs but like to fantasize about withdrawal in front of the electorate, while all the time knowing that they could not take the final step.
It's worth remembering that Patrick Minford is an eminent economist. The Bruges Group also includes another outstandin economist, Professor Tim Congdon, among its commentators. LibDems cannot simply brush aside their views. If they are wrong, tell us why. Calling them names like "fools" and "hypocrites" reveals more about the author than it does about the subject of the invective.
And while we're about it, how on earth can the LibDems explain the contradiction between their love of the EU and their claims to support localism. And no nonsense about subsidiarity please - when did subsidiarity ever happen in practice?
Oh yes, and wasn't it ridiculous of Menzies Campbell to criticise Labour for the volume of legislation they produce
"The government is addicted to legislating. It feeds its appetite for headlines with proposals and bills that are often confusing and repetitious," the leader of Britain's third biggest party said.
The Lib Dems calculated that since coming to power in 1997, Labor have passed 370 parliamentary acts and 32,776 statutory instruments.
Ming accidentally forgot to mention that most of those 32,776 statutory instruments were forced on the UK by our European colleagues. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The EU is protectionist, has legislative diarrhoea, is a financial shambles, and is corrupt and ineffectual. The Liberal Democrats recognise most of these criticisms but still say we should stay in, arguing that we should win the arguments within the EU. And they say the Bruges Group are immature?