politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nick Palmer: An EU referendum REMAIN victory is a 75% chanc

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nick Palmer: An EU referendum REMAIN victory is a 75% chance

In my last article, I argued that voters weren’t yet paying attention to the EU debate, but that I thought IN would win in the end. This article explains why.

Read the full story here

foxinsoxuk

First!

JEO

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

RobD

Third. I agree remain is more likely. Personally, I've been leaning out in recent months.

foxinsoxuk

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

There will be plenty of misrepresentations and misleading allegations on both sides. It is politics after all! I am not sure that Iceland is a model that many in the UK would want to emulate for example (and isn't it in Schengen for example, so in some ways more integrated into Europe than us?)

Leave needs to decide if it advocates staying in the EEA. If it doesn"t then the top poster will fail, but to a lot of folk (including me) being in the EEA is near enough the same as being in the EU, with its 4 freedoms etc.

One major factor that did for "Yes" in Scotland was the lack of clarity over issues like Currency Union, Defence and the Monarchy. "Yes" wanted to keep the popular bits of the Union but not some of the rest. It led voters to a pro-Union vote. Wanting to stay in these led to too much ambiguity, and it will be the same over the EEA. Better to take a Sinn Fein style "ourselves alone" type approach with all its clarity.

Great article Nick*, but you miss out that other factor. Non-EU countries (notably the USA this week) are also wanting us to Remain. Apart from Putin's Russia, there is bo no international support for leave and this will make will make "Leave" look rather friendless.

* nearly as good as the long awaited AV thread.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

* nearly as good as the long awaited AV thread.

By mentioning the AV thread, you have delayed the AV thread by another day.

foxinsoxuk

Off topic. "The Ice Twins" is in the kindle daily deals today for 99p. Not my cup of tea I expect, but at less than a quid may be worth having.

blackburn63

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

Of course it is

Indigo

blackburn63 said:

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

Of course it is

The question to some extent is going to be which campaign gets a place in the public perception as being a bunch of liars, whoever wins that award, and stops being listened to by the public is going to have an uphill struggle. Its the EdM Factor, its doesn't matter how worthy what you say is if the public aren't prepared to give you the time of day.

AlastairMeeks

The public will believe what each side says about the other. If Remain are going to tell us that Leave are nutters and Leave are going to tell us that Remain are liars, the public will believe that Remain are liars and that Leave are nutters. The public is likely ultimately to decide that liars are a safer bet than nutters.

So I suggest that Leave need to find a better attack line on Remain and fast.

blackburn63

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

SouthamObserver

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

Being consulted is not the same as getting a say. EEA members get no vote on, no right to negotiate over and have no ability to veto EU directives, regulations or policies. They do have some flexibility on implementation.

Indigo

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

Being consulted is not the same as getting a say. EEA members get no vote on, no right to negotiate over and have no ability to veto EU directives, regulations or policies. They do have some flexibility on implementation.

... and get to ignore the vast majority of it. Norway has implemented less that a third of EU directives, we have implemented basically all of them.

SouthamObserver

Nick thought he would win Broxtowe in May and backs Jeremy Corbyn, so may not be the best judge of voter sentiment :-)

That said, I can see where he's coming from here. However, to argue against: there are more committed Outers than Inners; the group most likely to vote are pensioners, who are also the most committed Outers; an Out vote will lead not only to Cameron's demise, but Osborne's too; if the deal Cameron gets involves watering down workers' rights many on the left will be for Out whatever the Labour leadership says or does; Out will focus relentlessly on immigration and In will have no meaningful response - being an EU member means accepting free movement of people (EEA membership does too, pretty much, but that's not what the argument will be about).

Outs one big weak spot is the alternative. What happens if we vote to leave? We are being asked to take a leap in the dark.

The bottom line will be turnout. The lower it is, the higher the chance Out will win.

SouthamObserver

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

Being consulted is not the same as getting a say. EEA members get no vote on, no right to negotiate over and have no ability to veto EU directives, regulations or policies. They do have some flexibility on implementation.

... and get to ignore the vast majority of it. Norway has implemented less that a third of EU directives, we have implemented basically all of them.

And most of them are pretty uncontroversial. It's the stuff that grates that matters.

SouthamObserver

blackburn63 said:

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

A lot of Tories like Cameron too. Hannan is a fluent speaker and a fine writer, but he is a right wing Tory. Out needs to be seen as a lot more than the Tory right and UKIP if it is to win.

ydoethur

Mohammed Hafeez decides it is not enough to throw his wicket away lightly, he hurls it with great force.

AlastairMeeks

I agree with Nick's assessment of the true odds. But you'll get better prices on Remain later in the campaign than are available now. The aggressive can bet on Leave right now. I suppose you could call that the Will Young strategy.

SouthamObserver

Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.

blackburn63

SouthamObserver said:

blackburn63 said:

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

A lot of Tories like Cameron too. Hannan is a fluent speaker and a fine writer, but he is a right wing Tory. Out needs to be seen as a lot more than the Tory right and UKIP if it is to win.

Of course you're right but as Nick Palmer suggests, labour supporters are likely to be apathetic, it's the Tory votes that will make the difference, 4m UKIP votes are in the bag.

tlg86

"They think they probably don’t need to, and if the Brits pull out, oh well, perhaps it’s for the best, eh?"

I'm not sure French farmers will think like that...

AlastairMeeks

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I agree with Nick [Palmer]. I'd probably put In as over 90%, personally. Yes, the polls are close. But consider a few things.

Cameron's more liked/trusted than any other political leader (excepting Sturgeon, but she's also for In). His near certain recommendation of In will sway or at least influence many non-partisan voters.

The status quo has won in both referendum votes we've had recently. That included a slightly daft AV/FPTP vote, and the prolonged, detailed, occasionally grumpy vote in Caledonia.

ydoethur

On topic, this seems a rather long-winded way of saying the referendum is Remain's to lose. Which is of course true, and we have all known for ages, whether we personally are In or Out, that it is true. Remain can say what does happen as a result of being in the EU - Out can only really speculate on what might happen if we leave. Remain will have massive funding from big business - Out will have a few bucks from a few millionaires. Remain will almost certainly feature all the active heavyweight politicians plus Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron - Out is likely to be led by er, Nigel Farage, because there isn't really anyone else unless a cabinet minister resigns to lead it (which I think is most unlikely). The international pressure is for Britain to stay in, apart from the Russians (whom most British people hold in deep suspicion). Even the press, a few foghorns like the Express and the Telegraph apart, is likely to swing behind Remain in the end, as will the BBC and social media. Put simply, the cards are stacked heavily in favour of Remain - so heavily that Out could be forgiven for thinking that it's hopeless, which may explain all the negative sentiments about the referendum and Cameron personally in the Eurosceptic press.

That leaves the more pertinent question - what will the margin be? In Scotland the margin was exactly the worst imaginable - a clear 'Remain' victory, but not quite clear enough that it swept the issue off the table for 50 years. Instead, it has energised supporters of independence into a belief that actually, independence is attainable and it has led to a rapid transformation of Scottish politics as a result. If it is 66-34 Remain, that's that. We're in the EU whether we like it or not. But if (as seems more likely unless Cameron gets something drastic from these renegotiations that he is taking so seriously) we get a 54-46 result, it could galvanise the Eurosceptics into thinking, 'oooh, near miss this time, what about next time?'

Don't ask me what that could mean for the next general election, because the only definite thing we know is that it would create uncertainty. But there might be some value to be found in the UKIP seats market if you consider that scenario plausible. 20-30 seats might not be terribly unrealistic, especially if Corbyn or Trickett or some other dimwitted chatterati figure is leading Labour and Osborne replaces Cameron.

Plato_Says

He's caught out again " JEREMY Corbyn has said he can’t see the point of commemorating the First World War. " http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1627346.ece

Apparently he was filmed by CPGB in 2013. They helpfully loaded it to YouTube

JEO

SouthamObserver said:

blackburn63 said:

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

A lot of Tories like Cameron too. Hannan is a fluent speaker and a fine writer, but he is a right wing Tory. Out needs to be seen as a lot more than the Tory right and UKIP if it is to win.

Kate Hoey.

JEO

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

That first billboard from the Remain campaign is completely dishonest. Countries in the EEA absolutely do get a say in EU laws, being consulted in numerous stages. And countries like South Korea get free trade with the EU without making a contribution. They must know this.

Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?

Being consulted is not the same as getting a say. EEA members get no vote on, no right to negotiate over and have no ability to veto EU directives, regulations or policies. They do have some flexibility on implementation.

Actually, getting consulted is exactly the same as getting a say. What else does 'getting a say' mean? They also do get a vote on these things, in the EEA Joint Committee, and then it goes into negotiation if needed.

JEO

antifrank said:

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

I think you're arguing against a strawman with (1), but it shouldn't be surprising that a pro-EU journalist writing in a pro-EU newspaper avoids the fibs the Remain campaign has been pushing.

I really thought the campaign would push me towards Remain, as I was expecting that to be the positive 'mainstream' side of the debate. But while the Leave campaign has been measured and marginalising of the more extreme voices, the Remain campaign has focused on dishonesty and insults.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

I think you're arguing against a strawman with (1), but it shouldn't be surprising that a pro-EU journalist writing in a pro-EU newspaper avoids the fibs the Remain campaign has been pushing.

I really thought the campaign would push me towards Remain, as I was expecting that to be the positive 'mainstream' side of the debate. But while the Leave campaign has been measured and marginalising of the more extreme voices, the Remain campaign has focused on dishonesty and insults.

You won't see the irony in your own post, I'm sure.

Indigo

ydoethur said:

Remain will have massive funding from big business - Out will have a few bucks from a few millionaires. Remain will almost certainly feature all the active heavyweight politicians plus Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron - Out is likely to be led by er, Nigel Farage, because there isn't really anyone else unless a cabinet minister resigns to lead it (which I think is most unlikely). The international pressure is for Britain to stay in, apart from the Russians (whom most British people hold in deep suspicion). Even the press, a few foghorns like the Express and the Telegraph apart, is likely to swing behind Remain in the end, as will the BBC and social media. Put simply, the cards are stacked heavily in favour of Remain - so heavily that Out could be forgiven for thinking that it's hopeless, which may explain all the negative sentiments about the referendum and Cameron personally in the Eurosceptic press.

On the other hand, the GBP really hate a being offered a choice that looks like a stitch up or a foregone conclusion, and might well kick strongly against being taken for granted - see the AV referendum where the great and the good (especially the right-on great and the good) couldn't conceive of the public voting against a change in the electoral system.

ydoethur

It could be worse for Jeremy Corbyn though Plato. He could be leading the Australian Labour Party:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/latest-victorian-alp-branchstacking-scandal-pushes-bill-shorten-to-call-for-investigation-20151101-gknxhy.html

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/inside-bill-shortens-strategy-to-take-on-malcolm-turnbull-20151029-gkmhes.html

Morris_Dancer

Whilst still not happy with the authoritarian streak displayed, this is some good news:
"Meanwhile, ministers have ruled out plans to restrict or ban companies from encrypting data."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34690943

ydoethur

Indigo said:

ydoethur said:

Remain will have massive funding from big business - Out will have a few bucks from a few millionaires. Remain will almost certainly feature all the active heavyweight politicians plus Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron - Out is likely to be led by er, Nigel Farage, because there isn't really anyone else unless a cabinet minister resigns to lead it (which I think is most unlikely). The international pressure is for Britain to stay in, apart from the Russians (whom most British people hold in deep suspicion). Even the press, a few foghorns like the Express and the Telegraph apart, is likely to swing behind Remain in the end, as will the BBC and social media. Put simply, the cards are stacked heavily in favour of Remain - so heavily that Out could be forgiven for thinking that it's hopeless, which may explain all the negative sentiments about the referendum and Cameron personally in the Eurosceptic press.

On the other hand, the GBP really hate a being offered a choice that looks like a stitch up or a foregone conclusion, and might well kick strongly against being taken for granted - see the AV referendum where the great and the good (especially the right-on great and the good) couldn't conceive of the public voting against a change in the electoral system.

Possibly, Indigo. But I think you overlook the obvious point - the AV referendum was regarded as a total joke and a waste of time by most people, which would not make any meaningful difference to their lives whatever happened. A mere 42% could be bothered to vote, and that was probably helped by local elections being held at the same time. Europe, like it, loathe it, or wish it would go away of its own accord, is an important issue and I expect turnout to be much higher and engagement to be much greater.

British people admittedly don't like stitch-ups. But Out have got to convince them that protesting against such a stitch-up will not be to their personal detriment. As we saw in Scotland, where this is pretty much exactly the line the SNP took, that's easier said than done particularly if your own position is less than brilliantly clear or persuasive.

DecrepitJohnL

blackburn63 said:

4m UKIP votes are in the bag.

Are 4m UKIP votes really in the bag? Only if we assume all 4m GE 2015 UKIP voters want to leave the EU, and to believe that, we must first rule out UKIP having gained any NOTA or EICWNBPM votes.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, I think that's a good point. Whilst most Kippers will be for Out, I think quite a few might be socially conservative sorts who like the party on migration but don't want to leave the EU (similarly, there will be small numbers of Lib Dems who are anti-EU, and a reasonable minority within Labour).

foxinsoxuk

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

blackburn63 said:

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

A lot of Tories like Cameron too. Hannan is a fluent speaker and a fine writer, but he is a right wing Tory. Out needs to be seen as a lot more than the Tory right and UKIP if it is to win.

Kate Hoey.

Who? I am a politics nerd and wouldn't know her from Eve.

Whoever the official face is (who can even remember the name of the official leader of Yes in the Sindyref?) Farage will be the face of Leave in the media and to the public. Farage is the only one that the general public will recognise, and he is not noted for his shy and retiring manner with the press.

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Whilst still not happy with the authoritarian streak displayed, this is some good news:
"Meanwhile, ministers have ruled out plans to restrict or ban companies from encrypting data."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34690943

Since ecommerce depends on data encryption, unless HMG wants to take Britain back to the stone age, it had little choice. No doubt they'll still be able to imprison people for not decrypting their data on demand, and require ISPs to store what URLs are accessed so they can see who has downloaded terrorist materials, pornography or the UKIP manifesto.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Foxinsox, hence the Shed Doctrine.

JEO

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

I think you're arguing against a strawman with (1), but it shouldn't be surprising that a pro-EU journalist writing in a pro-EU newspaper avoids the fibs the Remain campaign has been pushing.

I really thought the campaign would push me towards Remain, as I was expecting that to be the positive 'mainstream' side of the debate. But while the Leave campaign has been measured and marginalising of the more extreme voices, the Remain campaign has focused on dishonesty and insults.

You won't see the irony in your own post, I'm sure.

Why don't you explain it to me? I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, but I've noticed before you like to imply insults to others but then don't stick around to justify them.

JackW

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

Plato_Says

Is that also a lake in Zambia?

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, I think that's a good point. Whilst most Kippers will be for Out, I think quite a few might be socially conservative sorts who like the party on migration but don't want to leave the EU (similarly, there will be small numbers of Lib Dems who are anti-EU, and a reasonable minority within Labour).

My dad is a pro-EU kipper voter. So far as I can tell (I try not to argue too much with him) he is mainly opposed to non-EU migration and multi-culturism and is pretty relaxed about european migration. He is pretty homophobic too, another subject best avoided over the dinner table.

ydoethur

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

A simple truism Jack, because as we saw with the good Mr Salmond, if a leader loses a referendum on a crucial plank of policy, he has to resign at once.

If Remain are defeated, Cameron will resign at once, and somebody else will take us out of Europe.

Scrapheap_as_was

A least spurs aren't playing today.... mets choke and cook tosses it again already... npxmp has missed another V important group, the ever expanding new tory party which isn't Obsessed with etc.

Fenster

Good article Nick.

I'm naturally apprehensive about the EU and dislike the thought of laws being made by people we can't unelect. But I wouldn't vote to leave.

I'm comfier with a Cameron stance than I ever would be with a Miliband Eutophile party, because I'd prefer the British govt to be awkward and constantly demanding of reforms than one that caves in to ambitious federal careerists like Juncker.

However, I do think Cameron will be laying it on thick with the extent of his reforms and it will annoy me to vote for it. Having said that, packing up and leaving just doesn't sit right with me.

Like Morris Dancer I'd put the IN cspaign chances at 80% plus.

ydoethur

foxinsoxuk said:

He is pretty homophobic too, another subject best avoided over the dinner table.

https://youtu.be/krgUVduKFL4?t=1m35s

felix

SouthamObserver said:

Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.

Not sure about that. I think C' s will probably go with the largest party which will probably be PP - just. You are underestimating the significance of a strongly growing economy and falling unemployment.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

I think you're arguing against a strawman with (1), but it shouldn't be surprising that a pro-EU journalist writing in a pro-EU newspaper avoids the fibs the Remain campaign has been pushing.

I really thought the campaign would push me towards Remain, as I was expecting that to be the positive 'mainstream' side of the debate. But while the Leave campaign has been measured and marginalising of the more extreme voices, the Remain campaign has focused on dishonesty and insults.

You won't see the irony in your own post, I'm sure.

Why don't you explain it to me? I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, but I've noticed before you like to imply insults to others but then don't stick around to justify them.

You're not happy to have a reasonable discussion. On this subject you assume opponents are lying. Then you accuse them of dishonesty and insults.

The Remain campaign's characterisation of Brexit as apt to lead to a Britain that is marginalised in law-making and with many of the costs of the EU is an entirely fair argument to make, even if you disagree with it, which is also an entirely fair position. Simply huffing and puffing won't make the argument go away.

If you think that only one side is making tendentious points, I suggest you rethink.

Morris_Dancer

I think Mr. W needs to see the AA.

Acronym Addiction is a serious problem, and it affects more and more PBers as the years pass by. Without realising it, they simply lose the ability to communicate w/out acronyms, shorthand etc.

Morris_Dancer

Come on, chaps. If you don't start being nice to each other, I'll start discussing the optimal character builds for Fallout 4.

And you wouldn't want that, now, would you?

foxinsoxuk

ydoethur said:

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

A simple truism Jack, because as we saw with the good Mr Salmond, if a leader loses a referendum on a crucial plank of policy, he has to resign at once.

If Remain are defeated, Cameron will resign at once, and somebody else will take us out of Europe.

I think Jack is right, unless Cameron supports Leave, which does not seem likely.

Backing Jacks ARSE and MacARSE has made me a tidy sum in the last couple of years. I currently have a fair amount invested in Leave on Betfair, but expect to back out of it as people get wobbly and the polls get tighter, ideally leaving me all green.

@JackW

Any soundings from your EUROARSE on percentages yet?

Jonathan

This is a very different beast to the Scottish referendum. Unlike that vote, this one comes with a massive dose of "no-one gives a shit".

Differential turnout will be key.

RobD

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

Rolls off the tongue

Plato_Says

If anyone cares, Mrs May is on Marr today.

SquareRoot

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

I think you're arguing against a strawman with (1), but it shouldn't be surprising that a pro-EU journalist writing in a pro-EU newspaper avoids the fibs the Remain campaign has been pushing.

I really thought the campaign would push me towards Remain, as I was expecting that to be the positive 'mainstream' side of the debate. But while the Leave campaign has been measured and marginalising of the more extreme voices, the Remain campaign has focused on dishonesty and insults.

You won't see the irony in your own post, I'm sure.

Why don't you explain it to me? I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, but I've noticed before you like to imply insults to others but then don't stick around to justify them.

You're not happy to have a reasonable discussion. On this subject you assume opponents are lying. Then you accuse them of dishonesty and insults.

The Remain campaign's characterisation of Brexit as apt to lead to a Britain that is marginalised in law-making and with many of the costs of the EU is an entirely fair argument to make, even if you disagree with it, which is also an entirely fair position. Simply huffing and puffing won't make the argument go away.

If you think that only one side is making tendentious points, I suggest you rethink.

so speaks the man who recently was throwing out insults ... from memory calling people who didn't understand point x were arseholes (amongst other insults.)

foxinsoxuk

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

He is pretty homophobic too, another subject best avoided over the dinner table.

youtu.be/krgUVduKFL4?t=1m35s

Actually grandpa Fox is a militantly anti-clerical athiest so religion is not a good subject for dinner conversation either!

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Come on, chaps. If you don't start being nice to each other, I'll start discussing the optimal character builds for Fallout 4.

And you wouldn't want that, now, would you?

Heavens above, Mr Dancer, that's a real threat! Lay off, guys, please, for the good of us all!

AlastairMeeks

SquareRoot said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Andrew Rawnsley gives his view of what's going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/david-cameron-eu-negotiations-in-out-debate-tories

Two things to note.

1) the idea that David Cameron has been telling eye-popping untruths all week doesn't exactly feature as a main theme.

2) the detail on the progress of the renegotiation seems well-informed.

I think you're arguing against a strawman with (1), but it shouldn't be surprising that a pro-EU journalist writing in a pro-EU newspaper avoids the fibs the Remain campaign has been pushing.

I really thought the campaign would push me towards Remain, as I was expecting that to be the positive 'mainstream' side of the debate. But while the Leave campaign has been measured and marginalising of the more extreme voices, the Remain campaign has focused on dishonesty and insults.

You won't see the irony in your own post, I'm sure.

Why don't you explain it to me? I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, but I've noticed before you like to imply insults to others but then don't stick around to justify them.

You're not happy to have a reasonable discussion. On this subject you assume opponents are lying. Then you accuse them of dishonesty and insults.

The Remain campaign's characterisation of Brexit as apt to lead to a Britain that is marginalised in law-making and with many of the costs of the EU is an entirely fair argument to make, even if you disagree with it, which is also an entirely fair position. Simply huffing and puffing won't make the argument go away.

If you think that only one side is making tendentious points, I suggest you rethink.

so speaks the man who recently was throwing out insults ... from memory calling people who didn't understand point x were arseholes (amongst other insults.)

Your memory isn't very good then. It wasn't a question of understanding.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Come on, chaps. If you don't start being nice to each other, I'll start discussing the optimal character builds for Fallout 4.

And you wouldn't want that, now, would you?

First you'd have to explain what that second sentence meant.

JackW

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I don't understand why we don't let the hereditary peers die off.

Your name vill also go on zee list. Vot iz it?

ydoethur

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

He is pretty homophobic too, another subject best avoided over the dinner table.

youtu.be/krgUVduKFL4?t=1m35s

Actually grandpa Fox is a militantly anti-clerical athiest so religion is not a good subject for dinner conversation either!

'Scuse my asking Doctor, but what subjects can you actually talk about with your old man? He sounds a bit like the Venturis and the Selachiis, who were always icily polite and would therefore only say 'good evening' and 'I see you are standing up' to each other when they met, because they were only things the two families could agree on.

JEO

antifrank said:

You're not happy to have a reasonable discussion. On this subject you assume opponents are lying. Then you accuse them of dishonesty and insults.

The Remain campaign's characterisation of Brexit as apt to lead to a Britain that is marginalised in law-making and with many of the costs of the EU is an entirely fair argument to make, even if you disagree with it, which is also an entirely fair position. Simply huffing and puffing won't make the argument go away.

If you think that only one side is making tendentious points, I suggest you rethink.

This is completely untrue. I'm always happy to have a reasonable discussion on every topic. I have accused you of using insults because you have called people on this board "assholes" before now, so that is entirely fair. You seem to love dismissing other people's points as 'huffing and puffing' and 'obsessing', which says more about you than it does about them.

It is also nothing to do with my "opponents" as I have not yet decided which way to vote on the referendum. That will depend on the renegotiation results and the cases put by the two campaigns. If the Remain side want to argue that the UK could be marginalised in the law-making and still have many costs, then that is a fair argument to make. What is not honest is when they claim:

- there is "no say" from EEA members
- Norway pays as much into the EU budget per capita as the UK
- you have to contribute to the EU budget to have free trade with the EU

These things aren't just 'tendentious'. They are undeniable falsehoods, and deserve to be called out as that. If the Leave campaign makes similar falsehoods, I will call them out too. If you want to give me examples of VoteLeave saying something false, I will very willing to listen. But as far as I can see, only one of the official campaigns is doing it.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Antifrank, as Mr. Doethur is trembling with fear it would be unkind of me to explain the matter.

Edited extra bit: the F1 piece is more or less done and should be up shortly.

JackW

Plato_Says said:

Is that also a lake in Zambia?

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

.... Equatorial Guinea I think ....

Morris_Dancer

Betting Post
F1: not one but two long(ish) odds bets. We'll see whether that's brave, stupid, lucky, or unlucky after the race:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/mexico-pre-race.html

foxinsoxuk

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

He is pretty homophobic too, another subject best avoided over the dinner table.

youtu.be/krgUVduKFL4?t=1m35s

Actually grandpa Fox is a militantly anti-clerical athiest so religion is not a good subject for dinner conversation either!

'Scuse my asking Doctor, but what subjects can you actually talk about with your old man? He sounds a bit like the Venturis and the Selachiis, who were always icily polite and would therefore only say 'good evening' and 'I see you are standing up' to each other when they met, because they were only things the two families could agree on.

When he was younger we used to argue about politics and religion, but he gets rather overheated on such things nowadays. Plenty left to talk about though, he still travels a lot, likes to know what is going on in the NHS, grandchildren etc. He also has quite an interest in History and Economics too.

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Betting Post
F1: not one but two long(ish) odds bets. We'll see whether that's brave, stupid, lucky, or unlucky after the race:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/mexico-pre-race.html

Bottas for a second podium of the year? Have to say I think that is a brave bet for anyone who wants to take it. However, it all sounds very chaotic over there!

ydoethur

foxinsoxuk said:

He also has quite an interest in History and Economics too.

Both very sound subjects. Or at least, one of them is.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

You're not happy to have a reasonable discussion. On this subject you assume opponents are lying. Then you accuse them of dishonesty and insults.

The Remain campaign's characterisation of Brexit as apt to lead to a Britain that is marginalised in law-making and with many of the costs of the EU is an entirely fair argument to make, even if you disagree with it, which is also an entirely fair position. Simply huffing and puffing won't make the argument go away.

If you think that only one side is making tendentious points, I suggest you rethink.

This is completely untrue. I'm always happy to have a reasonable discussion on every topic. I have accused you of using insults because you have called people on this board "assholes" before now, so that is entirely fair. You seem to love dismissing other people's points as 'huffing and puffing' and 'obsessing', which says more about you than it does about them.

It is also nothing to do with my "opponents" as I have not yet decided which way to vote on the referendum. That will depend on the renegotiation results and the cases put by the two campaigns. If the Remain side want to argue that the UK could be marginalised in the law-making and still have many costs, then that is a fair argument to make. What is not honest is when they claim:

- there is "no say" from EEA members
- Norway pays as much into the EU budget per capita as the UK
- you have to contribute to the EU budget to have free trade with the EU

These things aren't just 'tendentious'. They are undeniable falsehoods, and deserve to be called out as that. If the Leave campaign makes similar falsehoods, I will call them out too. If you want to give me examples of VoteLeave saying something false, I will very willing to listen. But as far as I can see, only one of the official campaigns is doing it.

There you go again. The phrase "fax democracy" was coined by a Norwegian Prime Minister. Presumably he had an idea of the practical say that Norway got in rule-making. If you expect campaigns to put "in theory Norway has a consultation mechanism but in practice it's a mere formality leading to minimal influence in the making of EU laws" on posters, you expect too much. "No say" is a perfectly fair position to take. You disagree with it but don't wildly accuse others of lying because they don't characterise it as you do.

Similarly, it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that if Britain left the EU it would in practice need to contribute to the EU budget. I'd be happy to bet to high stakes that Britain would after Brexit be making contributions to the EU budget.

Constantly accusing opponents of lying doesn't lead to a healthy debate. It just makes you look closed-minded.

JackW

ydoethur said:

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

A simple truism Jack, because as we saw with the good Mr Salmond, if a leader loses a referendum on a crucial plank of policy, he has to resign at once.

If Remain are defeated, Cameron will resign at once, and somebody else will take us out of Europe.

Probably, although Cameron is the most pragmatic of Prime Ministers. I can perceive of a situation whereby the nation prefers Cameron to remain and oversee "Leave" before his own "Leave" nearer 2020.

I don't expect the scenario to play out as Cameron will ensure there is enough fudge for the sweet toothed electorate to endorse his "Remain" recommendation.

Casino_Royale

I think Nick's odds are about correct.

JackW

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

JackW said:

The ARSE speaketh thus :

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron

TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC

A simple truism Jack, because as we saw with the good Mr Salmond, if a leader loses a referendum on a crucial plank of policy, he has to resign at once.

If Remain are defeated, Cameron will resign at once, and somebody else will take us out of Europe.

I think Jack is right, unless Cameron supports Leave, which does not seem likely.

Backing Jacks ARSE and MacARSE has made me a tidy sum in the last couple of years. I currently have a fair amount invested in Leave on Betfair, but expect to back out of it as people get wobbly and the polls get tighter, ideally leaving me all green.

@JackW

Any soundings from your EUROARSE on percentages yet?

Many soundings but none of them suitable for a Sunday morning airing before church ....

ydoethur

On the subject of religion and remembering the location of the good Doctor, I was in Leicestershire last week and I drove under a railway bridge on which somebody, presumably a disciple of the Great Dawkins, had painted 'God does not exist' in huge letters, one word for each panel. The railway maintenance workers obviously have a sense of humour in those parts. They had rubbed out the word 'not' and left the rest up!

DavidL

Scrapheap_as_was said:

A least spurs aren't playing today.... mets choke and cook tosses it again already... npxmp has missed another V important group, the ever expanding new tory party which isn't Obsessed with etc.

Yeah, there must be at least 5 of us. Very important demographic.

JEO

antifrank said:

There you go again. The phrase "fax democracy" was coined by a Norwegian Prime Minister. Presumably he had an idea of the practical say that Norway got in rule-making. If you expect campaigns to put "in theory Norway has a consultation mechanism but in practice it's a mere formality leading to minimal influence in the making of EU laws" on posters, you expect too much. "No say" is a perfectly fair position to take. You disagree with it but don't wildly accuse others of lying because they don't characterise it as you do.

Similarly, it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that if Britain left the EU it would in practice need to contribute to the EU budget. I'd be happy to bet to high stakes that Britain would after Brexit be making contributions to the EU budget.

Constantly accusing opponents of lying doesn't lead to a healthy debate. It just makes you look closed-minded.

You are trying to argue that black is white. If a left-wing campaign argued that Facebook paid 'no taxes in the UK' because he judged the amount paid to be low, or a right wing campaign argued the US had 'no involvement in Syria' because he judged the intervention to be light-touch, we would accurately describe such claims as false. But yet you give free pass to Remain do the same thing with Norway's say being zero, even when they clearly have formal mechanisms for a say. Just because you think that say doesn't count for much doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist.

And I note you don't even engage with the falsehood about the amount Norway and the UK paying in being the same per capita. Even a committed pro-EU person like yourself must accept that is a falsehood.

Casino_Royale

antifrank said:

The public will believe what each side says about the other. If Remain are going to tell us that Leave are nutters and Leave are going to tell us that Remain are liars, the public will believe that Remain are liars and that Leave are nutters. The public is likely ultimately to decide that liars are a safer bet than nutters.

So I suggest that Leave need to find a better attack line on Remain and fast.

I agree with that. They could, of course, try the line that Remain are nutters given the history of our EU relationship in the past, and where it's likely to head in the future.

Painting Remain as the riskier option - and I believe it is - is the key here.

Excellent article yesterday, btw.

Innocent_Abroad

Plato_Says said:

He's caught out again " JEREMY Corbyn has said he can’t see the point of commemorating the First World War. " http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1627346.ece

Apparently he was filmed by CPGB in 2013. They helpfully loaded it to YouTube

He's already worn the wrong outfit for to-day week - you can see it on YouTube already

Now, where did I put the link?

GIN1138

Given Dr Palmer's last couple of general election predictions, I think I'll file this away as wishful thinking....

Casino_Royale

Casino_Royale said:

I think Nick's odds are about correct.

Although, to be fair, a Conservative majority was priced a lot longer than this just hours before it happened.

And Jeremy Corbyn? His odds were off the scale.

Anything could happen, which of course isn't to say that it will.

NickPalmer

blackburn63 said:

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.

Casino_Royale

JEO said:

antifrank said:

There you go again. The phrase "fax democracy" was coined by a Norwegian Prime Minister. Presumably he had an idea of the practical say that Norway got in rule-making. If you expect campaigns to put "in theory Norway has a consultation mechanism but in practice it's a mere formality leading to minimal influence in the making of EU laws" on posters, you expect too much. "No say" is a perfectly fair position to take. You disagree with it but don't wildly accuse others of lying because they don't characterise it as you do.

Similarly, it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that if Britain left the EU it would in practice need to contribute to the EU budget. I'd be happy to bet to high stakes that Britain would after Brexit be making contributions to the EU budget.

Constantly accusing opponents of lying doesn't lead to a healthy debate. It just makes you look closed-minded.

You are trying to argue that black is white. If a left-wing campaign argued that Facebook paid 'no taxes in the UK' because he judged the amount paid to be low, or a right wing campaign argued the US had 'no involvement in Syria' because he judged the intervention to be light-touch, we would accurately describe such claims as false. But yet you give free pass to Remain do the same thing with Norway's say being zero, even when they clearly have formal mechanisms for a say. Just because you think that say doesn't count for much doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist.

And I note you don't even engage with the falsehood about the amount Norway and the UK paying in being the same per capita. Even a committed pro-EU person like yourself must accept that is a falsehood.

I think antifrank doesn't necessarily have a huge amount of time for the EU and those that run it, but he dislikes the people opposed to it even more. It's therefore an emotional decision, rather than a rational one, and that it makes it hard to engage on the economic or political arguments.

Right, my day beckons. Adieu.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Doethur, hedged, though, so if he gets close or looks like he is it could be green whether it happens or not.

Worth recalling he was on for a podium in Russia when he was taken out by Raikkonen. In qualifying, he was less than a tenth off Ricciardo ahead of him, and in Q1/Q2 was more like 4th or so than 6th. Plus, the top speed will make it harder to pass him and easier for him to overtake than cars of comparable speed but quicker in the corners.

tlg86

Good to Jess Phillips painting herself as a victim on the Marr show this morning.

LWNWAGEEA

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

There you go again. The phrase "fax democracy" was coined by a Norwegian Prime Minister. Presumably he had an idea of the practical say that Norway got in rule-making. If you expect campaigns to put "in theory Norway has a consultation mechanism but in practice it's a mere formality leading to minimal influence in the making of EU laws" on posters, you expect too much. "No say" is a perfectly fair position to take. You disagree with it but don't wildly accuse others of lying because they don't characterise it as you do.

Similarly, it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that if Britain left the EU it would in practice need to contribute to the EU budget. I'd be happy to bet to high stakes that Britain would after Brexit be making contributions to the EU budget.

Constantly accusing opponents of lying doesn't lead to a healthy debate. It just makes you look closed-minded.

You are trying to argue that black is white. If a left-wing campaign argued that Facebook paid 'no taxes in the UK' because he judged the amount paid to be low, or a right wing campaign argued the US had 'no involvement in Syria' because he judged the intervention to be light-touch, we would accurately describe such claims as false. But yet you give free pass to Remain do the same thing with Norway's say being zero, even when they clearly have formal mechanisms for a say. Just because you think that say doesn't count for much doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist.

And I note you don't even engage with the falsehood about the amount Norway and the UK paying in being the same per capita. Even a committed pro-EU person like yourself must accept that is a falsehood.

1) I'm undecided. My decision will be made on how Britain's identity will develop. No one committed seems to believe this, but on this I suspect I will be quite typical of many. Neither the Remainers nor the Leavers are saying anything to attract my vote yet.

2) I have no interest in how much exactly Norway contributes to the EU. It has no relevance to how I will vote or, I suspect, to the vote of anyone who doesn't bay at full moons. So I can't comment either way on that point.

3) "No say" is a fair shorthand for "formal consultation only". Many Leavers argue that Britain has "no say" in the EU already. It's a fair view also, though that is still less legally formally accurate. It depends what you interpret "say" to mean. You are taking a highly formalistic view and then accusing anyone who is more purposive of being dishonest.

Campaigns are not conducted at a forensic level but painted in bright primary colours. You bandy about words like "lie", "untruth", "fib" and "false" to describe entirely fair expressions of opinion. You disagree with them. Fine. But express your disagreement, don't immediately resort to attacks on the integrity of others.

DavidL

I really would not want to overstate how much I care about this but surely the key for Out is to show that remain has risks too. For me, the obvious way to do that is to focus on the increasing integration of the EZ and their ability to use QMV to shape the laws to their convenience and advantage. We run the risk of being members of a club where decisions are made at meetings we are not invited to and then rubber stamped at meetings where our views are disregarded.

Cameron and Osborne have both identified this problem and it is the key to any renegotiation. We need some additional protections, possibly by a double QMV in both EZ and non EZ blocs. If they don't get something substantive on this it seems to me that there is a real opportunity for out. I for one would vote for out unless this is addressed but much more importantly the perceived risks would be materially different.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 86, are they discussing her mirth at the prospect of discussing male suicide, or the despicable threats she's received online?

tlg86

On topic - Remain need to be careful not to be seen to be talking down Britain. That Britain can survive outside of the EU (or even the EEA) is not in doubt - the question is how beneficial is our membership of the EU?

tlg86

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 86, are they discussing her mirth at the prospect of discussing male suicide, or the despicable threats she's received online?

Amanda Platell brought up the topic of male suicides - and without mentioning Ms Phillips's reaction at that hearing - moved on to the abuse she's received online. Two wrongs do not make a right - but both wrongs should be discussed.

Plato_Says

OT - I had no idea Wicca was about as ancient as Scientology - fascinating docu on More4 last night http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-witchcraft

JEO

antifrank said:

1) I'm undecided. My decision will be made on how Britain's identity will develop. No one committed seems to believe this, but on this I suspect I will be quite typical of many. Neither the Remainers nor the Leavers are saying anything to attract my vote yet.

2) I have no interest in how much exactly Norway contributes to the EU. It has no relevance to how I will vote or, I suspect, to the vote of anyone who doesn't bay at full moons. So I can't comment either way on that point.

3) "No say" is a fair shorthand for "formal consultation only". Many Leavers argue that Britain has "no say" in the EU already. It's a fair view also, though that is still less legally formally accurate. It depends what you interpret "say" to mean. You are taking a highly formalistic view and then accusing anyone who is more purposive of being dishonest.

Campaigns are not conducted at a forensic level but painted in bright primary colours. You bandy about words like "lie", "untruth", "fib" and "false" to describe entirely fair expressions of opinion. You disagree with them. Fine. But express your disagreement, don't immediately resort to attacks on the integrity of others.

There you go again, insulting people that have different views to yourself as people that "bay at full moons". In the antifrank view of the word, describing false statements as 'untruths' is an unfair attack on people's integrity, but describing them as lunatics and assholes is something that can be done with abandon.

It does not need to matter to your vote for you to realise something untrue is untrue. Here's links you can use in 30 seconds to make your mind up.

Cameron's statement: "Norway actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do, they actually take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country but of course they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate."

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/cameron-admits-norway-no-model-britain-europe-318989

The pro-EU CBI: "Norway is thus the tenth highest contributor to the EU, despite not being a member, with per capita contributions of €100, well over half of the UK’s contributions (€180)."

http://www.cbi.org.uk/global-future/case_study06_norway.html

Cameron's statement is just false, isn't it?

Scott_P

@simonsketch: Spectre. Worst. Bond film. Ever.

foxinsoxuk

NickPalmer said:

blackburn63 said:

The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.

But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.

I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.

Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.

To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 86, that's a pretty significant omission. Phillips does not deserve the vile abuse she's received online, but she also doesn't deserve a few pass to mock the idea of discussing why so many men kill themselves.

JEO

It's also an astonishing argument that campaigns don't have to be technically true because they paint in 'bright primary colours'. We'll be in an awful place as a country if we allow politicians to say things that aren't true because they figure the falsehood more representative of the situation than the actual truth.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

1) I'm undecided. My decision will be made on how Britain's identity will develop. No one committed seems to believe this, but on this I suspect I will be quite typical of many. Neither the Remainers nor the Leavers are saying anything to attract my vote yet.

2) I have no interest in how much exactly Norway contributes to the EU. It has no relevance to how I will vote or, I suspect, to the vote of anyone who doesn't bay at full moons. So I can't comment either way on that point.

3) "No say" is a fair shorthand for "formal consultation only". Many Leavers argue that Britain has "no say" in the EU already. It's a fair view also, though that is still less legally formally accurate. It depends what you interpret "say" to mean. You are taking a highly formalistic view and then accusing anyone who is more purposive of being dishonest.

Campaigns are not conducted at a forensic level but painted in bright primary colours. You bandy about words like "lie", "untruth", "fib" and "false" to describe entirely fair expressions of opinion. You disagree with them. Fine. But express your disagreement, don't immediately resort to attacks on the integrity of others.

There you go again, insulting people that have different views to yourself as people that "bay at full moons". In the antifrank view of the word, describing false statements as 'untruths' is an unfair attack on people's integrity, but describing them as lunatics and assholes is something that can be done with abandon.

It does not need to matter to your vote for you to realise something untrue is untrue. Here's links you can use in 30 seconds to make your mind up.

Cameron's statement: "Norway actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do, they actually take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country but of course they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate."

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/cameron-admits-norway-no-model-britain-europe-318989

The pro-EU CBI: "Norway is thus the tenth highest contributor to the EU, despite not being a member, with per capita contributions of €100, well over half of the UK’s contributions (€180)."

http://www.cbi.org.uk/global-future/case_study06_norway.html

Cameron's statement is just false, isn't it?

Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.

I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.

JEO

antifrank said:

Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.

I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.

No, I shan't be. But I still believe that senior politicians should not be telling untruths to campaign for something. The fact you can't even admit something that is obviously false is false shows you are not willing to criticise the Remain campaign at all.

And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.

Steven_Whaley

What immediately strikes me about the two campaign posters above Nick's article is that the Remain one has nothing positive to say about remaining and the Leave one has nothing positive to say about leaving.

I'm not surprised though - that's how politics is now. Attack your opponent and say nothing positive about your own position. Sad.

Good article though. I admire Nick's optimism that In is most likely to prevail - I only wish I shared that optimism myself.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.

I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.

No, I shan't be. But I still believe that senior politicians should not be telling untruths to campaign for something. The fact you can't even admit something that is obviously false is false shows you are not willing to criticise the Remain campaign at all.

And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.

OK, we're getting somewhere. You've at least admitted that one of your complaints is about something trivial.

The other two you are reduced to arguing are formally not quite right even if in practice they might very well be.

Happy to leave it there then.

Sandpit

Morning all. Just catching up after a rugby party hangover, a couple of very good articles from Nick and Antifrank.

The dynamics for the EU referendum are going to be fascinating, very different yet taking a lot from the two recent plebiscites on Scotland and AV. I think the key will be whether or not Remain can get their turnout high enough to counter a large Leave faction that are more engaged with the referendum.

DavidL

Scott_P said:

@simonsketch: Spectre. Worst. Bond film. Ever.

It wasn't that bad. It was better than any of the Roger Moore films which were just embarrassing and I would say better than most of the Brosnan and Dalton efforts. Craig has been quite a good Bond.

It had a very, very poor script both in terms of story line and indeed humour. The only real laugh in the cinema last night was in response to "and we all know what C stands for". The toys were somewhat understated although there was a nice car. Some of the talent on screen was seriously wasted and the attempt to have Bourne like reality with the close quarters stuff really didn't work.

Disappointing but not the worst, not by a long shot.

Sandpit

Ooh, Pakistan lose another one. 105/4 now. I'm trying to clear one day this week to go and watch, at the moment it's looking like tomorrow might be that day.