Thanks everyone, that was a really insightful and worthwhile discussion. Really pleased to see such great comments below the line (as James says putting them politicians to shame).
We will be back next week with another debate – if you’ve got any comments/ suggestions/ideas etc then drop me an email on sarah.marsh@theguardian.com or tweet @guardianopinion.
Cheers everyone - happy Wednesday!
We’ll be wrapping up comments in a few minutes - thanks for all the contributions over the past two hours. Loads of great argument below the line, and you’ve been quite polite, too, putting those politicians to shame.
Here are a couple of contrasting views, taking in Cameron’s “shrill denunciations”, bombast, and the potential for a post-Brexit geographical schism.
This referendum campaign is not only the nastiest, it is also the most bombastic and divisive I can ever remember. Whatever the outcome, on June 24th about half of the country will be angry and dispirited. There will also likely be a geographical schism - with London, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales voting for Remain and the rest of the country for Brexit. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, how will it be put back? If Brexit wins, how will the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland be managed? What if Scotland votes 'in' and then holds a second referendum to leave the union? Does anyone fancy passing through immigration and customs on the Engish-Scottish border?
Updated
Within the Tory party the political and personal have become deeply enmeshed
Passions are bound to run high when a question of national destiny is being decided, but the gravity of the issue doesn’t explain why levels of personal acrimony in the EU referendum campaign seem so high. Is it all that much more vicious than any other campaign? Last year’s general election was hardly a genteel affair. Neither was this May’s London mayoral race. Politics can be a nasty business.
But an addition quotient of vitriol flows from the origins of this referendum in deep, old schisms within the Conservative party. Civil wars in politics tend to be more vicious and personal than contests along party lines because they involve more atavistic emotions – chiefly betrayal. Tories expect Labour MPs to disagree with them and vice-versa. In that arena, it is possible – often, but not always – to separate political combat from personal hatred. But when someone from your own party, someone whom you considered a colleague, an ally, sides against you, the wound is deeper.
There are Tory MPs who have always despised David Cameron. They believe (not without cause) that he has surrounded himself with a gilded elite and treats rank and file Conservatives much the way an imperial cavalry officer might view grimy infantry conscripts. They long suspected him of harbouring Europhiliac tendencies but went along with the pretence of his EU membership “renegotiation.” Some appear to have operated under the delusion that Cameron might not throw the full authority of his prime ministerial office at the job of winning the referendum for Remain. They seem genuinely aggrieved that he is even trying.
And, of course, in Boris Johnson they have a figurehead whose ambition to one day lead the party gives him every incentive to see Cameron’s personal brand irrevocably tarnished, regardless of the result. Within the Tory party the political and personal have become deeply enmeshed. The task of advancing a particular message has become indistinguishable from the job of discrediting the other side’s messengers. In that climate it is hardly surprising that the fight looks and sounds dirty.
To counter the (often warranted) criticism of campaigners on both sides, we asked commenters if any politicians have impressed them during the referendum campaign.
Any suggestions, do post them below the line. One reader has suggested Alex Salmond:
Alex Salmond has impressed me from the Remain side. He's actually trying to make a positive case
Meanwhile LyntonCrosby (presumably not that Lynton Crosby) thinks Liam Fox has done a good job.
I hate to say it but Liam Fox has managed to keep his head.
Boris Johnson is just a disgraceful liar who will do anything to get within stabbing range of David Cameron.
Updated
Strong points backing Corbyn here ... anyone want to respond to this below the line?
Jeremy Corbyn is the politician who has most singularly let himself down most
In that case you have had a very limited exposure to the campaign.
We've had Cameron suggesting that war could break out, that a severe economic recession will inevitably follow and on the other side a lot of ugly dog-whistle politics carefully coded as "concern" about immigration. The outers have no shame in trumpeting the £3350m a week cost of the EU although it's been shot down numerous times and have blatantly lied that the EU would over-rule the veto and allow Turkey to join the EU by 2020.
Corbyn has made a high-profile speech backing the case for Remain, but perhaps he remembers the damage that resulted in Labour backing the "Better Together" campaign in Scotland, that left Labour with one MP in what had traditionally been a Labour stronghold. Also it's become clear that this referendum has become a Tory leadership contest with the likelihood of the Tory party splitting and at the very least exposing a serious rift in the Tory party. Why do the same with his own party?
Anyway Corbyn's pro-EU contribution: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/14/jeremy-corbyn-to-urge-warts-and-all-backing-of-eu
Perhaps people are getting tired of cheap rhetoric, posturing and headline grabbing?
The problem with the whole debate is this - the economic case for remaining is undeniable, and the outers have no answer other than vague stuff about being like Canada, Norway, HK, Albania etc. So they know it's pointless steering the debate that way. The area where they score though is on immigration and that concern seems to register highly with people so unsurprisingly they keep playing their trump card. So we have two sides of the debate where there's little or no middle ground and to make things worse the main protagonists are very skilled in playing the modern media game of soundbites as policy. That has become an increasing problem with modern politics - if you don't grab the headline you risk losing the debate. Personally while I have reservations about Corbyn being able to win votes from outside his core left of centre voters at least he tries to explain his stand and reasoning. No wonder the media hate him, he won't play the say something outrageous game that sells newspapers.
Whither the “kinder” politics we were promised just months ago? Corbyn initiated this supposed new change of direction, but Cameron was also said to have “welcomed the more civilised” exchange during the Labour leader’s first bash at PMQs. Cut to the present EU referendum debate and the internecine ranting of both sides (and, in terms of party allegiance, the same side) has reached a nadir.
The polls pull in and out with the tide of Dover, but this might be less a fluctuation of inaccurate methodology and dodgy results (cough, 2015 general election, cough) and more a genuine reflection of changing minds.
One thing is clear: this is a franchise which, as with the Scottish referendum, seems to be engaging the people. Which, even with the highest turnout in the last election since Blair’s 1997 new dawn, can’t often be said. Or at least we’re always being told (especially the young) to be more politically active. It is a shame that, rather than providing facts and measured arguments, the campaigns have focused on juvenile potshots and, in the case of buses and bananas, blatant mistruths.
As for the nasty aspect of the campaign in comparison to others: as colleagues below have noted, as well as the enthusiasm and positivity of the Scottish referendum, there was also abuse fired across ethernet connections from both factions. I prayed for the Twitter mentions of my colleagues covering the vote. More recently, the London mayoral campaign wasn’t what one would call amicable.
I just hope people – and we will, because we’re not stupid – research and vote after consideration of the facts (although the Brexit camp is slightly hamstrung because it is not too sure what a post-EU UK would look like – and at least Ukip’s Suzanne Evans admitted as much).
Vox pops of Boris Johnson blustering Thames-side about directives on balloons, hair like a helicopter landing in a haystack, are just a distraction. Farage, waving a passport around and straining for coverage – think cat’s paw clawing around the edge of a door – is just a distraction. Liam Fox is, well, a distraction, (also someone who shouldn’t still have a political career after giving his crooked mate a job at the heart of British defence, but whatever). Think about – from all angles – the issues that matter in regards to the future of the UK: trade, movement of people, legislation. Or, if you are still stuck, I am sure this analysis will help. You are welcome.
We felt our debate needed an entirely unscientific poll. Judging by what’s been written so far, these are the politicians who haven’t exactly impressed you with their tone during the EU referendum campaign. But who has been the rudest?
An unscientific poll for our EU debate: which politician has been the rudest? https://t.co/LTFdzRwYnB
— Guardian politics (@GdnPolitics) June 1, 2016
Boris Johnson has an early lead, with 50% at the time of writing.
News just in – Donald Trump has confirmed he is to visit the UK later this month (the day after the UK’s referendum) to attend the official reopening of his hotel and golf resort in Scotland.
Navigating these political campaigns is a voter’s nightmare. The deluge of “facts” and “counter facts” being issued by both sides of the debate is not unique to the referendum – it is reminiscent of general election campaigns, of course. In this instance, however, we are being treated to examples of out-and-out misinformation and a level of noise that is making it hard to hear the voices of those who will be most affected by the decision.
The question of whether the British public is apathetic towards Europe or whether this disengagement is the result of a communications and image problem between Brussels and the wider electorate has long been debated. This time around, the politicians campaigning on either side are falling into that trap again – swinging between statements that are aimed very much at the individual voter’s interests (house prices, for example) to issues so broad and complex that they will only obfuscate the real issue if not properly handled.
As the electorate, we need honest, fact-based assessments of how different communities and people within Britain and Europe will fare. Where are the voices from lower income families, from younger voters in or out of education and work? Where are the undecided voters airing their views on what they need to know? Who is answering their questions, informing them through their campaigns? The abuse of facts discussed by Andrew Sparrow goes hand-in-hand with an abuse of this relationship with the public.
This comment looking at immigration and the language of the campaign raises some good points. Let us know what you think below the line.
As an expat living in the UK, I also welcomed the referendum at first as I believed the EU has changed a lot and people should be consulted on whether they feel it is moving in the direction they want.
But frankly I have started to become very worried about the language being used in the referendum campaign, particularly now that immigration has become the main focus. There seems to be no filter anymore and blatant racism is close to becoming the mainstream way of describing foreigners. You almost expect this by certain parts of the media but you also expect high ranking politicians to not sink to the same level. Watching what is crawling out from under the rocks now is scary.
If there is a vote to leave the EU I pretty much expect the newspaper headlines to read: "The British people have spoken - now get them out!". From there it is just going to get worse.
Another good comment on Corbyn’s Remain campaigning, particularly in the context of John McDonnell’s criticism of Sadiq Khan sharing a platform with the prime minister.
Corbyn is not an enthusiastic Remainer we all know that. He has seen what happened to Labour after the Scottish referendum and does not want to be seen to be helping him out. However he is really not doing himself or Labour any favours by sitting on his hands. He needs to put the case for a Progressive EU.
Having said all that the media has focused on the Tory Civil War which makes getting air time very difficult for anyone else.
Updated
An interesting response on Corbyn. People criticise his lack of involvement, but maybe it’s better than getting involved for all the wrong reasons and playing political games. What does everyone think?
Jeremy Corbyn is the politician who has most singularly let himself down most
How? Because he used Obama's African heritage against him? Because he accused a mayoral candidate of extremism? Because he is standing on a platform of fear?
Or because he is connecting with the electorate by showing that we can have nuanced and authentic reactions to complex issues? Because he is standing on a platform of hope that we can build a better EU?
What the hell are you talking about?
Referendums bring out the divisive worst in us all – leaving a bad, lingering smell
Like all but the most fanatical partisans in the Brexit debate (yes, there are also still some on the Remain side), I read and listen to it all with only half an ear most of the time. Referendums are not meant to be a pub brawl or a multiple choice question which is how they are usually treated. It’s another reason why they’re such a bad idea.
So Margaret Thatcher would never have held one and she didn’t. They bring out the divisive worst in us and will leave a bad, lingering smell like a house fire. Just look at Scotland’s independence referendum in 2014. Anyone who says it was more civilized than 23 June version obviously wasn’t there.
But as in Scotland so in wider Britain, some politicians can rise above it. On Radio 4 I recently heard Vince Cable and Gisella Stuart thrashing out an issue on which both Lib Dem pro-EU man and Labour Brexit woman have long-held convictions. They managed to behave decently towards each other. It can be done.
Compare that with the testosterone fuelled bravado coming from the posh boys, Dave, Boris and George, all too easily copied by members of their gangs, the likes of Chris Grayling and John Redwood, the Vulcan’s Vulcan. Norman Tebbit was born with a witty sneer on his lips, but what does weighty ex chancellor, Nigel Lawson, think he’s up to? Not trying to compete with his domestic goddess of a daughter, I hope. Even Michael Gove, a naturally courteous man, has said some rude and silly things.
The Labour leadership’s behaviour in the contest? Is Jeremy Corbyn involved ? Like many voters I had no idea. A classic left Euro-sceptic, the best Corbyn can manage is to do little positive harm. If Britain votes Brexit it won’t do him any good.
Who has behaved conspicuously badly? Toxic Nigel Farage would if they let him, but the plan seems to be to lock him in the coal shed as much as possible. That leaves Boris Johnson, Boris Trump as I have taken to calling him (“ Boris is a nicer chap, but their campaigns are the same,” says Ken Clarke), as the winner: an outrageous and shallow abuse of his talents, as he well knows.
But Priti Patel, the junior employment minister whom Brexit newspapers like to call a “cabinet member” (she’s not), has said harsh things that won’t be forgotten either. Ambition does funny things to people. Just look at Tony Benn who dreamed up the 1975 EU referendum and thought he’d win. It didn’t solve anything. For the losers it rarely does, they keep trying until they win or get hammered.
Updated
Boris Johnson is a satirist’s dream, so it’s a shame we’re not living in a particularly golden age for satire, the Guardian’s Steve Bell notwithstanding.
Leave campaigners were delighted when Johnson tied his colours to their mast, but his interventions have not been without controversy, whether it’s been making strange remarks about President Obama’s ancestry or comparing the EU to Hitler.
Long-time Boris watcher Adam Bienkov notes that Johnson has a history of comparing his opponents to murderous tyrants, and the former mayor often resorted to using mental health terms as insuts during mayor’s questions. He’s not lost the habit, responding to a Cameron speech on the security implications of Brexit by saying, “I think all this talk of world war three and bubonic plague is demented, frankly.”
Ken Clarke recently compared Johnson to the similarly coiffured Donald Trump. Our own Jonathan Freedland has called him a “post-truth” politician.
If Britain votes Leave, he could very well be the next prime minister.
Guardian contributor There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Boris Johnson has been by far the most toxic of all the leading politicians on both sides of the divide.
His offensive and borderline racist observations about Obama, Germany, Turkey and its people and more have ensured that the debate has turned very ugly indeed. His contribution amounts to a litany of deliberately divisive and damaging comments on immigration and immigrants that will have major repercussions for racial and social harmony in Britain, possibly for years to come.
Many of the Brexiters I have had conversations with, have been articulate with their arguments. To the point where I can agree on some issues (democracy within the EU hierarchy, for example)
However, when you speak with the majority of Brexiters, their arguments very quickly descend into name calling as soon as you refute any of their assertions. Why is this so? In my opinion, it's because they see this happening from from their "leaders" on a daily basis. Again, imo, Boris has been terrible for this kind of childish behaviour. With the others not far behind.
Updated
In response to Andrew Sparrow @casehistory has said that politicians have behaved much worse in EU debate compared to other campaigns – especially the conservative party.
I think Andrew Sparrow has missed the point a bit. I'm sure the political fighting on twitter is much the same, but I don't recall the actual politicians themselves being so vile on both sides. It leaves a rather nasty taste, considering how important this referendum is and how it just seems be an occasion to settle grievances for the Tories.
Jeremy Corbyn is the politician who has most singularly let himself down most
The awful dog-whistle politics of the Leave campaign is easy to identify – but the politician who has most singularly let himself down during the campaign is Jeremy Corbyn. If the referendum result rests on the shoulders of undecided left-wing voters then the conspicuous silence of the Labour leader could be more damaging than any xenophobic intervention from Boris or Nigel. The one speech he has given on the issue was one of Corbyn’s best – the institution has severe flaws, but you don’t have to love it to think we’re better off in – and chimes with many a sceptical Labour voter’s view.
Yet since that he’s remained silent, and now he’s off on holiday. Look, we get it. Corbyn’s not keen on the EU. Perhaps he was bullied into even this lukewarm support for Remain. He may well have been leading the Labour Out campign were he not leading the party. But leading the party Corbyn is, and he has a duty to make the progressive case for the EU that Labour professes to espouse. Ducking out of the biggest question facing this country for generation is not befitting of the leader of a national party, and will not be forgotten should the outers rally the troops to plunge the country into Brexit.
A few more choice views from commenters. Owlyross argues that it was always going to be difficult to have a rational debate, given the EU-phobia of certain corners of the media over the past few decades.
I don't think that it was ever possible to have a rational debate about the EU. We have been fed screaming lies by most of our major newspapers about the EU for the past 25 years, from Up Yours Delors, to bendy bananas and everything in between.
The campaigns are simply continuing this pattern of lies and exaggerations. To be honest I'm now just incredibly angry that David Cameron called this referendum in which it's almost impossible to sort fact from fiction, which is based on incredibly complicated economic and geopolitical arguments, and which the layperson can have little hope of making a fully informed judgement on.
Something this important should never have got this far, and if we leave, then Cameron will go down in history as the Prime Minister who ruined Britain for a generation or more.
I completely agree with Jon Snow. As a young voter (I'm 24) I have found this campaign to be utterly uninspiring and unengaging. I have voted on every occasion I can previously and usually follow elections or votes carefully in detail before making my decision.
This vote seems to have been made up of one camp claiming something to have the other camp say it is rubbish. I appreciate there are few hard facts in this debate but likewise in the Scottish referendum (which I followed closely) they managed to make the debate inspiring and interesting and also positive. I would particularly agree with Snow's comments about the negativity of this campaign.
I also think Labour has been remarkably silent on the whole campaign. I'm not a Conservative voter (or ever will be) and the comparative silence of the parties that I might listen to such as the Greens, Lib Dems and Labour is bewildering. Obviously I know which side they stand...but I would like to hear their arguments as it would clarify my opinion. This could be due to lack of media coverage or to their lack of engagement but I find it strange that such an important debate hasn't had more voices other than Conservatives! I'm very unlikely to be swayed by any of the Conservative party (particularly Michael Gove as I am a teacher).
So at the moment I feel that it is an incredibly important decision, I always vote as I feel that everyone should, yet I am undecided how to vote or whether to spoil the paper. I'm morally in favour of the EU but I have no idea whether I can trust any of the arguments made as all the comments are made by one party and everything said is contradicted completely by the other side in a negative way!
Updated
Our Social and New Formats editor has given his two pennyworth in the comments.
Guardian staff I covered some of the Scottish Indy Ref on social media for the Mirror - and found that quite "robust", shall we say. I haven't felt the same level of abuse now I'm back at the Guardian and covering the EU debate. However, we haven't got to the TV events yet. They were usually the time when a lot of anger would come out on social media. With quite a few events lined up on TV this week and next week it will be interesting to see how that goes.
One thing it definitely has in common with the #indyref is that there is an audience that say they are clamouring out for "facts", but all either side can give is predictions and projections. We know that a Brexit would cause turmoil in the economy, but for how long? Would it be short-term turbulence and then a glorious future? Or long-term turbulence and a worse outcome than if we'd stayed in? It's very hard to give an accurate factual answer to that - there are so many variables in play. And, working in the media, it is striking that when I have striven very hard for balance in presenting those numbers, I usually get accused of being biased. By people from both camps…
This is a row that has been more than 20 years in the making
There are usually some unwritten rules about how politicians trade insults, like not insulting colleagues so personally or your party’s policies so profoundly, to protect against doing damage to the point of no return.
Back in the 1980s, Labour showed just how devastating uncontrolled vitriol (and occasional violence) could be within the party, and to its electoral prospects. That may be why the last time there was open warfare in the Tory party on Europe, in the 1990s over the Maastricht treaty, although the corridors of Westminster were awash with angry and bitter criticism from both pro and anti-Europeans, it never got really dirty.
True, even the prime minister, John Major, was inadvertently recorded saying that he could hear the flapping of the men in white coats when he listened to the ranting of some of his critics. But the oblique suggestion that your enemy is mad is a long way from the kind of ghoulish quotes from one backbencher in a newspaper this weekend. He (it must have been a he) described how he longed to stab Cameron in the front, savour his expression, rotate the blade and then withdraw it for use on Osborne.
This isn’t about a mere treaty, nor even a prime minister. Like the schism in Labour in the 80s, this is about the stuff of the party’s soul. This is about staying in or coming out. It is the vote that the sceptics have dreamed of. No surprise, then, that they are going at it as if there is no future: this is their moment.
While the Remain camp has been more circumspect (although that’s not how Leave sees it), the Leave Tories have been uninhibited in a way that will make it hard for any of them to serve in a united cabinet under Cameron or Osborne again. Even Michael Gove, a close ally of them both except on Europe, has dismissed as corrosive to public trust the pledge to reduce immigration. Osborne’s economic forecasts are routinely derided, and Leavers have queued to dismiss his reputation for competence in a way that will surely be remembered.
This is a row that has been more than 20 years in the making. It doesn’t matter that some of the participants were still at school last time round: they have learned their politics at the poisoned well of division and they are at Westminster to deliver their generational ambition, to get Britain out of Europe. They don’t mind at all if that means Cameron out of Downing Street. They may even be ready to do what Tories haven’t done since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, a split that kept them out of government for nearly 30 years – give up power rather than their anti-European principles.
Comments are open and readers’ views are pouring in.
Obviously Guardian commenters are far less rude than politicians, so we’ve seen some good debate points already.
A popular view is that the media are as much to blame as the politicians.
The media and politicians have both been god awful. Gary Young's article that abuse was perhaps not the best way to win over the opposition was welcome, but unopened to comments, and I can't help but think given the line taken by many in articles at the G it was published in part as a reaction to the poll which showed a 2% leave lead.
Some BTL has been excellent, sources given, debate, back and forth, and more power to all involved. Some had just been abuse. If I read the comments at a paper that leaned the other way the abuse might be aimed more at remainers, but seeing as I don't it has appeared to me to be definitely slanted to one side.
ATL I stopped expecting balance or actual facts a long time ago.
Politicians. All handicapped by party. Cameron, his back benchers, Corbyn, his parliamentary party. One study I saw said that Euroscepticism was higher amongst SNP supporters than Scotland as a whole. The Lib Dems are pretty much an irrelevance and UKIP don't have a party to worry about.
You can read Gary Younge’s piece here - it was open to comments, and received thousands of them.
The EU referendum campaign does not seem unduly abusive
So, Jon Snow says he cannot recall a “worse-tempered or more abusive, more boring UK campaign” than the one we’re having at the moment about EU membership. He thinks it compares particularly unfavourably with Scotland’s independence referendum in 2014.
Snow clearly did not spend much time on Twitter two years ago. The independence referendum was an uplifting exercise in democratic engagement, prompting a remarkable 85% turnout, but the debate was not all worthy of Cicero, social media got distinctly unpleasant and it culminating in a large crowd descending on the BBC’s HQ in Glasgow to demand the sacking of Nick Robinson for having the temerity to report something disobliging about Alex Salmond.
Even by the standards of a normal general election, the EU referendum campaign does not seem unduly abusive. That is because general elections are about choosing prime ministers, personality is inevitably a legitimate subject of debate and, as figures like Neil Kinnock, John Major and Gordon Brown can attest, vicious, media-driven character assassination is a familiar part of the electoral process. This contest is relatively free of that.
But Snow has got a point about “the wholesale abuse of facts”. There is nothing unusual about politicians using facts selectively, and in this campaign both sides have been criticised for using misleading material, but the Leave camp, with their entirely bogus flagship claim about EU membership costing the UK £350m a week, seem to be setting a new precedent. It is almost as if they have looked at the success of Donald Trump, a one-man lie factory, and decided to road test quite how much dishonesty you can get away with in a British election. The results of the experiment, of course, remain to be seen.
Where are all the women in the EU debate?
The prominent voices in the EU debate have been Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Alan Johnson, and Nigel Farage etc, but where are all the female voices? The discussion has (depressingly and predictably) been dominated by men in suits.
Harriet Harman, Labour’s former deputy leader, has even written to Ofcom to complain that male politicians are being allowed to dominate the EU referendum debate on the airwaves. A Loughborough University report said only one in 10 contributors to the EU debate in the national press were women.
This is woeful, especially considering statistics that showed women are almost twice as likely to answer “don’t know” in most EU referendum polls; and while 43% of men are certain which way they will vote, that drops to just 29% of women.
So, where is the female voice in this debate? Why has it been missing? Leaving the EU could have a more direct impact on women’s rights as without EU protection they could be undermined (under the guise of cutting red tape). Keen to hear what people think about this below the line.
Kicking off in 10 minutes, keyboards at the ready!
Welcome to the debate
What do you think of how the EU referendum campaigns have been run?
If the words “boring” and “abusive” spring to mind then Jon Snow would agree with you. Writing in the Radio Times the Channel 4 News presenter said he cannot remember a “worse-tempered or more abusive, more boring UK campaign”.
The veteran presenter compared the campaign unfavourably to the “coherent and comprehensible” precedent set by the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, saying it has been dominated by abuse and “intemperate challenging of facts by both sides”.
Snow came down heavily on the “use of name-calling and politicians on both sides conjuring the views of dead leaders – who, from the grave, are in no position to dispute the claims made in their names”.
He added that the media’s coverage was “no way to run a chip shop, let alone an interesting and informative campaign for a vote upon which all our futures hang”.
However, it could perhaps be argued that campaigns like this always inevitably get nasty, with politicians taking aim at one another. Is this really any different? Was the Scottish independence debate really less abusive and more coherent?
What do you think? Join us 12pm-2pm today to debate live below the line. Tell us whether you feel the EU debate has just been about bickering and mudslinging – has anyone impressed you? Who have been the worst offenders? What’s been missing in the campaign so far? Or perhaps you disagree with Snow’s comments. Tell us why.
Comments will be open at noon.
Updated
By and large, I haven't found this a nasty campaign at all. I haven't been especially impressed by Mr Cameron's increasingly shrill denunciations, or some of Boris's faux-pas, but by and large it's been fairly civil, and I've been discussing it with friends and colleagues on either side (or no side) without rancour. I'm not at all surprised the Guardian is citing the Scottish one as more positive of course (Scottish secession good, British secession , bad, nationalism etc). But that campaign struck me as very nasty indeed. I've certainly heard no tales of Remain window posters having their windows smashed, for example.