They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
As an aside, I read something a few years back (possibly 2011-12 period) suggesting that there was some form of collusion between those companies, as an economy even the size of Germany's should not be able to maintain three very healthy car companies without it - i.e. the market was not working as it should.
But they have always been very heavily dependent on their export market so the size of the German market is largely irrelevant. In Singapore in 1969 about 90% of taxis were Mercs.
I'd argue that whether the market being interfered with is internal or external to Germany is irrelevant. This might be the tip of a very large iceberg.
Maybe but your point was that 3 large companies in a market of that size did not seem economically sensible. The market in which all 3 were trading was much bigger.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
That was true before the recent migration waves. Adding a million to your population in one go changes the demographics somewhat.
A lot now depends on how well the new migrants (who'll probably have a higher birthrate too) can be integrated and become productive members of society.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
Well, I have to cook dinner. We are having.... errr... chicken.
Seriously!
Bet its quite well done after this!
Has anyone ever tried that Marcella Hazan method of just putting a lemon inside and roasting it? No oil, no nothing? I can't see how it would work.
Cut the lemon first, or not ?
Roll and knead the lemon to extract the lemon oil from the skin without breaking it.
I boil the chicken for a few minutes before roasting and cut the baking time by maybe a third. It washes away the chlorine and any other nasties and keeps the chicken moist.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
In 1800 China still had a bigger economy than Europe. We are just seeing a reversion to mean.
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
I've always assumed that the very notion is implausible as even if we wanted to join the GOP couldn't allow it.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
Couple of those states the wrong way around but yes, the principles of the Missouri Compromise outlived the Civil War itself and seems an insuperable barrier to the UK joining the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
Which states were the wrong way around? It is my understanding that while Hawaii is today a safe Democrat state - and Alaska a safe Republican state - that was not envisaged to be the case in the 1950s. Just as the Democrats and Republican dominance of North and South reversed, so too Alaska and Hawaii did.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
Though I find their idea that "Whereas the public sphere in earlier times had been a space for rational, unsullied and critical debate, with the developments of late capitalism it became corrupted... The media began to be used as a tool, and the free press was no longer the unmediated source of information it had once been" rather quaint - both the unstated foresight that we are in the "late" stage of capitalism rather than, entirely possibly, the very early stages, and the unexpected history lesson that centuries ago the free press was a haven of objectivity and rationalism, utterly devoid of sensationalism.
As for how Wales can develop its own public space, the solution is at hand:
In view of everything else that is happening, be it Brexit, the Westminster power grab, or broken investment promises, perhaps it is now a referendum for Welsh independence that people of all political colours should be pushing for.
If nothing else, it will give us a better chance of having our voice heard at the British level.
And regardless of the result, it would help to embed and encourage the construction of a public sphere that is vital to the long term health of our Welsh polity, whatever form it takes.
The Scottish independence referendum seems to have "reinvigorated" the Scottish public sphere by making it an utterly ugly and uncomfortable place for anyone to stick their head above the parapet whichever side they were on - but at least it was loud, which seems to be what counts here. I'm not sure why anyone would think the toxicity of such a campaign, especially with no hope of victory, would be a great bonus for Wales, but I do love the proposition that folk of "all political colours" (unionists, conservatives etc presumably included) should somehow start fighting for one.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
I've always assumed that the very notion is implausible as even if we wanted to join the GOP couldn't allow it.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
Couple of those states the wrong way around but yes, the principles of the Missouri Compromise outlived the Civil War itself and seems an insuperable barrier to the UK joining the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
Which states were the wrong way around? It is my understanding that while Hawaii is today a safe Democrat state - and Alaska a safe Republican state - that was not envisaged to be the case in the 1950s. Just as the Democrats and Republican dominance of North and South reversed, so too Alaska and Hawaii did.
I didn't know that. I thought that they had always been as they are now. Sorry.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
Absolutely right. Whether in or out, we will all ultimately genuflect to the Red Emperor who sits south of the Great Wall...
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
In 1800 China still had a bigger economy than Europe. We are just seeing a reversion to mean.
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
Sure but to describe the EU as an "invisible superpower" is really stretching it.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
I've always assumed that the very notion is implausible as even if we wanted to join the GOP couldn't allow it.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
Couple of those states the wrong way around but yes, the principles of the Missouri Compromise outlived the Civil War itself and seems an insuperable barrier to the UK joining the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
Which states were the wrong way around? It is my understanding that while Hawaii is today a safe Democrat state - and Alaska a safe Republican state - that was not envisaged to be the case in the 1950s. Just as the Democrats and Republican dominance of North and South reversed, so too Alaska and Hawaii did.
I didn't know that. I thought that they had always been as they are now. Sorry.
No worries. It doesn't help matters that the party reversal happened around the same time they were admitted! Or that both states were very marginal in 1960.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
After WW2 we succeeded in anchoring West Germany (and therefore ultimately Germany as a whole) in the West. After the Cold War we failed to do the same with Russia, and this is now causing us all sorts of problems as they are working against us rather than with us.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
You need about 60-100x the physical space per calorie compared to - say - rice.
So how did the Dutch manage to export 8bn euros worth of meat in 2014? They used intensive farming for pigs and chickens, that's how. We could, in theory, do the same. Interestingly, German exported even more meat than the Dutch with only Brazil and the US ahead of them.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
I've always assumed that the very notion is implausible as even if we wanted to join the GOP couldn't allow it.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
Couple of those states the wrong way around but yes, the principles of the Missouri Compromise outlived the Civil War itself and seems an insuperable barrier to the UK joining the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
Which states were the wrong way around? It is my understanding that while Hawaii is today a safe Democrat state - and Alaska a safe Republican state - that was not envisaged to be the case in the 1950s. Just as the Democrats and Republican dominance of North and South reversed, so too Alaska and Hawaii did.
I didn't know that. I thought that they had always been as they are now. Sorry.
No worries. It doesn't help matters that the party reversal happened around the same time they were admitted! Or that both states were very marginal in 1960.
Gosh they were. Kennedy got 50.03% of the vote in Hawaii and Nixon 50.94% in Alaska. Very close.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this ......,...EU is the invisible superpower.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
Except there is no reason to believe the UK will do better relatively after Brexit and there are reasons to believe it will do worse. It's a disconnection event. We're making it more difficult for us to deal with outside world and for the outside world to deal with us. The UK has already gone from being the second fastest growing country in the EU to the slowest since the vote, where the only explanation is Brexit. If Europe is a backwater we'll be the furthest creek in that backwater.
Fair enough if you vote Leave because you can't stand the EU. But let's not pretend we'll be better off because of it.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
In 1800 China still had a bigger economy than Europe. We are just seeing a reversion to mean.
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
Sure but to describe the EU as an "invisible superpower" is really stretching it.
In the sense that throughout its rise people have been predicting its imminent demise and saying that xyz will never happen.
I think ultimately it's plausible that both China and the EU will eclipse the USA, perched at either end of the Eurasian land mass.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
There is an assumption in there that no cars will be exported from Germany to the UK after Brexit. All Brexit does is put on a tariff [ 10% ]. That means prices could go up by 10% if the makers want it to [ they could cut their margins, for example ]. It is equivalent to the pound falling by 10%. The German car manufacturers still sold cars in 2017 after sterling fell off the cliff in June 2016. The numbers may have gone down slightly. Those who want to buy BMW will still buy a BMW.
Exactly, couldn't agree more.
Conversely those in Europe that buy British goods will to continue to do so after Brexit.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
You need about 60-100x the physical space per calorie compared to - say - rice.
So how did the Dutch manage to export 8bn euros worth of meat in 2014? They used intensive farming for pigs and chickens, that's how. We could, in theory, do the same. Interestingly, German exported even more meat than the Dutch with only Brazil and the US ahead of them.
They import a fair amount, too, no?
Maybe land in the UK is too expensive. (And large chunks of British farmland are owned for the purpose of shooting birds.)
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
In 1800 China still had a bigger economy than Europe. We are just seeing a reversion to mean.
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
Sure but to describe the EU as an "invisible superpower" is really stretching it.
In the sense that throughout its rise people have been predicting its imminent demise and saying that xyz will never happen.
I think ultimately it's plausible that both China and the EU will eclipse the USA, perched at either end of the Eurasian land mass.
China and the EU will never be peers. The EU will need to work with the US to get a hearing in Beijing.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
Except there is no reason to believe the UK will do better relatively after Brexit and there are reasons to believe it will do worse. It's a disconnection event. We're making it more difficult for us to deal with outside world and for the outside world to deal with us. The UK has already gone from being the second fastest growing country in the EU to the slowest since the vote, where the only explanation is Brexit. If Europe is a backwater we'll be the furthest creek in that backwater.
Fair enough if you vote Leave because you can't stand the EU. But let's not pretend we'll be better off because of it.
There are both risks and opportunities in Brexit. In the short term probably more of the former, in the medium term probably more of the latter. But the differences will be so marginal either way that PB will still be arguing about the balance in 20 years. And we are not the slowest growing economy in the EU unless you take a single quarter's figures in isolation.
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
There is an assumption in there that no cars will be exported from Germany to the UK after Brexit. All Brexit does is put on a tariff [ 10% ]. That means prices could go up by 10% if the makers want it to [ they could cut their margins, for example ]. It is equivalent to the pound falling by 10%. The German car manufacturers still sold cars in 2017 after sterling fell off the cliff in June 2016. The numbers may have gone down slightly. Those who want to buy BMW will still buy a BMW.
Exactly, couldn't agree more.
Conversely those in Europe that buy British goods will to continue to do so after Brexit.
There are lots of economists saying that Britain shouldn't impose tariffs post-Brexit - if others want to stick tariffs on us then so be it, but we'd still be better off not to reciprocate.
I think these economists may be about to receive a lesson in politics, mind you.
Well, I have to cook dinner. We are having.... errr... chicken.
Seriously!
Bet its quite well done after this!
Has anyone ever tried that Marcella Hazan method of just putting a lemon inside and roasting it? No oil, no nothing? I can't see how it would work.
Cut the lemon first, or not ?
Roll and knead the lemon to extract the lemon oil from the skin without breaking it.
I boil the chicken for a few minutes before roasting and cut the baking time by maybe a third. It washes away the chlorine and any other nasties and keeps the chicken moist.
you live in the US then, never heard of chlorine in UK. Mind you I only eat Organic chicken in any case , no cheap muck.
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
In 1800 China still had a bigger economy than Europe. We are just seeing a reversion to mean.
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
Sure but to describe the EU as an "invisible superpower" is really stretching it.
In the sense that throughout its rise people have been predicting its imminent demise and saying that xyz will never happen.
I think ultimately it's plausible that both China and the EU will eclipse the USA, perched at either end of the Eurasian land mass.
China and the EU will never be peers. The EU will need to work with the US to get a hearing in Beijing.
I agree, but it also depends on what happens to Russia after Putin. If Russia reverts to seeing its future as part of the West (as unlikely as that seems at the moment) then it would change the equation.
Gosh they were. Kennedy got 50.03% of the vote in Hawaii and Nixon 50.94% in Alaska. Very close.
Not only that but as a prelude to Bush v Gore amusingly the Republican Governor in Hawaii legally certified that Nixon had won the State as the first count showed despite an ongoing recount.
The recount swung it to Kennedy.
It came to the then vice-President (Nixon) to determine how to allocate Hawaii's electoral votes. Nixon without objection from the Senate allocated Hawaii's first electoral votes to Kennedy rather than himself despite the fact he'd originally been certified as the winner.
The mind boggles. It'd be as if Florida in 2000 had narrowly gone Gore on the first count and then Gore had been in the position where he had to overturn that himself to award the state to Bush.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
You need about 60-100x the physical space per calorie compared to - say - rice.
So how did the Dutch manage to export 8bn euros worth of meat in 2014? They used intensive farming for pigs and chickens, that's how. We could, in theory, do the same. Interestingly, German exported even more meat than the Dutch with only Brazil and the US ahead of them.
They import a fair amount, too, no?
Maybe land in the UK is too expensive. (And large chunks of British farmland are owned for the purpose of shooting birds.)
In the last century and a half Europe has gone from the economic powerhouse of the world to something of a backwater. I think the trends in that direction are well beyond the reach of the EU to reverse and the relative failure of the EU throughout its existence in maintaining Europe's economic standing demonstrates that. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
In 1800 China still had a bigger economy than Europe. We are just seeing a reversion to mean.
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
Sure but to describe the EU as an "invisible superpower" is really stretching it.
In the sense that throughout its rise people have been predicting its imminent demise and saying that xyz will never happen.
I think ultimately it's plausible that both China and the EU will eclipse the USA, perched at either end of the Eurasian land mass.
China and the EU will never be peers. The EU will need to work with the US to get a hearing in Beijing.
I agree, but it also depends on what happens to Russia after Putin. If Russia reverts to seeing its future as part of the West (as unlikely as that seems at the moment) then it would change the equation.
Russia has been a marginal player since 1991. Sadly, they seem intent on repeating our post-war mistake of playing at being a superpower when they don't have the money.
Somehow a 1.7% from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
The EU forecasts have risen, haven't they?
No I think that they have stayed broadly the same with the US and UK being marked down.
Germany has been revised up by 0.2 points to 1.8%, France by 0.1 points to 1.5%, while Italy and Spain have both been revised up by 0.5 points to 1.3% and 3.1% respectively.
Spain looks set for a golden decade at least. GeoffM must look on with envy.
I hope that Spain's economy does improve substantially, yes.
That'll reduce the numbers of the 10k of workers who cross the border each day into Gib looking for work because there isn't any work going in their country. We'll get local jobs for local people.
Also I bought two villas near Duquesa at the bottom of the housing crash, so I want to see their value soar.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
Except there is no reason to believe the UK will do better relatively after Brexit and there are reasons to believe it will do worse. It's a disconnection event. We're making it more difficult for us to deal with outside world and for the outside world to deal with us. The UK has already gone from being the second fastest growing country in the EU to the slowest since the vote, where the only explanation is Brexit. If Europe is a backwater we'll be the furthest creek in that backwater.
Fair enough if you vote Leave because you can't stand the EU. But let's not pretend we'll be better off because of it.
There are both risks and opportunities in Brexit. In the short term probably more of the former, in the medium term probably more of the latter. But the differences will be so marginal either way that PB will still be arguing about the balance in 20 years. And we are not the slowest growing economy in the EU unless you take a single quarter's figures in isolation.
Would you say the same applies to independence for Scotland? If not, why would it be different (short term risks; medium term opportunities)?
On your second point it will be more than a quarter of relative poor performance. But it was sudden, if not immediate to the vote.
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
Except there is no reason to believe the UK will do better relatively after Brexit and there are reasons to believe it will do worse. It's a disconnection event. We're making it more difficult for us to deal with outside world and for the outside world to deal with us. The UK has already gone from being the second fastest growing country in the EU to the slowest since the vote, where the only explanation is Brexit. If Europe is a backwater we'll be the furthest creek in that backwater.
Fair enough if you vote Leave because you can't stand the EU. But let's not pretend we'll be better off because of it.
There are both risks and opportunities in Brexit. In the short term probably more of the former, in the medium term probably more of the latter. But the differences will be so marginal either way that PB will still be arguing about the balance in 20 years. And we are not the slowest growing economy in the EU unless you take a single quarter's figures in isolation.
Would you say the same applies to independence for Scotland? If not, why would it be different (short term risks; medium term opportunities)?
On your second point it will be more than a quarter of relative poor performance. But it was sudden, if not immediate to the vote.
You are right but you will get Tory obfuscation on how Scotland is the only country in the world unable to handle its own affairs.
So, the moral of the story is being Conservative leader means Conservative MPs will destroy you one day?
Pretty much.
Except Michael Howard who left with some dignity
Sir John Major's departure was quite dignified as well...
The way he accepted his shellacking from the electorate was about the only thing he got right after between 1992 and 1997...
NI peace agreement and the National Lottery too.
Plus Major's other successes:
Withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism so sterling no longer had to track the Euro.
Government deficit reduction.
Recovery in growth.
Reduced unemployment.
Winning the Gulf War.
I am surprised to see Withdrawal from the ERM listed as one of Major's 'successes' given that he was responsible as Chancellor for the UK's entry in 1990 - against Thatcher's judgement. Moreover, in view of the great lengths he went to remain within that mechanism - including the waste of our Currency Reserves - it can hardly be seriously claimed that he simply withdrew as a mere policy adjustment. The reality was that we were forced out in a very humiliating way indeed.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Given the size of our country and the lack of grazing land, we will always run a trade deficit in meat. The only question is whether the deficit is with Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US or the EU. Or, of course, all of the above.
You need about 60-100x the physical space per calorie compared to - say - rice.
So how did the Dutch manage to export 8bn euros worth of meat in 2014? They used intensive farming for pigs and chickens, that's how. We could, in theory, do the same. Interestingly, German exported even more meat than the Dutch with only Brazil and the US ahead of them.
They import a fair amount, too, no?
Maybe land in the UK is too expensive. (And large chunks of British farmland are owned for the purpose of shooting birds.)
Not really. The only bits dedicated solely to birds are woodland with pheasants in it, and grouse moor which is no good for anything else except a few mouldy sheep. The fields within land used for shooting are also used for productive agriculture, though a smallish percentage may be planted with kale or whatever as cover crop for the pheasants
I think it's more a case that the rest of the world is now rising, rather than Europe becoming a backwater.
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
As recently as 1980 the current membership of the EU had just over 30% of world trade. It is now just over 15%. And when we leave the EU will be struggling to stay over 10%. It does put this Brexit furore into perspective somewhat.
Except there is no reason to believe the UK will do better relatively after Brexit and there are reasons to believe it will do worse. It's a disconnection event. We're making it more difficult for us to deal with outside world and for the outside world to deal with us. The UK has already gone from being the second fastest growing country in the EU to the slowest since the vote, where the only explanation is Brexit. If Europe is a backwater we'll be the furthest creek in that backwater.
Fair enough if you vote Leave because you can't stand the EU. But let's not pretend we'll be better off because of it.
There are both risks and opportunities in Brexit. In the short term probably more of the former, in the medium term probably more of the latter. But the differences will be so marginal either way that PB will still be arguing about the balance in 20 years. And we are not the slowest growing economy in the EU unless you take a single quarter's figures in isolation.
Would you say the same applies to independence for Scotland? If not, why would it be different (short term risks; medium term opportunities)?
On your second point it will be more than a quarter of relative poor performance. But it was sudden, if not immediate to the vote.
You are right but you will get Tory obfuscation on how Scotland is the only country in the world unable to handle its own affairs.
I wonder if Ruth will be allowed to trial her reboot in Scotland ?
Well, I have to cook dinner. We are having.... errr... chicken.
Seriously!
Bet its quite well done after this!
Has anyone ever tried that Marcella Hazan method of just putting a lemon inside and roasting it? No oil, no nothing? I can't see how it would work.
Cut the lemon first, or not ?
Roll and knead the lemon to extract the lemon oil from the skin without breaking it.
I boil the chicken for a few minutes before roasting and cut the baking time by maybe a third. It washes away the chlorine and any other nasties and keeps the chicken moist.
you live in the US then, never heard of chlorine in UK. Mind you I only eat Organic chicken in any case , no cheap muck.
Organic chickwn is not free of risk, though it seems a little safer:
Chlorine soaking and washing is done in America to get by microbial testing. The basic problem is poor husbandry and slaughterline texchnique, with rapid turnover meaning a lot of faecal contamination of meat. As microbial tests are done on the surface, chlorine washes help pass these tests. They are however just a cover up like spraying perfume on a corpse, as they do not deal with deeper contamination.
American chicken needs to be cooked particularly thoughoughly and I would recommend avoiding ground meat, such as hamburger, unless cooked well done. The grinding process, or manufacture of nuggets etc, spreads the faecal contamination throughout the product, and cooking time at the centre of the piece is often insufficient.
Comments
Of course living in a quieter backwater may be at least as pleasant and a lot less violent than what we had before.
Is it because TM has less chance of making Xmas than a Norfolk Bronze?
A lot now depends on how well the new migrants (who'll probably have a higher birthrate too) can be integrated and become productive members of society.
Wales seems to have got its own version of The National. Just a shame it is written in the oppressive language of the invaders and subjugators :-)
In 50 years, we might think of Europe and the Americas as we now think of 'the West'. We will need to stand together to count against the giants of Asia. Hopefully this will be in an economic rather than military sense!
I boil the chicken for a few minutes before roasting and cut the baking time by maybe a third. It washes away the chlorine and any other nasties and keeps the chicken moist.
Ed's box for Jezza!!
In any case, arguments based on the relative decline of Europe do seem to have a rather large blindspot: We are part of a Europe that is facing those challenges whether we like it or not, and leaving the EU does nothing to change that.
You need about 60-100x the physical space per calorie compared to - say - rice.
As they themselves acknowledge incidentally ... https://nation.cymru/2017/populism-wales-public-sphere-independence/
Though I find their idea that "Whereas the public sphere in earlier times had been a space for rational, unsullied and critical debate, with the developments of late capitalism it became corrupted... The media began to be used as a tool, and the free press was no longer the unmediated source of information it had once been" rather quaint - both the unstated foresight that we are in the "late" stage of capitalism rather than, entirely possibly, the very early stages, and the unexpected history lesson that centuries ago the free press was a haven of objectivity and rationalism, utterly devoid of sensationalism.
As for how Wales can develop its own public space, the solution is at hand:
In view of everything else that is happening, be it Brexit, the Westminster power grab, or broken investment promises, perhaps it is now a referendum for Welsh independence that people of all political colours should be pushing for.
If nothing else, it will give us a better chance of having our voice heard at the British level.
And regardless of the result, it would help to embed and encourage the construction of a public sphere that is vital to the long term health of our Welsh polity, whatever form it takes.
The Scottish independence referendum seems to have "reinvigorated" the Scottish public sphere by making it an utterly ugly and uncomfortable place for anyone to stick their head above the parapet whichever side they were on - but at least it was loud, which seems to be what counts here. I'm not sure why anyone would think the toxicity of such a campaign, especially with no hope of victory, would be a great bonus for Wales, but I do love the proposition that folk of "all political colours" (unionists, conservatives etc presumably included) should somehow start fighting for one.
Fair enough if you vote Leave because you can't stand the EU. But let's not pretend we'll be better off because of it.
I think ultimately it's plausible that both China and the EU will eclipse the USA, perched at either end of the Eurasian land mass.
Conversely those in Europe that buy British goods will to continue to do so after Brexit.
Maybe land in the UK is too expensive. (And large chunks of British farmland are owned for the purpose of shooting birds.)
I think these economists may be about to receive a lesson in politics, mind you.
The recount swung it to Kennedy.
It came to the then vice-President (Nixon) to determine how to allocate Hawaii's electoral votes. Nixon without objection from the Senate allocated Hawaii's first electoral votes to Kennedy rather than himself despite the fact he'd originally been certified as the winner.
The mind boggles. It'd be as if Florida in 2000 had narrowly gone Gore on the first count and then Gore had been in the position where he had to overturn that himself to award the state to Bush.
That'll reduce the numbers of the 10k of workers who cross the border each day into Gib looking for work because there isn't any work going in their country. We'll get local jobs for local people.
Also I bought two villas near Duquesa at the bottom of the housing crash, so I want to see their value soar.
On your second point it will be more than a quarter of relative poor performance. But it was sudden, if not immediate to the vote.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16300088
Chlorine soaking and washing is done in America to get by microbial testing. The basic problem is poor husbandry and slaughterline texchnique, with rapid turnover meaning a lot of faecal contamination of meat. As microbial tests are done on the surface, chlorine washes help pass these tests. They are however just a cover up like spraying perfume on a corpse, as they do not deal with deeper contamination.
American chicken needs to be cooked particularly thoughoughly and I would recommend avoiding ground meat, such as hamburger, unless cooked well done. The grinding process, or manufacture of nuggets etc, spreads the faecal contamination throughout the product, and cooking time at the centre of the piece is often insufficient.
Cheap crappy meat is another Brexit bonus.