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

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.
0
Comments
Is the Remain campaign really going to base its arguments on lies?
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.
So I suggest that Leave need to find a better attack line on Remain and fast.
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.
I'm not sure French farmers will think like that...
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 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.
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.
Apparently he was filmed by CPGB in 2013. They helpfully loaded it to YouTube
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.
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
"Meanwhile, ministers have ruled out plans to restrict or ban companies from encrypting data."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34690943
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.
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.
The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron
TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC
If Remain are defeated, Cameron will resign at once, and somebody else will take us out of Europe.
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.
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.
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.
And you wouldn't want that, now, would you?
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?
Differential turnout will be key.
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.
Edited extra bit: the F1 piece is more or less done and should be up shortly.
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
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.
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.
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.
Painting Remain as the riskier option - and I believe it is - is the key here.
Excellent article yesterday, btw.
Now, where did I put the link?
And Jeremy Corbyn? His odds were off the scale.
Anything could happen, which of course isn't to say that it will.
Right, my day beckons. Adieu.
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.
LWNWAGEEA
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.
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.
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?
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.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.
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.
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.
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.
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.