It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
Americans used to stand for democracy. Whatever Britain - as a democracy - decided used to be OK by them.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
Americans used to stand for democracy. Whatever Britain - as a democracy - decided used to be OK by them.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
The proportion of those who attended Oxbridge, have higher degrees, earn multiples of national average and own wine cellars/bank/third overseas property - and held director level jobs...
There seems to be a feeling on here that just because the refugee news flow is relatively quiet right now, remain is going to walk it.
Imagine the consternation if the roots of why people are supporting leave turn out to be far deeper.
It depends on how we choose to read things. Take yesterday's Yougov, for example.
Trust in Cameron on the EU has declined from minus 25 to minus 45 in little over six weeks, so the Trust Dave scale-tipper that Remain were keen to promote seems to be in disarray. Perhaps that's the real motivation of the right wing press highlighting his tax affairs?
Similarly, the Risk Assessment regarding the EU is highly dependent on the young pen-pushing generation.
People talk about ABC1 and C2DE in terms of education commonly, but the truer separation is between people who work in offices/public sector buildings and people who work in factories, shops etc. Young people are pushed towards ABC1 professions.
Category A represents just 4% of the population.
I suspect that small group would be in excess of 50% of the posters/contributors to this site however, so quite how representative the views here are is open to debate.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
And Remain don't seem to be finding any arguments that cut through to them.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
John Howard, Stephen Harper, Marco Rubio, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson..
Foreign leaders will typically not wish to go against the declared foreign policy of an allied Government and its leader, and may well wish to help him or her.
I don't disqualify your posts on this matter, btw. It's just that the EU works very well for the CBI, IoD, big banks, major trade unions, trans-EU aerospace and car manufacturers, who can all access and lobby it at the highest levels, and are structured accordingly, and they have little business interest in changing it.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
Can you think of a single example of an American president meddling in Britain's affairs in a similar way since 1945?
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
That reminds me of when Dave said that America stood shoulder to shoulder with us in 1940....
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
Can you think of a single example of an American president meddling in Britain's affairs in a similar way since 1945?
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
It's interesting. Cameron's standing has deteriorated markedly among Conservative voters over the past six weeks. I would guess that the greater prominence for Labour in the Remain campaign will push more Conservative voters into the Leave camp - but drive up turnout among Labour Remain supporters.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
So, using your example, an American president does what he personally thinks is right - even ignoring the wishes of his own elected representatives, let alone anyone else.
And you believe this means that Obama is saying what is best for the British people?
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
Americans used to stand for democracy. Whatever Britain - as a democracy - decided used to be OK by them.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
And Remain don't seem to be finding any arguments that cut through to them.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
Can you think of a single example of an American president meddling in Britain's affairs in a similar way since 1945?
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
Can you think of a single example of an American president meddling in Britain's affairs in a similar way since 1945?
Ike. Suez.
Oh there's no question they think they have the right to knock us about if we don't toe the line.
Surprising to see a British government encouraging them to do so, though, which is what is happening now. And left-wingers applauding this.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
All this extra doomsaying from overseas is simply going to emphasise what a bad dealCameron got. If things are that critical those concerned should have perhaps accommodated his concerns more.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
Who is saying the leaving the EU would be a bad thing? This chap was not saying that 5 months ago.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
One thing that always riled me on the internet, is people who wish to downplay/denigrate the US involvement/sacrifice in World War II.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
Obama will (quite rightly) act in what he perceives to be America's best interests. Like many US politicians, he believes that America's best interests are served by having a loyal ally within the EU.
We, of course, should act in what we perceive to be our best interests.
Darling on R4 reprising his greatest hits: unknown, leap in the dark, risk, risk, risk, risk, risk. Bit early in the morning for repeats. The whiny, irrascible tone he developed during the Indy campaign seems to have become a fixture.
What are you complaining about?
It worked last time.
Though in fairness some of the separatist argument this time has a greater foundation in reality....
'Worked' is an interesting word for a campaign that lost half its lead as it progressed. Of course by Darling's own measure (and as subsequent events have proved), he failed.
'For Alistair Darling, winning the Scottish referendum on 18 September will not be enough. The Yes camp “only have to win by one vote”, he warns. “We have to win this well.” Without a convincing victory, the spectre of independence could continue to haunt the pro-unionists – and as the former Chancellor says: “There is a general mood that people want to put this to bed for a generation.” Although the chairman of Better Together will not talk percentages, the feeling in his No campaign is that keeping Alex Salmond below the 40 per cent mark would be a decisive victory, while a much closer winning margin would not stop the Scottish National Party (SNP) coming back for more – and another referendum – within 10 years.'
Oh dear, reduced to 'We won with a crappy, photoshop vow, so shut up'.
Of course it's not even 'we' for you migrant Yoons.
Nah - you lost because the Scots had the wit to see through that pile of mendacious sh*te dished up as 'Scotland's Future' - and aren't you glad they did?
Yes polled better after "Scotland's Future" was published than before. The longer the campaign went on the higher the Yes vote.
Yes voters made up their mind later than No voters.
Hush yo' mouf.
Migrants long departed from Scotland who garner their views from the Tele, CrapX and the Mail are the real experts in this field, and don't you forget it.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
Yes - its an unusual dynamic in a referendum - those most typically in favour of the status quo being in favour of change - we've 10 weeks to see how it all washes out.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
Americans used to stand for democracy. Whatever Britain - as a democracy - decided used to be OK by them.
Suez.
You are comparing this to Suez???
Well, its a view.
You're the one saying US presidents don't intervene in British affairs and asked for a single example post 45 where this happened. I gave you one. I offer it with no more weight than that. Could have equally cited Gerald Fords postion when Britain went to the IMF. Reagan's support for Thatcher over Kinnock. It happens all the time.
Swings both ways as we saw when Blair supported Clinton at a key moment.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
So, using your example, an American president does what he personally thinks is right - even ignoring the wishes of his own elected representatives, let alone anyone else.
And you believe this means that Obama is saying what is best for the British people?
That is not logical.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying an American President has a right to voice his opinions, just as we have the right to ignore him.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
It's interesting. Cameron's standing has deteriorated markedly among Conservative voters over the past six weeks. I would guess that the greater prominence for Labour in the Remain campaign will push more Conservative voters into the Leave camp - but drive up turnout among Labour Remain supporters.
I think the issue will be decided by those who are not politically motivated but who will be risk averse when it comes to the economy and their own personal circumstances
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
John Howard, Stephen Harper, Marco Rubio, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson..
Foreign leaders will typically not wish to go against the declared foreign policy of an allied Government and its leader, and may well wish to help him or her.
I don't disqualify your posts on this matter, btw. It's just that the EU works very well for the CBI, IoD, big banks, major trade unions, trans-EU aerospace and car manufacturers, who can all access and lobby it at the highest levels, and are structured accordingly, and they have little business interest in changing it.
Obama will (quite rightly) act in what he perceives to be America's best interests. Like many US politicians, he believes that America's best interests are served by having a loyal ally within the EU.
We, of course, should act in what we perceive to be our best interests.
Fortunately our interests are aligned in this case.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
And Remain don't seem to be finding any arguments that cut through to them.
It's almost as if they haven't worked out that the vested interest of the Establishment is what they are up against amongst highly skeptical voters - and so keep shovelling on more of, er, the views of the vested interest of the Establishment.
They are giving someone with a fever yet another hot-water bottle.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Darling on R4 reprising his greatest hits: unknown, leap in the dark, risk, risk, risk, risk, risk. Bit early in the morning for repeats. The whiny, irrascible tone he developed during the Indy campaign seems to have become a fixture.
What are you complaining about?
It worked last time.
Though in fairness some of the separatist argument this time has a greater foundation in reality....
'Worked' is an interesting word for a campaign that lost half its lead as it progressed. Of course by Darling's own measure (and as subsequent events have proved), he failed.
'For Alistair Darling, winning the Scottish referendum on 18 September will not be enough. The Yes camp “only have to win by one vote”, he warns. “We have to win this well.” Without a convincing victory, the spectre of independence could continue to haunt the pro-unionists – and as the former Chancellor says: “There is a general mood that people want to put this to bed for a generation.” Although the chairman of Better Together will not talk percentages, the feeling in his No campaign is that keeping Alex Salmond below the 40 per cent mark would be a decisive victory, while a much closer winning margin would not stop the Scottish National Party (SNP) coming back for more – and another referendum – within 10 years.'
Oh dear, reduced to 'We won with a crappy, photoshop vow, so shut up'.
Of course it's not even 'we' for you migrant Yoons.
Nah - you lost because the Scots had the wit to see through that pile of mendacious sh*te dished up as 'Scotland's Future' - and aren't you glad they did?
Yes polled better after "Scotland's Future" was published than before. The longer the campaign went on the higher the Yes vote.
Yes voters made up their mind later than No voters.
Hush yo' mouf.
Migrants long departed from Scotland who garner their views from the Tele, CrapX and the Mail are the real experts in this field, and don't you forget it.
Still didn't get you over the line.......but then you're the expert.....
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
All this extra doomsaying from overseas is simply going to emphasise what a bad dealCameron got. If things are that critical those concerned should have perhaps accommodated his concerns more.
Good point.
Of course from Obama's viewpoint (and I think someone cited the Australian foreign minister on here the other day), it's perfectly natural they want a large English speaking, pro free trade, broadly kindred spirit, inside the European camp as they see that as a means of representing at least their broad viewpoint inside the tent. Whether the grief that is associated with membership is worth it to us is a different matter, but of far less concern to them.
It's a national level version of lining up the Chief Exec's of Audi and BMW and saying are you in favour or Remain? Well of course they are.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
Who is saying the leaving the EU would be a bad thing? This chap was not saying that 5 months ago.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
And now he's just hosed £9 million of taxpayers hard earned to tell us the opposite.
No wonder so many Tories have lost faith in Cameron.
I suspect that small group would be in excess of 50% of the posters/contributors to this site however, so quite how representative the views here are is open to debate.
It much funnier than that.
We continually see people posting "so how does Leave justify that" or "what are Leave going to do about that" or "someone from Leave here needs to explain to us" or "well how do you leavers justify that" or any variations on the theme
Which seems to be missing a few basic points:
a) No one participating in the discussion is either a cabinet minister or a member of the campaign committees for either faction, or at least are not going to admit to it! b) As far as we know the most involved anyone here is in any of the factions is knocking on doors or delivering leaflets c) It's pretty likely therefore that no one knows what the policies, strategies or "explanations" of either camp is likely to be, and certainly can't do more than speculate on the subject d) For same reasons you can rant until the cows come home but you are neither going to get an official view or change an official view e) Everyone here is politically engaged, so the chance of changing anyone's mind is close to zero, in reality the chance that underneath it all anyone mind isn't made up is close to zero f) So while its all good fun, its a tiny bit pointless except for the sparring practise, so there is no point in getting all unfriendly g) Both leavers and remainers largely believe what they are doing is right for their country, in the same way that most Tories and most Lefties do, so screaming "traitor" at each other might be slightly missing the point
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
All the "remain" posters are getting quite good at it, @thescreamingeagles and @AlastairMeeks have indeed gone from strength to strength...
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.
Just remember I will be editing PB from the 30th of May through to the 20th of June.
So most of the final few weeks of the referendum campaign.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
All this extra doomsaying from overseas is simply going to emphasise what a bad dealCameron got. If things are that critical those concerned should have perhaps accommodated his concerns more.
Not sure about that. It is a fair point from those of us who are interested in politics but if you ask any members of my family about Cameron getting a good or bad deal from Europe they wouldn't have a clue, as they do not take an interest in the detail. As I have said before it will be the economy and security that decides it and whichever side can win that argument will succeed
There is a significant proportion of people who don't watch TV or read newspapers and get their information from friends on facebook, whatsapp and so on.
Such people may never see any news or discussion about the referendum and have no interest in taking a position or voting.
Such people are at the younger end of the spectrum. Are they included in the don't knows in the polling figures?
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Liam Fox once asked if he would entertain a court above the US Supreme court.
'Of course from Obama's viewpoint (and I think someone cited the Australian foreign minister on here the other day), it's perfectly natural they want a large English speaking, pro free trade, broadly kindred spirit, inside the European camp as they see that as a means of representing at least their broad viewpoint inside the tent. Whether the grief that is associated with membership is worth it to us is a different matter, but of far less concern to them.
It's a national level version of lining up the Chief Exec's of Audi and BMW and saying are you in favour or Remain? Well of course they are'
Yes that's right. We should dispense immediately with the notion that these various comments have anything to so with what might be in the UK's best interests.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Yes, I'd have thought neutrality would be the best course of action - as it is when General Elections are being decided. I expect Hillary Clinton strongly favours "remain" mind - and it's her views not Obama's that will (probably) be of any import. One would struggle to get a fag paper between Clinton and Obama on politics, mind.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
The IMF have already shot their load....
Apparently a second bigger magazine is to be unloaded in May
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
Yes - its an unusual dynamic in a referendum - those most typically in favour of the status quo being in favour of change - we've 10 weeks to see how it all washes out.
Very unusual. And, conversely, it's unusual for young people to be more trusting of the Establishment than their elders.
I expect that the thinking behind relatively early interventions by senior authority figures is to get any tantrums about being told what to do by outsiders out of the way early and to leave behind the message that sensible people think that Leave is a bad idea.
I'm not sure the 100% Leavers are best-placed to judge how such interventions will play on the minds of those who don't have the EU uppermost in their thoughts in every waking moment.
Corbyn at 13.5% is a smudge high, but I disagree on the 3 events required. They also presume the next election is a 2020. It may not be.
If the referendum is lost, may Dave or his replacement decide to go to the country and seek a new mandate?
Is he allowed to do that under a fixed parliament?
Not unilaterally, but a one line Bill to amend the FTPA would do the job and be difficult for the Opposition to reject.
I don't think it would be problematic for the Opposition to reject a constitutional change like that brought forward by the Government simply out of self interest. The Lords would also be likely to throw it out - given that such a proposal was not in the Tory manifesto.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
One thing that always riled me on the internet, is people who wish to downplay/denigrate the US involvement/sacrifice in World War II.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I don't downplay/denigrate the US contribution in WW2. I have also visited the cemeteries in Normandy, theirs and ours, and every time I have come away in tears.
What I do not do is imagine that the USA was acting out of any sort of altruism or higher moral purpose. They were acting in their own best interests and charged a high price.
As has been clear for some time, it looks like some kind of Fine Gael minority government with Fianna Fáil propping them up from the opposition benches. It's not clear whether there will be non-FG cabinet ministers - if you have any outstanding bets on this, settlement may depend on the exact wording of the bet.
I expect "Death" and "Pestilence" will be making an appearance shortly too.
I'm sure @alanbrooke would argue the opportunity cost of missing a potential future 100,000 finance jobs is sort of an anti-pestilencd
Charles it's actually worse than you think - young Brooke is thinking of becoming a tax adviser and has a year out from Uni with one of the big four in the CI.
That after he announced his girlfriend is french.
He's one step off building a Death Star :-)
P.s. I keep meaning to say thanks for some advice you gave me a feww years back re replacing church roof. I've completed the project about a couple of months back after a hefty grant from the lovely folk at the Heritage Lottery Fund.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
John Howard, Stephen Harper, Marco Rubio, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson..
Foreign leaders will typically not wish to go against the declared foreign policy of an allied Government and its leader, and may well wish to help him or her.
I don't disqualify your posts on this matter, btw. It's just that the EU works very well for the CBI, IoD, big banks, major trade unions, trans-EU aerospace and car manufacturers, who can all access and lobby it at the highest levels, and are structured accordingly, and they have little business interest in changing it.
@Pulpstar It can be quite hard not to be accused of trolling. Direct points made pithily seem to be extraordinarily badly-received by the more intense Leavers. It's quite odd to see figures wielding pitchforks needing to be clad in cotton wool.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Liam Fox once asked if he would entertain a court above the US Supreme court.
Well we know the answer to that, but the US's flat refusal to come under the aegis of the International Criminal Court. Once upon a time, our political leaders would have taken a similar robust view of such institutions - before they turned into the pathetic creatures they are now.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
People who are aged 55+, and who have paid off their mortgages, are the most reliable voters. They strongly voted against Scottish independence, and at the moment, they strongly favour Leave.
Yes - its an unusual dynamic in a referendum - those most typically in favour of the status quo being in favour of change - we've 10 weeks to see how it all washes out.
Very unusual. And, conversely, it's unusual for young people to be more trusting of the Establishment than their elders.
I think the factor from previous elections that is least likely to change is propensity to vote - unless REMAIN can get the youngsters out, turnout will swing it.
I'd guess those likeliest to be annoyed by the US president lecturing us about the EU are leaning or strongly leaning towards Leave anyway.
The question is how genuine floating voters might see it. It does chime with Cameron's prophesies of doom, but could also be seen as foreign meddling.
Morris - I did say huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause. What's huge? Well I'd say shifting the vote in a very tight contest by say 1%, thereby delivery a potential win for LEAVE. You can't get much more huge than that!
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
One thing that always riled me on the internet, is people who wish to downplay/denigrate the US involvement/sacrifice in World War II.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
All the "remain" posters are getting quite good at it, @thescreamingeagles and @AlastairMeeks have indeed gone from strength to strength...
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.
Just remember I will be editing PB from the 30th of May through to the 20th of June.
So most of the final few weeks of the referendum campaign.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
All the "remain" posters are getting quite good at it, @thescreamingeagles and @AlastairMeeks have indeed gone from strength to strength...
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.
Just remember I will be editing PB from the 30th of May through to the 20th of June.
So most of the final few weeks of the referendum campaign.
I'm going to have a lot of fun.
Well then matie I hope you're going to be assiduously neutral.
I expect "Death" and "Pestilence" will be making an appearance shortly too.
I'm sure @alanbrooke would argue the opportunity cost of missing a potential future 100,000 finance jobs is sort of an anti-pestilencd
Charles it's actually worse than you think - young Brooke is thinking of becoming a tax adviser and has a year out from Uni with one of the big four in the CI.
That after he announced his girlfriend is french.
He's one step off building a Death Star :-)
P.s. I keep meaning to say thanks for some advice you gave me a feww years back re replacing church roof. I've completed the project about a couple of months back after a hefty grant from the lovely folk at the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Could be worse, a friend of mine is a in house solicitor of a nationalised bank, who has to repossess properties.
I expect that the thinking behind relatively early interventions by senior authority figures is to get any tantrums about being told what to do by outsiders out of the way early and to leave behind the message that sensible people think that Leave is a bad idea.
I'm not sure the 100% Leavers are best-placed to judge how such interventions will play on the minds of those who don't have the EU uppermost in their thoughts in every waking moment.
except of course in this internet age authority isn't what it was.
I can sympathise with uber cautious sorts who feel nurse is safer as an option.
However, national personality wise - we really dislike being talked down or told we can't achieve something. I feel the Remain meme that we're too crap to hold our own is a terrible strategy.
Boris can talk about how we triumphed at the Olympics against the odds.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
All this extra doomsaying from overseas is simply going to emphasise what a bad dealCameron got. If things are that critical those concerned should have perhaps accommodated his concerns more.
Mr. Eagles, bah. Not been impressed with Obama for years.
Mr. Putney, well, we'll see. Although Obama's likely to annoy me, I'm 9/10 for Leave anyway, so it doesn't make a difference there.
It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of the politically disinterested, in the same way it's tricky to try and understand why some people aren't into the Second Punic War.
@Pulpstar It can be quite hard not to be accused of trolling. Direct points made pithily seem to be extraordinarily badly-received by the more intense Leavers. It's quite odd to see figures wielding pitchforks needing to be clad in cotton wool.
Well you've certainly found a passion, and are full of vim and vigour against the "leavers"
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
One thing that always riled me on the internet, is people who wish to downplay/denigrate the US involvement/sacrifice in World War II.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
"Our own" consisting of a quarter of the worlds population and a quarter of the worlds land area, not just our islands.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Yes, I'd have thought neutrality would be the best course of action - as it is when General Elections are being decided. I expect Hillary Clinton strongly favours "remain" mind - and it's her views not Obama's that will (probably) be of any import. One would struggle to get a fag paper between Clinton and Obama on politics, mind.
If Clinton has any political sense she would also say nothing. The polls are 50/50 and that means she may be having a LEAVEr as PM when she becomes President. Obama is in the departure lounge and probably does not worry if he has a LEAVEr as his contact point for his last 6 months in office. He also has been one of the least pro-UK Presidents we have had in many years.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
One thing that always riled me on the internet, is people who wish to downplay/denigrate the US involvement/sacrifice in World War II.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
In the longer run I think we'd have been mighty hard pushed to even hold on against a wholly German dominated continent without US help on a massive scale. I think too around 8 out of 10 German soldiers that died were killed fighting the Soviet Union which is sobering.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
All the "remain" posters are getting quite good at it, @thescreamingeagles and @AlastairMeeks have indeed gone from strength to strength...
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.
Just remember I will be editing PB from the 30th of May through to the 20th of June.
So most of the final few weeks of the referendum campaign.
I'm going to have a lot of fun.
I hope you also behave yourself.
I'll edit PB in my usual style.
There's no point me churning out propaganda, or ignoring bad news.
It would seem that the campaign in the referendum has changed quite dramatically in the last 24 hours with labour and lib dems playing a much higher role and David Cameron less so. It will be interesting once the SNP and Plaid join the debate post the Assembly Elections whether leave will be able to withstand the onslaught that seems to be coming from most everywhere. There is an early indication that remain are painting this as a battle between the right of the conservative party as represented by Michael Gove and Boris, and UKIP with Nigel Farage, and the rest of the political spectrum. I read today that the IMF are going to release an international report specifically looking at Brexit in May and which is expected to be highly critical of Brexit. I think that the campaign is going to be virtually 24/7 on the media (preserve us) every day from now until 23rd June and the amount of coverage must have an impact on the vote which I would expect to be similar to a General Election, circa 65%
The IMF have already shot their load....
Apparently a second bigger magazine is to be unloaded in May
The IMF has a long and impressive track record of failure.
The young 'uns are frit of the dark. Too much safe space and mollycoddling. Scaredy cats, most of them. Don't rock the boat, we might fall in and get a teensy weensy bit damp.
That's what happens when you spoil them with good living and get rid of TB, polio and smallpox.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
One thing that always riled me on the internet, is people who wish to downplay/denigrate the US involvement/sacrifice in World War II.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
That's a somewhat debatable assertion.
Had Britain not had financial (e.g. Lend/Lease) and logistical support, the result might have been different. Had Germany turned its full might on Britain in 1941 rather than going east, there almost certainly would have been.
The Americans did pay a high price for victory but much less than any other Allied country and they also garnered most of the benefits of the victory too.
Mr. Eagles, bah. Not been impressed with Obama for years.
Mr. Putney, well, we'll see. Although Obama's likely to annoy me, I'm 9/10 for Leave anyway, so it doesn't make a difference there.
It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of the politically disinterested, in the same way it's tricky to try and understand why some people aren't into the Second Punic War.
I was on Team McCain so never been a fan of Obama per se.
I suspect like most Presidents, he must curse the framers of the constitution.
But on his watch, Osama bin Laden was neutralised so he's not all bad.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
Who is saying the leaving the EU would be a bad thing? This chap was not saying that 5 months ago.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
The young 'uns are frit of the dark. Too much safe space and mollycoddling. Scaredy cats, most of them. Don't rock the boat, we might fall in and get a teensy weensy bit damp.
That's what happens when you spoil them with good living and get rid of TB, polio and smallpox.
Look on the bright side, the scared wee youngsters are probably too frightened to go to the Polling Stations. They might catch bird flu or something...
Mr. Eagles, bah. Not been impressed with Obama for years.
Mr. Putney, well, we'll see. Although Obama's likely to annoy me, I'm 9/10 for Leave anyway, so it doesn't make a difference there.
It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of the politically disinterested, in the same way it's tricky to try and understand why some people aren't into the Second Punic War.
I was on Team McCain so never been a fan of Obama per se.
I suspect like most Presidents, he must curse the framers of the constitution.
But on his watch, Osama bin Laden was neutralised so he's not all bad.
It's not the Founding Fathers' fault that he was all hot air.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
That's a somewhat debatable assertion.
Had Britain not had financial (e.g. Lend/Lease) and logistical support, the result might have been different. Had Germany turned its full might on Britain in 1941 rather than going east, there almost certainly would have been.
The Americans did pay a high price for victory but much less than any other Allied country and they also garnered most of the benefits of the victory too.
Germany couldn't have overcome the Royal Navy. Of course, we could not have driven Germany out of occupied Europe.
Mr. Eagles, bah. Not been impressed with Obama for years.
Mr. Putney, well, we'll see. Although Obama's likely to annoy me, I'm 9/10 for Leave anyway, so it doesn't make a difference there.
It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of the politically disinterested, in the same way it's tricky to try and understand why some people aren't into the Second Punic War.
I was on Team McCain so never been a fan of Obama per se.
I suspect like most Presidents, he must curse the framers of the constitution.
But on his watch, Osama bin Laden was neutralised so he's not all bad.
'Inside Obama's White House' series is worth watching.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
hL..The Americans paid a very high price..and not all of their dead are buried in Normandy..
Of course they aren't, Mr. Dodd. Have you ever visited the American cemetery near Cambridge? What about those in Italy? Or the Far East? However, the loss of life is not the same as the issues and politics of the war.
The USA has only ever and will only ever run its foreign policy on what it perceives as its own best interests. The USA did not, for example, give the UK sixty or so clapped-out old destroyers in 1940 - it charged a price for them and not a cheap one. The UK did not finally pay off its war loans from the USA until about ten years ago.
Mr. Herdson, read somewhere or other that the US was the only country to come out (financially) ahead from WWII.
Probably not the only one - Switzerland and the commodities exporters in S America had a good war financially too - but almost certainly the only major combatant. The US did rack up a big debt during the war but IIRC in 1945, the US was responsible for half the world's GDP.
Mr. Eagles, bah. Not been impressed with Obama for years.
Mr. Putney, well, we'll see. Although Obama's likely to annoy me, I'm 9/10 for Leave anyway, so it doesn't make a difference there.
It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of the politically disinterested, in the same way it's tricky to try and understand why some people aren't into the Second Punic War.
I was on Team McCain so never been a fan of Obama per se.
I suspect like most Presidents, he must curse the framers of the constitution.
But on his watch, Osama bin Laden was neutralised so he's not all bad.
'Inside Obama's White House' series is worth watching.
Yup, I enjoyed it.
The high point of it was for me, when Obama was getting involved in Libya, and Robert Gates his Defence Secretary telling him
'Mr President, will you please let me finish the two wars America is already fighting before you get us involved in a third one'
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
As ever, the question is not whether, but how.
Brexit is like a forest fire.
There is no question creative destruction can be healthy, sometimes even necessary. New forests can eventually rise from the ashes.
The issue of course is how much damage is done in the interim, what survives, and what is lost forever.
The young 'uns are frit of the dark. Too much safe space and mollycoddling. Scaredy cats, most of them. Don't rock the boat, we might fall in and get a teensy weensy bit damp.
That's what happens when you spoil them with good living and get rid of TB, polio and smallpox.
Look on the bright side, the scared wee youngsters are probably too frightened to go to the Polling Stations. They might catch bird flu or something...
Comments
Nah, totally representative of Joe Blogs
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
The IMF have already shot their load....
Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson..
Foreign leaders will typically not wish to go against the declared foreign policy of an allied Government and its leader, and may well wish to help him or her.
I don't disqualify your posts on this matter, btw. It's just that the EU works very well for the CBI, IoD, big banks, major trade unions, trans-EU aerospace and car manufacturers, who can all access and lobby it at the highest levels, and are structured accordingly, and they have little business interest in changing it.
So, using your example, an American president does what he personally thinks is right - even ignoring the wishes of his own elected representatives, let alone anyone else.
And you believe this means that Obama is saying what is best for the British people?
That is not logical.
Well, its a view.
I can't wait to see what comes up next. Obama isn't going to shift votes by 23 June
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/04/uk.freedomofinformation
Surprising to see a British government encouraging them to do so, though, which is what is happening now. And left-wingers applauding this.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question."
David Cameron November 2015.
I always thought that was the preserve of the loony left.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
We, of course, should act in what we perceive to be our best interests.
Migrants long departed from Scotland who garner their views from the Tele, CrapX and the Mail are the real experts in this field, and don't you forget it.
Swings both ways as we saw when Blair supported Clinton at a key moment.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgBHn0TWIAEGL8Z.jpg
They are giving someone with a fever yet another hot-water bottle.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Of course from Obama's viewpoint (and I think someone cited the Australian foreign minister on here the other day), it's perfectly natural they want a large English speaking, pro free trade, broadly kindred spirit, inside the European camp as they see that as a means of representing at least their broad viewpoint inside the tent. Whether the grief that is associated with membership is worth it to us is a different matter, but of far less concern to them.
It's a national level version of lining up the Chief Exec's of Audi and BMW and saying are you in favour or Remain? Well of course they are.
No wonder so many Tories have lost faith in Cameron.
We continually see people posting "so how does Leave justify that" or "what are Leave going to do about that" or "someone from Leave here needs to explain to us" or "well how do you leavers justify that" or any variations on the theme
Which seems to be missing a few basic points:
a) No one participating in the discussion is either a cabinet minister or a member of the campaign committees for either faction, or at least are not going to admit to it!
b) As far as we know the most involved anyone here is in any of the factions is knocking on doors or delivering leaflets
c) It's pretty likely therefore that no one knows what the policies, strategies or "explanations" of either camp is likely to be, and certainly can't do more than speculate on the subject
d) For same reasons you can rant until the cows come home but you are neither going to get an official view or change an official view
e) Everyone here is politically engaged, so the chance of changing anyone's mind is close to zero, in reality the chance that underneath it all anyone mind isn't made up is close to zero
f) So while its all good fun, its a tiny bit pointless except for the sparring practise, so there is no point in getting all unfriendly
g) Both leavers and remainers largely believe what they are doing is right for their country, in the same way that most Tories and most Lefties do, so screaming "traitor" at each other might be slightly missing the point
There, I have got that off my chest now
So most of the final few weeks of the referendum campaign.
I'm going to have a lot of fun.
Such people may never see any news or discussion about the referendum and have no interest in taking a position or voting.
Such people are at the younger end of the spectrum. Are they included in the don't knows in the polling figures?
'Of course from Obama's viewpoint (and I think someone cited the Australian foreign minister on here the other day), it's perfectly natural they want a large English speaking, pro free trade, broadly kindred spirit, inside the European camp as they see that as a means of representing at least their broad viewpoint inside the tent. Whether the grief that is associated with membership is worth it to us is a different matter, but of far less concern to them.
It's a national level version of lining up the Chief Exec's of Audi and BMW and saying are you in favour or Remain? Well of course they are'
Yes that's right. We should dispense immediately with the notion that these various comments have anything to so with what might be in the UK's best interests.
One would struggle to get a fag paper between Clinton and Obama on politics, mind.
I'd guess those likeliest to be annoyed by the US president lecturing us about the EU are leaning or strongly leaning towards Leave anyway.
The question is how genuine floating voters might see it. It does chime with Cameron's prophesies of doom, but could also be seen as foreign meddling.
I'm not sure the 100% Leavers are best-placed to judge how such interventions will play on the minds of those who don't have the EU uppermost in their thoughts in every waking moment.
What I do not do is imagine that the USA was acting out of any sort of altruism or higher moral purpose. They were acting in their own best interests and charged a high price.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/simon-coveney-new-government-could-be-in-place-next-week-1.2611859
As has been clear for some time, it looks like some kind of Fine Gael minority government with Fianna Fáil propping them up from the opposition benches. It's not clear whether there will be non-FG cabinet ministers - if you have any outstanding bets on this, settlement may depend on the exact wording of the bet.
That after he announced his girlfriend is french.
He's one step off building a Death Star :-)
P.s. I keep meaning to say thanks for some advice you gave me a feww years back re replacing church roof. I've completed the project about a couple of months back after a hefty grant from the lovely folk at the Heritage Lottery Fund.
It also shows quite a bit of fence sitting in the chemical industry too.
What's huge? Well I'd say shifting the vote in a very tight contest by say 1%, thereby delivery a potential win for LEAVE.
You can't get much more huge than that!
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
Can you imagine the abuse she gets.
http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
Pretty dark in places, but underlines what a remarkable time we live in now.
However, national personality wise - we really dislike being talked down or told we can't achieve something. I feel the Remain meme that we're too crap to hold our own is a terrible strategy.
Boris can talk about how we triumphed at the Olympics against the odds.
Mr. Putney, well, we'll see. Although Obama's likely to annoy me, I'm 9/10 for Leave anyway, so it doesn't make a difference there.
It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of the politically disinterested, in the same way it's tricky to try and understand why some people aren't into the Second Punic War.
There's no point me churning out propaganda, or ignoring bad news.
I'll keep on calling it as I see it.
Very unusual.
The old gits want a change, a leap in the dark.
The young 'uns are frit of the dark. Too much safe space and mollycoddling. Scaredy cats, most of them. Don't rock the boat, we might fall in and get a teensy weensy bit damp.
That's what happens when you spoil them with good living and get rid of TB, polio and smallpox.
Had Britain not had financial (e.g. Lend/Lease) and logistical support, the result might have been different. Had Germany turned its full might on Britain in 1941 rather than going east, there almost certainly would have been.
The Americans did pay a high price for victory but much less than any other Allied country and they also garnered most of the benefits of the victory too.
I suspect like most Presidents, he must curse the framers of the constitution.
But on his watch, Osama bin Laden was neutralised so he's not all bad.
It's worse than Nicola Sturgeon working Ed Miliband.
It's interesting that D/Ks and Swing Voters say that we are four times more likely to be at risk of terrorism in the EU.
One of the richest Nations on Earth hosting a sporting event in the capital city.
Even Greece managed it...
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/china-pre-qualifying-2016.html
The USA has only ever and will only ever run its foreign policy on what it perceives as its own best interests. The USA did not, for example, give the UK sixty or so clapped-out old destroyers in 1940 - it charged a price for them and not a cheap one. The UK did not finally pay off its war loans from the USA until about ten years ago.
The high point of it was for me, when Obama was getting involved in Libya, and Robert Gates his Defence Secretary telling him
'Mr President, will you please let me finish the two wars America is already fighting before you get us involved in a third one'
Brexit is like a forest fire.
There is no question creative destruction can be healthy, sometimes even necessary. New forests can eventually rise from the ashes.
The issue of course is how much damage is done in the interim, what survives, and what is lost forever.
But that doesn't matter to the arsonists...