UK to warn public every week over 'no-deal Brexit': The Times

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, aright said:

MM

I cant answer for the Government only myself but the question needs to be asked, as many on the leave side of the argument pointed out at the time. If after Cameron's appeal for reform EU leaders weren't prepared to offer any concessions, when the UK was on the brink of voting to leave, why would they do it now?

 

I think a great deal has changed all over the EU over 2 years. Strike now!

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

We should remain and force through change from a position of strength.

I am afraid that mantra has gone.  I totally agree with the sentiment but with the current shower in charge they haven't got the bottle to stop the Brexit bus.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

I agree or I think I agree.  None of us know what will happen until it happens but until than it is all hype.

 

As I have said before the hype is there generated mainly by media to make the days headlines.  The latest from the police 

 

"In a leaked letter the organisation representing police and crime commissioners urged Sajid Javid, the home secretary, to draft urgent contingency plans for a hard Brexit."

 

Should we be panicking over this latest "leaked letter"?  Probably not because once again it is speculation.  In the same vein we shouldn't take any notice of other "statements". 

 

Liam Fox said (before and after the referendum) that negotiating a trade deal with the EU would be "one of the easiest in human history".  A couple of days ago he said there was a 60% chance of it now being a no deal Brexit.  And yes he is still "trade secretary".

 

We are constantly being fed rhetoric and no facts!

 

Obviously I have a different interpretation to yours and think on balance that we will be considerably worse off with any Brexit, hard or soft.  But that is not the point at the moment.  it is the way we are being treated by the people who are supposedly representing our interests.

Liam is a t***

 

Right now we should stay in SM and customs union in exchange for retaining our rebates and optouts. Doable I think...

[aright]

40 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Thanks for listening

 

Message I got was EU does not wish to risk damaging the SM and CU. They see this as essential for cohesion. They will be flexible on everything but will not risk undermining their foundations even if they suffer significant economic harm in the short term. Time to take that on board; there is no bluff.

It would help if you could identify what substantial issues, outside the four freedoms, can be discussed and what the EU's sticking points are. 

Welcome back. I assume you have returned to LOS. I am looking forward to risking a dose in  getting a dose of Edinburgh in two weeks.  

[aright]

53 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think a great deal has changed all over the EU over 2 years. Strike now!

I agree there are certainly a lot more extreme right wing parties today than there were at the time of the referendum and Juncker managed to appoint Selmayr, his successor, without a vote being cast and there has been a significant increase in unemployment in the Southern States. The European Union is now closer to an existential crisis than at any time in its history. I will leave you and the others to tell me the good things that have happened in the last two years. 

[whatsupdoc]

21 minutes ago, aright said:

I agree there are certainly a lot more extreme right wing parties today than there were at the time of the referendum and Juncker managed to appoint Selmayr, his successor, without a vote being cast and there has been a significant increase in unemployment in the Southern States. The European Union is now closer to an existential crisis than at any time in its history. I will leave you and the others to tell me the good things that have happened in the last two years. 

Not the first time you claim this, but the successor to Juncker will be chosen by the EU national leaders. So how can Selmayr be his successor (without a vote even)???

If you criticize the EU, at least get your facts straight.

[Grouse]

44 minutes ago, aright said:

It would help if you could identify what substantial issues, outside the four freedoms, can be discussed and what the EU's sticking points are. 

Welcome back. I assume you have returned to LOS. I am looking forward to risking a dose in  getting a dose of Edinburgh in two weeks.  

Ha! Edinburgh driek (?) weather is back. Going to the fringe? Bannermans whiskey and rock bar on Cowgate is recommended. Duchers is good but try Holyrood at Deacon Brodie's.

 

To answer your points

 

1) I think the EU is absolutely flexible with time. Ask for 5 years

 

2) Free movement of labour is a key issue. Much more control is already available, we just don't apply what's available. On top, I think EU wide limitations could be negotiated. 10k per country per annum?

 

3) The EU does want us to remain because of economic might, reputation, international clout, respectability, history and a host of other reasons but NOT cash. We can negotiate keeping our rebates and opt outs

 

4) I think that trade that protects our own population is better achieved through the EU

 

5) EU immigration is already falling rapidly 

 

Rational solutions ARE available 

[aright]

5 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Not the first time you claim this, but the successor to Juncker will be chosen by the EU national leaders. What makes you so sure they will elect Selmayr???

 

As far as I can tell it is not even remotely likely. If you criticize the EU, at least get your facts straight.

Yes it  was a popular appointment. Did you vote for him?

 

On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority in favor of a report criticizing Selmayr’s appointment as the European Commission’s top civil servant, and calling for the entire process to be re-run by the end of the year.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-backs-report-critical-of-martin-selmayr-appointment-top-civil-servant/

 

 

[whatsupdoc]

12 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes it  was a popular appointment. Did you vote for him?

 

On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority in favor of a report criticizing Selmayr’s appointment as the European Commission’s top civil servant, and calling for the entire process to be re-run by the end of the year.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-backs-report-critical-of-martin-selmayr-appointment-top-civil-servant/

 

 

Yes, Selmayer is the current secretary-general and his appointment was controversial.

But what has that to do with the succession of Juncker??

Selmayer is not, and very unlikely to ever be, the successor of Juncker.

[Grouse]

32 minutes ago, aright said:

I agree there are certainly a lot more extreme right wing parties today than there were at the time of the referendum and Juncker managed to appoint Selmayr, his successor, without a vote being cast and there has been a significant increase in unemployment in the Southern States. The European Union is now closer to an existential crisis than at any time in its history. I will leave you and the others to tell me the good things that have happened in the last two years. 

Decision makers have sobered up. I think flexibility to avoid brittle fracture is now accepted. Spain is doing well BTW despite the Catalonia issue and Italy has calmed down.

[aright]

23 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Yes, Selmayer is the current secretary-general and his appointment was controversial.

But what has that to do with the succession of Juncker??

Selmayer is not, and very unlikely to ever be, the successor of Juncker.

 

They said that about Juncker but Santer groomed him as his successor and political commentators expect Juncker made the appointment to ensure continuation of his policies. Barnier is of course a contender but his future depends on the Brexit outcome. Barnier is French while Selmayr is German so who do you think is favorite?

The politico article was not me criticizing the EU it was the EU criticizing the EU

 

"Selmayr is now positioned at the heart of Brussels and will steer the administration in implementing Juncker’s legislative legacy for the next 20 months — and most likely continue his work after Juncker's departure.

He is a divisive figure both within the European Commission and beyond, having played a key role in the Brexit process as well as shaking up the Brussels bureaucracy over the last three years."

 

http://www.cityam.com/280999/jean-claude-junckers-key-aide-martin-selmayr-becomes

 

"His appointment drew a critical response from some MEPs.  Syed Kamall , Co-chairman of the Tories' European Conservatives and Reformists Group, said: "How does the Commission expect people to believe that the EU is capable of change and listening to the voters when the process for appointing to top positions is so opaque."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/martin-selmayr-promoted-director-general-jean-claude-juncker-eu-brussels-a8221356.html

 

[bkkcanuck8]

54 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes it  was a popular appointment. Did you vote for him?

 

On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority in favor of a report criticizing Selmayr’s appointment as the European Commission’s top civil servant, and calling for the entire process to be re-run by the end of the year.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-backs-report-critical-of-martin-selmayr-appointment-top-civil-servant/

 

 

Did you vote for your prime minister?  (No, your ballot would have had your local candidate on it).  

 

The European Parliament could be much more 'democratic' but the reason it is not (IMHO) is that the EU national governments don't want it to be.

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, aright said:

 

They said that about Juncker but Santer groomed him as his successor and political commentators expect Juncker made the appointment to ensure continuation of his policies. Barnier is of course a contender but his future depends on the Brexit outcome. Barnier is French while Selmayr is German so who do you think is favorite?

The politico article was not me criticizing the EU it was the EU criticizing the EU

 

"Selmayr is now positioned at the heart of Brussels and will steer the administration in implementing Juncker’s legislative legacy for the next 20 months — and most likely continue his work after Juncker's departure.

He is a divisive figure both within the European Commission and beyond, having played a key role in the Brexit process as well as shaking up the Brussels bureaucracy over the last three years."

 

http://www.cityam.com/280999/jean-claude-junckers-key-aide-martin-selmayr-becomes

 

"His appointment drew a critical response from some MEPs.  Syed Kamall , Co-chairman of the Tories' European Conservatives and Reformists Group, said: "How does the Commission expect people to believe that the EU is capable of change and listening to the voters when the process for appointing to top positions is so opaque."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/martin-selmayr-promoted-director-general-jean-claude-juncker-eu-brussels-a8221356.html

 

Cameron didn't want Juncker, even Mutti didn't want him at first but she backed down to avoid the fuss of upsetting the wonderful Spitzenkandidaten process. The other "choice" in 2014 was Schultz! Democracy in action! My donkey! 

[whatsupdoc]

 
They said that about Juncker but Santer groomed him as his successor and political commentators expect Juncker made the appointment to ensure continuation of his policies. Barnier is of course a contender but his future depends on the Brexit outcome. Barnier is French while Selmayr is German so who do you think is favorite?
The politico article was not me criticizing the EU it was the EU criticizing the EU
 
"Selmayr is now positioned at the heart of Brussels and will steer the administration in implementing Juncker’s legislative legacy for the next 20 months — and most likely continue his work after Juncker's departure.
He is a divisive figure both within the European Commission and beyond, having played a key role in the Brexit process as well as shaking up the Brussels bureaucracy over the last three years."
 
http://www.cityam.com/280999/jean-claude-junckers-key-aide-martin-selmayr-becomes
 
"His appointment drew a critical response from some MEPs.  Syed Kamall , Co-chairman of the Tories' European Conservatives and Reformists Group, said: "How does the Commission expect people to believe that the EU is capable of change and listening to the voters when the process for appointing to top positions is so opaque."
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/martin-selmayr-promoted-director-general-jean-claude-juncker-eu-brussels-a8221356.html

 

You previously made a point about Selmayr not being elected. Of course he was not elected, he is a civil servant, not a politician.
That is also why he is not likely to succeed Juncker.

Does the UK electorate elect its civil servants? If not, then why should the EU?

Again, if you criticize the EU at least get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[aright]

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Did you vote for your prime minister?  (No, your ballot would have had your local candidate on it).  

 

The European Parliament could be much more 'democratic' but the reason it is not (IMHO) is that the EU national governments don't want it to be.

Yes I voted for the Prime Minister I am a member of the Conservative party so had a vote for Party Leader, and yes I voted for the Prime Minister in the National Election by voting for the  Conservative runner knowing full well what Prime Minister I would get if the Conservative party won the election.

This process has been in effect for a long time and I don't recall anyone calling for reform...….the electorate is happy with it whereas a lot of people are unhappy with the EU's democratic deficit as evidenced by a move from traditional political parties to extreme right wing parties (National Governments represent the electorate and get outed if they don't respond. Italy a good example. ). The EU Commission  has not and is unlikely to respond to the needs of the electorate.

 

[aright]

1 minute ago, whatsupdoc said:

You previously made a point about Selmayr not being elected. Of course he was not elected, he is a civil servant, not a politician.
That is also why he is not likely to succeed Juncker.

Does the UK electorate elect its civil servants? If not, then why should the EU?

Again, if you criticize the EU at least get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

The British Civil Service doesn't need to be elected they don't enact legislation the EU Commission does. 

 

[bkkcanuck8]

16 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes I voted for the Prime Minister I am a member of the Conservative party so had a vote for Party Leader, and yes I voted for the Prime Minister in the National Election by voting for the  Conservative runner knowing full well what Prime Minister I would get if the Conservative party won the election.

This process has been in effect for a long time and I don't recall anyone calling for reform...….the electorate is happy with it whereas a lot of people are unhappy with the EU's democratic deficit as evidenced by a move from traditional political parties to extreme right wing parties (National Governments represent the electorate and get outed if they don't respond. Italy a good example. ). The EU Commission  has not and is unlikely to respond to the needs of the electorate.

 

No, you still did not vote for your prime minister.  You voted for TM to become the party leader, you then voted for your local candidate (likely a Conservative)... but at no time did you vote for your prime minister.

 

Not to mention that - your party election is not open - it is controlled (if I read election right).  ONLY 2 were put forward by MPs (which is extremely undemocratic) - and then you had a choice of the two approved candidates.  By god... that does not sound that much different than countries such as China and Vietnam.

 

The public at large did neither... 

[aright]

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

No, you still did not vote for your prime minister.  You voted for TM to become the party leader, you then voted for your local candidate (likely a Conservative)... but at no time did you vote for your prime minister.

Are you saying I was voting for a party leader I did not want to be PM.?

[bkkcanuck8]

3 minutes ago, aright said:

Are you saying I was voting for a party leader I did not want to be PM.?

I edited above, the party membership had the same right to elect their leader as China and Vietnam... you get to vote for an approved candidate list.  The general public gets no input.  I am not saying you did not get your way, but the process did not give you the right to vote for your prime minister.

[bkkcanuck8]

28 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes I voted for the Prime Minister I am a member of the Conservative party so had a vote for Party Leader, and yes I voted for the Prime Minister in the National Election by voting for the  Conservative runner knowing full well what Prime Minister I would get if the Conservative party won the election.

This process has been in effect for a long time and I don't recall anyone calling for reform...….the electorate is happy with it whereas a lot of people are unhappy with the EU's democratic deficit as evidenced by a move from traditional political parties to extreme right wing parties (National Governments represent the electorate and get outed if they don't respond. Italy a good example. ). The EU Commission  has not and is unlikely to respond to the needs of the electorate.

 

4

Quote

The 2016 Conservative Party leadership election occurred as a result of David Cameron's resignation as leader following the European Union membership referendum, in which the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Cameron, who supported Britain's continued membership of the EU, made his announcement on 24 June, saying that he would step down by October. Theresa May won the contest on 11 July 2016, after the withdrawal of Andrea Leadsom left her as the sole candidate, succeeding Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party.

Conservative MPs had voted initially in a series of ballots to determine which two candidates' names would go forward to a nationwide ballot of Conservative Party members, who would make the final decision. 

 

So, How did you vote for Theresa May to become party leader... ????  Did they have a ballot of one?

 

[whatsupdoc]

The British Civil Service doesn't need to be elected they don't enact legislation the EU Commission does. 
 

The EU commission is approved by the EU parliament. But Selmayr is not one of the 28 commissioners.

Really do not understand your obsession with Selmayr and that he can be somehow ‘proof’ that the EU is not democratic.

How about the House of Lords in the UK? Does that make the UK undemocratic? I know, apples and pears, but still...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[aright]

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

I edited above, the party membership had the same right to elect their leader as China and Vietnam... you get to vote for an approved candidate list.  The general public gets no input.  I am not saying you did not get your way, but the process did not give you the right to vote for your prime minister.

I sometimes find it difficult understanding you. Are you saying the general public regardless of their political affiliation should choose the leader of the Conservative Party? If the process did not give me the right to vote for my chosen Prime Minister at Party or National level who was I voting for? I knew full well who would be PM if I was in the majority at Party and National elections.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

I sometimes find it difficult understanding you. Are you saying the general public regardless of their political affiliation should choose the leader of the Conservative Party? If the process did not give me the right to vote for my chosen Prime Minister at Party or National level who was I voting for? I knew full well who would be PM if I was in the majority at Party and National elections.

 

You kept on saying you voted for your prime minister but your system does not allow for it... and apparently you did not even (as you said) vote for her in a leadership race (or if you did it was a slate of one).  

 

I have lived in both the US and in the UK, but I can only vote in Canada... I at least had the ability to vote for my party leader... it was not a preselected slate of candidates (parties: Progressive Conservatives, Reform, Canadian Alliance then the 'merged' Conservatives). 

 

The EU could be as or even more democratic than the UK parliament but no state government has made it an issue because if they did do that then the EU parliament would actually have more legitimacy to make policy decisions (and governments always tend to get more power for themselves). I am quite sure that UK with one foot outside of the EU at all times definitely did not make it an issue. In fact, a more legitimate EU parliament - that would solve some of the more extreme mistakes made within the civil service as they tend to keep each other in check to a certain extent.  The parliament sets high-level legislative policies and law, but the civil service does all the implementing regulations etc. (the civil service probably has more power to shape the laws than you seem to believe).

[aright]

23 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

You kept on saying you voted for your prime minister but your system does not allow for it... and apparently you did not even (as you said) vote for her in a leadership race (or if you did it was a slate of one). You also seem reluctant to answer my questions

 

 

I have lived in both the US and in the UK, but I can only vote in Canada... I at least had the ability to vote for my party leader... it was not a preselected slate of candidates (parties: Progressive Conservatives, Reform, Canadian Alliance then the 'merged' Conservatives). 

 

The EU could be as or even more democratic than the UK parliament but no state government has made it an issue because if they did do that then the EU parliament would actually have more legitimacy to make policy decisions (and governments always tend to get more power for themselves). I am quite sure that UK with one foot outside of the EU at all times definitely did not make it an issue. In fact, a more legitimate EU parliament - that would solve some of the more extreme mistakes made within the civil service as they tend to keep each other in check to a certain extent.  The parliament sets high-level legislative policies and law, but the civil service does all the implementing regulations etc. (the civil service probably has more power to shape the laws than you seem to believe).

"You kept on saying you voted for your prime minister but your system does not allow for it."

You may have convinced yourself but you certainly haven't proved it to me or the millions who vote without complaint.

 

You seem to have steered clear from my questions.

Are you saying I was voting for a party leader I did not want to be PM.?

Are you saying the general public regardless of their political affiliation should choose the leader of the Conservative Party?

If the process did not give me the right to vote for my chosen Prime Minister at Party or National level who was I voting for?

 

"The EU could be as or even more democratic than the UK parliament but no state government has made it an issue" 

Lots of state governments made it apparent Hungary, Poland Greece and Italy just look at their recent voting patterns.

and Brexit was part of that dissatisfaction. The EU ignores the concerns of its people . That's not democratic.

 

"apparently you did not even (as you said) vote for her in a leadership race (or if you did it was a slate of one)".

This is petty Her appointment was a one off, doesn't happen very often, no change of political party took place and once again there was no mass movement to say this was unfair. 

 

I am quite sure that UK with one foot outside of the EU at all times definitely did not make it an issue.

The electorate did , it was one reason for voting for Brexit.

 

(the civil service probably has more power to shape the laws than you seem to believe).

I agree the Civil Service is powerful in shaping laws but if you read my post carefully that wasn't my concern  A comparison was drawn between the CS and the EUC and no requirement to elect either. My concern was the CS don't need to be elected they don't enact legislation but it seems to me the body which does should be elected, the unaccountable EUC./ 

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

Something relevant from the Guardian that I remembered and found:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

 

[bkkcanuck8]

3 minutes ago, aright said:

"You kept on saying you voted for your prime minister but your system does not allow for it."

You may have convinced yourself but you certainly haven't proved it to me or the millions who vote without complaint.

 

You seem to have steered clear from my questions.

Are you saying I was voting for a party leader I did not want to be PM.?

Are you saying the general public regardless of their political affiliation should choose the leader of the Conservative Party?

If the process did not give me the right to vote for my chosen Prime Minister at Party or National level who was I voting for?

 

People don't generally complain unless given cause to complain.   If you ask the general public in a country like Vietnam if they are free - they will answer of course they are free.  It is only those that rub up against the edges of what is allowed that find out they are not (a small minority). 

 

The fact that the leader who was chosen for you -- you were fine with does not mean that you voted for her as prime minister... or that you made a choice on who your local representative you were going to vote for based on who was the leader...  but in no way did you actually vote for your prime minister....

 

Apparently, though they managed to brainwash you into believing that you had a choice on who your leader was - as you were certain you voted for her... when in reality it was the Conservative MPs who chose for you (and the second candidate withdrew from the ballot to show party loyalty).  But then in your mind, you were absolutely sure that as a Conservative party member - you elected her.

 

The system is designed not for you to democratically elect your leader freely, it is designed to limit the chance that the general public will pick someone that the establishment doesn't agree with.  

 

[My Thai Life]

It's a simple system in the UK, though it does vary somewhat between the parties. Briefly, the party leader is chosen by a diverse group which may include a range of party officials, MPs, affiliated bodies and of course party members.

 

In a general election, the electorate vote for a party of their chosing, and the head of the winning party becomes Prime Minister.

 

It's probably not perfect, but given that the UK is the mother of modern democracy (and ancient Greece is the rather patriarchical, but by the standards of the time, excellent father) it would seem to be sufficient.

 

I often wonder if a Confucian system might be more efficacious than western democracy, it would certainly be more efficient, but the evidence that I have managed to unearth so far suggests possibly not.

 

 

 

 

 

[bkkcanuck8]

14 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

It's a simple system in the UK, though it does vary somewhat between the parties. Putting it simply, the party leader is chosen by a diverse group which may include a range of party officials, MPs, affiliated bodies and of course party members.

 

In a general election, the electorate vote for a party of their chosing, and the head of the winning party becomes Prime Minister.

 

It's probably not perfect, but given that the UK is the mother of modern democracy (and ancient Greece is the rather patriarchical, but by the standards of the time, excellent father) it would seem to be sufficient.

 

I often wonder if a Confucian system might be more efficacious than western democracy, it would certainly be more efficient, but the evidence that I have managed to unearth so far suggests possibly not.

3

3

 

Yes, under the wonderful system of 'democracy' that is the United Kindom they became and sustained an empire... but unfortunately, the winds of 'democratic reform' blew through the United Kingdom and the entire empire fell apart.

 

The system was originally designed (and still functions in some ways) to make sure the right people made the right decisions... not the general masses.  Up until 1918, they made sure only responsible (male adult property owners who have demonstrated their responsibility -- and thus limiting the chances of having irresponsible governments) were able to make the decisions.  But then they let the general irresponsible masses vote and worse women over 30 (and eventually all women) and the Empire that was the UK ... was no more...  

 

I am sure if you asked the people at the time -- they all thought that since it was conceivable that they could eventually own property that the system was democratic.  

 

[aright]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

People don't generally complain unless given cause to complain.   If you ask the general public in a country like Vietnam if they are free - they will answer of course they are free.  It is only those that rub up against the edges of what is allowed that find out they are not (a small minority). 

 

The fact that the leader who was chosen for you -- you were fine with does not mean that you voted for her as prime minister... or that you made a choice on who your local representative you were going to vote for based on who was the leader...  but in no way did you actually vote for your prime minister....

 

Apparently, though they managed to brainwash you into believing that you had a choice on who your leader was - as you were certain you voted for her... when in reality it was the Conservative MPs who chose for you (and the second candidate withdrew from the ballot to show party loyalty).  But then in your mind, you were absolutely sure that as a Conservative party member - you elected her.

 

The system is designed not for you to democratically elect your leader freely, it is designed to limit the chance that the general public will pick someone that the establishment doesn't agree with.  

 

Why don't you take a deep breath  answer three simple questions directly and stop waltzing with the flowers.

If you can't do that we have no need for further conversation. Good day!

 

[My Thai Life]

@bkkcanuck8I enjoyed your post immensely.

 

If you are interested in a more comprehensive account of empire, I would heartily recommend The Age of Empire: 1875–1914, a book by the British historian Eric Hobsbawm, published in 1987.

 

Hobsbawm is considered by many (including himself) to be a Marxist. Although I am not a Marxist myself, I have found Hobsbawm's historical writings to be absolutely second to none. The scope of his analysis and depth of detail in his work ranks him among the greatest of intellectuals. I could point you towards more popular writers if you'd prefer.

 

I assume from your moniker that you are a Canadian, or perhaps you just enjoy the epithet "canuck". If you are Canadian, could you point me to any recent account of the native peoples of the territory, and how they are faring under your system?

 

Thanks.