I notice Guido's list of Tory MPs for Out has edged up by 2 to 141 since yesterday. With 26 left to declare (albeit with a few of those formally taking an undecided position) there may still be a chance the number could reach 150 by ref day.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
What is undoubtedly true is that there is a lot of detailed legislation, but you could say the same of Westminster. Practitioners in the field don't in my experience feel that the volume of legislation is really the problem - they just don't agree with parts of it.
Thanks for that.
I think for a good few people, the problem was ironically best put by Tony Benn.
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
We can't get rid of them, therefore we do not live in a democratic system.
"We" the electorate of the EU countries can get rid of them, can't we?
We are not the electorate of the EU. There is no single polity or electorate.
There's certainly no demos, but there is an electorate surely.
There is no single electorate because there is no single body that IS the EU. Talking about the democratic accountability of the EU as a whole, is like talking about democratic accountability of the UK establishment. You've got to break it down.
So the 5 questions can be asked of the ECJ equally as of any UK court, or the Civil Service vs the commission, and you will get back a series of accountabilities that does indirectly point back to an elected politician.
And for the EU most of those accountabilities come back ultimately through national governments, with the exception of the European parliament, which has limited power. The conundrum is that more direct democratic accountability = less power through national governments. The deficit of direct democracy within the EU is exactly designed that way because of considerations of national sovereignty - meaning any Out attempt to attack the EU for lack of democracy instantly brings you into a circular argument.
It is an inherent problem for all supranational organisations.
What is undoubtedly true is that there is a lot of detailed legislation, but you could say the same of Westminster. Practitioners in the field don't in my experience feel that the volume of legislation is really the problem - they just don't agree with parts of it.
Thanks for that.
I think for a good few people, the problem was ironically best put by Tony Benn.
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
We can't get rid of them, therefore we do not live in a democratic system.
"We" the electorate of the EU countries can get rid of them, can't we?
Indigo is rabbiting along pointlessly. We get rid of governments all the time - every country does. Admittedly with PR you just rearrange to constituent parties of that government so it hardly ever changes. What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
Public patience with George Osborne’s austerity is dwindling, a poll reveals today, as it shows fewer than one in 10 people want cuts to continue until he achieves a budget surplus.
An exclusive BMG Research poll for the Standard instead shows a majority want cuts eased or stopped.
It also shows that four times as many people think the Budget on March 16 should focus on funding schools and hospitals as those who think it should be about balancing public finances.
I find your lack of faith disturbing, in the greatest Chancellor of the last 19 years.
Alastair Darling was probably better.
Is this the same Alastair Darling that lost half a trillion quid between two Statements to the House? You think he was better? Really? Okaaaaaaay...... *backs away quietly*
Darling had his head screwed on, the interview with Marr when he said that he had the "forces of hell" unleashed on him after being honest about the severity of the recession was very telling.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
Public patience with George Osborne’s austerity is dwindling, a poll reveals today, as it shows fewer than one in 10 people want cuts to continue until he achieves a budget surplus.
An exclusive BMG Research poll for the Standard instead shows a majority want cuts eased or stopped.
It also shows that four times as many people think the Budget on March 16 should focus on funding schools and hospitals as those who think it should be about balancing public finances.
I find your lack of faith disturbing, in the greatest Chancellor of the last 19 years.
Alastair Darling was probably better.
Is this the same Alastair Darling that lost half a trillion quid between two Statements to the House? You think he was better? Really? Okaaaaaaay...... *backs away quietly*
Darling had his head screwed on, the interview with Marr when he said that he had the "forces of hell" unleashed on him after being honest about the severity of the recession was very telling.
I'll concede that few jobs in politics have been more difficult in the past few decades than being Gordon Brown's titular Chancellor. But his CV before that was hardly stellar.
What is undoubtedly true is that there is a lot of detailed legislation, but you could say the same of Westminster. Practitioners in the field don't in my experience feel that the volume of legislation is really the problem - they just don't agree with parts of it.
Thanks for that.
I think for a good few people, the problem was ironically best put by Tony Benn.
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
We can't get rid of them, therefore we do not live in a democratic system.
"We" the electorate of the EU countries can get rid of them, can't we?
Indigo is rabbiting along pointlessly. We get rid of governments all the time - every country does. Admittedly with PR you just rearrange to constituent parties of that government so it hardly ever changes. What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
How do we get rid of Angela Merkel, whose immigration policy is destroying Europe, and having a material effect on us here, a material effect that will only increase, and increase exponentially if we stay in.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
I don't know why anyone takes City analysts seriously. Teenaged scribblers, the lot of them
I think it would be good for the law to recognise family inheritance as a right, I am quite sure the husband never considered the possibility of the wife leaving "his" money to a cat's home with his child being left in want. Of course there are hard cases where one child looks after mum and dad and other children walk away. But it would reduce the pressure on old people from charities wanting to write themselves into their wills.
Public patience with George Osborne’s austerity is dwindling, a poll reveals today, as it shows fewer than one in 10 people want cuts to continue until he achieves a budget surplus.
An exclusive BMG Research poll for the Standard instead shows a majority want cuts eased or stopped.
It also shows that four times as many people think the Budget on March 16 should focus on funding schools and hospitals as those who think it should be about balancing public finances.
I find your lack of faith disturbing, in the greatest Chancellor of the last 19 years.
Alastair Darling was probably better.
Is this the same Alastair Darling that lost half a trillion quid between two Statements to the House? You think he was better? Really? Okaaaaaaay...... *backs away quietly*
Darling had his head screwed on, the interview with Marr when he said that he had the "forces of hell" unleashed on him after being honest about the severity of the recession was very telling.
I'll concede that few jobs in politics have been more difficult in the past few decades than being Gordon Brown's titular Chancellor. But his CV before that was hardly stellar.
Yeah, but really it's not down to him. The fact that he forced Brown to go into the election with spending cuts pencilled in also helped us get into power. Brown would have lied and cheated and promised mega spending rises to Labour's client state and we would have ended up on 280 seats with Labour on 270.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
Yes conventional wisdom may turn out to be right or wrong but it is totally disingenuous for some Leavers to claim that the pound wont depreciate and others to claim that it will but that will be a good thing . To these people Leave is all important irrespective of any damage done to the economy of the country .
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
He was right. Devaluation is a mechanism for dealing with a poorly performing economy but it is not painless. Arguably it is covert but it is no more painless than any other way. To boast about being able to devalue is stupid. It is still a signal that you are not performing well and hits all sorts of groups in all sorts of ways.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
VW sales have fallen off a cliff following the emissions scandal. They'll do everything they can to avoid further rises.
It's true that VW's unit sales were down by 14% in January year on year, if you call that "falling off a cliff". But one thing's for sure, they won't be prepared to sell them into the UK at a loss which must surely be the case or nearly so, after Sterling's 10%+ devaluation over recent weeks - that sort of fall simply cannot be absorbed and there's no sign yet that we've reached the bottom.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
I don't know why anyone takes City analysts seriously. Teenaged scribblers, the lot of them
There's a bit of a correlation =/= causation issue here. From the article
"Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson."
Possible Brexit is one of 4 potential contributory factors cited.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
I don't know why anyone takes City analysts seriously. Teenaged scribblers, the lot of them
At least the big firms that just churn out crap from company press releases. Smaller, more specialist, firms do sometimes add value, but it's mainly just from eliminating the need to do grunt work than real insight
What is undoubtedly true is that there is a lot of detailed legislation, but you could say the same of Westminster. Practitioners in the field don't in my experience feel that the volume of legislation is really the problem - they just don't agree with parts of it.
Thanks for that.
I think for a good few people, the problem was ironically best put by Tony Benn.
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
We can't get rid of them, therefore we do not live in a democratic system.
"We" the electorate of the EU countries can get rid of them, can't we?
Indigo is rabbiting along pointlessly. We get rid of governments all the time - every country does. Admittedly with PR you just rearrange to constituent parties of that government so it hardly ever changes. What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
How do we get rid of Angela Merkel, whose immigration policy is destroying Europe, and having a material effect on us here, a material effect that will only increase, and increase exponentially if we stay in.
We can't. And you know it.
We can't get rid of the Commissioners, either, who are all too often politicians who have just been rejected by the electorate (e.g. Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson) or, even worse, people who have never been elected by anyone, ever (e.g Baroness Ashton, Baron Cockfield),
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
We have had a dreadful current account problem. Were we in the Euro there would be no way to correct that (just like in Spain and Greece) and we could be heading for massive imbalances and real trouble. Simply trying to maintain a hard currency is the fool's approach to economics.
The way to correct a loss of competitiveness in a single currency area is to drive up unemployment, and drive down wages, which in my opinion, causes more hardship than allowing a currency to depreciate.
Too many people treat a currency as a virility symbol.
Interestingly, the great Lord Lawson, in his The View From Number 11, made exactly the opposite case. He said that using currency depreciation as a tool to hid economic inflexibility was akin to picking the pockets of the prudent, by making savers savings worth less.
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
Yes conventional wisdom may turn out to be right or wrong but it is totally disingenuous for some Leavers to claim that the pound wont depreciate and others to claim that it will but that will be a good thing . To these people Leave is all important irrespective of any damage done to the economy of the country .
You shouldn't manage your exchange rate. It's an output, not an input.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
Public patience with George Osborne’s austerity is dwindling, a poll reveals today, as it shows fewer than one in 10 people want cuts to continue until he achieves a budget surplus.
An exclusive BMG Research poll for the Standard instead shows a majority want cuts eased or stopped.
It also shows that four times as many people think the Budget on March 16 should focus on funding schools and hospitals as those who think it should be about balancing public finances.
That's why he cancelled the cuts last time and is looking at tax rises to plug his gap instead of deeper cuts. He is destroying the national finances to try and become PM. Vote Leave to get rid of Osborne!
Thanks for admitting the real reason for the moronic Leave spoutings we have to put up with on here. Its not the country at all, its all about political revenge coming from different quarters and with different motives. A whole load of bumptious self righteous self justification. Thanks for shining some light on that, pity for you it confirms me as a Remainer.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
This stuff is for real, it's not a game.
It's accurate but misleading. Boards are worried about lots of factors. The headline invites the reader to draw a conclusion that is only partially correct.
Wall Street is getting ready to go nuclear on Donald Trump.
The effort is centered on the recently formed Our Principles PAC, the latest big-money group airing anti-Trump ads, which is run by GOP strategist Katie Packer, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney in 2012.
Idiotic. If they bring down Trump in flames he will run on his own ticket and guarantee the Republicans lose. He only agreed not to do that if they played fair, funding a huge super-PAC to attack him, probably doesn't fit that requirement.
The republican establishment is very odd, they would clearly prefer a real hardcore politically correct establishment liberal than an actually fairly moderate (except immigration) Republican.
Also what do they think happens next when the public have a 60%+ vote for wanting someone outside politics if they pull their current guy down ?
Perhaps we under estimate how well some people are doing out of the current political arrangements in the US, and how hard they intend to fight to maintain those arrangements.
Actually apart from the Likudniks, neocons and their fellow travellers most of the GOP establishment will rally round Trump. A slow process but it is already happening.
Carson dropping out will help Trump, he was second choice for a lot of Carson's supporters and this will help him get closer to the magical 50%.
A lot of people talking about independent runs are obviously unaware of just how hard it is to get on the ballot, almost impossible. Trump had his lawyers look at it awhile back but realised it just wasn't doable.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
This stuff is for real, it's not a game.
It's accurate but misleading. Boards are worried about lots of factors. The headline invites the reader to draw a conclusion that is only partially correct.
You omitted to quote this bit:
Last month, the government announced the date of the referendum and influential London mayor Boris Johnson backed the 'Out' campaign - events which "exacerbated an undercurrent of unease about Europe that was already there", added Williamson.
Still, we'll add Reuters and Chris Williamson to the ever-lengthening list of Europhile scare-mongerers, along with most of the major international banks, the car manufacturers, the CBI, the TUC, the entire group of G20 finance ministers, the IMF, the vast majority of economists....
I expect there will be further new additions to the list every day until June 23rd.
Last year, Khan talked up the ‘phenomenal’ symbolism of London having a Muslim mayor. It would show that Londoners have ‘the confidence, tolerance and respect to vote for someone of a different faith,’ he said. I thought politics was about voting for someone who had the same outlook as you? Now it seems to be about voting for someone who is different to you, to show you aren’t bigoted. And if London doesn’t plumb for Khan? Will that prove the city is unconfident, intolerant, disrespectful?
In recent weeks Khan’s cheerleaders have upped the Muslim ante. Mehdi Hasan writes of the ‘huge symbolism’ of a Muslim win and how it would strike a blow against ‘Islamophobes’. A mass vote for Khan would show that Muslims are ‘allowed to succeed in public life,’ he says. So if you aren’t planning to vote for Khan, what is wrong with you? Don’t you think Muslims should be allowed to succeed in public life? Islamophobe.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I can never really understand why we Brits gloat so much at having remained outside the Eurozone. Despite the disastrous economic state of affairs we've seen in the likes of Greek, Spain, Portugal and even France, the simple fact is that the Euro has remained a very much stronger currency than the GBP, not least over the past few weeks which has seen the pound slide by a scary 10% or more against the Euro. Just watch those VW and BMW prices soar anytime soon!
Last year, Khan talked up the ‘phenomenal’ symbolism of London having a Muslim mayor. It would show that Londoners have ‘the confidence, tolerance and respect to vote for someone of a different faith,’ he said. I thought politics was about voting for someone who had the same outlook as you? Now it seems to be about voting for someone who is different to you, to show you aren’t bigoted. And if London doesn’t plumb for Khan? Will that prove the city is unconfident, intolerant, disrespectful?
In recent weeks Khan’s cheerleaders have upped the Muslim ante. Mehdi Hasan writes of the ‘huge symbolism’ of a Muslim win and how it would strike a blow against ‘Islamophobes’. A mass vote for Khan would show that Muslims are ‘allowed to succeed in public life,’ he says. So if you aren’t planning to vote for Khan, what is wrong with you? Don’t you think Muslims should be allowed to succeed in public life? Islamophobe.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
This stuff is for real, it's not a game.
Pathetic.
Casino, have you ever considered the possibility that they might be right, and you might be wrong?
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
This stuff is for real, it's not a game.
It's accurate but misleading. Boards are worried about lots of factors. The headline invites the reader to draw a conclusion that is only partially correct.
You omitted to quote this bit:
Last month, the government announced the date of the referendum and influential London mayor Boris Johnson backed the 'Out' campaign - events which "exacerbated an undercurrent of unease about Europe that was already there", added Williamson.
Still, we'll add Reuters and Chris Williamson to the ever-lengthening list of Europhile scare-mongerers, along with most of the major international banks, the car manufacturers, the CBI, the TUC, the entire group of G20 finance ministers, the IMF, the vast majority of economists....
I expect there will be further new additions to the list every day until June 23rd.
I quoted the bit which highlighted the board concerns. Brexit is part of the concern, but certainly not all of it.
The headline implies causation (and sole causation at that) which is absolutely not true.
edit: And, and just to be clear, I did not call Reuters (which I think does a good job as a whole) or Chris Williamson "Europhile scare-mongers". However, I do accuse them of being professional journalists crafting headlines to encourage potential readers to click on the story.
I quoted the bit which highlighted the board concerns. Brexit is part of the concern, but certainly not all of it.
The headline implies causation (and sole causation at that) which is absolutely not true.
FFS, it's a headline. If you want to know more you read the article. It doesn't say anything about sole causation. For that matter it doesn't even mention causation at all.
I was one of around 100 people - mostly FD s and investment managers - who attended an investor event held by a city fund manager yesterday. To test the delegate voting system in the lecture theatre they asked the referendum question - 62% were for remain, 29% leave (the rest abstained/did not vote). They had apparently asked the same question at several similar events recently and all of them had come out at more than 60% remain.
What is undoubtedly true is that there is a lot of detailed legislation, but you could say the same of Westminster. Practitioners in the field don't in my experience feel that the volume of legislation is really the problem - they just don't agree with parts of it.
Thanks for that.
I think for a good few people, the problem was ironically best put by Tony Benn.
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
We can't get rid of them, therefore we do not live in a democratic system.
"We" the electorate of the EU countries can get rid of them, can't we?
Indigo is rabbiting along pointlessly. We get rid of governments all the time - every country does. Admittedly with PR you just rearrange to constituent parties of that government so it hardly ever changes. What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
It is certainly a misleading headline, whatever else it is
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
The headline is accurate, on your quote.
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
This stuff is for real, it's not a game.
Pathetic.
Casino, have you ever considered the possibility that they might be right, and you might be wrong?
For that matter, has any of our Leavers done so?
Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
All this fearmongering and talking Britain down (which you seem to participate it) is horseshit. You might be taken in by it; I am not.
As countless independent think tank studies have shown, the economic impacts of Brexit are marginal.
If your posts on here just become an adjutant of Project Fear, pointlessly echoing dire warnings and prophecies of doom, I shall simply skip over and ignore them.
Last year, Khan talked up the ‘phenomenal’ symbolism of London having a Muslim mayor. It would show that Londoners have ‘the confidence, tolerance and respect to vote for someone of a different faith,’ he said. I thought politics was about voting for someone who had the same outlook as you? Now it seems to be about voting for someone who is different to you, to show you aren’t bigoted. And if London doesn’t plumb for Khan? Will that prove the city is unconfident, intolerant, disrespectful?
In recent weeks Khan’s cheerleaders have upped the Muslim ante. Mehdi Hasan writes of the ‘huge symbolism’ of a Muslim win and how it would strike a blow against ‘Islamophobes’. A mass vote for Khan would show that Muslims are ‘allowed to succeed in public life,’ he says. So if you aren’t planning to vote for Khan, what is wrong with you? Don’t you think Muslims should be allowed to succeed in public life? Islamophobe.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
I'm not a Remainian, although on balance like you I intend to vote Remain, but personally I don't think we would, assuming that in the meantime we would have set up some sort of close trading agreement with the EU.
Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
All this fearmongering and talking Britain down (which you seem to participate it) is horseshit. You might be taken in by it; I am not.
As countless independent think tank studies have shown, the economic impacts of Brexit are marginal.
If your posts on here just become an adjutant of Project Fear, pointlessly echoing dire warnings and prophecies of doom, I shall simply skip over and ignore them.
And lose respect for you.
ie no, you haven't considered the possibility that you might be wrong.
Can someone tell me what the "Single Market" (it is usually capitalised) actually is? Tarrif-free zone for goods. Ok. Financial services passport. Ok. Otherwise, isn"t it really a single regulatory zone?
Public patience with George Osborne’s austerity is dwindling, a poll reveals today, as it shows fewer than one in 10 people want cuts to continue until he achieves a budget surplus.
An exclusive BMG Research poll for the Standard instead shows a majority want cuts eased or stopped.
It also shows that four times as many people think the Budget on March 16 should focus on funding schools and hospitals as those who think it should be about balancing public finances.
That's why he cancelled the cuts last time and is looking at tax rises to plug his gap instead of deeper cuts. He is destroying the national finances to try and become PM. Vote Leave to get rid of Osborne!
Thanks for admitting the real reason for the moronic Leave spoutings we have to put up with on here. Its not the country at all, its all about political revenge coming from different quarters and with different motives. A whole load of bumptious self righteous self justification. Thanks for shining some light on that, pity for you it confirms me as a Remainer.
Do you think your pungent little emanations actually persuade anyone? Or do you think they just sound strenuous, weird, offputting, and faintly mad and sinister to the neutral observer?
It is rather tim-esque. Seems like an awful lot of effort and for what?
Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
All this fearmongering and talking Britain down (which you seem to participate it) is horseshit. You might be taken in by it; I am not.
As countless independent think tank studies have shown, the economic impacts of Brexit are marginal.
If your posts on here just become an adjutant of Project Fear, pointlessly echoing dire warnings and prophecies of doom, I shall simply skip over and ignore them.
And lose respect for you.
ie no, you haven't considered the possibility that you might be wrong.
Incidentally I am in the BA Galleries lounge at LHR T5. I am sitting right across from the leader of the SNP in the Commons (whose name escapes me). He looks amiable, happy, and well fed, as he scoffs his free basil and tomato quiche with a glass of Grand Cru.
It occurs to me that a lot of these SNP MPs must rather like their new jobs. They get to live in fabulous London, rather than say, Cumbernauld, they get Biz class flights and all the champagne they can guzzle, they don't have too much work to do, and life is just dandy in the southern sun, in the greatest city on earth.
How many of them will REALLY want to go back to an indy Scotland, and pinched and shivering Glasgow?
Yes too many of those favouring Leave seem to believe that Harold Wilson was right in saying that depreciating a currency does not mean that it hurts the money in your pocket ,
Sterling will be fine because we have an independent central bank.
Well many of your fellow Leavers have not only said that it wont be fine but that it is a good thing that it wont be fine . More disparate lies from the Leave campaign ?
Who knows where currencies will go? the conventional wisdom after Brexit is down. How often us conventional wisdom in the City wrong. How often are analysts made to look really stupid? too many to count.
Yes conventional wisdom may turn out to be right or wrong but it is totally disingenuous for some Leavers to claim that the pound wont depreciate and others to claim that it will but that will be a good thing . To these people Leave is all important irrespective of any damage done to the economy of the country .
Look at the trend over the last couple of years. GBP devaluing all the way.... and the economy has been fine and there is virtually no unemployment. You do make things up to suit your agenda.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I was one of around 100 people - mostly FD s and investment managers - who attended an investor event held by a city fund manager yesterday. To test the delegate voting system in the lecture theatre they asked the referendum question - 62% were for remain, 29% leave (the rest abstained/did not vote). They had apparently asked the same question at several similar events recently and all of them had come out at more than 60% remain.
Hedgies aside most asset managers do have a vested interest in the status quo.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
Trouble is it's also a patently transparent lie given how Cameron previously assured us he wouldn't hesitate to take us out of the EU if he didn't obtain the right deal for the UK.
Thanks for being honest, at least. So you therefore confess that Cameron might have been a little economical with the truth, when he claimed we SURE WOULD join the EU?
Well, I can't speak for him, but I think he would argue (with some justification) that our present status of being in the EU but with opt-outs on the Euro, Schengen, some areas of justice and social affairs, and with the protections of the renegotiation, gives us pretty much the best of both worlds, and is better that the EEA option.
Personally, I agree with that on balance starting from where we are now, but if we were in an EEA-style deal I don't think we'd be seeking to change it.
Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
All this fearmongering and talking Britain down (which you seem to participate it) is horseshit. You might be taken in by it; I am not.
As countless independent think tank studies have shown, the economic impacts of Brexit are marginal.
If your posts on here just become an adjutant of Project Fear, pointlessly echoing dire warnings and prophecies of doom, I shall simply skip over and ignore them.
And lose respect for you.
ie no, you haven't considered the possibility that you might be wrong.
Do you really think any of us want to risk prosperity we in Britain have built from the ashes of the late 1970s? I'm leave with a heavy heart, and I acknowledge some of the potential challenges you have highlighted. But they are just that, challenges.
With democracy, freedom and self determination, they are challenges we can meet.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I was one of around 100 people - mostly FD s and investment managers - who attended an investor event held by a city fund manager yesterday. To test the delegate voting system in the lecture theatre they asked the referendum question - 62% were for remain, 29% leave (the rest abstained/did not vote). They had apparently asked the same question at several similar events recently and all of them had come out at more than 60% remain.
Hedgies aside most asset managers do have a vested interest in the status quo.
Indeed. The message from the asset management world is that your money will be safer with Remain. And those with money are more likely to vote.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
Do you really think any of us want to risk prosperity we in Britain have built from the ashes of the late 1970s? I'm leave with a heavy heart, and I acknowledge some of the potential challenges you have highlighted. But they are just that, challenges.
With democracy, freedom and self determination, they are challenges we can meet.
Yes, that's absolutely fair enough.
What's not fair enough is to accuse people - including those who have absolutely zero vested interest at all in the matter - of scaremongering when they point to the economic risks.
They might be wrong, of course, and in any case a lot would depend on which option we go for and how smoothly we get there, but let's not put our hands over our ears and refuse to listen.
Just been announced that Ian McShane will be taking a leading role in Starz’s forthcoming Neil Gaiman adaptation American Gods.
American Gods set in a world in which all gods – that’s every god that anyone, anywhere, has ever believed in – exist, and live among humanity. But a battle is brewing, between the traditional deities and a crop of new gods, who reflect the 21st century’s preoccupation with things such as wealth, celebrity and drugs.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
Trouble is it's also a patently transparent lie given how Cameron previously assured us he wouldn't hesitate to take us out of the EU if he didn't obtain the right deal for the UK.
Which sounds even more stupid now he is telling us that, to coin a phrase, Sodom and Gomorrah will occur if we leave, but up to a fortnight ago he was prepared to leave if he didn't get a few footling changes to an essential anodyne and pointless deal. It's bollox.
I quoted the bit which highlighted the board concerns. Brexit is part of the concern, but certainly not all of it.
The headline implies causation (and sole causation at that) which is absolutely not true.
FFS, it's a headline. If you want to know more you read the article. It doesn't say anything about sole causation. For that matter it doesn't even mention causation at all.
Most people just scan the headline.
"Y goes horribly wrong as X increases" leads people to draw the conclusion that X has caused Y.
Do you really think any of us want to risk prosperity we in Britain have built from the ashes of the late 1970s? I'm leave with a heavy heart, and I acknowledge some of the potential challenges you have highlighted. But they are just that, challenges.
With democracy, freedom and self determination, they are challenges we can meet.
Yes, that's absolutely fair enough.
What's not fair enough is to accuse people - including those who have absolutely zero vested interest at all in the matter - of scaremongering when they point to the economic risks.
They might be wrong, of course, and in any case a lot would depend on which option we go for and how smoothly we get there, but let's not put our hands over our ears and refuse to listen.
Indeed. I look at the EU and I do not like what I see. Not one bit. If I felt they were really offering us a special place, a place away from their socialism, control freakery, meddling, anti-democracy and downright envy, I would support remain in a heartbeat. A 'Thatcherised', democratic, dynamic Europe has enormous potential. But I think the direction of travel is the opposite way.
Do you really think any of us want to risk prosperity we in Britain have built from the ashes of the late 1970s? I'm leave with a heavy heart, and I acknowledge some of the potential challenges you have highlighted. But they are just that, challenges.
With democracy, freedom and self determination, they are challenges we can meet.
Yes, that's absolutely fair enough.
What's not fair enough is to accuse people - including those who have absolutely zero vested interest at all in the matter - of scaremongering when they point to the economic risks.
They might be wrong, of course, and in any case a lot would depend on which option we go for and how smoothly we get there, but let's not put our hands over our ears and refuse to listen.
The problem is the bulk of them are exactly the same people that were just as wrong about the Euro and then have the bareface cheek and effrontery to come over all sage and expect anyone to take them seriously about the EU.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
Incidentally I am in the BA Galleries lounge at LHR T5. I am sitting right across from the leader of the SNP in the Commons (whose name escapes me). He looks amiable, happy, and well fed, as he scoffs his free basil and tomato quiche with a glass of Grand Cru.
It occurs to me that a lot of these SNP MPs must rather like their new jobs. They get to live in fabulous London, rather than say, Cumbernauld, they get Biz class flights and all the champagne they can guzzle, they don't have too much work to do, and life is just dandy in the southern sun, in the greatest city on earth.
How many of them will REALLY want to go back to an indy Scotland, and pinched and shivering Glasgow?
Just been announced that Ian McShane will be taking a leading role in Starz’s forthcoming Neil Gaiman adaptation American Gods.
American Gods set in a world in which all gods – that’s every god that anyone, anywhere, has ever believed in – exist, and live among humanity. But a battle is brewing, between the traditional deities and a crop of new gods, who reflect the 21st century’s preoccupation with things such as wealth, celebrity and drugs.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
Is that option the "Reverse Boris"?
Probably. The primary issue for the EU going forward isn't migration, but the Eurozone bloc versus the non Eurozone block.
Just been announced that Ian McShane will be taking a leading role in Starz’s forthcoming Neil Gaiman adaptation American Gods. '............I am presuming Muhammad won't be making an appearance ;-)
Do you really think any of us want to risk prosperity we in Britain have built from the ashes of the late 1970s? I'm leave with a heavy heart, and I acknowledge some of the potential challenges you have highlighted. But they are just that, challenges.
With democracy, freedom and self determination, they are challenges we can meet.
Yes, that's absolutely fair enough.
What's not fair enough is to accuse people - including those who have absolutely zero vested interest at all in the matter - of scaremongering when they point to the economic risks.
They might be wrong, of course, and in any case a lot would depend on which option we go for and how smoothly we get there, but let's not put our hands over our ears and refuse to listen.
Indeed. I look at the EU and I do not like what I see. Not one bit. If I felt they were really offering us a special place, a place away from their socialism, control freakery, meddling, anti-democracy and downright envy, I would support remain in a heartbeat. A 'Thatcherised', democratic, dynamic Europe has enormous potential. But I think the direction of travel is the opposite way.
"Socialism, control freakery, meddling, anti-democracy and downright envy" to which you could add green obsession, massive self-serving bureaucracy etc - no wonder Caroline Lucas, lover of all the above, is so concerned today that the Left aren't getting more involved in the debate.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
With a very different history of Euroscepticism and less intense focus on the bugbears, the debate would have been somewhat more grounded and clear eyed on both sides I think.
But had we not joined in the 1972 accession, which other accessions would we have considered or have joined separately in (had we not before). Obviously, any trade deal in the mean time would have a strong effect and EEA accession may have been the end game in the less likely times:
1979 - 15-20% we would have joined 1985 - 80-90% we would have joined (and possibly any time after 81) 1994 - 50% we would have joined - Maastrict would have been a factor, but the tone of Euroscepticism would have been different 2003 - 80-90% we would have joined (and possibly any time after 97) 2005 - 60-70% our long standing position outside is starting to give us a more Swiss outlook 2011 - 60-70% pooling risk would look different from the outside.
2014-2016 - probably running back at 15-20% at the moment, but get to grips with Syria and 'the time is right' could come about again within 2-3 years. We may also have had a different take on things had UK not had so much Eastern European immigration in the last 10 years and was instead facing bigger demographic issues in the 20-40 year old age group.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
who by? It's very thought-provoking.
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 6
I should have guessed!
(We used to rent his house outside Florence for our summer holidays)
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
who by? It's very thought-provoking.
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 6
1513, I think - he died in 1527
Yeah sorry, it was posthumously published in 1532, had been in circulated in handwritten copies under a different title during his life.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
There's no guarantee of a second vote. Think how hard it was to get this one.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Just a question. As you evidently see people who support Remain as pondscum, why are you hesitating as to how to vote?
I don't see all supporters of Remain as pondscum. Not at all. There are many honourable reasons for supporting REMAIN, not least personal greed and selfishness. I wholly respect that. If you stand to lose from Brexit, you are entitled to vote against it, and persuade others of your cause. I might still vote REMAIN for exactly those reasons: that it might negatively affect me and my kin.
I object to the lies coming from my government, and their borderline treacherous tactics. I can now see why Scots were so enraged by IN. And I foresee a similar emotional backlash across the UK, after the vote.
I think the great majority of Remain supporters just think that there isn't enough benefit in leaving to justify the risks. They are not necessarily risk-averse. They just don't think these risks are worth running for this prize.
Additionally there's a very very small number that are into the alle Menschen werden Brüder angle. Of the people I know, who had that mindset, most have been terminally disillusioned by the treatment of Greece.
I agree that the Government's campaign is unedifying. To me, however, it doesn't seem any worse than campaigns in general and recent Conservative efforts in particular. You may be right that there will be a backlash against Cameron but still, from his point of view, any kind of win is better than any kind of loss.
"My heart says no, my brain says no.... but my career, that says yes"
"and my testicles say.... oh damn, and I can't seem to find them"
And he is even more slimy because that leak to the DM is clearly hoping that Leave chaps don't think he is so bad, just on the off chance that they win.
If we are going to clean up our environment it should be for ourselves and our children not for some privileged old dear who, frankly, never encounters any litter from one year to the next.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
No, I think the EU will consider the matter settled, if we vote to remain we begin the long path to a single European state and we will eventually end up with the Euro, just much further down the line when all other 27 nations (including Denmark and Sweden who they will bully) have taken it up. At that point we stay or leave, I don't think it will be put to a vote though.
< Since time immemorial, established interests have had a vested interest in the status quo, which benefits them very nicely.
The following was written in 1532:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
who by? It's very thought-provoking.
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 6
1513, I think - he died in 1527
Yeah sorry, it was posthumously published in 1532, had been in circulated in handwritten copies under a different title during his life.
Sorry to be pedantic... I was initially confused by the quote cos I thought it was written in 1315! So I'd transposed it to be out by 198 years compared to your 19 years.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
There's no guarantee of a second vote. Think how hard it was to get this one.
This really is it.
In 1975 there was a referendum that remain won, eight years later, Labour fought a general election pledging to withdraw from the EC.
Question for REMAINIANS. Do you seriously agree with Cameron's ridiculous assertion that, if we were outside the EU, we would now be asking to join?
Can anyone seriously agree with that? Hint: If you do, you are a moron.
But I'd still like to know. Good way of sorting the lying REMAINIANS from the honest.
Depends if we had access to the single market? If we didn't, we might be begging to join.
To me it is clear we'd be seeking membership of EFTA or the EEA (if we were outside). There is no way on God's green earth that we'd ask to join the EU.
Cameron knows this, it's one reason he used that weird American slang "I sure would, darn my pants!" when asked this very question: would you join the EU now. He was lying, and trying to hide it. Cf Miliband's "Hell Yes!". Exactly the same cognitive glitch.
I understand that viewpoint.
I'm about 80% LEAVE today. I know it is genuinely the right thing for my country, and my kids. It's the pain and uncertainty in between that freaks me out. But we've come through far, far worse.
My ancestors would scoff at my cowardice and avarice.
I reckon if we vote Remain, the EU will be vastly different within 5 to 10 years, and we'll have a second referendum, to which we will vote to Leave.
No, I think the EU will consider the matter settled, if we vote to remain we begin the long path to a single European state and we will eventually end up with the Euro, just much further down the line when all other 27 nations (including Denmark and Sweden who they will bully) have taken it up. At that point we stay or leave, I don't think it will be put to a vote though.
In 2025 there will be a neo-Corbynite Labour government, they will have been in office for a week, when the phone rings from Brussels and tells them that nationalising the railways is out of the question because of the Third Railways Directive, and that he has five years to fully privatise the NHS.... the next week Labour will invoke Article 50
In truth we have got this vote in large part by accident - like the 'cast iron' referendum promise, this was a promise Cameron did not think he would have to deliver on.
The powers that be will work very hard indeed to avoid there being another, should they scrape home this time.
If we are going to clean up our environment it should be for ourselves and our children not for some privileged old dear who, frankly, never encounters any litter from one year to the next.
"Clean for the Queen" sounds like the order you give to guardsmen washing their nether parts.
Comments
There is no single electorate because there is no single body that IS the EU. Talking about the democratic accountability of the EU as a whole, is like talking about democratic accountability of the UK establishment. You've got to break it down.
So the 5 questions can be asked of the ECJ equally as of any UK court, or the Civil Service vs the commission, and you will get back a series of accountabilities that does indirectly point back to an elected politician.
And for the EU most of those accountabilities come back ultimately through national governments, with the exception of the European parliament, which has limited power. The conundrum is that more direct democratic accountability = less power through national governments. The deficit of direct democracy within the EU is exactly designed that way because of considerations of national sovereignty - meaning any Out attempt to attack the EU for lack of democracy instantly brings you into a circular argument.
It is an inherent problem for all supranational organisations.
Indigo is rabbiting along pointlessly. We get rid of governments all the time - every country does. Admittedly with PR you just rearrange to constituent parties of that government so it hardly ever changes.
What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/3/3/uk-services-growth-at-three-year-low-as-brexit-doubts-grip-boardrooms
What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
How do we get rid of Angela Merkel, whose immigration policy is destroying Europe, and having a material effect on us here, a material effect that will only increase, and increase exponentially if we stay in.
We can't. And you know it.
Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson.
"Survey responses reveal that firms are worried about signs of faltering demand, but boardrooms have also become unsettled by concerns regarding the increased risk of 'Brexit', financial market volatility and weak economic growth at home and abroad," said Markit's chief economists, Chris Williamson."
Possible Brexit is one of 4 potential contributory factors cited.
We can't. And you know it.
We can't get rid of the Commissioners, either, who are all too often politicians who have just been rejected by the electorate (e.g. Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson) or, even worse, people who have never been elected by anyone, ever (e.g Baroness Ashton, Baron Cockfield),
Frankly, any board directors who aren't concerned about the potential disruption of Brexit would be in breach of fiduciary duty.
This stuff is for real, it's not a game.
Its not the country at all, its all about political revenge coming from different quarters and with different motives. A whole load of bumptious self righteous self justification.
Thanks for shining some light on that, pity for you it confirms me as a Remainer.
I wonder if the similar drop in the services PMI in the US the month before was caused by Brexit fears as well?
That is what Carl Icahn thinks.
Actually apart from the Likudniks, neocons and their fellow travellers most of the GOP establishment will rally round Trump. A slow process but it is already happening.
Carson dropping out will help Trump, he was second choice for a lot of Carson's supporters and this will help him get closer to the magical 50%.
A lot of people talking about independent runs are obviously unaware of just how hard it is to get on the ballot, almost impossible. Trump had his lawyers look at it awhile back but realised it just wasn't doable.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35714967
Red Penny raging against litter picking.....
Last month, the government announced the date of the referendum and influential London mayor Boris Johnson backed the 'Out' campaign - events which "exacerbated an undercurrent of unease about Europe that was already there", added Williamson.
Still, we'll add Reuters and Chris Williamson to the ever-lengthening list of Europhile scare-mongerers, along with most of the major international banks, the car manufacturers, the CBI, the TUC, the entire group of G20 finance ministers, the IMF, the vast majority of economists....
I expect there will be further new additions to the list every day until June 23rd.
Last year, Khan talked up the ‘phenomenal’ symbolism of London having a Muslim mayor. It would show that Londoners have ‘the confidence, tolerance and respect to vote for someone of a different faith,’ he said. I thought politics was about voting for someone who had the same outlook as you? Now it seems to be about voting for someone who is different to you, to show you aren’t bigoted. And if London doesn’t plumb for Khan? Will that prove the city is unconfident, intolerant, disrespectful?
In recent weeks Khan’s cheerleaders have upped the Muslim ante. Mehdi Hasan writes of the ‘huge symbolism’ of a Muslim win and how it would strike a blow against ‘Islamophobes’. A mass vote for Khan would show that Muslims are ‘allowed to succeed in public life,’ he says. So if you aren’t planning to vote for Khan, what is wrong with you? Don’t you think Muslims should be allowed to succeed in public life? Islamophobe.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/sadiq-khan-please-stop-playing-the-muslim-card/
RACCCCISTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
For that matter, has any of our Leavers done so?
The headline implies causation (and sole causation at that) which is absolutely not true.
edit: And, and just to be clear, I did not call Reuters (which I think does a good job as a whole) or Chris Williamson "Europhile scare-mongers". However, I do accuse them of being professional journalists crafting headlines to encourage potential readers to click on the story.
Crikey Richard is really losing the plot now.
The shroud-waving has gone into overdrive...anything negative must be the result of 'Brexit' fears
What we do not change is the civil service behind that government. These are employees.
What are you doing here ? You have been made redundant http://goo.gl/KaKNYd
All this fearmongering and talking Britain down (which you seem to participate it) is horseshit. You might be taken in by it; I am not.
As countless independent think tank studies have shown, the economic impacts of Brexit are marginal.
If your posts on here just become an adjutant of Project Fear, pointlessly echoing dire warnings and prophecies of doom, I shall simply skip over and ignore them.
And lose respect for you.
Their people show massive majorities in favour of the status quo.
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=2Y
Look at the trend over the last couple of years. GBP devaluing all the way.... and the economy has been fine and there is virtually no unemployment. You do make things up to suit your agenda.
Personally, I agree with that on balance starting from where we are now, but if we were in an EEA-style deal I don't think we'd be seeking to change it.
With democracy, freedom and self determination, they are challenges we can meet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181449/The-EU-Inners-will-regret-turning-Project-Fear-into-Project-White-Flag.html
"The EU Inners will regret turning Project Fear into Project White Flag
By depicting the UK Government as powerless, they are encouraging a challenge to its authority "
What's not fair enough is to accuse people - including those who have absolutely zero vested interest at all in the matter - of scaremongering when they point to the economic risks.
They might be wrong, of course, and in any case a lot would depend on which option we go for and how smoothly we get there, but let's not put our hands over our ears and refuse to listen.
American Gods set in a world in which all gods – that’s every god that anyone, anywhere, has ever believed in – exist, and live among humanity. But a battle is brewing, between the traditional deities and a crop of new gods, who reflect the 21st century’s preoccupation with things such as wealth, celebrity and drugs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/03/03/ian-mcshane-cast-in-neil-gaiman-tv-adaptation-american-gods/
I am presuming Muhammad won't be making an appearance ;-)
"Y goes horribly wrong as X increases" leads people to draw the conclusion that X has caused Y.
But this isn't true.
He's a goodie. It's on Amazon Prime. Gets 8.5 imdb, it's nonsense entertainment. With romcom elements.
who by? It's very thought-provoking.
That's what will end our membership of the EU.
But had we not joined in the 1972 accession, which other accessions would we have considered or have joined separately in (had we not before). Obviously, any trade deal in the mean time would have a strong effect and EEA accession may have been the end game in the less likely times:
1979 - 15-20% we would have joined
1985 - 80-90% we would have joined (and possibly any time after 81)
1994 - 50% we would have joined - Maastrict would have been a factor, but the tone of Euroscepticism would have been different
2003 - 80-90% we would have joined (and possibly any time after 97)
2005 - 60-70% our long standing position outside is starting to give us a more Swiss outlook
2011 - 60-70% pooling risk would look different from the outside.
2014-2016 - probably running back at 15-20% at the moment, but get to grips with Syria and 'the time is right' could come about again within 2-3 years. We may also have had a different take on things had UK not had so much Eastern European immigration in the last 10 years and was instead facing bigger demographic issues in the 20-40 year old age group.
Macchiavelli, isn't it?
That is good to know, I hope you are doing a job outside Government.
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 6
I should have guessed!
(We used to rent his house outside Florence for our summer holidays)
1513, I think - he died in 1527
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474799/Business-Secretary-admits-heart-Brexit-David-Cameron-didn-t-EU-s-backing-Remain.html
Yeah sorry, it was posthumously published in 1532, had been in circulated in handwritten copies under a different title during his life.
The EU needs a million volt shock to get rid of the superstaters and energise the super traders. Our leaving could be that shock.
This really is it.
Additionally there's a very very small number that are into the alle Menschen werden Brüder angle. Of the people I know, who had that mindset, most have been terminally disillusioned by the treatment of Greece.
I agree that the Government's campaign is unedifying. To me, however, it doesn't seem any worse than campaigns in general and recent Conservative efforts in particular. You may be right that there will be a backlash against Cameron but still, from his point of view, any kind of win is better than any kind of loss.
And he is even more slimy because that leak to the DM is clearly hoping that Leave chaps don't think he is so bad, just on the off chance that they win.
Sorry to be pedantic... I was initially confused by the quote cos I thought it was written in 1315! So I'd transposed it to be out by 198 years compared to your 19 years.
We might not need a further referendum
In truth we have got this vote in large part by accident - like the 'cast iron' referendum promise, this was a promise Cameron did not think he would have to deliver on.
The powers that be will work very hard indeed to avoid there being another, should they scrape home this time.