Robust words from Mr Cameron this morning. Brexit increases European instability and the chance of a European war in times to come. Strong stuff!

Whether you believe him or not, you have to wonder why, if life outside the EU is so uncertain and fraught with danger, our government has called a referendum at all. Seems downright irresponsible to risk such a dangerous outcome.

Unless, of course, it isn't really what he thinks........?

I'm continually surprised (and disappointed) that the Remain lobby perpetuates the notion that the UK outside the EU would only be able to negotiate trading arrangements with the EU that are equivalent to those 'enjoyed' by Norway and Switzerland. There is no logic to this. If an independent nation State, with 60m+ consumers, the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, and a key member of NATO and the UN, knocked on the Commision's door and said 'let's trade', are we really expected to believe that the response would be 'only if you agree to what the Swiss have agreed'? I don't think so. There would be some tough negotiating and I doubt that the road to an agreement would be smooth, but let's be realistic. In or out, the EU needs the UK as much as if not more than we need it. This is not about economics; it's about self determination and sovereignty. Time to lay the myths to rest and concentrate on the real debate,

I read this in the Daily Telegraph this morning:

Can this really be true? Is it possible for 30 million people to pay no income tax at all whilst 1% of that number shoulder 25% of the Nation's income tax burden? If it is then we need to be very worried as something tells me the 1% may decide to up sticks and put down roots in a jurisdiction where the tax burden is more evenly spread.

Dear Mr President,

Do the following words ring any bells?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuse and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

Your forebears fought a war on these ideals and they hold as true today as they did then. Add Lord Acton's observation that: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority", and you will come closer to understanding why there is a groundswell of opinion across the EU that the experiment is failing and that the concept of creepingly oppressive, unelected and unaccountable government must be removed.

Notwithstanding the Bookies' view that it is as good as over, I think the Referendum is still too close to call. Each side serves a rocket which is returned by the other with swerve and spin and this will surely continue to polling day. I'm still undecided although President Obama's unnecessary intervention very nearly pushed me firmly into the Brexit camp.

My straw poll confirms everything the press reports. The under 50s and business owners will tend to vote In; the Grey Hairs will vote Out. A massive generalisation but one which seems to have an evidential basis. But I feel the biggest challenge still remains largely unspoken - on the 24th June someone will have to heal and lead a fractured Nation. It will be close - I predict no more than 5 percentage points in it - which means that nearly half the voting electorate will be hugely disappointed. To an extent a Brexit vote is a protest vote and if the result is to remain in the EU then I suspect we will all accept that and move on. But if the vote is to leave the anger felt by those who bitterly oppose change will be very hard to deal with. I just hope that the leaders on each side of the debate have worked out how to deal with the fallout.

...I had a Crystal Ball

It seems likely that we will be asked to vote in a referendum about our continued membership of the EU this year, possibly as early as June.

The last time we were given this choice was in June 1975. The similarities are striking. In the 1974 election campaign the Labour Party promised, if elected, to hold a referendum on whether to stay in the EEC (as it then was), on renegotiated terms or to leave. Prime Minister Harold Wilson allowed his Cabinet a free vote on the issue and led the campaign to stay in. It was a bruising battle with many in his party and the Trade Union movement arguing strongly in favour of a withdrawal. The Conservative opposition supported the Prime Minister (hardly surprising as Ted Heath had taken us into the EEC two years earlier), and in the end the decision was clear - 67% of the electorate said 'Yes". I suspect Mr Cameron has his fingers firmly crossed that he will be able to achieve a similar result forty years on.

There is much campaigning to be done and no doubt the choices facing us will be spelled out in great detail, at least I hope they will because at the moment I, for one, struggle to fully understand what they are. But the biggest question which I suspect no-one can properly answer is: what would life be like if we left the EU?

The doom-mongers predict a grim and lonely time. They say that we are so trade dependent on our EU partners that leaving would be akin to commercial suicide. Industry would up-sticks and relocate to other EU member states, the finance industry would relocate to Germany, and global superpowers like the USA and China would shift their focus away from the UK and forge closer links with the remaining EU members, all to the severe detriment of the UK.

Those in favour of leaving say this is all rubbish. They point to numerous non-EU states that not only trade with the EU on very advantageous terms but do so without the 'dead hand' of EU bureaucracy holding them back. They point out that in many instances the EU needs the UK more than the other way around and say that our future outside the Union will be every bit as prosperous as if we stay in. Most importantly, we would retake control of our own destiny.

Who knows which of these scenarios is correct? No-one, I suspect, and this is the conundrum we face. In analogous terms, we are in a failing business partnership. All was rosy when we got together 40 years ago but our partners' increasing demands, selfishness and intractability have forced us further and further apart. We feel that we put in far more than we get out and we now agree on hardly anything. Sometimes we can barely bring ourselves to speak to each other and simply go through the motions. The prospect of breaking free and being able to do what we want, when we want, grows ever more attractive. Who cares if it might be a little painful, or that for a time we may be financially worse off. Surely it will be worth it in the long run?

And yet there is comfort and safety in the status quo. Is the grass really any greener elsewhere? Do we really know what life on our own will be like? What will we do if it turns out to be even worse than we have now? No, play safe, we say and stick with what we've got. No point in taking chances when we can put up with things. It may not be perfect but it's the best option we have.

This, I suspect, is the biggest challenge that the "No" campaign will have - inertia. Persuading us to take that leap of faith into the unknown will require the most carefully prepared and skilful advocacy. Passion, yes, but hard headed facts and figures will more likely win the day. History shows that we are far more likely to opt to retain what we have than choose change.

There is one spoiler. Electing to stay assumes that the partnership is saveable and sustainable, but what if it isn't? What if our growing dissatisfaction is shared by our partners (which it almost certainly is), and a "Yes" vote now would really just be papering over the cracks. What will we do if and when the whole thing comes crashing down around our ears and what will be the cost to us then both in hard cash terms and in the loss of the opportunity to forge new relationships and build a new future now? Maybe an early exit on negotiated terms would be our best option?

Anyone got a Crystal Ball they can lend me?