

If we tell people in as many numbers to coffee a pro EU party as we tell people about tactical voting then I bet the electoral calculus would be a lot different.
I honestly cant parse that sentence. For most people whether or not we join the EU is not the be all and end all of how they vote, and for large parts of England in particular +80% of the voters choose Labour or the Tories. In one of those places trying to persuade people that they should vote for a candidate who clearly doesnt have a chance based on your hobby horse issue isnt going to get very far.
Rather than that it would be far better to put your efforts into voting reform so that small parties with diffuse support actually get the representation they should. Which practically means pushing Labour towards accepting it, and trying to get parliament in a position where Labour need Lib Dem MPs to form a government.
With drones. A balistic missile strike is different from a nuclear missile strike only in the warhead in the missile. Firing missiles that could potentially be nukes (from the Russian perspective) from a nucelar power (the USA) at their capital is one of the few things that might actually trigger a nuclear war. Not the idiotic Russia bluster about Ukraine being given access to slightly better weapons, but a genuine possibility.