Journalists’ narcissism ignores Keir Starmer’s far-sighted decision to stay out of the EU.

It might not surprise many to hear  that the Guardian writer claiming on July 12 that “most people in the EU’s bigger countries would support Britain rejoining the EU” can’t possibly have read the opinion poll he’d spectacularly misreported. Or that The Economist writer attacking Keir Starmer for his “timid” approach to “reforming” Brexit can’t have read it either.

But they really ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Between June 12 and June 27, pollsters YouGov interviewed adults in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Denmark, and were told that most EU respondents would like Britain to rejoin – but only if Britain adopted the Euro and joined the Schengen passport-free zone. The majority of EU respondents actively opposed UK membership if it didn’t adopt the Euro or join Schengen. Most Britons surveyed by YouGov said they thought re-joining the EU was a relatively low priority – and were opposed to re-joining if it involved adopting the Euro or Schengen.

It's clear why  The Guardian journalist should be ashamed of himself: he’s either been too lazy to do his job properly, or he’s forgotten The Guardian’s most central principle: “Comment is free but facts are sacred”  

I suspect it’s the latter: many avid Remainers are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness they forget that Britain spent over forty years being the EU’s official Awkward Squad, and most other members regarded Britain’s demands (not just opt-outs from the Euro and Schengen, but on lower contributions) as outright freeloading.

It’s slightly less easy to understand The Economist’s motives. It’s been sceptical about the Euro  since the currency’s launch, and in March this year it started being sceptical about uncontrolled immigration.   

In fairness, The Economist’s obsession with Starmer’s “timidity” was written before Trump’s insistence that the EU should have a base tariff of 30% for imports into the US. So the UK, as a non-member, has an extraordinary competitive advantage over the rest of the world in selling to US customers. And it also predated the UK’s migrant deal with France – which simply wouldn’t have been possible if Britain rejoined the EU.

Again, I think The Economist’s carping at Starmer demonstrates how journalists fuss over their reputation with other journalists (or their owners) and have no interest in keeping their readers informed. It’s no accident that the Guardian’s ignoring Europe-wide opposition to Britain re-joining the EU came only hours after Trump’s announcing absurdly high tariffs for the EU. Just as this morning’s papers show the Mail, Express and Telegraph are all so preoccupied with being beastly to Starmer they ignore the first real evidence since the 2016 referendum that not being in the EU is bringing Britain positive benefits.

If you're paywalled out of any references, let me know and I'll send you a share.