First, a Brussel Sprout: Wolfgang Münchau has an article in the FT in which he states: If you rise above the technical issues, the British problem could be elegantly solved through deeper integration for the member states of the eurozone, and more decentralisation for the rest. Shades of A Fundamental Law produced by the Spinelli Group some time ago?

Second, some London Cabbage: In the Guardian article reporting on the statements by Graeme MacDonald and Lord Bamford (of JCB) is a statement from Lucy Thomas, campaign director for Business for New Europe, who states: …..a Brexit would damage Britain: if it left the EU it would have no say in the rules and would still have to accept them; continuing: Of course JCB and others could still sell their goods to Europe, but they would still have to meet EU standards whatever they happened to be. Surely a seat at the table when rules are decided is better than no say at all?

Here we go again: complete denial, either through lack of knowledge or a wish to gloss over aspects which harm her case, of the fact that ‘rules’ are not formulated by the EU but rather by UN bodies such as UNECE and Codex – to name just two. Consequently just how many times does it have to be pointed out to those like Thomas (the [think] tank engine) that the EU is not, repeat not, the ‘top table’?

It is noted also that in the Telegraph, Graeme McDonald is quoted as stating: ……the impact on business had been overhyped if Britain voted to leave the single market. If one of the heads of a British company does not understand the difference twixt the EU and the EEA, then one can only say: heaven help us if these are the voices we are supposed to listen to.

Just a short trip from the UK mainland, the boss of Ireland’s largest business lobby group, Danny McCoy, has said an Irish exit from the EU might become “inevitable” if Britain leaves the union. What’s new, because if the UK were to seamlessly move from full membership of the EU to membership of EFTA/EEA and prosper (as it must surely do), it would not just be Ireland joining another ‘gravy train’ – there could well be a tsunami of followers.

In this context it is worth referring to Own Paterson’s speech in America, a speech in which he hinted at the question of who needs the EU ( a midde man): One possible alternative would be to strengthen the regional UNECE regime to administer this as an economic project. By negotiating directly across the board, we would cut out the middle man, and substantially enhance the transparency of the system.

Of course – and needless to say – the biggest dose of overcooked cabbage comes from the head chef of pap. One cannot be bothered wasting ones time deconstructing this – and to think he probably got paid???

On such as the foregoing will the British electorate be making the most important decision of their lives – and they don’t even know it!