Eu

It now looks likely that Barack Obama’s visit to London next week will see the President calling on Britain to stay in the EU. We’re told that Obama will be giving his views as a ‘friend’ and only if he’s asked about Brexit. Nothing sounds more patronising. And as Jacob Rees-Mogg has said, why should we listen to a President who hasn’t been very good? But the truth is that, whether we like it or not, Obama’s intervention could be key. Whatever many think of the President and the collective failures and disappointments of his time in office, Obama is still loved amongst the group of younger voters in Britain who could swing the EU referendum for the remain campaign.

An argument you sometimes hear from those sitting on the Brence (the Brexit fence) is that it’s a pity the EU couldn’t have stayed the same as it was when we first joined it in 1973. Back then, say the Brence-sitters, it was a trading bloc with only nine members, which made sense. Greece wasn’t a member, nor were Spain and Portugal, never mind Lithuania, Latvia and all those other countries ending in vowels. But if we could go back to that better arrangement — play fantasy politics, as it were — would we, with hindsight, want it to include France and Italy, two of the original nine? Their economies are both now looking pretty rackety. In fact, isn’t there only one country in Europe with which we would want to be BFF (Best Friends Forever)?

The IMF has published one of the starkest warnings so far against Brexit from an organisation based outside of Britain. The latest set of figures from the International Monetary Fund predict that there will be a 0.3 percentage point dip in Britain’s growth forecast this year, as a result of the referendum. And the IMF warned that if Britain did vote to leave the EU, it could lead to ‘severe regional and global damage’. Both sides have used the statement to exchange in the latest round of tit-for-tat. George Osborne has said ‘for the first time, we’re seeing the direct impact on our economy of the risks of leaving the EU.

David Cameron has defended the £9m government leaflet promoting the EU as ‘money well spent’ and ‘necessary’, as the Tory party erupts into fury once again. What’s interesting about this new row - over a leaflet sent to all homes which sets out ‘why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK’ - is that it has incensed not just those usual suspects who are annoyed that the Remain side already has a natural advantage in the referendum campaign in that it can wheel out the Prime Minister for guaranteed media attention whenever it likes.

Sajid Javid is the driest and most Thatcherite member of the government. So, it is no surprise that he is — rightly, to my mind — rejecting calls for the nationalisation of the steel industry following Tata’s announcement that it plans to sell its UK steel-making business. But the steel issue has now got caught up in the EU referendum, with the Out side pointing out that EU state aid rules limit what the UK government can actually do to help the steel industry. Now, personally, I doubt that the government would want to do more even if it was allowed to. Yet, some ministers keep suggesting that the government would do more if it could.

When I was 18, I had my first tutorial on Anglo-Saxon history. I cannot remember the details but the don talked of the king of Mercia, or some such, marrying his daughter to the son of the king of Northumbria, or somewhere or other, because of the political advantages the union would bring the two crowns. The teenage Cohen listened appalled. 'You mean,' I cried, 'they didn’t love each other?' In a voice so acid, it might have burnt through the hull of a battleship, the don hissed: 'I do not subscribe to the Mills & Boon school of British history.' After that encounter, I stopped subscribing too. Views of the veracity of the man it appears will be our next prime minister fall into two camps.

This week Sir Alan Duncan penned a piece for the Telegraph entitled 'why this lifelong Eurosceptic is now voting to stay in'. In this, the Conservative MP explained the reasons he is backing Remain. To show how torn he had been over the decision, Duncan revealed that he had even met with Vote Leave ahead of opting to join the In camp: 'I am one of those who many expected in the referendum campaign to be a fervent advocate of leaving. Until recently I also expected it of myself – even going so far as to speak to the Leave organisers at their HQ.' However, Vote Leave's Matthew Elliott has put forward a different version of events. He claims that Duncan actually went a step further than just visiting their offices.