Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Britain & Ireland | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:56:18 12/09/04 Thu In Europe, by far the closest country (not merely in the geographical sense, but culturally) to the UK is Ireland. I hope that some of the readers of this forum may find this article interesting: New Statesman, Sept 13, 2004 by Patrick West When one hears the expression "cultural imperialism", one usually thinks of the ubiquitous presence of Americana. Corporations such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Disney are routinely charged with trampling on indigenous industries, showing contempt for different cultures and rendering our high streets bland, soulless clones. The French may be the most vocal agitators in this area, but the British are by no means averse to such protest, as the popularity of George Monbiot and his legions of acolytes demonstrates. However, while we grouse about the Americanisation of our culture, it is worth remembering that the British can be cultural imperialists, too. Eighty years after the south of Ireland finally bade farewell to the British presence, the Brits are back. This time, the takeover is not military, but corporate. Ireland's customs and urban landscape are being Anglified. Much has been written in the past decade about the economic miracle of the "Celtic tiger". The Republic of Ireland has been transformed in many respects--it has become more confident, greedy and anti-clerical--but its consumer habits and the face of its cities have also changed. This is because much of the business in the country is now British-owned. Take a walk through the city of Dublin (with apologies to James Joyce). I start off at Tesco in Baggot Street. Heading west, I nip in to a shop to purchase a packet of Walkers crisps and a copy of the Irish Sun or Irish Mirror, before taking in a pint of Guinness (British-owned) at the bar of the renowned Shelbourne Hotel (British-owned). Refreshed, I continue, turning right into Dawson Street, where I amble around Waterstone's and Hodges Figgis (both British-owned bookshops). Then a left into Nassau Street and another left to Grafton Street, to purchase a CD from the HMV store (British) before getting my groceries from Marks & Spencer (ditto). While the homogenisation of the British high street has been taking place since the 1960s, the Anglification of the Irish high street has been much more recent. Its most visible manifestation is the remarkable penetration of Tesco, or "Tesco Ireland", as it brands itself. I remember my Auntie May dragging me along, as a child in the 1980s, to help her with her Saturday shopping at Quinnsworth or H Williams. Both chains have now vanished, the latter having folded in 1987, the former having been purchased by Tesco ten years later. Today, Tesco Ireland is the largest food retailer in the republic, with more than 79 branches, employing more than 10,000 people. It has total sales of 1.79bn ([pounds sterling]1.22bn) and remains in rude health: its growth rate in 2002-2003 was 7.8 per cent. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Also back in the 1980s, a great treat for an English lad on his summer holidays was tucking into a packet of greasy Tayto crisps. Tayto is perceived to be as Irish as the Blarney Stone. Yet the firm has since come under acute competition from Walkers. Walkers, starting in 2000, rapidly made its mark in the crisps market and is now second only to Tayto. Its aim is to take top spot, and it has the funds to do so, spending 855,000 ([pounds sterling]581,000) a year on advertising, compared to Tayto's 778,000 ([pounds sterling]528,000). Tesco's good fortune has been mirrored by that of Boots the Chemist, which opened its first Irish branch in 1998. Having purchased the HCR chain, it is now the leading chemist chain in the republic, employing 1,200 staff across 28 branches. More modest inroads have been made by Marks & Spencer, which has four stores. Considering, however, the difficulties M & S is having at home, not to mention its retreat from other foreign markets, it is surprising that it has any presence at all in Ireland. Elsewhere, both HMV and Virgin have opened outlets, providing competition for the country's independent record shops and its indigenous chain Golden Discs. BT's progress has been even more impressive. It acquired the Esat Group in 2000, renaming itself "Esat BT", and is now second only to Eircom in the country's telecommunications industry. For a company that is manifestly British, this is no mean feat. Yet perhaps these developments are not so new. After all, since the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, its people have remained resiliently British in their cultural appetites. The attempted Gaelicisation of the country was a dismal failure. New spapers such as the News of the World and the Observer continued to muster a substantial number of Irish readers, and the BBC came to be regarded as an honorary home broadcaster, while Manchester United, Liverpool and Celtic are perceived as honorary domestic clubs. This is not something that many of an Anglophobic disposition have been keen to admit, indulging instead in what Freud called the "narcissism of minor differences": exaggerating trivial distinctions in order to mask very obvious similarities. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Far from the ties with British culture gradually withering after independence, as the founders of the Irish Free State hoped, the reverse has taken place. There are now more than 180 British companies operating in the republic. British cultural imperialism makes the two countries ever more similar, and not just in where people go to shop and what they buy. Thanks to the British media invasion, it also involves what they read and thus how they think. The success of Express New spapers' Irish edition of the Daily Star in the 1990s prompted Trinity Mirror and News International to rebrand their Dublin editions as the Irish Daily Mirror and the Irish Sun. The Irish News of the World followed, while the Dublin edition of the Sunday Times commands a big readership. The repackaging has been a triumph for all three media organisations, with the Mirror selling 200,000 a day and the Sun close to 300,000--easily outselling the Irish Times and Irish Independent. Although these titles do address domestic issues (and, since May, even Sky News has been broad casting special Irish bulletins), there is still substantial coverage of British affairs. Some will regret this development. Yet if it leads to better service and cheaper prices for the consumer, surely it is not all bad. One may even look at it positively on a cultural level, in that market forces are helping to bring the two nations closer together. It's not as if the traffic were all one-way. Manchester United is partly Irish-owned, Dunnes Stores has several outlets in the north of England, Eason owns a 50-strong chain of bookshops in Britain and the Independent is the property of an Irishman. Still, I suspect that the likes of Padraic Pearse and Eamon de Valera would have been horrified. To aesthetes and cultural purists, this development is an abomination. But it should serve as a reminder to those in Britain with an anti-American fixation, who deplore the idea of taking their children to McDonald's to drink Coca-Cola, that when it comes to cultural imperialism, Uncle Sam is not the only culprit. [END OF ARTICLE] I would be curious to hear from the inhabitants of CANZ and how much such similar British economic influence they see in their nations. In the UK the alcoholic drinks market is enormous and most wine bottles drunk come from Oz, NZ and SA. Also, Australian beers are well-known over here (perhaps due to the large numbers of visitors to Oz who return with a taste for the stuff) and in every major city in Scotland there is an Aussie pub. Anchor butter is from NZ and is a very popular brand. Canada sells us whisky (!) and there is a shop called "Hudson's Bay" that I believe to be Canadian. Also in every tourist shop, they change AUS, CAN, NZ dollars as well as the Euro, US dollar and the YEN. Quite apart from the noticable array of CANZ products to choose from in a bar, one is very likely to be served by a young Australian or New Zealander visiting the mother country. I am not aware exactly of how much CANZ have invested in the UK, but I know that the UK is the second largest investor in each of the CANZ group (behind the USA in Australia & Canada and behind Australia in NZ). I would not expect there to be British newspapers circulating as a day to day matter, but I really would be interested in whether people can see British investment clearly on a daily basis and if so, whether it is taken to be normal or with a degree of apprehension like many in Ireland. Many thanks in advance, Paddy [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: British investment in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:24:49 12/09/04 Thu Until recently, we had Marks and Spencer, Boots the Chemist, W.H. Smith's bookshops and BP and Ultramar gasoline in Canada. They were here for many years. Unfortunately, they have now gone. Even the Canadian-owned department stores such as Eaton's and Simpsons are now controlled by Sears, and Walmart has arrived. The oldest store in Canada, founded by Royal Warrant in the 1600's - the Hudson's Bay Company - may be bought out by Target - an American store (that would be tragic). However, there are many local British-style pubs and fish and chip shops in our cities and towns and we do have BBC Canada. Many large British firms do exist here such as publishing houses, engineering firms and architectural firms. The UK is the number two investor in Canada after the US. There is a 'British Isles Show' in Toronto every year to drum up more Canada-UK trade and investment. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Better the devil you know? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:45:06 12/10/04 Fri I am intrigued, reading between the lines, by some posts by Canadians on this forum. It would not be difficult to get the impression that pro-British Canadians are pro-British largely as a reaction to the economic and cultural encroachment of the USA. This is hardly a long term solution, as after federation Britain would just replace the US as the bogeyman. After all, our commerce is more or less inescapable as it is. One of the best things about modern Britain is that we don't really make anything, we just earn money by investing it with other people who make things. I understand that Britain is the largest foreign investor in both China and the United States. The American Ambassador to the Court of St James once told my step-father that, in his state, California, almost 60% of jobs directly depend on British investment. Personally, I find that extremely hard to believe, but even if it is exaggerated it suggests a rather Large Beast. I agree, though, that it would be sad if people could no longer go down to the Bay to do some shopping, and if the fish and chip shops were replaced with hot-dog stands. But this, in my humble opinion as a former Suid Afrikaner and a Britisher, would be because it would represent a loss of Canadian-ness, not a loss of Britishness. Mind you, I'd like to see the "British Isles Show"... Recently, there was a "New Zealand Show" in Venice (well, an Esposizione Nuovo Zelandese), for which the commune emptied out an old church on the Strada Nova stretch of the Grand Canal, and filled it with packs of Anchor Butter and some posters of nifty scenery. I do hope that the British Isles Show is more encouraging than that... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Britain - Canada relations | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:29:39 12/10/04 Fri First of all, many Canadians are pro-British out of fear of the Americans, and after federation, Britian would become the dominant force. However, there is quite a difference. Britain is our own heritage and background, while the USA is a foreign power. Canada is only half the population of Britain, while it is only one-tenth the population of the US. I think most Canadians would feel comfortable with being closer to Britain - after all it created us and nurtured our self-government. The US is a great power but Canada never was. However, Canada shared in a great power as part of the British Empire. The British Isles Show in Toronto is a popular annual event and it is quite a large trade show. Many companies have booths there and it is attended by hundreds of people. Taking place in the centre of Canada's largest city does help it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Britain and Canada | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:37:36 12/10/04 Fri Canadian population is infcat significantly more than hafl of the population of the UK I do belive. 40 million to 60 million right? But I would not be surprised to hear Canada's growth rate was higher than that of Britain. Britains growth is quite tiny and I heard on the radia recnetly about many British famers going to Canada where farming was much more profitable. I suspect that two generations or so down the line Canada may be able to equal the UK's population. This would help dispel any myths about British domination. Infact in an FC I suspect that most emmigration would be out of the UK rather than too it so British domination will simply fade away over time. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canada-UK Populations | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:23:46 12/10/04 Fri Canada's current population is 32 million. UK's current population is 60 million. The UK could afford to drop its population by a few million because of its limited space. Canada and Australia have plenty of room to take them. British domination would fade away and the federation would become a partnership of equals - a much better relationship than Canada joining up with the USA. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: There's plenty room in Scotland | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:37:47 12/10/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Jim, please end this nutty myth that Australia has lots of space for more migrants!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:06:17 12/10/04 Fri Australia looks big on the map, but it is MOSTLY DESERT. Australia is the DRIEST inhabited continent on the planet. There is NOT ENOUGH WATER TO GO AROUND. Sydney is on pretty much permanent water restrictions. Droughts and bushfires are increasingly common. Maybe Brits like drinking and washing in sand, or maybe they all have solar powered water desalination plants, but otherwise please don't tell them that Australia has lots of room for more migration. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canada does - except we all in live in the south | |
|
Author: Jim 9Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:18:13 12/10/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:54:47 12/10/04 Fri I've often thought that Australia is rather like Cornwall: inhabited all round the edges but more or less empty and uninhabitable in the middle. But of course in Britain itself there are those who argue that we need more and more people. There is, after all, a labour-shortage, which I think is pretty much unique in the developed world. The snag is that there is also a housing shortage. A Singaporean chap (well, British, but you know what I mean) said the other day, "It would be fine if Britain just got with the programme and built upwards like everyone else." He's got a point there; but then taipans always like big shiny buildings for some reason. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: We got space... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:25:08 12/11/04 Sat * Second largest nation in the world, by land mass. * By some estimates, possessing up to 30% of the world's supply of fresh water. * If one fully accounts for each drop of oil in the Alberta Tar Sands, more potential petroleum reserves than the combined reserves of OPEC. Surprised that some of you haven't been busting down the door to get here... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:35:54 12/11/04 Sat Well, I take a line through Churchill: he said that if ever Britain fell to Europe, he'd be in the first boat across the Atlantic to Canada to carry on from there. Hope there's still room for me Westside when Blair signs the EC constitution. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: He has already signed it... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:04:02 12/11/04 Sat All he needs is for the British to approve it, which in all honesty is unlikely. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I would be happy to find homes in the Toronto area, right by the lake, for any of you that would want to come | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:57:52 12/11/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I would be happy to vouch for any Commonwealth brethren! | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:04:54 12/14/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Unfortunately we mighty as well be from Somalia trying to get into Canada. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:57:37 12/14/04 Tue Canada operates a points system and only takes people skilled in trades it especially needs at any one time. This tends to be quite difficult for most British people who aren't terribly skilled in toilet cleaning. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:28:18 12/14/04 Tue I will try and claim political asylum from Tony Blair's dishonest, hypocritical, Authoritarian and spiteful Government... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canadian points awarded.... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:44:27 12/14/04 Tue I have a superb talent for taking up large amounts of space unncecessarily. Since this is what Canada self-evidently needs most, I think that I should be a shoe-in. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well, I am a Tory Riding President, and my MP is considered one of the closest people to Tory Leader Stephen Harper, AND it's a minority government, so who knows... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:11:31 12/15/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Stephen Harper | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:39:19 12/15/04 Wed Brent: We need you to put together a policy proposal that will further our aims that your MP can discuss with Stephen Harper. If we can get Stephen motivated on it, we can start to move on this. I suggest a go-slow approach at the moment. Don't mention federation at this point, yet. Perhaps start with negotiating a free trade arrangement for Canada with the Australia/New Zealand CER, CARICOM and the EU to begin with. Have all of these overseen by some type of trade council which can lead to building new political ties. The Conservatives have got to be made to realise that Canadians do not want further economic integration with the US and that policy will only lead to the party remaining in opposition. However, the above proposal will diversify our trade more, create a lot more jobs, and can help the Conservatives get to power. I would be more than happy to back you up on this with letters to Stephen Harper. Let's discuss it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually, Jim... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:58:21 12/17/04 Fri ...both Scott Reid (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) and Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward-Hastings) have indicated interest in my Commonwealth Free Trade tome and have indicated that they will be attending the book launch, to be held in the new year...still waiting on the publisher... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Excellent news, Brent | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:45:12 12/17/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Water Supply | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:36:26 12/11/04 Sat You are right that there are significant water supplly challenges in Australia at present, although there is capacity for increased supply. For some reason, our politicians seem to have a great fear of building dams. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them. Water recycling which is presently being used in Singapore also has great potential (although most of our politicians lack the vision to try it). I think eventually our politicians will realise that nuclear power is actually an environmentally friendly power source and thus we will be able to operate desalinisation plants without creating global warming, this may be 20-30 years away though. Perhaps importing fresh water from Canada via a pipeline would be an option? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If there is no rain to fill one dam, there is no rain to fill two | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:10:47 12/11/04 Sat Dams also destroy ecosystems, which we can ill afford: Australia has already done enough damage to itself over these last two centuries, raising water tables and destroying land through salination. We need to make people get over this daft prejudice against recycled water, we need to encourage the use of rainwater tanks in our cities, we need to make sure that people stop using drinking water to wash cars and water gardens. Nuclear desalination may be helpful, but I think recycling is the way to go, and it will only take off when people grow out of their stupid wasteful ways. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I'm happy with our current level of resources and population | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:07:31 12/15/04 Wed Some writers in the past have written about Canada's paltry population and our ability to easily accomodate a billion people, that, even if it only had a 100 million, it would be a great power. But I'm not a strong proponent of opening the doors and turning this country into an overpopulated parking lot just for the sake of national glory and power; I would rather preserve our abundance of things and maintain our high quality of life. Call me blissfully greedy. Christ, I love the open country. Let no man put asunder. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The population's are higher than that... | |
|
Author: Darryl (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:42:42 12/14/04 Tue No your wrong. Canada has over 30 million and the UK between 65 and 70 million people after taking into consideration the general growth of the UK population and a large amount of new immigrants arriving over the last 5 years. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The trouble is... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:12:20 12/14/04 Tue We don't really know. Somehow, they managed to mess up the 2001 Census so completely that they think there are more than 2 million people missing from it! Moreover, the immigration system has just collapsed. I understand that we receive about a quarter of a million LEGAL arrivals per year, and when you think that the legal arrivals are a small proportion of all our immigration, I think that we are looking at about 2 to 3 million over the last 7 years. Anyone who has been to London recently will see how quickly it has changed in the last few years. All the waiters, waitresses, barmen etc. in the late 1990s were either Australian backpackers, French or German students, Americans who couldn't afford their fare home and the occasional folorn cockney. Now, they are all Russian, Romanian and Polish. I was talking to an Aussie barman at a bar caled "Southside" near my London place - from the name you can imagine that it is rather oriented towards the backpacking community from Down Under, and Fosters is drunk and there are plastic crocs on the ceiling and roo burgers etc. He was telling me that his bar was pretty much the last bastion of the traditional London bars where Australians could get jobs about 5 minutes after arriving in London, since they have been priced out of the market by poor Latvians whose labour is controlled by very sinister Russian people whose cars have smoked windscreens and who rent luxury flats in Bloomsbury from such scumbag plutocrats as myself. I had a Russian couple in one of my flats over the summer - a blonde girl in her early twenties and her young son, both clad from head to toe in Burberry and Gucci and bedecked with Louis Vuitton handbags. When the time came for a cheque to change hands, I met the father: dark-glasses, body-guards, black Daimler, monosyllabic and at least 60 years old. Heavy metal objects clinked together in one of the bags which I offered to carry for his wife. If that man was not involved in trafficking illegal workers then my name is Cissy Fairfax... but I needed the money, so stuff it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Where exactly is the crossover point between nneding the money and "doing the right thing"? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:31:10 12/15/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I did the right thing for me, certainly... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:48:35 12/15/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Not just the same process? | |
|
Author: A [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:06:21 12/10/04 Fri Surely Jim, what is happening in Ireland is exactly what has happened in Canada... the bigger country's businesses are winning out. After the "English" High Street in Dublin it shall be the American high street. After all, Walmart already owns Asda, and the Disney store is on many high streets in the UK already. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: The big question... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:10:53 12/10/04 Fri I feel, as a result of travel in Australia & Ireland and as a result of many interactions with Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Irishmen and even some Pacific Islanders and West Indians, that these people are not really foreign. Dublin is no different in layout from any British city (well OK it is in most respects much more aestetically pleasing especially with all of the railings intact) and, culturally there are no real difference between the Irish and the British. I felt perfectly at home in Dublin, just as I did in Australia. As a result of these discoveries I really would have no problem if most of the high-street shops in the U.K. were "Irish" or "Canadian" etc... because I can interact with these people as if they were not foreign and therefore I would not consider them to be a threat to my identity. The Irish and British governments have differences for understandable historical reasons. Despite these differences the two nations have an "equivalence of citizenship" that gives full rights to the citizens of each country when they are in the other. A full F.C. is an extremely unlikely outcome in the future, just as would be a political union between the UK and Ireland. However, this does not remove the similarities between the peoples of CANZUK and Ireland. In practice I would be VERY happy to have an equivalence of citizenship and no barriers between the nations of Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the UK. If Ireland is afraid of being dominated by the British that is an understandable thing given the history, but from my observations there is little difference between Britain and Ireland looking at them NOW. I do not think that people in Britain think of Australians, Canadians, Irishmen and New Zealanders as foreigners. Ironically, Commonwealth protocol is such that the governments of Australia, Canada & NZ are not regarded as foreign by the UK and they exchange High Commissioners instead of Ambassadors, while the citizens are classed as foreigners. Legally Irish citizens are not foreign even though the govenment of Ireland is a foreign government. The big question is: are the British foreign to the others? If so, then yes British dominance would be worrying. If not, then there is no problem and the success of British companies in foreign markets is a triumph for us all. It is a matter of perception I suppose. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: The British are not foreign to us - they nurtured our country | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:13:45 12/10/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Sadly not all are in agreement | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:21:17 12/14/04 Tue I was in a dodgy hotel in Bayswater a few days ago and witnessed a depressing conversation between an Australian and a Canadian backpacker. The Australian considered herself well travelled, while the Canadian had never left North America before, so she went on to tell him all about where to visit. Or at least she would have done had she been able to think of anywhere. Of course Italy was OK, but a bit dirty. Asia was all right but every Asian country was the same so it was only worth visiting one of them. Australia was the best country. The Canadian begged to differ, but only because the Aussie made the mistake of bragging that the temperature at home was currently 46 degrees or something similarly ludicrous. He suggested that Canada was better, since it wasn't so hot. She should really visit Canada, as this was the best country. Furthermore, he had so far noticed that although it was currently -5 to -10 degrees in his home town, it was a lot sunnier than the weather in London, which made everything feel cold and look ugly. Canada was nicer and warmer than Britain, even if the thermometer didn't admit to it. And most of the houses he'd seen coming in from the airport would have been condemned had they been found in Canada. The Canadian government issued people with notices forcing them to repair their houses or they got bulldozed, like, straight away. Now, they have old houses in Australia too, of course, but not like in Britain. There they're all beautiful old bluestones that look great and the owners really love because they're worth squillions of dollars. They don't have all the cheap tat you get in Britain. Well, that was all very well, but what about Starbucks? In Canada there were hardly any Starbucks. Hardly any in Australia either, apparently. But what the Canadian was feeling cheated about was that he wanted to find something really English in London, and he couldn't. It was all, like, Starbucks on every street corner. That would never happen in Canada. England was just like America. They then proceeded to discuss their relative national histories. Canada was a very new country. It was founded in 1867. But Australia was newer than that. It was the newest country, founded only 150 years ago. When Canada was founded there still weren't any people in Australia, only convicts, that the British sent there. Until there was a gold rush and people decided they wanted to go and live in Australia, so the British had to stop sending convicts there because they depressed Australian property prices and presumably the bluestone owners wouldn't stand for it. But while there had probably been people in Canada before 1867 - mostly Americans who wanted to stay loyal to the Crown - the borders of Canada had just been established in 1949 because before that Newfoundland was British but, like, the British didn't want to pay for its upkeep so they like had a vote and they voted to become part of Canada. Sensible enough really - no more cheap tat and American coffee shops. Needless to say my enthusiasm for our endeavours sagged a little. I felt like saying we might have a lot of Starbucks - something to do with free trade and consumer choice - but at least we didn't talk and think like Yanks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: This is awful | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:35:22 12/14/04 Tue What a terrible conversation! That Canadian was an ignorant twit. Thank God I don't think like that. I believe that when you visit another country, you go there to appreciate what they have to offer - you look for the best things and enjoy learning about that country's culture. You don't go there and start saying that everything back home is better - people like that should stay at home. I love Britain - the beautiful villages, the beautiful countryside, the pubs, the history, the charm of it all. These are the things I go to appreciate. I had an Australian visiting me last May who was in Canada for the first time and most of our conversations were about our similarities and our common ties. When I go to the UK, I always say how proud I am of our ties with Britain and how much I appreciate all that the British gave to us. Maybe I am better educated than that ignorant Canadian who had never left North America before. By the way, I have travelled a lot more in different countries since I was a child. At least you don't have Walmart in Britain yet, Canada does. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Interesting... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:35:09 12/14/04 Tue As ignorant as some of these views may seem, I have to say that I am in general agreement with a few of their observations. Although Britain’s city-centres are very old, and have some of the most architecturally stunning buildings, they also have some of the ugliest hinterlands in the western world. Few cities or towns in Britain (and none in Scotland) have been spared the scar of 60/70s misguided social engineering. Most cities in Britain are littered with, gap sites, empty shop fronts, chewing gum covered pavements, bill posters, graffiti and litter. I stayed in Bayswater once, and would not wish to do so again. Take a look at any post-industrial city like Glasgow/Liverpool etc, and the story is the same. I work in Glasgow, spend a lot of time in this city, socialise here, and generally love it. However, I also know that I can sip a latte in a marble-clad Victorian masterpiece, take a five minute walk, and end up in Kabul. Any tourist could potentially find this out the hard way. I work in an area of Glasgow full of beautiful Georgian townhouses. Is this were London, they would be in pristine condition, and cost 750 grand a pop. I am currently looking at a former hotel, with its beautiful but crumbling sandstone façade, wrought-iron railings, and boarded up windows. I despair, I really do. Contrast this with Vancouver, and the picture is night and day, with pavements you could eat your dinner off of and vandalism-free streets/trains/bus shelters. Where there is emptiness and dereliction, you can be assured there will be a gleaming tower within six months. I was quite frankly embarrassed at what I saw, and I thought at the time that any Canadian that visits a provincial city here that is not on the picture-postcard trail, would be thoroughly disappointed. In Vancouver, I found that I had to be told where the bad areas were, even when I was in them. However, in Britain, these areas are patently obvious, and require only the opening of the eyes to identify. I did not see any obvious slums over there, that are so easy to spot here. This country needs to get its act together with regard to the full-scale regeneration/restoration of our old buildings, and the flattening and rebuilding of all that is bad. If Singapore can do it, so can we. On the subject of Starbucks, I think Vancouver must have as many, if not more than Seattle, or anywhere else. In fact, if Vancouver were to have any more Starbucks, I’m sure some of them would be next-door neighbours. I even saw two on either side of a crossroads. I don’t think we are as bad as that yet. However, if a Starbucks can replace an empty shop, I’m all for it. Unfortunately Jim, Walmart own our supermarket chain ASDA… [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Toronto is gettiing filthy | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:56:38 12/14/04 Tue When I was growing up, Toronto was so clean you could walk barefoot on the sidewalk and you would not injure yourself. Today, the city is filthy - strewn with garbage, there are homeless people everywhere and the roads are full of potholes. This is an embarrassment for Canada's largest city. Many American visitors have commented on this in our local press. Even the mayor is so embarrassed by it, that he has ordered a street clean-up campaign in next year's budget. Too bad he hasn't put enough money into fixing the roads. I know that Walmart owns ASDA, but at least it kept the ASDA name. In our case, all our Woolco stores were renamed as Walmart and they look exactly like their counterparts in the USA. They do, however, carry Canadian-made products, but they are the cheapest and most poor-quality brands, like a pair of rubber boots which are actually made of a cheap vinyl, or a kettle that doesn't work, or underwear that tears after wearing them only a couple of times (this has been my experience of Walmart Canada - I am going to go back to shopping at the Hudson's Bay Company. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:02:26 12/14/04 Tue Living abroad for much of the time (but returning permanently next week, thank god), I have found it easier to look at Britain through the eyes of an outsider. I remember, not long ago, driving from my place in Fitzrovia to my aunt's place in Kew. Two lovely Georgian villages in the middle of London, you might say. En route, however, one has to go through that dread zone known as South of the River, and frankly some of it nearly brought tears to my eyes. The ugly stained concrete cubes next to the windswept carparks with no cars in them, the utter desolation around Waterloo Station, and generally the absolute ghastliness until one gets as far west as Hammersmith - all this in Zone One, don't forget. I remember feeling a sudden and powerful swell of admiration for Mrs T., until whose stubbornness and refusal to compromise with The Enemy Within this country was so broke that the only things with which we could afford to fill the bomb craters were the mind-buggeringly awful concrete prefabs which have ruined the town. I remember London in the late 80s and I look at it now, and they could be two different cities in different countries: a country on the way down has been replaced with a country in which the wealth, confidence, brashness, fatness and fashion are back, and there is no place where this is more obvious than the capital. It will be a black day for all of us when she passes away. Be that as it may, the work is not yet done, and there are an awful lot of NCP carparks and whatnot which need to be condemned and destroyed before Canadian backpackers are likely to be impressed. In fairness to Nick's Gruesome Twosome, backpackers don't have a lot of cash and probably have to stay in the nastier parts of town, which may explain their attitudes. Oh, and to quote the great Marge Simpson on holiday in Toronto: "Oo, it's so clean and bland... I'm home!" Give me Detroit any day, where the chance of getting shot in the head and the entertaining hard-luck stories of hobos keep one amused, and where the piles of rubbish throw the clean bits into sharper focus! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Toronto is no longer clean - it's getting like Detroit with crime, filth and homelessness | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:24:05 12/14/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Splendid! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:29:43 12/14/04 Tue I make it one of my rules in life never to waste an air-fare going to a city which scores highly on the annual UN Top 100 Cities list. They are all places like Geneva, Copenhagen, the Hague, or, worse still, bloody Vaduz. They are scored according to a lot of categories in which no sane person could possibly be interested unless that person were Swiss: cleanliness, crime-rates, levels of air-poluion, noise-polution, absense of grafitti, efficacy of traffic lights, proliferation of pedestrian crossings, disabled access to bungee jumping events, straightness of white-lines up the middle of the road, and so forth. You get the idea. As a result, Basle and Stockholm are invariably decreed to be Greater Cities than London and New York. Such twaddle. The idea is to look for the cities about half-way down the list: say, way after Zurich and way before Baghdad. If Toronto has joined this list, then I will be the first at Canada House in Trafalgar Square clutching my passport and pointing out just how valuable a Canadian citizen I would be... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Criteria... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:47:41 12/15/04 Wed Whereas I would agree that some of the cities you list are pretty, but essentially soulless places, I think you are being a bit unfair in dismissing the criteria with which they are judged. I would assume that the absence of graffiti and litter from a city would denote the absence of feckless yobs, or the presence of law enforcement: both of which I think are desirable characteristics. If London had no ghettos, no commie-blocks, no litter and perfectly painted white lines, would it not be perfect? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Depends how you look at it. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:33:26 12/15/04 Wed In my opinion, these negative things which you list are the inevitable symptoms of things which we would miss were they abolished: vitality, tolerance, and above all a relaxed attitude towards minor irritants. In Singapore, there is no chewing gum on the streets, but this has been achieved at the cost of the most stomach-churning authoritarian measures which we would not accept in London. Road accidents in Geneva are rare, but I have been at pedestrian crossings in Switzerland, and watched as the natives stand at a red light, waiting for it to go green, in spite of the fact that there are no cars coming in either direction. Indeed, on one occasion when I just charged across an empty side-street with a complete disregard for the fact that the little green man had not yet lit up, an elderly lady remonstrated with me, drawing my attention (in the Swiss' quaint imitation of German) to the little red man's continuing presence in our lives... and I was able to stand in the middle of the road and listen to her do this because of the total absence of traffic. I suspect that she went away with the conclusion that I was one of those notoriously eccentric and erratic Italian visitors, what with all this crossing-the-road-outside-the-prescribed-moment madness, the like of which she had only previously seen on a shopping trip to Milan to get furs. I stand by my contention that the world's cleanest and safest cities have had all the life sucked out of them. Perfection is, after all, just another trade name for blandness. As for removing feckless yobs from London, I think that we pretty much have; or, rather, we have moved them out of London Proper to the Dreaded Outskirts (a solution borrowed form Paris, I should think), where they can't bother anyone except for other feckless yobs ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 'vitality' | |
|
Author: Ian (who lives there) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:18:39 12/16/04 Thu You'd love Porto Alegre, Ed. It is seething with vitality: the smell of it can be overwhelming at times, you have to be careful not to step in it when you are walking around in town, it almost certainly will never stop for you at a pedestrian crossing, it avoids any unnecessary proximity to silly foppish concerns like the rule of law, and as soon as it can scrape together a few million in embezzled public funds, you can sure it will be hiding it away out of sight in those lovely tax havens of yours. Oh, and it's also terribly proud of being the Brazilian capital with the highest quality of life. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: So how much are flights from London? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:07:20 12/16/04 Thu I've spent far too much time in the 3rd world to me much concerned with odours and corruption... In fact, if I couldn't live in London I'd probably choose Bombay. Such fun. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I hear Bogotá is quite nice at this time of the year... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:44:27 12/16/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In defence of Geneva... | |
|
Author: Herr Schweiz [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:13:59 12/15/04 Wed Geneva isn't such a bad place. It's got the lake, which is stunning in the summer. It has snow in the winter, and the potential to get way up into the mountains in about half an hour by train. It's one of the most international and cosmopolitan cities on the planet. It has the best pizza with chanterelles and porcini in the world, not to mention the occasional fondue restaurant if you come over all alpine all of a sudden. And, what's more, it's not in the EU! Anyone else with me on this? And Ed, surely Roma, Milan, Napoli, Torino and all of the other major Italian cities would rank right near the top on your list. Why the constant moaning about Italia, mate? Best country in the world, imho. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:46:44 12/15/04 Wed I wasn't being entirely serious, you know...say, 50%! And Geneva is all right to visit, but one wouldn't want to live there. Notwithstandling its extra-E.U. status, I rather think that there are more fascinating cities... grime is evidence of a bit of life. A lot of Swiss towns remind me of wards in an expensive private hospital. And yes, Rome, Milan, Naples and Turin are all very jolly. Now there are cities which are lived in, and you can tell from the chaos and the mess! Venice, on the other hand, is rather like the Swiss cities: beautiful, international, but about half the size of Highgate Cemetry and twice as dead. If I had to live anywhere in Italy, though, it would certainly be Milan. But does this make Italy the best country in the world? I doubt it, since I doubt that any country can seriously claim that accolade. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Of course they kept the name 'ASDA' – I mean, what sort of name is 'Walmart'? 'Asda' sounds cheap. 'Walmart' sounds..... like an exotic wart. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:08:37 12/14/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: How grim | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:34:22 12/15/04 Wed Anyone who can say that their country is "the best" without the benefit of irony should probably be deprived of the right to reproduce. I mean, do these people want to visit a country or a theme-park? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Canadian cities | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:58:20 12/18/04 Sat on the issue about starbucks, i think the west coast of Canada is a greater offender than the east coast. its especially bad in Vancouver...like the other person said, two starbucks per block in some places. victoria is not much better, but i like to go to local coffee shops to try and stop the starbuck-isation of the downtown area. surprisingly, i heard that vancouver and victoria had deals with starbucks to give them preference in setting up coffee shops, as opposed to the more Canadian Tim Hortons coffee chain(although, not surprisingly, it is now owned by an american company as well...sigh). i think so much of our politics these days are motivated by business, and i think NAFTA has totally destroyed Canada's sovereignty. for those that care, the Canadian Action Party website(http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/Default2.asp) has some sad examples of how the Canadian Government no longer has control over the country. example: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES Canadians have been duped! We were led to believe that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were "free trade" agreements. They were not! They were primarily investment agreements. The Americans wanted "free access" to our industries, and our resources including our oil and gas and, soon, our water. Of course, the FTA reduced tariffs over a period of ten years but this was happening anyway under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In fact, we gave up more than we gained on tariff reductions. But that is nothing compared to what we lost on the investment front. The Americans wanted to buy us out for 65 cents on the dollar. And they are!! The day the FTA was signed on October 3, 1987, U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter, let slip this observation. "We've signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada. The Canadians don't understand what they've signed. In twenty years, they will be sucked into the U.S. economy. Yeutter was telling the truth! But our political leaders have never told us the truth. They still pretend that the two fatal agreements are about trade. They still won't admit that the two agreements are licences to buy Canada lock, stock and barrel. When Ronald Reagan signed the Free Trade Agreement, he accomplished what American generals and American armies were unable to do in 1776 and again in 1812-14 - he conquered Canada. Unless we get out of NAFTA, occupation will become permanent and and annexation will become inevitable. If either John Manley or Paul Martin succeeds Chrétien, Canada is a dead duck. Both are committed to policies that constitute Canada's death warrant, i.e. an "open border and the substitution of corporate rule for democracy. These "values" are not Canadian values. The Liberals have been staunch defenders of the policies of Brian Mulroney, the American "mole" who sold us down the river. When the former prime minister told us at the time the FTA was signed that "Canada is open for business again," he should have been honest with us and said: "Canada is now up for sale to the highest bidder." We are not anti-American - we are pro-Canadian. We think it is best for Canada, the U.S. and the world if each country retains its identity and its sovereignty. The "National Treatment" Clause Most Canadians, probably 98 percent, have never heard of the "national treatment" clause which is the one that guarantees our demise as a nation state. When the FTA was signed, "national treatment" was a relatively new concept in international law that gave American investors equal rights in Canada as Canadian citizens. We consider this to be morally wrong in principle. Ask yourself, "What is the advantage of citizenship if non-citizens have equal rights?" In the real world it gives foreign investors, mainly American, the unrestricted right to invest in Canada: (a) without conditions and, (b) without limits. We have lost the right to say that only foreign investment that is beneficial to Canada is welcome. And we have lost the right to say that they can't buy more than 50 percent of our forest industries or 80 percent of oil and gas reserves - because the treaty says they can buy and own them all. NAFTA - Worse than the FTA NAFTA is worse than the FTA because Chapter 11, the disputes settlement clause, allows U.S. and Mexican investors the right to sue us if any of our governments, federal, provincial or municipal, passes or amends a law that affects their profits or future profits. When Canada passed a law banning the importation into Canada and distribution within Canada of the manganese-based gasoline additive, MMT, the Ethyl corporation sued us! After lawyers advised that we might lose the case, the government settled for C$20 million to cover legal costs. And worse, it agreed to repeal the law. As if that's not bad enough, two cabinet ministers had to read statements to the effect that MMT isn't harmful to the health or the environment - even though the latest scientific evidence suggests that MMT may indeed be harmful to health, especially of children. What kind of a democracy do we have when a foreign corporation can tell the parliament of Canada what laws it can or cannot pass? This is little more than corporate blackmail. There are other suits pending. Sun Belt Water Corporation of California is suing us for US$1.5 to $10.5 billion because we won't let it sell our water for export. United Parcel Service is suing for C$230 million claiming that Canada Post has an unfair advantage with its Purolater courier service. And we taxpayers will have to pay if they win! At this rate, Chapter 11 could cost us more than many social services. It's Now or Never Since the FTA was signed, about 13,000 Canadian companies have been sold to foreigners - about 10,000 to Americans. These include the forest giant MacMillan Bloedel, Le Groupe Forex, Club Monaco, Tim Hortons, Laura Secord and the list goes on and on. Needless to say, when ownership leaves the country the best decision-making jobs leave with them - a major contributor to the brain drain. According to Crosbie & Co., a Toronto investment bank, foreign take-overs of Canadian companies reached a new record in 1999, more than doubling the previous record set in 1998. "You've got to be concerned that you're losing control of your own destiny," said Ian Macdonell, a partner in the company. The pace of the sell-out is definitely quickening. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, when he was trade minister, told the Financial Post in March, 1999, that foreign ownership restrictions will come off transportation, telecommunications, "and even the banks." You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that it's only a matter of time until Air Canada will be bought by an American airline; Shaw and Rogers cable companies will go to U.S. interests; Bell Canada, with CTV in tow, will be bought by AT&T; and all of the Canadian banks, whether merged or not, will be controlled by international banks such as Citibank and Chase Manhattan. CAP Coalition to the Rescue The Canadian Action Party is promoting the merger of two or more existing parties into one big, new, progressive pro-Canada party that is not controlled by either big business or labour. Ideally the new party would comprise the Progressive Conservatives Party, or at least its progressive element, the New Democratic Party, the Canadian Action Party, the Greens, and patriots from the Liberal Party, the Alliance and several Québec parties. But at least if some of these elements must come together immediately, before the 2004 election, to form one big party dynamic enough to win that election. There is no other hope of "saving Canada" and keeping it independent. sorry for the length, but i think there's an important warning there for not just Canadians, but all memebers of the proposed Federal Commonwealth about american domination. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: British presence | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:46:19 12/10/04 Fri I haven't lived in Australia for six years now, and I spent the last six years of my time there in Darwin, which is barely even typical of itself, so I'm not sure how useful my memories will be, but as far as I can recall there was very little obvious British brand presence in the country. No Tesco, no British newspapers (except things like the NME and Melody Maker that I used to buy back in the 80s), the odd HMV superstore, but I don't know that I would have noticed that it was British. BP petrol stations have been around forever. Virgin Blue is a more recent addition. There are endless reruns of the Bill on the ABC. There was also an English Theme Pub in Darwin called Rourke's Drift (don't ask me why that particular battle was thought to be so worthy of celebration) where a range of English beers were sold. That's about it, really. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: British presence | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:26:29 12/10/04 Fri We have lots of HMV stores in our big cities in Canada and I can buy the International Express, the Financial Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian in quite a few stores in Toronto. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: You get The Guardian? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:36:37 12/10/04 Fri I thought there were laws against the exporting of hazardous material. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:59:19 12/10/04 Fri Canada seems like a sensible country and so I guess that the Guardian has a government health warning on it. Something like "Reading this seditious and probably treasonous material enganders your prospects in this world and seriously imperils them in the next". If the people who export it have any sense, it will also be stamped with the legend "Warning: this document is in no way indicative of the opinions of the British people. We disclaim all liability for any injuries incurred by suggesting, on the strength of this material, to a Briton that he is a whale-hugging Europhile peacenik with nostalgia for the old Russian government." [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Wait a sec... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:46:34 12/10/04 Fri I just got home from a secondhand bookshop where I was having a look at things in English (remembering that I live in Brazil) and, rather remarkably, found a novel by the 'Australian' Patrick White that I didn't previously have in my collection. He wrote "The living and the dead" in England, where he had spent most of his life up to that point, having been born there while his parents were visiting and having been sent back to go to boarding school and so on. Had he died at this point (1941), he would have been remembered (if at all) as a British novelist, not an Australian one. In the end, the distinction barely matters. The reason I'm writing this is because the book is a Penguin, and I have a fondness for the orange spines of Penguin books that could not comfortably sit with the idea of a "foreign" company. Of course Penguin is a British company, not an Australian one, but it is so much a part of my life that it simply didn't occur to me to mention it among the British brands present in Australia. As with Patrick White, it seems the distinction barely matters. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Weren't the troops at Rourke's Drift Welsh? | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:26:30 12/14/04 Tue The 24th Foot and Mouth, or something like that. A delicious irony that should be the name of an English theme pub. Another nail in the coffin of the UK. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Rorke's Drift | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:20:33 12/14/04 Tue They certainly were Welsh, from the South Wales Borderers (which I think was called the 24th Regiment at the time), and they sang 'Men of Harlech' as well as God Save the Queen at various points, I believe. Mind you, their officers were English and so were many of the men. They don't call it the 'British' Army for nothing... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Rorkes Drift | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:20:26 12/15/04 Wed Yes - South Wales Borderers (24th foot), you would expect some "foreigners" in a regiment situated near the border, but it is fairly sad nonetheless. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: NO! Not Tayto. | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:27:41 12/13/04 Mon WHAT? Tayto belong to Walkers? When the hell did that happen? That is quite possibly the ultimate insult. By the way, Tayto are (were) Northern Irish, hence British anyway, and as Walkers is owned by Pepsi the paper trail now leads all the way back to the USA. Now Golden Wonder - they're British (hell, only we could actually choose the only potato thought unfit for making crisps to make crisps out of). As for the others mentioned, how many of their paper trails lead back to the USA? I suspect that the closer you look the more you'll find that the anglification of Ireland (which has been going on since the dawn of time anyway) is now much more the americanisation of Ireland by proxy (via the "British" companies they own. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I wonder... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:43:01 12/13/04 Mon In my experience, paper trails usually lead back to an American company and thence to an off-shore holding company in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, BVI, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or some infinitesimal speck in the Indian Ocean with nothing on it except for a few goats and an office of HSBC. Since all of these places are Crown Realms, perhaps there is hope for us yet. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Let's tax them - 100%! | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:36:28 12/14/04 Tue Hmm, I never thought about that. Let's tax 'em! I'd say 101 pence in the pound sounds fair, don't you? ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bias | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:46:24 12/14/04 Tue I would agree with you in principle, but since my family's position is based on just such shenanigans as these, I'm going with personal interest and keeping the tax at 5% flat rate, thanks! Actually, I think they've recently put it up to 10% on the Isle of Man: shocking, this trend of socialist legislation... is nothing sacred? Not even tax-dodging? ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |