If Britain crashes out of the European Union in two weeks, it will be off the back of votes cast by discontented working-class people. When Andy Burnham warns that the remain campaign has “been far too much Hampstead and not enough Hull”, he has a point. Even Labour MPs who nervously predict remain will scrape it nationally report their own constituencies will vote for exit. Polling consistently illustrates that the lower down the social ladder you are, the more likely you are to opt for leave. Of those voters YouGov deems middle-class, 52% are voting for remain, and just 32% for leave. Among those classified as working-class, the figures are almost the reverse: 36% for remain, 50% for leave. The people Labour were founded to represent are the most likely to want Britain to abandon the European Union.

When presented with a vote on the status quo, it is no surprise that those with the least stake in it vote to abandon it. The same happened in Scotland’s independence referendum. Threats of economic Armageddon resonate little with people living in communities that feel ignored, marginalised and belittled. “Economic insecurity beckons!” people who live in perpetual economic insecurity are told. A Conservative prime minister lines up with pillars of Britain’s establishment with a message of doom – and it makes millions of people even more determined to stick their fingers up at it.

The leave campaign knows all this. It is Trumpism in full pomp: powerful vested interests whose policies would only concentrate wealth and power even further in the hands of the few, masquerading as the praetorian guard of an anti-establishment insurgency dripping in anti-immigration sentiment. It is political trickery long honed by Ukip, a party led by a privately educated ex-City broker that claims to be the voice of the little guy against a self-interested powerful clique. If Donald Trump succeeds across the Atlantic, the terrible cost of leaving millions of working-class people feeling both abandoned and slighted will be nightmarishly clear. The same goes for this referendum...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/working-class-britain-brexity-betrayed-labour-vote-leave

NIGEL FARAGE
10 JUNE 2016 • 4:53PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/dont-let-david-cameron-and-george-osborne-fool-you-heres-what-my/

... Central to my vision of Britain after June 23 is that our Parliament is sovereign, empowered and able to make all of the big decisions, rather than leaving it to those unelected old men in Brussels...

... The vision for Brexit Britain is a global one... After leaving the EU we would be able to treat all who wanted to come here on an equal basis, strengthening our proud ties to our kith and kin in the Commonwealth... We would no longer be acting as Little Europeans, but a Global Britain.

... My vision is a Britain engaging in global trade, forging ahead with new relationships and deals that would make Britain an engine room for job creation, rather than being constrained by the EU’s outdated customs union.

So there you go: that’s my vision. A strong Britain, controlling our borders, looking after the well-being of our own citizens first and leading on the world stage, rather than being dragged along and told what to do by Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/dont-let-david-cameron-and-george-osborne-fool-you-heres-what-my/

... Commentators in Germany point out that Germany has more to lose from a Brexit than a segment of its export market and that the government was able to sideline economic interest to diplomacy in its relationship with Russia.

Until recently, the assumption in Berlin’s political circles had been that Schäuble’s finance ministry was more open than others to the idea of keeping open a back door for renegotiating some form of associate membership for Britain after an out vote.

But the interview in Der Spiegel, which will be published on Saturday but has been seen by the Guardian, indicates a less flexible stance. “Europe will also work without Britain if necessary,” Schäuble said. “At some point, the British will realise they have taken the wrong decision. And then we will accept them back one day, if that’s what they want.”...

... While warning that it would be a “miracle” if there were no economic drawbacks for Britain following a withdrawal, Schäuble also admitted that a Brexit could have dramatic consequences for the rest of the European Union...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/10/no-single-market-access-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says

SPIEGEL: Why is it better for the EU if the British remain? They have repeatedly distanced themselves from the EU in recent years.

Schäuble: Britain is one of the strongest economies in the EU, and London is Europe's largest financial centre. Britain plays a leading role in all matters of foreign and security policy. That is why Europe is stronger with Britain than without it. Besides, the UK consistently advocates market-based solutions in Brussels, which frequently makes it an ally of the German government. And, in my view, one cannot have enough British pragmatic rationality in Europe.

SPIEGEL: And why is it better for the British to remain in the EU?

Schäuble: Britain is economically very closely integrated with its European partner countries. Were these ties to be cut, it would be a huge step backwards for the country and would weaken it considerably. In the era of globalisation, "splendid isolation" is not a smart option...

http://spiegel.de/international/europe/a-1096999.html

... The unique project promises a cheaper and more secure way of burying CO2 from fossil fuel burning underground, where it cannot warm the planet. Such carbon capture and storage (CCS) is thought to be essential to halting global warming, but existing projects store the CO2 as a gas and concerns about costs and potential leakage have halted some plans.

The new research pumped CO2 into the volcanic rock under Iceland and sped up a natural process where the basalts react with the gas to form carbonate minerals, which make up limestone. The researchers were amazed by how fast all the gas turned into a solid – just two years, compared to the hundreds or thousands of years that had been predicted...

... Matter said the only thing holding back CCS was the lack of action from politicians, such as putting a price on carbon emissions: “The engineering and technology of CCS is ready to be deployed. So why do we not see hundreds of these projects? There is no incentive to do it.”...

... One potential challenge for the new technique is that it requires large amounts of water: 25 tonnes for each tonne of CO2 buried. But Matter said seawater could be used, which would be in plentiful supply at coastal sites. Another is that subterranean microbes might break down carbonate to methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but this was not seen in the Iceland research...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/09/co2-turned-into-stone-in-iceland-in-climate-change-breakthrough

Research paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6291/1312

The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the Americas in 1823. It stated that further efforts byEuropean nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gainingindependence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

http://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/politica/nota/clintonganalaprimariapresidencialdemocrataenpuertorico-2207162/

Con el 69.25% de las unidades reportadas, Clinton tenía 36,026 votos mientras que Sanders alcanzaba 22,768. Un tercer candidato, “Rocky” Roque de la Fuente, tenía 227 votos. Otros candidatos tenían 1,650 sufragios, para un total de 60,671 votantes.

With 69.25 % of the units reported , Clinton had 36.026 votes while Sanders reached 22,768 . A third candidate , " Rocky" Roque de la Fuente, had 227 votes. Other candidates had 1 ,650 votes, for a total of 60,671 voters.