politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the past 6 weeks EU referendum polls have ranged from a

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.

Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.

The case for deciding worker protection (guaranteed holidays etc.) at European level is that it largely disposes of the argument that if our companies treat people well they'll be undercut by Continental rivals who don't. It's a special case of a whole raft of minimum standard issues, including things as uncontentious as safety of HGVs. Some of them have stronger cases for decision at European level than others, and I'd think that guaranteed holidays etc. was somewhere in the middle of the range.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.

Farage would be best campaigning in the parts of the country where he's popular, such as Outer East London, Kent, Essex, East Anglia, ex-coalfields, and the West Midlands, outside Birmingham.

richardDodd said:

PT It is not a visa..not even called a visa..no attempt to be a visa..It is an Electronic Authority applied for on the web... Brits have to apply for a visa even for a very short trip.....or we don't get in..I said nothing about going to work in Aus If we turn up in OZ without a visa then we get back onthe plane The Japanese can get the Authority as they enter..

The Australian government calls it a visa, I trust the Australian government on this. Brits can apply for the same Authority as the Japanese can, we just can't apply online.

Mr. F, but coverage of him won't be confined to those areas. Farage will put off significantly more voters than he might attract.

Mr. Royale, maybe Cumberbatch and Freeman will team up.

Roger said:

Cyclefree

"There seemed to be no thought that, maybe - just maybe - some of the rich countries in the Middle East which are doing nothing (and there are those countries which are bearing the greatest burden) should also take their proportionate share and do far far more."

She was a British retired judge. Why on earth should she be talking about what other countries should do? That's what Farage does.

Passing humanitarian responsibilities to others is not actually very humanitarian

Re your last point: you are assuming that they are primarily Britain's responsibilities. But is this assumption true? Isn't it rather the case that passing humanitarian responsibilities to others is precisely what some of those countries in the Middle East are doing.

And if she and the others want to be taken seriously then they have an obligation to explain why Britain should take any? If there were a humanitarian disaster in Bolivia, say, would we have an obligation to take in refugees from there? Why? Asking these questions and answering them is the first thing to be done before berating government for its "inadequate" response. What would be "adequate"? Like too many others she is assuming what she needs to prove, what she needs to persuade others of.

The money we are spending on refugees in the region is evidence that Britain is doing something, rather more in fact than other countries who have been so quick to criticise us. Just because Britain does not agree with Germany's course of action does not mean that Germany is being humanitarian and we are not.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, maybe Cumberbatch and Freeman will team up.

To form a firm of accountants?

SandyRentool said:

isam said:

X

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.

At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.

In are in a mess if this is their message..

Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.

Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.

saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.

Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.

The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.

Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.

Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.

The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.

What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.

There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.

We will keep the pound

Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.

There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.

antifrank said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.

I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.

If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.

At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.

For me it will come down to who we think we are. I expect that there remain considerable financial advantages to remaining in, but not so considerable as to decide the question.

I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.

The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.

But your vision of the Britain you love is contained within the M25 :-)

And Charlotte Church

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.

Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.

LucyJones said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.

Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.

No place for Russell Brand and Charlotte Church?

So irrelevant they are not even noticed.

Today is not a good day for those of us not overly fussed about the EU or Europe....

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.

I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.

If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.

At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.

For me it will come down to who we think we are. I expect that there remain considerable financial advantages to remaining in, but not so considerable as to decide the question.

I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.

The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.

So would my reading of that be correct if I said that if Leave convinced you that Britain could be even more warm, upbeat, internationalist and outward-looking then you might vote for it?

I have no doubt it could be. I have severe doubts that a Britain under the influence of the people currently holding much sway in the Leave campaigns would be.

The Leave camp also has to be explicit about where it in practice would be looking to work in cooperation with the EU and how.

There are a wide range of possible futures if Britain were to leave the EU. The Leave camp can't just say "we don't much like the EU". They need also to set out how they see the alternative.

edmundintokyo said:

SandyRentool said:

isam said:

X

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.

At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.

In are in a mess if this is their message..

Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.

Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.

saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.

Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.

The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.

Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.

Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.

The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.

What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.

There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.

We will keep the pound

Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.

There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.

So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?

SandyRentool said:

edmundintokyo said:

SandyRentool said:

isam said:

X

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.

At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.

In are in a mess if this is their message..

Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.

Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.

saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.

Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.

The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.

Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.

Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.

The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.

What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.

There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.

We will keep the pound

Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.

There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.

So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?

Because meaningless concessions are the easiest one to get

surbiton said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

Cyclefree said:

Interesting interview on the Today programme this morning with a retired asylum judge about what Britain is doing re refugees from the Middle East.

Two initial thoughts: (1) she was assuming that all those who wanted to come were refugees. Not the case and one would have thought that an asylum judge would know the difference between refugees and migrants; and (2) the underlying assumption was that a problem created by civil war in the Middle East was the responsibility of Europe to sort out. There seemed to be no thought that, maybe - just maybe - some of the rich countries in the Middle East which are doing nothing (and there are those countries which are bearing the greatest burden) should also take their proportionate share and do far far more.

The "rich" countries in the Gulf, the US and UK protectorates created the IS problem. An organisation does not come out of nowhere and occupy a third of an entire country. It needs resources to begin with.

That may well be so. But that does not mean that Britain has an obligation to let people into this country. My point was that the person being interviewed seemed to think that this was primarily Britain's problem to resolve and that we were not doing our "fair" share without really explaining how she was determining what was "fair".

At the same time, is it the interviewee's business to decide who should take the refugees ? Why not Argentina or, dare I say, Australia ? There, they would be transported shipped to a remote island.

Isn't it the interviewee's business to say why Britain should take refugees? Saying that Britain should without saying why is not satisfactory IMO. We are more likely to get behind a policy of inviting refugees in if those in favour of such a policy make the case for why we should. Rather than berating people for even asking the question.

So as to be clear I do think we should take some refugees and have said on here who my priority candidates would be and why.

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

richardDodd said:

PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..

No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.

If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.

Our current situation is discriminatory

So what?

Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.

We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?

You were brought up in Australia, I'd be very happy to copy their process of taking in migrants.

Australia discriminates, as we were discussing above. It is a lot easier to get into Australia as a Brit or Japanese than it is from other nations - and reciprocally it is easier for Australians to enter the UK or Japan than it is many other nations.

Australia also has a free movement agreement with New Zealand.

I'm very uncomfortable that our current arrangement gives EU citizens different privileges than those from outside, the Australian process if far more preferable.

I'm pretty sure you agree with that.

No I don't. The Australian process is closer to ours than you realise, they have a reciprocal free movement agreement with New Zealand in the exact same way we do with the rest of the EU. So the question is where do you draw the line, not an issue of principle.

I draw the line at reciprocity. Where do you draw the line since Australians too also have free movement agreements?

Can you correlate these results to media coverage of the migrant crisis in EU and hopes (expectations?) of what Cameron might be able to negotiate to soothe concerns? What purports to be soothsaying in connection with likely outcome of EUref is actually a wild shot in the dark given 2 huge uncertainties (amongst many lesser uncertainties). Firstly, the timing of the EUref and secondly where the EU migrant crisis will take us. What will the EU look like when we have to vote?

Immigration is central to EUref and to Tory health but anyone wanting to put it on the agenda is accused of racism and various other heinous personal tendencies. This is particularly true of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade and lefties in general (leftie commentariat particularly). Regardless, this particular nettle will have to be grasped.

To my mind, as a two horse race, EUref is not much of a betting proposition either.

Irony Alert. White male Lib dem complains about lack of diversity at "Remain" launch.

Iain Gill
@iaingill
serious lack of diversity at the launch. rows and rows of suits. we must do better than this. we must reflect Britain #StrongerIn

Morning all

Plenty of time to rehearse the arguments for a referendum that's probably 18 months away at best. It may be rather like the political equivalent of baseline tennis with LEAVE and REMAIN not choosing to venture too far from their prospective comfort zones.

I do think Cameron's view will be hugely significant - the "Trust Dave" Party had a very good result in May forcing the core Conservative vote into overall majority territory and the Prime Minister retains the confidence and trust of a good number of voters who would not be instinctively Conservative.

Cameron opting for LEAVE would be the rush to the net moment for the LEAVE campaign carrying both the greatest risks and the greatest rewards. Given his personal political capital, he cannot adopt Wilsonian neutrality.

Yet IF he chooses REMAIN, will he be able to take his Cabinet with him ? Will any Ministers choose to resign on the point of principle and work with the LEAVE campaign ? Backbenchers like Steve Baker must know that if REMAIN wins on a re-negotiation package he himself cannot support, he'll be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.

Is there a re-negotiated package the Conservative Party (or at least the overwhelming majority of it) can support ? Even if there isn't, to what extent will Party loyalty triumph over principle ?

Are we then to believe that if REMAIN wins and the next Conservative leader is a supporter of LEAVE, there won't be a second referendum in the 2020-25 Parliament if the Conservatives are re-elected ?

JEO said:

Which was why one of Cameron's points of his four point plan, about having an "explicit statement" that we could keep the pound, was such nonsense. He may as well get an "explicit statement" that we're allowed to keep the monarchy. It's already a done deal.

No that was not all the point said. It went further than that.

Though judging anything from a leak at this stage is difficult if not pointless.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.

A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.

Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

How do you bet which side cameron campaigns for?

richardDodd said:

PT My last word on the subject The Japanese do not need a visa..no matter how you dress it up..Get up to Brisbane and ask the airport staff there.. as we did..

My last word if this is your last word: The Australian government website says they do as I linked to above. The Japanese and the Brits can both apply for the exact same Electronic Travel Authority that you named.

I suspect the Australian government website is not dressed up but is accurate.

Miss Jones, if I were dictator for In (and wanted it to win) there'd be room in the shed for them.

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

This is one of those "so obviously correct and sensible" kind of thoughts that you just know they are going to muff it up.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

Good point. Conversely, if (for example) William Hague were to come out firmly on the Remain side, that could make quite a difference.

I think Hague might be on the other side.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.

A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.

Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

Well it depends on your view.

He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.

hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.

He's caught between a Jock and a Lard Race

Philip_Thompson said:

richardDodd said:

PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..

It is a visa for a trip of up to 90 days as a holiday or business visitor, it does not allow you to work in Australia. Brits can apply for an ETA as well, but need to do it via a Travel Agent or other sources.

I was there with the family this summer. I applied online with no need to involve a travel agent or any other thrid party.

It's all a EU citizen needs. No more or no less than a Janapese citizen. Or a Malaysian, or a Canadian, or a ...
http://www.australia-eta.com/en/general-informations

Anorak said:

Philip_Thompson said:

richardDodd said:

PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..

It is a visa for a trip of up to 90 days as a holiday or business visitor, it does not allow you to work in Australia. Brits can apply for an ETA as well, but need to do it via a Travel Agent or other sources.

I was there with the family this summer. I applied online with no need to involve a travel agent or any other thrid party.

So its the exact same as the Japanese now then.

Rose: 'being in Britain saves every person £480m a year'

https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/653518140383567872

Mr Dodd,

I have a son in America so I'm familiar with an ETA, and I also have a daughter and grandkids in Oz. We visit Oz every couple of years or so and I've never even thought of a ETA. Has it changed in the last two years?

On the level playing field issue Dr P, industry would complain about standards set at EU level because although certain countries happily signed up, they were never enforced in those countries.

A very uneven playing field. Politicians and bureaucrats always make the mistake of thinking that making laws solves the problem. Only if they're enforced on an even basis. Expect the EU to' solve' the problem by trying to bring in a Euro-wide Inspectorate force. No chance with the Mediterranean countries.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

Good point. Conversely, if (for example) William Hague were to come out firmly on the Remain side, that could make quite a difference.

I think Hague might be on the other side.

I don't think so. The Hague of 2015 is a very different creature to that of 2001.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.

A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.

Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

Well it depends on your view.

He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.

hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.

He's caught between a Jock and a Lard Race

A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.

Cameron is very good at politics.

Just look how he dealt with that Ashcroft book last week.

edmundintokyo said:

SandyRentool said:

edmundintokyo said:

SandyRentool said:

isam said:

X

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.

Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.

saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.

Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.

The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.

Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.

Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.

The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.

What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.

There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.

Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.

There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.

So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?

Because in the absence of any substantial concessions, they think a promise not to do something that was never going to happen will play better with British voters than Cameron being photographed walking off the ferry at Harwich with a bit of paper pinned to his back saying "piss off, you dish-faced twat".

What amazes me is that Cameron is so pro-EU notwithstanding that.

FrankBooth said:

Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?

I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.

I suspect it is because negotiations are best done behind closed doors. Ultimately a day of reckoning will arrive and no matter what it will arrive before the referendum.

Better to get a good deal than to get a lot of puffing and huffing in public but nothing achieved.

Mr. Isam, blimey. Lucky we're in, or I'd be hugely in debt.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.

A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.

Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites

As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.

Well it depends on your view.

He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.

hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.

He's caught between a Jock and a Lard Race

A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.

Cameron is very good at politics.

Just look how he dealt with that Ashcroft book last week.

A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.

I agree with that, which is why Osborne is such a waste of space, he should be managing a sub post office.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Today is not a good day for those of us not overly fussed about the EU or Europe....

I'm just waiting for the first Outer to say leaving EU will stop same sex marriage then we're going to be in heaven.

So how lucky are Spurs, the first side to play a Klopp managed Liverpool?

Quitter - please.

Get your terminiology right.

Quislings vs Quitters, bring it on.

LOL you do realise Vidkun ended up on the losing side and got shot for his trouble ?

I do. But you're thinking the EU referendum is 1944/45 it might be the equivalent of 1939-41

At the start, Hitler was in Hannibal at Cannae phase, it was towards the end he was at his Hannibal at Zama phase.

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

richardDodd said:

PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..

No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.

If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.

Our current situation is discriminatory

So what?

Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.

We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?

You were brought up in Australia, I'd be very happy to copy their process of taking in migrants.

Australia discriminates, as we were discussing above. It is a lot easier to get into Australia as a Brit or Japanese than it is from other nations - and reciprocally it is easier for Australians to enter the UK or Japan than it is many other nations.

Australia also has a free movement agreement with New Zealand.

I'm very uncomfortable that our current arrangement gives EU citizens different privileges than those from outside, the Australian process if far more preferable.

I'm pretty sure you agree with that.

No I don't. The Australian process is closer to ours than you realise, they have a reciprocal free movement agreement with New Zealand in the exact same way we do with the rest of the EU. So the question is where do you draw the line, not an issue of principle.

I draw the line at reciprocity. Where do you draw the line since Australians too also have free movement agreements?

That's not a fair comparison, NZ has a population less than 5m and similar economic circumstances.

So discrimination is OK in your eyes. Especially if there are similar economic circumstances?

@tnewtondunn: LBC: Should Tom Watson apologise?
PM: He should answer those questions and examine his conscience about whether he's said enough so far.

FrankBooth said:

Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?

I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.

This thing would be best handled backwards. First get together with the other European politicians and work out what you're actually going to get, then work out how to stage-manage the public grandstanding that culminates in you officially getting it.

He won't want a repeat of the Juncker thing where he announced his opposition on the assumption that the other member states were going to pick somebody else and he could take the credit, only for them to change their minds and decide to keep Juncker after all, leaving Cameron unable to backpeddle.

Mr. Eagles, Hannibal survived Zama (indeed, he lived for decades afterwards).

Hitler's life expectancy after his successes was closer to Caesar's.

geoffw said:

STAY versus LEAVE. It's not mainly about "costs" and "benefits".
People will make the choice according to whether they feel better about policies being decided by our government in Britain or by the EU.
If you distrust the government here, then you'll want it to be constrained and have policy-making outsourced to Brussels. This is what drives Scottish nationalists' preference for the EU for example. And it is why Greece has not yet ditched the Euro – they trust Brussels more than Athens.
Speaking for myself I distrust Brussels more than Westminster because of its lax governance and accountability, and also because decisions within the club reflect other countries' preferences and interests (e.g. the CAP for France, or the "vision" thing of ever closer union). I want Cameron to pull us out of the federalist tide and towards a looser confereration of autonomous nations.

I think you omit immigration as an issue at your peril as far as we are concerned, but your point about trust is well made. It always seems strange to me that many seem in favour of decentralisation as far as the UK is concerned but centralisation (effectively) as far as the EU is concerned. How do you reconcile opting for EU centralisation when it seems to me to involve ceding power to unelected pillocks and a German megalomaniac.

FrankBooth said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrankBooth said:

Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?

I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.

I suspect it is because negotiations are best done behind closed doors. Ultimately a day of reckoning will arrive and no matter what it will arrive before the referendum.

Better to get a good deal than to get a lot of puffing and huffing in public but nothing achieved.

But the briefing from other governments is that they haven't got a clue what Cameron is trying to do. They are as much in the dark as anyone else.

That's again not unusual in negotiations, to leak that the other party is muddled etc

Either way the day of reckoning will come before the referendum.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, blimey. Lucky we're in, or I'd be hugely in debt.

As a thought experiment, what would actually happen if everyone in the country was £480m in debt ?

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: LBC: Should Tom Watson apologise?
PM: He should answer those questions and examine his conscience about whether he's said enough so far.

That is a fair response - but for the fact that Watson hasn't got a conscience.

If he had, he would never have acted in the way he did

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Today is not a good day for those of us not overly fussed about the EU or Europe....

I'm just waiting for the first Outer to say leaving EU will stop same sex marriage then we're going to be in heaven.

So how lucky are Spurs, the first side to play a Klopp managed Liverpool?

Quitter - please.

Get your terminiology right.

Quislings vs Quitters, bring it on.

LOL you do realise Vidkun ended up on the losing side and got shot for his trouble ?

I do. But you're thinking the EU referendum is 1944/45 it might be the equivalent of 1939-41

At the start, Hitler was in Hannibal at Cannae phase, it was towards the end he was at his Hannibal at Zama phase.

Pah if I have to wait a few more years so what, your on the german side and they only ever win at football.

They won that minor skirmish at t'Teutoburg Forest