Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » STAY likely to win the EU In/Out referendum for the same re

SystemSystem Posts: 11,687
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » STAY likely to win the EU In/Out referendum for the same reason that CON won GE15 – the fear of the unknown

One of the things that the Tory victory on May 7th ensures is that during this parliament there will be an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. The question is which way will it go?

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    But STAY is not offering (or is pretending not to offer) the status quo, so the fear of change argument doesn't really aply.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Bah! Second.

    FPT: GeoffM,

    "Stodge, Andy Cooke, David Herdson, myself and a few other PBers are members of www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/ where such stories are told."

    Interesting. My e-book, A Ever Rolling Stream published a few months back by Wild Wolf, and available from Amazon, looked at the events a hundred years after the Cuban Missile Crisis turned nasty. I envisaged a different world in 2062 but people's character remained the same.

    I'll have a look at that website, if I may. Always interesting to see others' views and we know there's never a correct view.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,983
    Ishmael_X said:

    But STAY is not offering (or is pretending not to offer) the status quo, so the fear of change argument doesn't really aply.

    True but its virtually the same as we currently have (with the some of the bits you dislike removed) versus we don't really know what.

    If anything the removal of bits will probably tempt some people from No back to STAY...
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Conservative majority is not a continuation of the coalition. But it was presented as such successfully by the Conservatives.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,705
    The other issue is how well organised the 'OUT' campaign are - on the bright side, they've just turned down £600k of public funds.....

    Having lived through one of these before...'In' will win.

    Just as it did in Scotland.....
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    I wouldn't describe the rejection of Labour in 2015 as fear of the unknown, it was more fear of the known.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    'In' will win because inertia, fear of the unknown and the weight of the MSM will ensure it wins. Unless there's a gigantic black swan.

    GeoffM,

    I've joined your alternate history website. Good job I didn't see it before I wrote the book - I'd have given up.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,259
    Interestingly, a narrow 'stay' vote might well suit UKIP and Farage, if what has happened in Scotland post-referendum is anything to go by. There might be a huge surge in some kind of English nationalist vote in time for 2020 GE.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    65 - 35
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    I wouldn't describe the rejection of Labour in 2015 as fear of the unknown, it was more fear of the known.

    History is always written by the victor. What the Lib Dems losing 27 seats to the Tories has anything to do with fear of Labour , I do not know.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    antifrank said:

    Conservative majority is not a continuation of the coalition. But it was presented as such successfully by the Conservatives.

    Agreed, I think it's a big reason why many floaters voted for them, too.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    I've long predicted two-to-one for stay, I see no reason to change that.

    Fear, inertia, contentedness or common sense depending upon how you view it will win the day. At the most leave would be lucky to break through more than 40%.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963
    edited May 2015
    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    I wouldn't describe the rejection of Labour in 2015 as fear of the unknown, it was more fear of the known.

    History is always written by the victor. What the Lib Dems losing 27 seats to the Tories has anything to do with fear of Labour , I do not know.
    Easy, the Lib Dems didn't rule out working with either Labour or the Tories so with an expectation of coalition voters in LD seats made a forced choice. Voters who preferred Labour voted Labour, those who preferred Conservative voted Conservative.

    Nobody voted Lib Dems because they stood for nothing. A vote for Lib Dem was a vote for letting someone else decide who runs the country.
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    "Extras" playing an amazing innings at Lords, 62 NO.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Pithy, and quite true.

    surbiton said:

    I wouldn't describe the rejection of Labour in 2015 as fear of the unknown, it was more fear of the known.

    History is always written by the victor. What the Lib Dems losing 27 seats to the Tories has anything to do with fear of Labour , I do not know.
    Easy, the Lib Dems didn't rule out working with either Labour or the Tories so with an expectation of coalition voters in LD seats made a forced choice. Voters who preferred Labour voted Labour, those who preferred Conservative voted Conservative.

    Nobody voted Lib Dems because they stood for nothing. A vote for Lib Dem was a vote for letting someone else decide who runs the country.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,465
    I agree, 'In' seems much more likely to win, though compared to Scottish independence, the fear is utterly manufactured. Leaving an international association that is responsible for none of the arms of the state and that we've only been in since the 70's is hardly a leap into the unknown.

    The 'Out' campaign should very quickly try and establish better terms of debate than 'in' vs. 'out'. 'Union' vs. 'Friendship' or something. It needs to look forward to a vision of life beyond the EU. 'Out' is the absence of something, it is a void, a huge well of uncertainty. 'Friendship' implies an ongoing relationship based on mutual respect, but the opportunity to make other friendships as and when the need arises. 'We want to be friends with Europe, but we refuse to to commit to ever closer political union' is a line that most would agree with.

    They should do this fast because the 'In' campaign will quickly do it for them - they have a very good record of ignoring decency and the political niceties in order to demonise their opponents - I would expect 'European Seperatists' or something similar to be launched fairly soon. If 'Outers' have already cast themselves as 'Friends of Europe' it will diffuse that situation somewhat.

    I also think 'Outers' (or should I say 'Friends'), would do well to aim their message at people who do want to remain in the EU, but who are worried about the consequences of a walkover. 'If you don't send a message now, there may not be another chance'.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Ms Plato,

    "And I have a Kindle copy of it!"

    Thank you.

    I received my first royalties on it a few weeks ago. The princely sum of £7.65. I think I will take a trip around the world. Blackpool here I come.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    For all the horrors reported around the globe every few days - Katrina really stuck in my mind at the time - ten yrs on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093474/Risen-ashes-Katrina-Photos-New-Orleans-ten-years-disastrous-hurricane-struck-city-rebuilt.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    PS There's a rather nifty little slide thingy to show then and now pix too.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Not necessarily. EFTA could be a middle ground that pleases people, or it could be the worst of all. For those who want to leave because they want control of the borders, EFTA doesn't give that. For those who want to stay in because they want to have a say in writing the rules of Europe, EFTA doesn't give that.

    This is why Out faces a challenge. Some want a real Out with full national control over rules and borders. Some want a half-pregnant Out in the EFTA. Some want something else altogether. Whatever is getting proposed would irritate and disenchant part of the Out group.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,465
    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Plato said:

    Pithy, and quite true.

    surbiton said:

    I wouldn't describe the rejection of Labour in 2015 as fear of the unknown, it was more fear of the known.

    History is always written by the victor. What the Lib Dems losing 27 seats to the Tories has anything to do with fear of Labour , I do not know.
    Easy, the Lib Dems didn't rule out working with either Labour or the Tories so with an expectation of coalition voters in LD seats made a forced choice. Voters who preferred Labour voted Labour, those who preferred Conservative voted Conservative.

    Nobody voted Lib Dems because they stood for nothing. A vote for Lib Dem was a vote for letting someone else decide who runs the country.
    Thank you.

  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,465
    CD13 said:

    Ms Plato,

    "And I have a Kindle copy of it!"

    Thank you.

    I received my first royalties on it a few weeks ago. The princely sum of £7.65. I think I will take a trip around the world. Blackpool here I come.

    Wow, that must have been quite a thrill, small sum or not!

  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    It's quite ironic that the LDs playing kingmaker in the election campaign may have been the kiss of death for them. Though I think the LDs were dead and buried a long time before that, and by April - May many simply weren't even giving the LDs a hearing in the first place.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Why the BBC is exempt is beyond me right now.
    The scandal of six-figure pay-offs in the public sector will be ended by new laws in the Queen’s Speech, George Osborne said last night.

    The Chancellor said ministers would halt the culture of ‘golden parachutes’ by capping redundancy payments at £95,000.

    Senior managers will also have to hand back a portion of their pay-off if they take another job in the public sector during the following 12 months. The cap will be introduced as part of a new Enterprise Bill to be published in the Queen’s Speech next week.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093680/Six-figure-golden-parachutes-halted-George-Osborne-set-cap-public-sector-payouts-95-000.html#ixzz3ayE9QzfK
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,465

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr 1983,

    "Wow, that must have been quite a thrill, small sum or not!"

    Considering I only wrote for fun, yes.

    I haven't told the tax people, though. I suppose I owe them £1.53.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    The 'no status quo' argument is the one that sways me the most. I'm not exactly happy with the way the EU is at the moment, but could put up with it. However the mood music from the EU is that they want more of everything. As I see it there will be a time when I won't be happy and want out. If that's the case, best to get out now.

    I don't want to head where they're heading.

    But the most persuasive argument is that an 'in' vote will just give the same idiots who wanted us to join the Euro a free hand, and will lead to the EU increasing its powers. After all, we voted for it, didn't we?
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited May 2015

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Not necessarily. EFTA could be a middle ground that pleases people, or it could be the worst of all. For those who want to leave because they want control of the borders, EFTA doesn't give that. For those who want to stay in because they want to have a say in writing the rules of Europe, EFTA doesn't give that.

    This is why Out faces a challenge. Some want a real Out with full national control over rules and borders. Some want a half-pregnant Out in the EFTA. Some want something else altogether. Whatever is getting proposed would irritate and disenchant part of the Out group.
    I think people need to be realistic, we have been a member of the EU for far too long to leave it and expect everything to go smoothly. EFTA could act as the first stage in a multi-stage withdrawal process.

    Norway has a seat at the true top tables whilst EU member states do not have that luxury. In fact some EU member states ask Norway to raise issues on their behalf.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    CD13 said:

    Mr 1983,

    "Wow, that must have been quite a thrill, small sum or not!"

    Considering I only wrote for fun, yes.

    I haven't told the tax people, though. I suppose I owe them £1.53.

    Are gambling profits taxable ?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT :blush:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11625871/Banned-number-plates-revealed-VA61ANA-banned-but-PEN15-allowed.html
    The DVLA has revealed its entire catalogue of forbidden car number plates - including some amusing selections as well as surprising omissions.

    It seems motorists can drive a PEN15, but not a VA61ANA, and while BL03 JOB is forbidden ORG45M is fine.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003
    MP_SE said:

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Not necessarily. EFTA could be a middle ground that pleases people, or it could be the worst of all. For those who want to leave because they want control of the borders, EFTA doesn't give that. For those who want to stay in because they want to have a say in writing the rules of Europe, EFTA doesn't give that.

    This is why Out faces a challenge. Some want a real Out with full national control over rules and borders. Some want a half-pregnant Out in the EFTA. Some want something else altogether. Whatever is getting proposed would irritate and disenchant part of the Out group.
    I think people need to be realistic, we have been a member of the EU for far too long to leave it and expect everything to go smoothly. EFTA could act as the first stage in a multi-stage withdrawal process.

    Norway has a seat at the true top tables whilst EU member states do not have that luxury. In fact some EU member states ask Norway to raise issues on their behalf.
    Almost all trade negotiations happen through the WTO these days, whether we are on our out will have no substantive difference to our terms of trade with the rest of the world.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I disagree with OGH.
    The polls show that the younger you are the more likely you vote IN and the less likely to vote , therefore the 2015 GE election points to OUT winning since the Tories won with pensioners who are more likely to vote and vote OUT.

    Pensioners prevailed in the AV referendum, the scottish referendum and the last 2 GE, and I think they will prevail in an EU referendum too.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    surbiton said:

    I wouldn't describe the rejection of Labour in 2015 as fear of the unknown, it was more fear of the known.

    History is always written by the victor. What the Lib Dems losing 27 seats to the Tories has anything to do with fear of Labour , I do not know.
    Easy, the Lib Dems didn't rule out working with either Labour or the Tories so with an expectation of coalition voters in LD seats made a forced choice. Voters who preferred Labour voted Labour, those who preferred Conservative voted Conservative.

    Nobody voted Lib Dems because they stood for nothing. A vote for Lib Dem was a vote for letting someone else decide who runs the country.
    That is the key for the LD demise, they stand for nothing unique that other much larger parties offer too.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Pulpstar,

    "Are gambling profits taxable ?"

    I lost £20 following Peter the Punter's tips for the Grand National this year. Not that I'm bitter. Oh, no.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLLgLDkBDo0

    Worth a watch post-election 2015.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    I lost £500 on a horse recommended as a syndicate buy from Mr Punter. It was called Mr Smithson just to add icing to the three legged nag.

    This looks like his form... have a laugh on me. http://horseform.racingandsports.com.au/viewHorse.asp?lan=&id=3ED0E771177A93D55E8D22 :smiley:
    CD13 said:

    Pulpstar,

    "Are gambling profits taxable ?"

    I lost £20 following Peter the Punter's tips for the Grand National this year. Not that I'm bitter. Oh, no.

  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Just doing a bit of weekend forecasting for the economy/deficit. I put the FYE deficit at around £68bn against nominal growth of around 3.5%, it would give us a budget deficit of about 3.5%, and the debt to gdp ratio will end about the same as where it started this year (~80.5%). I think the government may meet their original fiscal mandate just one year later than originally planned which is not so bad when one considers the implications the EMU crisis has had on our net trade figures.

    For the following year I have a deficit of £40-45bn pencilled in, but it's basically all guesswork there. Beyond the current fiscal year for which we now have some hard data it is very hard to make any accurate forecasts.

    The model I use had a deficit of £89bn based on April 2014 PSF data, so I got closer to than the OBR for the year.

    However, and here is the hard part to swallow for a lot of the fiscal conservatives on here like me, the government still haven't done enough to eliminate the structural deficit, after 16/17 the deficit is going to be incredibly hard to eliminate as tax cuts eat into revenue raising measures and spending rises start to bite into new revenues that are being raised. The government seriously need to look at how to lower the cost of pensions both public sector and state. As a country we cannot afford the "triple lock" and pensions need to be brought in line with CPI inflation. It is not sustainable for us as a country to spend ~£75bn per year on the state pension and a further £35bn per year on the public sector pension scheme. We need a reassessment of how people need to save for retirement and a long hard look at individual social security accounts rather than NI.
  • Options
    calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    tlg86 said:

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
    I think however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are about running positive campaigns, they will eventually both end up as Project Fear campaigns.

    Taking currency as an example I could well see the OUT campaign claiming that we will eventually be forced to join the Euro, complete rubbish I know, however once the MSM and OUT supporters get it out there it will worry the older voters reliant on the MSM for information.

    Another difficulty is that negatives for one side could end up being recruited sergeants for the other side. For example, IN will highlight potential damage to the City of London, where as bankers having to leave UK could sound like a positive to middle England OUT supporters.

    I think Jim Murphy is pro-EU if the IN campaign is interested, he comes with a team who are used to playing the negative game.


  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    I don't care about participating in a trade area with a fast shrinking region, I don't care if it's EU or EFTA, economically Britain pays higher fees to be a member of the EU than the cost of EU tariffs if it was out of the EU.
    And then there is the large trade deficit with the EU that also harms the economy, if we leave the trade deficit will shrink and if we join NAFTA (my preferred choice) we might even run a surplus.

    Being an EU member is purely a political decision(massive ego's of PM's) that is economically damaging.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    I'll be campaigning for OUT but I fear IN will prevail. I'm interested to see what happens to the Tories after that as they will have split into two distinct camps. Cameron will campaign for IN regardless of the outcome of renegotiations, the relationship with his eurosceptics will be fraught.

    Oddly, as others have alluded to, a narrow IN could play into UKIP hands
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Sorry meant to add, with the exception of the Express, will any daily papers support OUT? I doubt it.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015
    calum said:

    tlg86 said:

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
    I think however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are about running positive campaigns, they will eventually both end up as Project Fear campaigns.

    Taking currency as an example I could well see the OUT campaign claiming that we will eventually be forced to join the Euro, complete rubbish I know, however once the MSM and OUT supporters get it out there it will worry the older voters reliant on the MSM for information.

    Another difficulty is that negatives for one side could end up being recruited sergeants for the other side. For example, IN will highlight potential damage to the City of London, where as bankers having to leave UK could sound like a positive to middle England OUT supporters.

    I think Jim Murphy is pro-EU if the IN campaign is interested, he comes with a team who are used to playing the negative game.


    I would love Jim Murphy to lead the IN campaign, he will even produce a majority for OUT in scotland.
    Jim Murphy and Nick Clegg are my dream team of the IN campaign.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015

    Sorry meant to add, with the exception of the Express, will any daily papers support OUT? I doubt it.

    The Daily Mail and the Sun.
    If they won't bash the EU as usual it will be a surprise.

    The Daily Telegraph will have a civil war in their offices.

    Out of the top 4 newspapers only the Mirror will clearly support IN.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    calum said:

    tlg86 said:

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
    I think however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are about running positive campaigns, they will eventually both end up as Project Fear campaigns.

    Taking currency as an example I could well see the OUT campaign claiming that we will eventually be forced to join the Euro, complete rubbish I know, however once the MSM and OUT supporters get it out there it will worry the older voters reliant on the MSM for information.

    Another difficulty is that negatives for one side could end up being recruited sergeants for the other side. For example, IN will highlight potential damage to the City of London, where as bankers having to leave UK could sound like a positive to middle England OUT supporters.

    I think Jim Murphy is pro-EU if the IN campaign is interested, he comes with a team who are used to playing the negative game.


    The BOOers are already running a negative campaign. Keep out the emigrants and we do not want to pay into common European funds.

    I am pro-Europe and will be voting in. It is not just that I feel part of a common European heritage, it is that Europe needs us to continue to engage on the side of free markets, good governance and social development. Eastern Europe is a far better place for being in the EU, and Southern Europe too.

    To paraphrase JFK: its not just about what europe can do for us, it is about what we can do for europe.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    Not so. The UK is an independent signatory to EFTA outside of our membership of the EU. And both the 'lose control of our own laws' and 'have no say over trade rules' are myths that have been comprehensively debunked by commentators like Richard North as well as by some Norwegian ministers
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015

    calum said:

    tlg86 said:

    , there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
    I think however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are about running positive campaigns, they will eventually both end up as Project Fear campaigns.

    Taking currency as an example I could well see the OUT campaign claiming that we will eventually be forced to join the Euro, complete rubbish I know, however once the MSM and OUT supporters get it out there it will worry the older voters reliant on the MSM for information.

    Another difficulty is that negatives for one side could end up being recruited sergeants for the other side. For example, IN will highlight potential damage to the City of London, where as bankers having to leave UK could sound like a positive to middle England OUT supporters.

    I think Jim Murphy is pro-EU if the IN campaign is interested, he comes with a team who are used to playing the negative game.


    The BOOers are already running a negative campaign. Keep out the emigrants and we do not want to pay into common European funds.

    I am pro-Europe and will be voting in. It is not just that I feel part of a common European heritage, it is that Europe needs us to continue to engage on the side of free markets, good governance and social development. Eastern Europe is a far better place for being in the EU, and Southern Europe too.

    To paraphrase JFK: its not just about what europe can do for us, it is about what we can do for europe.
    I care about what is best for Britain not what is best for Europe, therefore I will be voting OUT.
    I'm against sacrificing the country and it's people for the sake of some vague european idea that never even existed in the first place.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    Not so. The UK is an independent signatory to EFTA outside of our membership of the EU. And both the 'lose control of our own laws' and 'have no say over trade rules' are myths that have been comprehensively debunked by commentators like Richard North as well as by some Norwegian ministers
    I think we left the EFTA in 1973 and I'm not sure there's any guarantee we're still signatories or could be let back in.

    As for laws, the EFTA still has to implement a large proportion of laws except in agriculture and fisheries. Considering the main argument being made by UKIP is full control over our borders and full control over our laws that's voided if we go back into the EFTA.

    This is like other referenda like where republicans in Australia voted against the Republic being proposed as they wanted another one. Whatever alternative is proposed won't please everyone.
  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Do we yet know exactly what Mr Cameron wants to renegotiate?

    If he goes along with the desires of his Tory right-wingers, and succeeds, that would make the EU much more unpleasant than it is now. I would vote for OUT.

    On the other hand, if his negotations are of the kind which would win my approval, he runs the risk of splitting the Conservative Party.

    I don´t think he can take the Lib Dem vote for granted.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607



    The BOOers are already running a negative campaign. Keep out the emigrants and we do not want to pay into common European funds.

    I am pro-Europe and will be voting in. It is not just that I feel part of a common European heritage, it is that Europe needs us to continue to engage on the side of free markets, good governance and social development. Eastern Europe is a far better place for being in the EU, and Southern Europe too.

    To paraphrase JFK: its not just about what europe can do for us, it is about what we can do for europe.

    Aren't you also a Lib Dem? I don't think the view you are espousing is a particularly common one and it isn't worth changing the BOO narrative to appeal to people like you. There aren't enough votes in it. When Cameron tried to appeal to metropolitan Guardianistas he ended up with a plurality, when he appealed to middle England he won a majority. There is a lesson in there somewhere for the BOO team.
  • Options
    madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    All I know is that Nigel Farage campaigning will be a great galvaniser for the BOI side.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Speedy said:

    calum said:

    tlg86 said:

    , there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Out have a lot of work to do to overcome fear of the unknown. The SNP had a lot of work to do to overcome that fear and to give them credit they did a lot more than I expected. Whether it was credible or not is debatable (I say not) but there was a detailed prospectus with an answer to every major question as to what would happen if there was a vote to leave.

    Who is doing that prospectus for the Out campaign? UKIP appears to be more interested in in-fighting than coming up with detailed answers while the answers as to what happens in the case of a Leave vote seems to depend upon who you ask. For starters, will we be in the EFTA or not?
    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
    I think however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are about running positive campaigns, they will eventually both end up as Project Fear campaigns.

    Taking currency as an example I could well see the OUT campaign claiming that we will eventually be forced to join the Euro, complete rubbish I know, however once the MSM and OUT supporters get it out there it will worry the older voters reliant on the MSM for information.

    Another difficulty is that negatives for one side could end up being recruited sergeants for the other side. For example, IN will highlight potential damage to the City of London, where as bankers having to leave UK could sound like a positive to middle England OUT supporters.

    I think Jim Murphy is pro-EU if the IN campaign is interested, he comes with a team who are used to playing the negative game.


    The BOOers are already running a negative campaign. Keep out the emigrants and we do not want to pay into common European funds.

    I am pro-Europe and will be voting in. It is not just that I feel part of a common European heritage, it is that Europe needs us to continue to engage on the side of free markets, good governance and social development. Eastern Europe is a far better place for being in the EU, and Southern Europe too.

    To paraphrase JFK: its not just about what europe can do for us, it is about what we can do for europe.
    I care about what is best for Britain not what is best for Europe, therefore I will be voting OUT.
    I'm against sacrificing the country and it's people for the sake of some vague european idea that never even existed in the first place.
    The interests of the UK and of the EU are closely aligned. I too want what is best for Britain, and it is not shallow isolationism and retreat from international bodies.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MaxPB said:



    The BOOers are already running a negative campaign. Keep out the emigrants and we do not want to pay into common European funds.

    I am pro-Europe and will be voting in. It is not just that I feel part of a common European heritage, it is that Europe needs us to continue to engage on the side of free markets, good governance and social development. Eastern Europe is a far better place for being in the EU, and Southern Europe too.

    To paraphrase JFK: its not just about what europe can do for us, it is about what we can do for europe.

    Aren't you also a Lib Dem? I don't think the view you are espousing is a particularly common one and it isn't worth changing the BOO narrative to appeal to people like you. There aren't enough votes in it. When Cameron tried to appeal to metropolitan Guardianistas he ended up with a plurality, when he appealed to middle England he won a majority. There is a lesson in there somewhere for the BOO team.
    I think it fair to say that mine is a minority view, but enthusiasts for In or Out are both in a minority. The vast majority are not bothered either way.
  • Options
    scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    I know that our friends in the deadwood press do not call all of the shots these days but just for interest I actually bought the papers in a place called "a newsagents" for the first time in yonks.

    It is bloody for Carmichael. Front page everywhere and apart from the surreal Telegraph universally brutal. It is as bad a mauling as I have seen and almost universally in support of resignation from his seat.

    Fib Dems are foolish to talk about no action. They would have been well advised to stick Lord Steel or someone to chunter on for a few months before deciding that he could continue.

    This way it looks like total panic and adds to the feeling that Carmichael is toast.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    edited May 2015

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    Not so. The UK is an independent signatory to EFTA outside of our membership of the EU. And both the 'lose control of our own laws' and 'have no say over trade rules' are myths that have been comprehensively debunked by commentators like Richard North as well as by some Norwegian ministers
    They are myths hiding a more finely balanced truth: that countries that accept greater integration get more say, because they have more to lose.

    I realise that those advocating an Out vote here on pb including you have done a pretty good job of outlining a suitable mix of "reduced control/reduced burden" but that does not hide the fact that among the public (both In and Out) the perception is that Out will be "very Out" and the politicians and business leaders of Out will have a challenge changing this even if it can unite on an alternative.

    [The User Formerly Known as Grandiose]
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Interesting quote from an article by the LiDem MP Alistair Carmichael in the Shetland Times in November 2010 following the conviction of Phil Woolas, the Oldham MP who gained re-election in 2010, but was subsquently convicted and had to resign his seat because of smearing his opponent in the GE campaign:

    "The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending."

    http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/12/letter-from-westminster-49#.VWBURGPnIC8.twitter

    When is he going to fall on his sword?

  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Plato said:
    Wow - good to see the republic turning blue - just like southern England :)
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003
    BOO will win because the question will be:

    "Do you wish Britain the remain a member of the EU?"

    As out will be divided between EFTA/EEA and "let's go it completely alone", it will have no coherent message. Businesses, who might prefer EFTA/EEA to full EU membership, will largely choose to back EU membership.

    And if Nigel Farage is running the BOO campaign, it will result in people thinking BOO is the position of people who dislike gay marriage.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,801
    daodao said:

    Interesting quote from an article by the LiDem MP Alistair Carmichael in the Shetland Times in November 2010 following the conviction of Phil Woolas, the Oldham MP who gained re-election in 2010, but was subsquently convicted and had to resign his seat because of smearing his opponent in the GE campaign:

    "The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending."

    http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/12/letter-from-westminster-49#.VWBURGPnIC8.twitter

    When is he going to fall on his sword?

    Even the Scotsman is now agreeing with the calls for his resignation (or so I interpret the last sentence):

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-end-of-the-road-looms-for-alistair-carmichael-1-3781219

    "Mercifully for the former Scottish secretary, the UK electorate has spared him the full embarrassment of having to resign from office in shame, following the demise of the coalition government. He can also count himself fortunate that his confession comes after the general election, or he may not have been one of only three Scottish MPs to see off the SNP and retain his seat in the ­Commons.

    The First Minister has called on Mr Carmichael to consider his position as an MP “because he clearly contested the election on false pretences”. It is not hard to see where she is coming from, having been the target of this botched briefing.

    This unedifying episode further damages the public’s perception of politics, and will only deepen disenchantment with Westminster at a time levels of dissatisfaction in Scotland have rarely been more obvious. Mr Carmichael has cause for great personal regret over this matter, but the truth is that he has let us all down. The call for his resignation is a valid one."
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited May 2015


    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.

    Something along the lines of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement would be an alternative should our application to rejoin EFTA be declined.


    The interests of the UK and of the EU are closely aligned. I too want what is best for Britain, and it is not shallow isolationism and retreat from international bodies.

    Leaving the EU would give the UK a seat on many of these international bodies. Something which we do not currently have as a member of the EU. We would be able to influence the setting of standards which are then rubber stamped by the EU. The UK would be able to increase their influence on the world stage and sign FTAs with countries which the EU have put on hold due to their isolationist stance. Why is it the Swiss are capable of entering into FTAs with countries in a matter of years whilst the EU put them on hold due to their member states' protectionist outlook.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,130
    scotslass said:

    I know that our friends in the deadwood press do not call all of the shots these days but just for interest I actually bought the papers in a place called "a newsagents" for the first time in yonks.

    It is bloody for Carmichael. Front page everywhere and apart from the surreal Telegraph universally brutal. It is as bad a mauling as I have seen and almost universally in support of resignation from his seat.

    Fib Dems are foolish to talk about no action. They would have been well advised to stick Lord Steel or someone to chunter on for a few months before deciding that he could continue.

    This way it looks like total panic and adds to the feeling that Carmichael is toast.

    Aye, if the Scotsman is giving a Unionist pol a hard time, you know it's jotters time.

    https://twitter.com/RobertTyreBute/status/602077297752088576
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    Not so. The UK is an independent signatory to EFTA outside of our membership of the EU. And both the 'lose control of our own laws' and 'have no say over trade rules' are myths that have been comprehensively debunked by commentators like Richard North as well as by some Norwegian ministers
    While - as you know - I am a supported of EFTA/EEA, I am not sure we still are signatories. I think our membership lapsed when we joined the EU, and we are not listed on the EFTA members page (http://www.efta.int/about-efta/the-efta-states).

    This would not pose any substantive difficulties, and I'm sure you could fairly seamlessly go from 31 December EU member to 1 January EFTA member.

    (Humorous fact of the day: all EFTA members are Schengen members.)
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    Interestingly, a narrow 'stay' vote might well suit UKIP and Farage, if what has happened in Scotland post-referendum is anything to go by. There might be a huge surge in some kind of English nationalist vote in time for 2020 GE.

    I agree with Richard Tyndall that an Out vote would kill UKIP, but it would be a good death.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: plain misjudgement on my part, though cooler temperatures perhaps didn't help. It's a better feeling them some bad luck earlier in the season, though (Lotus double score and no safety car at one race should've come off, but for misfortune).

    Anyway, I'll give the race a look, and try to get the pre-race piece done in the next couple of hours.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    We used to have quite regular PB surveys to gauge feeling amongst posters here on loads of subjects - using SurveyMonkey.

    Any chance of doing this again given the absence of polling/distrust of their results?

    It'd be interesting to see who's in each grouping here as a topic for discussion.

    For avoidance of doubt - I'm a BOOer unless Mr Cameron gets some meaningful opt-outs on immigration/benefits transfers.
    rcs1000 said:

    BOO will win because the question will be:

    "Do you wish Britain the remain a member of the EU?"

    As out will be divided between EFTA/EEA and "let's go it completely alone", it will have no coherent message. Businesses, who might prefer EFTA/EEA to full EU membership, will largely choose to back EU membership.

    And if Nigel Farage is running the BOO campaign, it will result in people thinking BOO is the position of people who dislike gay marriage.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,130
    UkipWeather ‏@UkipWeather 14 mins14 minutes ago
    Heavy rain and strong winds forecast for Ireland
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    The 'no status quo' argument is the one that sways me the most. I'm not exactly happy with the way the EU is at the moment, but could put up with it. However the mood music from the EU is that they want more of everything. As I see it there will be a time when I won't be happy and want out. If that's the case, best to get out now.

    I don't want to head where they're heading.

    But the most persuasive argument is that an 'in' vote will just give the same idiots who wanted us to join the Euro a free hand, and will lead to the EU increasing its powers. After all, we voted for it, didn't we?
    Very well put.
  • Options
    FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    Speedy said:

    calum said:

    tlg86 said:

    , there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    Thankfully the out campaign doesn't have to worry about answering the currency question.
    I think however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are about running positive campaigns, they will eventually both end up as Project Fear campaigns.

    Taking currency as an example I could well see the OUT campaign claiming that we will eventually be forced to join the Euro, complete rubbish I know, however once the MSM and OUT supporters get it out there it will worry the older voters reliant on the MSM for information.

    Another difficulty is that negatives for one side could end up being recruited sergeants for the other side. For example, IN will highlight potential damage to the City of London, where as bankers having to leave UK could sound like a positive to middle England OUT supporters.


    The BOOers are already running a negative campaign. Keep out the emigrants and we do not want to pay into common European funds.

    I am pro-Europe and will be voting in. It is not just that I feel part of a common European heritage, it is that Europe needs us to continue to engage on the side of free markets, good governance and social development. Eastern Europe is a far better place for being in the EU, and Southern Europe too.

    To paraphrase JFK: its not just about what europe can do for us, it is about what we can do for europe.
    I care about what is best for Britain not what is best for Europe, therefore I will be voting OUT.
    I'm against sacrificing the country and it's people for the sake of some vague european idea that never even existed in the first place.
    The interests of the UK and of the EU are closely aligned. I too want what is best for Britain, and it is not shallow isolationism and retreat from international bodies.
    Yes broadly correct. Like we could sit on our hands as the world went to hell in a basket. We have always been involved in the world. What would isolationism do to our ability to negotiate anything in the world... or our Exports?
    The international bodies need to work of course. I am not in favour of the political side of the EU, it's implementation has been rushed and messed up. But it's up to them. Leaving EU will make very little difference. The EU will still be there and the USA is busy concluding a trade agreement. We would be left to follow as part of the EEA.
    As usual, mountainous wishful thinking from the antis. 'best for Britain' indeed... Like blamange brain nutjob Farage's judgement is to be relied on.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003
    @MP_SE

    There is no meaningful chance an application to join EFTA would be rejected.

    That being said: for some BOOers (@Socrates, for example) who believe that putting EFTA/EEA on the ballot would be a betrayal and lowers the chance of a proper "out". It is also the view of Nigel Farage that we should not be aiming for EFTA/EEA status.

    I think the fairest ballot would be this:

    1. Full Exit
    2. EFTA/EEA
    3. non-EZ EU member
    4. Eurozone member

    And we could use STV.

    Although the issue there is that if EFTA/EEA is first or second out, then you get 3 over 1, even though 2 might be the Concordorat (sp?) winner.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003
    Plato said:

    We used to have quite regular PB surveys to gauge feeling amongst posters here on loads of subjects - using SurveyMonkey.

    Any chance of doing this again given the absence of polling/distrust of their results?

    It'd be interesting to see who's in each grouping here as a topic for discussion.

    For avoidance of doubt - I'm a BOOer unless Mr Cameron gets some meaningful opt-outs on immigration/benefits transfers.

    rcs1000 said:

    BOO will win because the question will be:

    "Do you wish Britain the remain a member of the EU?"

    As out will be divided between EFTA/EEA and "let's go it completely alone", it will have no coherent message. Businesses, who might prefer EFTA/EEA to full EU membership, will largely choose to back EU membership.

    And if Nigel Farage is running the BOO campaign, it will result in people thinking BOO is the position of people who dislike gay marriage.

    Yes: but are you an EFTA/EEA BOOer, or GIA (go it alone) BOOer?
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Hopefully, Carmichael will be toast, but is Mundell also implicated, which would have bigger implications as he is now a cabinet minister. See:

    http://derekbateman.co.uk/2015/05/23/a-small-merci/
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    rcs1000 said:

    @MP_SE

    There is no meaningful chance an application to join EFTA would be rejected.

    That being said: for some BOOers (@Socrates, for example) who believe that putting EFTA/EEA on the ballot would be a betrayal and lowers the chance of a proper "out". It is also the view of Nigel Farage that we should not be aiming for EFTA/EEA status.

    I think the fairest ballot would be this:

    1. Full Exit
    2. EFTA/EEA
    3. non-EZ EU member
    4. Eurozone member

    And we could use STV.

    Although the issue there is that if EFTA/EEA is first or second out, then you get 3 over 1, even though 2 might be the Concordorat (sp?) winner.

    If you want the status quo, put a whole series of options no-one understands on the ballot. Even if BOO could unite on a single proposition they'll have enough trouble communicating the cosnequences for the UK. Everything from banker's bonuses, wonky cucumbers, immigration, holidays... and of course the price of a bottle of vino.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    The interests of the US and UK are closely aligned. Would the EU-philes be in favour of letting the US be able to make our laws, as they are for the EU?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003
    MP_SE said:

    Leaving the EU would give the UK a seat on many of these international bodies. Something which we do not currently have as a member of the EU. We would be able to influence the setting of standards which are then rubber stamped by the EU.

    Almost all trade deals are negotiated under the auspices of the WTO these days (with the exceptions of a few monster deals like the TTIP and the Canadian thing), so whether you are a member of the EU or EFTA or independent will make virtually no difference to your terms of trade with the rest of the world.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    As implied by Ishmael below, it would be a mistake to equate fear of the unknown with leaving. There will be considerable work by OUT to make clear that the status quo is not on offer no matter who wins. To be honest it is way too early to make any claims about what the outcome of this will be because, probably more than any other vote on recent history, there are likely to be significant external factors that influence the results.

    The 'no status quo' argument is the one that sways me the most. I'm not exactly happy with the way the EU is at the moment, but could put up with it. However the mood music from the EU is that they want more of everything. As I see it there will be a time when I won't be happy and want out. If that's the case, best to get out now.

    I don't want to head where they're heading.

    But the most persuasive argument is that an 'in' vote will just give the same idiots who wanted us to join the Euro a free hand, and will lead to the EU increasing its powers. After all, we voted for it, didn't we?
    Very well put.
    It is remarkable that in the last five years a "two speed EU" has gone from a dirty word to close to reality.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    I'm currently a full BOOer - if we're going to leave, go for it. I can be persuaded to a middling stance if it's very convincing. That will take quite a lot but I remain open-minded.

    Immigration is the issue for me - we simply can't cope with how attractive we are as a homing point. And the more successful we are - the worse it will get. A nice form of problem to have - but we're collectively a victim of it.

    EDIT I can buy bendy bananas from Tesco's Everyday range and leeks the size of baseball bats right now :smiley:
    rcs1000 said:

    Plato said:

    We used to have quite regular PB surveys to gauge feeling amongst posters here on loads of subjects - using SurveyMonkey.

    Any chance of doing this again given the absence of polling/distrust of their results?

    It'd be interesting to see who's in each grouping here as a topic for discussion.

    For avoidance of doubt - I'm a BOOer unless Mr Cameron gets some meaningful opt-outs on immigration/benefits transfers.

    rcs1000 said:

    BOO will win because the question will be:

    "Do you wish Britain the remain a member of the EU?"

    As out will be divided between EFTA/EEA and "let's go it completely alone", it will have no coherent message. Businesses, who might prefer EFTA/EEA to full EU membership, will largely choose to back EU membership.

    And if Nigel Farage is running the BOO campaign, it will result in people thinking BOO is the position of people who dislike gay marriage.

    Yes: but are you an EFTA/EEA BOOer, or GIA (go it alone) BOOer?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    UkipWeather ‏@UkipWeather 14 mins14 minutes ago
    Heavy rain and strong winds forecast for Ireland

    Downpoars of frogs and locusts :)
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003

    The interests of the US and UK are closely aligned. Would the EU-philes be in favour of letting the US be able to make our laws, as they are for the EU?

    If you are a member of NAFTA you are basically forced to accept US trade standards, and to allow US courts to rule in your country under the ISDS provisions. (Investor state dispute provisions, which allow US companies to complain about the Mexican governments actions in Mexico and which allow the national government to be over-ruled.)

    It's a serious problem with being a member of any big trading bloc.
  • Options
    FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    rcs1000 said:

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    Not so. The UK is an independent signatory to EFTA outside of our membership of the EU. And both the 'lose control of our own laws' and 'have no say over trade rules' are myths that have been comprehensively debunked by commentators like Richard North as well as by some Norwegian ministers
    snips

    (Humorous fact of the day: all EFTA members are Schengen members.)
    This is the danger of walking out of the EU and then asking where do we go from here. It is the big issue with these negotiations. But as we do to want to be part of closer union and the EU would struggle to live with us in such a union then I think there is scope for us to operate out of that and out of Schengen
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. 1000, but that doesn't address my question. If your argument is that EU and UK interests are aligned so we should be in a trading bloc and have the EU able to make our laws, surely you would advocate the same for the US and UK?

    The EU's an indefensible organisation that will collapse like the Aetolian League.
  • Options
    calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    daodao said:

    Interesting quote from an article by the LiDem MP Alistair Carmichael in the Shetland Times in November 2010 following the conviction of Phil Woolas, the Oldham MP who gained re-election in 2010, but was subsquently convicted and had to resign his seat because of smearing his opponent in the GE campaign:

    "The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending."

    http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/12/letter-from-westminster-49#.VWBURGPnIC8.twitter

    When is he going to fall on his sword?

    I think the more we learn about this sorry affair the worse things are looking for Carmichael. In summary:

    - He has approved the leak of a 2nd hand confidential note of a diplomatic meeting, in clear breach of the Law Society's guidelines on handling confidential documents.

    - He knew at the time of leaking that much of the content was potentially inaccurate.

    - He misled the public in numerous interviews on the matter.

    - Once the Cabinet Office leak investigation started he could have phoned Jeremy and clarified matters. This would have cost 14p, instead he appears to have frustrated the investigation which has ended up costing £1.4 million.

    - The LibDems have already exonerated him and will not be taking any action against him, which is clear evidence that they are not respecting the electorate.

    - For once the MSM is seeking to hold Carmichael to account.

    - If he was an honourable man he would resign and let his constituents decide whether he was still fit to be their MP.

    - If this information had come to light before 7th May he would likely have lost his seat.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The biggest factor I have from a positive perspective about BOOing fully is that I have innate faith and confidence in the UK's ability to trade globally.

    Maybe it's my age, but I see us as a global pink-atlas player who did things wildly beyond our size and geography for centuries. And our language is the default in very many places either first or second.

    I feel the EU is something to consider in our kit bag, but only if it suits our wider aims and ambitions. If not, dump it. I'm not the teeniest bit sentimental about it. And those members/citizens who remain won't stop buying from us out of spite.

    Mr. 1000, but that doesn't address my question. If your argument is that EU and UK interests are aligned so we should be in a trading bloc and have the EU able to make our laws, surely you would advocate the same for the US and UK?

    The EU's an indefensible organisation that will collapse like the Aetolian League.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003

    Mr. 1000, but that doesn't address my question. If your argument is that EU and UK interests are aligned so we should be in a trading bloc and have the EU able to make our laws, surely you would advocate the same for the US and UK?

    The EU's an indefensible organisation that will collapse like the Aetolian League.

    I agree, I wasn't addressing your point! There have been a lot of people who've said "we should join NAFTA!" without realising that NAFTA is full of things that we'd also find completely unacceptable.

    Re the EU in general, I think the Eurozone will either collapse, or evolve to look more like a country. Either is possible.

    I suspect the latter, because - with every day that goes by - the cost of break-up gets higher, and therefore the temptation to band-aid over issues gets greater. Which in turn raises the costs of break-up.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963
    rcs1000 said:

    MP_SE said:

    Leaving the EU would give the UK a seat on many of these international bodies. Something which we do not currently have as a member of the EU. We would be able to influence the setting of standards which are then rubber stamped by the EU.

    Almost all trade deals are negotiated under the auspices of the WTO these days (with the exceptions of a few monster deals like the TTIP and the Canadian thing), so whether you are a member of the EU or EFTA or independent will make virtually no difference to your terms of trade with the rest of the world.
    Except of course for the important point you are missing which is that Norway is an independent member if the WTO whereas under EU law the UK has to subsume it's role to the EU.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    I do like a bit of imagination in protest. This is great.

    https://twitter.com/shirva77/status/602143474834644992
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. 1000, it could evolve into a country. And then collapse.

    I agree with you on papering over the cracks. That's one of the major reasons we should leave now. We can have pain now, or immense pain later. If the EU collapsed now there'd probably be some low level civil strife. If it collapses in 20 years, strife will be widespread and we might even see some warfare.

    Miss Plato, your post reminds me of the contrary view, as epitomised by Clegg, who asserted we'd be a 'pygmy' without the EU.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963
    rcs1000 said:

    MP_SE said:

    If the lead campaign group proposes joining EFTA the amount of fear will be reduced significantly.

    Yes, but only for say a 5 year period, the various options to be looked at in that time.
    The time to look into the options is before a referendum. If you're proposing to look at it after then undecideds will vote for the status quo.
    Not at all, how could you possibly decide future trade agreements on the basis of hypothetical scenarios? You go into the referendum on the basis that you will ensure a medium term agreement that guarantees trade can continue uninterrupted, thereafter to begin the business of forming longer term arrangements with various countries around the world.
    Except that there's no guarantee the European nations will even let us join the EFTA if we leave the EU and certainly no guarantee they'd let us do so on a temporary basis. So how can you commit to that?

    Again though you're dealing with the problem that you lose the "control our borders" argument if we're in the EFTA you'll lose the "full control of writing our own laws" if we're in the EFTA and we'll lose the "have our say in writing European rules" if we're in the EFTA.
    Not so. The UK is an independent signatory to EFTA outside of our membership of the EU. And both the 'lose control of our own laws' and 'have no say over trade rules' are myths that have been comprehensively debunked by commentators like Richard North as well as by some Norwegian ministers
    While - as you know - I am a supported of EFTA/EEA, I am not sure we still are signatories. I think our membership lapsed when we joined the EU, and we are not listed on the EFTA members page (http://www.efta.int/about-efta/the-efta-states).

    This would not pose any substantive difficulties, and I'm sure you could fairly seamlessly go from 31 December EU member to 1 January EFTA member.

    (Humorous fact of the day: all EFTA members are Schengen members.)
    We are still registered as independent signatories to the EEA treaty alongside the EU which signed in its own right.

    Oh and although all current non-EU EFTA members may be part of Schengen it does not mean that being part of EFTA means you also gave to be part of Schengen.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,047
    Plato said:

    The biggest factor I have from a positive perspective about BOOing fully is that I have innate faith and confidence in the UK's ability to trade globally.

    Maybe it's my age, but I see us as a global pink-atlas player who did things wildly beyond our size and geography for centuries. And our language is the default in very many places either first or second.

    I feel the EU is something to consider in our kit bag, but only if it suits our wider aims and ambitions. If not, dump it. I'm not the teeniest bit sentimental about it. And those members/citizens who remain won't stop buying from us out of spite.

    Mr. 1000, but that doesn't address my question. If your argument is that EU and UK interests are aligned so we should be in a trading bloc and have the EU able to make our laws, surely you would advocate the same for the US and UK?

    The EU's an indefensible organisation that will collapse like the Aetolian League.

    The UK's ability to trade globally? Are you aware of the current trade figures? We aren't exporting to the big growing markets of the future and we're borrowing record amounts from the rest of the world. Whilst I disagreed with Lord Lawson claiming we should leave the EU, he was right to suggest we were far too reliant on it for our trade. Still I'm not one of those who thinks the best way to improve your writing with your left hand is to cut off your right hand.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    For me, the economic arguments are important, but secondary.

    Like LIAMT, the most important issue to me is sovereignty. I want to be governed by people who are accountable to the British electorate, and nobody else.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,003

    Mr. 1000, it could evolve into a country. And then collapse.

    I agree with you on papering over the cracks. That's one of the major reasons we should leave now. We can have pain now, or immense pain later. If the EU collapsed now there'd probably be some low level civil strife. If it collapses in 20 years, strife will be widespread and we might even see some warfare.

    Miss Plato, your post reminds me of the contrary view, as epitomised by Clegg, who asserted we'd be a 'pygmy' without the EU.

    I don't think it'll collapse, to be honest. I think it'll go on integrating, and over time it will becoming increasingly like a normal democracy. And that's because the costs of dissolution fall mostly on the beneficiaries of the currency union. Therefore, the fiscal transfers will keep increasing, and the level of democratic oversight required will increase. The Eurozone will end up looking like the Swiss Confederation in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries; a bunch of ineffectual little states held together by a fear of the outside and a common currency.

    The issue to me is that this integration path is a nightmare for those people who are not members of the Eurozone. We don't want to join their country, and our presence is a pain.

    Therefore we should leave.

    However, I think that we would be extremely unwise not to go down the EFTA/EEA route. I'm in a minority of one on this, but I think the free movement of labour is the single greatest achievement of the EU - although I don't believe there should be any rights of non citizens to claim benefits.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963

    Plato said:

    The biggest factor I have from a positive perspective about BOOing fully is that I have innate faith and confidence in the UK's ability to trade globally.

    Maybe it's my age, but I see us as a global pink-atlas player who did things wildly beyond our size and geography for centuries. And our language is the default in very many places either first or second.

    I feel the EU is something to consider in our kit bag, but only if it suits our wider aims and ambitions. If not, dump it. I'm not the teeniest bit sentimental about it. And those members/citizens who remain won't stop buying from us out of spite.

    Mr. 1000, but that doesn't address my question. If your argument is that EU and UK interests are aligned so we should be in a trading bloc and have the EU able to make our laws, surely you would advocate the same for the US and UK?

    The EU's an indefensible organisation that will collapse like the Aetolian League.

    The UK's ability to trade globally? Are you aware of the current trade figures? We aren't exporting to the big growing markets of the future and we're borrowing record amounts from the rest of the world. Whilst I disagreed with Lord Lawson claiming we should leave the EU, he was right to suggest we were far too reliant on it for our trade. Still I'm not one of those who thinks the best way to improve your writing with your left hand is to cut off your right hand.
    Not so. Our current millstone round our neck in terms of trade balance is trade with the EU. That currently stands in deficit to the tune of more than £80 billion a year. We have a trade surplus with the rest of the world and it is that we should be concentrating on building, not a failing protectionist backwater like the EU.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Richard_Tyndall

    Mr Tyndall - do you have plans/ambitions to be involved in the referendum? I can't think of anyone else so knowledgeable bar Mr Booker.

    I do hope you have time to dedicate to it. An informed debate is essential - the nonsense slogans from the SNP re Sindy made me laugh/wince and cry inside. We can't let that paucity of facts happen to the whole UK.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,756
    I wonder how many votes we'll get on this ?
This discussion has been closed.