1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by TheBlackSwordsMan, 22 Feb 2016.

  1. g1lgamesh

    g1lgamesh Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    5

    Lol but it has NEVER won one on its own against a 1st world nation
     
  2. g1lgamesh

    g1lgamesh Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    5
    It is not often I post on a subject like this; as I have to be careful due representing certain companies..... However personally I am OUT of the EU, for one reason only.... It is FAR TOO soon and we don't know enough about each other as of yet. We all had a war not 70 years ago and we have all been scrapping since 700AD! At this moment I would say no to the UK in the EU... BUT approach us again in two hundred years time when we have all learned to trust each other and there has been no wars within the EU.

    We love Europe as a people and their myriad of cultures, but as a political entity no way.
     
  3. g1lgamesh

    g1lgamesh Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    5
    Interesting thinking there.
    But take it one step further, religion is the problem not just Islam but all organised religions. They all pretend to be good as their 'holy book' says so and other such rubbish

    I will counter by a quote from Sir Arthur C Clarke

    " It is one of the greatest tragedies of mankind that MORALITY has been hijacked by religion! One does NOT need religion to be moral-instead one should be moral for moralities sake"

    Case in point, this nutter in my city of Leeds, whom was touting the bible and screaming that the UK is only for Christianity and that Islam is an invading religion. To which i quite rightly pointed out.... hang on YOU are an invading religion. The natural religion of Albion is Druidism-if you were a druid you might have a point but you arent you are a Christian and therefore belong to an invading religion.

    Point I am making is Islam isnt the issue-RELIGION as whole is the issue! I think we need some sanity back.
     
  4. Pliqu3011

    Pliqu3011 all flowers in time bend towards the sun

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    2,736
    Likes Received:
    256
    Again I am thoroughly confused by an argument. How would stepping out of (and thereby damaging) a union of European countries improve the chances of peace between the UK and said European countries over the next _ years?
     
  5. g1lgamesh

    g1lgamesh Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    5
    What peace? 70 years of peace in how long? A thousand years?

    Also did i say it would improve? I Actually alluded that the UK should NEVER have joined in the first place.... it is too soon.

    But then again you sound biased, so no amount of explanation would suffice.
     
  6. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    91
    Um, I'm not sure Afghanistan's problems started in 2001, iirc the refugee numbers were far greater in the 80's, if more localised.

    And what would your wise policy have been in 2001, with the taliban in power and Al-Queda, safe under their wing? If anything the mistake in Afghanistan was insufficient intervention from 2003 due to the Iraq commitment amongst other things.

    Perhaps it';s a matter of perspective. You may have seen 9/11 as an attack on "Them", the Americans, whereas at the time if felt to me more like an attack on "Us".
     
  7. TheBlackSwordsMan

    TheBlackSwordsMan Far over the misty mountains cold

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    363


    Because it didn't, It's like saying WW2 started with Pearl Harbor. Why nobody ever pin the blame on the Russians? They caused this mess, they invaded Afghanistan in the first place.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,173
    Likes Received:
    1,635
    Actually the problems in Afghanistan started back in 1839 (the UK got its ass kicked then, too). The USSR was ostensibly 'invited' by the then Afghan despotic government in 1979 --and got its ass kicked in the ensuing war (there's a pattern here...). The West got involved and sponsored the creation of Jihadi warriors --the Mujahideen-- to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden graduated from terrorist/freedom fighter (cross out as applicable) school in that insurgent movement. The Mujahideen later split into local feudal warlords and the Taliban, who were favourable to Al Quaeda.

    Didn't stop the US contemplating doing business with the Taliban as recent as 1996, with respects oil and gas. The way they figured it, the Taliban would provide some stability to the region. There was going to be Sharia law and some oppression of women, but you know, Saudi Arabia is pretty much the same and that worked out...

    My wise policy would have been to not sponsor the creation of a religious fundamentalist fighting force to oppose the Soviets, because that couldn't possibly come back to bite you in the Western secular ass, could it? But once I had made that dumb mistake, I most definitely would not invade a country that has a long tradition and practice in kicking out superior invading powers (and trust me, Afghans make some fierce warriors --especially the women should scare you), without any long-term planning as to who would fill that vast vacuum of power in a stable and democratic fashion and how, over some vague notion that Bin Laden might be hiding there. And definitely not to invade Iraq two years later without any long-term planning as to who would fill that vast vacuum of power in a stable and democratic fashion and how, over some vague idea of WMD, just to strategically dilute resources over two distant and complex conflict zones.

    From the average, barely literate Afghan's perspective they genuinely could not understand why the West wanted to invade their country because some Saudi geezers blew up a building in a distant city called "New York" that they had never heard of before (this is not hyperbole: this is quite literally how they perceived things). Are we winning hearts and minds yet?

    But back to the EU. We've just barely come out of the worst and scariest economic recession since the 1930's, with more economic trouble on the horizon, the Middle East is in meltdown, the US is about to elect a Hitler with a bouffant for president, and right now Cameron thinks it's a good idea to put to the masses the question as to whether to leave the EU. I mean, this is right up there with Blair thinking: "Hey, let's invade Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time". Britain's future in the EU may be a valid question, but right now it's a really bad time to ask it. Seriously, let's put this on hold for five years or so. Sure, renegotiate some conditions, arrange some special deals, work to change the system from within. But right now is not the time to make big, far-reaching decisions the outcome of which neither side has been able to confidently project. Just don't do it now. Now is the worst possible time.
     
    Last edited: 8 Mar 2016
  9. TheBlackSwordsMan

    TheBlackSwordsMan Far over the misty mountains cold

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    363


    Now that's the Nexxo I'm used to. It's not as simple as 'It's because we went to Afghanistan/Iraq in 2001' It surely did not helped but the middle east would probably still be a mess, just a different one.
     
  10. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,191
    Likes Received:
    152
    There is never ideal conditions for any change. Holding off for an undefined state to occur will mean change never happens. Fair enough, wait if you can define an event that is guaranteed to happen at some stage in the future within a reasonable time frame but simply waiting for better conditions is a non runner as even if current conditions improve, there will simply be some other problem that will have occurred that will be best to let pass.

    Besides if Britain is capable of standing on its own without the EU then it should be able to transition out of the eu in any climate
     
  11. aramil

    aramil One does not simply upgrade Forums

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2012
    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    57
    No now is the best time,

    The EU have just tried to seal a deal which takes imigrants from the EU and sends them to a none EU country with a questionable human rights record.... but it's ok because the EU is paying them Many £'s for it. While I agree that it would make boat smuggling a none starter, I have to doubt that A, it's legal by International Law, B,they will go peacefully, C, Turkey is really going to be able to cope.

    As this happens far right pollitical groups start to hold some sway across Europe and so mainstream parties respond with a harder line (would we be having this vote if it was not for the Con's worry over UKIP), border lines/fences/gates are draw and slowly but surely the EU begins to fall appart. You will never get a countries goverment to agree to polices it's people feel are to soft and not hard line enough.

    You want to wait until when? it sinks? all across Europe countries are becoming more inward thinking and while the "Pollotics" are trying to put a unified face on it, we all know thats really another lie. A panic made deal that legally is questionable that if it goes wrong every EU member can say "but Turkey did not do its job properly" it's not a solution, it's escape goat pollotics from a "group of ministers" who are now very worried about what the folks back home think, and what we in the UK are going to do.

    There is never a good time for an arranged seperation in anything, but i have never seen draging it out over many years work yet.
     
  12. javaman

    javaman May irritate Eyes

    Joined:
    10 May 2009
    Posts:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    95
    The whole Speeding up Turkeys entry is just repeat of what distablised the EU to begin with. To solve the problem of a few hundred thousand migrants we're going to give freedom of movement to Millions despite the country not meeting the criteria to join.
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,173
    Likes Received:
    1,635
    I don't think it is. We now live in a global economy where a bad day on the stock market in China or India has an impact right here. Everybody is connected.
     
  14. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,191
    Likes Received:
    152
    Really I think that's about all it boils down to. Will Britain leaving have a negative affect on its economy. Anything else is just internal political and law making matters, which will be adjusted by the politicians that have been elected.

    I think your biggest fear here is that you will be left in a country with a voting population that doesn't share your own social and political ideals.
     
  15. aramil

    aramil One does not simply upgrade Forums

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2012
    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    57
    Yeah but this won't change in or out of Europe,(if the poo hits the fan in the US etc the EU will not be able to save us), if anything outside of Europe our response can be quicker and more dynamic than being in Europe.

    Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
     
  16. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    91

    As expected your answer to what should have been done in 2001 is:

    A. Do different stuff in the past.
    and
    B. Not to do whatever was done at the time.
     
  17. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    52
    The laws governing refugees and asylum seekers are outdated and exist to meet a post WWII style crisis with millions of people who both had a paper trail and a desire to go back home when they could. The laws need to change to take into account things like extremists (the Islamic state for instance, who have declared war on the west) hiding among refuges as well as the masses of people using the war as an excuse to justify economic migration.

    The very idea of EU goes against the concept of diversity in the first place, be it ethnically, culturally or linguistically. It's gone from a free trade zone to a monster with the aim of homogenizing everyone and everything within it's sphere of influence whilst controlling it from Brussels. In such a world that which is different eventually dies, the direction of travel is obvious. What historically made Europe so rich and successful is now slowly but surely dying.

    …add to that mass immigration of barbaric backwards cultures into these nations and communities with no real interest in assimilating. It's tearing the entire continent apart. Even IF these people wanted to assimilate that's no longer possible because there's too many of them and the host nations can't keep up and as a result they can't assimilate them.

    Look.

    The latest generation have been brainwashed by television, politics, press, college & universities into believing that multiculturalism is the only answer to a good life. But multiculturalism is exactly what it says on the tin. Multiple types of cultures who are expected to live under the same rules, same ideologies, same framework of ethics etc. Yet this goes against the very notion of cultural identity. If you throw everything and everyone in a melting pot ala the blender and say "co-exist" then you'll ultimately kill diversity, the very diversity the progressives always praise yet seem hell bent to completely destroy because every political decision they take eventually leads to its destruction. They are suffering from doublethink and they are oblivious to it.


    This is the progressives for you, playing the mandatory racist card. Anyone with concerns and or valid arguments against either mass immigration or multiculturalism or both are immediately rendered racist and written off as such. Looking out for your nation (nation=people) having their best interest at heart is racist according to progressives. Well, that is not only utter BS but a position that's in and of itself racist.

    This white guilt culture and self hate the progressives all suffers from isn't healthy.
     
    Last edited: 9 Mar 2016
  18. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,191
    Likes Received:
    152
    Look at what happened in Paris. As far as I'm aware those extremists weren't refugees nor were the guys the flew that planes into the world trade centre, nor were those guys that bombed the marathon. The idea that groups of refugees may harbour terrorists is sort of a moot point if a terrorist can get into a country or are recruited from within a country anyway.
     
  19. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    52
    That may or may not be accurate but it's not a reason for not controlling the borders.

    Ninja edit.
    You forgot about the London bombings.
     
  20. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    This is what i find most concerning, not your comment but that people may vote based along political lines and/or use it as a means of protest/support for a particular political view, that people will vote based on short term political ideals.
     

Share This Page