I think there are some interesting factors in many of the polls. For example, Remain routinely generates a bigger lead in telephone polls compared to internet polls, where their lead is marginal at best. It would be interesting to understand what is driving that.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

I agree. I was surprised by that as well. One would probably expect the opposite as, one could argue, an online poll would likely yield more radical results. But then perhaps it has something to do with the average age of the sample groups? I don't know. But also, I'm not a pollster, so this isn't exactly my area of expertise.

There are definitely some interesting insights the polls give. But perhaps the way they are handled rather than that they exist is a problem. It is the best measure of public opinion we have, but it is still often not a good one. Mainly because public opinion is extremely difficult to measure. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the polls, but rather that we should use them very carefully and I'm not too sure if that happens. One example: Many governments in Europe were clearly (and rightfully) alarmed by a surge in extremism so they reacted by adopting some of it. The result: They lost yet more votes. They just followed public opinion instead of shaping it and trying to explain why we do things the way we do and standing up to what they believe in. Polls are definitely useful for research, but in politics I think it's too often distracting politicians from what they should do.

One thing is certain.. both sides are spouting utter bollocks. No one knows what will happen either way. And no one will until it does or doesn't happen.

Sent from my G7-L01 using Tapatalk

__________________
Did some trips.
Rode some bikes.
Fix them for a living.
Can't say anymore.

Time to polish your tin foil hats

Everybody should read this to be better informed. By Geoffory White

Some of my friends and relations have told me they will vote for Brexit in our referendum. At the risk of falling out with them I intend to vote for us to remain in the EU. Here's a bit of pre-EU history to help explain my position.

I grew up in a time of post-war austerity. My country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was broke and virtually in ruins. Germans were still "the enemy" in children's games. Bomb sites and abandoned air-raid shelters were our playgrounds. Nine years after the war ended butter, meat and sugar were still rationed. One couldn't buy sweets without coupons issued by the government.
Portugal and Spain were fascist dictatorships. In Spain unauthorised gatherings of more than 3 people were illegal. A military junta later seized power in Greece. Half of Europe was sealed off behind the Iron Curtain. I remember lying in bed at night, in my parents home, and hearing the roar of American warplanes flying overhead on their Cold War missions. We were told that, if the Russians unleashed their missiles, we would get 4 minutes' warning of Armageddon.
In Britain our currency was weak. We had exchange controls. Travellers were allowed to take only £25 sterling out of the country plus a limited amount in foreign currency. On return, any left over had to be sold back to an authorised trader. The details were entered in one's passport. (See photo.)

The UK still had the death penalty despite some obvious and irreversible miscarriages of justice. In France they still executed condemned prisoners by cutting their heads off. In Spain they used strangulation.

The press and the BBC, (there was only the BBC), were not free from government interference and books, films and plays were censored. Women were paid less than men for equivalent work and landlords could turn away black and Irish people with impunity. For private acts of "gross indecency" gay men were sent to prison.

During the 1950s, six similarly devastated European countries were determined that the catastrophe of war between them should never be repeated. They decided to work towards creating a single European economy. The result was never "just a trading agreement" as some detractors now suggest. The Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, provided for free movement of goods, services, people and capital, with the stated aim of "closer relations between the States".
The UK was invited to participate from the outset, but Prime Minister Attlee rather scornfully declined, thus missing the opportunity to influence the future development of Europe. However, by 1961 it had become obvious that the economies of "the Six", (France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), were growing faster than ours, so we applied to join. It took 9 years of negotiations, (and 2 vetoes), before terms were agreed. The United Kingdom officially joined the European Communities on 1st January 1973.

In the 1980s many of our skilled workers took advantage of the free movement of people and migrated to West Germany, whose economy had already overtaken ours. These British " migrants" were the inspiration for a popular television series, "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet".
Since 1945 there have been wars in Europe, but none between countries that were members of the European Union. Despite global economic storms, the EU's citizens in 28 independent countries enjoy greater prosperity and greater freedom of movement, freedom from discrimination, freedom from conflict, freedom to trade across borders and freedom of expression than at any time in history.
So far no member state has ever applied to leave the EU. There have always been candidates to join but to succeed they must have democracy, the rule of law, a market economy and guarantees for the protection of minorities and human rights. They also need the support of ALL existing members, including us, without which they cannot join. In my opinion it would be a shame if Britain were to turn its back on Europe, give up its voice and influence, and opt for an uncertain future. So...I shall vote IN on 23rd June.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I too grew up in similar conditions from a slightly younger age: I recall most of what is described in the last posting and I expect that my elder brother remembers the rest.
But my conclusion is different, as outlined in earlier discourse herein; in essence, where the EU has come from is a poor indicator of where it is going.
Quite obviously, the EU did not invent Europe which has been around a lot longer than the EU/EEC/Common Market which was lied about by Edward Heath before signing up to the project.

Incidentally, there is no "EU citizen" as mentioned* in that text, at least not yet.

*Implied, is a better term in this context - it depends how the sentence is taken by the reader.

__________________
Dave

This article mixes a lot of things and tries to make us believe that all evolution in Britain came as a result of the EEC. It's preposterous if not insulting for change came on these topics long, very long, before the EEC started meddling on the way countries governed their internal affairs. Let's go over a few points.


That can be blamed, mostly, on the almost communist experience that happened in the UK under Clement Attlee.


I really hate the so loose usage of the term "fascist" but let's move forward for it isn't the worst in this sentence. Both dictatorships ended long before both countries accessed the EEC. In Portugal it ended in April 25th 1974 with a revolution and in Spain, after the death of General Franco on November 20th 1975, a slow transition started. Both countries only accessed the EEC in 1986. Also, Portugal was already a member of the EFTA since the early 1960s.


Not true, at least the way the writer presents it.


Oh dear, if it was weak then (and it was compared to 50 years earlier) what is it now? Throughout the 1950s the British Pound was worth 2.85USD. Nowadays it overs around 1GBP to 1.50USD and it has been lower in the past months.


The last country to abolish the death penalty in the EEC was France, in 1977, when it was already a member for a very long time. They still used the guillotine. The UK ended the death penalty for civilians in 1965, long before accession to the EEC and in Spain it ended in 1978, also long before accession to the EEC. It's also not true that the method of execution in Spain was strangulation. It was something called "garrote vil" which kills by severing the spine and only if very poorly done by strangulation, just like hanging. I don't know how to translate "garrote vil" into english.


It still happens not only in EU countries but all over the world.


Yes, they were, until 1967, long before accession to the EEC. In Germany thew were sent to prison until later than that. Until 1969 there was fierce persecution of homosexuals in Germany. From then onwards things slowed a bit but only in 1994 any reference to homosexuality was removed from German books. Decaffeinated versions of the nazi version (stricter than the previous Prussian version) of paragraph 175 were implemented in 1969 and 1973. Germany was a member of the EEC since its inception.


Norway applied to join but, in the end, after a referendum in 1972 in which the people refused the accession, they stayed out. Another referendum in 1994 yielded similar results.


That is true now. It wasn't true when the UK joined the, then, EEC.

Plooking,
A second vote of thanks are due for dispelling the myths, innuendo and assorted dis-information.
And so rapidly!

__________________
Dave

Just to add.
"Weak currencies" is relative of course and, for fiat currencies, fixed at a particular point in time by the free market, with an element of interference from central banks at the behest of their governments.

As such, "weak, weaker" are not fully indicative of what is best for a nation at any particular stage of it's economic cycle - of course, for 28 countries there are 28 stages, all somewhat different.

The most useful thing that Germany could do for the Eurozone and the EU, and for Europe is to leave the Euro and re-adopt the D Mark.
Will they do that for the common good?

__________________
Dave

The relation is established against the USD. The Bretton Woods agreement defined the United States Dollar as reference currency for all others and, to this day, all exchanges between currency pairs are done thru the USD. For instance, if you exchange pounds for yens, the back-office mechanism is exchanging pounds for US dollars and then US dollars for yens. If you look closely, the GBP/JPY exchange rate is equal to GBP/USD * USD/JPY.

Also, until 1971 the GBP did not free float. Its rates were fixed against the USD. The free float came after that.

Now, nowadays and for the last 5-7 years, yes, the forex market has been heavily manipulated by central banks. That was not the case before. However, this I must stress, central bank intervention does not change much the true market value of a currency. Historically intervention has been useless in the medium and long terms.


That is one of the falacies of the Euro, the assumption that a common currency could benefit all equally.


Not so fast. Anyway, the same problem would remain for Portugal and France are very different economies. On another note, for certain countries, like Portugal, a weak currency while appearing as a good thing, given that the Portuguese can't govern themselves, would be terrible and lead to further impoverishment.

One thing is to use a one-time currency devaluation as a way to boost exports and economic development. A whole different thing is to enter the cycle of devaluation-inflation which is what Portuguese governments did since 1974 until the introduction of the Euro. This leads to an increasingly diminished value of a country's currency thus making those who use it poorer.

Thank you, Walkabout.

I like public debate on several subjects. I find it very interesting and we can all learn from these debates. What I utterly dislike are the lies, the propagation of myths and several other ways to misled others. That is not conducive to learning and to informed decisions. It is insulting for it diminishes others' knowledge and capacity to form a decision given all the true facts.

As for rapidly, well, these were easy things. That thing is insulting to the point of lying on basic items. It does not even go into hard, complex and subjective points. It lies on basic things of commons knowledge and that I find abusive to readers.

Yep those rotten "communists" who created the NHS and welfare state, how dare they improve the nations health and provide free healthcare for all!

Well, even Stalin, a murderer crook as a whole, had his positive points. The negative, however, dwarfs the positive. In any event, the NHS, like all other systems existing in Europe, are based on the national health service created by Mr. Bismarck. The same is true for the welfare state. Now, I can't imagine anyone, with any stretch of imagination, calling Otto von Bismarck a communist.

Ah yes, how very intellectual.

Excellent post. And to think there are people even here calling for the abandonment of Human Rights and EU integration, the total disregard of 20th century history and how we ended up were we are now is baffling.