Slashdot Mirror
In the Aftermath Of Brexit, Brits Google About Irish Passport, Meaning Of EU, and Why it All Happened
As the world makes peace with the news that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, people in the UK are increasingly trying to figure out what this means. Google noted on Twitter late Thursday that "What is the EU?" was the second top UK question on the EU since the news broke, with "Why did Britain leave the EU?" being the first. The questions also speak volume about the awareness of the issue among them. Understandably, some people also resorted to the search engine to look for Irish passports. "Getting an Irish passport" keywords saw a 100% surge.
Since Britain left Europe... does that mean it's a continent now?
Scotland seems to want to stay in the EU:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling...
Will the Kingdoms become Ununited, as Jasper Fforde shows:
http://www.jasperfforde.com/dr...
Voters rightfully want to control their country's own destiny without having to cater to some international rule-making body a thousand miles away. I feel the same about the World Trade Organization. Why are THEY making decisions for Americans?
True, voters are not always rational (Iraq cough), but people naturally want control and would rather make their own mistakes than let some world body far away make them instead.
Table-ized A.I.
Maybe those in power really do know what they're doing.
Are you sure that's not an euphemism for for something immoral and/or illegal?
#DeleteChrome
I've found this BBC coverage to be very helpful
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887
What happens now?
For the UK to leave the EU it has to invoke an agreement called Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Cameron or his successor needs to decide when to invoke this - that will then set in motion the formal legal process of withdrawing from the EU, and give the UK two years to negotiate its withdrawal.
The article has only been in force since late 2009 and it hasn't been tested yet, so no-one really knows how the Brexit process will work, according to BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman.
Mr Cameron, who has said he would be stepping down as PM by October, said he will go to the European Council next week to "explain the decision the British people have taken".
EU law still stands in the UK until it ceases being a member - and that process could take some time.
The UK will continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiates a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc.
I remember someone talking about wanting to migrate to the US and they had a dual Irish and UK citizenship and I was like, "Wow...you gain no real advantage with those two what-so-ever."
Well....now that person does! :-P
There are a ton-o-british people living in the EU that will soon need to apply for immigration where they did
I'm sure after the Super Bowl there are plenty of people googling "Super Bowl". It doesn't mean they know nothing about football.
Not everyone who could vote did vote. Maybe those who abstained are finally checking what all the fuss was about.
Yes and the rest is Quebec.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
They're not searching for "what is the super bowl". Wait, did I have to explain that?
All the British want is control of their borders. They are a nation after all.
Judging by the stats it's not the "average people" but scared old people who cares nothing of the younger generation.
They do care about the younger generation. Older and wiser.
Do you go to McDonald's to not have a burger?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Turnout was almost 73% of eligible voters. That's a very large number.
Up with Boris Johnson! Up with Nigel Farage!
sed s/with/yours
Sorry, just having a bit of fun...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Aside from all the nonsense this election cycle, the sentiment in the world is the same among working-class people in the west - that the political elites have abandoned them. They are angry about immigration depressing wages, and they are angry about globalism wiping out jobs altogether.
These two things have been ignored by politicians for so long now, that people angry enough to elect idiots like Johnson and Trump in order to effect change.
They've made their own bed.
It is true that not all that could vote did vote. But I feel that vote is representative.
There are 63 million inhabitant, about 12 million below 18 years old and about 33 million vote expressed. So most people that could vote did vote, and the split was over a million people, about 4% of voters. In any election I followed, that would be considered a clear cut vote.
Also notice how the news reports are dancing around the fact that Brits (and a lot of other EU citizens) are getting fed up with the ultra-liberal "open arms" immigration policies of the EU. Everyone wants to help refugees in need. But that decency and generosity begins to wane fast when those refugees start trying to enforce Sharia, rape women, shoot up malls, traffic children, etc.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Always scary when citizens from a different country try to behave like American citizens.
From TFA:
"What is the EU?" and "What happens if we leave the EU?" The former was the second top UK question on the EU after the results were officially announced.
Seriously, shouldn't they have been asking this before they voted?
It's mostly anecdotal at this point but there already seems to be a lot of buyers remorse. Thoughts on the possibility they'll have a follow-up "are you really sure?" referendum or at least an election where one of the parties campaigns on ignoring the result.
I stole this Sig
I always thought there must be some hotline the NY Post and the Daily News have to make sure they don't have the same headline. See: "SLAM DRUNK" Anyway, good one!!
Britain is guilty of plenty of that too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't eat every thing the media feeds you
Are you in the UK? Do you know what happens here? Do you know what the damnable muslims have done? They rape our women, they demand concessions like zero pork products in schools, which also means English children are forbidden to bring their own lunch with pork. No one is allowed to speak up against islam, but those days ended yesterday. A nice, healthy nationalism will emerge, where the English are in charge of their own destiny. No more taking in the sodden camel jockeys, who have paid nothing into the system, but live off the dole, take housing meant for the English, did I mention rape our women. buy old monument chapels and churches and use them for the Godforsaken worship of their false god, allah and his child-raping prophet, mohammed. Fuck them. This is England -- a white, northern European country that deserves to set her own agenda, not one of globalism from Belgium. Look at the EU. Immigration has destroyed the EU in the last couple of years. It's unsafe to walk so many cities now. muslim men demand no beer be sold within their sight, even though this is Europe, not Turdistan. Fuck the muslims. They have done more to ruin England and Europe in just a few years. Call me a bigot. This is England! You want to come here? Assimilate. Speak English, keep your head down, cause zero trouble, leave our women alone. This is England.
Swap out Jews for Muslims and you've got a rant there that Hitler would have been proud of. Only took 70 years, but of course most of the people alive when this kind of fascist nationalism grew into power in the 30s are dead now anyway, so no one really remembers anymore.
You're using a non-English map. That's where lies your problem. On English maps, British Isles are about fifty miles East and South of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
They are angry about immigration depressing wages, and they are angry about globalism wiping out jobs altogether.
And sadly because they are "too tired of listening to experts", they'll never know there is very little truth to that.
This was an advisory referendum only, with no force of law. The United Kingdom is not obligated to leave the EU.
Yes, a pro-separation change in government will soon take place. However, the more forcefully that the new government pushes for a full departure, the more forcefully Scotland and Northern Ireland will attempt to disentangle themselves from the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland in particular might see a real increase in sectarian violence if EU separation is not handled with great care, so internal security and continental policy will become even deeper-entwined. These forces will certainly blunt immediate impulses towards separation.
The EU bureaucracy has allowed a large, hostile contingent to form in several European nations. Perhaps now an inward gaze, compelled by credible criticism, can form a more perfect union.
Actually, this is great information for America. We get to observe what happens when a stable western country with a large economy makes a drastic change driven mainly by xenophobia. Maybe the British economy crashes, maybe its all roses. All we have to do is watch...
(many probably won't watch)
Except for the fact that Jews weren't actually raping women and otherwise controlling and terrorizing the German public. Trying to equate the Muslim invasion of Europe with Jews in 1930's Germany is obvious antisemitism.
very well said
thank you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I admit I lack knowledge of all this, comments from forums, FB, etc. seems to be those outside UK say it is dumb decision, those in UK say it is a smart decision.
A friend from UK posted this:
"Congratulations to my Brexit pals in the UK. A decision that came down to a number of factors, economy, immigration and The Big One -- the gulf between the Haves and the "Have Nots". Brexit will hopefully be a tsunami of political and social change that benefits the US. Because right now its politics as usual backed by a monied "screw everyone else" attitude."
mfwright@batnet.com
...the globalist agenda doesn't stand a chance!
The great US fraud that is contaminating some EU country is that so-called "liberals" use a few societal values and causes as an empty façade (e.g. gay mariage, abortion, and SJW issues) while adopting centrist/right-wing policies.
The opposing party then makes a huge fuss about those irresponsible "leftists", "socialists", new incarnation of Castro, Marx, Chavez, Guevara or any other colorful description. Such idiocy is neverending and is found in like a thousand statements from politicians and a million Web 2.0 comments all over the place. Meanwhile the "liberals" that go with the wind (the kind that'll find a job in finance or think tanks etc. not go back to a sociology tenure), their job is to show they don't have "leftist" policies and as far as they go having their left-wing politically murdered is what they want anyway.
With enough of these cycles, you end up with the US situation : on Trump's "left", you get to vote for George W. Bush with a cunt ("But, wimmen!")
The jews were killing people by the tens of thousands and had a "holy book" full of brutish commandments ? There were military units of jews on the rampage to kill thousands of non-jews every day ?
Keep trying, Marxists+Mohammedists.
The creation a low-paying, 16-hours/day, 7-days/week job in Vietnam doesn't mean jack shit to somebody who used to have a moderately well-paying, 8-hours/day, 5-days/week job working at a factory in the UK or the US. There wasn't a net win globally; the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off if they went from an agricultural job they had some control over their destiny to a dismal factory job where they have no control at all. Meanwhile, the first-worlders are much worse off, being unemployed and often unable to find employment due to widespread economic destruction affecting entire regions and even countries. The only ones benefiting are a very small ownership class reaping all of the benefits, who thanks to their political connections and ability to bypass taxation systems have tended to avoid contributing back much to society at large. Then there's the spin-off effect from the destruction of middle class jobs. Eliminating one middle-class job may make one ownership-class individual wealthier, but it also makes numerous other middle-class individuals much worse off economically now that they've lost much of the business of the other middle-class employee who lost his job.
People in the UK and the US are now voting based on their own personal experiences with globalization, with immigration, and with free trade. These experiences have been devastating. It's no wonder they've had enough, and are doing what they can to get some major changes going on.
Not everyone who could vote did vote. Maybe those who abstained are finally checking what all the fuss was about.
"What is a horse?"
Answer: Something related to the stable door people have been discussing for the past several months. Both are too late for you to give a fuck about now.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I don't think anyone in the US really gives a damn about the EU. While the EU tried to unite as an economic block to gain leverage against the US market it really did not achieve that goal. There were too many economically weak countries in the EU. The one thing the US did want the EU to do was centralize and most importantly fund a military capable of defending themselves instead of making the US pay the lions share of the defense costs for a bunch of load mouth ingrates. And everybody does realize that the vote to leave the EU is non-binding? After the current political shakeup expect another vote to take place in a year or so keeping England in the EU.
Doesn't simply walking into a McDonald's cause loss of your vegan card and all attendant superpowers?
too dumb to decide their own future.
Too dumb or too apathetic until after the fact? Population of UK: ~63 million. Number of ballots cast: ~30 million
The EU is just enjoying its growing pains. The US had a similar, but far less civilized, debate about the same thing from 1860-1864. The "slavery" thing was a mere sideshow. The issue of states' rights was the main question, and more specifically, whether states had the rights to secede. Apparently the EU allows that without a fight. The US does not, but fought a very bloody war to make that determination.
Or its ignorant propagandized young people people who are still hopeful they are going to get something out of the 'promise of the eu' who don't realize that globalism while makes for nice feel good politics is really the underlying force behind the death of middle class and the expand wealth gap.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is the bed political elites have made. Now sleep in it.
Given how far standards of living have fallen it's a wonder that the pitch forks haven't been broken out. Only one political elite paid the price for the destruction that they wrought.
Oh, there's lots of truth to it, maybe not so much to legal immigration though. But in the US, there absolutely has been a depressing of wages due to illegal immigrants and globalization, plus a significant loss of mid tier jobs due to them being moved overseas. Don't fool yourself, these effects are facts. Now, what's not said by many is that those jobs will be disappearing over the next few years to couple of decades anyways, due to automation. That's a whole different can of worms that still isn't being addressed.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Globalization is fine, as long as imports are balanced by exports not only in value but tax revenues and environmental impacts. That's not the case in the US and hasn't been for decades.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Those very same people voted overwhelmingly to remain in EEC in 1975 referendum after UK joined in 1973. Now they want out because they don't think it is still a good idea.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Both sides have been propagandized to some extent, but considering how technology is moving, globalization is something that will happen, whether you like it or not. There are both good and bad things in terms of globalization, but I really don't see any benefit for the UK to exit the EU, as well as almost half of its citizens. Also, stating that globalization is the result of the widening wealth gap depends on which country you speak of because each country gets affected to it differently depending on its current economy. From what I remember in terms of macroeconomics, globalization and immigration actually benefits countries and increase standards of living.
What's the fundamental difference between being an EU member and having a trade deal with the EU? For example, is it theoretically possible to strike a deal that provides basically the same payment vs benefits as an EU member?
I would think one possible progression is for the UK to negotiate a deal with the EU that isn't actually that different from what is already in place. Pressure from Scotland and N. Ireland would be the main drivers for such a deal, perhaps.
Just wondering if the outcome of all this is basically the UK gaining some more latitude, but overall just an incremental change.
Let me out first!
Of course if someone makes a choice contrary to you liberal whiners, you INSULT them. No f*cking wonder they're in open rebellion. You continue coping the same attitude that fuels this stuff.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Doesn't simply walking into a McDonald's cause loss of your vegan card and all attendant superpowers?
I would expect so.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
As an American who frequently visits Europe, all you need is to enter the EU via a country which has a visa waiver treaty. They check your passport, and grant you an instant 90 day visa. Once you're in an EU country, you're free to cross the borders into other EU countries - there are no more border checks. About the only things an EU passport gets you is the right to stand in the EU line at immigration (which is sometimes faster than the visitor line), and the ability to stay more than 90 days without renewing or applying for a longer-term visa.
After the UK leaves, it'll have to negotiate these waiver treaties, which might take a few years. But afterwards it'll be the same as before for 80% of travelers, except now there will be a border checkpoint at the Chunnel. The other 20% will be traveling on business, so it remains to be seen what'll happen there. I would imagine both sides will be anxious to renegotiate free trade or almost-free trade treaties ASAP to minimize the economic impact in both the UK and EU.
The summary headline is:
"In the Aftermath Of Brexit, Brits Google About Irish Passport, Meaning Of EU, and Why it All Happened"
Wouldn't it have made more sense to have "google" lowercase, and leave out the "About".
Something like this:
"In the Aftermath Of Brexit, Brits google Irish Passport, Meaning Of EU, and Why it All Happened"
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Yes, but that's most likely because they feel it won't benefit them now that they are 40 years older and won't enjoy much of the economic progress that can come in the future. It is typical for the much older generation to vote in their favor which is usually not the best in the long run, whereas someone younger will vote in their best interest which includes the long term.
I can't wait for Trump to get elected so paradise on earth can break out.
It will be tremendous.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Yep, this sounds like a very good analysis which it seems very few people have figured out, strangely.
AFAICT, Trump supporters are mostly motivated by the immigration issue, and otherwise are a pretty broad group, comprising both evangelicals and other Christians who are basically looking the other way on Trump's obvious lack of religion, as well as others who are more of a libertarian bent socially and don't care about LGBT stuff (i.e., they really don't care which bathroom trans people use, just like Trump doesn't), but support him for his more nationalistic economics and anti-immigration stance.
Hillary backs socially liberal policies (mainly because it's politically expedient for her--the "limousine liberals" support them now so she does too), but economically she's a neocon and a warhawk.
Sanders' main issue is income inequality, so while he also supports socially liberal policies, he also pushes economic policies that are more to the left, which Hillary simply doesn't.
Sometimes I wonder how things would have been different if Sanders had adopted an anti-immigration (not quite like Trump's "build a wall", but ones that sounds not too extremist) position, but kept everything else the same. Would he have gotten a lot more support from Trump voters? I kinda doubt it because that crowd typically also turns up its nose at many socialist policies (but don't suggest messing with their Social Security!!), but you never know.
Turnout was almost 73% of eligible voters. That's a very large number.
That means 27% of people of voting age didn't bother to vote, and I'm quite willing to bet that this non-voting group was skewed towards the younger end of the spectrum. (#)
Thus, it's probably fair to say that if enough of those non-voters *had* actually bothered to vote, the result would have gone moderately but clearly the other way.
As it stands, this is all academic now. But let's bear these people in mind- those who had a reasonable opportunity to vote, but didn't bother- because they have no right- not now, not in ten, twenty, forty years time, not ever- to complain about the consequences of this decision or anything remotely related to it.
You didn't vote? Then you voted Leave. End of story. STFU.
(#) This is almost always true, but it's quite clear in this case that older voters were not only more anti-EU and likely to support Leave, but also more actively cared about it than younger voters' tendency to be more pro-EU but generally passive. An illustration of how those older voters skewed the debate was the endless stream of newspaper letters, commenters on Radio 4 et al explaining that "I voted for a common *market* in 1975, blah blah blah". To put this into perspective, anyone old enough to have had a vote in 1975 would have to be almost sixty at the very least today. Yes, those people making the most noise about Europe are those already approaching- if not well into- retirement age, with their careers behind them and a "Back to the 50s" post-war mentality. Yet the consequences of their choice will dictate the future of a 19-year-old student long after they die off in 15-30 years time.
Still, if that student couldn't be bothered to vote anyway, he can STFU too.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
But if it's pies you want isn't there somewhere else, Pies-R-Us or whatever, that does better pies because, like, that's their thing?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off if they went from an agricultural job they had some control over their destiny to a dismal factory job where they have no control at all
This is a first world perspective. Control and quality of life are not concerns until subsistence is no longer a concern.
Actually, this is great information for America. We get to observe what happens when a stable western country with a large economy makes a drastic change driven mainly by xenophobia. Maybe the British economy crashes, maybe its all roses. All we have to do is watch...
(many probably won't watch)
Sadly, we won't see many real results until well after the 2016 election. So unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
+1
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off if they went from an agricultural job they had some control over their destiny to a dismal factory job where they have no control at all
Why did they switch from the former to the latter then? (And if it wasn't their own choice, what forced them to do it? Honest question, not rhetorical).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The British should simply accept the Mohammedist invasion that Merkel, Albright and Soros have agreed upon. NOT.
There are so many erroneous assumptions implied by this that I don't even know where to begin to unpick them all. So I won't bother.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before
Utter nonsense. Go look at some statistics on standards of living in various third world nations.
Oh, wait, that would require listening to experts. Never mind, go back to your echo chamber.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Wouldn't NI be the Quebec of Britain's Canada?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Irish passport gets them into the rest of the EU. Just offer them a free pint if they keep moving through the transit area of the airport.
Th problem is the voter turn out was greater in aged population slice than younger, and the younger population slice wanted to remain, whole the older one wanted to screw it all for the younger generation. And because there were more older people voting (like in any election) you see why the turn out is less relevant than the age of the voters. One could argue that the younger voter did bring it upon themselves, but still that does not absolve any of the older voter to be curmudgeon not understanding how economy and the EU works.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
In other words, you're a fucking moron who doesn't even know what "left" means.
Yes, I imagine that is representative of many Brexiters.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually, yes.
If I'm forced to got to McDoof I eat chicken wings if they have it or chicken nuggets.
If they had a burger without "sandwich" but only a side salad I would perhaps consider it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Just wait. In fifty yeas it will be better for everyone.
Sometimes I wonder how things would have been different if Sanders had adopted an anti-immigration (not quite like Trump's "build a wall", but ones that sounds not too extremist) position, but kept everything else the same.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone mixes and matches political positions in a way that adds up to a majority. I think Trump has demonstrated that strict adherence to traditional evangelical social agendas isn't necessary for being "conservative", just as the Clintons have demonstrated that a strict adherence to socialistic welfare policies isn't necessary to be "liberal". Sanders managed to appear more liberal than Clinton without pandering to minorities.
In a lot of ways, I think the public at large is:
* OK with gays, but skeptical of the deeper end of the equation where you get into transgender bathroom use
* OK with gun ownership beyond just hunting, but skeptical of the paramilitary stylings of gun activists
* Believes in women's equality generally, but is turned off by the shriller feminist voices
* Doesn't want to throw people in jail over pot, but has reservations about mass-marketing stoner culture
* Thinks abortion is a sad outcome, but secretly hopes its available if they need it
* Isn't anti-black, but believes poor, urban blacks are a wellspring of criminality
* Isn't xenophobic, but fearful of poor immigrants undermining communities, demanding special privileges and not assimilating
* Thinks corporations are too powerful, but is skeptical of government regulation
I think either party is probably capable of shifting on these issues to their benefit, but both parties face vocal interest groups who won't allow enough movement on any of them to capture the advantage. Someone eventually will, though.
the US will go full-on isolationist
Isn't this what the rest of the world wants?
The miles thing was a short-cut way to imply it's also a different culture and a different group of people, without getting wordy. Maybe I should have used "remote". I agree I worded it poorly.
Table-ized A.I.
Since when is Trump not a business leader who personally benefits from unbridled immigration? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us... https://www.vice.com/read/vice...
People in the UK and the US are now voting based on their own personal experiences with globalization, with immigration, and with free trade. These experiences have been devastating. It's no wonder they've had enough, and are doing what they can to get some major changes going on.
Gradually/Marginally getting better != devastating
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
And yes, that accounts for income inequality. Is there room for improvement? Sure! Is it worth years of certain turmoil to try something else (what exactly??) that in all likelihood will be worse (using human involvement and history as a reference)? Not to me...and probably not most of the developed world either. But one way or another, parts of the population are determined to find out. Yeeehaaaa!!!!
Hitler wasn't entirely wrong. Liberals just don't want to admit it.
Who said humans are rational.
In the US, we waste a lot of resources on cars because we want the "freedom" and "control" of where and when we go and how much leg room we get, etc.
Cars in the more populated areas are expensive and wasteful in terms of waiting in traffic, cost, parking space, mass pavement costs, pollution, global warming, deaths, and a host of other things. Look at all the space wasted on parking lots.
If we put even half of those resources into public transportation instead, transportation would be far more efficient. Cars are simply not logical in non-rural areas, at least not for most everyday tasks.
But why does it prevail? We want Freedom & Control
Table-ized A.I.
It's unsafe to walk so many cities now.
The only unsafe cities to walk in in Europe are the british. Always was and probably always will be.
Immigration has destroyed the EU in the last couple of years
The immigrants into UK are coming from Commonwealth countries. They don't get into the EU. And the EU immigrants right now coming via Syria are not going to the UK.
The EU is fine and striving. Nothing was destroyed.
The UK has no EU related "immigration problem".
You are either a troll (would be a plus)
A payed agitator (would be sad)
Or an idiot (can't be helped).
leave our women alone.
So if I come to England, I may not look for an english GF, lover, spouse? Are you retarded?
You do know why/how the Vikings conquered large parts of the british islands? They shaved. They bathed. They changed clothes at least once a week.
Unlike the "ur british natives".
The women _loved_ the vikings, the saxons and the danish.
If you can not get a british girl to love you, perhaps you don't love her? Perhaps you don't deserve her? Perhaps you are just: shit?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We don't have to listen to experts to see the reality here, even if it's a reality you don't want to admit exists.
The third world, even after 25+ years of globalization, is still a total shithole.
It's absolutely shocking that 25 years of globalization hasn't brought the entire 3rd world up to the same level as the first world!
That's why we continue to see people from these areas try to get into developed nations, even when these developed nations are a shell of what they once were, before globalization ruined them.
No, it's because being wealthier, some of them now have the money and education to relocate.
Just look at all of the illegal aliens who try to cross the Mediterranean each day, risking their lives. They wouldn't be doing this if the places they were coming from were nice places to live!
Yeah, totally globalization, I mean it's not like a psychotic death cult just took over part of Syria.
Essentially all of Africa is an awful place to live. Nearly all of the Middle East is an awful place to live. Much of India is an awful place to live. Much of Mexico, Central America and even South America are awful places to live.
And much of them are decent places to live, not as nice as the first world but a hell of a lot better than they were 25 years ago.
The only exception may be China. We're actually seeing some small degree of success there, but despite its large population it's still quite proportionally small.
Yeah, taking 600 million people out of poverty is "proportionally small".
Not listening to experts has left you ignorant of reality.
I stole this Sig
the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off if they went from an agricultural job they had some control over their destiny to a dismal factory job where they have no control at all
Why did they switch from the former to the latter then? (And if it wasn't their own choice, what forced them to do it? Honest question, not rhetorical).
Because historically, going to work on the factory has allowed workers to send a huge chunk of their paycheck home (like, 80% or more, sometimes) while living in the company dormitories, work there for a few years, and then effectively retire on the savings.
Here in the West, we see factory work as demanding, unrewarding drudgery. For people in developing countries, it's a way out of abject poverty, and provides a chance for something better for their children, even if they personally don't get a significantly better deal than their parents did. Don't make the mistake of looking at their lives, their culture, and their available choices through the lens of our own situation.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I suspected that Putin is funding many of the nationalist right wing groups in Europe. In other words, he likes stirring the shit. Brexit doesn't benefit the UK or Europe or even the US. It doesn't help when austerity is punishing the working class all across Europe and their voices are being ignored. It makes them easy marks for nationalist and right wing groups and con men. As the UK begins to negotiate its exit the EU will play hardball because if they make concessions, other countries might bolt too. A disunited Europe is exactly what Putin craves for. And if the US chooses the wrong president, it won't be their to help hold Europe together.
On a separate but related note: Texas secessionists are smart enough to understand what Brexit is and have been emboldened by it. Expect to hear more about Texit if Hillary becomes president.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Because historically, going to work on the factory has allowed workers to send a huge chunk of their paycheck home (like, 80% or more, sometimes) while living in the company dormitories, work there for a few years, and then effectively retire on the savings.
In which case the worker would probably disagree that they are much worse off, which is sort of what I was getting at. If they're so much worse off, why would they do that? Either something is forcing them -- in which case I'm genuinely curiously what -- or if they're choosing that freely, then they must not think they're worse off.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Why did they switch from the former to the latter then? (And if it wasn't their own choice, what forced them to do it? Honest question, not rhetorical).
False promises, misunderstanding, failure to consider all factors involved, broken promises, news from relatives already switched who do not want to lose face and admit they were wrong, and so on and so on.
Same ownership class that now owns all the land (a few big oligopolies/oligarchs - 82% of the land is owned by 0.5% of people), fuck it up with Monsanto GMOs, and are litigious to any small neighbor, pour toxic waster downstream in the water supply, and have made it so that in general for an average person owning a piece of land larger than an outhouse but smaller than 2000 hectare is now economically unsustainable as you have to pay taxes out the wazoo but not produce as much to be able to sustain yourself and have economies of scale.
Well, BBC poll results to indicate that poll turnout was lowest in areas with larger precentage of poll numbers, though the map is not very convincing (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028). Otherwise I can't find anything about percentage of younger people who voted.
Past numbers for 2010 showed a 51.8% turnout for 18-24 year olds versus 65% overall turnout rate. So it's indeed a lower turnout, however is that large enough to have made a difference? How many votes would you get from 13% more 18-24 year olds? Enough to change the final results?
I don't like to blame people for being the "cause" of an election results. Too much blame gets passed around every election, people need to start pointing the fingers at themselves instead of others. You don't encourage young people to go to the polls more often by accusing them of being the reason why things have gone wrong, instead you encourage them by letting them know their vote isn't wasted, that they're a part of the system, that voting is important. Ie, give a positive message (encouragement) rather than a negative message (blame).
Erp, fix that first line. "Larger percentage of young people" I meant. Where's that editing feature?
I thought we were an autonomous collective?
[The older generation] won't enjoy much of the economic progress that can come in the future. It is typical for the much older generation to vote in their favor which is usually not the best in the long run, whereas someone younger will vote in their best interest which includes the long term.
You are kidding yourself. Very few people, old or young, vote for anything but their own short term interest. And why you should think that young people would see the EU as advantageous to themselves either short or lng term I cannot imagine. Several I know are just angry at seeing jobs they apply for being given preferably to immigrants (because the bosses assume immigrants will be more pliable?).
Younger people tend to be more pro-EU because they see it vaguely as more one-worldish, whereas older people have learned to see through the bullshit of one-worldism. One of their worries of a younger Bremain supporter (expressed on another website) was that the UK may no longer be allowed to enter the Eurovision song contest. FFS!
Well, to be fair there's a huge gap between seeing there's a problem and understanding the nature of that problem.
The problem is to understand problems you need quite a bit of education -- but to see that there's problems in the first place you need to be free from indoctrination. But indoctrination is one of the main reasons our society educates people: to protect itself from dangerous ideas.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> Enough to change the final results?
Absolutely.
unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
As opposed to examples of what happens when you let aliens take over the country? Or could we just ask the American Indians that question? Or see what happened to the Romans in the fifth century?
One MP in favor the the Brexit was asked why he believed X for a particular issue when the experts said Y, and his answer was along the lines of "we're sick and tired of experts". It's the attitude of voting with your guts rather than your brains, a populist attitude that you see that in the Brexit campaign as well as the Trump campaign.
I keep seeing this strange, case closed line of thinking. UK leaving the EU does not prohibit joining or creating another governing body.
Er, what exactly do you think the point being made was?
Maybe I have to spell it out for you, but anyone who is "finally checking what all the fuss was about" with questions like "What is the EU?" *after* the polls for the EU referendum have closed has has left it rather too late for their newfound interest to be of any relevance. (Perhaps there's a metaphor for situations like that, don't you think... ?)
I'm not sure what you think the hypothetical possibility of the UK joining "another governing body" has to do with that?
Silly as it would be, another vote could put the UK right back in the EU.
Yes, that would be silly, and it's not going to happen.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Before the referendum most of Google's responses were lies.
The English are a stolid, stubborn, fearless lot.
Churchill knew this.
Project Fear was doomed.
--
As the Chinese curse goes, we begin to live interesting times,
Really? with the lowest unemployment rate in the EU? the lowest since the 80s? and if you take into account that there is a far large population that's pretty amazing
If you ask me the biggest problem in the UK would be affordable housing and that is mostly due to artificial reasons
-No enough building to cover the demand to keep prices high
-The use of land as investment by wealthy offshore buyers that don't even live in the country (and that there are interested in keeping the prices rising)
-The refusal by the wealthy of housing development in green belt areas and on locations where the wealthy like to live
-The concentration of most work and wealth generation on few spots (like London)
-The refusal to develop the large amount of houses and office buildings that rein empty for decades
The biggest problem today in Britain is people being screw by very British wealthy landowners and the inequality caused by the richest 10% that hold 45% of all wealth and refuse to give back their share to society, no global trade or emigration
The talk about millions of emigrants screwing the system and living off benefits is all bullshit, a brain washing lie, a piece of propaganda, a political tool used by populist conmen, the real number of people abusing the system (emigrants included) is tiny, well between the mean value and the lowest in decades
82% of the land is owned by 0.5% of people
Is this figure for the whole world, or some particular country, and can you point me to where it comes from? Land distribution inequality is one of my most major concerns and I've love to read more actual statistics about it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
*grabs popcorn*
So the dog finally caught a car. Now we get to watch what happens when a bunch of idiots vote against their own best interests and have to face the consequences. Take this a preview of what's coming in November for the good ol' US.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm having a ball.
~X~
Past numbers for 2010 showed a 51.8% turnout for 18-24 year olds versus 65% overall turnout rate. So it's indeed a lower turnout, however is that large enough to have made a difference? How many votes would you get from 13% more 18-24 year olds? Enough to change the final results?
There's no 65% limit just because that was the average turnout. The maximum possible turnout for the 18-24 year old age group in that case (or indeed, for any other age group) is 100%. (#)
One might argue that turnout in other groups could theoretically increase to 100% as well and it would all come out in the wash. Which might be true to some extent, but doesn't automatically follow.
(#) Pedantry about the very small number of people genuinely unable to vote (despite their best efforts) aside.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"doesn't let people".
So... Through violence, manipulation, or.. What?
But does NetCraft confirm it?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
The "slavery" thing was a mere sideshow
Hardly.
The reason the Union fought a war against the Confederacy was to ensure that the Confederate states remained a part of the Union, sure. So the war was about states' rights to secede.
The issue the Confederacy seceded over, however, was slavery. Sure, you can spin it as "states' rights to allow slavery or not", but still. That was the cause of the secession in the first place.
The war was fought over whether or not to allow the secession. The secession happened over whether or not to allow slavery.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
"too dumb to decide their own future."
Considering that it was the over 60 white people deciding for the 'future' of the country, (wanting their Empire back) I wouldn't call it 'spinning'.
For fun (?), I've replaced every instance of "English" in GP's rant with "German", and "Muslim" with "Jew", etc:
Are you in Germany? Do you know what happens here? Do you know what the damnable jews have done? They rape our women, they demand concessions like zero pork products in schools, which also means German children are forbidden to bring their own lunch with pork. No one is allowed to speak up against jews, but those days ended yesterday. A nice, healthy nationalism will emerge, where the Germans are in charge of their own destiny. No more taking in the sodden camel jockeys, who have paid nothing into the system, but live off the dole, take housing meant for the Germans, did I mention rape our women. buy old monument chapels and churches and use them for the Godforsaken worship of their false god, yahweh and his child-raping prophet, moses. Fuck them. This is Germany -- a white, northern European country that deserves to set her own agenda, not one of globalism from Belgium. Look at the EU. Immigration has destroyed the EU in the last couple of years. It's unsafe to walk so many cities now. jewish men demand no beer be sold within their sight, even though this is Europe, not Turdistan. Fuck the jews. They have done more to ruin Germany and Europe in just a few years. Call me a bigot. This is Germany! You want to come here? Assimilate. Speak German, keep your head down, cause zero trouble, leave our women alone. This is Germany.
Heil Cameron, I guess?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Only if it was part of France.
You are a traitor to your own people and you have allied yourself with the Mohammedist Brutes and you are a communist ?
The Mohammedists pay you and your friends off, so that they have Carte Blanche for mass murder in Syria ?
Yeah. 2016 Marxist.
Actually, no. More Slavic. Slavs are good, the English can go fuck themselves.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"Why did they switch from the former to the latter then?"
The shinny promise of the golden pot at the end of the rainbow, of course.
By the time they learn there's no golden pot and not even a rainbow, it's already too late.
I'm not quite sure why I am replying to such a racist rant, but I wanted to point out that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are from South Asia. This immigration had nothing to do with the EU, but was possible because of the Commonwealth.
Probably because the "experts" have been so completely clueless over and over again that it's time to give your head a shake and stop listening to them.
Look at all the so-called experts that advise on the economy, such as Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen. How's that going? Not so fucking well, that's how.
Experts said there was no housing bubble.
Experts said that the (non-existant) housing bubble was contained and wouldn't spread into the rest of the economy.
Experts said Greece wasn't a problem.
Experts said that just another IMF loan and some austerity and the problem would be fixed.
Experts said that "when it becomes serious, you have to lie."
The MP that said it was time to stop listening to these kinds of experts is the kind that actually has a chance at running things properly.
Either you are confused or you are purposely using the term xenophobia incorrectly in order to exaggerate some point that otherwise wouldn't make sense at all.
No one is fearing strange or foreign concepts or people. They are doing little more than realizing that an over abundance of immigrants is harming their or their loved ones well being when it taxes a finite system of opportunities. It certainly is no xenophobic to self preserve and the association with foreigners is only ancillary to the issue of self preservation insomuch as it is the detriment in which defense is needed. Almost all people yelling and screaming about illegal immigrants recognize the value and worth in a legal immigration policy along with the talen and advantages those legal immigrants bring to the table.
In short, it isn't foreigners, it is foreigners harming them economic stability and cultural representation as opposed to foreigners that either enhance it in some way or do not effect it at all. Personally, I couldn't give two shits about someone coming in to a country study or or provide services not being already provided. But I think they should empty the prisons of all non violent drug offenders and put illegal immigrants in their stead. I cannot see how violating a law which largely makes yourself the victim is any worse than violating a law that tears apart national sovereignty.
During the Cold War era there was a joke about a western visitor going through Poland/Hungary/East-Germany looking at the cars and noticing something weird. There were no steering wheels. When he finally asked about it, the answer was "The steering wheels are all in Moscow".
Similarly, the EU is now effectively run by unelected bureaucrats (aka "Euro-crats") in Brussels who were grabbing more and more power from elected governments. When people complained about local problems, they were told that no solution was possible, because they had to follow EU regulations.
Case in point, "record breaking floods" in recent years. The "Euro-crats" blamed them on "global warming", which was a lie. The true cause...
* before EU, British local authorities dredged local rivers and dumped the debris out to sea
* with EU regulations, that became a no-no, and the debris had to be stored on land. I.e. it became illegal to move mud from the bottom of the river to the bottom of the English Channel.
* England is crowded, and real-estate is insanely expensive.
* Dredging became insanely expensive
* Local authorities stopped dredging local rivers, because they couldn't afford the increased costs
* After several years of not being dredged, rivers started overflowing their banks every time they got hit with a moderate rainfall... well... like... dohhh.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
... because starving to death is *soo* much fun!
Did you type that on your $300 laptop computer or your $80 smartphone?
I hate to tell you this but the apple pies are fried in the same oils as the fish and chicken. They have dedicated fryers but the oil goes through the same filtration systems and cross contaminate.
I'm not sure I would consider them Vegan.. Vegetarian maybe but McDonalds doesn't even make that claim.
Didn't the US also go through a conniption about "taxation without representation"? How did that turn out?
And importing millions of angry young men straight out of the Dark Ages dedicated to murdering gays.
These sites took a day off from their usual "Europeans are infinitely wiser than Americans in every possible way" to add "Except for British voters."
...the very small number of people genuinely unable to vote (despite their best efforts...
Not so small! British expats -e.g. those living in other EU countries- weren't allowed to vote, nor people aged between 16 and eighteen, even when they were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum.
By sheer coincidence, these two groups would have voted for the Remain option.
My pet theory is that Cameron et al wanted the Remain camp to succeed, though by a thin margin, so they could use the results to put pressure on the EU.
"Hoisted by his own petard", indeed!
There wasn't a net win globally; the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off
When I was a growing up I was watching news stories about mass famines in china, in the intervening 4-5 decades China has dragged more people above the poverty line than the rest of the world combined. It is now the 2nd largest economy in the world. Also, despite the lies your nostalgia tells you, the standard of living in the west is a lot higher than it was in the 60's.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, because of the Opium Wars of 200 years ago, China is starving today.
Why was this downvoted ? He's abdolutely right. Are the mods here all blacks or muslims or something ?
Not everyone is misguided enough to think poor immigrants are the reason their life is screwed up.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No immigrant is actually trying to install it in an EU country. Why would they? They are much better off with our laws.
That doesn't mean they like European laws.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute....
shoot up malls This is the EU, not the US. You can not buy a firearm in the next shop.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/...
My, isn't the cognitive dissonance strong with this one.
"... enforce Sharia, why would they?"
http://www.clarionproject.org/...
"...rape women that is racist." Yes it was racist, but they did it anyway, in Köln.
"shoot up malls. This is the EU, not the US." But it happens anyway, because gun laws restrict only the law-abiding. A bad guy can always get a gun. Bad guys with the backing of Saudi princes can have all the jihadist fun they want in, say, Paris.
"traffic children. Never heard about that. To where would an immigrant traffic children?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No one is fearing strange or foreign concepts or people. They are doing little more than realizing that an over abundance of immigrants is harming their or their loved ones well being when it taxes a finite system of opportunities.
That is xenophobia. Thinking poor immigrants, or even educated immigrants, are taking your jobs is a justification for those who want to find an easy scapegoat for the problems in their life. It is an irrational fear of these immigrants, which defines xenophobia. Immigrant populations are almost always a boon on the host country. In some cases the first generation immigrants can be a burden for a short time, but second generation immigrants beat out average citizens in just about any positive metric you can find. Greater college education attainment, business ownership, lower poverty, etc. The US in particular has been riding on the coat tails of immigrants since WW2.
This doesn't even include the moral argument for taking in the poor of the world to give them opportunities and increase the economic pie with the immigrant work ethic that natives rarely match.
But I think they should empty the prisons of all non violent drug offenders and put illegal immigrants in their stead. I cannot see how violating a law which largely makes yourself the victim is any worse than violating a law that tears apart national sovereignty.
You take one group of people who are only criminals because of horrible laws and are inadvertently comparing them with another group who are only criminals because of horrible laws. If the speed limit was 10 mph, and you were considered an illegal driver for breaking it, almost everyone would be illegal drivers. That wouldn't make them dangerous drivers, it would make them a victim of horrible laws.
We need to stop calling them illegal immigrants, and just consider them people who have broken some laws. Just like I did earlier today when I drove 45 mph in a 35 mph speed limit zone. The only reason we have 11 million immigrants breaking or immigration laws is because we do not have a sufficient naturalization process.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
As opposed to examples of what happens when you let aliens take over the country? Or could we just ask the American Indians that question? Or see what happened to the Romans in the fifth century?
You are comparing military conquests with Hispanics migrating to the US or refugees migrating to the UK? Once Hispanics or Syrian refugees start killing tens of thousands of Americans or Brits per year, and setting up their own governments after conquering cities, your comparison would hold some weight. Until then it is xenophobic nonsense.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I suggest you google it. You are wrong.
Who said anything about jobs? I specifically said "when it taxes a finite system of opportunities". That could include jobs or it could include taxes being allocated for different purposes than ideal, increased, and so on. Resources are not free nor are they un-exhaustible.
There is no fear rationale or not. It is the realization that laws are in place to control who enters the country (for valid reasons) and those laws need followed else it harms the well being of the country and people within the country.
I'm not sure what this has to do with your complete misunderstanding of the illegal immigration problem or the people against it or your incorrect use of the term xenophobia.
Actually, no, I am taking one group who are criminals because of horrible laws and comparing them to another group who believe they have the right to violate state sovereignty (wars have been started for the same in the past from incursions like this). Illegal immigrants and citizens of other countries have absolutely no political say in the laws of another country unless it is specifically granted to them by said country.
It doesn't really matter because I am a natural born citizen and actually have a right to be there. Illegals are not and do not have any legitimate right to be there. It simply is not the same.
No, we need to treat them as criminals and put them in prison for a term just like other countries do when you violate their sovereignty. For instance, in Mexico, it is a felony with a 2 year prison sentence for illegally immigrating and if you have already been deported for it once, it is a 10 year prison sentence.
The only reason why we have over 11 million illegal immigrants is because we do not make them suffer any consequences for violating national sovereignty or participating on various felonies. How many illegals enter Mexico a year (who are not passing through to sneak into the US)? Mexico is a hell hole compared to the US but it is still a hell of a lot better than a lot of the shit holes further south. They measure their illegal immigration counts in the hundreds of thousands not millions. And they actively throw illegals in jail and deport them without any due process.
Buy I noticed your aversion to using the term illegal. It is because it ends up wrapping in all the legal immigrants who many people against the illegals actually welcome with open arms. Why are they welcomed? Because they generally become productive members of society and actually increase the well being of others. It allows you to make bigoted statements about citizens and use words like xenophobia that I'm still convinced you do not understand the meaning of.
Is English not your first language?
What does overabundance mean to you? How do you reconcile the definition with the definition of xenophobia seeing how it is not foreigners that are the problem, it is too many foreigners?
What you wrote is about as ignorant as calling Ford Motor Company racist because a car they produce only seats 4 people and two people in a group of 6 minorities are left without a seat belt.
Start with Wealth Inequality since this is a useful proxy: if you own all the wealth you can just buy all the land. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn of some discrepancies, perhaps related to old land holdings that can't be sold, typically "owned" by royal families, etc...
Swap out Jews for Muslims and you've got a rant there that Hitler would have been proud of. Only took 70 years, but of course most of the people alive when this kind of fascist nationalism grew into power in the 30s are dead now anyway, so no one really remembers anymore.
Can't remember the last time I heard of a Jew go on a murderous rampage, practice polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings, or think it is okay to be a pedophile like their founder. I see the Muslim ladies walking around in tents in our local schools and supermarkets in the US and wonder about our future with the descendants of Hagar and Ishmael in our midst.
There are lots of factors that deprive peasants of their land. China has built some big damns, pushing millions of their lands. Much of the 3rd world has also suffered from wars, which can be quite hard on land, think unexploded munitions.
But the usual reason is simply enclosure of the commons, where the rulers claim the land that the peasants held in common (without a deed), fence it, and force the peasants off.
This also happened in the west back in Luddite times, in particular England. When your livelihood depends on having land to let the pigs live, fields to grow food on and pasture to harvest hay and the local bigwig gets a law passed claiming the land, the peasant can't make a living anymore, is forced to move to town (there's usually strong vagrancy laws in the country) to survive and factory work is the only choice. With a huge surplus of labour and no regulations, working conditions are usually horrid but $2 a day is better then nothing.
What's funny is the countries that claim to be communist where the government overrides the local culture which was closer to true communism then the authoritarians can dream as farmers are usually sharing types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And if the voting age had been lowered to 4... everyone would have cookies.
So your theory is that Cameron is incredibly reckless in a way that would likely lead to his need to resign? I know he is unpopular with many, but I don't imagine many going that far.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Should it not be the people employing the undocumented immigrants who are thrown in prison? If Americans weren't offering the undocumented immigrants money in trade for labour, they'd have much less motivation to escape the places that America has ruined.
BTW, in answer to another comment you made, Mexico does not have felons, just America and Nigeria officially have that class of people with their rights permanently restricted, often for political reasons, the rest of the world got rid of the idea of felons a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Much like googling for "How to avoid pregnancy?" after you had unsafe sex. :-D
hilarious
That actually happened in Scotland hundreds of years ago. I can't imagine it was a unique event.
Thought about it for ten seconds - it's happening in South America right now. They're clearing jungle whee the nude guys with blowpipes live to make prairies for cattle.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is why you can't trust anyone over 30, they are prone to be invested in the status quo.
That's a valid concern. The Eurovision song contest is a culturally significant European event, only open to truly integrated European countries, .... like Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest/
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Hillary should make this her new slogan.
I'm afraid you're living under the delusion that people use new information to adjust their worldview. Sadly, no matter what happens to GB, most people will find ways to twist the information to justify their socioeconomic dogma.
There's a reason why Mississippi continues with their policies despite having the example of 49 other states on how you can do it better. Individuals here and there may learn a thing or two, but large scale social learning is phenomenally rare.
The Leave argument in a nutshell. Good, old-fashioned racism. Thanks for showing us your true colours.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm visiting London next week. Want to see it before it looks like Detroit.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Apparently I'm one generation too far removed to qualify, which is a pity because I was thinking of changing my name to Fuckthepope Billyboy-Nosurrender.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We are allowing 37.4% of people to decide the future for 100% of us.
That is what percentage of our electorate is being allowed to throw our future under the bus.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Some banksters wanted a Brexit.
You need a falling market to do a lot of shorting and the faster it falls, the more profitable.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Not at all off-topic.
As I've already noted, this is the heart of the Leave argument: Racism.
What's hilarious is that you lot helped start it all by importing colonials as cheap labour back when you still actually had an Empire.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Feel free to stay in your little playpen, then, where you feel safe from the doings of adults.
We'll check back in a century or two, to see whether you've grown up yet.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
+10, On The Damn Money.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Thank you for proving circle's point.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm sure that your Uncle Vlad relishes the thought.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
First, you are absolutely right. The people who knowingly employ illegals should be in prison too. Perhaps for longer terms because they are purposely exploiting the illegals for financial gain. But the issue is knowingly. If someone steals the identity of another and participates in the labor market pretending to be a citizen, it would be difficult to justify putting you in prison because you hired someone who was identical on paper to a citizen unless it is obvious that you participated in this ruse.
As to felons. Mexico doesn't grant illegals rights in the first place but the reference to felony was more of a demarcation on the prison sentence. In the U.S. any sentence over a year in length is considered a felony and misdemeanor infractions are less than a year.
It should also be noted that foreigners legally in Mexico have less rights than citizens already too. For instance, you would not have the freedom of speech in Mexico to participate in a rally trying to influence the government to change policy- whether in Mexico legally or not.
Not at all close. The laws are already established just like the car's specs when purchased and people are knowingly violating them. It is not a situation where one day ford comes around and removes seat belts or fires employees who would ad extra seat belts.
And what would be racists about Ford saying they have too many black employees anyways? If they are required to have a count for quotas in the first place and that is not racist, meeting those quotas certainly cannot be racist.
So basically, not even you believe that "Mohammedist Brutes" are a credible enough boogeyman without tapping into the remnants of the Cold War.
Because if there's one thing Marxism is known for, it's its love and tolerance of (other) religions.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I think part of the problem the "Clinton left" has is that is it does live in a bubble of high income and segregated, uniform suburbs and doesn't actually see the impact of its policies as having negatives.
Further, it's dominated by an axis of people who are highly educated and to a large extent indoctrinated in its ideology and who believe this ideology is factual, rational and supported by facts to a degree that they don't just disagree with opponents, they believe them to be intellectually deficient and driven by ill intent, such as racism, homophobia and xenophobia.
In my mind the, "bubble" they occupy is an important part of this theory/explanation -- many are second or later generation professionals who have *always* lived and worked among their own kind and simply never see the down sides of their policies. Their crime rates don't increase when they shackle urban police forces with federal oversight, likewise they don't see the idea in owning a gun in a leafy, peaceful suburb or working in the corporate campus guarded by armed security. The relentless warping of urban schools by diversity-driven policies doesn't affect their children, who attend wealthy suburban districts filled with people just like them or even expensive private schools who will never be touched by such policies. Illegal immigration doesn't affect their schools or communities.
I think they endorse and provide support for the more radical elements of leftism because of their connections to universities and how radical themes echo their university educations, as well as believing that this support gives them a bohemian edge which dilutes their corporate and suburban mindset; it's a way of differentiating themselves from what otherwise would be a vintage picture of country-club Republicanism.
...the very small number of people genuinely unable to vote (despite their best efforts...
Not so small! British expats -e.g. those living in other EU countries- weren't allowed to vote, nor people aged between 16 and eighteen, even when they were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum.
To be clear, the hypothetical 100% turnout rate I mentioned was with respect to eligible voters- as is the generally accepted definition of voter turnout.
That said, the point you made about the effect of the ineligibility of those groups to vote was informative and worthwhile anyway.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I'm sure, if you looked long enough back then, or even nowadays, you could find a Jew who did any given bad thing you could imagine. Just like you can do with Muslims, Germans, Britons, or any large group of people. After you have found the odd psychopath, all you have to do is pretend they're a typical membr of said group rather than a psychopath who also happens to be Muslim/Jew/whatever, and then you can act like a racist asshole all the while pretending you're a decent person.
But you're not a decent person. You're a racist asshole. You simply happen to be a gutless coward, too.
And a century from now your successors will claim their demonization of the boogeymen of their day is completely different from the shameful anti-Muslim hysteria of their ancestors. Because assholes... Assholes never change.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Why do you hate freedom so much, Anon?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your first link: you should read it.
The headline already tells you "Muslime Gangs".
And then again: that is London. ONE city in Europe.
Not: Europe as in all over Europe
"...rape women that is racist." Yes it was racist, but they did it anyway, in KÃln.
There is no rape case reported. And if you are interested in that topic: it happened in half a dozen cities, not just KÃln.
Does not change the root of the problem anyway: HOW DO YOU PLAN TO SPOT THE CRIMINALS AT THE BORDER?
You don't. For the 10 or 100 criminals you want to keep 900,000 genuine refugees out of the EU? Why? And more precisely: how? You want to shoot them? Watch them starve to death? What are you gonna do with the bodies?
A bad guy can always get a gun.
No they can't. Where would they get them from?
OHHH! They got smuggled into the country by the terrorist network behind them. Every country can be attacked by that way.
Your last link is about sexual abuse and not about tariffing children. :D
My general hint to slashdot commentors is: read the links you post before copy/pasting google hits that have nothing to do with what you want to claim in your post
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If you want to say something with those links you should do so :D
The first link ... sorry, no idea at all what that has to do with the topic.
Th second link is a typical pro gun link from the USA, pretty meaningless and misleading statistics. And extremely dumb conclusions.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And if the voting age had been lowered to 4... everyone would have cookies.
Yeah, but the FACT is that voting age was risen from 16 to 18.
So your theory is that Cameron is incredibly reckless in a way that would likely lead to his need to resign?
No. He was incredibly reckless in a way that he thought would give him and his country an advantage over the EU, and at the same time help calming down internal unrest.
I thought we were an autonomous collective?
Things must me tough in Britain if a good Monty Python joke doesn't get modded up.
Awww! Don't tell them that! The full story is here.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Or "what is pregnancy" when you're pregnant.
Probably because the "experts" have been so completely clueless over and over again that it's time to give your head a shake and stop listening to them.
exactly! shockingly, some people wrote some books and some were wrong. we should reject all human knowledge or expertise and revert to the rule of the biggest club. that will show them.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
In particular, the ones living overseas who will most likely be directly affected.
When I say "directly effected" I mean "chucked in the sea".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Aaaaaargh. directly affected. I'm so used to seeing it wrong that it's becoming unfectious.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The only truthful comment you made in your post was this one:
sorry, no idea at all
When shove comes to Putsch then its time to worry.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This superior attitude is exactly why many people vote to leave. You are part of the problem.
Wannabe nerd.
Your memory isn't very good. They certainly don't benefit all individuals in those countries. Immigration is great for the owners - more demand for homes = higher rents, and greater supply of workers = lower wages.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The most recent academic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise the overall standard of living of American workers by boosting wages and lowering prices. One reason is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs; instead many immigrants complement the work of U.S. employees and increase their productivity. For example, low-skill immigrant laborers allow U.S.-born farmers, contractors, or craftsmen to expand agricultural production or to build more homes—thereby expanding employment possibilities and incomes for U.S. workers. Another reason is that businesses adjust to new immigrants by opening stores, restaurants, or production facilities to take advantage of the added supply of workers; more workers translate into more business.
Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/med...
You're right about knowingly, which raises the question of how to tell the difference between someone legally allowed to work or not. Here in theory, it is probably having a SIN (Social Insurance #) but I lost my card a long time ago and just give out the number. I also lost my citizenship card at the same time though I still have the large certificate, which wouldn't be that hard to forge. Last time I used it as ID, they borrowed it for 10 minutes and used it as a training tool at the local government office.
Here we have summary and indictable offences (as well as hybrid where it is up to the Crown which to pursue) with the division at 6 months though it is possible to be indicted and sentenced to less then 6 months and still lose things like your right to keep your fingerprints private and having to wait 10 years for a pardon. Other rights/privileges are generally only removed at the discretion of the Judge at sentencing so do something stupid with a firearm and get banned from owning firearms for X years. Same with things like driving and getting put on the sex predator list, only happens if a Judge thinks it makes sense as part of a sentence. rather then having whole classes of people deprived of rights/privileges (DUI is an exception)
Interesting about Mexico, which I know little about but generally civil law jurisdictions seem really foreign with what seems like basic principle such as innocent until proved guilty sometimes reversed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm fine with slapping the erasmus generation down a step or two.
The "Erasmus generation"? Exactly what proportion of students do you think take part in the Erasmus (foreign-exchange) programme anyway? Doubt it's more than a small percentage, and what's wrong with gaining experience of the market in which you are- or were- supposed to be a part of anyway?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
All that blabbering and you still either refuse to pay attention or do not understand the subject matter at hand. I even attempted to spell it out for you in the simplest terms possible.
You should ask your mom to explain it to you or something.
Sounds about right for Scotland. Our numbers might actually be slightly worse. I am pretty sure we have the worst ratio in the OECD.
Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
They fry pies? Well I suppose the name sounds Scottish...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
By a strange coincidence in 10 years it will be the 40-50 year olds, according to this AC.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Will the rate of leavers dying exceed the rate of stayers getting smart?
You'd have thought the hippies would have taken over by now...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The EU is just enjoying its growing pains. The US had a similar, but far less civilized, debate about the same thing from 1860-1864. The "slavery" thing was a mere sideshow. The issue of states' rights was the main question, and more specifically, whether states had the rights to secede. Apparently the EU allows that without a fight. The US does not, but fought a very bloody war to make that determination.
A wonderful example of revisionist history with no factual merit.
The slave population in the US South gave the Southern states enormous political power, and that as much as the moral issue was driving the actions of the Northern states. Given the fundamentally different economies of the two blocks, the Southern political power was a huge problem for Northern leaders. For example, the two groups had fundamentally different views about import policy: the agricultural South wanted to import British industrial goods, but the North wanted to develop their own industry and thus tax the import of British goods.
Everybody with a functioning brain knew that slavery was wrong and needed to be ended. This was obvious even at the original Constitutional Convention: look at the speech by Morris of NY. It wasn't just morally wrong, it was what we would call today "unethical practice of law" to have slavery in the legal system of a nation founded to protect the rights of man. Contradictions in the legal system ALWAYS involve unethical practice of law, a point Morris shows in his speech, though he didn't use the same language we would today to make his point. Jefferson, Madison, Washington and many others showed by example and words that they disapproved of slavery and wanted it ended on a reasonable time scale, while recognizing it couldn't be ended instantly as a practical matter.
It was pure corruption that allowed slavery to continue, both at the original Constitutional Convention, and later: the lawyers representing the South were either slave owners themselves, or looked to have slave owners as their primary future customers.
This makes a great historical example of unethical practice of law happening on a large scale, not all that different from a lot that goes on today - lawyers looking out for the interests of big corporations and the super-wealthy at the expense of fundamental rights. Then, as now, this has all kinds of negative implications and really hurts society in a whole host of ways. For example, NSA and FBI violations of the Bill of Rights don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of an unethical legal environment which - almost as a side effect - shields these activities.
The slave revolution in Haiti also player a major role in contributing to the US Civil War, by serving as an example that fearful and unimaginative people could point to as giving reasons not to end slavery. Ironically, the destruction of the Civil War ended up being far worse than a slave revolution would have been.
Since nobody in the South could admit they were in the wrong, they gave (and continue to give) this whole set of circumstances the label "State's Rights" to try to conceal the real issues. This was pure smoke and mirrors: there were real State's Rights issues, then as now, but the Civil War didn't happen because of them.
A century from now they will ask 'What's a muslim?'
Not because we genocide them. Because they pumped all their oil and are back to humping camels full time.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So I made at least one more than you :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There was an unprecedent 4% swing in the polls from two weeks before the poll to the results on the day. The last full referendum on the EU wa in 1975, and the locals are used to tactical voting at every other government level, up to and including a General (i.e. Prime Ministerial) Election. My direct family all voted in. Most (but not all) of my sister's family were in/remain as well. There's a 60+ year age spread in that cohort alone, only two of whom were old enough to vote last time around. The biggest single factor on the day was probably that it pissed down with rain all day across most of the South East, including London, where a large fraction of the population lives. This skews heavily against the young and the (legal) immigrants, who may have multiple jobs, and the elderly, who struggle with public transport. My borough voted remain by nearly 70%, my Dad's voted out by similar margins. The U.K. of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would comfortably fit inside California, yet has (roughly) one fifth the population of the U.S. The politics of these little islands are far more complex than those in the U.S., and some of the laws in our (unwritten) constitution are just as arcane and stupid as those anywhere in the world. America got to start afresh in 1776 and keep only the good bits (and some bad bits). At least we don't deliberately rig things so that black people have to take a whole day off work to vote.
Tony.
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
The losing side always says "Now we get to watch what happens when a bunch of idiots vote against their own best interests".
Heard it when Clinton won.
Heard it when Bush won
Heard it when Obama won
Will hear it again in November.
Do you really want someone who has to google "What is the EU" to decide your country's future with the EU?
That sounds about as much of an informed choice as flipping a coin.
UK can vote as much as they'd like. It's EU that decides, and it won't let them just come back after a few years in misery, just because they voted yes now. If they leave, they will be kept outside for years to come.
This is blinging
the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off if they went from an agricultural job they had some control over their destiny to a dismal factory job where they have no control at all
Why did they switch from the former to the latter then? (And if it wasn't their own choice, what forced them to do it? Honest question, not rhetorical).
In England, back in the old days, it was done by kicking the peasants off of the land that the peasant did not own. Either starve or go to work in the new factories.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
who mods this ahistorical drivel insightful?
They fought specifically over the state's right to own slaves.
They didn't fight over the right to secede.
They seceded over the right to own slaves.
It's in the declarations of secession of each of the states that did so.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
nationalism is never healthy, or a good thing.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
neither are the muslims, but that doesn't stop you idiots from claiming it, then or now.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Those were EU numbers I spotted couple of weeks ago in a fellow's newspaper article headline while on a boat between Bratislava and Vienna. And actually thinking about it, my German is rusty so instead of 0.5% of people it could have been 0.5 of land owners, which is way, way worse.
AFAIK, Jews weren't asking for special rules and privileges for themselves that went against existing laws and culture, nor was there anything like the Rotherham rape scandal perpetuated by them, so enough with invoking Godwin already.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."