In the Brexit battle, yet another poll shows “leave” gaining ground. Those previously sitting on the fence are breaking for “get me the hell out of here” in a big way.
Leave Takes Three Percentage Point Lead
The Guardian reports Poll Gives Brexit Campaign Lead of Three Percentage Points.
The leave campaign has picked up momentum and taken a three-point lead over remain in the latest Observer/Opinium poll on the EU referendum. The Brexiters now stand on 43%, while 40% say they support the campaign to keep the UK in the union.
The poll suggests the remain camp has lost four percentage points in the last two weeks, during which Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have relentlessly campaigned on the theme of immigration.
The potential in the leave campaign’s strategy is reflected in responses suggesting that two in five voters (41%) cite immigration as one of their two most important issues when deciding how to vote. Just over a third (35%) cite Britain’s ability to make its own laws without EU interference and 29% cite the impact of leaving on the UK economy.
Johnson is expected to launch a campaign to highlight the security dangers of EU membership, including the possibility of Turkey’s accession to the EU, this weekend.
However, the leave campaign also believes that, if it can keep the headline polls close, a relatively poor turnout among Labour voters who support remain could deliver it victory.The findings came as Johnson, who has been posing increasingly as a prime minister in waiting, told the Observer that he believed no genuine “liberal internationalist” could support the EU.
The former mayor of London joined forces with Gove, the justice secretary, to suggest that a vote for Brexit could deliver improved social justice.
Opinium said a move to leave had also been reflected in answers to their so-called “nudge” question, which asks those who do not yet know how they will vote in what direction they are leaning. In the last Opinium survey two weeks ago, those split 55% leaning to remain and 32% leaning towards leave.
In the latest survey, the gap has narrowed dramatically, with 36% leaning towards remain and 33% towards leave, even when the methodological updates were implemented. When those who did not know were forced to choose, 47% said they leaned more towards remain, while 32% leaned more towards leave.
Gove and Johnson Tell Cameron “You’ve Deceived the Public”
The Telegraph reports Michael Gove and Boris Johnson Tell David Cameron: You’ve Deceived Public on Economy
Voters “cannot trust” David Cameron and George Osborne to honour their promises on Europe, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson have warned in an extraordinary attack on their government colleagues.
The leaders of the Vote Leave campaign declare that the Prime Minister has put the British economy in “severe danger” by giving away the UK’s veto during talks in Brussels earlier this year.
They say Mr Cameron’s renegotiation of Britain’s European Union membership leaves Britain “dangerously and permanently exposed” to being forced to hand over more money and accept “damaging new laws”.
“The public cannot trust EU or government promises that we won’t be paying for eurozone bail-outs given the history and how we can be outvoted.”
Mr Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Mr Johnson, the former mayor of London, escalate their war with the Conservative leadership in a detailed, five-page letter addressed directly to Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, the Chancellor.
The letter follows a dramatic week that boosted the confidence of Leave campaigners, with a series of polls putting them ahead in the battle over Britain’s future in Europe.
For those still sitting on the fence, I offer the following three thoughts.
1. Get Me the Hell Out of Here
2. Take Back Control
3. Make the UK Great Again
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
hi Mish, love your blog. It is great to have some support from a patriot over the pond. The level of propaganda and strongarming of employees by employers here is getting ridiculous. Cheers
See the arty in the DailyMail where they are trying to conflate Brexit with NAZIs?
Stinks of agitprop created by the government:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625503/The-neo-Nazi-swastika-breast-Vote-Leave-badge-vest-Holocaust-deniers-EDL-fascists-posing-Kray-twins-grave-violent-thugs-racists-hijacking-Brexit-campaign.html
Yes, with the Italian banks on the verge of collapse, the Brits need to get out while possible, otherwise the POUNDS will go to Italy.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone with a brain would want to stay.
Freedom sis scary.
Agree England should leave. Pessimistic they will in spite of any poll. The EU is a monster. If England does not leave, they should join the EuroZone and complete their national suicide in proper form. Anything less would be an example of self flagellation combined with Quisling excuses. Winston Churchill would puke.
That is quite the problem in Europe and here in the US. There are too many sheep that are uniformed or either on the receiving end of welfare from the arrangement. I have often wondered why I as a renter am allowed to vote on parcel taxes in the city in which I live. I always vote these taxes down because the schools asks for parcel taxes every year. Interestingly I always vote No and yet they pass every year. Non-owners are allowed to vote because that insures these pass. No sane homeowner will vote to increase his own taxes.
I am thankful that I’m in a grandfathered age-restricted 55+ community in Arizona that is exempt from school taxes.
I’ve never figured out why people think that senior citizens who’ve paid school taxes for decades and no longer have school-age children should be forced to continue to pay school taxes for the rest of their lives.
There is no limit to any government’s appetite for more money. At some point, enough is enough.
The IRS had audited Trump 14 times over the past 14 tax years. I must assume that they’d have found whatever it is there is to find by now.
As for The Clinton Foundation, that remains a dark pool of capital that no one has ever plumbed the depths of.
Why should young working people pay taxes for your retirement?
They shouldn’t. But I’m not collecting Social Security or a government pension of any kind or Welfare or Medicare or Medicaid, so young people’s taxes are not paying for any part of my existence.
Economic arguments against Brexit merit no consideration.
Freedom is not free.
We want them to pretend they are free. Big difference from actually having freedom.
The western bankers need them to extend and pretend.
For what its worth , petition 122770 petition.parliament.uk is to have the following letter on the known but undeclared incompatibility of joining the EEC discussed by parliament :
In answer to a letter from Edward Heath written on the 30 November, Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, makes it plain that there are real problems with the constitutional limitations imposed on government which prevent our joining the EEC. He goes on to mention some ways in which the constitution will conflict with Heath’s plans but also indicate ways of subverting the conflict. The comments in brackets, interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government was prepared to commit acts of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir and therefore Heath’s questions are unknown. However it will take little imagination to guess what they were.
…………….
My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
(He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war).
And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.)
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;
(Answer as above.)
The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community;
(The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow on.)
Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
(It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.)
The position of Parliament
It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
(It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.)
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself not its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
(No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.)
It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable, we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal us own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
(There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.)
Treaty-making Powers
The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation to take two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
(This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.)
Independence of the Courts
There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’- to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt lo gloss over them at this stage those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.
(It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.)
What made Great Britain great was the Maxim gun, enabling them to steal 20% of the world from its rightful owners.
Don’t blame people for what happened over 100 years ago, help them with making the right decision now.
Got my referendum form right here, about to post my vote to leave back to the UK. Off right now to drop it in the post in fact!
Any vote to remain in the EU is a vote for SERFDOM.
If UK citizens vote to stay-in the EU, they deserve the SERFDOM it imposes.
I believe that those who count the votes will rig the election towards staying-in the EU and thus a political revolution in the UK should result.
Nigel Farge needs more bodyguards.
History shows that those who hold power are willing to do anything to hold onto that power. It also shows that the result is often worse than what they feared.
Thus 2017 will be the year of political hell.
Pingback: Breaking News And Best Of The Web - DollarCollapse.com
Most English bloggers are exposing all the lies Cameron and Osborne are telling to the Brits. The majority want out of the EU. The question proposed by many is once the vote is taken and if the Brits vote for staying who will control the London financial district. As many know Frankfurt with the efforts of Brussels is trying to make Frankfurt the center of European finance. If you have followed the Greece bailouts bondholders holding English law bonds did not take a haircut and held out for the courts to decide. They won, the ECB could not subordinate these bond holders below the ECB so Greece will have to pay unless the ECB decides they too will take a haircut.
My stepmother is a Brit and 89 years old and is appalled that Brits would give up sovereignty to the EU and state it was unconstitutional. She was right and I called to east crow as I give her a hard time about the subject. Even talking about this vote riles her up!!
Once the vote happens and the vote is yes to stay she feels the EU will finally take total control of her country. I happen to agree.