I have stopped arguing with Brexiteers and their self conscious justifications. Methinks they do protest too much. It is done, though we are yet to see the real consequences.
I feel stripped of part of my European heritage, and a part of me is gone, and an optomistic part.
I am just battening down the hatches so I can look after my own interests, as clearly the majority of Britons do not care for mine.
EU ≠ Europe
The Brexiters who think the EU is a good idea but not for us are very small in number indeed.
The majority of the leading figures wanted to bring down the whole edifice. To the extent that they are bound to fail, the long-term result of the referendum will be to kill off Euroscepticism as a meaningful force in British politics.
Euroscepticism will die as it'll be moot. We won't be in the EU so we will have nothing to be sceptic about.
US-scepticism is not that major an issue in Canada and there's certainly no hankering to join the union there. Even if the EU becomes a successful nation like the USA, it simply will do so without counting us as members anymore than a potential President Trump can rule over those in Montreal.
This is wishful thinking. If the EU goes on to great success after the UK was removed in the circumstances of the recent referendum do you think that pro-Europeans will simply accept this?
Canada was never part of the US and had a very different history to get to its present day position so it's not comparable.
I have stopped arguing with Brexiteers and their self conscious justifications. Methinks they do protest too much. It is done, though we are yet to see the real consequences.
I feel stripped of part of my European heritage, and a part of me is gone, and an optomistic part.
I am just battening down the hatches so I can look after my own interests, as clearly the majority of Britons do not care for mine.
EU ≠ Europe
The Brexiters who think the EU is a good idea but not for us are very small in number indeed.
The majority of the leading figures wanted to bring down the whole edifice. To the extent that they are bound to fail, the long-term result of the referendum will be to kill off Euroscepticism as a meaningful force in British politics.
Euroscepticism will die as it'll be moot. We won't be in the EU so we will have nothing to be sceptic about.
US-scepticism is not that major an issue in Canada and there's certainly no hankering to join the union there. Even if the EU becomes a successful nation like the USA, it simply will do so without counting us as members anymore than a potential President Trump can rule over those in Montreal.
This is wishful thinking. If the EU goes on to great success after the UK was removed in the circumstances of the recent referendum do you think that pro-Europeans will simply accept this?
Canada was never part of the US and had a very different history to get to its present day position so it's not comparable.
I can't speak for the country today, but 35 years ago when I lived in Toronto Canada was very much an Americanised UK rather than an anglicized USA.
This is still a phoney war - we have three debates, a lot of advertising, twists and turns and then many people will decide when in the ballot box.
The sadist in me is looking forward (if it happens) to CNN having to declare Pennsylvania and Florida for Trump, and then spend the next 6 hours trying to carry on with their coverage.
I think Florida will go Trump, as I'm assuming a shy Trump factor but Pennsylvania looks pretty safe for Clinton.
Florida has a very high latino population I expect to overwhelmingly break for Clinton. I don't think it will even be close in the end.
A large percentage of Latino's in Florida aren't Mexican and the Cuban population have a history of being much more Republican than Mexicans (and they get out and vote).
Edit - only 2.3% of Florida is Mexican heritage. 18% are classed as Latino, of which most are Cubans and Puerto Ricans.
Its also a funny place, with loads of white retirees, many of which go there for just the Winter.
Things are changing. The Cuban vote is less solidly Republican than it once was. Also, the retiree population is very high in New York area Jews retired to Florida. It is not as overwhelmingly GOP as age alone would suggest.
Generally speaking, Miami-Dade and Breward tend to be the most Dem counties (they are also the most populous)
If the EU goes on to great success after the UK was removed in the circumstances of the recent referendum.
That's a pretty big if. The EU clearly has a lot of huge issues that it is having problems truly addressing. Now you could argue that the UK's reluctant membership is the sole cause of the EU's failure to address these fundamental problems effectively and efficiently. But I don't see how you could make that a very convincing case.
To me, it is easier to make a political and economic case that the EU will bumble along not addressing these issues to the overall detriment of the EZ economy until there is a crisis of such magnitude that they cannot either avoid it or kick the can down the road.
The easiest way to make the point moot completely is to make a success of Brexit.
What's amusing is that it seems most people protesting that the French shouldn't ban clothing and women should "wear what they want" seem to have nothing whatsoever to say about women in the Middle East in nations like Saudi or UAE who are dictated to about what they must wear. And can't drive etc too in Saudi.
Personally, I find the repressive and dictatorial policies of these countries with regard to what women may wear or do utterly odious. What I don't understand is why so many right-wingers here are seeking to emulate these countries by dictating what women may wear in this country. A bit hypocritical, no?
I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.
I fail to see any problem with restricting Niqab or Burkha in public or sensitive places, as they are not required by Islamic law. The requirement is a relatively extreme interpretation, and there is no fundamental offence. And I am not aware of anyone proposing banning headscarves. Are you?
And, given that we are in a time of terrorist threat, mainly from Islamist sources, where face coverings have been used as camouflage by terrorists and suspects, that is a double justification.
This is not primarily a civil liberties question.
I'd say the "Burkini" issue is a complete red herring, though.
For the UK the more important strategic question is how we address the question of control of a large proportion of Mosques by extreme sects of Islam, and the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims.
What's amusing is that it seems most people protesting that the French shouldn't ban clothing and women should "wear what they want" seem to have nothing whatsoever to say about women in the Middle East in nations like Saudi or UAE who are dictated to about what they must wear. And can't drive etc too in Saudi.
* List *all* the people protesting that the French shouldn't ban clothing and women should "wear what they want" * List what those people have said about Saudi Arabia
If the EU goes on to great success after the UK was removed in the circumstances of the recent referendum.
That's a pretty big if. The EU clearly has a lot of huge issues that it is having problems truly addressing. Now you could argue that the UK's reluctant membership is the sole cause of the EU's failure to address these fundamental problems effectively and efficiently. But I don't see how you could make that a very convincing case.
To me, it is easier to make a political and economic case that the EU will bumble along not addressing these issues to the overall detriment of the EZ economy until there is a crisis of such magnitude that they cannot either avoid it or kick the can down the road.
The easiest way to make the point moot completely is to make a success of Brexit.
The case that the EU will do a bit better is: 1) They've had sub-par growth for a while, it's easier when you're playing catch-up. 2) Most countries are getting on with competitiveness and labour reforms, and the ones that don't will work it out sooner or later. 3) Related to (2), there's a traditional right-wing theory that devaluations just prevent you solving your underlying problems, and you do better long-term with a hard currency. This probably wasn't a great time to start going cold-turkey, but there may well be something in it.
If the EU goes on to great success after the UK was removed in the circumstances of the recent referendum.
That's a pretty big if. The EU clearly has a lot of huge issues that it is having problems truly addressing. Now you could argue that the UK's reluctant membership is the sole cause of the EU's failure to address these fundamental problems effectively and efficiently. But I don't see how you could make that a very convincing case.
To me, it is easier to make a political and economic case that the EU will bumble along not addressing these issues to the overall detriment of the EZ economy until there is a crisis of such magnitude that they cannot either avoid it or kick the can down the road.
The easiest way to make the point moot completely is to make a success of Brexit.
The case that the EU will do a bit better is: 1) They've had sub-par growth for a while, it's easier when you're playing catch-up. 2) Most countries are getting on with competitiveness and labour reforms, and the ones that don't will work it out sooner or later. 3) Related to (2), there's a traditional right-wing theory that devaluations just prevent you solving your underlying problems, and you do better long-term with a hard currency. This probably wasn't a great time to start going cold-turkey, but there may well be something in it.
1) It may be easier but it is not assured. Exhibit A, your host country. Japan's economy today is 40-50% below what was forecast for it 25 years out back in 1991 2) Most countries, maybe. But France and Italy have not even begun to get to serious grips with what ails their economies, and their economic performance is resembling Japan's lost decades more and more. To me, it is the disparities in economic performance between the German economy and the under-performers that is even more damaging to Europe than the actual number for EZ GDP growth 3) I have much sympathy with that view too. Britain should not fall back on weak currency to address its competitiveness problems but needs to tackle productivity issues head on. France and Italy have yet to show that the discipline of a hard currency is forcing them to address their underlying problems.
I think you're actually being a little bit harsh on both France and Italy. In both cases, the governments have started trying to liberalise the labour market. The problem is that making it easier to fire people, at a time when unemployment is high, always politcally difficult.
There are also four important differences between France/Italy and Japan:
1. In France, there is no demographic issue. The TFR is close to 2, and that means you don't have the Japanese problem of an ever growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young ones.
2. In both countries, private sector debt levels are very modest. Household debt as a percentage of GDP is something like 48% in Italy and its under 60% in France. That's about a third of the level of the UK. Japan, by contrast, had one of the highest levels of private sector indebtedness in the world in 1990.
3. The Japanese banking sector was insolvent, and was not sorted out for many years. This starved good companies of capital, as the banks were unable to lend. While there are problems in the Italian banking sector, the amount of money required for a recap (c. EUR35bn) is very modest, and France sorted out its banks pretty efficiently at the start of the crisis.
4a. Neither France nor Italy had (or have) economies dominated by Gross Capital Formation (i.e. investment). The biggest shock to the Japanese economy - as it will be for the Chinese one - was when GCF fell from 30% to 15-20%. That's a huge chunk of the economy to disappear.
4b. The reason that GCF got out of kilter with the underlying economy in Japan was because there was a ridiculous asset bubble/boom. Remember when the land of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was worth the same as the State of California? Or when Japanese companies, despite the Japanese economy peaking at 13% of world GDP, accounted for almost 40% of total stock market capitalisation.
While I'd be more cautious on growth prospects for France/Italy, then (say) Spain or Germany. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a few years of 1.5% to 2.5% growth from each of them as we come to the end of austerity (and both countries have cut spending and increased taxes), and private sector deleveraging.
I have stopped arguing with Brexiteers and their self conscious justifications. Methinks they do protest too much. It is done, though we are yet to see the real consequences.
I feel stripped of part of my European heritage, and a part of me is gone, and an optomistic part.
I am just battening down the hatches so I can look after my own interests, as clearly the majority of Britons do not care for mine.
EU ≠ Europe
The Brexiters who think the EU is a good idea but not for us are very small in number indeed.
The majority of the leading figures wanted to bring down the whole edifice. To the extent that they are bound to fail, the long-term result of the referendum will be to kill off Euroscepticism as a meaningful force in British politics.
Euroscepticism will die as it'll be moot. We won't be in the EU so we will have nothing to be sceptic about.
US-scepticism is not that major an issue in Canada and there's certainly no hankering to join the union there. Even if the EU becomes a successful nation like the USA, it simply will do so without counting us as members anymore than a potential President Trump can rule over those in Montreal.
This is wishful thinking. If the EU goes on to great success after the UK was removed in the circumstances of the recent referendum do you think that pro-Europeans will simply accept this?
Canada was never part of the US and had a very different history to get to its present day position so it's not comparable.
Yes I do, because pro-EU ism is like Southern Irish Unionism after 1922.
Comments
Canada was never part of the US and had a very different history to get to its present day position so it's not comparable.
Generally speaking, Miami-Dade and Breward tend to be the most Dem counties (they are also the most populous)
To me, it is easier to make a political and economic case that the EU will bumble along not addressing these issues to the overall detriment of the EZ economy until there is a crisis of such magnitude that they cannot either avoid it or kick the can down the road.
The easiest way to make the point moot completely is to make a success of Brexit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belly_of_an_Architect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faculty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers_(1978_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_the_Red_Death_(1964_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omega_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Strain_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Effect
I fail to see any problem with restricting Niqab or Burkha in public or sensitive places, as they are not required by Islamic law. The requirement is a relatively extreme interpretation, and there is no fundamental offence. And I am not aware of anyone proposing banning headscarves. Are you?
And, given that we are in a time of terrorist threat, mainly from Islamist sources, where face coverings have been used as camouflage by terrorists and suspects, that is a double justification.
This is not primarily a civil liberties question.
I'd say the "Burkini" issue is a complete red herring, though.
For the UK the more important strategic question is how we address the question of control of a large proportion of Mosques by extreme sects of Islam, and the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims.
* List what those people have said about Saudi Arabia
OK, weird pairings:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faculty
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Breakfast_Club
Why? They're effectively the same movie, even down to the drug scenes and the "Goth girl gets normal-girl makeover and is implausibly pleased" scene.
http://www.avclub.com/review/exploding-head-aside-scanners-one-cronenbergs-most-206946
1) They've had sub-par growth for a while, it's easier when you're playing catch-up.
2) Most countries are getting on with competitiveness and labour reforms, and the ones that don't will work it out sooner or later.
3) Related to (2), there's a traditional right-wing theory that devaluations just prevent you solving your underlying problems, and you do better long-term with a hard currency. This probably wasn't a great time to start going cold-turkey, but there may well be something in it.
2) Most countries, maybe. But France and Italy have not even begun to get to serious grips with what ails their economies, and their economic performance is resembling Japan's lost decades more and more. To me, it is the disparities in economic performance between the German economy and the under-performers that is even more damaging to Europe than the actual number for EZ GDP growth
3) I have much sympathy with that view too. Britain should not fall back on weak currency to address its competitiveness problems but needs to tackle productivity issues head on. France and Italy have yet to show that the discipline of a hard currency is forcing them to address their underlying problems.
I think you're actually being a little bit harsh on both France and Italy. In both cases, the governments have started trying to liberalise the labour market. The problem is that making it easier to fire people, at a time when unemployment is high, always politcally difficult.
There are also four important differences between France/Italy and Japan:
1. In France, there is no demographic issue. The TFR is close to 2, and that means you don't have the Japanese problem of an ever growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young ones.
2. In both countries, private sector debt levels are very modest. Household debt as a percentage of GDP is something like 48% in Italy and its under 60% in France. That's about a third of the level of the UK. Japan, by contrast, had one of the highest levels of private sector indebtedness in the world in 1990.
3. The Japanese banking sector was insolvent, and was not sorted out for many years. This starved good companies of capital, as the banks were unable to lend. While there are problems in the Italian banking sector, the amount of money required for a recap (c. EUR35bn) is very modest, and France sorted out its banks pretty efficiently at the start of the crisis.
4a. Neither France nor Italy had (or have) economies dominated by Gross Capital Formation (i.e. investment). The biggest shock to the Japanese economy - as it will be for the Chinese one - was when GCF fell from 30% to 15-20%. That's a huge chunk of the economy to disappear.
4b. The reason that GCF got out of kilter with the underlying economy in Japan was because there was a ridiculous asset bubble/boom. Remember when the land of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was worth the same as the State of California? Or when Japanese companies, despite the Japanese economy peaking at 13% of world GDP, accounted for almost 40% of total stock market capitalisation.
While I'd be more cautious on growth prospects for France/Italy, then (say) Spain or Germany. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a few years of 1.5% to 2.5% growth from each of them as we come to the end of austerity (and both countries have cut spending and increased taxes), and private sector deleveraging.