Cameron - I agree with Nigel. The end of Ukip?

[nimby]

Has Cameron shot Nigel's fox?

[BrandNewGuy]

I doubt it. There is little chance of the Tories getting an overall majority at the next election, so the referendum promise is as useful as me promising to cut you into my forthcoming lottery jackpot win ;-)

[maxxi]

I doubt Farage's loons will believe it - not sure I do myself, I can hear him in 2016 now...

"Yes we promised a referendum but the world has moved on since then, things have changed and the in-out question is no longer relevant to the health of this country going forward. Now is not the time for playing politics with peoples' futures, it is the time for ensuring the long-term prosperity of the nation as a whole. I think it would be a very irresponsible government that would put Britain's economy at risk at such a crucial time."

Still, probably enough to keep his rebels in line for a while.

[El Pibe]

Are you suggesting he might u-turn over promised policy, are you stark raving mad, good god man?!

[Huguenot]

That fact that it's a simple in/out referendum is crucial to the anticipated outcome - by avoiding a 'devo max' scenario the risks involved in being 'out' are maximised, and human nature is far more sensitized to tangible losses than it is to hypothetical gains.

As with Scotland, the push for an in/out binary choice means Cameron wants 'in' as the response.

The isolationists are only cheering this because they're too daft to see 2 moves ahead.

It's silly to think the commitment to a referendum is going to shut them up though - attacking Europe is a kind of mental Tourette's Syndrome for them.

[Ridgley]

Yet another promise he will not deliver on, just a scam to get back in.

[Jeremy]

I'm not really keen on referendums, and this one is no exception.

I'm not convinced that joe public has a good enough understanding of such issues.

[El Pibe]

Of course it does, The Sun will explain everything to them and tell them how to vote.

[BrandNewGuy]

Jeremy Wrote:

> I'm not convinced that joe public has a good

> enough understanding of such issues.

Particularly in this case, when the political class for decades has failed spectacularly to articulate clearly the genuine pros and cons of our membership of the EU - and no, rolling out onto TV some "big businessmen" and a few antiquated ex-politicians now safely tucked up in Brussels won't do it.

The cosy consensus is coming back to bite all three parties on the bum - and quite right too. The only potential good to come out of ths referendum malarkey is the faint possibility of a proper debate based on matters other than prejudice and venal self-interest. I'm not holding my breath, though...

FWIW I think we should stay in.

[uncleglen]

The Tories are always scuppered by the Scots constituencies- the last 2 general elections would have been Tory majorities if it was not for the inclusion of the Scots MPs.

What adds insult to injury is that they get a vote on our policies and influence what goes on in England but English MPs have no influence over theirs!

The SNP did badly in the last Election because there was tactical voting by the Scots electorate to try to keep Labour in and therefore keep Gordon Brown in and protect their own interests- ie by getting more money diverted from England (especially the SE) into Scotland.

[nimby]

And I think its only if HE is prime minister?

[Huguenot]

That's not true uncleglen.

Only certain powers are devolved to Scotland - many issues of UK national policies are retained in London.

That's why the Scots MPs are entitled to those votes unless they are independent.

The general tone of your argument is that Scottish people are deliberately manipulating their voting rights to stop the UK being governed properly.

I think that's a rather silly interpretation that only aims to sow discord.