Sigh. The EU fucks up again
-
Well I didn't claim hard evidence. I merely said that is what I suspect, from reading news items, listening to discussions and talking with other people. Which of the two main parties in the UK would you class as pro-European (whatever that means)?
The UK's a special case, after Brexit. Both the Tories and Labour now have their knickers in a twist over the issue. Both have a split down the middle of their supporters, and both parties are afraid to alienate either half. We're screwed, here, most likely to end up with the worst of everything, with both parties caught in a trap of our own making.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
IF these people had any sense they'd know who their real enemy is: the 1%.
..which is a reason to be against the EU. It seems that democracy in Europe is determined in Brussels, mostly based on economic motives. With Draghi stealing money and people inventing new forms of inflation just to keep things looking "normal" :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
It would be if our own governments were any better. But this whole sorry mess was kicked off not by the EU but by Thatcher and Reagan. Thinking that Brexit will enable us to "take back control" and be democratic here is a idiotic as the US thinking Trump would do the same for them. Forget democracy, freedom and privacy. They are dead. They were an historical anomaly that flourished briefly in the 20th century, that's all. They were, as Ghandi said about democracy, "a nice idea", but we've lost them now, their Achilles Heel having been exposed once too often to the poisoned arrow of stupidity. Meanwhile, the planet is in real danger, and it requires global solutions. There is no point in country X adopting policies to reduce population, CO2, debt, war, migration, famine if country Y is doing the opposite. Countries need to come together, not break apart.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If the EU had not forced immigration on Europe
The EU Needs A Three-Child Policy – And China Should Pay For It! | Zero Hedge[^] So, an economic move by Europe, not humanitarian one as Merkel promotes it. It is not about saving people from war elsewhere, it is about our workforce and its economics. Sounds very honest of our patriottic politicians, who are paid to work in our interest, and who would technically ensure a democratic process. The EU is as democratic as a drunk Juncker :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Well, whatever the case, if Europe needs more people, surely it's better to bring in migrants who need and want to work than to increase the birth-rate. Whatever the economy needs, the planet does not need an ever increasing population. There are people already born queuing up to work - use them!
-
It would be if our own governments were any better. But this whole sorry mess was kicked off not by the EU but by Thatcher and Reagan. Thinking that Brexit will enable us to "take back control" and be democratic here is a idiotic as the US thinking Trump would do the same for them. Forget democracy, freedom and privacy. They are dead. They were an historical anomaly that flourished briefly in the 20th century, that's all. They were, as Ghandi said about democracy, "a nice idea", but we've lost them now, their Achilles Heel having been exposed once too often to the poisoned arrow of stupidity. Meanwhile, the planet is in real danger, and it requires global solutions. There is no point in country X adopting policies to reduce population, CO2, debt, war, migration, famine if country Y is doing the opposite. Countries need to come together, not break apart.
A_Griffin wrote:
Forget democracy, freedom and privacy. They are dead. They were an historical anomaly that flourished briefly in the 20th century, that's all.
Haha, yes, let's ignore Athens again :D If democracy is dead, then we can save a lot of money by not having elections at all, but I doubt that idea would find widespread support.
A_Griffin wrote:
Meanwhile, the planet is in real danger, and it requires global solutions. There is no point in country X adopting policies to reduce population, CO2, debt, war, migration, famine if country Y is doing the opposite. Countries need to come together, not break apart.
That's the globalist advert, and it is nonsense. If there's a need for an international solution or action, it will follow. We did so with Ebola and other occasions. If there is no global support for reducing CO2, then that must be because not everyone is convinced about the necessity. The only way you can "make" them if you can't convince them is by conquest. Now why would any country refuse to partake if the danger is that obvious? :D Pro-Europeans seem to be confused about what is happening; Catalonia does not have the same goals as Spain, Holland does not have interest in the debts of Italy, and some East-European countries simply say "Fuck You" to Europe. Any farmer will explain that a single crop (a monoculture) is more risky than a diversified crop. Stock-traders will explain the same thing. Breeders will explain the same thing. A large single entity is more fragile, with small problems in one area rippling through the entire entity. Or simpeler; If Italy (or Greece) goes bankrupt, would you rather see all other countries bankrupt too? Or would you prefer a border that dampens the effect? That is Europe on this moment - a group of countries going bankrupt together. The age of the globalist is ending :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Well, whatever the case, if Europe needs more people, surely it's better to bring in migrants who need and want to work than to increase the birth-rate. Whatever the economy needs, the planet does not need an ever increasing population. There are people already born queuing up to work - use them!
We don't need more people. Whether or not we do is not even part of the discussion, because we're simply "saving people from war".
A_Griffin wrote:
There are people already born queuing up to work
No, they're not lining up. They are making headlines, but not in those terms. Which is understandable and predictable.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
A_Griffin wrote:
Forget democracy, freedom and privacy. They are dead. They were an historical anomaly that flourished briefly in the 20th century, that's all.
Haha, yes, let's ignore Athens again :D If democracy is dead, then we can save a lot of money by not having elections at all, but I doubt that idea would find widespread support.
A_Griffin wrote:
Meanwhile, the planet is in real danger, and it requires global solutions. There is no point in country X adopting policies to reduce population, CO2, debt, war, migration, famine if country Y is doing the opposite. Countries need to come together, not break apart.
That's the globalist advert, and it is nonsense. If there's a need for an international solution or action, it will follow. We did so with Ebola and other occasions. If there is no global support for reducing CO2, then that must be because not everyone is convinced about the necessity. The only way you can "make" them if you can't convince them is by conquest. Now why would any country refuse to partake if the danger is that obvious? :D Pro-Europeans seem to be confused about what is happening; Catalonia does not have the same goals as Spain, Holland does not have interest in the debts of Italy, and some East-European countries simply say "Fuck You" to Europe. Any farmer will explain that a single crop (a monoculture) is more risky than a diversified crop. Stock-traders will explain the same thing. Breeders will explain the same thing. A large single entity is more fragile, with small problems in one area rippling through the entire entity. Or simpeler; If Italy (or Greece) goes bankrupt, would you rather see all other countries bankrupt too? Or would you prefer a border that dampens the effect? That is Europe on this moment - a group of countries going bankrupt together. The age of the globalist is ending :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Well I'm not arguing for a single European super-state, but a confederation of semi-autonomous nations would be better equipped to confront global issues than a load of fully independent ones. A farmer, if you want to use that as an analogy, will rotate crops, not treat each field independently - the whole farm has to work as one. Independent countries each selfishly following what they perceive at any one moment as their own best interests is not in the long term best interests of everyone (including them).
-
We don't need more people. Whether or not we do is not even part of the discussion, because we're simply "saving people from war".
A_Griffin wrote:
There are people already born queuing up to work
No, they're not lining up. They are making headlines, but not in those terms. Which is understandable and predictable.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Yes, unfortunately the way the MSM works such headlines are indeed understandable and predictable... Most people, in any group, want to work. Terrorists are a (very small) minority. Benefits slackers are a (pretty small) minority. Both within indigenous populations and immigrant ones. The vast majority of people want to contribute and feel useful and earn money.
-
Uh... "some people", if you please, not "the people". The majority of Europeans (and even Brits, I'd wager, despite the recent Brexit vote) are behind the EU. That there are vocal and ugly nationalist voices being raised now has less to do with open borders than with the disaster that deregulation of the financial sector has wreaked upon the economies, and some people are looking for an easy target to blame. Of course, immigrants and foreigners provide such an easy target. IF these people had any sense they'd know who their real enemy is: the 1%.
What utter crap. I cant believe you would try to confuse anger over deregulation of banking with the lack of democratic process in the EU. It is utterly ridiculous to do so.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If the EU had not forced immigration on Europe
The EU Needs A Three-Child Policy – And China Should Pay For It! | Zero Hedge[^] So, an economic move by Europe, not humanitarian one as Merkel promotes it. It is not about saving people from war elsewhere, it is about our workforce and its economics. Sounds very honest of our patriottic politicians, who are paid to work in our interest, and who would technically ensure a democratic process. The EU is as democratic as a drunk Juncker :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
It goes with Germany's deregulation of the labour market, which has driven wages down. Allowing in a million unskilled people, if they ever worked, and most wont, they are muslims after all, will drive wages lower still.
-
What utter crap. I cant believe you would try to confuse anger over deregulation of banking with the lack of democratic process in the EU. It is utterly ridiculous to do so.
-
I am sorry you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture, being blinded by xenophobia if not pure racism. There is a clear straight line between the banking fiasco and the mess we are in today, economically and socially and politically.
-
The UK's a special case, after Brexit. Both the Tories and Labour now have their knickers in a twist over the issue. Both have a split down the middle of their supporters, and both parties are afraid to alienate either half. We're screwed, here, most likely to end up with the worst of everything, with both parties caught in a trap of our own making.
Neither of them were pro-EU even before the referendum. They were lukewarm at best. Only the Lib Dems are actually pro-EU.
-
Nevertheless, Sunday's vote marks a significant shift in German politics, with initial projections showing the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party winning over 13 percent of the vote[^] 94 seats will be won by the AFD. Who are they? The party was founded on opposition to Germany's financial support of other Eurozone states and the third main point of its initial platform called for Germany to cede no further elements of its sovereignty to the EU without approval via a referendum[^] Anti islam, anti immigration, anti gay, anti AGW, etc, the usual. If the EU had not forced immigration on Europe, if it had not forced ever closer union on Europe, if it had not dictated and instead listened to the people of Europe, there would not be an AFD. There would not have been a Brexit. The far right would not have gained such support across europe. The EU by its very dictatorial idealism is in fact destroying itself. When will continental Europeans learn for fucks sake.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
When will continental Europeans learn for f***s sake.
:thumbsup: Good question. They are so busy with Trump/America bashing, that they forgot about themselves.
-
I am sorry you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture, being blinded by xenophobia if not pure racism. There is a clear straight line between the banking fiasco and the mess we are in today, economically and socially and politically.
A_Griffin wrote:
blinded by xenophobia if not pure racism
WTF? How on earth do you imply that merely from me commenting on the rise of the far right?
A_Griffin wrote:
There is a clear straight line between the banking fiasco and the mess we are in today,
Yes, the deregulation of debt has created debt. We know that. It is pretty obvious. But the rise of the far right is because of the EU's dictatorial disregard for democracy. Look, Germany isnt IN a mess economically. It has not had a recession, is not in debt, has a trade surplus and was in no way impacted by the crash. Yet they voted for the far right in large numbers. You are wrong. Admit it.
-
Well I'm not arguing for a single European super-state, but a confederation of semi-autonomous nations would be better equipped to confront global issues than a load of fully independent ones. A farmer, if you want to use that as an analogy, will rotate crops, not treat each field independently - the whole farm has to work as one. Independent countries each selfishly following what they perceive at any one moment as their own best interests is not in the long term best interests of everyone (including them).
So you dont pursue what is in you and your families best interests? Instead you think of everyone else in where ever it is you live, and do what is right for them?
-
Well, whatever the case, if Europe needs more people, surely it's better to bring in migrants who need and want to work than to increase the birth-rate. Whatever the economy needs, the planet does not need an ever increasing population. There are people already born queuing up to work - use them!
Your suggestion works well for the first generation. However migrants have a tendency to have larger families, which means that by bringing in migrants a country is generally looking at a demographic explosion within a few generations.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
????? You're joking, right? It had EVERYTHING to do with them. It was they who initiated the deregulation of the financial sector, from which the rest followed as surely as night follows day.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
blinded by xenophobia if not pure racism
WTF? How on earth do you imply that merely from me commenting on the rise of the far right?
A_Griffin wrote:
There is a clear straight line between the banking fiasco and the mess we are in today,
Yes, the deregulation of debt has created debt. We know that. It is pretty obvious. But the rise of the far right is because of the EU's dictatorial disregard for democracy. Look, Germany isnt IN a mess economically. It has not had a recession, is not in debt, has a trade surplus and was in no way impacted by the crash. Yet they voted for the far right in large numbers. You are wrong. Admit it.
A bandwagon has been set rolling, and the far right have been jumping on board everywhere. Trump’s election has as much to do with their success in Germany as anything. As you say, nothing that drastic has changed in Germany – all that has is that right feels empowered now to speak out. And the roots of all this lie not in the admittedly poor democratic model – after all, that too hasn’t changed recently. It lies in the harsh times brought on my austerity which followed the economic disaster that was deregulation, and people looking for scapegoats. And the easiest of all are immigrants and the unemployed. It’s a tactic as old as the hills. And the far right love it, and lap it up like hungry jackels. And the bloody MSM played right into their hands – hardly surprising considering who bankrolls them.