Airport Antagonism: Vigo hosts the smallest of Galicia's 3 small, unviable 'international' airports. And it's the one which has lost out most to Oporto's hugely successful airport not far south of the nearby Spain-Portugal border. Which has the gall to advertise itself as Galicia's Airport. To everyone's surprise – and to the huge annoyance of the guy who runs the Oporto facility – Vigo has just announced a regular flight to Lisbon, Portugal's capital city. Worse – if you're the said Oporto guy – the airline is Portugal's national carrier, TAP. The boot is now firmly on the other foot and we're all amused at the sight of tantrums, threats and feet-stamping in Oporto. And now wait to see the reaction. Perhaps we'll all be offered free transport to and from the airport there. Which is currently a slow and slightly complicated business, unless you drive. Meanwhile, what I particularly like about this spat is that it's international. Usually, the 3 Galician facilities spend their time vaingloriously fighting each other over local subsidies/bribes.
Galicia's
Foreigners: A
friend in the business of helping people from overseas buy houses
here tells me that, after several years in the doldrums, business is
really picking up. Clients are again coming from several European
countries to buy holiday or residential properties here. In contrast,
it's reported that 20,000 foreigners from mainly South America have
gone home in the last 2 years. Different strokes for different folks,
I guess.
Selfishness or Stupidity?: I was tempted to say this was the sort of thing – parking so that you block the sight lines at the start of a zebra crossing – was the sort of thing that annoyed foreigners here. Less so the Spanish. But, today, it also angered the driver who stopped to let me across. He blew his horn loudly at the occupant – who was waiting for someone to come out of the shopping centre – but was contemptuously ignored.
Selfishness or Stupidity?: I was tempted to say this was the sort of thing – parking so that you block the sight lines at the start of a zebra crossing – was the sort of thing that annoyed foreigners here. Less so the Spanish. But, today, it also angered the driver who stopped to let me across. He blew his horn loudly at the occupant – who was waiting for someone to come out of the shopping centre – but was contemptuously ignored.
Words: 1. Spanglish: El cros: Cross-country racing. 2. English: A TV ad heard today offered a DVD 'To buy and keep'. As opposed to the novel concept of buying and sending back, I guess.
Facebook:
I took a look at my Profile today and was concerned to find that my
elder daughter, Faye, was down as my 'Pet' and that – unknown to me
- I'd been married in 2013. The former proved hard to change, the
latter impossible. I could only change Faye's description to No
gender: Child. As
for the wedding reference, I could only add: 2013:
Got divorced from a marriage FB has invented.
All rather odd. Perhaps I've been hacked. By my pet, I suspect.
Finally
. . . A Nice Story I've nicked from someone: Einstein was
being visited by the US ambassador. His wife urged him to change
suits for the occasion. “Why?” he asked. “If he wants to see
me, here I am. If he wants to see my clothes, he can look in my
closet.” Genius.
P. S. My family 'pet' has reminded me it was I who added the 2013 marriage to FB, to stop FB deluging me with fotos of scantily dressed Russian brides. Sadly, it worked.
P. S. My family 'pet' has reminded me it was I who added the 2013 marriage to FB, to stop FB deluging me with fotos of scantily dressed Russian brides. Sadly, it worked.
BREXIT
SUPPLEMENT
Here's an article from
Ed Conway of The Times, an Outer:-
Why
Brexit can be the road to prosperity
There
would be months of volatility but a constructive divorce could open
up Britain to the world
Rarely
in political history has an economic warning been quite as prescient.
A couple of years ago, as the Scottish independence referendum
loomed, economist after economist warned that a Yes vote would leave
the country dangerously dependent on North Sea oil; that any fall in
the price would be disastrous for an independent Scotland.
Barring
some last-minute miracle, Scotland’s public finances are heading
for their worst year since the North Sea came online. Those who
warned of the dangers of a Yes vote could hardly have been more
right.
So
what does it say about British politics that the independence race
was nonetheless far tighter than anyone expected? That many who
campaigned for Yes believe a second referendum is inevitable —
whatever the result of the EU vote?
As
an economics commentator I don’t know whether to be reassured or
depressed by this, but it does underline one certainty: irrespective
of what happens on June 23, we (and the Conservative party) will
still be arguing about our place in Europe many, many years from now.
In
other senses, the comparison with the Scottish referendum is bogus.
Crucially, those voting in Scotland had two relatively clear options:
stay in the UK with slightly more devolution, or choose independence
and the route laid out in the Scottish White Paper.
As
of today there is no straightforward choice on offer in the EU
referendum. Voters must choose between the status quo and, well,
something else. That might mean ditching EU membership and
reconstituting the UK as Norway or Switzerland; it could mean aping
Singapore or Canada; it could even mean a second referendum and a
lengthy renegotiation that plonks Britain back inside the EU. On the
flipside, it could mean shutting down immigration, raising the
drawbridge and retreating from globalisation. So far, the Leave camp
has been unable or unwilling to provide the voters with a clear,
single vision, leaving those in favour of Brexit free to sketch out
different versions.
As
such, it is impossible for the time being to offer a comprehensive
economic analysis. However, given that both camps in the debate have
used this lack of clarity to spout nonsense about the economic
rationale of voting for the other team, an initial fact-check
wouldn’t go amiss. For the truth is that the economic case against
leaving the EU is far less clear-cut than the economic case against
Scottish independence. An independent Scotland would have been more
unstable and dangerously reliant on oil revenue. Britain could
survive perfectly well outside the EU. Provided it does not shun
globalisation, it could well thrive, boosting trade and reducing red
tape. Far likelier, though, is that life outside the EU would look
almost identical to life inside the EU, minus a few Eurostar frequent
traveller points.
When
members of the Remain camp hint that three million jobs could be at
risk, or that £3,000 of annual household income depends on the EU,
they twist the truth. Those numbers simply tell you the amount of
economic activity associated with EU trade. No one — not even the
most pessimistic analysts — expect that to dry up, or even fall
that much, were Britain to trade with Germany from outside the EU.
What
of those warnings you’ll hear from multinational companies in the
coming weeks about the likelihood of job losses and factory shutdowns
if Britain leaves the EU? The reality is that such threats have
rarely been borne out by actions. In the run-up to Gordon Brown’s
decision on whether Britain should join the euro, many foreign car
manufacturers hinted that they might have to shut down plants if
Britain stayed outside. In the event, most of them increased
production and employment and Britain’s car exports recently hit
the highest level since the 1970s.
Then
again, many of the numbers being bandied around by those in the Leave
campaign are similarly questionable. They claim that EU membership
costs Britain about £20 billion a year (not true — the net cost is
£8.4 billion). That under Europe’s qualified majority voting
system Britain has only an 8 per cent vote on key EU rules and
regulations (not true — the voting share is 12.6 per cent,
following recent reforms).
They
are right to point out that Europe is responsible for a whole gamut
of regulations, the top 100 of which cost around £33.3 billion a
year, according to the Open Europe think tank. However, were Britain
to leave the EU and remain in the Common Market, like Norway, 93 of
the 100 would still apply to the UK, at an annual cost of £31.4
billion.
Which
brings us back to that as yet unanswered question: what kind of deal
will Britain have if it leaves? The longer this remains unanswered,
the more jittery markets will be about a Brexit vote — and rightly
so. Yesterday was only the beginning.
In
the long run there is nothing stopping Britain becoming more like
Switzerland or Norway, or forging another more independent model
where trade rules are determined by the World Trade Organisation
rather than the EU. Should the Leave camp articulate a truly
inspiring case for a constructive divorce, under which the country
opens itself up to the world, then the vote will be tight.
Except
that even in the best-case scenario there is no guarantee that life
outside the EU will be much more prosperous than life inside. And in
the short run, getting there will certainly involve many months, if
not years, of economic volatility.
Is that a risk voters will really want to take?
Is that a risk voters will really want to take?
No comments:
Post a Comment