The 'No to the EU' campaign

[Scuffers]

davepoth said:

One question I've been turning over in my head is "which way will the SNP be campaigning?". They have a lot to gain from a Brexit, even though they want to stay in the EU.

good question,

Scotland accounts for some 4 million votes (based on 18+ electorate registrations) vs. UK total of some 46.5M total for the UK, so they have some 8% of the vote.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I guess at this point in time I just don't trust those organizing the referendum to handle it fairly (like so many country / EU voting episodes we have seen in the past), and was just voicing concerns that it might come down to a, for example:
20 million votes for the governments YES campaign, 16 million votes for the leave the union NO campaign, and 12 million votes for the UKIP`s NO campaign. We are pleased to announce that the governmenst YES campaign wins, as it has 4 million more votes than the leave the union NO campaign, and 8 million more votes than UKIPs NO campaign.
Just a thought / worry, but I would not put it past the EU doing `something' to engineer the vote `they' want, by which time it could be too late for us to do anything about it.

??

how can you have two counts for the No's?

the ballot papers only have two options, not 3, and will not have a party or campaign group names next to them.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Scuffers said:

davepoth said:

One question I've been turning over in my head is "which way will the SNP be campaigning?". They have a lot to gain from a Brexit, even though they want to stay in the EU.

good question,

Scotland accounts for some 4 million votes (based on 18+ electorate registrations) vs. UK total of some 46.5M total for the UK, so they have some 8% of the vote.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I guess at this point in time I just don't trust those organizing the referendum to handle it fairly (like so many country / EU voting episodes we have seen in the past), and was just voicing concerns that it might come down to a, for example:
20 million votes for the governments YES campaign, 16 million votes for the leave the union NO campaign, and 12 million votes for the UKIP`s NO campaign. We are pleased to announce that the governmenst YES campaign wins, as it has 4 million more votes than the leave the union NO campaign, and 8 million more votes than UKIPs NO campaign.
Just a thought / worry, but I would not put it past the EU doing `something' to engineer the vote `they' want, by which time it could be too late for us to do anything about it.

??

how can you have two counts for the No's?

the ballot papers only have two options, not 3, and will not have a party or campaign group names next to them.

Then why are there at least two OUT campaign groups? it should just be one group for OUT and one group for IN.

[Scuffers]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Then why are there at least two OUT campaign groups? it should just be one group for OUT and one group for IN.

with respect, why does it matter?

the ballot papers will likely have:

Question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Answers:

“Remain a member of the European Union”

OR

“Leave the European Union”


No matter how many groups/parties/etc are campaigning, it makes zero odds.

you will always have people voting the same way but for wildly different reasons.

[Bullett]

FiF said:

We mustn't forget that the IN campaign has one ace up its sleeve, probably the most important card in the pack. Namely the proportion of the electorate who will vote for whatever the Government recommends simply because the Government has recommended it, on the basis that they must know better.

Despite all his posturing Cameron is going to recommend a vote for in, anyone who believes otherwise is naive.

So whilst there may be a lead back in the polls, there's still a significant undecided element, and the sheeple may swing it.

Additionally, when faced with a difficult question leading to uncertainty most people will go with what they know, the status quo.

[Esseesse]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Then why are there at least two OUT campaign groups? it should just be one group for OUT and one group for IN.

This has occurred because in theory the two different organisations think they can do the best job of it. There is a question mark over the 'Conservative' campaign as to whether they are sincere or just want the funding/work. Either way I tend to agree that two campaigns might actually be beneficial as they can target different types of people. I hope they are sending plenty of cash to printers etc in advance of funding limitations coming in to effect (if that's allowed).

[Scuffers]

Esseesse said:

This has occurred because in theory the two different organisations think they can do the best job of it. There is a question mark over the 'Conservative' campaign as to whether they are sincere or just want the funding/work. Either way I tend to agree that two campaigns might actually be beneficial as they can target different types of people. I hope they are sending plenty of cash to printers etc in advance of funding limitations coming in to effect (if that's allowed).

that's a serious point...

are they for real or just making the right noises until CMD does the 'peace in our time' bit of paper

[Esseesse]

Bullett said:

FiF said:

We mustn't forget that the IN campaign has one ace up its sleeve, probably the most important card in the pack. Namely the proportion of the electorate who will vote for whatever the Government recommends simply because the Government has recommended it, on the basis that they must know better.

Despite all his posturing Cameron is going to recommend a vote for in, anyone who believes otherwise is naive.

So whilst there may be a lead back in the polls, there's still a significant undecided element, and the sheeple may swing it.

Additionally, when faced with a difficult question leading to uncertainty most people will go with what they know, the status quo.

Tyranny of the status quo...

http://youtu.be/6SpWeAZKYTU (Daniel Hannan)

[Esseesse]

Scuffers said:

that's a serious point...

are they for real or just making the right noises until CMD does the 'peace in our time' bit of paper

IIRC those leading the 'Conservative' campaign are also behind Business for Britain, whose official position was to wait and see what the result of the renegotiation might be! Also, just the fact they're lead by Conservatives... Cameron needs to be discredited, even if they are sincere are they willing to do this to their leader/party?

[steveT350C]

David Cameron's four key demands to remain in the EU revealed...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...

[turbobloke]

steveT350C said:

David Cameron's four key demands to remain in the EU revealed...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...

Article giving the four demands said:

*Forcing Brussels to make “an explicit statement” that Britain will be kept out of any move towards a European superstate. This will require an exemption for the UK from the EU’s founding principle of “ever closer union”.

*An “explicit statement” that the euro is not the official currency of the EU, making clear that Europe is a “multi-currency” union. Ministers want this declaration in order to protect the status of the pound sterling as a legitimate currency that will always exist.

*A new “red card” system to bring power back from Brussels to Britain. This would give groups of national parliaments the power to stop unwanted directives being handed down and to scrap existing EU laws.

*A new structure for the EU itself. The block of 28 nations must be reorganised to prevent the nine countries that are not in the eurozone being dominated by the 19 member states that are, with particular protections for the City of London.

It's not entirely clear what status 'explicit statements' would have in EU law, outside of various Treaties.

The new structure will be a two-tier EU.

[FiF]

Well, considering that in the past I have indicated that am prepared to see the outcome of any negotiation with the possibility to be persuaded for in, then seeing that list which presumably are his red lines in the sand, then the chances of me ever voting for in have disappeared.

That list sums Cameron up for me, largely nothing of substance, fancy sounding words that add up to not much.

Sorry Dave, out, applies to both you and the EU.

[steveatesh]

turbobloke said:

It's not entirely clear what status 'explicit statements' would have in EU law, outside of various Treaties.

The new structure will be a two-tier EU.

Indeed that appears to tb the direction of travel. As usual Dr north has Cameron weighed up in another post this morning;

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

Conservative Home blog appear to have fell for the deception hook line and sinker (as we would expect i suppose!)

It's such a shame Dr North has such an abrasive writing style, whilst it is entertaining to a point and his analysis is first class, his style must act as a barrier to him being more involved I believe.

[turbobloke]

steveatesh said:

turbobloke said:

It's not entirely clear what status 'explicit statements' would have in EU law, outside of various Treaties.

The new structure will be a two-tier EU.

Indeed that appears to tb the direction of travel. As usual Dr north has Cameron weighed up in another post this morning;

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

Conservative Home blog appear to have fell for the deception hook line and sinker (as we would expect i suppose!)

It's such a shame Dr North has such an abrasive writing style, whilst it is entertaining to a point and his analysis is first class, his style must act as a barrier to him being more involved I believe.

He quotes the article as describing a "four-point plan of key demands as the price for keeping Britain in the European Union". I can't recall and won't go back to check as time is pressing but if so, that's a remarkably arrogant statement. CMD cannot offer any price or prize to keep Britain in the EU as he alone cannot determine the outcome of the referendum. Claiming to be able to do so even 'in effect' would represent a haughty level of conceit.

[FiF]

turbobloke said:

It's not entirely clear what status 'explicit statements' would have in EU law, outside of various Treaties.

The new structure will be a two-tier EU.

Well considering that the EU ignores the law and resorts to ripping up any rule books when it suits then explicit statements would have less meaning than our puppy promising never ever ever to come trotting into the kitchen when he hears the biscuit tin lid being removed, honest guv. So that's two out of the four aims worthless.

Agreed the restructure means a two tier Europe, but the devil will be in the detail on that.

Which leaves the red card notion. Note the phrase groups of countries. Now way back it was one of the base principles of the EU that no decision would / could (?) be made which was against the direct interest of a single nation. That's why the veto existed, and still does for some very limited and fewer and fewer issues. So basically Dave is accepting openly that if the EU were to decide something that was flagrantly detrimental and injurious to UK alone then either we would have to get support from a yet indeterminate number of other nations or just have to suck it up. We couldn't say No stuff the rest of you, bit like the French do.

No - out. At the point of not understanding why people want to be in this group to be honest, except for the comfort of theoretically avoiding change, the FUD case basically. If we weren't in we wouldn't be applying to join that's for sure, although that in isolation is a weak argument admittedly.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

It's not entirely clear what status 'explicit statements' would have in EU law, outside of various Treaties.

The new structure will be a two-tier EU.

Well considering that the EU ignores the law and resorts to ripping up any rule books when it suits then explicit statements would have less meaning than our puppy promising never ever ever to come trotting into the kitchen when he hears the biscuit tin lid being removed, honest guv. So that's two out of the four aims worthless.

Agreed the restructure means a two tier Europe, but the devil will be in the detail on that.

Which leaves the red card notion. Note the phrase groups of countries. Now way back it was one of the base principles of the EU that no decision would / could (?) be made which was against the direct interest of a single nation. That's why the veto existed, and still does for some very limited and fewer and fewer issues. So basically Dave is accepting openly that if the EU were to decide something that was flagrantly detrimental and injurious to UK alone then either we would have to get support from a yet indeterminate number of other nations or just have to suck it up. We couldn't say No stuff the rest of you, bit like the French do.

No - out. At the point of not understanding why people want to be in this group to be honest, except for the comfort of theoretically avoiding change, the FUD case basically. If we weren't in we wouldn't be applying to join that's for sure, although that in isolation is a weak argument admittedly.

Agreed.

Dr North appears to agree with me that the explicit statements would be worthless without a new Treaty to embody them, and that a two-tier EU would follow if the vote went 'In' under the CMD nothing-new-here masterplan.

North also seems to be pointing to a new Treaty or its forbears in 2017 and therefore a referendum date later later rather than sooner, but there we have a fine cart and horse for CMD to place in the correct order on the tip of a pin.

[alfie2244]

"explicit statements" what on earth are they going to be worth? We have oodles and oodles of treaties, laws,directives, articles etc that govern our current memberships but CMD now wants "explicit statements" in order to be able to convince us to stay in..........how bizarre!

Of that list of 4, how many are top of the list of issues that people are really concerned about? Control our borders for example?

[Scuffers]

alfie2244 said:

Of that list of 4, how many are top of the list of issues that people are really concerned about? Control our borders for example?

exactly...

some vague fine words but nothing of substance.

be interesting to see what the tory out groups come back with...

[alfie2244]

Scuffers said:

alfie2244 said:

Of that list of 4, how many are top of the list of issues that people are really concerned about? Control our borders for example?

exactly...

some vague fine words but nothing of substance.

be interesting to see what the tory out groups come back with...

With such a weak hand it's no wonder he didn't want to show his cards. As you say, how on earth are the Tory out groups going to spin this into achieving a major renegotiation? (assuming he gets anything that is.

Furthermore I think it would turn into chaos with all members wanting to negotiate their own negotiated (cherrypicked) membership deals. Perhaps the EU should do a menu like the Chinese takeway. I'll have set meal No2 but could you replace the Freedom of Movement Act for better EU accounts auditing legislation.

[steveT350C]

Owen Patterson MP nails it....

https://skynews.grabyo.com/g/v/Kjh9f86CHsQ

[FiF]

alfie2244 said:

Scuffers said:

alfie2244 said:

Of that list of 4, how many are top of the list of issues that people are really concerned about? Control our borders for example?

exactly...

some vague fine words but nothing of substance.

be interesting to see what the tory out groups come back with...

With such a weak hand it's no wonder he didn't want to show his cards. As you say, how on earth are the Tory out groups going to spin this into achieving a major renegotiation? (assuming he gets anything that is.

Furthermore I think it would turn into chaos with all members wanting to negotiate their own negotiated (cherrypicked) membership deals. Perhaps the EU should do a menu like the Chinese takeway. I'll have set meal No2 but could you replace the Freedom of Movement Act for better EU accounts auditing legislation.

It's like the Dumpling Paradox scene from Big Bang Theory.

Sheldon played by Call me Dave, "Can we change the rule on...."
Chinese waiter played by Juncker "No substitutions"
Sheldon etc " But..."
Chinese waiter etc "No substitutions"

Ad infinitum.

Edited by FiF on Sunday 11th October 13:50