-TSS-

The Kalergi-plan in action. You don't just end up in Canada. It is not a country on the route anywhere and it is not easily accessible by any means of transport. Therefore the very thing that Canada receives hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year is a plan. The same thing here in Europe; the so-called refugees travel through ten perfectly safe countries and end up in Sweden or Finland and claim asylum.

I had to google to see who she is. So, she is from the Greens. This of course is part of the election-campaign. Apparently the Greens don't have a chance in Quebec so they can as well insult Quebec. I guess there is some element in the rest of Canada which enjoys Quebec being insulted.

I guess that in the extremely unlikely event that Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination a lot of people who would otherwise vote for Trump would actually vote for her. However, hasn't she already been dubbed as Putin's agent?

I don't think anybody thinks the Tories have been very good ever since the referendum, quite on the contrary, but yet they are still ahead in the polls and that is telling something. Namely, people prefer even this incompetent bunch to a Corbyn-government. If Labour were committed to Brexit and had a new Tony Blair as their leader they would be wiping the floor with the Tories.

Don't be fooled like so many of us in Europe have with these so-called greens. They are really watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside.

Mugabe is dead. In his country everybody was a multi-millionaire. Something even Monaco would be jealous of.

I guess that in the Scandinavian context Sanders would be a social democrat, which is very mainstream here. Three Scandinavian countries have a social democrat-led government. He would probably be even considered right wing of the social democrats. However, in the USA he is too extreme to have chances to be elected.

Every time FPTP produces a result of the largest party being in the minority it uis another example of how outdated the system is. It is designed for two parties and obviously one of them wins the majority. When there are several parties with considerable support the result becomes capricious.

What do you think: If the Quebec-referendum 24 years ago had gone the other way would there still today be negotiations on the terms of withdrawal?

After losing the vote in parliament Johnson is now practically a lame-duck PM. He carried out his threat and kicked out the Tories who voted against the government making his government now a minority-government. His stay at no10 may be very short. The obvious way out would be early election but parliament probably can't agree on that either. That would require 2/3 of votes. Too many MPs are afraid they would be kicked out and they are probably right.

"We're going to build a Wall and Mexico is going to pay for it" could be a similar defeating soundbite for Trump as "read my lips, no new taxes" was for Bush snr in the 1992 elections.

In a country like Canada this present-day climate change-hysteria which includes the idea that you shouldn't fly because flying is unecological is simply laughable. Even here in Finland we have internal flights, which I find rather silly since Finland is a rather small country compared to Canada. If you have no patience to sit on a train for six hours and prefer to fly 45 minutes I think those people in this country should be super-charged for their air-fare. However, in a countery like Canada you can't expect people to travel from one end to the other by train. Life is too short.

Canada is such a vast country that I guess that it is not uncommon for many people in Toronto or Vancouver never even have visited the other city let alone live there. I think Toronto and Montreal know each other well and Vancouver and... Seattle on the other side of the national border know each other well.

Not all immigrants to Canada are muslims. Namely, it was in the newas that the sicko who murdered a 2-year old boy in Liverpool 26 years ago is about to be released and he will be moved to Canada with a new identity. Well, he was himself 10 years old at the time as if that is somehow alleviating. Why does Canada accept him? Surely not the UK has the right just to transfer him into Canada without asking Canada first.

I wonder why Corbyn has jumped on the remoaner-bandwagon. Or more accurately he has promised a new referendum if he becomes PM, which means he is a remoaner. There already was a referendum and the remoaners lost but refuse to accept defeat. Of course, Corbyn thinks joining the remoaners is a winning ticket and will propel him to the number10 but I wonder how he has arrived at that conclusion. Namely, in Labour-constituencies people voted more leave than the national average. However, both main parties are divided right in the middle over the issue of Brexit and may be destroyed altogether. There is clearly a realignment happening in British politics. On one side there will be Farage's party and on the other side there will be the LibDems whio are 100% remain.

It is quite interesting how the attitude towards the European Union has changed over the past quarter of a century. When we in Finland had the EU-referendum in 1994 it was the left who campaigned against the EU and the media ridiculed them saying that look how those stupid commies are clinging onto the past. Of course in the case of Finland we were scaremongered that unless we join Russia will swallow us. After the membership it was for many years that it was mostly the left-wingers who were against and critical of the EU. However, something changed in the early 2000's. Not only in Finland but elsewhere in Europe as well. Little by little there was a change and in 2016 it was the lefties who denounced Brexit as a terrible victory for fascism. These days being anti-EU is little short of hate-speech which in our modern times of the clown-world is the most serious crime of all.

Perhaps it is over for the United Kingdom. A name I usually don't use of that country because it is rubbish. I always say Britain which is a proper name when as united and kingdom are just two ordinary words. However, if there can be an independent Ireland there is no reason why there couldn't be an independent Scotland. In the independence-referendum 5 years ago anti-independence only won because old people scaremongered that they would lose their pensions, not because the people of Scotland would feel special attachment to an artificial union. If the Scots love the EU so much why wouldn't they be allowed into the EU as an independent country?

So, Johnson asked the queen to prorogue Parliament for a time being and the queen always does what she is told by politicians. All the remoaners have gone apeshit about today's events. Actually, this is a very telling example how in a system where there is no written constitution you can actually invent rules as things develop.

Trump is certainly beatable, of course he is, but not by any of the lunatics the Democrats are putting forward. No chance! What has happened to the Democrats? When did they become insane?

I don't think secession from the union is a very popular policy in any US-state unlike in a couple of Canadian provinces.

I think the reason which has kept the USA together is that it is a superpower. If the USA disintegrated to 50 separate independent countries all of them would be in some way worse off than what they are now and none of them alone could be a superpower. There is no such a case in Canada. In Canada you can speculate that if all the Canadian provinces became independent countries that some of them would be far worse off than they are now but some would be better off.

The problem with federations which lack a genuine sense of togetherness or cohesion and have been formed as a marriage of convenience is all the members of such federations count their pennies very strictly as to how much they put in and how much they get back or do they get value for their money and that once some members of such federations feel that the deal is no longer advantageous for them they really lose the will to be part of such a federation.

Speaking of federations, I wonder if instead of having 15 different Spanish-speaking countries in South- and Central-America there would be some huge Estados Unidos Hispanicos or something of the sorts. Would that be more succesful than the current arrangement of having various countries which have huge cultural differences but have the Spanish language in common.

I understand completely. We in Finland have people who say that we should have a points based-system on immigration like Canada does. On the other hand, Finland is not Canada so why would anyone who would get high points in such a system choose to come to a country in the middle of nowhere where the weather is depressing 8 months a year? None of those scoring high points in the Canadian system come here. We get Iraqis and Afghans instead.

Countries based on immigration having strict laws on immigration? Why not? Nobody said the world should be fair.