That was the moment I stopped being a certain remain. They showed utter contempt for the UK. Still don't know which way I will vote though (if at all)

Unless they undemocratically committed election fraud of course.

I've covered the difference between the battlebus expenses in the relevant thread.
But you are right, the deception on both sides is despicable.

You can't really argue against the fact that a vote to remain endorses the authority of a higher power equally susceptible to corruption and lobbying from corporate interests. It's implied that a larger entity can't be bought by the likes Murdock etc. as the Tories can, but even without TTIP in the equation that is clearly not true.

Is it harder to get to FIFA or UEFA than the FA?

I really think it's questionable to base your decision on who is in power domestically at the time. If we say no, it will be at least another 40 years before we get to ask the question again (if ever) by which time, many governments will have been and gone, and the government we get is the government we (the people) have asked for. Don't like them? Just vote them out.

Surely there is an element of guaranteeing workers rights here whatever government is elected e.g if we had 10 years (only 2 fixed term parliaments) of right wing tory rule, they would be prevented from passing laws that went beyond the minimum requirements of the eu e.g. maternity/paternity pay, paid holiday etc.
And as i understand it, the elected government of the uk could at any time pass a motion to leave the eu without the need for a referendum (presumably if they had put it in their manifesto) although it may be unpopular not to get the will of the people on such an important issue. But if say the s#it hit the fan in europe and the economic case shifted against membership, then an election in the uk could be held and the elected government of whatever hue could take us out, so this is not a once in a lifetime event necessarily.
If however we came out and the s#it hit the fan economically in the uk, we would have to renegotiate our re-entry and it seems wholly unclear whether we would be able to join with the carve-outs we have hitherto negotiated e.g. out of Shenghen, out of eurozone, no further political integration etc etc and we would be then ofcourse subject to the veto of the remaining 27 members.

Pro-EU and anti-EU is spread across the political spectrum so it isn't really democratically possible, which is why we are where we are, having a say, which we've been refused for ages, particularly under blair.

Blair didn't want us to have a say because we wouldn't make the sensible choice (his choice). Big business shares his view.

I wouldn't worry. It'll either be a stitch up or plenty will bottle it and moan for years after about this or that. If I hear anyone moan I will ask if and what they voted for. I doubt either way will affect me much. I'm voting leave for future generations, not for several years of one.

COYP

The truth is Rudi, there has never been a parliamentary majority that would have pushed through a leave vote in the house of commons. Even now, there are approx 440 remain mp's versus 130 leave mp's. Under Blair there were even more in favour of eu membership. Remember we joined the eu in 71 without a referendum, although it was ratified by referendum in 75, (not surprisingly really because the uk was nearly broke and had to apply for a £4bn imf loan in 76).
But as i say, if we vote leave and the uk economy takes a marked shift down, the uk population would soon realise it was economically better to rejoin, we could re-enter the eu but with signifcantly less opt-outs or the special status we currently have.
To your last point about asking those complainers if we vote leave, the good news for them is that they could still blame the eu....or immigration...because there would still be 150k+ immigrants from outside the eu(already on points system), 30k from ireland(who would be exempt apparently) and an unknown amount from the eu who satisfy the points criteria, but immigration would still likely be over 250k pa.
Not a problem for me as it has been shown from Hmrc that immigrants were 2.5b net contributors to our economy, but trade, businesses and employment will in most independent arguments be negatively affected. If you agree with nigel farage that this is acceptable but there are some things more important then fair enough.....but with a leave vote the most likely scenario is that we would have to pay something to the eu (Norway pays almost as much as the uk based on gdp per head) but we would be prevented from having an input on the costs, spending etc because we would not be members....so they could still blame our economic malaise on the eu, which ofcourse would have nothing to do with our decision to vote leave.

Ok rudi but lets just say that the IMF's worst independent forecast of -9.5% reduction in gdp comes to fruition (and sky news have just broken the news that £65bn has already left the uk economy on brexit fears) this is of the magnitude of the Lehman collapse, who we gonna blame? I too am unaffected by the result (and am politically non-alligned) but that doesnt mean i want to see people losing their jobs and having their homes repossessed.....so do we continue to blame the eu for imposing an extra 5.5billion in tariffs or thd high immigration which is unlikely to fall that much given a leave vote or do we blame the bankers like we always do? or maybe Lord Sugar is right and the uk electorate would be to blame and considered by the rest of the globe to be the worlds "biggest mugs."

Helps if he gets the chance to answer them. Perhaps I was watching on a bad stream, but he was interrupted, in some cases without any right of reply. Terrible moderating - Sky was only marginally better, on both sides.

Why can't Cameron debate head-to-head?