From the very start, the odds were stacked against the Toronto Raptors in their Eastern Conference Finals series against the Cleveland Cavaliers. By the start of the series, they had played the most games in the playoffs with 18. They had battled past the Indiana Pacers and the Miami Heat with superstars like Paul George and Dwyane Wade, only to face LeBron James, the 4-time MVP. Yet, they continued to persevere through impossible odds. The Raptors managed to tie up the series at two games apiece before losing to a Cavaliers team that won it all. Kyle Lowry overcame his shooting woes with clutch shots in games three and four, DeMar DeRozan seemingly found his touch, and Bismack Biyombo was an unstoppable, immovable force on defence. The team gelled at the most crucial point in every series. Their perseverance is more remarkable considering that Toronto had only 24 hours to prepare for their first ever Eastern Conference Finals appearance.
The Raptors endured a seven game series against the Heat whilst the Cavs coasted into the Eastern Conference Finals, posting Instagram and Snapchat videos of team bonding activities and dinners during their very generous nine-day break.
Can Raptors fans say it is fair that the number one seed got nine days of rest? Absolutely. They swept two consecutive teams in the playoffs—which in itself is a hard and rare feat.
Is it fair that Toronto got so little time to rest before their biggest matchup? Yes, it is. The Raps simply could have won their games earlier if they wanted more rest. The Cavaliers deserved nine days off because they worked hard to win those eight games in a row during the playoffs.
The most important lesson a sportsman learns is to not make excuses for himself—true winners will find success no matter the circumstances.
This is not to deny the Raptors’ hard work—their results speak for themselves. Nevertheless, the extra days would have been merited only if the Raps won their first two series in five or six games as opposed to seven.
The main argument against having longer breaks between series is fueled by pure pride and dedication to being an athlete. The most important lesson a sportsman learns is to not make excuses for himself—true winners will find ways to win no matter the circumstances. Of course a seven game series is toiling and difficult, and these athletes welcome all the breaks they can get. But professional athletes are venerated because they endure adversity. They accomplish Godlike feats that common men and women can only dream of achieving. Arguably, the fact that Canada’s only NBA team did not have a break before their series against Cleveland made Toronto fans more proud of their two wins in the series.
Despite having played more games than anyone else in the playoffs, the Raptors managed to pull off two great results in a row. They silenced doubters like Stephen A. Smith of ESPN's First Take by demonstrating what a winning mentality can achieve. In spite of Cleveland’s nine-day break, the “Other” team, the disadvantaged team, the underdog of the series and the playoffs, gave them a dogfight. Ultimately, that is what all athletes dreams of: Winning in the worst circumstances, under the worst conditions, and against all odds. Proving without doubt that you are the best in the world. There are no extra days off that could ever replace that feeling.
In 2015, the Supreme Court declared the existing absolute ban on physician-assisted death unconstitutional in the landmark case, Carter v. Canada. In this case, two women, both of whom suffered from degenerative diseases, argued that their inability to access physician-assisted death was grounds for discrimination because neither had the physical ability to commit suicide. Although the Liberal government’s recent Bill C-14, referred to as the Assisted Dying Bill, responds directly to this decision, it faces criticism for ignoring some of the basic conditions set by the Court in the Carter decision. Despite opposition from the Senate, the House of Commons has yet to concede (as it should) that Bill C-14 remains too restrictive.
Presently, C-14 only grants exemption from prosecution to physicians with terminally or irremediably ill patients expected to die from natural causes. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, ruled that any competent adult with intolerable pain and enduring suffering—with no restriction that he or she should already be dying—should have the right to access physician-assisted death. The bill thus excludes non-terminally ill persons, such as the physically disabled or paralyzed—many of whom feel that being expected to die anyway should not be the sole criterion for the service. As the Court ruled in the Carter decision, terminally ill patients are simply not the only patients who should be able to exercise self-determination. The government should therefore revise C-14 to accommodate this fact.
The process of assisted death is predicated on a desire and a willingness to end one’s own life. The fact that one will likely die anyway is sufficient, but not necessary, to motivate that desire.
On one hand, the bill’s condition of terminal illness represents a precautionary limit. If one is expected to die after a period of suffering, one is in little danger of changing his or her mind, especially given that the alternative is a quick and painless procedure. However, that is precisely the problem—it does not represent enough of a choice. The process of assisted death is predicated on a desire and a willingness to end one’s own life. The fact that one will likely die anyway is sufficient, but not necessary, to motivate that desire. Assisted dying is supposed to allow a patient to exercise his or her autonomy in the face of incredible suffering, but limiting the service to those who are going to die anyway does nothing to encourage that autonomy.
While some fear that allowing assisted death for non-terminally ill patients will lead down a ‘slippery slope’ of medical malpractice, widening Bill C-14’s eligibility criteria will have far less consequential results for a major reason: C-14 would still only provide patients the right to request death, but not a service of ‘death-on-demand.’ The Court ruled that physicians are capable of assessing patients’ ability to consent. Moreover, physicians can, importantly, refuse to perform the service out of principle. Whether physicians will at any point be mandated to comply with death requests was left unanswered by the Supreme Court; however, this should ultimately be left to the discretion of Canada’s medical institutions.
Bill C-14 reflects restraint in both the number of people it applies to and the controversy it hopes to avoid by limiting its own usage. Nevertheless, at the same time, the Carter ruling is currently the final word on assisted death: Any legislation set forth to entrench its conclusions should, at the very least, not take backward steps in a misguided attempt to play it safe. Given that the government has now decided to move forward with drafting a law on assisted dying, it must acknowledge the fact that terminal illness should not represent the sole condition in which one suffers enough to warrant a right to die.
Jin Lee is a U2 Philosophy student, and is an avid hockey fan. He enjoys camping, hiking, and being in the outdoors in general.
It's been pointed out many times that art imitates life, but sometimes the resemblance can be alarmingly uncanny. With the release of this summer’s highly anticipated Captain America: Civil War, Hollywood has given us yet another superhero movie that seems to perfectly capture the tone of the ongoing American presidential race.
It all started with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which hit theatres in late March. That month, the US presidential campaign hit unprecedented lows, with “Little” Marco Rubio, “Lyin'” Ted Cruz, and “the Drumpf” Donald Trump trading catty schoolyard insults that ultimately led the latter to defend the size of his very own “Trump Tower” during a prime-time debate. After a month of watching the American political process descend into a dismal cycle of name-calling, mudslinging, and even occasional violence, Batman v Superman was just as demoralizing to watch. The film consists of nearly two hours of moping about dead parents, crying, and drinking alone. The action culminates in the titular heroes finally meeting in a run-down district of Gotham City to pummel each other in the pouring rain. For audiences already disappointed from watching the American political process devolve into a catfight, the film's dreary tone should be all too familiar.
With the release of Captain America: Civil War, it seems increasingly likely that this year's superhero movies really are mimicking the tone of the unfolding presidential race. In Civil War, Hollywood has taken two iconic superheroes—in this case Captain America and Iron Man—and pitted them against each other in a no-win situation. The impossible choice between Team Cap and Team Iron Man is an appropriate metaphor for the tough choice many Americans are now coming to realize they might face in November: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. For some, the decision might be easy, but the two candidates pose quite a dilemma for others. Polls show that Trump and Clinton are by far the two most widely disliked presidential candidates since polling on the subject began—they are both even less popular than the losing candidates of the last 10 presidential elections. The dilemma represented onscreen, a difficult choice between two beloved heroes, echoes another kind of choice voters are already contemplating between two despised candidates.
The fact that the only people still laughing come August will be the kind who, as a previous Batman film warned us, “just want to watch the world burn” is deeply troubling.
Yes, the similarities between this year's blockbusters and the presidential race are probably just coincidences, but by dismissing the pattern as a fluke we would lose a valuable opportunity to make some predictions. If Batman v Superman and Civil War really are signs that Hollywood has been inadvertently predicting the twists and turns of the 2016 campaign so far, then maybe upcoming movies could hold important clues about the outcome of the election.
As a major superhero film premiering in early August, DC Comics' Suicide Squad could tell us something about the Republican National Convention scheduled for late July. The film tells the story of a group of Batman super-villains on a suicide mission for the US government. Recent trailers, featuring plenty of wisecracks from lead characters, suggest that Suicide Squad will have a lighter tone than Batman v Superman. However, in Suicide Squad's trailers, the only characters that seem to be enjoying themselves are the psychotic ones, like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn and her infamous boyfriend, The Joker (played this time by Jared Leto). The fact that the only people still laughing come August will be the kind who, as The Dark Knight warned us, “just want to watch the world burn” is deeply troubling. The preemptive insanity of Suicide Squad seems to have forecasted the Trump nomination.
Without another major superhero film premiering until after the Nov. 8 election, the best bet for a prediction here lies with the December release of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Star Wars films are, after all, essentially superhero movies in space. As the trailer shows, Rogue One features a female lead character, and brings back Rebel leader Mon Mothma (known in the original films as the only other woman in the galaxy besides Princess Leia). The strong female presence could hint at an upcoming Hillary Clinton presidency. But the underdog nature of the Rebel Alliance's fight against the tyrannical Galactic Empire also suggests that America might soon find itself under the tiny iron fist of a Darth Trump. Impossible to see, the future is.
While Hollywood maybe be doing its best to reflect the downward spiral that is the ongoing presidential race in film, it truly is impossible to know what the endgame is. After all, this year's presidential contest has certainly been stranger than fiction.
The short-lived yet vibrant summer season is typically accompanied by lifted spirits and a drastic increase in traffic to the city’s best eateries. Walking through the city, one can often see patrons spilling out in high volume onto the patioed sidewalks, roofs, and backyards. Although the prevalence of restaurant terraces may be a product of necessity to appease increased demand, terrace culture has emerged as a staple of Montreal. If you are one of the lucky few to experience Montreal beyond the 9-month winter that most McGill students endure, terraced restaurants are your best bet for taking in both the weather and the esteemed local food scene. The following is a run-down of the best terraces in the city to help you find the summer vibe you’re looking for.
A rookie on the Montreal coffee shop scene, Café Noble’s leisurely outdoor patio makes up for its otherwise tiny interior. Located across from the Laurier Metro Station in the Mile End, Café Noble is a bit of a jaunt from the heart of downtown, but it is the perfect spot to enjoy an iced coffee or two on a warm sunny day. Families, young people, and dogs pepper the exterior of Café Noble, which makes for a charming and lively outdoor space.
Café Santropol’s laptop-friendly window counter may satisfy the studious year round, but in the warm months its backyard terrace is the superior spot for hitting the books. In the very likely event that McLennan Library is an unappealing summer study destination, the trek up St. Urbain to this vegetarian-friendly oasis in the Plateau is a superior option. Santropol earns brownie points for its heated lamps that allow the outdoor space, which resembles a mix between a quirky co-op farm and the Pinterest backyard you’ve always wanted, to remain in use well into September.
For a casual yet lively night out with friends, Reservoir’s terrace offers a cozy backdrop to enjoy its house brewed ale and tasty small plates at reasonable prices for McGill students. Located on Avenue Duluth near St. Laurent, you can grab drinks at this spot at any time of day or night. The comfortable rooftop patio provides a great view for taking in the sights and sounds of the Plateau with the right amount of privacy to enjoy a night with friends.
Best Date Night Splurge: Salmigondis
(http://www.montrealbreakfastreview.com/)
The spacious patio of this upscale spot in Little Italy adds character to an otherwise classic romantic experience. The mod black and white furniture and assortment of potted plants around the periphery makes for a sleek yet playful rooftop terrace from which to enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of this underrated neighbourhood. Though its lavish menu of new Canadian dishes may be a bit of a strain on a student’s wallet, Salmigondi’s is a worthy splurge.
La Banquise’s legacy typically starts and ends with its poutines, which, as any Montrealer knows, range from timeless classics to frightening inventions. Although La Banquise’s food gets most of the attention—and rightly so—its terrace, tucked away in the back of the restaurant, provides a respite from the energy of the restaurant’s bustling interior. The eccentric yellow walls and flowering trees of this terrace make it one of the most charming in the city, and a perfect place to take even the most poutine-skeptical of out-of-town guests.
This expansive mainstay in the Gay Village boasts multiple floors to suit any preferred club atmosphere, including an open rooftop lounge. The outdoor space has a cosmopolitan yet lively vibe, boasting tiki bars, a pool, and amazing views of the city. With different music on each of this club’s three floors, there is plenty to do into the wee hours of the morning. If you’re looking for a terrace you won’t remember visiting the day after, Sky may be your best bet.
While the area west of campus is definitely less explored by McGill students than the Plateau, the bars, restaurants, and shops of Crescent Street regularly draw a big crowd in the summer. Winnie’s Bar & Restaurant tops a hefty list of terrace-friendly spots on Crescent, serving English pub-style burgers, sandwiches, and fish and chips. This streetside patio with casual wicker furniture offers a view from which to take in the energy of a bustling Rue Crescent.
For anyone partial to a slightly more upscale casual brunch, or clever Canadian history puns, Wilfrid sur Laurier is a great option. It boasts a lovely terrace on which one can enjoy the many offerings of its impressive menu. Comfortably located in the Mile End, this spot creates a quaint, inviting French vibe with a white-tented roof and blue brick wall that will enchant seasoned brunch lovers. Though this restaurant is a bit of a trek for most McGill students, the scenic views of one of Montreal’s trendiest neighborhoods makes the trip well worth it.
Although this Old Port gem typically attracts a tourist-heavy crowd, the live jazz music and homey terrace of Jardin Nelson set it apart. The classic backdrop of Old Montreal contrasts nicely with the heated garden patio at this eatery, which features grey brick walls, trees, and vibrant flower boxes. This spot serves up sublime crepes for brunch and an extensive selection of pizzas for dinner to enjoy while taking in the talent of local jazz acts.
While its charming upper-level roofed terrace provides a perfect reprieve from the cacophony of St. Laurent, the unique and dynamic menu of vegan options at Aux Vivres sets this restaurant apart from the multitude of nearby summer favourites. Featuring Indian cuisine, stir fry, and various vegan takes on traditionally non-vegan burgers and soul food, Aux Vivres is sure to appeal to adventurous foodies, regardless of dietary preference.
While it doesn’t technically have a terrace space, Dinette Triple Crown offers a refreshing take on outdoor eating that is definitely worth visiting during the summer. This Mile-Ex favourite sells picnic baskets—including an iconic red-and-white checkered table cloth—full of their signature comfort food offerings to-go. Giving customers the freedom to choose a nearby field, park, or other outdoor spot to enjoy their picnic, Dinette Triple Crown provides a create-your-own-terrace experience for a nostalgic summer meal with the summer school squad.
On Saturday, May 14, McGill hosted the 14th annual East-West Bowl, an all-star game and showcase featuring the season’s top football prospects from Canadian universities. Four McGill players entering their senior year played with and against rival CIS talent from around the league. Offensive lineman Qadr Spooner, defensive back Charles-William Tremblay, linebacker Eric Gracioppo, and receiver Jonathan Mack all trained and played in front of CFL scouts and coaches for the course of a week. This culminated in the East-West Bowl as Spooner, Tremblay, and Gracioppo lined up for the East team while Mack played for the West.
Redmen Head Coach Ronald Hilaire, who led the organization of the event, was pleased with the week’s proceedings.
“I’m very happy that we got to host it for the second year and I think we did a better job than we did the first year,” Hilaire said. “That was the plan going in—give these kids a great experience and the chance to play with some good CIS coaching and CFL coaching.”
The West ultimately prevailed 29-16 on the back of precise passing under pressure from Quarterback Asher Hastings of McMaster University, who led the CIS with 31 touchdowns in the 2015 season. He connected with wideout and offensive player of the game Tylor Henry, of the University of Alberta, for two touchdowns. In the third quarter, Hastings hit well-covered UBC wideout Alex Morrison on a 43-yard out-route with the ball on a string. It was a truly impressive showing from the quarterback and his receivers.
Despite Hasting’s success, The East managed to put a good amount of defensive pressure on the West’s QBs. The East, anchored by Gracioppo at middle linebacker and Tremblay in the backfield, engineered four sacks for a loss of 27 yards. Tremblay had a characteristically aggressive showing with 4.5 tackles and Gracioppo was key in pressuring the passer. For the West, Mack had a reception for 9 yards.
It was a good opportunity to play against great players and learn from a lot of great people, both CFL and from around the league.
The East had some success on offence with their Offensive-Player-of-the-ame—Montreal running-back Sean Thomas-Erlington—rushing for 93 yards. His nine carries came behind Spooner at left tackle, who had an intriguing on-going battle with the West’s defensive lineman, Kwaku Boateng of Wilfrid Laurier University.
The result of the game was inconsequential in comparison to the experience the players had during the week.
“Honestly, it’s a pleasure,” Spooner said. “It was a good opportunity to play against great players and learn from a lot of great people, both CFL and from around the league.”
Playing in front of scouts did not perturb the McGill players, who were able to take away valuable lessons from the week.
“It is really good to learn how to work under pressure, you are always being observed, and just keep your cool,” Gracioppo said. “We have been [playing Football], some of us for 15 years. The game hasn’t really changed, but we can always get better. So, we focused on being calm and playing your game.”
There was also strong competition between the players who came from various CIS programs.
“Honestly, it brings out the intensity,” Spooner said. “You want to push even harder [in the camp] and you get to learn from each other and push each other. And when you see each other in the season, it makes it a little more competitive.”
Hilaire was ultimately pleased with the proceedings of the day. It provided valuable experience to the four athletes going forward.
“For our players that participated, they got some good coaching and good confidence going into their fourth year,” Hilaire commented. “I think every player on [the McGill Redmen] team is a good leader—we preach a family environment—but obviously those four players have pretty special talents and we were happy that they were able to well-represent McGill.”
With this spring’s campaign for divestment behind us and more activism likely to come in the fall, a brief window for critical reflection on the movement is upon us. This past semester’s sit-ins and rallies, spearheaded by groups such as Divest McGill, have largely been respectful and positive displays of direct action. However, last month also saw some environmental protesters adopt a new, more negative strategy—one which will hopefully not be repeated in the fall.
On April 4, McGill students and faculty hosted Quebec’s former premier Jean Charest, invited to the university for a speech about restoring trust in Canada's public institutions. During Charest's presentation, a group of protesters, citing in part their anger over McGill's refusal to divest from fossil fuels, interrupted the former premier and forced him to abort his speech. In a video from the event, protesters are seen holding banners and chanting “Charest, trou de cul, espèce de corrompu,” (“Charest, you goddamn corrupt asshole.”) In addition to the protesters in the video, a group of McGill students who support divestment protested outside the event and claimed responsibility for having shut it down.
The disruption of Charest's speech should never have happened. As a way to protest the Board of Governors’ (BoGs’) decision on divestment, it was useless: Charest is in no way affiliated with the McGill administration. He couldn't change the Board's decision even if he wanted to. As a Université de Sherbrooke grad, Charest isn't even a McGill alumnus.
By silencing guest speakers with dissenting views, a handful of environmental activists are essentially dictating which opinions are welcome on campus and which are not.
The protesters also referenced other environmental issues, such as pipelines and tar sands, as reasons for the disruption. However, lobbying Charest for change on these issues is pointless. He's been retired from politics since 2012—it's far too late for him to do anything about it.
The protesters not only failed to realize that attacking Charest was a bad strategy, they also demonstrated that they were unaware of who the real victims of such a disruption would be: Members of the McGill community. Dozens of students and staff attended Charest's speech that afternoon because they wanted to hear the former premier's thoughts on an important issue. By disrupting the proceedings, these activists denied the attendees that opportunity.
As a university with a prestigious international reputation, McGill is fortunate to be able to attract successful public figures like Charest to share their thoughts with the student body. Publicized incidents like this one might discourage other public figures from speaking at McGill in the future, robbing all students of one of the most valuable resources that McGill's lofty status provides them.
Earlier this semester, McGill had the privilege of welcoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, to campus for a talk. Climate justice activists welcomed the visit because the Secretary-General supports divestment, yet the Charest incident suggests that if Ban's views on the issue had been different, his speech might have been shut down too. By silencing guest speakers with dissenting views, a handful of environmental activists are essentially dictating which opinions are welcome on campus and which are not.
Ironically, Charest's own views on divestment could have made a valuable contribution to the campus conversation on the issue. In 2015, Charest co-authored an article for the Globe and Mail in which he raised important issues related to divestment, such as ensuring fossil fuel companies remain leaders in renewable energy investments, and avoiding financial decisions that might force universities to make further budget cuts. If he had been asked about the issue, he could have presented his sensible and nuanced opposition to divestment in a way that would promote dialogue among students. Silencing Charest wasted that opportunity.
If the strategy of disrupting guest speakers becomes a common practice for some climate protesters, it risks undermining the otherwise positive and respectful activist efforts made by others on campus. Divest McGill's spring campaign was admirable in its civility and conviction, and should remain the example for students demonstrating in support of divestment. Going forward, environmental activists ought to keep in mind the mistake that was the Charest protest, and avoid ineffective, negative tactics that only end up hurting the student body.
David Watson is a U3 McGill student, majoring in political science and minoring in history. He is an opinion editor at the McGill Tribune.
Most McGill students know all too well that when the faintest signs of spring arise, there will always be a few students on campus who bust out their spring/summer clothes far too prematurely. Even though the first day of spring is technically March 20, this date is deceiving to McGillians, as snow has been known to grace the campus well into April while bringing sadness, annoyance, and frustration along with it.
Warm weather will come eventually, though, and when it does, a (further) lack of desire to study will likely affect many students. To combat this pain, one can turn to a well-tested and widely recommended mood alleviator: Retail therapy. Browsing and picking out a few spring items will make the awkward weather adjustment much smoother, and give students something to look forward to in light of the looming final exam season.
This spring, certain staple items such as the trench coat have been reimagined, and other completely new items like the sleeveless long vest are popping up at most popular retail stores. Suede is also trendy right now and is great for the spring weather, as it’s more substantial than cotton or silkier fabrics. These additions to stores’ Spring 2016 collections are pictured below.
Classics like striped shirts and light wash jeans are still prominent, and together make an easy outfit to assemble. In an economical sense, light wash jeans can’t be worn all season long, so splurging on them compared to dark wash denim might not make the most sense for everyone.
With some time and research, less expensive versions of spring staple items can be found that your future self will be thankful for. Below are some spring wardrobe suggestions that can be catered to different budgets.
[audiotrack title=”The Sport Authority Ep. 7: Looking back at Sam Hinkie and The Process” songwriter=”Zikomo Smith and Mayaz Alam” date=”April 12, 2016″ width=”700″ height=”200″ src=”https://24f2041bb5b609d25f1a97039f71682cc9154421.googledrive.com/host/0B9rQxTeDv2duM0FmSjBSYkZFS1k/all%20hail%20hinkie.mp3″ autoplay=”on”]
Sam Hinkie has resigned and The Process is over. After Hinkie’s resignation where do the Philadelphia 76ers go from here? Ziko Smith and Mayaz Alam are on the McGill Tribune Sports podcast to discuss what The Process meant to not only Hinkie’s career but also team building in the NBA. They also have a brief discussion about which team they’d like to be the general manager of for the next five to 10 years
On June 23, 2016, the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether their country should remain a member of the European Union (EU). The outcome of this referendum will be of enormous importance to Britain. Scotland has suggested that a vote to leave the EU could trigger a second independence referendum; however, despite the risks, it is in the interests of British democracy and of the EU itself for the UK to vote to leave.
At present, the EU is fundamentally undemocratic. The primary law-making body of the EU is not the elected European parliament, but the EU’s appointed executive body, the European Commission. The European parliament is largely ineffective. In contrast to legislatures in most democracies, while the parliament can vote for or against and amend legislation, its members are not permitted to propose legislation. This inevitably creates a democratic deficit. The entire parliamentary agenda is determined by a cozy coterie of bureaucrats who are not elected by the citizens of EU member states. The commission has extensive jurisdiction in making law over areas ranging from employment regulation to immigration. One recent study estimated that over 60 per cent of all new laws in the UK resulted from European Commission directives.
EU institutions are also a poor mechanism to implement the policy preferences of the British people. Under Britain’s Westminster parliamentary system, no sitting parliament has the capacity to bind a future one. Thus, if a government enacted legislation that most of the electorate opposed, there was a simple mechanism to enact change: Vote in a new government. Tragically, no such mechanism exists at the European level. With the European parliament unable to propose repeal of legislation, European directives put forward by the commission tend to become entrenched. Additionally, given the breadth of EU membership, it is close to impossible to design legislation that adheres to the policy preferences of the varying electorates across such a diverse array of nations. In essence, by their very design, EU institutions have neutered nation state democracy and stripped the British people of agency in controlling their own destiny.
Though it may seem initially paradoxical, a British departure from the EU could be in the interests of other member states. Since 2010 the Euro has had enduring troubles. The unsustainable debt levels in many peripheral nations such as Greece have put the future viability of the single currency in doubt. To ensure that the Euro remains viable, nations that use the currency would have to undergo much further extensive economic integration where richer EU nations would transfer funds to peripheral nations; however, Britain has opposed burdening its taxpayers with such a scheme for over a decade. By leaving, Britain would no longer be an obstacle to the necessary economic and political changes needed to shore up the single currency. A British departure, by allowing for greater pooling of sovereignty and economic integration among the remaining member states, could actually strengthen both the Euro and the pound.
By leaving the EU, Britain would take a step into the unknown. The future will be fraught with uncertainty; however, by leaving, the British people will be able to retake control of their destiny as a proud, self-governing nation. Policy and politicians would be more accountable to the electorate if the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy is restored.
Despite the risks, the opportunity that leaving the EU offers is worth pursuing. It is in the interests of the British people that they take a leap into the unknown and bravely forge a new, independent future.
[audiotrack title=”The Sport Authority Ep. 6: Evaluating the Barclays Premier League” songwriter=”Zikomo Smith and Simon Thara” date=”April 6, 2016″ width=”700″ height=”200″ src=”https://24f2041bb5b609d25f1a97039f71682cc9154421.googledrive.com/host/0B9rQxTeDv2duM0FmSjBSYkZFS1k/Tribune%20prem%20podcast%20%282%29.mp3″ autoplay=”on”]
The Barclays Premier League is winding down, and upstarts Leicester are firmly at the top of the league. Is their 2015-16 success story instructive for other teams across the Premier League. Also what impact will Pep Guardiola have when he arrives in England next season? How will he handle the packed schedules, injuries, and tough mid-table sides? Ziko Smith and Simon Thara are on the McGill Tribune Sports podcast to discuss the state of the Premier League, tell some jokes, and meditate on Arsenal and Tottenham.
