SpankyMcFarland

The larger forces at work will continue to operate within or without the EU. The great factories are not coming back. And the NHS will continue to need workers at 3 am to clean hospitals for very modest sums. A lot of these people are not British and will not be British. Something needed to done for what ails Britain but Brexit was the wrong treatment.

Germany looks to Asia, esp. China, more than to places like Britain to sell its goods in the future. Britain will have to pay a price for the disruption it has caused the EU. That may affect German and other exporters to some extent but it probably will be demanded by the politicians to discourage others from similar ideas. The Brits have caused everybody considerable grief. It won't be consequence free.

I really don't know enough about currency valuations to have an opinion but...my ill-informed guess is that, over the long term, they are reflection of economic reality more than anything else. The pound has probably been overvalued as evidenced by the massive trade deficit there. A lower pound will tend to reduce imports and make the UK more competitive. People will be poorer but there will be more jobs. It will certainly tend to reduce Irish imports to Britain. It was interesting that Northen Irish voters ignored the strange Leave message of the largest Unionist party. They could see the danger of a bigger border in Ireland on multiple fronts, not least for peace.

I guess it depends on what price you put on running your own country. Freedom isn't free. The Scots should make up their minds as to whether they are ready to make the sacrifices necessary for independence. If not, they shouldn't complain about what the English decide for them. BTW the rest of the U.K., including England, increasingly depends on that Remain stronghold London to pay the bills.

Britain may be in for a bit of social turbulence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/spate-of-racist-attacks-blamed-on-brexit-vote/

Historically, you are correct. Ulster has been restive about its place in the British state for a hundred years, actually for more like eight hundred. It's just that NI and Ulster are not precisely synonymous any more. Ask anybody in Donegal.

Given that the Conservative Party was continuously in power from 1951 until 1964, I think the blame can be shared. In fairness, the war really knocked the stuffing out of Britain and the country was still recovering in the Sixties. Many of the city centres still looked like the Germans had just paid a visit. It were grim lad.

There is a lot to worry about as well for RoI. The U.K. is her biggest trading partner and this could be seriously affected by new tariffs and a devaluation of sterling. There is also the worry of renewed tensions on the border with NI, which makes the DUP campaign for Leave even more inexplicable. Regarding relocation, I'll believe it when I see it. If the EU forces banks out of London, a lot of the better paid jobs will go to Frankfurt etc. rather than Dublin. Fluent English is commonplace these days but banking expertise remains concentrated in a few cities.

Ulster was divided in 1921. Three counties - Donegal (actually the northernmost county on the island), Cavan and Monaghan - were included in 'Southern Ireland' and Northern Ireland was created from the other six. So 'Northern Ireland' is the more correct term for the British part of Ireland, not Ulster.

What Scotland does will be for Scotland to decide. Brexit changes the game. Like Alberta, it is in a tough spot right now with the collapse in oil prices and probably won't want another referendum immediately. The Scots have clearly voted in favour of Remain as did NI despite the largest party, the DUP, actively campaigning for Leave. London also clearly voted Remain. The UK is split down the middle on the vote and obviously there are all sorts of voters on either side. However, Leave voters do tend to be older, less well educated, poorer, Christian and more likely to be born in Britain. There's hyperbole on both sides as to what this means exactly. I'm sure many families are divided on their vote.

You are forgetting a country doing rather well at Euro 2016. Great singers too: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stats-show-wales-been-one-11517412 Surprisingly, to me anyway, they voted for Leave.

If only one reason could be given, I would say too much sugar. Excessive intake is apparently more important than output and sugar more significant than fat. I find I can no longer run my weight down, so what goes in has to be reduced. One other thing that helps me along these lines is intermittent fasting. Here are two examples from the UK: https://thefastdiet.co.uk http://www.thetwodaydiet.co.uk

No idea. I think Raitt would be a sound choice for the Conservatives because she has some centrist appeal. Clement is too nerdy (unfair, yes), Kenney too odd, Rempel too annoying, and I have never rated McKay. Didn't Ambrose promise she wouldn't run? Chong would be my favourite but I suspect he is too pure in spirit for such a dirty job. I really don't think Leitch belongs in politics at all. As to the NDP - less than no idea. Nathan Cullen, perhaps? Some of the other names being bruited about are fairly strange. Bear in mind I backed Garneau for the Liberal leadership.

This may be the future but for now thank goodness citizenship is the requirement. We are citizens first, not taxpayers or consumers.

Is 'every western country' going to buy F-35s?

You should pop over to CKA and put them right then. http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/canada-to-buy-f-18-super-hornets-as-interim-replacements-t116296.html?sid=e98a59a9d22278716fe47d74822a6e51

That may be true here but take a gander at other websites and you will see clearly rightwing characters blasting this plane as a jack of all trades that is not worth the money.

In my online meanderings, I can't help noticing that Canadian opposition to the F-35 is across the political spectrum now, way beyond card carrying Liberals. It looks like a dubious purchase at this stage. Come back to us when you have the glitches sorted seems to be the general message.

I don't like the sound of being forced into buying this thing. The costs are alarming.

OK on the general topic of military procurements, what do we have to do? Our politicians are expressing us really. Harper was ginger on this topic too. We Canadians are happy to leave defence to the lads down south. This is not a problem of just one political party. We seem to be more and more in the realm of wishful thinking on our military. We do not want to spend the money required.

I think Oz, for example, spends more than we do in absolute terms, never mind per capita. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures It sure isn't much of a defence but that's the country I see around me, one where at every election the sitting govt gets criticized for spending too much on the military. We need one of those national conversations to decide if we are serious about defending ourselves.

I am beginning to think not, and the Danes seem to be better shipbuilders than we are these days. Each large military purchase we try to make gets bogged down in endless controversy, no matter which government is in power.

Can Canada afford to stay in this game? The national will to pay untold billions for such hardware seems to be lacking.

I have yet to hear any reasonable argument AGAINST such disclosure, at least for Cabinet Ministers.

Calandra allowed himself to play the fool in the House. If this kind of eejitry is permitted to proliferate with every party, Parliament will become irrelevant. Nobody is going to watch stupid answers to sensible questions.