Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
REMAIN will probably be reassured by that poll, such is their panic now, even though it confirms a significant move to LEAVE.
It is all very reminiscent of indyref.
In the betting markets:
"73% OF bets placed on the referendum during David Cameron's trip to Brussels favour Brexit, according to Ladbrokes.
A run of bets at Ladbrokes, including several four figure wagers has brought the odds of a 'leave' outcome in to 15/8, from 2/1, with a 'remain' result still the favourite at 2/5."
I fully expect Boris to come out for Remain, with various pieces of tortured rhetoric about how hard it was.
If he's declaring he will declare on Friday it probably means a better cabinet job offer has been firmed up for him.
Given IIRC you mainly trade in $, is your position based on your business interests or personal politics?
Brexit would probably benefit me personally, because as you say most of my income over the next five or six years is US $ denominated.
My position is based on what I think is best for the UK, and particularly because the alternatives either look worse (EEA) or are completely undeveloped and don't look practical. I agree with both of the general arguments about EU membership being damaging to our sovereignty and damaging because of the excessive level of EU immigration, but EEA membership looks worse and no other deal which would address both looks attainable.
Pres Cruz or Sanders is potentially the biggest threat to your income in the next 12 months ?
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
Arguably the First World War was caused by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than vice versa. The A H response to the Sarejevo murder was seen as a way of punishing Slavic nationalism.
There have been very sucessful Federal countries, with the USA, Australia and Canada obvious examples, but even within Europe we have examples in Germany etc.
I am currently watching "Fall of Eagles", a BBC TV drama from 1970s, all about the fall of the Hapsburgs and the Russian tzar. I found it in a charity shop. Absolutely first class, although the quality of video cameras a bit ropey.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
A multi-national entity can work well enough, if people focus their loyalty on a dynasty, or a religion, or have a common external enemy.
I do not see a common currency leading anywhere but to a confederation of some sort with a central political control. It's a question of how long. Whether this is good bad or indifferent is another discussion and in part would depend on the nature of this confederation or union.
I think that a currency union has to lead to a Single State, or else it comes apart.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
Austria-Hungary was held together mainly by the dynasty (basically private lands) and a common enemy. It's also worth remembering at that point in history we did not have multiple smaller states and the world - and Europe - was divided into large Empires. They had the Ottomans, Germans and Russians on the borders/nearby.
One of the reasons the Empire fell was due to the internal contradictions, after all Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered by Balkan separatists... kind of ironic though as the Archduke had planned to transform the Empire after the death of Franz Joseph I into a "United States of Greater Austria" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria ...an interesting piece of alternative history!
Would this new state have worked out? Who knows? Had World War I never have happened these great Empires and dynasties might have still been here but that's all hypothetical what ifs. The trend since the end of the imperial age of course has been increasing independence and nationalism.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
It was also a very unpopular empire.
In fact, it was because of a rebellion within it that the First World War started.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating. [snip]
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
The same point can be made to a greater or lesser extent of the others too. Czechoslovakia was broken up more by politicians than by people. Britain undoubtedly forged a national identity through much of its 300 years, if Ireland is excluded.
Indeed, how *do* you create a nation if you do not have some commonality to unite around? Sometimes it is necessary to run ahead of the population in order to do so. There was little commonality in America before the US was created (as evidenced by Washington's conflicts with the congress during the civil war, never mind after it), and arguably there was no true commonality until after the Civil Rights reforms as late as the 1960s and 70s. Even yesterday, a poll recorded that 22% of Republican voters in South Carolina wished the South had won.
The problems in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are less a result of a common demos as of the lack of a liberal tolerant political culture, where there's a ready resort to violence as a means to resolve disputes because of the belief - reinforced by experience - that if they don't, the other side will. Europe does not have that problem. Certainly there have been dictatorships and aggression in the past but at present, the continent trusts democracy. The foundations are in place to build a political demos for the EU if the will and desire was there. For various reasons, mostly to do with conflicting interests, it isn't.
While I am also a great believer in leaving, Switzerland in 1800 did not have a demos, nor the United States in 1750. A demos can develop over time. Whether it does or doesn't is another matter all together.
That's an good point - it would be interesting to explore the factors which determine whether a demos develops. In the case of the US, perhaps an ideology of freedom?
I'm not completely convinced that the EU isn't developing its own demos, amongst people in the core countries. But not including the UK, that is for sure.
A powerful common external enemy can create a Demos.
To an extent, that's true of the Baltic states vizaviz their attitudes to the EU, because of Russia.
Trying to predict the election? Forget about Twitter, study concludes
Tweets do not translate to votes due to ‘highly skewed’ user base and penchant for spectacle and scandal – but Google searches might be a better indicator
Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
REMAIN will probably be reassured by that poll, such is their panic now, even though it confirms a significant move to LEAVE.
It is all very reminiscent of indyref.
In the betting markets:
"73% OF bets placed on the referendum during David Cameron's trip to Brussels favour Brexit, according to Ladbrokes.
A run of bets at Ladbrokes, including several four figure wagers has brought the odds of a 'leave' outcome in to 15/8, from 2/1, with a 'remain' result still the favourite at 2/5."
I fully expect Boris to come out for Remain, with various pieces of tortured rhetoric about how hard it was.
If he's declaring he will declare on Friday it probably means a better cabinet job offer has been firmed up for him.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
It was also a very unpopular empire.
In fact, it was because of a rebellion within it that the First World War started.
It may have been the match, but not sure it was the cause. There were plenty of other potential flash-points including the Ottaman situation. The Tsar mobilizing actually started things IMHO, although I'm sure plenty of others would argue the infamous German 'blank cheque' was the cause.
I should have thought a common language and values held in common were prerequisites for a demos. That was certainly the case in what is now the USA at its founding and off the top of my head I cannot think of a state that has developed into a democracy without those two factors (granted regional languages may have survived, within a state but only with a common one on top).
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
Welcome Viceroy and thank you for a thoughtful post......
...If you have the time, I'd be interested in a younger poster's thoughts on why their peers are rarely voting whilst us oldies are eating all the pies.....at their expense.....
A number of reasons are given it seems when I talk to my friends. Disillusioned with politics, not understanding enough to feel qualified to vote, voting last minute on personalities... pretty depressing stuff. But then that is growing up, is it not? Younger people tend to be idealistic/focused solely on themselves.... it is only when working and raising a family do they tend to really start thinking about the direction of the country for their children, how their taxes are spent and so on.
I don't find voting all that important myself, and although interested in politics as I am, I feel no need to go out and vote. Faced with the choice of the Conservatives and Labour at the ballot box I wouldn't bother just as my family stopped voting until recently for the past ten or so years. Note: we're working class and family had always voted Conservative.
As Peter Hitchens is fond of saying, don't vote it just encourages them ;')
Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
I would take that comment re Boris with a pinch of salt. IIRC, there was some similar finding about Cameron. Fast forward to Cameron actually recommending the deal wholeheartedly and what happens? The support for Leave surges.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
A multi-national entity can work well enough, if people focus their loyalty on a dynasty, or a religion, or have a common external enemy.
Arguably the position of minorities was far better within Empires than in smaller nation states. Look at all the ethnic cleansing and population transfers that happened after WW1. The nation - based on one ethnicity / race or religion - was not the focus of identity. The ruling dynasty was. Easier to be loyal to a Franz Joseph if you were a Jew or a Hungarian or one of the other nationalities than finding yourself a Slovenian in a Croatian state or a Greek in Turkey and so on.
Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
REMAIN will probably be reassured by that poll, such is their panic now, even though it confirms a significant move to LEAVE.
It is all very reminiscent of indyref.
In the betting markets:
"73% OF bets placed on the referendum during David Cameron's trip to Brussels favour Brexit, according to Ladbrokes.
A run of bets at Ladbrokes, including several four figure wagers has brought the odds of a 'leave' outcome in to 15/8, from 2/1, with a 'remain' result still the favourite at 2/5."
I fully expect Boris to come out for Remain, with various pieces of tortured rhetoric about how hard it was.
If he's declaring he will declare on Friday it probably means a better cabinet job offer has been firmed up for him.
That we still can't rule out Boris lining up behind Leave suggests he is better at playing poker than Cameron.... Maybe he should have been given the job of heading our negotiating team.
The new poll also finds that it is David Cameron who holds the most sway in convincing voters, with Boris Johnson second. Forty-four percent say that the Prime Minister will be important for them in deciding how they will vote in the referendum on EU membership. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, comes next with one in three (32%) said that he will be important in helping them decide. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Johnson are followed by Theresa May and George Osborne (both 28%), Jeremy Corbyn (27%), Stuart Rose of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (23%), Nicola Sturgeon (22%), Nigel Lawson of the Vote Leave campaign (21%), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage (20%).
I would take that comment re Boris with a pinch of salt. IIRC, there was some similar finding about Cameron. Fast forward to Cameron actually recommending the deal wholeheartedly and what happens? The support for Leave surges.
Though it didn't surge according to Ipsos MORI (which is a phone poll, of course), so we should be a bit cautious I think.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
Arguably snip
I am currently watching "Fall of Eagles", a BBC TV drama from 1970s, all about the fall of the Hapsburgs and the Russian tzar. I found it in a charity shop. Absolutely first class, although the quality of video cameras a bit ropey.
Trying to predict the election? Forget about Twitter, study concludes
Tweets do not translate to votes due to ‘highly skewed’ user base and penchant for spectacle and scandal – but Google searches might be a better indicator
The new poll also finds that it is David Cameron who holds the most sway in convincing voters, with Boris Johnson second. Forty-four percent say that the Prime Minister will be important for them in deciding how they will vote in the referendum on EU membership. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, comes next with one in three (32%) said that he will be important in helping them decide. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Johnson are followed by Theresa May and George Osborne (both 28%), Jeremy Corbyn (27%), Stuart Rose of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (23%), Nicola Sturgeon (22%), Nigel Lawson of the Vote Leave campaign (21%), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage (20%).
20% of people answering that question "Yes" so they don't sound thick to the pollster I reckon. The 21% for Nigel Lawson almost confirms that.
Welcome to Viceroy too, though we disagree on demoses or demi or whatever the plural is. Yugoslavia is an example to discuss (though not especially relevant to the EU) - the merger of states was imposed from above, and gradually started to work quite well - more and more people told surveys that they identified as Yugoslavs rather than Serbs, Bosnians, etc. But Tito failed to arrange for an orderly succession, so it fell apart and people flocked to their national standards and started slaughtering each other. One can argue that the Russia-Ukraine split was a similar case. Whether this tells us that pushing a joint identity from above is a good idea, or that it can never really work, is something which people disagree about.
Meanwhile, weird polls in the US on the Democratic side - a national poll showing Sanders almost equal to Hillary, and a SC poll showing Hillary 30 points ahead. They'not got that intriguing Nevada poll on the list yet but the result there may be pretty important:
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen... Snip
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN. Snip
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
I can't see Leave or Remain making any difference to me, economically. So, it's fairly straightforward to consider the national interest.
You expect? And by what knowledge or expertise do you anticipate this. Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
And you expect the EU not to gang up on the UK if it is in their future interest to do so? Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
One of these two positions has a solid track record.
Mark ... I expect our economy and trade to be broadly unaffected if we stay in the EEA, which generally makes me ask why bother leaving. It's a moot point for me if the EU on our (outside the EU) doorstep would be a benign influence or not. Otherwise if we simply leave altogether then I see no guarantees at all that we would not lose out on inward investment and that over time we would lose significant chunks of the current investments we have. It's not a shot to nothing which is the question I asked and frankly there is a lot at stake.
If Cameron were to decide the deal is not good enough and/or the referendum decided to Leave then I would not be too fussed about joining EFTA/EEA, although I expect our very presence would change the nature of these groups one way or another.
A lot of posts here holding up examples of other states with varying nationalities and languages being formed... but forgetting that examples two hundred or three hundred years ago hardly contained democratic will. The peoples were rarely consulted and many political unions were either forced with no thought given to those peoples on the land and/or were formed through immense bloodshed and battle (Germany and the United States being prime examples).
That is why in a distasteful but crudely honest way, I am glad the Syrian Civil War has not come to a ceasefire. A ceasefire would simply patch it up only for it to all collapse again and perhaps have decades of civil unrest in two failed states, whereas with a full-blown civil war we are potentially watching the birth of new more-suitable states such as Kurdistan, an Alawaite State and a Sunni-state stretching across former Iraq and Syria. Bloodshed forms nations, politicians/dynasties at conferences in New York, Paris and Brussels do not.
Meanwhile, weird polls in the US on the Democratic side - a national poll showing Sanders almost equal to Hillary, and a SC poll showing Hillary 30 points ahead. They'not got that intriguing Nevada poll on the list yet but the result there may be pretty important:
The new poll also finds that it is David Cameron who holds the most sway in convincing voters, with Boris Johnson second. Forty-four percent say that the Prime Minister will be important for them in deciding how they will vote in the referendum on EU membership. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, comes next with one in three (32%) said that he will be important in helping them decide. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Johnson are followed by Theresa May and George Osborne (both 28%), Jeremy Corbyn (27%), Stuart Rose of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (23%), Nicola Sturgeon (22%), Nigel Lawson of the Vote Leave campaign (21%), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage (20%).
Important in helping them decide doesn't mean convincing to them to take their side.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
The same point can be made to a greater or lesser extent of the others too. Czechoslovakia was broken up more by politicians than by people. Britain undoubtedly forged a national identity through much of its 300 years, if Ireland is excluded.
Indeed, how *do* you create a nation if you do not have some commonality to unite around? Sometimes it is necessary to run ahead of the population in order to do so. There was little commonality in America before the US was created (as evidenced by Washington's conflicts with the congress during the civil war, never mind after it), and arguably there was no true commonality until after the Civil Rights reforms as late as the 1960s and 70s. Even yesterday, a poll recorded that 22% of Republican voters in South Carolina wished the South had won.
The problems in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are less a result of a common demos as of the lack of a liberal tolerant political culture, where there's a ready resort to violence as a means to resolve disputes because of the belief - reinforced by experience - that if they don't, the other side will. Europe does not have that problem. Certainly there have been dictatorships and aggression in the past but at present, the continent trusts democracy. The foundations are in place to build a political demos for the EU if the will and desire was there. For various reasons, mostly to do with conflicting interests, it isn't.
20% of people answering that question "Yes" so they don't sound thick to the pollster I reckon. The 21% for Nigel Lawson almost confirms that.
The field there is extraordinarily high.
23% have even heard of Stuart Rose?
Good Lord yes, adds to my theory I think.
I'd knock 20% off of EVERYONE - and perhaps more off Dave and Boris as they are well known. In reality it's probably more like -30% Dave; -25% Boris; -20% the rest methinks.
In fact perhaps the striking number is the 20% for Farage, it's very low for someone so well known compared to alot on there which suggests a degree of antipathy.
The new poll also finds that it is David Cameron who holds the most sway in convincing voters, with Boris Johnson second. Forty-four percent say that the Prime Minister will be important for them in deciding how they will vote in the referendum on EU membership. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, comes next with one in three (32%) said that he will be important in helping them decide. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Johnson are followed by Theresa May and George Osborne (both 28%), Jeremy Corbyn (27%), Stuart Rose of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (23%), Nicola Sturgeon (22%), Nigel Lawson of the Vote Leave campaign (21%), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage (20%).
20% of people answering that question "Yes" so they don't sound thick to the pollster I reckon. The 21% for Nigel Lawson almost confirms that.
The field there is extraordinarily high.
I've told them they should have asked about Stewart Lewis too.
Welcome to Viceroy too, though we disagree on demoses or demi or whatever the plural is. Yugoslavia is an example to discuss (though not especially relevant to the EU) - the merger of states was imposed from above, and gradually started to work quite well - more and more people told surveys that they identified as Yugoslavs rather than Serbs, Bosnians, etc. But Tito failed to arrange for an orderly succession, so it fell apart and people flocked to their national standards and started slaughtering each other. One can argue that the Russia-Ukraine split was a similar case. Whether this tells us that pushing a joint identity from above is a good idea, or that it can never really work, is something which people disagree about.
Meanwhile, weird polls in the US on the Democratic side - a national poll showing Sanders almost equal to Hillary, and a SC poll showing Hillary 30 points ahead. They'not got that intriguing Nevada poll on the list yet but the result there may be pretty important:
I would say though that if the 'nation' of 'Yugoslavs' fell apart so easily and depended on one man so much, then it was never really much of a strong/real identity in the first place.
If the Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and American governments collapsed tomorrow and complete anarchy came with that collapse.... there would still be an Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and American demos afterwards because the existence of a true 'people' does not depend on one party, one government or one dictator.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
Arguably the First World War was caused by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than vice versa. The A H response to the Sarejevo murder was seen as a way of punishing Slavic nationalism.
There have been very sucessful Federal countries, with the USA, Australia and Canada obvious examples, but even within Europe we have examples in Germany etc.
I am currently watching "Fall of Eagles", a BBC TV drama from 1970s, all about the fall of the Hapsburgs and the Russian tzar. I found it in a charity shop. Absolutely first class, although the quality of video cameras a bit ropey.
I've always wanted to see that. Must keep a lookout for it.
Meanwhile, weird polls in the US on the Democratic side - a national poll showing Sanders almost equal to Hillary, and a SC poll showing Hillary 30 points ahead. They'not got that intriguing Nevada poll on the list yet but the result there may be pretty important:
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen... Snip
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN. Snip
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
I can't see Leave or Remain making any difference to me, economically. So, it's fairly straightforward to consider the national interest.
You expect? And by what knowledge or expertise do you anticipate this. Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
And you expect the EU not to gang up on the UK if it is in their future interest to do so? Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
One of these two positions has a solid track record.
Mark ... I expect our economy and trade to be broadly unaffected if we stay in the EEA, which generally makes me ask why bother leaving. It's a moot point for me if the EU on our (outside the EU) doorstep would be a benign influence or not. Otherwise if we simply leave altogether then I see no guarantees at all that we would not lose out on inward investment and that over time we would lose significant chunks of the current investments we have. It's not a shot to nothing which is the question I asked and frankly there is a lot at stake.
If Cameron were to decide the deal is not good enough and/or the referendum decided to Leave then I would not be too fussed about joining EFTA/EEA, although I expect our very presence would change the nature of these groups one way or another.
Welcome to Viceroy too, though we disagree on demoses or demi or whatever the plural is. Yugoslavia is an example to discuss (though not especially relevant to the EU) - the merger of states was imposed from above, and gradually started to work quite well - more and more people told surveys that they identified as Yugoslavs rather than Serbs, Bosnians, etc. But Tito failed to arrange for an orderly succession, so it fell apart and people flocked to their national standards and started slaughtering each other. One can argue that the Russia-Ukraine split was a similar case. Whether this tells us that pushing a joint identity from above is a good idea, or that it can never really work, is something which people disagree about.
Meanwhile, weird polls in the US on the Democratic side - a national poll showing Sanders almost equal to Hillary, and a SC poll showing Hillary 30 points ahead. They'not got that intriguing Nevada poll on the list yet but the result there may be pretty important:
I would say though that if the 'nation' of 'Yugoslavs' fell apart so easily and depended on one man so much, then it was never really much of a strong/real identity in the first place.
If the Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and American governments collapsed tomorrow and complete anarchy came with that collapse.... there would still be an Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and American demos afterwards because the existence of a true 'people' does not depend on one party, one government or one dictator.
And Leaving winning has fallen from 30% to 26% in that period.
Even as I have cycled like a maniac from LEAVE to REMAIN and back again, its been my sober-ish judgement that REMAIN will win by a Sindyreffish margin of about 56:44
That hasn't changed one iota.
My range is a narrow defeat of 52-48 (if things go very well for Leave) to a clear defeat of 62-38.
I think the latter unlikely now, but it may go to a 58-42 defeat if Project Fear goes into overdrive and Leave continue the circular firing squad approach.
Based on Ipsos track record with SIndy and the GE a 60-40 poll lead for remain is probably in line with a 55-45 true outcome (which is what it shows on absolutely certain to vote).
Again they have found a public sector loaded sample and it is pretty odd that they have Labour neck and neck with the Tories among those who don't work, when that group includes pensioners.
Leave lead with 45-64 year olds, but behind with pensioners? Women more likely to vote out?
the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
Arguably the First World War was caused by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than vice versa. The A H response to the Sarejevo murder was seen as a way of punishing Slavic nationalism.
There have been very sucessful Federal countries, with the USA, Australia and Canada obvious examples, but even within Europe we have examples in Germany etc.
USA, Australia and Canada, these are all populated with a vast percentage of immigrant population, not an indigenous population, which makes a massive difference as they create the new nationalistic monster about which they coalesce.
Germany has tensions a grade or two below England / Scotland, but they lurk below the pragmatic Germanic phlegmatic approach to efficiency.
Based on Ipsos track record with SIndy and the GE a 60-40 poll lead for remain is probably in line with a 55-45 true outcome (which is what it shows on absolutely certain to vote).
Again they have found a public sector loaded sample and it is pretty odd that they have Labour neck and neck with the Tories among those who don't work, when that group includes pensioners.
Leave lead with 45-64 year olds, but behind with pensioners? Women more likely to vote out?
Right on cue, masterful analysis of the huge flaws of this poll.
31 May 2001, 12:45 UK VOTE Gallup/Telegraph poll shows 57 pct in favour of euro, 40 pct against
LONDON (AFX) - A majority of people polled believe Britain should join the euro at some point, according to a Gallup poll in the Daily Telegraph. Eleven pct of respondents believe Britain should "definitely join the euro as soon as possible" and 46 pct agree that "Britain should probably join the euro at some point, but not yet," the paper said. This compares to 20 pct who believe joining "is not a good idea and we should not join for many years to come" and 20 pct who ruled it out forever. The poll also showed that regardless of their own opinions, 68 pct of those polled regarded euro entry as inevitable. The Conservatives have claimed that a referendum on the single currency would be "rigged," but Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected these allegations on BBC1's 'Question Time Special' last night. "Surely there can't be that many complicated ways of putting to people, 'Do you want to join the euro or not?'," Blair said.
This has been stuck in my head (seriously) for over a month:
Cowardice, are you serious? Apologies for freedom, I can't handle this When freedom rings, answer the call On your feet, stand up tall Freedom's on our shoulders, USA!
Enemies of freedom, face the music Come on boys, take them down President Donald Trump knows how to make America great Deal from strength or get crushed every time
Over here (USA!) Over there (USA!)
Freedom and liberty everywhere
Oh say can you see, it's not so easy But we have to stand up tall, and answer freedom's call
USA, USA
We're the land of the free and the home of the brave, USA The stars and stripes are flying, let's celebrate our freedom Inspire proudly freedom to the world Ameritude, American pride It's attitude, it's who we are, stand up tall We're the red white and blue Fiercely free that's who Our colors don't run, so siree
Over here (USA!) Over there (USA!)
Freedom and liberty everywhere
Oh say can you see, it's not so easy But we have to stand up tall and answer freedom's call
The new poll also finds that it is David Cameron who holds the most sway in convincing voters, with Boris Johnson second. Forty-four percent say that the Prime Minister will be important for them in deciding how they will vote in the referendum on EU membership. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, comes next with one in three (32%) said that he will be important in helping them decide. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Johnson are followed by Theresa May and George Osborne (both 28%), Jeremy Corbyn (27%), Stuart Rose of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (23%), Nicola Sturgeon (22%), Nigel Lawson of the Vote Leave campaign (21%), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage (20%).
Important in helping them decide doesn't mean convincing to them to take their side.
Exactly - Stuart Rose campaigning for Remain should be reason enough for all true Socialists to vote Leave.
Based on Ipsos track record with SIndy and the GE a 60-40 poll lead for remain is probably in line with a 55-45 true outcome (which is what it shows on absolutely certain to vote).
Again they have found a public sector loaded sample and it is pretty odd that they have Labour neck and neck with the Tories among those who don't work, when that group includes pensioners.
Leave lead with 45-64 year olds, but behind with pensioners? Women more likely to vote out?
I should have thought a common language and values held in common were prerequisites for a demos. That was certainly the case in what is now the USA at its founding and off the top of my head I cannot think of a state that has developed into a democracy without those two factors (granted regional languages may have survived, within a state but only with a common one on top).
Switzerland is an example, surely.
Yep. I would have though that Canada is also at least partly an example.
Interestingly in the US only 35 of the 50 states have English as their official language. Apparently the State of New York still had its official documents written in both Englaish and Dutch until the 1920s.
A lot of posts here holding up examples of other states with varying nationalities and languages being formed... but forgetting that examples two hundred or three hundred years ago hardly contained democratic will. The peoples were rarely consulted and many political unions were either forced with no thought given to those peoples on the land and/or were formed through immense bloodshed and battle (Germany and the United States being prime examples).
That is why in a distasteful but crudely honest way, I am glad the Syrian Civil War has not come to a ceasefire. A ceasefire would simply patch it up only for it to all collapse again and perhaps have decades of civil unrest in two failed states, whereas with a full-blown civil war we are potentially watching the birth of new more-suitable states such as Kurdistan, an Alawaite State and a Sunni-state stretching across former Iraq and Syria. Bloodshed forms nations, politicians/dynasties at conferences in New York, Paris and Brussels do not.
Though all countries that have joined the EU have joined it voluntarily, and all were democratic governments. Some had plebiscites on the issue, including us.
None of these other countries are less patriotic or nationalistic than Britain, yet clearly wanted to join. The only country with a strong seccessionist movement is our own, despite the fantasies of our own BOOers.
This has been stuck in my head (seriously) for over a month:
Cowardice, are you serious? Apologies for freedom, I can't handle this When freedom rings, answer the call On your feet, stand up tall Freedom's on our shoulders, USA!
Enemies of freedom, face the music Come on boys, take them down President Donald Trump knows how to make America great Deal from strength or get crushed every time
Over here (USA!) Over there (USA!)
Freedom and liberty everywhere
Oh say can you see, it's not so easy But we have to stand up tall, and answer freedom's call
USA, USA
We're the land of the free and the home of the brave, USA The stars and stripes are flying, let's celebrate our freedom Inspire proudly freedom to the world Ameritude, American pride It's attitude, it's who we are, stand up tall We're the red white and blue Fiercely free that's who Our colors don't run, so siree
Over here (USA!) Over there (USA!)
Freedom and liberty everywhere
Oh say can you see, it's not so easy But we have to stand up tall and answer freedom's call
Tidbits from Paris. Just off to meet with the farmers
- French Ambassador and Gus O'Donnell had a conversation about 2 weeks ago in a message was passed to G.O.D. (Presumably to be passed to Cameron). Post Brexit, the EU intends to make an unconditional offer to Scotland to join the EU on the same terms (+the Euro) as the UK currently has. This *may* explain Cameron's sudden panic
- My Paris contact (extremely close to people who know Cameron very well) says that he is a dipshit. Utterly thick and disconnected from the detail, which is why he gets tripped up so often. I quote precisely
- France is terrified that the UK will leave, and result in them facing Germany alone. The French block (Spain/Portugal/Italy/Greece) has crumbled. Spain and Portugal are voting with Germany on everything to suck up. Italy is voting randomnly and unpredictably. Only Greece is reliably supporting France..and if you are in the same camp as Greece...
- Germany sees Brexit as a win/win. If the UK stays they have a net contributor and reliablish ally against France. If the UK leaves Western Europe looks more and more like the 4th Reich. The actual parallel this guy used was 1870...
Tidbits from Paris. Just off to meet with the farmers
- French Ambassador and Gus O'Donnell had a conversation about 2 weeks ago in a message was passed to G.O.D. (Presumably to be passed to Cameron). Post Brexit, the EU intends to make an unconditional offer to Scotland to join the EU on the same terms (+the Euro) as the UK currently has. This *may* explain Cameron's sudden panic
- My Paris contact (extremely close to people who know Cameron very well) says that he is a dipshit. Utterly thick and disconnected from the detail, which is why he gets tripped up so often. I quote precisely
- France is terrified that the UK will leave, and result in them facing Germany alone. The French block (Spain/Portugal/Italy/Greece) has crumbled. Spain and Portugal are voting with Germany on everything to suck up. Italy is voting randomnly and unpredictably. Only Greece is reliably supporting France..and if you are in the same camp as Greece...
- Germany sees Brexit as a win/win. If the UK stays they have a net contributor and reliablish ally against France. If the UK leaves Western Europe looks more and more like the 4th Reich. The actual parallel this guy used was 1870...
Comments
If he's declaring he will declare on Friday it probably means a better cabinet job offer has been firmed up for him.
One of the reasons the Empire fell was due to the internal contradictions, after all Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered by Balkan separatists... kind of ironic though as the Archduke had planned to transform the Empire after the death of Franz Joseph I into a "United States of Greater Austria" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria ...an interesting piece of alternative history!
Would this new state have worked out? Who knows? Had World War I never have happened these great Empires and dynasties might have still been here but that's all hypothetical what ifs. The trend since the end of the imperial age of course has been increasing independence and nationalism.
In fact, it was because of a rebellion within it that the First World War started.
The political risk is not just in Europe, that's for sure.
Indeed, how *do* you create a nation if you do not have some commonality to unite around? Sometimes it is necessary to run ahead of the population in order to do so. There was little commonality in America before the US was created (as evidenced by Washington's conflicts with the congress during the civil war, never mind after it), and arguably there was no true commonality until after the Civil Rights reforms as late as the 1960s and 70s. Even yesterday, a poll recorded that 22% of Republican voters in South Carolina wished the South had won.
The problems in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are less a result of a common demos as of the lack of a liberal tolerant political culture, where there's a ready resort to violence as a means to resolve disputes because of the belief - reinforced by experience - that if they don't, the other side will. Europe does not have that problem. Certainly there have been dictatorships and aggression in the past but at present, the continent trusts democracy. The foundations are in place to build a political demos for the EU if the will and desire was there. For various reasons, mostly to do with conflicting interests, it isn't.
He's just been taken down to 2-1 on Betfair.
Trying to predict the election? Forget about Twitter, study concludes
Tweets do not translate to votes due to ‘highly skewed’ user base and penchant for spectacle and scandal – but Google searches might be a better indicator
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/trying-to-predict-the-election-forget-about-twitter-study-concludes
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3700/Remain-still-in-lead-in-EU-referendum-as-more-firm-up-voting-intention.aspx
I don't find voting all that important myself, and although interested in politics as I am, I feel no need to go out and vote. Faced with the choice of the Conservatives and Labour at the ballot box I wouldn't bother just as my family stopped voting until recently for the past ten or so years. Note: we're working class and family had always voted Conservative.
As Peter Hitchens is fond of saying, don't vote it just encourages them ;')
@DPJHodges: Labour is now a racist party > Telegraph > https://t.co/TRN0oGwKi7
Showing World at War now
The field there is extraordinarily high.
Meanwhile, weird polls in the US on the Democratic side - a national poll showing Sanders almost equal to Hillary, and a SC poll showing Hillary 30 points ahead. They'not got that intriguing Nevada poll on the list yet but the result there may be pretty important:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Otherwise if we simply leave altogether then I see no guarantees at all that we would not lose out on inward investment and that over time we would lose significant chunks of the current investments we have. It's not a shot to nothing which is the question I asked and frankly there is a lot at stake.
If Cameron were to decide the deal is not good enough and/or the referendum decided to Leave then I would not be too fussed about joining EFTA/EEA, although I expect our very presence would change the nature of these groups one way or another.
That is why in a distasteful but crudely honest way, I am glad the Syrian Civil War has not come to a ceasefire. A ceasefire would simply patch it up only for it to all collapse again and perhaps have decades of civil unrest in two failed states, whereas with a full-blown civil war we are potentially watching the birth of new more-suitable states such as Kurdistan, an Alawaite State and a Sunni-state stretching across former Iraq and Syria. Bloodshed forms nations, politicians/dynasties at conferences in New York, Paris and Brussels do not.
Trump seems to be steaming ahead in the national GOP polls, holding steady in SC.
On the limited available data, my model now forecasts him as garnering more than half the delegates he needs for the nomination.
i.e. 622/1237
As a trivia point, only 500k live in Wyoming, in about 100,000 sq miles of nothing
I'd knock 20% off of EVERYONE - and perhaps more off Dave and Boris as they are well known. In reality it's probably more like -30% Dave; -25% Boris; -20% the rest methinks.
In fact perhaps the striking number is the 20% for Farage, it's very low for someone so well known compared to alot on there which suggests a degree of antipathy.
+14% Dave; +9% Boris; -10% Farage;
Corbyn matches up to Labour's rough support.
I would say though that if the 'nation' of 'Yugoslavs' fell apart so easily and depended on one man so much, then it was never really much of a strong/real identity in the first place.
If the Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and American governments collapsed tomorrow and complete anarchy came with that collapse.... there would still be an Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and American demos afterwards because the existence of a true 'people' does not depend on one party, one government or one dictator.
In Feb 2016, 62% still think remain will win.
And Leaving winning has fallen from 30% to 26% in that period.
Bit of a Labour surge (+2) from January there. Corbyn-mania starting to sweep the country.
That's a wonderful sight given my liabilities on Jeb!
Looks like the Bush Nevada support has switched wholesale to Rubio.
And still Trump is dominant.
Just a thought.
In Feb 2016, 62% still think remain will win.'
Big majorities used to say we would join the euro as well
I think the latter unlikely now, but it may go to a 58-42 defeat if Project Fear goes into overdrive and Leave continue the circular firing squad approach.
Again they have found a public sector loaded sample and it is pretty odd that they have Labour neck and neck with the Tories among those who don't work, when that group includes pensioners.
Leave lead with 45-64 year olds, but behind with pensioners?
Women more likely to vote out?
Germany has tensions a grade or two below England / Scotland, but they lurk below the pragmatic Germanic phlegmatic approach to efficiency.
http://rentaminority.com/
I can only say it's looking more and more likely that he's on track for the nomination.
LONDON (AFX) - A majority of people polled believe Britain should join the euro at some point, according to a Gallup poll in the Daily Telegraph.
Eleven pct of respondents believe Britain should "definitely join the euro as soon as possible" and 46 pct agree that "Britain should probably join the euro at some point, but not yet," the paper said. This compares to 20 pct who believe joining "is not a good idea and we should not join for many years to come" and 20 pct who ruled it out forever.
The poll also showed that regardless of their own opinions, 68 pct of those polled regarded euro entry as inevitable.
The Conservatives have claimed that a referendum on the single currency would be "rigged," but Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected these allegations on BBC1's 'Question Time Special' last night. "Surely there can't be that many complicated ways of putting to people, 'Do you want to join the euro or not?'," Blair said.
http://www.forexhsn.com/news-archive/01/05/31/135067/
Cowardice, are you serious?
Apologies for freedom, I can't handle this
When freedom rings, answer the call
On your feet, stand up tall
Freedom's on our shoulders, USA!
Enemies of freedom, face the music
Come on boys, take them down
President Donald Trump knows how to make America great
Deal from strength or get crushed every time
Over here (USA!)
Over there (USA!)
Freedom and liberty everywhere
Oh say can you see, it's not so easy
But we have to stand up tall, and answer freedom's call
USA, USA
We're the land of the free and the home of the brave, USA
The stars and stripes are flying, let's celebrate our freedom
Inspire proudly freedom to the world
Ameritude, American pride
It's attitude, it's who we are, stand up tall
We're the red white and blue
Fiercely free that's who
Our colors don't run, so siree
Over here (USA!)
Over there (USA!)
Freedom and liberty everywhere
Oh say can you see, it's not so easy
But we have to stand up tall and answer freedom's call
This makes sense re female concerns re NHS too.
I'd be very surprised if women were more favourable to Leave.
Interestingly in the US only 35 of the 50 states have English as their official language. Apparently the State of New York still had its official documents written in both Englaish and Dutch until the 1920s.
New Thread New Thread
We have received further reports of anti-semitism in @OxUniLabour and are appalled at such shocking prejudice. https://t.co/frk9Gg8Bbf
None of these other countries are less patriotic or nationalistic than Britain, yet clearly wanted to join. The only country with a strong seccessionist movement is our own, despite the fantasies of our own BOOers.
- French Ambassador and Gus O'Donnell had a conversation about 2 weeks ago in a message was passed to G.O.D. (Presumably to be passed to Cameron). Post Brexit, the EU intends to make an unconditional offer to Scotland to join the EU on the same terms (+the Euro) as the UK currently has. This *may* explain Cameron's sudden panic
- My Paris contact (extremely close to people who know Cameron very well) says that he is a dipshit. Utterly thick and disconnected from the detail, which is why he gets tripped up so often. I quote precisely
- France is terrified that the UK will leave, and result in them facing Germany alone. The French block (Spain/Portugal/Italy/Greece) has crumbled. Spain and Portugal are voting with Germany on everything to suck up. Italy is voting randomnly and unpredictably. Only Greece is reliably supporting France..and if you are in the same camp as Greece...
- Germany sees Brexit as a win/win. If the UK stays they have a net contributor and reliablish ally against France. If the UK leaves Western Europe looks more and more like the 4th Reich. The actual parallel this guy used was 1870...
Why does he always look like he spent the night sleeping in some shop doorway?