politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though Cameron will try to get referendum out o

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though Cameron will try to get referendum out of the way as soon as possible

Judging from the headlines a key measure that the new government will seek to bring in quickly is the referendum on whether Britain should remain part of the EU. LAB had already said it will back the plan and the only change it might seek is on the extension of the franchise to 16-17 year olds.

Read the full story here

Monksfield

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of a stay vote, if the loony right think they've been betrayed.

malcolmg

He may get more than he bargains for

david_herdson

Not sure you can make that conclusion. My reading would be that the bill's in this Queen's Speech partly because it's one of the centrepieces of the government's programme and it'd be daft for it not to be there, and - perhaps more relevantly - when the government was putting the QS together it wasn't sure of Labour's attitude towards it. Ed had previously been opposed. To have the referendum in the first half of the parliament meant that it'd have to be introduced in this session if the Lords voted it down and the Commons needed to use the Parliament Act to force it through. That, I think, was the key consideration.

My expectation would be a May 2017 date for the poll although personally I don't like combining such a big vote with other elections, whatever the logistical advantages. June or October / November would be better.

edmundintokyo

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat

Or defections to UKIP in the event of a victory, for that matter. Probably easier to handle when the government is stronger, though, and governments tend to be at their weakest around mid-term, so if you can't go later than 2017 then earlier is better.

CarlottaVance

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat.

I think that threat has lost a lot of its potency.......

Like the Nats, the Outers will only ever be happy with one outcome - so getting it out of the way quickly, so what remains of his term can focus on things the majority really care about - like the economy, taxation, jobs, the NHS, housing and education makes sense.

MarqueeMark

Why would a Conservative MP defect to UKIP if the people have been given a vote, the arguments fully made and the decision made to vote YES? The issue of membership of the EU is dead for the rest of their political life.

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

DavidL

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

Scott_P

A giant prick. Literally.

@BBCNormanS: I intend to be a very large thorn in the side of Conservative Govt - @AlexSalmond @BBCr4today

logical_song

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of a stay vote, if the loony right think they've been betrayed.

Interesting the quote above is different from what shows in the entry:
"Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat."

The betting is that the vote will be to stay, will there be any pro-EU Tories who might leave the party if the vote goes against them?

Freggles

Do you agree that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?

Casino_Royale

2016 looks a bit short to me.

edmundintokyo

MarqueeMark said:

Why would a Conservative MP defect to UKIP if the people have been given a vote, the arguments fully made and decision made to vote YES? The issue of membership of the EU is dead for the rest of their political life.

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

The way Cameron's doing this keeps the issue alive, namely to have a referendum on the basis of something he claims to have negotiated, but that hasn't actually been implemented at the time of the vote, and the significance of which the "in" side are bound to over-state. If the "out" side lose they'll justifiably feel that they've been robbed.

JohnO

Freggles said:

Do you agree that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?

Probably.

Monksfield

edmundintokyo said:

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat

Or defections to UKIP in the event of a victory, for that matter. Probably easier to handle when the government is stronger, though, and governments tend to be at their weakest around mid-term, so if you can't go later than 2017 then earlier is better.

A Government with a majority of 16 is never strong, something Cameron seems to be underestimating.

I meant defeat for 'leave' of course..

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL

So far as defections are concerned, Mark Reckless, TPD, did genuinely good service to his former party.

These people are not even mainly rational but they do have a sense of self preservation.

Indigo

CarlottaVance said:

so what remains of his term can focus on things the majority really care about - like the economy, taxation, jobs, the NHS, housing and education makes sense.

... immigration...

(Not to mention "votes for prisoners" will be the first shot between the eyes after an IN vote, it has just gone a bit quiet at the moment to not spook the horses)

Monksfield

MarqueeMark said:

Why would a Conservative MP defect to UKIP if the people have been given a vote, the arguments fully made and the decision made to vote YES? The issue of membership of the EU is dead for the rest of their political life.

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

Because for some of these people hate for Europe is their raison d'etre. They will just see a stay vote as having been outmanouevred or betrayed by Cameron. Come on, we've seen how referenda unleash strange and random forces elsewhere. When you put a significant part of your support on the other side of the question, the outcome's not likely to be especially happy.

Indigo

MarqueeMark said:

Why would a Conservative MP defect to UKIP if the people have been given a vote, the arguments fully made and the decision made to vote YES? The issue of membership of the EU is dead for the rest of their political life.

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

Obviously because unless it is handled very carefully, any close result is going to be denounced as a fix. If the Irish vote in the EuRef as has been mooted and they swing it there will be a huge scandal, also if they let 16-17 year olds vote and they swing it. It has to be played straight down the line, any suggestion that Cameron is trying to pad out the votes in the IN camp is going to cause endless drama.

asjohnstone

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

asjohnstone

will this be run along party lines or will MPs be free to go either way?

Pulpstar

MarqueeMark said:

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

Referendums can have large unintended consequences. Imagine if "45%" voted to head out...

Dair

asjohnstone said:

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.

Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.

Sean_F

CarlottaVance said:

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat.

I think that threat has lost a lot of its potency.......

Like the Nats, the Outers will only ever be happy with one outcome - so getting it out of the way quickly, so what remains of his term can focus on things the majority really care about - like the economy, taxation, jobs, the NHS, housing and education makes sense.

If he loses, then the rest of his term will be focused on negotiating terms of withdrawal.

Richard_Tyndall

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

DavidL

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

edmundintokyo

Monksfield said:

edmundintokyo said:

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat

Or defections to UKIP in the event of a victory, for that matter. Probably easier to handle when the government is stronger, though, and governments tend to be at their weakest around mid-term, so if you can't go later than 2017 then earlier is better.

A Government with a majority of 16 is never strong, something Cameron seems to be underestimating.

I'm sure he's aware of the difficulties - this is another reason to get the difficult stuff out of the way earlier,because later on he may no longer even have 16...

MarqueeMark

I was right that UKIP would have one MP after the general election.

I feel equally confident that UKIP will have no more than one MP six months after the referendum.

Perhaps not even one.

CarlottaVance

Dair said:

asjohnstone said:

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.

Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11621866/Alex-Salmond-Ill-campaign-with-Tories-to-stay-in-EU.html

richardDodd

Cameron only has one vote..just like the rest of us..no deal then it will be out..so he has to get a good deal..

Richard_Tyndall

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?

I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.

CarlottaVance

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat.

I think that threat has lost a lot of its potency.......

Like the Nats, the Outers will only ever be happy with one outcome - so getting it out of the way quickly, so what remains of his term can focus on things the majority really care about - like the economy, taxation, jobs, the NHS, housing and education makes sense.

If he loses, then the rest of his term will be focused on negotiating terms of withdrawal.

Another argument in favour of having it early......

Robert_Of_Sheffield

*** Football politics news ***

Some FIFA officials have been arrested in Switzerland, as part of a corruption investigation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32895048

This could obviously affect the forthcoming FIFA presidential election, and may also affect the 2018 and 2022 world cups. If FIFA officials are convicted of accepting bribes from Russia or Qatar, there will be calls for the selection process to be rerun.

There's not likely to be any direct impact on UK political betting, unless the UK steps in as an emergency host, but a chance of venue should affect the odds on football betting.

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Monksfield said:

Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat.

I think that threat has lost a lot of its potency.......

Like the Nats, the Outers will only ever be happy with one outcome - so getting it out of the way quickly, so what remains of his term can focus on things the majority really care about - like the economy, taxation, jobs, the NHS, housing and education makes sense.

If he loses, then the rest of his term will be focused on negotiating terms of withdrawal.

Another argument in favour of having it early......

I guess the argument for having it late is that if he loses he can quit and leave the whole mess to some other unlucky Prime Minister.

Dair

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

asjohnstone said:

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.

Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11621866/Alex-Salmond-Ill-campaign-with-Tories-to-stay-in-EU.html

An article in the Telegraph currently has the status of "opposite to the truth". I can't be bothered sitting through the Newsnight interview but the lack of a direct quote is pretty telling.

MarqueeMark

Pulpstar said:

MarqueeMark said:

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

Referendums can have large unintended consequences. Imagine if "45%" voted to head out...

Yes. The UK will have voted to stay in the EU.

The only situation I can see being politically uncontrollable is if there is a very close result to stay in, where England just votes NO but the votes from Scotland push it over the line for YES.

richardDodd

RT This is not Camerons choice..he gets a deal which we all vote for ..or not..simple as that.

Monksfield

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

MarqueeMark said:

You really think they are going to throw their toys out the pram and group together in UKIP to agitate for ANOTHER referendum? That would require a political sulk of Heathian proportions.

Referendums can have large unintended consequences. Imagine if "45%" voted to head out...

Yes. The UK will have voted to stay in the EU.

The only situation I can see being politically uncontrollable is if there is a very close result to stay in, where England just votes NO but the votes from Scotland push it over the line for YES.

Bwahahaha. Now that would be funny

Sean_F

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?

I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.

It'll be interesting to see what Conservative MPs make of minimalist change.

Richard_Tyndall

richardDodd said:

Cameron only has one vote..just like the rest of us..no deal then it will be out..so he has to get a good deal..

This is, without doubt, one of the most moronic arguments that is ever used on PB.

DavidL

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?

I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.

That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.

Sandpit

Value is on 2017 now. Cameron can use the threat of a 2016 referendum as part of his negotiation strategy with his European counterparts.

edmundintokyo

richardDodd said:

Cameron only has one vote..just like the rest of us..

Speak for yourself, I have zero. Come to think of it, do you have one? You've been out of the UK for a while, IIUC?

richardDodd

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

CarlottaVance

Dair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

asjohnstone said:

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.

Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11621866/Alex-Salmond-Ill-campaign-with-Tories-to-stay-in-EU.html

An article in the Telegraph currently has the status of "opposite to the truth". I can't be bothered sitting through the Newsnight interview but the lack of a direct quote is pretty telling.

How about the Dundee Courier?

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/salmond-would-back-osborne-on-eu-yes-vote-1.877650

Scott_P

The big issue of the day...

@BBCNormanS: Stand by for more argy bargy in Commons over seats with still no deal over who sits where between @theSNP and Labour Party #queensspeech

edmundintokyo

On topic it may not be a good idea to bet on this because too many insiders are likely to have inside information that we don't, but on the face of it 2017 seems like good value seeing as how that was supposed to be the plan...

AlastairMeeks

I agree with David Herdson. Introducing the bill does not mean that the referendum will necessarily be early. The 11/4 with Sky Bet on 2017 looks tempting.

Richard_Tyndall

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Scrapheap_as_was

It will never happen. I've read it on here that it wouldn't as cammo couldn't be trusted.

kle4

Freggles said:

Do you agree that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?

What kind of EU?

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

It will never happen. I've read it on here that it wouldn't as cammo couldn't be trusted.

Indeed, I guess all the Kippers will be piling in on the 10/1

foxinsoxuk

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Getting your excuses in early?

You wanted a referendum - you got one. Where is the betrayal?

Whinging is not the most effective form of campaigning.

CarlottaVance

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Without wishing to ascribe attributes to other posters, the polling evidence consistently shows a significant shift in favour of 'In' when the question is subsequently asked 'If David Cameron renegotiated and recommended staying in how would you vote?'

kle4

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

Indeed. I don't know why so many BOOers are so,pessimistic about convincing people about the renegotiations being a sham, even with, sigh, the msm on the side of in.

Plato

.

CarlottaVance

Scrapheap_as_was said:

It will never happen. I've read it on here that it wouldn't as cammo couldn't be trusted.

I've also read on here that Scotland would be independent and Ed Miliband would be PM.....there are some shocking fibbers out there!

Richard_Tyndall

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?

I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.

That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.

Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.

It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.

CD13

The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.

So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.

Will the EU play ball?

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Without wishing to ascribe attributes to other posters, the polling evidence consistently shows a significant shift in favour of 'In' when the question is subsequently asked 'If David Cameron renegotiated and recommended staying in how would you vote?'

Careful with that, it's a good way to get middle-option bias.

Probably more accurate just to say that those people are on the fence.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

New short story (comedy/fantasy) up on Kraxon: http://www.kraxon.com/financial-wizardry/

Do give it a look.

On-topic: I agree with the consensus that In remains strong favourite.

foxinsoxuk

CD13 said:

The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.

So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.

Will the EU play ball?

Control of the borders means no EEA. Is this what BOOers are campaigning for? It is not just the BOIers who are not entirely certain what they will be voting for.

foxinsoxuk

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

A decision to have it early is a decision to put this before the British people with a fairly minimal reform package. This is either because Cameron is confident that he can win on the current status quo plus a couple of tweaks or he has accepted that major reform is simply not possible within his 2017 deadline.

I think he is probably right that In will win relatively easily but I am mildly disappointed that major reform has been given up on quite so quickly. With a UK referendum hanging over him he had the perfect tool to drive forward change and seemed to be picking up some allies for it. Once the UK has voted to stay in driving forward change will be much, much more difficult and almost certainly slip beyond his Premiership.

it just confirms what Carswell said at the time of his defection and what many of us have claimed all along in spite of what the Tory supporters on here have said.

Cameron never had any intention of meaningful renegotiation. All he has ever been interested in is securing an in vote and he will settle for the absolute minimum of change that will ensure that.

You should be pleased. Minimal or no reform gives Out its best chance.

Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?

I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.

That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.

Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.

It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.

The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.

It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.

Richard_Tyndall

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Getting your excuses in early?

You wanted a referendum - you got one. Where is the betrayal?

Whinging is not the most effective form of campaigning.

Given that I have been entirely consistent in my claims about Cameron and what he will do to win the referendum for the last 5 years or more I am afraid your silly little trolling doesn't really have an effect. Bear in mind I was the one saying Cameron should delay the referendum until 2019 so he could show good faith in his supposed re-negotiations.

Eurofanatics like you will of course be delighted by Cameron's tactics so your arrogant attitude is no surprise.

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

It will never happen. I've read it on here that it wouldn't as cammo couldn't be trusted.

I've also read on here that Scotland would be independent and Ed Miliband would be PM.....there are some shocking fibbers out there!

Ouch.

CD13 said:

The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.

So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.

Will the EU play ball?

The EU is great at avoiding immediate trouble without addressing underlying issues, so I'm sure they will. They just need the bureaucrats to rein in their contempt for britains position for a bit. Preventing the more pro EU leaders and ex leaders from doing so may be more difficult

Plato

Morning All

Here's my 2p why it's in the QS:

a) it shows it wasn't a manifesto fib so shuts up most of the *he'll not do it* types
b) it shows the EU we're serious
c) it provides for maximum time for Inners like Cameron to negotiate the best possible concessions
d) if Outers win, it provides three years to untangle ourselves in the same Parly.

All seems sensible to me, both tactically and strategically. Can't see [m]any advantages to holding the ref in 2016 bar appeasing a tiny minority of foot-stampers who'll never be happy.

CarlottaVance

Guardian sales up!.......at the BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097877/BBC-spends-130-000-year-buying-copies-Guardian-s-equivalent-900-licence-fees.html

Casino_Royale

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

In will almost certainly win. But it might do so narrowly rather than comprehensively.

A 53-47 victory for "In" would certainly not settle the issue for a generation, and whilst fighting for an outright victory it's that outcome that Out must seek to maximise.

On an aside, I'm been surprised at just how many Tories I know have told me they're 'definitely out', and some old pro-euro Tories in the late 90s/early 00s are now 'probably in, but persuadable'.

AlastairMeeks

FIFA: it would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

Monksfield

If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.

Monksfield

CarlottaVance said:

Guardian sales up!.......at the BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097877/BBC-spends-130-000-year-buying-copies-Guardian-s-equivalent-900-licence-fees.html

And what do they spend on other papers, Carlotta, because they don't only buy the Grauniad.

Dair

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

asjohnstone said:

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.

Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11621866/Alex-Salmond-Ill-campaign-with-Tories-to-stay-in-EU.html

An article in the Telegraph currently has the status of "opposite to the truth". I can't be bothered sitting through the Newsnight interview but the lack of a direct quote is pretty telling.

How about the Dundee Courier?

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/salmond-would-back-osborne-on-eu-yes-vote-1.877650

Much better.

But still utterly meaningless. You know, you keep this straw clutching up as long as you want. It has no traction and has no impact.

57 soon.

foxinsoxuk

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Getting your excuses in early?

You wanted a referendum - you got one. Where is the betrayal?

Whinging is not the most effective form of campaigning.

Given that I have been entirely consistent in my claims about Cameron and what he will do to win the referendum for the last 5 years or more I am afraid your silly little trolling doesn't really have an effect. Bear in mind I was the one saying Cameron should delay the referendum until 2019 so he could show good faith in his supposed re-negotiations.

Eurofanatics like you will of course be delighted by Cameron's tactics so your arrogant attitude is no surprise.

I am not delighted by Camerons tactics. I have consistently opposed having a referendum, and would have parliament decide on these issues.

But both Inners and Outers will be selling a hazy vision of what can be achieved. We do not know what the terms of staying in will be or what the terms of leaving would be, until one or the other position comes after the referendum. In that case we will never know what the alternative would have been. The pig is in the poke on both sides.

MarqueeMark

Plato said:

Morning All

Here's my 2p why it's in the QS:

a) it shows it wasn't a manifesto fib so shuts up most of the *he'll not do it* types
b) it shows the EU we're serious
c) it provides for maximum time for Inners like Cameron to negotiate the best possible concessions
d) if Outers win, it provides three years to untangle ourselves in the same Parly.

All seems sensible to me, both tactically and strategically. Can't see [m]any advantages to holding the ref in 2016 bar appeasing a tiny minority of foot-stampers who'll never be happy.

2016 is a useful option if Cameron doesn't get engagement by the EU leaders.

"Well, I was hoping to go in 2017 after we had some firm agreed changes to put in front of my EU-sceptic voters. But if you won't talk sensibly, then 2016 it is. But don't expect us to still be in the EU. I know my voters - they want material change, or they want out. And frankly, I'm relaxed about my legacy being as the PM who left the EU...."

AlastairMeeks

Monksfield said:

If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.

That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.

Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

FIFA: it would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

Could not have been timed better.

Richard_Tyndall

foxinsoxuk said:

The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.

It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.

As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.

And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.

richardDodd

RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..

AlastairMeeks

Monksfield said:

CarlottaVance said:

Guardian sales up!.......at the BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097877/BBC-spends-130-000-year-buying-copies-Guardian-s-equivalent-900-licence-fees.html

And what do they spend on other papers, Carlotta, because they don't only buy the Grauniad.

Why can't BBC staffers go online like the rest of us do?

TOPPING

Liz Truss a bit shaky to start having been given the hospital pass HRA 08.10 slot but I thought did v well by the end.

Plus she is surely destined to join the David/Danny Blanchflower group of mis-named people in politics.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Antifrank, I'm shocked and astounded by the corruption arrests. Whoever would've thought it?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, I'm shocked and astounded by the corruption arrests. Whoever would've thought it?

FIFA is like Mos Eisley

edmundintokyo

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

It will never happen. I've read it on here that it wouldn't as cammo couldn't be trusted.

I've also read on here that Scotland would be independent and Ed Miliband would be PM.....there are some shocking fibbers out there!

Ouch.

CD13 said:

The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.

So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.

Will the EU play ball?

The EU is great at avoiding immediate trouble without addressing underlying issues, so I'm sure they will. They just need the bureaucrats to rein in their contempt for britains position for a bit. Preventing the more pro EU leaders and ex leaders from doing so may be more difficult

Bureaucrats aren't the problem here. The problem is elected leaders of other countries, their parliaments and ultimately their voters. If the British want to take back their side of deals made 10, 20 or 30 years ago, they're going to want to know what they're going to get in return.

Think of it the other way around: Say the Front National win in France and they want to restrict the ability of British banks to sell to French customers. The British would obviously say, "If you're going to do that, we're not paying for your farmers". A renegotiation is a _negotiation_.

So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?

Richard_Tyndall

richardDodd said:

RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..

Why? They were in 1975.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, careful. Jabba's litigious.

Mr. Tokyo, they want further integration in the eurozone. A looser British membership helps us avoid the political bullshit, and means they can go full steam ahead with their insanity.

Dair

Monksfield said:

CarlottaVance said:

Guardian sales up!.......at the BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097877/BBC-spends-130-000-year-buying-copies-Guardian-s-equivalent-900-licence-fees.html

And what do they spend on other papers, Carlotta, because they don't only buy the Grauniad.

I think the question should be why are they buying any papers in physical form.

Firstly they are supposed to be a news gathering organisation, this just adds fuel to the suggestion (from Derek Bateman most notably) that news gathering at the BBC has evolved to be merely culling stories from the press.

Secondly, most papers are either available for free or offer corporate subscription they could purchase for the entire organisation. It seems particularly wasteful regardless of the title.

edmundintokyo

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..

Why? They were in 1975.

That's not fair, Wilson achieved genuine concessions for Caribbean sugar producers.

TOPPING

And elsewhere, not to say that it falls into the "Pope Catholic" category but surely the bigger news is that it wasn't "all but six FIFA officials arrested"?

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

Plato said:

Morning All

Here's my 2p why it's in the QS:

a) it shows it wasn't a manifesto fib so shuts up most of the *he'll not do it* types
b) it shows the EU we're serious
c) it provides for maximum time for Inners like Cameron to negotiate the best possible concessions
d) if Outers win, it provides three years to untangle ourselves in the same Parly.

All seems sensible to me, both tactically and strategically. Can't see [m]any advantages to holding the ref in 2016 bar appeasing a tiny minority of foot-stampers who'll never be happy.

2016 is a useful option if Cameron doesn't get engagement by the EU leaders.

"Well, I was hoping to go in 2017 after we had some firm agreed changes to put in front of my EU-sceptic voters. But if you won't talk sensibly, then 2016 it is. But don't expect us to still be in the EU. I know my voters - they want material change, or they want out. And frankly, I'm relaxed about my legacy being as the PM who left the EU...."

If only he would put it like that..

NickPalmer

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.

The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the more so given that he will be supported in his contention by the Opposition.

Sure. I've no doubt that the EU will be obliging in making friendly noises - they are all used to the business of letting each other claim great victories. They have no intention of major change, but are quite happy to enable Cameron to say it's in the wind.

Sandpit said:

Value is on 2017 now. Cameron can use the threat of a 2016 referendum as part of his negotiation strategy with his European counterparts.

He's likely to get friendlier mood music if he has it early. It'll be difficult to avoid some serious discussions by 2017. In 2016 the EU can cheerfully agree that benefits for migrants need to be addressed, very possibly on the lines suggested by Monsieur Cameron, that the City deserves reasonable protection, pourquoi pas, and that ever-closer union is a voluntary process and Britain won't be forced into it. Details? Ah, we'll sort them out, but first decide if you want to be a part of it or not, eh?

I've always thought that sceptics made a strategic error in not insisting on a referendum (or another referendum) AFTER any deal. Getting a yes vote before a deal with Opposition support isn't going to be hard, as Richard says - swing voters will feel that it's too extreme to walk out just when some nice deal is apparently under way. Cameron isn't the new Tony Blair, but the new Harold Wilson.

TOPPING

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..

Why? They were in 1975.

Richard remind me the scenario you believe will happen: Cam goes to renegotiate, gets nothing, lies that he has got something, voters believe him?

I am not being facetious, the scenario you painted for me a while ago was quite plausible (involving, that said, Cam lying) but I can't quite remember the constituent parts.

Plato

This will always make me laugh with incredulity

https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/603465134795788288

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, I'm shocked and astounded by the corruption arrests. Whoever would've thought it?

Casino_Royale

edmundintokyo said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

It will never happen. I've read it on here that it wouldn't as cammo couldn't be trusted.

I've also read on here that Scotland would be independent and Ed Miliband would be PM.....there are some shocking fibbers out there!

Ouch.

CD13 said:

The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.

So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.

Will the EU play ball?

The EU is great at avoiding immediate trouble without addressing underlying issues, so I'm sure they will. They just need the bureaucrats to rein in their contempt for britains position for a bit. Preventing the more pro EU leaders and ex leaders from doing so may be more difficult

Bureaucrats aren't the problem here. The problem is elected leaders of other countries, their parliaments and ultimately their voters. If the British want to take back their side of deals made 10, 20 or 30 years ago, they're going to want to know what they're going to get in return.

Think of it the other way around: Say the Front National win in France and they want to restrict the ability of British banks to sell to French customers. The British would obviously say, "If you're going to do that, we're not paying for your farmers". A renegotiation is a _negotiation_.

So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?

They get political stability in the EU, retain the UK's net financial contributions and are free to pursue further EU integration within the eurozone in future within the UK playing the awkward squad.

edmundintokyo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, careful. Jabba's litigious.

Mr. Tokyo, they want further integration in the eurozone. A looser British membership helps us avoid the political bullshit, and means they can go full steam ahead with their insanity.

The British don't have a veto on that, and if they did (ie if it could only be done with a full treaty) then a looser British membership wouldn't help because the British would still need to pass it.

If they were really worried about the British gumming up the works the solution would be to offer them the finger, let them leave, then negotiate a deal that was basically the same as the status quo except that the British didn't have a vote any more.

Sean_F

Monksfield said:

If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.

No is good for the Tories, IMHO, as it removes UKIP's raison d'être. Of course, Cameron may decide at that point that someone else can deal with withdrawal negotiations.

A big In is good for the Tories as it's a triumph for Cameron, and settles the issue.

A narrow In is the worst result for the Tories, as it will mean most Tories voted Out, and the issue won't go away.

Really, there are lots of known unknowns:-

1. How many newspapers will support Out?

2. How many Conservative MPs and Ministers will support Out? If ministers can't support No, how many will resign?

3. How long will the government's honeymoon period last?

4. Will the Eurozone crisis erupt again?

5. How effective will each side's campaign be?

Then of course, are the unknown unknowns.

Indigo

foxinsoxuk said:

CD13 said:

The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.

So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.

Will the EU play ball?

Control of the borders means no EEA. Is this what BOOers are campaigning for? It is not just the BOIers who are not entirely certain what they will be voting for.

TBH all this BOI and BOI and EFTA/EEA is a load of horse sh*t that will be understood by about 1% of the people voting in the referendum. The man on the Clapham omnibus will be interested in on one side his job and savings, and on the other side immigration/sovereignty/borders. The referendum will be won on lost on that basis, not on the basis of a lot of Euro-acronyms the voters will neither have heard no cared about.

If the question in the public's mind becomes "will my job be safe" or "will my savings lose value" then IN will win. If it becomes "who controls our borders" or "too much immigration too fast" or "whose country is this anyway ?" then OUT will win.

Plato

Putting off the legislation to reduce MP seats until afterwards would be instructive/gun-to-the-head tactic

Sean_F said:

Monksfield said:

If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.

No is good for the Tories, IMHO, as it removes UKIP's raison d'être. Of course, Cameron may decide at that point that someone else can deal with withdrawal negotiations.

A big In is good for the Tories as it's a triumph for Cameron, and settles the issue.

A narrow In is the worst result for the Tories, as it will mean most Tories voted Out, and the issue won't go away.

Really, there are lots of known unknowns:-

1. How many newspapers will support Out?

2. How many Conservative MPs and Ministers will support Out? If ministers can't support No, how many will resign?

3. How long will the government's honeymoon period last?

4. Will the Eurozone crisis erupt again?

5. How effective will each side's campaign be?

Then of course, are the unknown unknowns.

Richard_Tyndall

antifrank said:

Monksfield said:

If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.

That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.

Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.

I would hope that UKIP would realise that having an OUT leader who was not UKIP and could appeal to a wide audience - like Frank Field or Kate Hoey from Labour or Dan Hannan from the Tories or better still a senior business figure like Dyson - would vastly improve the chances for BOO. However I am not convinced at the moment that Farage would put BOO ahead of narrow party interests.

TheScreamingEagles

@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, democracy in action!

edmundintokyo

Sean_F said:

5. How effective will each side's campaign be?

As a gesture of goodwill on behalf of "in" supporters I'd like to offer you guys Eddie Izzard.