Hell, rather than rivers they should have taught us about highways
There was this Swedish TV show in style with "Think; what if?" which took up Swedish historical happenings which had consequences and what could have happened if they wouldn't had happened.
Anyway one of the episodes was about Sweden and Finland and how one guy in charge of a fortress in Finland surrendered to the Russians who had besieged it but unlikely would had been able to actually take if had they had to try by force rather than convincing him to simply surrender.
Anyway that brought up our capital Stockholm which doesn't sit in the middle of the country which is Sweden of today but rather on our east coast bordering the Baltic sea. The reason for that being that Sweden and Finland was one for long and when it was that way then it WAS in the middle of the country and the Baltic sea (at-least up here) kinda was "our" sea and an enabled of communication with Finland rather than something which separated us. (Similarly the vikings traveled the rivers all the way down to what is now Turkey and Iraq and so on.)
Anyway, once again, where I'm coming with this is that in historical times rivers weren't as useless and uninteresting and just "bodies of water" as you may view them now. They WERE the highways of that age. Rivers and seas were enablers of travel when roads didn't existed or you didn't had a capability to travel the other terrain quickly and straight.... and now you've learned me something. I thought Celts were from the more modern areas rather form where they were from and at times on a much larger area =P The conquerors write the history, Swedish history is changed a lot right now.
Frankly, I believe we should take kids when they enter school, show them how google works an ask them to tell us their opinion (!) on how much their book might be wrong about certain events in history.
The kids would likely judge history from how society is today and not vs how it was then and for the people living at that time.
Whether you help refugees or think your country should help them even if it's unpleasant to you or costs you money is a matter of your personal humanity. It's always easy to be a decent human being when there is no crisis and you can easily afford to deal with the consequences. The question is how you react when there is a cost to it, when things are not so easy and problems occur. That's when you see what people really think, what people are really good folks and decent human beings.
Sweden as society is stuck on stupid because they have proclaimed anything else racist and wrong and it's too late to change the stance now, also anyone who thought different has been pushed out and hushed.
(Likely admitting being wrong, saying no to refugees and doing the right thing is actually the one thing which is unpleasant and hard to do.)
If it was my money it couldn't had been simpler. I would had given my money to movements I supported and to causes I felt was worth helping with. I wouldn't had used them on luxury migration to Sweden, because that would be stupid, inefficient, unfair and I totally don't want them here either.
Oh well, just ditch whatever crap only it become what one want.
I think asylum-rights to our nation of welfare benefits and weak punishment and people who aren't forced to leave if not granted asylum or caught for a crime is shit.
If we really value "asylum-rights" or free movement in general that high then just destroy the national welfare system completely (and let everyone come with equal opportunity) and let them provide for themselves the best they can. Then they will try harder or not come at all.
I understand the freedom of movement more than I understand the right to be feed for by others. If we still want to provide some basics for everyone then do that as a global project rather than a national one because the Scandinavian people can't pay for it for everyone, the whole world could.
I miss no points. I'm Swede in Sweden. What we should do is what I / we want to do. The people of Syria or Afghanistan isn't our trouble - or well, shouldn't be.
The Swedish migration office can't do it, and the law is to generous, also I totally don't have to accept any ideas or rule or rules set up by my government but may be of a different opinion and also no even if I wanted to decide for myself (say with "fuck them") I will not be allowed to do that myself. That's a fact but whatever they should be let into the country is 100% politics as is their rights (and.. I don't even know the word in Swedish because it's an unused concept here anyway... responsibilities.)
It's not unwise. Both cost resources. It's just you who are a dishonest socialist dictator. There is no "different budgets." There's income (what of value the Swedish population produce (including exports)) and there's expenses (burden from those who produce (including imports.)) If you want to separate them then the immigrants budget is 100 times too large and the foreign aid maybe is four times too small or whatever. There, solved it for you.
The goal of moving wars and troubles to Sweden is a terrible goal. The goal of improving the world is a nice one.
Foreign aid stops refugees from ever becoming a thing in the first place. Taking in refugees accomplish close to nothing except moving people around.
The goal of foreign aid should of course be to help the rest of the world develop and improve. Society can develop a lot in 50 years (see South Korea) but letting 50 years of people movements (here I don't have any examples, no-one has done what Sweden does before I guess, say Libanon? USA is completely different because they have got work immigrants) happen doesn't solve much at all.
What you suggested as the most efficient thing is of course what at-least could be viewed as best for humanity (not really if it turned out the rich part of the world contributed so much that the benefit of keeping us alive / at this standard actually helped more, say by doing further developments in medicine.) Efficiency is good. The only real problem with it is it's not what the tax payers / workers in the rich world want for their money. I think it's a decent demand to put upon anyone who claim to be for the best of humanity / the people to have to answer to the claim you just did. If they aren't willing to then they clearly aren't for what is in the interest of the most people on the planet. Luxury refugees in Sweden definitely isn't the best way of helping people and I'm not even sure it is doing well in helping people from war (Assume 2% of the Syrians would had been killed in conflict, say 0.5% of all refugees who come to Sweden, now imagine the increased risk of a civil war here or war in Europe thanks to them coming here.. I want to fix the problem which is poverty, poorly educated people and too little freedom, those who bring the filth here just want to destroy Sweden, or well, destroy Sweden regardless of what the fuck they think they are doing.
I don't see why foreign aid is "abstract", the number of vaccine d
can't run their zoning processes efficiently enough
What is that?
We the people of the Nordics are generally fortunate for having efficiency in such matters
Can't comment since I don't know what you are talking about.
although every time a municipality takes a Laissez-faire or market driven approach towards zoning, the real-estate and rental markets start to overheat and bubble, and people left without housing.
Are you talking about acting to prevent segregation?
Sweden is heavily segregated and no work is being done to solve the issue: Too many damn immigrants. The "solution" is just to move them out and put them in all other spaces too so there is a lot of fucking immigrants everywhere but nothing will become better of that, it's just that all will be like it is in the worst places now.
UN: Persecution due to: * race * nationality * religion or politics * sex * sexual preference * your group or class in society
EU: * risk capital punishment (which stinks, asylum for terrorists.) * risk of bodily harm, torture and inhumane or degrading punishment (ok, so all criminals from the Muslim world are welcome?) * high risk as civilian being harmed in an armed conflict (people from war torn countries or with terrorism are welcome?)
Sweden * Can't return due to war or serious tensions in _COUNTRY OF ORIGIN_ (so you came through Turkey, Hungary, Germany, Denmark and more? No problem.) * Well-founded fear of serious assaults/harasments. * Can't return due to environmental catastrophe (Guess who rule Swedish immigration laws?)
So as you see Sweden goes further than the EU and the relaxed attitude to identification, tolerance of lies, naivety to stories, no medical check up of age claims, capability to remain and get support in the country even if you aren't granted asylum and the high welfare payouts and support and likely low risk of being jailed or fear of consequences for anything are what make Sweden such a popular choice.
UK doesn't have that.
Outside of EU the UK doesn't have to bother about people fleeing capital punishment, torture, shaming or war either.
The first group are the one which kinda definitely deserve to get into safety, however that doesn't have to mean welfare handouts provided by others.
It suck that you post as AC since you may not get the reply.
As for Schengen I guess that may help UK to not have to deal with the welfare migrants then.
My solution would be to develop the poor and underdeveloped part of the world rather than moving a few people and ideas and behavior from that part of the world to the rich part of the world rending it poorer and more underdeveloped too while the poor and underdeveloped are stuck with and continue as normal.
Sweden have one of the largest foreign aid contributions in the world (well, regardless of what we do with it I guess) but part of it is used to pay for immigrants here and also to lobby for Sweden to be in the UN security council.
1 lone-coming "refugee" "child" cost ~1 000 000 SEK / year here. 1 year in Swedish school cost 95 000 SEK. 1 year in school in Afghanistan cost 400 SEK.
The Swedish short-term immigration budget (not the long term stuff like generic welfare, unemployment, housing, health, pension, school, blue light service,..) is half of the GDP of Afghanistan.
One would just end up speculating about the long-term cost (over a life-time, Sweden suck at getting the immigrants into work because they get so much money for nothing and the lowest salaries are so high and there's well few jobs for unskilled labour) of the immigration to Sweden in 2015 but it's likely in the range of a half-decent used car / person.
The later could easily be fixed, just scrap the welfare and let the wage gap increase and let the immigrants offer cheap services in whatever category they can to the richer part of the population and it would become a gain. But that's nothing which is happening.
Any idiot who says the current situation is the most human have got to tell me why 1 immigrant student in Sweden is worth 1 000-2 000 back at home, why 1 saved life of a war refugee in Sweden is worth 1 000 due to lack of vaccines or health care, why one person moving up in living standard is worth an increase for so many others, while 1 saved from starvation is worth.. you get the point.
It's just 100% complete bullshit. It's inefficient as fuck and the only thing it's doing is 1) replacing the native population of Sweden and 2) meat/voters for political reform whatever voters for more welfare handouts or as a need to make things more efficient / privatize.
"You'll have to pay twice as much now and what you get back from that will be cut by 1/4, FYI"
See how well that would had worked.
Sweden is always screwed, we always have to be "best."
Whatever it's fossil use, foreign aid, naive refugee schemes, surrendering our own rights, sucking cock in general (well, including in the literal way, as in accepting rape of Swedish citizens by rapefugees, murder of Swedish citizen by claimed to be "child" Africans and so on we just have to accept it.)
Cuckservative could simply be replaced by "Swede."
"Acting like a fucking Swede" should be the sentence to use , it would possibly help us in Sweden (Then again the traitors and socialists and anti-whites are proud of it so possibly not, and of course people like Sanders would be like "And that's a good thing!")
Rapefugees could be renamed "new-Swedes" or "soon-to-be-Swedes", AIDS "open-your-ass-like-a-Swede-disease" and so on.
As far as I understand, this affects the "Eurolaw"(?) (PrimÃrrecht in German: the basic founding laws of the EU). In order to change any of them, all participating countries must vote "yes". Changes to other laws require only majority, but can be vetoed by any member with veto right. UK has veto right.
Thank you.
Then.. how come they want special deals now afterwards if it's things they have actually accepted before? =P Then again one can of course always change oneÂs mind.
1.7/3.8 = 44.7% back to Sweden. 6.9/11.3 = 61% back to UK.
3.8/9.65 or so million people (2015? Quickly growing) = 0.39 / million. 11.3/65 = 0.17 / million.
So Sweden pay more than twice as much as UK / citizen, UK have at-least 1/3 better deal when it comes to what they get back, lots more "refugees" to Sweden, much higher taxes in Sweden, and so on..
If any country should leave.. Then again Sweden has been about connecting with other societies and trade for 1000+ years at-least.
Everyone need to be for any expansion of the capability? Not just majority?
With sharing of wealth for instance Sweden is supposed to be the country which pay the most in vs what it get back / capita I think? I assume UK pay in more than what they get back directly, but of course they also have access to the market and the people and get to sell goods onto other EU nations and get their brightest people into their union.
The UN refugee convention doesn't view people from countries at war as refugees (by that alone), it would possibly view Yazidis and Armenians and such as refugees but not your average civilian Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan or so.
The EU however DO view them as refugees so it would make a difference in the definition.
Sweden had it's own lawn with even more people who were granted asylum but that part has been disabled like.. two days ago or so? Maybe it start in July or something.
Also with asylum applications the problem with it in general is that you can't just leave an asylum application at the British embassy in Afghanistan for instance, you most likely have to GET there to turn it in. So there is a difference because then they would possibly have border controls and as such people may not be allowed into the country and able to turn in an asylum application.
Currently Sweden have temporary border controls with Denmark (though in practice they aren't functional) and as a response Denmark have them against Germany (I don't know how efficient they are) and then there's the Turkish buffer zone.
As people without a valid identification isn't supposed to be let into the country a lot of asylum seekers wouldn't be able to get here (at-least not the ones who get rid of any identification to be able to make up their own identity on the spot, such as a child from a war torn country.)
I live in Scandinavia and the open borders for "refugees" and the ability to simply stay if your home country doesn't take back expelled citizens even if you aren't granted asylum and still collect benefits and apply for asylum again four years later and in the case of our previous national law have your "connection to the country" included as a reason to be granted asylum (and still if you've got the money you could ask someone to say they will hire you and get in that way) and the socialist system is of course what have brought so many people mostly here to Sweden but also to Norway and previously Denmark.
It attract "refugees" (third-world immigrants) just like fruit flies to what is soon ruined fruit just like our country will be.
The more uneducated unproductive freeloaders the less competitive economy, less money to share, more people to share with,.. the path to failure.
Mean-while if Sweden had been a tax heaven with open borders then it would had been the rich and successful which came here and that's of course a much more attractive option if you want to be on top.
I agree that with automation maybe the profits need to be shared _IF_ that would be all jobs there is / wealth would be very unevenly distributed. On the other hand we've already had that kind of development before too.
I consider my government traitors and reject them as rulers, their citizenship and residency to the invaders as valid and the complete system as is.
In the case of Brexit there's really three separate issues at hand: 1) Refugees - UK take in far less / capita than Sweden at-least? 2) Work immigration - Likely beneficial for the population at large but not necessarily those who lose their job to them? 3) Power moving further and further away from the individual (from UK to EU and with more socialist ideology, more immigration, more political "elite" (our prime minister in Sweden is a fucking joke and a disaster, he's a retard, a clown, an imbecile) far away.)
If EU was just a free trade union UK would had stayed. If EU was a free trade + allowed workers to moved union then maybe UK too would had stayed.
But then there's the sharing of wealth with other nations, refugees, more power to the EU rather than politicians close at home...
it isn't a inherent personal quality. IQ tests are used for situations where it is assumed that it is. See the problem?
Yes.
But the problem isn't that the differences in capability is exist or that they can be measured and improved but that they obviously are used for the wrong purpose.
People in Africa have lower IQ than people in the rest of the world in general. The black population of the US have lower IQ than the rest in general.
However the black population in the US has gotten higher IQ.
Sure that could be because of breeding with people of other genetics or it's them becoming richer and higher educated. Time will tell if they catch up to the rest of the population eventually or not.
It would be interesting to know whatever they simply are incapable by biology or whatever it's just/mostly a result of trainable behavior and education.
Radio / cassette / few CDs become mod(and s3m, xm,..) become mp3 become digitally imported become last.fm become YouTube.
I've done a huge down-grade in variety from the Internet radio or even last.fm suggestions but it's a legal way to get the track I want to listen to (but sadly misses out on a lot of other things.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you did. It was in ASCII.
It was on free6. ... well.. was it .se or .com? Guess .com?
free6.com still around, excellent!
Hell, rather than rivers they should have taught us about highways
There was this Swedish TV show in style with "Think; what if?" which took up Swedish historical happenings which had consequences and what could have happened if they wouldn't had happened.
Anyway one of the episodes was about Sweden and Finland and how one guy in charge of a fortress in Finland surrendered to the Russians who had besieged it but unlikely would had been able to actually take if had they had to try by force rather than convincing him to simply surrender.
Anyway that brought up our capital Stockholm which doesn't sit in the middle of the country which is Sweden of today but rather on our east coast bordering the Baltic sea. The reason for that being that Sweden and Finland was one for long and when it was that way then it WAS in the middle of the country and the Baltic sea (at-least up here) kinda was "our" sea and an enabled of communication with Finland rather than something which separated us. (Similarly the vikings traveled the rivers all the way down to what is now Turkey and Iraq and so on.)
Anyway, once again, where I'm coming with this is that in historical times rivers weren't as useless and uninteresting and just "bodies of water" as you may view them now. They WERE the highways of that age. Rivers and seas were enablers of travel when roads didn't existed or you didn't had a capability to travel the other terrain quickly and straight. ... and now you've learned me something. I thought Celts were from the more modern areas rather form where they were from and at times on a much larger area =P
The conquerors write the history, Swedish history is changed a lot right now.
Frankly, I believe we should take kids when they enter school, show them how google works an ask them to tell us their opinion (!) on how much their book might be wrong about certain events in history.
The kids would likely judge history from how society is today and not vs how it was then and for the people living at that time.
"Today children we'll go onto the net and try to find and report as many racist comments as we can"
(It could happen.)
We didn't have Facebook or YouTube. We played C&C, Quake, was on IRC, (no sir we didn't looked at porn.)
I'll assume these are the types who also think sex is better in ff mode
For me it's like for someone who still haven't got an VHS player and don't dare to go to the store to buy a magazine.
I've heard it exist ..
Whether you help refugees or think your country should help them even if it's unpleasant to you or costs you money is a matter of your personal humanity. It's always easy to be a decent human being when there is no crisis and you can easily afford to deal with the consequences. The question is how you react when there is a cost to it, when things are not so easy and problems occur. That's when you see what people really think, what people are really good folks and decent human beings.
Sweden as society is stuck on stupid because they have proclaimed anything else racist and wrong and it's too late to change the stance now, also anyone who thought different has been pushed out and hushed.
(Likely admitting being wrong, saying no to refugees and doing the right thing is actually the one thing which is unpleasant and hard to do.)
If it was my money it couldn't had been simpler. I would had given my money to movements I supported and to causes I felt was worth helping with. I wouldn't had used them on luxury migration to Sweden, because that would be stupid, inefficient, unfair and I totally don't want them here either.
Geneva convention wasn't the same as the UN one?
Oh well, just ditch whatever crap only it become what one want.
I think asylum-rights to our nation of welfare benefits and weak punishment and people who aren't forced to leave if not granted asylum or caught for a crime is shit.
If we really value "asylum-rights" or free movement in general that high then just destroy the national welfare system completely (and let everyone come with equal opportunity) and let them provide for themselves the best they can. Then they will try harder or not come at all.
I understand the freedom of movement more than I understand the right to be feed for by others. If we still want to provide some basics for everyone then do that as a global project rather than a national one because the Scandinavian people can't pay for it for everyone, the whole world could.
I miss no points. I'm Swede in Sweden. What we should do is what I / we want to do. The people of Syria or Afghanistan isn't our trouble - or well, shouldn't be.
The Swedish migration office can't do it, and the law is to generous, also I totally don't have to accept any ideas or rule or rules set up by my government but may be of a different opinion and also no even if I wanted to decide for myself (say with "fuck them") I will not be allowed to do that myself. That's a fact but whatever they should be let into the country is 100% politics as is their rights (and .. I don't even know the word in Swedish because it's an unused concept here anyway... responsibilities.)
It's not unwise. Both cost resources. It's just you who are a dishonest socialist dictator. There is no "different budgets." There's income (what of value the Swedish population produce (including exports)) and there's expenses (burden from those who produce (including imports.))
If you want to separate them then the immigrants budget is 100 times too large and the foreign aid maybe is four times too small or whatever. There, solved it for you.
The goal of moving wars and troubles to Sweden is a terrible goal. The goal of improving the world is a nice one.
Foreign aid stops refugees from ever becoming a thing in the first place. Taking in refugees accomplish close to nothing except moving people around.
The goal of foreign aid should of course be to help the rest of the world develop and improve. Society can develop a lot in 50 years (see South Korea) but letting 50 years of people movements (here I don't have any examples, no-one has done what Sweden does before I guess, say Libanon? USA is completely different because they have got work immigrants) happen doesn't solve much at all.
What you suggested as the most efficient thing is of course what at-least could be viewed as best for humanity (not really if it turned out the rich part of the world contributed so much that the benefit of keeping us alive / at this standard actually helped more, say by doing further developments in medicine.) .. I want to fix the problem which is poverty, poorly educated people and too little freedom, those who bring the filth here just want to destroy Sweden, or well, destroy Sweden regardless of what the fuck they think they are doing.
Efficiency is good. The only real problem with it is it's not what the tax payers / workers in the rich world want for their money.
I think it's a decent demand to put upon anyone who claim to be for the best of humanity / the people to have to answer to the claim you just did. If they aren't willing to then they clearly aren't for what is in the interest of the most people on the planet. Luxury refugees in Sweden definitely isn't the best way of helping people and I'm not even sure it is doing well in helping people from war (Assume 2% of the Syrians would had been killed in conflict, say 0.5% of all refugees who come to Sweden, now imagine the increased risk of a civil war here or war in Europe thanks to them coming here
I don't see why foreign aid is "abstract", the number of vaccine d
can't run their zoning processes efficiently enough
What is that?
We the people of the Nordics are generally fortunate for having efficiency in such matters
Can't comment since I don't know what you are talking about.
although every time a municipality takes a Laissez-faire or market driven approach towards zoning, the real-estate and rental markets start to overheat and bubble, and people left without housing.
Are you talking about acting to prevent segregation?
Sweden is heavily segregated and no work is being done to solve the issue: Too many damn immigrants.
The "solution" is just to move them out and put them in all other spaces too so there is a lot of fucking immigrants everywhere but nothing will become better of that, it's just that all will be like it is in the worst places now.
As said there was three different laws.
UN:
Persecution due to:
* race
* nationality
* religion or politics
* sex
* sexual preference
* your group or class in society
EU:
* risk capital punishment (which stinks, asylum for terrorists.)
* risk of bodily harm, torture and inhumane or degrading punishment (ok, so all criminals from the Muslim world are welcome?)
* high risk as civilian being harmed in an armed conflict (people from war torn countries or with terrorism are welcome?)
Sweden
* Can't return due to war or serious tensions in _COUNTRY OF ORIGIN_ (so you came through Turkey, Hungary, Germany, Denmark and more? No problem.)
* Well-founded fear of serious assaults/harasments.
* Can't return due to environmental catastrophe (Guess who rule Swedish immigration laws?)
So as you see Sweden goes further than the EU and the relaxed attitude to identification, tolerance of lies, naivety to stories, no medical check up of age claims, capability to remain and get support in the country even if you aren't granted asylum and the high welfare payouts and support and likely low risk of being jailed or fear of consequences for anything are what make Sweden such a popular choice.
UK doesn't have that.
Outside of EU the UK doesn't have to bother about people fleeing capital punishment, torture, shaming or war either.
The first group are the one which kinda definitely deserve to get into safety, however that doesn't have to mean welfare handouts provided by others.
It suck that you post as AC since you may not get the reply.
As for Schengen I guess that may help UK to not have to deal with the welfare migrants then.
My solution would be to develop the poor and underdeveloped part of the world rather than moving a few people and ideas and behavior from that part of the world to the rich part of the world rending it poorer and more underdeveloped too while the poor and underdeveloped are stuck with and continue as normal.
Sweden have one of the largest foreign aid contributions in the world (well, regardless of what we do with it I guess) but part of it is used to pay for immigrants here and also to lobby for Sweden to be in the UN security council.
1 lone-coming "refugee" "child" cost ~1 000 000 SEK / year here.
1 year in Swedish school cost 95 000 SEK.
1 year in school in Afghanistan cost 400 SEK.
The Swedish short-term immigration budget (not the long term stuff like generic welfare, unemployment, housing, health, pension, school, blue light service, ..) is half of the GDP of Afghanistan.
One would just end up speculating about the long-term cost (over a life-time, Sweden suck at getting the immigrants into work because they get so much money for nothing and the lowest salaries are so high and there's well few jobs for unskilled labour) of the immigration to Sweden in 2015 but it's likely in the range of a half-decent used car / person.
The later could easily be fixed, just scrap the welfare and let the wage gap increase and let the immigrants offer cheap services in whatever category they can to the richer part of the population and it would become a gain. But that's nothing which is happening.
Any idiot who says the current situation is the most human have got to tell me why 1 immigrant student in Sweden is worth 1 000-2 000 back at home, why 1 saved life of a war refugee in Sweden is worth 1 000 due to lack of vaccines or health care, why one person moving up in living standard is worth an increase for so many others, while 1 saved from starvation is worth .. you get the point.
It's just 100% complete bullshit. It's inefficient as fuck and the only thing it's doing is 1) replacing the native population of Sweden and 2) meat/voters for political reform whatever voters for more welfare handouts or as a need to make things more efficient / privatize.
Maybe they could had tried that to the UK:
"You'll have to pay twice as much now and what you get back from that will be cut by 1/4, FYI"
See how well that would had worked.
Sweden is always screwed, we always have to be "best."
Whatever it's fossil use, foreign aid, naive refugee schemes, surrendering our own rights, sucking cock in general (well, including in the literal way, as in accepting rape of Swedish citizens by rapefugees, murder of Swedish citizen by claimed to be "child" Africans and so on we just have to accept it.)
Cuckservative could simply be replaced by "Swede."
"Acting like a fucking Swede" should be the sentence to use , it would possibly help us in Sweden (Then again the traitors and socialists and anti-whites are proud of it so possibly not, and of course people like Sanders would be like "And that's a good thing!")
Rapefugees could be renamed "new-Swedes" or "soon-to-be-Swedes", AIDS "open-your-ass-like-a-Swede-disease" and so on.
As far as I understand, this affects the "Eurolaw"(?) (PrimÃrrecht in German: the basic founding laws of the EU).
In order to change any of them, all participating countries must vote "yes".
Changes to other laws require only majority, but can be vetoed by any member with veto right. UK has veto right.
Thank you.
Then.. how come they want special deals now afterwards if it's things they have actually accepted before? =P
Then again one can of course always change oneÂs mind.
1.7/3.8 = 44.7% back to Sweden.
6.9/11.3 = 61% back to UK.
3.8/9.65 or so million people (2015? Quickly growing) = 0.39 / million.
11.3/65 = 0.17 / million.
So Sweden pay more than twice as much as UK / citizen, UK have at-least 1/3 better deal when it comes to what they get back, lots more "refugees" to Sweden, much higher taxes in Sweden, and so on ..
If any country should leave .. Then again Sweden has been about connecting with other societies and trade for 1000+ years at-least.
Everyone need to be for any expansion of the capability? Not just majority?
With sharing of wealth for instance Sweden is supposed to be the country which pay the most in vs what it get back / capita I think? I assume UK pay in more than what they get back directly, but of course they also have access to the market and the people and get to sell goods onto other EU nations and get their brightest people into their union.
The UN refugee convention doesn't view people from countries at war as refugees (by that alone), it would possibly view Yazidis and Armenians and such as refugees but not your average civilian Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan or so.
The EU however DO view them as refugees so it would make a difference in the definition.
Sweden had it's own lawn with even more people who were granted asylum but that part has been disabled like .. two days ago or so? Maybe it start in July or something.
Also with asylum applications the problem with it in general is that you can't just leave an asylum application at the British embassy in Afghanistan for instance, you most likely have to GET there to turn it in. So there is a difference because then they would possibly have border controls and as such people may not be allowed into the country and able to turn in an asylum application.
Currently Sweden have temporary border controls with Denmark (though in practice they aren't functional) and as a response Denmark have them against Germany (I don't know how efficient they are) and then there's the Turkish buffer zone.
As people without a valid identification isn't supposed to be let into the country a lot of asylum seekers wouldn't be able to get here (at-least not the ones who get rid of any identification to be able to make up their own identity on the spot, such as a child from a war torn country.)
I live in Scandinavia and the open borders for "refugees" and the ability to simply stay if your home country doesn't take back expelled citizens even if you aren't granted asylum and still collect benefits and apply for asylum again four years later and in the case of our previous national law have your "connection to the country" included as a reason to be granted asylum (and still if you've got the money you could ask someone to say they will hire you and get in that way) and the socialist system is of course what have brought so many people mostly here to Sweden but also to Norway and previously Denmark.
It attract "refugees" (third-world immigrants) just like fruit flies to what is soon ruined fruit just like our country will be.
The more uneducated unproductive freeloaders the less competitive economy, less money to share, more people to share with, .. the path to failure.
Mean-while if Sweden had been a tax heaven with open borders then it would had been the rich and successful which came here and that's of course a much more attractive option if you want to be on top.
I agree that with automation maybe the profits need to be shared _IF_ that would be all jobs there is / wealth would be very unevenly distributed. On the other hand we've already had that kind of development before too.
I consider my government traitors and reject them as rulers, their citizenship and residency to the invaders as valid and the complete system as is.
In the case of Brexit there's really three separate issues at hand:
1) Refugees - UK take in far less / capita than Sweden at-least?
2) Work immigration - Likely beneficial for the population at large but not necessarily those who lose their job to them?
3) Power moving further and further away from the individual (from UK to EU and with more socialist ideology, more immigration, more political "elite" (our prime minister in Sweden is a fucking joke and a disaster, he's a retard, a clown, an imbecile) far away.)
If EU was just a free trade union UK would had stayed.
If EU was a free trade + allowed workers to moved union then maybe UK too would had stayed.
But then there's the sharing of wealth with other nations, refugees, more power to the EU rather than politicians close at home. ..
...but where are they getting their electricity?
Traditionally close to 50% hydro power and 50% nuclear power.
Anything else?
(Now some wind, some solar, some bio-fuel, some garbage and also some oil not much and coal is likely very irrelevant in Sweden.)
End Soviet Europe instead.
Then do the TTIP thing or whatever.
it isn't a inherent personal quality. IQ tests are used for situations where it is assumed that it is. See the problem?
Yes.
But the problem isn't that the differences in capability is exist or that they can be measured and improved but that they obviously are used for the wrong purpose.
People in Africa have lower IQ than people in the rest of the world in general.
The black population of the US have lower IQ than the rest in general.
However the black population in the US has gotten higher IQ.
Sure that could be because of breeding with people of other genetics or it's them becoming richer and higher educated. Time will tell if they catch up to the rest of the population eventually or not.
It would be interesting to know whatever they simply are incapable by biology or whatever it's just/mostly a result of trainable behavior and education.
In (Soviet) Russia, Russians rule their own nation!!
Try my lap instead;
hard driving at 10 000 rpm.
It has 4G if storage just like the paperwhite.
It does NOT have a screen light so it's not just like a paperwhite at all.
So, no back-light and lower resolution?
Yeah.. I see how that's exactly the same! Like in.. both are e-readers from Amazon!! ...
You don't think or accept that intelligence can be improved?
Adults are more intelligent than kids (well, as-long as the children aren't more well-educated at-least I guess.)
Your brain learn more and more, deal with it, it does.
ideally, an IQ test should not correlate with education.
Why not?
More experience and training may lead to better problem solving even at tasks you haven't specifically trained for.
Radio / cassette / few CDs become mod(and s3m, xm, ..) become mp3 become digitally imported become last.fm become YouTube.
I've done a huge down-grade in variety from the Internet radio or even last.fm suggestions but it's a legal way to get the track I want to listen to (but sadly misses out on a lot of other things.)
ItÂs worse but legal :/, stupid surveillance.
Why not:
if (((__WCLONE|__WALL) == options) && (0 = current->uid))
retval = -EINVAL;
?
Yeah, after the first reply I thought about the moon, maybe it's not as easy to just do one close by pass?
If you can't hear any noise then surely you shouldn't be able to see any light either.
Otherwise it would be racist. Social justice for everyone! Equality now!
Why is that the case?