|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 28 2016 11:40 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 08:47 KwarK wrote:On February 20 2016 20:34 Sent. wrote:
That UK-EU deal looks fine but I hope it won't start a "I wanna be a special snowflake too!" trend in Europe. It could be more dangerous than Brexit. There was always a disagreement over the goals of the EU. It started as a way to try and stop Germany from attempting to take over the world every two decades. Then became a free trade area (which some Federalists viewed as a stepping stone and others viewed as the final form). There is now a conflict between the Federalist political project and those who were mostly interested in multinational cooperation in some areas (police, environmental issues that cross borders and so forth) and those who desire a United States of Europe. The British stance is not "we want special treatment". It's "we never signed up for the United States of Europe, we're happy to cooperate when cooperation is needed but we're not giving up sovereignty". If other nations want to collectively go further towards unification they can but the UK will not be a passenger in that car. Those nations need to get their own vehicle to do it in because there are passengers in the EU who aren't going there. And if they insist on wresting control of the wheel and steering to a United States of Europe then the UK will be forced to get out, not because we don't want to cooperate but because the vehicle has been hijacked. It's a debate as old as the European project. Everyone agrees that we should have something to stop Germany taking over the world. Most people agree that interEuropean cooperation in many areas is logical (fish stocks don't care about national borders so agreeing on fishing policies makes sense for example). Some people want a United States of Europe. Nobody is necessarily wrong or bad, it's a disagreement. Furthermore the aggressive EU expansion has done little to assuage the concerns of the British. Economic unification with Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries seems rational. These are countries with a history like our own and an economy that will not dislocate our own with large scale economic migration or disruption. It's important to remember that Greece should never have been allowed in the EU or in the single currency, Greece never complied with the rules set but was grandfathered in by federalists who were far more concerned with the broader project of the EU than the specifics. The EU in its current form is not the EU that the UK signed up for. A two tier system seems reasonable. Those countries interested in a closer union can pursue that on their own without dragging the unwilling into it, exactly as they did with the Euro. Way to rewrite history there. The EU has always been a multi-teared system where countries could opt-out / opt-in if they wanted. So the EU in its current form is literally what the UK signed up for! There has been very little movement towards any 'federalization'. (And even if it had, it is clear as day that the UK was never part of it, because it had opted-out.) Also, it was the UK that pushed aggressively for EU expansion! They wanted a counterweight to Germany and France by giving smaller countries more seats at the table. Not the EU's fault, if they came to regret that decision now (for little objective reasons btw.).
IMO the ability for countries to opt in our opt out of certain EU provisions is a good thing. Just from the US experience, one of the largest problems is that there is no way for States to tune the amount of involvement from the central government. Thus, we have a compromise that only 3 to 5 States actually like, and the things that the rest disagree about aren't the collective action questions that are core to the Federal purpose.
|
On February 28 2016 11:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 11:40 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 28 2016 08:47 KwarK wrote:On February 20 2016 20:34 Sent. wrote:
That UK-EU deal looks fine but I hope it won't start a "I wanna be a special snowflake too!" trend in Europe. It could be more dangerous than Brexit. There was always a disagreement over the goals of the EU. It started as a way to try and stop Germany from attempting to take over the world every two decades. Then became a free trade area (which some Federalists viewed as a stepping stone and others viewed as the final form). There is now a conflict between the Federalist political project and those who were mostly interested in multinational cooperation in some areas (police, environmental issues that cross borders and so forth) and those who desire a United States of Europe. The British stance is not "we want special treatment". It's "we never signed up for the United States of Europe, we're happy to cooperate when cooperation is needed but we're not giving up sovereignty". If other nations want to collectively go further towards unification they can but the UK will not be a passenger in that car. Those nations need to get their own vehicle to do it in because there are passengers in the EU who aren't going there. And if they insist on wresting control of the wheel and steering to a United States of Europe then the UK will be forced to get out, not because we don't want to cooperate but because the vehicle has been hijacked. It's a debate as old as the European project. Everyone agrees that we should have something to stop Germany taking over the world. Most people agree that interEuropean cooperation in many areas is logical (fish stocks don't care about national borders so agreeing on fishing policies makes sense for example). Some people want a United States of Europe. Nobody is necessarily wrong or bad, it's a disagreement. Furthermore the aggressive EU expansion has done little to assuage the concerns of the British. Economic unification with Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries seems rational. These are countries with a history like our own and an economy that will not dislocate our own with large scale economic migration or disruption. It's important to remember that Greece should never have been allowed in the EU or in the single currency, Greece never complied with the rules set but was grandfathered in by federalists who were far more concerned with the broader project of the EU than the specifics. The EU in its current form is not the EU that the UK signed up for. A two tier system seems reasonable. Those countries interested in a closer union can pursue that on their own without dragging the unwilling into it, exactly as they did with the Euro. Way to rewrite history there. The EU has always been a multi-teared system where countries could opt-out / opt-in if they wanted. So the EU in its current form is literally what the UK signed up for! There has been very little movement towards any 'federalization'. (And even if it had, it is clear as day that the UK was never part of it, because it had opted-out.) Also, it was the UK that pushed aggressively for EU expansion! They wanted a counterweight to Germany and France by giving smaller countries more seats at the table. Not the EU's fault, if they came to regret that decision now (for little objective reasons btw.). IMO the ability for countries to opt in our opt out of certain EU provisions is a good thing. Just from the US experience, one of the largest problems is that there is no way for States to tune the amount of involvement from the central government. Thus, we have a compromise that only 3 to 5 States actually like, and the things that the rest disagree about aren't the collective action questions that are core to the Federal purpose.
The EU isn't like the US, there's no real way to enforce anything so the only thing that keeps the EU together is people sticking to the plans without everybody demanding this or that. This behavior is really not good. The EU actually had agreed on distributing 160k refugees and even that isn't happening for some reason although it went already through the bureaucratic process. The European institutions are close to dysfunctional and the last thing we need is more extra treatment.
|
On February 28 2016 11:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 11:51 cLutZ wrote:On February 28 2016 11:40 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 28 2016 08:47 KwarK wrote:On February 20 2016 20:34 Sent. wrote:
That UK-EU deal looks fine but I hope it won't start a "I wanna be a special snowflake too!" trend in Europe. It could be more dangerous than Brexit. There was always a disagreement over the goals of the EU. It started as a way to try and stop Germany from attempting to take over the world every two decades. Then became a free trade area (which some Federalists viewed as a stepping stone and others viewed as the final form). There is now a conflict between the Federalist political project and those who were mostly interested in multinational cooperation in some areas (police, environmental issues that cross borders and so forth) and those who desire a United States of Europe. The British stance is not "we want special treatment". It's "we never signed up for the United States of Europe, we're happy to cooperate when cooperation is needed but we're not giving up sovereignty". If other nations want to collectively go further towards unification they can but the UK will not be a passenger in that car. Those nations need to get their own vehicle to do it in because there are passengers in the EU who aren't going there. And if they insist on wresting control of the wheel and steering to a United States of Europe then the UK will be forced to get out, not because we don't want to cooperate but because the vehicle has been hijacked. It's a debate as old as the European project. Everyone agrees that we should have something to stop Germany taking over the world. Most people agree that interEuropean cooperation in many areas is logical (fish stocks don't care about national borders so agreeing on fishing policies makes sense for example). Some people want a United States of Europe. Nobody is necessarily wrong or bad, it's a disagreement. Furthermore the aggressive EU expansion has done little to assuage the concerns of the British. Economic unification with Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries seems rational. These are countries with a history like our own and an economy that will not dislocate our own with large scale economic migration or disruption. It's important to remember that Greece should never have been allowed in the EU or in the single currency, Greece never complied with the rules set but was grandfathered in by federalists who were far more concerned with the broader project of the EU than the specifics. The EU in its current form is not the EU that the UK signed up for. A two tier system seems reasonable. Those countries interested in a closer union can pursue that on their own without dragging the unwilling into it, exactly as they did with the Euro. Way to rewrite history there. The EU has always been a multi-teared system where countries could opt-out / opt-in if they wanted. So the EU in its current form is literally what the UK signed up for! There has been very little movement towards any 'federalization'. (And even if it had, it is clear as day that the UK was never part of it, because it had opted-out.) Also, it was the UK that pushed aggressively for EU expansion! They wanted a counterweight to Germany and France by giving smaller countries more seats at the table. Not the EU's fault, if they came to regret that decision now (for little objective reasons btw.). IMO the ability for countries to opt in our opt out of certain EU provisions is a good thing. Just from the US experience, one of the largest problems is that there is no way for States to tune the amount of involvement from the central government. Thus, we have a compromise that only 3 to 5 States actually like, and the things that the rest disagree about aren't the collective action questions that are core to the Federal purpose. The EU isn't like the US, there's no real way to enforce anything so the only thing that keeps the EU together is people sticking to the plans without everybody demanding this or that. This behavior is really not good. The EU actually had agreed on distributing 160k refugees and even that isn't happening for some reason although it went already through the bureaucratic process. The European institutions are close to dysfunctional and the last thing we need is more extra treatment.
See, I'd go the other way. EU institutions are dysfunctional because they have no accountability, and don't even reflect the wishes of the populace as a whole (let alone each individual state). The refugee situation and the Greek bailout are two instances that quickly come to mind. The reason they were executed so poorly is because only the EU beaurocrats thought they should have been (or could) be executed in that way.
Even as an American, where I don't understand the individual racist or isolationist factions in each place I would have told you that you only distribute the refugees to places that already have large immigrant populations (preferably those populations being richer and less criminal than the average person of that country). Or with Greece, I never understood why the EU officials thought Germans and Dutch would be happy sacrificing thier pensions to support a managed decline of Greece, instead of a collapse-and-reset. Thier rationale appeared to be "people want us to keep exercising control over the Greeks, because they love EU beaurocrats!"
|
On February 28 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 09:50 Hryul wrote:On February 28 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It's just hilarious how people distrust the "mainstream media" and then procede to post a blog with a literal nazi slogan in the URL lol. We are truly living in the misinformation age. http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/14626/3262329here's the same news from a "serious" news platform. but i guess it's easier to get het up about the news portal instead of googling the information yourself. I didn't doubt that the event took place, the general tactic isn't to tell straight out lies, it's to bundle small highly emotional stories together to provoke an emotional response. Just look at the 'newsfeed' on that blog. Sexual assault is a good example because 82% of victims know the perpetrator, 'stranger danger' has never been a thing. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
yeah because a statistic before the refugee crisis from the US fits perfectly to what happened.
Stranger Danger is such a problem for this special mall that they had to increase security twice. State police is deploying some of their reserve.
But I guess for you we have to wait until it shows up in the statistics to be true.
|
|
|
On February 28 2016 11:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 11:40 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 28 2016 08:47 KwarK wrote:On February 20 2016 20:34 Sent. wrote:
That UK-EU deal looks fine but I hope it won't start a "I wanna be a special snowflake too!" trend in Europe. It could be more dangerous than Brexit. There was always a disagreement over the goals of the EU. It started as a way to try and stop Germany from attempting to take over the world every two decades. Then became a free trade area (which some Federalists viewed as a stepping stone and others viewed as the final form). There is now a conflict between the Federalist political project and those who were mostly interested in multinational cooperation in some areas (police, environmental issues that cross borders and so forth) and those who desire a United States of Europe. The British stance is not "we want special treatment". It's "we never signed up for the United States of Europe, we're happy to cooperate when cooperation is needed but we're not giving up sovereignty". If other nations want to collectively go further towards unification they can but the UK will not be a passenger in that car. Those nations need to get their own vehicle to do it in because there are passengers in the EU who aren't going there. And if they insist on wresting control of the wheel and steering to a United States of Europe then the UK will be forced to get out, not because we don't want to cooperate but because the vehicle has been hijacked. It's a debate as old as the European project. Everyone agrees that we should have something to stop Germany taking over the world. Most people agree that interEuropean cooperation in many areas is logical (fish stocks don't care about national borders so agreeing on fishing policies makes sense for example). Some people want a United States of Europe. Nobody is necessarily wrong or bad, it's a disagreement. Furthermore the aggressive EU expansion has done little to assuage the concerns of the British. Economic unification with Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries seems rational. These are countries with a history like our own and an economy that will not dislocate our own with large scale economic migration or disruption. It's important to remember that Greece should never have been allowed in the EU or in the single currency, Greece never complied with the rules set but was grandfathered in by federalists who were far more concerned with the broader project of the EU than the specifics. The EU in its current form is not the EU that the UK signed up for. A two tier system seems reasonable. Those countries interested in a closer union can pursue that on their own without dragging the unwilling into it, exactly as they did with the Euro. Way to rewrite history there. The EU has always been a multi-teared system where countries could opt-out / opt-in if they wanted. So the EU in its current form is literally what the UK signed up for! There has been very little movement towards any 'federalization'. (And even if it had, it is clear as day that the UK was never part of it, because it had opted-out.) Also, it was the UK that pushed aggressively for EU expansion! They wanted a counterweight to Germany and France by giving smaller countries more seats at the table. Not the EU's fault, if they came to regret that decision now (for little objective reasons btw.). IMO the ability for countries to opt in our opt out of certain EU provisions is a good thing. Just from the US experience, one of the largest problems is that there is no way for States to tune the amount of involvement from the central government. Thus, we have a compromise that only 3 to 5 States actually like, and the things that the rest disagree about aren't the collective action questions that are core to the Federal purpose.
Well we already witnessed what happened when some US states wanted to opt-out. That keeps the other in line.
|
On February 28 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It's just hilarious how people distrust the "mainstream media" and then procede to post a blog with a literal nazi slogan in the URL lol. We are truly living in the misinformation age.
Again, I assume you might be able to google it yourself. Yes the source might be idiotic, but take a different one then. Choose one in my last post, if you can´t google one yourself. And these are german sources, you you will be able to read them if you try.
Edit:
On February 28 2016 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 05:14 xM(Z wrote:
@Nyxisto - well pat yourself on the back 'cause you made them go there. I force people to read fascist blogs? It's not at all my responsibility that people voluntarily go to weird echo chambers to get their opinion reaffirmed. We all receive at least secondary education on this continent , which should be enough to at least roughly figure out what a reliable source of information is and what isn't. It's not about being informed anyway. People consciously go to these social media platforms to rile themselves up.
Really? So I go there deliberately? I was jsut there because I wanted to provide an english source. I clicked there, read the article if all the necessary infos were included, then left the site never to return.
But sure call me facist. Me who is one of the last people in this thread who thinks you have a point. Talking about burning bridges.
|
On February 28 2016 06:00 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:On February 28 2016 05:14 xM(Z wrote:
@Nyxisto - well pat yourself on the back 'cause you made them go there. I force people to read fascist blogs? It's not at all my responsibility that people voluntarily go to weird echo chambers to get their opinion reaffirmed. We all receive at least secondary education on this continent , which should be enough to at least roughly figure out what a reliable source of information is and what isn't. It's not about being informed anyway. People consciously go to these social media platforms to rile themselves up. nope, he didn't do it voluntarily; it is you who gave him no choice. it is you who told him it's your way or the highway and there he went. you don't educate nor ban fear out of people you, you ... liberal.
Please of all people, I don´t want to be defended by you 
I can do that pretty much by myself.
|
relax, you were just collateral damage; nothing personal.
|
|
|
On February 28 2016 04:23 Jockmcplop wrote:When you try and discuss the issue of EU immigration in the UK
The thing is, we all know what immigration we're talking about here.
In France after WW2 we had a lot of immigration from all Europe, Italy, Spain, Hungary...30 years later those immigrants are as french as any french person.
Since 1970 we have a lot of immigration from the Maghreb (Tunisia/Morocco/Algeria). 40 years later this population has 3 times the average unemployment, 10 times the crime rate of the local population (Dutch statistics)...and I'm not even talking about communautarism or religious problems. So when people say they don't want immigration, somehow I doubt they don't want immigration from inside EU, they don't want it from outside EU, simply because they can see what happens with this immigration.
That's also why Merkel welcome policy is such a scandal. 60% of the 1.2M "refugees" are not refugees at all (source is EU's Frontex itself, as official of a source as you can get), most come from Maghreb or other African countries and are economic illegals. I mean, those people are fleeing persecution, and yet they persecute women, christian or gays minorities in the very refugees centers they live in (German papers are full of stories like that, french papers too in Calais' jungle).
Nothing in this make sense.
|
On February 28 2016 19:02 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On February 28 2016 09:50 Hryul wrote:On February 28 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It's just hilarious how people distrust the "mainstream media" and then procede to post a blog with a literal nazi slogan in the URL lol. We are truly living in the misinformation age. http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/14626/3262329here's the same news from a "serious" news platform. but i guess it's easier to get het up about the news portal instead of googling the information yourself. I didn't doubt that the event took place, the general tactic isn't to tell straight out lies, it's to bundle small highly emotional stories together to provoke an emotional response. Just look at the 'newsfeed' on that blog. Sexual assault is a good example because 82% of victims know the perpetrator, 'stranger danger' has never been a thing. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders yeah because a statistic before the refugee crisis from the US fits perfectly to what happened. Stranger Danger is such a problem for this special mall that they had to increase security twice. State police is deploying some of their reserve. But I guess for you we have to wait until it shows up in the statistics to be true.
Yes, that would be fairly reasonable. The nature of sexual assault crimes won't suddenly change, refugees didn't invent it. You were always and will always be more likely to be killed or hurt by your spouse or a person close to you than by somebody else. 'Stranger danger' was a political tool of the 60's justice system to marginalize minorities, nothing else.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/02/06/the-danger-of-stranger-danger/
|
|
|
On February 29 2016 01:51 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 04:23 Jockmcplop wrote:When you try and discuss the issue of EU immigration in the UK The thing is, we all know what immigration we're talking about here. In France after WW2 we had a lot of immigration from all Europe, Italy, Spain, Hungary...30 years later those immigrants are as french as any french person. Since 1970 we have a lot of immigration from the Maghreb (Tunisia/Morocco/Algeria). 40 years later this population has 3 times the average unemployment, 10 times the crime rate of the local population (Dutch statistics)...and I'm not even talking about communautarism or religious problems. So when people say they don't want immigration, somehow I doubt they don't want immigration from inside EU, they don't want it from outside EU, simply because they can see what happens with this immigration. That's also why Merkel welcome policy is such a scandal. 60% of the 1.2M "refugees" are not refugees at all (source is EU's Frontex itself, as official of a source as you can get), most come from Maghreb or other African countries and are economic illegals. I mean, those people are fleeing persecution, and yet they persecute women, christian or gays minorities in the very refugees centers they live in (German papers are full of stories like that, french papers too in Calais' jungle). Nothing in this make sense.
No you are totally wrong and just changing the subject.
You may not be aware but there is soon going to be a referendum in the UK on EU membership. One of the major reasons for this is the free movement of citizens from within the EU, which political groups like UKIP have been using as a scapegoat for basically every problem in the UK over the last 5 years.
That's why this poll is relevant. Basically a sizeable group of the people wanting to leave the EU believe that because they are British they deserve better worldwide treatment than all other people.
|
On February 29 2016 01:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 19:02 Hryul wrote:On February 28 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On February 28 2016 09:50 Hryul wrote:On February 28 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It's just hilarious how people distrust the "mainstream media" and then procede to post a blog with a literal nazi slogan in the URL lol. We are truly living in the misinformation age. http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/14626/3262329here's the same news from a "serious" news platform. but i guess it's easier to get het up about the news portal instead of googling the information yourself. I didn't doubt that the event took place, the general tactic isn't to tell straight out lies, it's to bundle small highly emotional stories together to provoke an emotional response. Just look at the 'newsfeed' on that blog. Sexual assault is a good example because 82% of victims know the perpetrator, 'stranger danger' has never been a thing. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders yeah because a statistic before the refugee crisis from the US fits perfectly to what happened. Stranger Danger is such a problem for this special mall that they had to increase security twice. State police is deploying some of their reserve. But I guess for you we have to wait until it shows up in the statistics to be true. Yes, that would be fairly reasonable. The nature of sexual assault crimes won't suddenly change, refugees didn't invent it. You were always and will always be more likely to be killed or hurt by your spouse or a person close to you than by somebody else. 'Stranger danger' was a political tool of the 60's justice system to marginalize minorities, nothing else. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/02/06/the-danger-of-stranger-danger/
What you are arguing misses the point by a mile. Your statistics are per definition data from the past. but the influx of a million asylum seekers will be changing this data.
So great, in the past in the US it was highly unlikely to be sexually assaulted from total strangers. In the Germany of today it has become quite likely if you are in the "wrong" kind of places. like shopping malls with free wifi.
|
quite likely? What does that mean? How high is my chance to be sexually assaulted in a shopping mall and what is the significance of the wi-fi ? Also yes my statistics come from the past. I know that it is very lacklustre that I cannot report from the future for you but I will get on this issue immediately.
You're simply missing the narrative. The whole sexual assault thing is just a play on the old trope of foreign savages stealing our women and strangers jumping out of the bushes and so on. The idea is as old as human civilization and it still hasn't become more true.
|
So Switzerland voted today and for once we don't look like right wing rednecks  :
The topics:
Durchsetzungsinitiative - Would make the, succesfull, "Auschaffungsinitiative" even harsher and basically implement an automatic 2 strike rule even on minor crimes. You break into a Garden and steal a Bike - thats 2 Crimes? You now have to leave Switzerland, no matter if you've grown up here or not, if your not a citizen you would have to ne deported.
Even traffic violations and stuff like this would have been taken into account for 10 years...
Luckily this got smashed with 59% no.
"Second Gotthard CAR-Tunnel"
Well, the one we got has to go under maintenance sooner or later and this was/is the obvious solution to not basically cut off a canton for the duration. Yet left/green parties naturally ran amok against it.
57% Yes, so drill baby drill .
"Against the marriage tax-penalty"
Married couples tend to get taxed higher on country level due to the progressive tax model (cantons/communes generally removed this allready) but the initiators made a gaff/error/dirty trick/whatever and this would also write marriage to be between Man and Woman into the constitution.
50.5% No.
"Against trading/speculating with food"
Would have basically ended food speculation. Well, everyone knew this wouldn't get thru but it actually got not smashed THAT hard (i voted yes, exactly for that reason) but it actually won 2 cantons, which is kinda surprising.
60% No.
Voter participation was 62%, which is very high for Switzerland.
|
On February 29 2016 02:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:51 MrCon wrote:On February 28 2016 04:23 Jockmcplop wrote:When you try and discuss the issue of EU immigration in the UK The thing is, we all know what immigration we're talking about here. In France after WW2 we had a lot of immigration from all Europe, Italy, Spain, Hungary...30 years later those immigrants are as french as any french person. Since 1970 we have a lot of immigration from the Maghreb (Tunisia/Morocco/Algeria). 40 years later this population has 3 times the average unemployment, 10 times the crime rate of the local population (Dutch statistics)...and I'm not even talking about communautarism or religious problems. So when people say they don't want immigration, somehow I doubt they don't want immigration from inside EU, they don't want it from outside EU, simply because they can see what happens with this immigration. That's also why Merkel welcome policy is such a scandal. 60% of the 1.2M "refugees" are not refugees at all (source is EU's Frontex itself, as official of a source as you can get), most come from Maghreb or other African countries and are economic illegals. I mean, those people are fleeing persecution, and yet they persecute women, christian or gays minorities in the very refugees centers they live in (German papers are full of stories like that, french papers too in Calais' jungle). Nothing in this make sense. No you are totally wrong and just changing the subject. You may not be aware but there is soon going to be a referendum in the UK on EU membership. One of the major reasons for this is the free movement of citizens from within the EU, which political groups like UKIP have been using as a scapegoat for basically every problem in the UK over the last 5 years. That's why this poll is relevant. Basically a sizeable group of the people wanting to leave the EU believe that because they are British they deserve better worldwide treatment than all other people.
No I understand this really well actually. I'm sure this poll would have the same result in any other UE country.
Freedom of movement within EU wouldn't be a problem if EU borders were safe. They're not, so anyone who enters EU has right of free movement, which in light of the refugee crisis is a big problem, as in 2 to 4 years, every refugees will obtain the right of free movement.
The man who was shot assaulting a french police station was a refugee using his right of free movement. He had deposited asylum demands in nearly every single EU country, under different names, and had multiple passports and identities, and multiple social benefits from multiple countries. This explains well why EU citizens want to have free movement, but they don't want others to have free movement. This is a paradox yes, but it's easily understandable. It's too easy to abuse and UK wants out because the system isn't working as intended. Schengen is dead already, each country now enforces its own borders. Basically the system is working worse than when every single country was doing its own thing.
|
On February 29 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
quite likely? What does that mean? How high is my chance to be sexually assaulted in a shopping mall and what is the significance of the wi-fi ? Also yes my statistics come from the past. I know that it is very lacklustre that I cannot report from the future for you but I will get on this issue immediately.
You're simply missing the narrative. The whole sexual assault thing is just a play on the old trope of foreign savages stealing our women and strangers jumping out of the bushes and so on. The idea is as old as human civilization and it still hasn't become more true.
Actually, 82% is surprisingly low fit that statistic. I'd say you spend a much higher % of your time, when you are vulnerable to sexual assault, with people you know.
The stat isn't very good at saying want it to say.
|
On February 29 2016 04:00 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 29 2016 01:51 MrCon wrote:On February 28 2016 04:23 Jockmcplop wrote:When you try and discuss the issue of EU immigration in the UK The thing is, we all know what immigration we're talking about here. In France after WW2 we had a lot of immigration from all Europe, Italy, Spain, Hungary...30 years later those immigrants are as french as any french person. Since 1970 we have a lot of immigration from the Maghreb (Tunisia/Morocco/Algeria). 40 years later this population has 3 times the average unemployment, 10 times the crime rate of the local population (Dutch statistics)...and I'm not even talking about communautarism or religious problems. So when people say they don't want immigration, somehow I doubt they don't want immigration from inside EU, they don't want it from outside EU, simply because they can see what happens with this immigration. That's also why Merkel welcome policy is such a scandal. 60% of the 1.2M "refugees" are not refugees at all (source is EU's Frontex itself, as official of a source as you can get), most come from Maghreb or other African countries and are economic illegals. I mean, those people are fleeing persecution, and yet they persecute women, christian or gays minorities in the very refugees centers they live in (German papers are full of stories like that, french papers too in Calais' jungle). Nothing in this make sense. No you are totally wrong and just changing the subject. You may not be aware but there is soon going to be a referendum in the UK on EU membership. One of the major reasons for this is the free movement of citizens from within the EU, which political groups like UKIP have been using as a scapegoat for basically every problem in the UK over the last 5 years. That's why this poll is relevant. Basically a sizeable group of the people wanting to leave the EU believe that because they are British they deserve better worldwide treatment than all other people. No I understand this really well actually. I'm sure this poll would have the same result in any other UE country. Freedom of movement within EU wouldn't be a problem if EU borders were safe. They're not, so anyone who enters EU has right of free movement, which in light of the refugee crisis is a big problem, as in 2 to 4 years, every refugees will obtain the right of free movement. The man who was shot assaulting a french police station was a refugee using his right of free movement. He had deposited asylum demands in nearly every single EU country, under different names, and had multiple passports and identities, and multiple social benefits from multiple countries. This explains well why EU citizens want to have free movement, but they don't want others to have free movement. This is a paradox yes, but it's easily understandable. It's too easy to abuse and UK wants out because the system isn't working as intended. Schengen is dead already, each country now enforces its own borders. Basically the system is working worse than when every single country was doing its own thing.
What you're saying makes perfect sense, but its an opinion created by living in France. For a start, this poll was taken before there was a refugee crisis. Secondly, a huge part of the rise of UKIP and massively popular anti EU sentiment in the UK was the scapegoating of Eastern Europeans, of which there are a huge amount living in the UK. These opinions were extremely fashionable a couple of years ago, particularly when Farage was going around claiming that we were going to be inundated with tens of millions of Hungarians due to EU legislation. It has nothing to do with security, as terror attacks are very rare over here.
To be clear, the idea of EU borders being unsafe from external threats is much more of an issue in France and mainland countries than it is for the UK, separated as we are by some water.
Of course we still get many illegal immigrants, but popular opinion here is formed by reactionary parties like UKIP and their brothers at the Daily Mail.
Again i'm not disagreeing with what you're trying to say, but the UK doesn't work exactly the same as other countries when it comes to security. We are naturally in a more secure position, the anti-EU group over here doesn't need common sense arguments like this, they prefer to rely on fear, and weirdly fear of refugees doesn't seem to be a huge issue for us.
So it might be very true that the poll would have similar results elsewhere, but i would suggest it would be for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10942626_931669540206293_761861815465084860_n.png?oh=ac8e8e65ed5709248adea05cbf96a604&oe=576EB34F)
