To get the best Italian food - go to the small family run cafe or better still have the food of an Italian 'Mama'. If you go by the Italian food you get here, even at the very best establishments it is not the same. Its the freshness of the ingredients and just knowing what works. I had a seafood risotto whilst away that was orgasmic!
If I am eating out in this country, Italian would be behind Asian, but that is because it is not the same here as it is there!
We went to a little place off the beaten track, run by 2 elderly sisters when we were in Amalfi a few years ago.
Luckily my wife speaks a bit of Italian as they didn’t know a word of English.
Best Italian food I’ve ever eaten.
Exactly. Italian Mama's are the best cooks that ever existed. In a way it is pointless trying to explain how they are completely on another level to anything else other than to somebody like you who has experienced it and already understands.
If you go to a supermarket in Italy, you will see lots of varieties of tomatoes with irregular shapes. That is because they go for the taste there and we go for the shape and uniformity of look!
Back to politics - people are harsh on Owen Jones because he has passion. He is a very intelligent, decent man with the energy of youth. Some don't like passion and energy! And what he has written in the article above is spot on.
You realise it's all a matter of opinion, right? Just because someone doesn't like Italian food, it doesn't make them wrong. I happen to think the best food in the world is found in South East Asia and Italian food is kinda shitty, neither of us are wrong, we just like different things.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Italian food is good, Asian food is better.
Spanish food is woeful!
As much as I like Italian food, I have to agree with you about Asian being better.
I do like Spanish food though (I just like food full stop)
It doesn't help (in Spain) that I am a veggie.
You’re still ok for my two favourites, Paella and Gambas al Ajillo.
Add Tortilla, Arroz Negro and Patatas Bravas and you have a great selection.
Although I can understand that you need more than that if you live there.
Had a lovely seafood risotto when I was in Italy recently and on a hot day, a plate of fritto misto, a nice fresh lemon on the side, with a bowl of chips and a litre of cool lager as you look out to sea. Well it takes a lot of beating!!!
Had a lovely seafood risotto when I was in Italy recently and on a hot day, a plate of fritto misto, a nice fresh lemon on the side, with a bowl of chips and a litre of cool lager as you look out to sea. Well it takes a lot of beating!!!
Spanish beer is pretty poor as well, unless it is a boiling hot day (six months of the year) and the drink is so cold you can barely taste it. My original business plan for Spain was to produce real ale for the expat market It was going to be called Real (as in Betis/Madrid) Ale.
Craft beer has really been taking off in Spain in the last year or so. Unfortunately it's part of the same 'hipster' scene that has also seen the dreaded cereal bars spring up here as well.
Craft beer has really been taking off in Spain in the last year or so. Unfortunately it's part of the same 'hipster' scene that has also seen the dreaded cereal bars spring up here as well.
Problem is I think a lot of craft beer is over rated, not as bad as ice cold lager but not as good as proper ale.
I was in a craft pub once and asked if they had a session IPA as all of theirs seemed to be 7%+. I was told by the 'teenage' barman that there was no such thing as a session IPA. I am a passive person but when he then started having a go at trains and cardigans I really lost it and felt moved to write a stern letter backed up by an online petition. That really showed him.
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
Craft beer has really been taking off in Spain in the last year or so. Unfortunately it's part of the same 'hipster' scene that has also seen the dreaded cereal bars spring up here as well.
Problem is I think a lot of craft beer is over rated, not as bad as ice cold lager but not as good as proper ale.
I was in a craft pub once and asked if they had a session IPA as all of theirs seemed to be 7%+. I was told by the 'teenage' barman that there was no such thing as a session IPA. I am a passive person but when he then started having a go at trains and cardigans I really lost it and felt moved to write a stern letter backed up by an online petition. That really showed him.
Went to Seville a couple of months ago, loved the nightlife, laid back hipster bars and €1.50 pints. Very cool place!
Craft beer has really been taking off in Spain in the last year or so. Unfortunately it's part of the same 'hipster' scene that has also seen the dreaded cereal bars spring up here as well.
Problem is I think a lot of craft beer is over rated, not as bad as ice cold lager but not as good as proper ale.
I was in a craft pub once and asked if they had a session IPA as all of theirs seemed to be 7%+. I was told by the 'teenage' barman that there was no such thing as a session IPA. I am a passive person but when he then started having a go at trains and cardigans I really lost it and felt moved to write a stern letter backed up by an online petition. That really showed him.
Went to Seville a couple of months ago, loved the nightlife, laid back hipster bars and €1.50 pints. Very cool place!
Spain has some great cities. They have really kept their individuality/regional specialisms/food and culture and would recommend Granada and Cordoba (obviously) as places to spend long weekends or more. The centre of Malaga is often overlooked too.
To defend Spanish cuisine a bit they have extremely good cheese, sheep and goat in particular. The virgin olive oil is wonderful as is the fresh fruit and veg.
Craft beer has really been taking off in Spain in the last year or so. Unfortunately it's part of the same 'hipster' scene that has also seen the dreaded cereal bars spring up here as well.
Problem is I think a lot of craft beer is over rated, not as bad as ice cold lager but not as good as proper ale.
I was in a craft pub once and asked if they had a session IPA as all of theirs seemed to be 7%+. I was told by the 'teenage' barman that there was no such thing as a session IPA. I am a passive person but when he then started having a go at trains and cardigans I really lost it and felt moved to write a stern letter backed up by an online petition. That really showed him.
Went to Seville a couple of months ago, loved the nightlife, laid back hipster bars and €1.50 pints. Very cool place!
Spain has some great cities. They have really kept their individuality/regional specialisms/food and culture and would recommend Granada and Cordoba (obviously) as places to spend long weekends or more. The centre of Malaga is often overlooked too.
To defend Spanish cuisine a bit they have extremely good cheese, sheep and goat in particular. The virgin olive oil is wonderful as is the fresh fruit and veg.
I’m a massive tapas fan, love the lifestyle of eating late etc and having food as just something to have whilst you’re entertained by music/company as and when it comes.
Craft beer has really been taking off in Spain in the last year or so. Unfortunately it's part of the same 'hipster' scene that has also seen the dreaded cereal bars spring up here as well.
Problem is I think a lot of craft beer is over rated, not as bad as ice cold lager but not as good as proper ale.
I was in a craft pub once and asked if they had a session IPA as all of theirs seemed to be 7%+. I was told by the 'teenage' barman that there was no such thing as a session IPA. I am a passive person but when he then started having a go at trains and cardigans I really lost it and felt moved to write a stern letter backed up by an online petition. That really showed him.
Went to Seville a couple of months ago, loved the nightlife, laid back hipster bars and €1.50 pints. Very cool place!
Spain has some great cities. They have really kept their individuality/regional specialisms/food and culture and would recommend Granada and Cordoba (obviously) as places to spend long weekends or more. The centre of Malaga is often overlooked too.
To defend Spanish cuisine a bit they have extremely good cheese, sheep and goat in particular. The virgin olive oil is wonderful as is the fresh fruit and veg.
I’m a massive tapas fan, love the lifestyle of eating late etc and having food as just something to have whilst you’re entertained by music/company as and when it comes.
You really need to head to Granada then, province and city.
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
There is a sense to it though. The Brexit argument is so simplistic that it doesn't matter - referendum -sheserendum who cares?
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
I think people like you think the referenda are different because you liked the outcome of one and not the other. But then, what do I know, being either foolish or duplicitous.
The referenda were different because they were different.
UK Referendum: - Not legally binding as UK parliamentary law doesn't recognise referenda - Not held under election rules, so allowed blatant lies and half truths in campaigning - No clear details of what would happen in the case of each possible result - Statistically insignificant difference in Yes/No votes (as evidenced by Farage's claim when he thought he'd lose the he'd immediately call for a second referendum in the case of a 48/52 result)
Irish Referendum: - Legally binding as recognised within the Irish constituation - Held under strict rules meaning the actual facts were know before the vote - Clear and details proposed legislation released before the vote so everybody knew what would happen next - Clear and unambiguous result
But apart from all that, you're right, they were exactly the same. If you can't see the difference, or can see the difference, but continue to equate the two then, yes, you are either foolish or duplicitous.
But they were only different if you care to look at the difference - what Brexit voter actually looked at any detail? To a Brexit voter, they are exactly the same because they share the same term - and there is no point arguing otherwise.
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
I think people like you think the referenda are different because you liked the outcome of one and not the other. But then, what do I know, being either foolish or duplicitous.
Yes, I liked the outcome of the recent referendum in Ireland, because I believe fundamentally that the 8th Amendment was a horribly nasty attempt to restrain and subjugate women, preventing them from making decisions in their own best interests, and that, while there is a need to legislate about things like abortion (it is a need for legislation, passed by the legislature, which can, if it chooses, react nimbly to circumstance) there should be no place in a Constitution for such a restriction on c50% of the population.
In many ways, a Constitution is an aspirational document, setting out the kind of relationship that a nation wants to see for its inhabitants, anything, in my mind, within such a document that increases discrimination (where, for example, a victim of rape could be imprisoned for longer than her rapist if she subsequently had an abortion) against any part of that nation, is not something to which a nation should aspire.
Here's the thing though, I think that all referenda that I have witnessed in Ireland are completely different from that for Brexit, and that there is no equivalence between the two.
This is the case, even where I wholly disagreee with the popular will that was expressed, because of their clear relationship with amending the Constitution (including even the one that brought in the 8th Amendment so recently repealed).
Irish referenda ask specific questions and relate to legal documents, including those relating to EU Treaties, and allow the electorate make informed decisions on the basis of an understood outcome for either a yes or a no vote.
If you want to make a a comparison, the most relevant is the Scottish independence referendum, where the pro-Independence camp, like the Leave campaign in 2016, made promises of a better future, with limited (because I like being kind) detail to back up such promises. In Scotland, the economic warnings (including that an independent Scotland would not be able to remain within the EU) helped defeat the SNP's sunlit uplands...
So, for me, the two most recent referenda conducted in the UK and Ireland are completely different (while I accept that I was on the losing side in the Brexit referendum). The process and impact in each case is completely different.
I stand by my comments about those seeking to equate the two.
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
I think people like you think the referenda are different because you liked the outcome of one and not the other. But then, what do I know, being either foolish or duplicitous.
Yes, I liked the outcome of the recent referendum in Ireland, because I believe fundamentally that the 8th Amendment was a horribly nasty attempt to restrain and subjugate women, preventing them from making decisions in their own best interests, and that, while there is a need to legislate about things like abortion (it is a need for legislation, passed by the legislature, which can, if it chooses, react nimbly to circumstance) there should be no place in a Constitution for such a restriction on c50% of the population.
In many ways, a Constitution is an aspirational document, setting out the kind of relationship that a nation wants to see for its inhabitants, anything, in my mind, within such a document that increases discrimination (where, for example, a victim of rape could be imprisoned for longer than her rapist if she subsequently had an abortion) against any part of that nation, is not something to which a nation should aspire.
Here's the thing though, I think that all referenda that I have witnessed in Ireland are completely different from that for Brexit, and that there is no equivalence between the two.
This is the case, even where I wholly disagreee with the popular will that was expressed, because of their clear relationship with amending the Constitution (including even the one that brought in the 8th Amendment so recently repealed).
Irish referenda ask specific questions and relate to legal documents, including those relating to EU Treaties, and allow the electorate make informed decisions on the basis of an understood outcome for either a yes or a no vote.
If you want to make a a comparison, the most relevant is the Scottish independence referendum, where the pro-Independence camp, like the Leave campaign in 2016, made promises of a better future, with limited (because I like being kind) detail to back up such promises. In Scotland, the economic warnings (including that an independent Scotland would not be able to remain within the EU) helped defeat the SNP's sunlit uplands...
So, for me, the two most recent referenda conducted in the UK and Ireland are completely different (while I accept that I was on the losing side in the Brexit referendum). The process and impact in each case is completely different.
I stand by my comments about those seeking to equate the two.
Well I am heartened that you do not believe the UK referendum was invalid because only a minority of voters voted for it or that it was only a simple majority. A small but meaningful step back to democracy.
I'm still not understanding how Italy having it's own currency and then devaluing it would help their debt situation unless the debt was also in that currency, which it's not, it's in Euros.
Even if devaluing could somehow magically lower debt owed in a different currency, the downsides would still massively outweigh the benefit of lowering debt payments.
If a country is spending more than it earns it must rebalance by increasing productivity, reducing the value of its currency or reducing the size of its economy through reduced borrowing, leading to reduced public spending, leading to reduced standards of living. Italy not being in control of its currency, failing to boost productivity and facing higher costs for any new debt, leaves only austerity as an option.
Italy just wants to be able to devalue rather than austerity hence the more anti-Euro sentiment rather than anti EU sentiment. As @PragueAddick suggests the Mafia may be an important factor in Government not being able to reduce debt as the Mafia, rather than the Government, is controlling a large part of the economy. When politicians are able to get away with not paying their taxes it's hardly surprising that the Government turns to borrowing to fund expenditure.
I am resisting the opportunity to bash the EU, but it is perfectly legitimate to recognise that the inequality of economies within the EU is a fundamental cause of instability which the EU is unable too manage without a common fiscal policy under the control of a central authority - a united states of Europe. Something I'm sure @NornIrishAddick will agree with me on, Macron certainly agrees with me.
Ah yes - the old argument that austerity and shrinking the bad government is the answer. Except Spain and France exceeded the 3% spending deficit limits for far longer than Italy and are in better shape as a result.
Contrary to Owen Jones' assertions, much of the answer lies in the hands of the Italian government. In happens that the Eurozone dept:GDP ratio has been declining for four years by 1-2% per annum. Italy has remained static at 130%.
Government expenditure is part of GDP. Shrink government spending and the debt:GDP ratio goes up unless some international investment comes to the rescue. Harmonising regulation, better training and supporting investment are actually far more attractive than cutting services.
To state that the EU should come in and rescue national governments with grants and investment is surely acting against the sovereignty of the nation?
And weak governments delivering poor services in a struggling economy simply open the door for the alt-right. Thus a solution being aggressively pursued is the counter intuitive idea of spending more. How much can a government spend on new tech to enhance productivity and leave behind the 20th century? Sounds preferable to revisiting the 1930s!
An alternative is EU funding for EU requirements. One off the wall idea is that German defence spending is only 1% of their GDP whereas Italian and Greek spending is way higher... so perhaps Germany should spend more by subsidising other countries defence budgets. A money transfer which might send a message.
Would that be creeping federalism on defence? And perhaps immigration / external border controls also require pragmatic solution to today's issues?
Ultimately, Italy needs to speed up their debt collection processes for loans and taxes - it used to take seven years to collect against an average of two years everywhere else. That in turn would allow banks to lend more since NPLs become more tradeable. And government can reduce certain tax rates as old debts come in... their payroll taxes are on the high side - compared to the OECD norm.
The new government is discussing flat rates of tax but it's unclear how this is funded. Perhaps they are looking for high deficits to provoke a response and accelerate the debate?
We will all see what happens but it's possible that Italy will look to run higher deficits. Nobody can predict what policies they will enact but it's clear that they will be selected for political gain.
Therefore perhaps worth keeping an eye on their polls and what Renzi and the PD have to say in a month or two. There will be plenty of commentators and big stories just as there are plenty of answers.
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
I think people like you think the referenda are different because you liked the outcome of one and not the other. But then, what do I know, being either foolish or duplicitous.
Yes, I liked the outcome of the recent referendum in Ireland, because I believe fundamentally that the 8th Amendment was a horribly nasty attempt to restrain and subjugate women, preventing them from making decisions in their own best interests, and that, while there is a need to legislate about things like abortion (it is a need for legislation, passed by the legislature, which can, if it chooses, react nimbly to circumstance) there should be no place in a Constitution for such a restriction on c50% of the population.
In many ways, a Constitution is an aspirational document, setting out the kind of relationship that a nation wants to see for its inhabitants, anything, in my mind, within such a document that increases discrimination (where, for example, a victim of rape could be imprisoned for longer than her rapist if she subsequently had an abortion) against any part of that nation, is not something to which a nation should aspire.
Here's the thing though, I think that all referenda that I have witnessed in Ireland are completely different from that for Brexit, and that there is no equivalence between the two.
This is the case, even where I wholly disagreee with the popular will that was expressed, because of their clear relationship with amending the Constitution (including even the one that brought in the 8th Amendment so recently repealed).
Irish referenda ask specific questions and relate to legal documents, including those relating to EU Treaties, and allow the electorate make informed decisions on the basis of an understood outcome for either a yes or a no vote.
If you want to make a a comparison, the most relevant is the Scottish independence referendum, where the pro-Independence camp, like the Leave campaign in 2016, made promises of a better future, with limited (because I like being kind) detail to back up such promises. In Scotland, the economic warnings (including that an independent Scotland would not be able to remain within the EU) helped defeat the SNP's sunlit uplands...
So, for me, the two most recent referenda conducted in the UK and Ireland are completely different (while I accept that I was on the losing side in the Brexit referendum). The process and impact in each case is completely different.
I stand by my comments about those seeking to equate the two.
Well I am heartened that you do not believe the UK referendum was invalid because only a minority of voters voted for it or that it was only a simple majority. A small but meaningful step back to democracy.
I don't recall ever suggesting that the referendum was invalid, so I can't see any step being taken in any direction.
I certainly don't feel it demonstrated any great wisdom (because of the lack of any kind of intelligent preparation, including failing to require a super majority or to have an intelligible plan for Brexit worked out in advance), and I am certainly not pleased with the outcome, just as in any election over here, because I have never managed to have a candidate I support elected.
I believe that Brexit is a form of self-harm, and that the consequences for all of us are only silly understood (least of all by our supposed political leaders), and I am hoping against hope, though without expectation, that the UK Government will choose the least harmful option available.
At the moment, we have a Government that claims it wants things that are mutually exclusive, and fails to understand that the other side in the negotiations (a rules based entity) will not change its rules to suit a third party country (I don't really understand how, failing to get the sort of dramatic, Treaty, change that Cameron asked for as a member state, May can believe she can achieve the same thing on leaving).
Even for someone as unremittingly positive as myself, and I am, if it looks like a f*ck up, moves like a f*ck up and sounds like a f*ck up, I feel obliged to consider that it must be.....
a triumph for the negotiating skills and grasp of the fine detail of legal argument on the part of D Davis, to say nothing of the steely determination, fortitude and calm leadership of T May, bringing her united Cabinet, Party and country with her in her glorious procession to the very special sunlit uplands that only Brexit can provide.
Not here it wouldn't mate...some berk would say its only 37%.
I am still waiting for the Remainers on here to say the Irish abortion vote is not valid on that basis- silence so far.
Breaking away from the talk of fabulous food...
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
I think people like you think the referenda are different because you liked the outcome of one and not the other. But then, what do I know, being either foolish or duplicitous.
Yes, I liked the outcome of the recent referendum in Ireland, because I believe fundamentally that the 8th Amendment was a horribly nasty attempt to restrain and subjugate women, preventing them from making decisions in their own best interests, and that, while there is a need to legislate about things like abortion (it is a need for legislation, passed by the legislature, which can, if it chooses, react nimbly to circumstance) there should be no place in a Constitution for such a restriction on c50% of the population.
In many ways, a Constitution is an aspirational document, setting out the kind of relationship that a nation wants to see for its inhabitants, anything, in my mind, within such a document that increases discrimination (where, for example, a victim of rape could be imprisoned for longer than her rapist if she subsequently had an abortion) against any part of that nation, is not something to which a nation should aspire.
Here's the thing though, I think that all referenda that I have witnessed in Ireland are completely different from that for Brexit, and that there is no equivalence between the two.
This is the case, even where I wholly disagreee with the popular will that was expressed, because of their clear relationship with amending the Constitution (including even the one that brought in the 8th Amendment so recently repealed).
Irish referenda ask specific questions and relate to legal documents, including those relating to EU Treaties, and allow the electorate make informed decisions on the basis of an understood outcome for either a yes or a no vote.
If you want to make a a comparison, the most relevant is the Scottish independence referendum, where the pro-Independence camp, like the Leave campaign in 2016, made promises of a better future, with limited (because I like being kind) detail to back up such promises. In Scotland, the economic warnings (including that an independent Scotland would not be able to remain within the EU) helped defeat the SNP's sunlit uplands...
So, for me, the two most recent referenda conducted in the UK and Ireland are completely different (while I accept that I was on the losing side in the Brexit referendum). The process and impact in each case is completely different.
I stand by my comments about those seeking to equate the two.
Well I am heartened that you do not believe the UK referendum was invalid because only a minority of voters voted for it or that it was only a simple majority. A small but meaningful step back to democracy.
I don't recall ever suggesting that the referendum was invalid, so I can't see any step being taken in any direction.
I certainly don't feel it demonstrated any great wisdom (because of the lack of any kind of intelligent preparation, including failing to require a super majority or to have an intelligible plan for Brexit worked out in advance), and I am certainly not pleased with the outcome, just as in any election over here, because I have never managed to have a candidate I support elected.
I believe that Brexit is a form of self-harm, and that the consequences for all of us are only silly understood (least of all by our supposed political leaders), and I am hoping against hope, though without expectation, that the UK Government will choose the least harmful option available.
At the moment, we have a Government that claims it wants things that are mutually exclusive, and fails to understand that the other side in the negotiations (a rules based entity) will not change its rules to suit a third party country (I don't really understand how, failing to get the sort of dramatic, Treaty, change that Cameron asked for as a member state, May can believe she can achieve the same thing on leaving).
Even for someone as unremittingly positive as myself, and I am, if it looks like a f*ck up, moves like a f*ck up and sounds like a f*ck up, I feel obliged to consider that it must be.....
a triumph for the negotiating skills and grasp of the fine detail of legal argument on the part of D Davis, to say nothing of the steely determination, fortitude and calm leadership of T May, bringing her united Cabinet, Party and country with her in her glorious procession to the very special sunlit uplands that only Brexit can provide.
Or maybe not.
The Brexit referendum was valid in that it's a line in the sand which only a minority challenge. It has changed the landscape such that an ardent EU supporter such as myself accepts that we are leaving. This is not realpolitik but simply to prioritise how we leave over any aspiration that the UK participate in the EU for the foreseeable.
Cameron gambled and lost that right as he failed to understand the angles, the electorate and the technologies and tactics. That was two years ago so we move on.
This thread is about Italy where similar forces are at work but the rules are different plus they are in very different territory. They have a change of government every year or two as well as having some obvious solutions.
And while the UK will be disadvantaged the further we go from the EU, the Italian economy could collapse if certain forces make the wrong move giving the markets the wrong signals.
The EU is rules based, the Euro more so as it has to maintain international credibility. But Italians are not anti EU nor are they anti Euro.
And a referendum on the Euro is banned. Some anti Euro people cite Stiglitz as somebody who backs the Italians having a vote. He was wrong - completely wrong!
Comments
Add Tortilla, Arroz Negro and Patatas Bravas and you have a great selection.
Although I can understand that you need more than that if you live there.
*vegetarians who eat seafood are not vegetarians.
I was in a craft pub once and asked if they had a session IPA as all of theirs seemed to be 7%+. I was told by the 'teenage' barman that there was no such thing as a session IPA. I am a passive person but when he then started having a go at trains and cardigans I really lost it and felt moved to write a stern letter backed up by an online petition. That really showed him.
I think that you will find that what people like me, who voted Remain, or John Curtice, who, as a psephologist knows more about these kind of things than most, will say is that both referenda were so different, in turnout, engagement and outcome, as to make comparison invidious.
No-one seeks to claim that the Irish result was the expression of the desire of only 37% of the electorate (partly because the percentage of the electorate was higher), nor has anyone sought to use it as a "will of the people" justification for a more fundamentalist interpretation of what the vote meant than was argued in the debates.
I'm probably delusional, but my memory is that those who argued for leaving the EU were much less likely to argue that it would mean a hard Brexit than those in favour of Remain - so maybe Cameron and Osborne knew their Party better than we believed - but, in any event, I find it interesting that those who won the referendum in the UK are taking a very different approach to that being followed in Ireland, where clear commitments were made and, including preparation of legislative provisions, these commitments are being honoured.
Comparing and conflating the two referenda makes about as much sense as arguing that just because someone does not like retsina that they hate champagne.
So, in all honesty, only a fool, or someone engaging the most duplicitous sophistry, would seek to equate the two.
To defend Spanish cuisine a bit they have extremely good cheese, sheep and goat in particular. The virgin olive oil is wonderful as is the fresh fruit and veg.
But then, what do I know, being either foolish or duplicitous.
UK Referendum:
- Not legally binding as UK parliamentary law doesn't recognise referenda
- Not held under election rules, so allowed blatant lies and half truths in campaigning
- No clear details of what would happen in the case of each possible result
- Statistically insignificant difference in Yes/No votes (as evidenced by Farage's claim when he thought he'd lose the he'd immediately call for a second referendum in the case of a 48/52 result)
Irish Referendum:
- Legally binding as recognised within the Irish constituation
- Held under strict rules meaning the actual facts were know before the vote
- Clear and details proposed legislation released before the vote so everybody knew what would happen next
- Clear and unambiguous result
But apart from all that, you're right, they were exactly the same. If you can't see the difference, or can see the difference, but continue to equate the two then, yes, you are either foolish or duplicitous.
In many ways, a Constitution is an aspirational document, setting out the kind of relationship that a nation wants to see for its inhabitants, anything, in my mind, within such a document that increases discrimination (where, for example, a victim of rape could be imprisoned for longer than her rapist if she subsequently had an abortion) against any part of that nation, is not something to which a nation should aspire.
Here's the thing though, I think that all referenda that I have witnessed in Ireland are completely different from that for Brexit, and that there is no equivalence between the two.
This is the case, even where I wholly disagreee with the popular will that was expressed, because of their clear relationship with amending the Constitution (including even the one that brought in the 8th Amendment so recently repealed).
Irish referenda ask specific questions and relate to legal documents, including those relating to EU Treaties, and allow the electorate make informed decisions on the basis of an understood outcome for either a yes or a no vote.
If you want to make a a comparison, the most relevant is the Scottish independence referendum, where the pro-Independence camp, like the Leave campaign in 2016, made promises of a better future, with limited (because I like being kind) detail to back up such promises. In Scotland, the economic warnings (including that an independent Scotland would not be able to remain within the EU) helped defeat the SNP's sunlit uplands...
So, for me, the two most recent referenda conducted in the UK and Ireland are completely different (while I accept that I was on the losing side in the Brexit referendum). The process and impact in each case is completely different.
I stand by my comments about those seeking to equate the two.
Contrary to Owen Jones' assertions, much of the answer lies in the hands of the Italian government. In happens that the Eurozone dept:GDP ratio has been declining for four years by 1-2% per annum. Italy has remained static at 130%.
Government expenditure is part of GDP. Shrink government spending and the debt:GDP ratio goes up unless some international investment comes to the rescue. Harmonising regulation, better training and supporting investment are actually far more attractive than cutting services.
To state that the EU should come in and rescue national governments with grants and investment is surely acting against the sovereignty of the nation?
And weak governments delivering poor services in a struggling economy simply open the door for the alt-right. Thus a solution being aggressively pursued is the counter intuitive idea of spending more. How much can a government spend on new tech to enhance productivity and leave behind the 20th century? Sounds preferable to revisiting the 1930s!
An alternative is EU funding for EU requirements. One off the wall idea is that German defence spending is only 1% of their GDP whereas Italian and Greek spending is way higher... so perhaps Germany should spend more by subsidising other countries defence budgets. A money transfer which might send a message.
Would that be creeping federalism on defence? And perhaps immigration / external border controls also require pragmatic solution to today's issues?
Ultimately, Italy needs to speed up their debt collection processes for loans and taxes - it used to take seven years to collect against an average of two years everywhere else. That in turn would allow banks to lend more since NPLs become more tradeable. And government can reduce certain tax rates as old debts come in... their payroll taxes are on the high side - compared to the OECD norm.
The new government is discussing flat rates of tax but it's unclear how this is funded. Perhaps they are looking for high deficits to provoke a response and accelerate the debate?
We will all see what happens but it's possible that Italy will look to run higher deficits. Nobody can predict what policies they will enact but it's clear that they will be selected for political gain.
Therefore perhaps worth keeping an eye on their polls and what Renzi and the PD have to say in a month or two. There will be plenty of commentators and big stories just as there are plenty of answers.
I certainly don't feel it demonstrated any great wisdom (because of the lack of any kind of intelligent preparation, including failing to require a super majority or to have an intelligible plan for Brexit worked out in advance), and I am certainly not pleased with the outcome, just as in any election over here, because I have never managed to have a candidate I support elected.
I believe that Brexit is a form of self-harm, and that the consequences for all of us are only silly understood (least of all by our supposed political leaders), and I am hoping against hope, though without expectation, that the UK Government will choose the least harmful option available.
At the moment, we have a Government that claims it wants things that are mutually exclusive, and fails to understand that the other side in the negotiations (a rules based entity) will not change its rules to suit a third party country (I don't really understand how, failing to get the sort of dramatic, Treaty, change that Cameron asked for as a member state, May can believe she can achieve the same thing on leaving).
Even for someone as unremittingly positive as myself, and I am, if it looks like a f*ck up, moves like a f*ck up and sounds like a f*ck up, I feel obliged to consider that it must be.....
a triumph for the negotiating skills and grasp of the fine detail of legal argument on the part of D Davis, to say nothing of the steely determination, fortitude and calm leadership of T May, bringing her united Cabinet, Party and country with her in her glorious procession to the very special sunlit uplands that only Brexit can provide.
Or maybe not.
Cameron gambled and lost that right as he failed to understand the angles, the electorate and the technologies and tactics. That was two years ago so we move on.
This thread is about Italy where similar forces are at work but the rules are different plus they are in very different territory. They have a change of government every year or two as well as having some obvious solutions.
And while the UK will be disadvantaged the further we go from the EU, the Italian economy could collapse if certain forces make the wrong move giving the markets the wrong signals.
The EU is rules based, the Euro more so as it has to maintain international credibility. But Italians are not anti EU nor are they anti Euro.
And a referendum on the Euro is banned. Some anti Euro people cite Stiglitz as somebody who backs the Italians having a vote. He was wrong - completely wrong!