4 ms·

I don't think it has anything to do with bananas. Brussels have too much power and byrocracy. It's mainly about mass immigration. EU was meant to be about trade

I don't think it has anything to do with bananas. Brussels have too much power and byrocracy. It's mainly about mass immigration. EU was meant to be about trade and free movement inside our borders, not some EU super state and Brussels telling what to do. People want nation states, no one voted for mass immigration. You can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact.

Oletros 10y ago
To understand your point, in what mass migration are you thinking about? And what EU policy allowed it?
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Merkel/Brussels/EU telling how to handle refugees, how many should (independent) EU state take them, when etc. People don't like it or want it. They want to decide decisions like that on their own.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    Germany took 1.1 million refugees and 120.000 were to other countries. Are you saying that 120.000 refugees in 24 countries is mass migration in the EU?
    - angry-hacker 10y ago
      Well, in total its 1.1 million people and since we have free movement in Schengen, it affects everyone. 1.1 is definitely mass immigration and in the end, it's for the people of EU countries decide what they want. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else calls it. It's very obvious people don't want it, and they didn't elect the people who are making these decisions for them. Sweden alone has gotten 100,000 applications.
      - Oletros 10y ago
        > Well, in total its 1.1 million people and since we have free movement in Schengen, it affects everyone So, you're admitting that you were wrong in your first claim > 1.1 is definitely mass immigration You have a very strange definition of mass. > it's for the people of EU countries decide what they want. Yes, because of that we have institutions in the EU. > It's very obvious people don't want it, and they didn't elect the people who are making these decisions for them. Yes, they did. Do you know how the EU works and how the institutions are elected or formed?
        angry-hacker 10y ago
        The institutions most definitely are not democratically elected, even some of the head of states and against things that are being forced upon their countries. You can try all day convince me others about your "liberal" (since it's U.S based community, I use this stupid term) ideas and how you're right, I'm not, but the fact is people on independent EU states don't agree with you and in the end of the day that is what matters. That is why the EU project is about to be destroyed because so-called liberals deny problems and never listens to other side's arguments. Instead of improving and changing things, hard break up is the only way and this is what is happening. It's time to pop out from your bubble.
        richmarr 10y ago
        > The institutions most definitely are not democratically elected... You're stretching the truth past breaking point here. Firstly, Oletros, said "elected or formed", so you're misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against that misrepresentation. Secondly, the Parliament is democratically elected, the Council consists of heads of state (also democratic), and the Commission is appointed by democratically elected member governments (so also democratic). > You can try all day convince me... Ah, so after having your 'alternative facts' challenged you're adopting the fingers-in-ears-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you defence. Bravo. Bravo. > It's time to pop out from your bubble. The strongest support for Brexit came from comparatively isolated communities with little or no immigration. Cities, where people are exposed to a variety of cultures, tended to vote Remain. It seems pretty clear which group is better described as living in a bubble.
richmarr 10y ago
> Brussels have too much power and byrocracy. Well, it may be about immigration but your bureaucracy point is precisely about bananas. The EU has been positioned by the UK media as being a pointless bureaucracy that obsesses about how bent bananas are... which is a huge charicature. There are undoubtedly bureaucratic aspects to the EU but speaking in broad generalisations isn't useful.. they need to be discussed on a case by case basis. > It's mainly about mass immigration. Again, immigration is broadly speaking a problem because of a lack of investment in infrastructure. The immigration itself is a net benefit. The UK economy is stronger with immigrants than without. Outside the EU the UK will actually require increased immigration to grow, rather than decreased. [Edit: missed a point...] >* People want nation states, no one voted for mass immigration. You can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact.* What makes you so confident in speaking for what "people want"? Clearly at least 48% of referendum voters disagree with you; saying "people want" when you're talking about a razor-thin majority (after a campaign packed with proven lies) seems like a huge overstatement. Even amongst the 52% there are different groups. Some voted for soverignty, some because of fear of immigration, some out of anger against the political system, and some because they're just racist... for example YouGov polls measured that UKIP have double the national average of people who self-identify as having racist opinions, and that ~50% of UKIP voters support repatriation of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, which is a policy even the BNP dropped. I don't think you should hold any illusions about who the racist vote is allied with, so you should be very careful how you speak and think about immigration to avoid finding yourself standing on the wrong side of that line.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  There is nothing racist about wanting nation states and controlled immigration. You can't convince me with your blind agenda everyone is racist. Neither do I have to be careful. Why? The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do. I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out. What's there to discuss?
  - richmarr 10y ago
    > There is nothing racist about wanting nation states and controlled immigration. Well no, it depends why you want it, doesn't it. There are racist reasons to want increased immigration controls and non-racist reasons to want it. > You can't convince me with your blind agenda everyone is racist. I didn't say everyone is racist, did I. I have no idea what a "blind agenda" is, but I'm not the one misrepresenting what's been said, so it seems less likely I'm the one peddling an agenda. > Neither do I have to be careful. Why? Because if you're not careful about the way you discuss immigration people might mistake your motivations as being racist. I assumed that wouldn't be desirable, your choice though obviously. > The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do. So socialists aren't "the people". Ooookay, that's an interesting distinction. To be honest though, "the people" you describe are wrong... you and I will have front-row seats as multi-nationals threaten to leave the UK and we have to drop corporation tax to encourage some of them to stay, as banks in the City of London lose their EU trading passports and leave for Paris, as the immigrant doctors and nurses propping up our under-invested NHS stop coming. A weak pound making imports much more expensive, causing inflation and increasing poverty. Increased tarrifs on 44% of our exports (the amount that goes to the EU) also sounds great... plenty of businesses will go bankrupt over that, meaning increased unemployment, reduced tax revenues, cuts to public services (or increased nation debt). That'll all be fun. Loving how this stronger UK that "the people" see is sounding. > I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out. 52%, who were lied to during the campaign, some of whom would vote differently now. Some of whom have since died, and been replaced by young remain voters. Yes "the UK" voted to leave, just, but if you claim to speak for "the people" then you're clearly wrong. > What's there to discuss? Everything? For a start it looks like Scotland is as likely as not to leave the UK because of Brexit. Well done for that. End of a 300 year era. Personally I'm doing what I can to stop Brexit, because it's insane.

Oletros 10y ago

To understand your point, in what mass migration are you thinking about? And what EU policy allowed it?

angry-hacker 10y ago
Merkel/Brussels/EU telling how to handle refugees, how many should (independent) EU state take them, when etc. People don't like it or want it. They want to decide decisions like that on their own.
- Oletros 10y ago
  Germany took 1.1 million refugees and 120.000 were to other countries. Are you saying that 120.000 refugees in 24 countries is mass migration in the EU?
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Well, in total its 1.1 million people and since we have free movement in Schengen, it affects everyone. 1.1 is definitely mass immigration and in the end, it's for the people of EU countries decide what they want. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else calls it. It's very obvious people don't want it, and they didn't elect the people who are making these decisions for them. Sweden alone has gotten 100,000 applications.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > Well, in total its 1.1 million people and since we have free movement in Schengen, it affects everyone So, you're admitting that you were wrong in your first claim > 1.1 is definitely mass immigration You have a very strange definition of mass. > it's for the people of EU countries decide what they want. Yes, because of that we have institutions in the EU. > It's very obvious people don't want it, and they didn't elect the people who are making these decisions for them. Yes, they did. Do you know how the EU works and how the institutions are elected or formed?
      - angry-hacker 10y ago
        The institutions most definitely are not democratically elected, even some of the head of states and against things that are being forced upon their countries. You can try all day convince me others about your "liberal" (since it's U.S based community, I use this stupid term) ideas and how you're right, I'm not, but the fact is people on independent EU states don't agree with you and in the end of the day that is what matters. That is why the EU project is about to be destroyed because so-called liberals deny problems and never listens to other side's arguments. Instead of improving and changing things, hard break up is the only way and this is what is happening. It's time to pop out from your bubble.
        richmarr 10y ago
        > The institutions most definitely are not democratically elected... You're stretching the truth past breaking point here. Firstly, Oletros, said "elected or formed", so you're misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against that misrepresentation. Secondly, the Parliament is democratically elected, the Council consists of heads of state (also democratic), and the Commission is appointed by democratically elected member governments (so also democratic). > You can try all day convince me... Ah, so after having your 'alternative facts' challenged you're adopting the fingers-in-ears-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you defence. Bravo. Bravo. > It's time to pop out from your bubble. The strongest support for Brexit came from comparatively isolated communities with little or no immigration. Cities, where people are exposed to a variety of cultures, tended to vote Remain. It seems pretty clear which group is better described as living in a bubble.

richmarr 10y ago

> Brussels have too much power and byrocracy. Well, it may be about immigration but your bureaucracy point is precisely about bananas. The EU has been positioned by the UK media as being a pointless bureaucracy that obsesses about how bent bananas are... which is a huge charicature. There are undoubtedly bureaucratic aspects to the EU but speaking in broad generalisations isn't useful.. they need to be discussed on a case by case basis. > It's mainly about mass immigration. Again, immigration is broadly speaking a problem because of a lack of investment in infrastructure. The immigration itself is a net benefit. The UK economy is stronger with immigrants than without. Outside the EU the UK will actually require increased immigration to grow, rather than decreased. [Edit: missed a point...] >* People want nation states, no one voted for mass immigration. You can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact.* What makes you so confident in speaking for what "people want"? Clearly at least 48% of referendum voters disagree with you; saying "people want" when you're talking about a razor-thin majority (after a campaign packed with proven lies) seems like a huge overstatement. Even amongst the 52% there are different groups. Some voted for soverignty, some because of fear of immigration, some out of anger against the political system, and some because they're just racist... for example YouGov polls measured that UKIP have double the national average of people who self-identify as having racist opinions, and that ~50% of UKIP voters support repatriation of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, which is a policy even the BNP dropped. I don't think you should hold any illusions about who the racist vote is allied with, so you should be very careful how you speak and think about immigration to avoid finding yourself standing on the wrong side of that line.

angry-hacker 10y ago
There is nothing racist about wanting nation states and controlled immigration. You can't convince me with your blind agenda everyone is racist. Neither do I have to be careful. Why? The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do. I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out. What's there to discuss?
- richmarr 10y ago
  > There is nothing racist about wanting nation states and controlled immigration. Well no, it depends why you want it, doesn't it. There are racist reasons to want increased immigration controls and non-racist reasons to want it. > You can't convince me with your blind agenda everyone is racist. I didn't say everyone is racist, did I. I have no idea what a "blind agenda" is, but I'm not the one misrepresenting what's been said, so it seems less likely I'm the one peddling an agenda. > Neither do I have to be careful. Why? Because if you're not careful about the way you discuss immigration people might mistake your motivations as being racist. I assumed that wouldn't be desirable, your choice though obviously. > The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do. So socialists aren't "the people". Ooookay, that's an interesting distinction. To be honest though, "the people" you describe are wrong... you and I will have front-row seats as multi-nationals threaten to leave the UK and we have to drop corporation tax to encourage some of them to stay, as banks in the City of London lose their EU trading passports and leave for Paris, as the immigrant doctors and nurses propping up our under-invested NHS stop coming. A weak pound making imports much more expensive, causing inflation and increasing poverty. Increased tarrifs on 44% of our exports (the amount that goes to the EU) also sounds great... plenty of businesses will go bankrupt over that, meaning increased unemployment, reduced tax revenues, cuts to public services (or increased nation debt). That'll all be fun. Loving how this stronger UK that "the people" see is sounding. > I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out. 52%, who were lied to during the campaign, some of whom would vote differently now. Some of whom have since died, and been replaced by young remain voters. Yes "the UK" voted to leave, just, but if you claim to speak for "the people" then you're clearly wrong. > What's there to discuss? Everything? For a start it looks like Scotland is as likely as not to leave the UK because of Brexit. Well done for that. End of a 300 year era. Personally I'm doing what I can to stop Brexit, because it's insane.