That's a guess on your part mate 
How does a fact turn into a conspiracy theory?
As I said, still a gamble, but a damn good one, and a clear conflict of interest.
If he had access to a private poll then he had access to information others did not have but legally speaking that is not insider trading. He was not an "insider" as in this case there was no company to be inside of. Technically anyone could have got hold of the same information by paying for their own poll.
This is economically incoherent.
We are a net contributor, despite the rebate. When we leave, France and the other net contributors will have to pay more, or the net recipients receive less.
Us leaving doesn't save France anything.
From the same article:
The Bloomberg report has raised difficult questions for the polling industry, which has been depicted as benefiting extensively from the sale of private polling data to hedge funds seeking to profit from insights into how markets might move.
Sources told Bloomberg that they believed Brexit to have generated “one of the most profitable single days in the history of their industry.” Odey Asset Management, run by the Conservative party donor and leave supporter Crispin Odey, is reported to have made $300m from Brexit.
It is illegal under British electoral law to “publish” exit polls before 10pm on the day of an election or referendum. Hedge funds and pollsters appear to have interpreted the law so as to permit the private provision of exit poll data to select individuals. A prominent barrister told Bloomberg that the legal definition of “publish” had never been tested.
-----
...and why would you test it if you know that you are benefiting or could potentially benefit from the same loophole in the future.
If don't have to pay extra to make up for the UK's rebate then it does. You could argue it either way but anyway, it was a joke. Hence the punchline.
Which countries farms do best out of the CAP policy? (suffering )
To have a conflict of interest you must have some force competing interests where one of those interests is for others and one is for yourself. For example if you are a Government minister and you are choosing between suppliers one of whom is a family member. In this case Farage possibly had his own financial interest but he was not operating on behalf of anyone else so had no conflict of interests.
Then I used the wrong legal term. But it does look like his cohorts benefited from this. If true then it's pretty obvious that he would be "thanked" for his help.
Wow my original edit of this was weird. I love auto spell check.
Exactly. What Farage is alleged to have done does not appear to have broken any law. Only if someone could successfully argue that providing a poll to private individuals constitutes "publishing" would he deemed to have been guilty of wrongdoing. Personally this seems unlikely as the rules around publishing exit polls are there to prevent a poll impacting voters on the day of an election - not to stop someone profiting from knowing the result of the poll.
Even if the pollsters were deemed to have "published" then they are the ones guilty of breaking the rules - not Farage. Farage would still not be guilty of insider trading.