It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EU shock as 'out' vote sweeps 6% ahead!

page: 13
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 83LibertyFirstly, if you read through this whole thread again, you will realise that immigration is not talked about much at all,


I was not responding to the entire thread, I was responding to this..




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Might not be a popular view on here, but I personally support staying in and think "my side" will take it by 5% or more.

British polling is notoriously inaccurate, and the "in" campaign has barely started.

Both views have strong merit though. It's not impossible that I'll change my mind having considered the arguments.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: KingIcarus
The big debate hasn't started yet so that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Of course if in the mean time the EU appears more of a train crash by the week then that will influence many of our considerations.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


we would be "swamped" with refugees, perhaps 10 million of them. What is the worst thing that might happen?



You are ALREADY swamped, or hadn't you noticed? and they are

still arriving by the droves. Your neighbours are putting up borders

and Ms Merkel is desperately trying to get other EU members to

take in more that they want or can handle.

There are lots of reports of a media 'blackout' so the full extent of

the problem is being hidden.... what has got out and been seen is

chilling to say the least.




It is even more important if you want to preserve an healthy mix of young and old; if the Germans would not take in refugees, in 2060 over half the population would be either too young to work or too old to work - but still alive.



That's when the Germans will be conquered a population of too

old to do anything about anything ..... and young ... young enough

to indoctrinate in middle eastern culture. So yes a middle eastern

Germany will rise from the ashes.



Yes, the will influence the way Germans work and live. But the current German / EU culture will have a far more significant impact on the migrants that their culture will have on ours.


LOL!! You really believe that!!!





In the end you'll end up with at best and at most say 80 million Germans in 2060, and yes, some of them (roughly 10-20 percent I guess) will be offspring of migrants. And speak German, dress like other Germans, and the mix will be quite beautiful I guess. Pity I probably won't be around then to see it!



*Fools Paradise* comes to mind ... 10-20% will be the offspring of migrants?

If they exercise their Muslim rights with four wives a piece the percentage

will be well above that and I wouldn't bank on them dressing as Germans the

Burkka is gaining popularity in the Muslim culture by the day, including the

converts.



The UK (64 million people) has similar problems and needs 200.000 migrants to come into the country each year to stabilize the population (which is actually a goal of your current government). But guess what: if the UK closes their borders, the Continent will simply keep the migrants to themselves.



Don't you worry your self about the UK we'll do just fine after we vote OUT.




edit on 25-1-2016 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: 83LibertyFirstly, if you read through this whole thread again, you will realise that immigration is not talked about much at all,


I was not responding to the entire thread, I was responding to this..


You are saying that you were responding to a post that was posted AFTER your post? Now I've heard it all!

Just click back a page and re-read the post sequence, it's clearly obvious you were responding to eletheia, who never even talked about immigration in the post you replied back to, by the way.

Stop lying.
edit on 83109bAmerica/ChicagoMon, 25 Jan 2016 14:09:32 -06003116 by 83Liberty because: slight correction



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

You seem to be confused. Yes, I was responding to a post of Elethea. I would never lie, it's beyond my capabilities.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: 83Liberty

You seem to be confused. Yes, I was responding to a post of Elethea. I would never lie, it's beyond my capabilities.


But the post you are linking was made AFTER you claimed.. "Also, in as far as I understood the out-crowd in here, they are mostly opposed to immigration". Which is what our little debate is about.

It is you who is confused.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheiaYou are ALREADY swamped, or hadn't you noticed?


Actually - no, I hadn't noticed. You seem to have a rather peculiar problem with mathematics, or a very strange perception of what "swamped" means.

We have roughly 500 million people in the EU. Let's subtract the folks in the UK: still 440 million people left. Now, let's assume we would take in EACH AND EVERY SYRIAN, all 20 millon of them. That would simply add 4-5 percent to the current population - NINETY-SIX PERCENT OF THE EU POPULATION WOULD STILL BE NON-SYRIAN EVEN IF EACH AND EVERY SYRIAN CAME TO LIVE HERE.

So, swamped.. no, I wouldn't say swamped



LOL!! You really believe that!!!


Yes, I do. Don't underestimate EU culture, it's proven to be VERY resilient. There will be far more people that adopt our culture and way of living than the other way around, rest assured.


Don't you worry your self about the UK we'll do just fine after we vote OUT.


And far better if you vote IN - and we will even consider sharing our new workforce with you then
edit on 25-1-2016 by ForteanOrg because: he unquoted before quoting..



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: 83LibertyIt is you who is confused.


Well, I am now



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg
No surprise there then lol



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Ironically, in an ideal world I would consider myself an anarchist.

Unfortunately I am also a realist and I recognise that the biggest problem with anarchy is human beings - until some sort of step change is achieved there will always be a large percentage of human beings who will always seek to use, exploit and bully other human beings - that is simply the reality of the world we live in and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

But surely you recognise that the EU as it is today is the very antithesis of an anarchist state?
It seeks to dictate and enforce conformity to its ideals even if that is against both the wishes and interests of the population.

Anarchists desire NO GOVERNMENT......you advocate bigger government.

You support an entity that seeks to interfere and govern almost every aspect of an individuals life.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

I've come to the conclusion, based upon those long rambling rants I've read that most of his positions aren't anything to do with anarchism, but a reaction to those he feels inferior to and thus are borne of a desperate sort of hatred.


The mask slips every now and then and you can see the glee at the thought of misfortune befalling those he aligns himself against.


Anyway, pardon my interruption.




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg



The UK (64 million people) has similar problems and needs 200.000 migrants to come into the country each year to stabilize the population (which is actually a goal of your current government). But guess what: if the UK closes their borders, the Continent will simply keep the migrants to themselves, and in the end will have a strong, relatively young working population - and you will end up with a lot of very stiff upper lips, indeed




Again more bollocks.

Leaving the EU does not stop immigration into the UK!

All it means is :

1) We can give equal treatment to those wanting to come here from outside the EU.

2) We can pick what 200,000 we want to come in.


Rather have 200,000 immigrants with Science and Engineering degrees or nurses and doctors from outside the EU than 200,000 low/ unkilled migrants.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: eletheiaAlso, in as far as I understood the out-crowd in here, they are mostly opposed to immigration. But, from the very same article too:
A separate study released earlier this week by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research claimed Britain's economy could be 11 per cent smaller, and individual wages lower, by 2060 if net migration were halved from its current trend level of 200,000 a year.


Firstly, if you read through this whole thread again, you will realise that immigration is not talked about much at all, and some people have even said they don't care about the immigration issue. Economics has been the main focus of this thread followed by democracy. So I'm not sure where you got the idea "as far as I understood the out-crowd in here, they are mostly opposed to immigration".

Secondly, we're are not "opposed to immigration". We want CONTROL of our borders, that is a massive difference, so go take your relentless BS elsewhere please. Even the article you have quoted has got it wrong (unless it's like 5 years out of date), because our current NET immigration is over 350,000 per year (more than the population of Coventry by the way) and it's increasing, so surely even the basic school kid can see that it is not sustainable.


Yup immigration is my last concern.

My concern is the political union and the sheer corruption and Authoritarian nonsense that goes on in Brussels.

I want the EU to go back to a economic union only!



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Sorry going way off topic there, but a discussion on anarchy would be interesting
edit on 26-1-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: FreebornUnfortunately I am also a realist and I recognise that the biggest problem with anarchy is human beings


Yes, indeed

Like you, I'm a realist. Therefore, I hesitantly choose to be a socialist. I loathe some of the peculiarities of socialism, but it is, IMHO, the best path to anarchism we can take today. Socialism is a way of thinking, and it's not bound to nations or borders. Neither is anarchism. I'm also of the opinion, given the relatively good quality of our lives in the EU, that we do not need revolution or wars. We can work within the system to gradually steer it towards anarchy. And actually, our current society is already a lot more anarchistic than it ever was.


Anarchists desire NO GOVERNMENT......you advocate bigger government.


Anarchists loathe the idea that one person can force his / her will upon another. They are simply deeply aware of the fact that no man is better than another. But anarchists can't do much without other people either, and to cooperate with others - we need rules, Laws and regulations. Even anarchists are totally willing to offer a bit of their personal freedom for the general good. As long as they can understand it's for the general good..

We need advisors to create our Laws, rules and regulations. Alas, we pick very strange advisors! We allow laymen, that specialise in scoffing at others instead of in thinking about generally acceptable solutions, to decide for us. That's stupid. Laws, rules and regulations should be designed by people that have committed their lives to study and apply knowledge, that have the proper skills. Not some fool whose main specialism is to be able to negatively yap about others to make himself look better..

If rules are logical and made by specialists, nobody is against them. I have never met anybody - outside the UK, that is - that thinks we should decide to drive on the left side of the road. Some specialists decided on which side to drive, we are all deeply aware of the dangers if we don't pick a side to drive on, so we all respect te rule to drive right.

The difference between government and advisors is that government can dictate rules (one man over the other) while advisors can't, but simply rely on your acceptance of the rules. You in turn will willingly accept rules that make sense.


You support an entity that seeks to interfere and govern almost every aspect of an individuals life.


Yes.

Might you drive a car - you will probably see that it has a steering wheel, not a steering stick, rod or two ropes to pull. No government decided this: it were specialists, sometimes aided by coincidence and acceptance by the public.

I believe the EU government can gradually better itself into a group of specialists, whose decisions are quite well thought out and will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people. Voluntarily.

The bigger problem are the national parliaments. They are populated by politicians, whose specialty often is limited to scoffing others. Their ideas are often absurd, and they need to be, to draw the attention of the population.

If you want to fight that, give more credit to the EU and help steering them into the right direction.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

So effectively you are saying that until everyone see's things your way you believe in a government of elite 'specialists' dictating to others?

Sorry, I can't buy into that.

Instead of devolving power into smaller and smaller groups / collectives / nations etc you support an even bigger centralised government that suppresses individualism or anything that is outside the boundaries that they deem permissible?
You advocate elitism over personal liberties, democratic process and the right to self-determination.

Your allegories make little sense, they certainly lack intellectual substance and only serve to support what I have mentioned above.

The most successful Federal bodies have devolved power away from the centralised government - what you propose is to give more power to a centralised government, a government of elites in more or less absolute control who are able to dictate to a subservient population.

We have many faults and problems here in the UK, the last thing we need to do is compound them by further tying ourselves to such an entity that you describe.

And again, you have some very strange beliefs for an anarchist.
You seem to claim to speak for all anarchists, not one single anarchist I know or have ever met would agree with anything you have said.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ForteanOrgSo effectively you are saying that until everyone see's things your way you believe in a government of elite 'specialists' dictating to others?


No. Specialists. Not 'elite' specialists, that's nonsense, the fact that I know a lot about something you don't know anything about (vice versa, one hopes!) exists. You should accept IMHO that those that spent 20-30 years studying and building skills are better at something than you can ever be. You trust you doctor, don't you?


Instead of devolving power into smaller and smaller groups / collectives / nations etc you support an even bigger centralised government that suppresses individualism or anything that is outside the boundaries that they deem permissible?


That's not how it works. The EU creates rules and regulations, but can't impose any on anybody. That's done by your local government. They force you to do what the EU wants, and their biggest neglect is that they fail to inform and consult the public so they understand why the rules are (we hope) benefactory to the majority. They simply vote 'yes' and hence you're getting the notion that they force something on you without your consent. But note again: it are you NATIONAL parliaments that enforce EU rules. The EU itself is a bit of a paper tiger (maybe a bit too much) - the claws and teeth you feel are those of your local, national governments.


You advocate elitism over personal liberties, democratic process and the right to self-determination.


Anarchists know that self-determination is limited by what is workable for the groups they are part of. Anybody can be an anarchist if he/she is the only one on an island. As soon as #2 enters the picture, you need rules that both will follow. Such is life, even in an anarchy. It's better to have rules that are well thought out, explained to you (if you feel the need, sometimes we simply trust others, especially in an anarchy) - and hence you will accept them not by force but by conviction.


Your allegories make little sense, they certainly lack intellectual substance and only serve to support what I have mentioned above.


That's an opinon. I won't debate opinons, we can swap them (as we do now) and I hope it helps you to change your perception. I haven't seen much "intellectual substantion" in this thread, merely more of the type of politics I despise of: blah blah, polemics, scoffing, blaming. I can give you argument after argument, but you seem to be of the opinion that people can get to consensus by a higher form of magic. I'm a realist: we need a type of governance, I prefer that governace to be consentual, not based on force or elections held every 4 years. I believe that most of us understand that we can't figure it out all by ourselves, hence we need specialists. They are indeed an "elite" - but not because they are my better human beings, merely because they have proven skills and knowledge I don't have.

I we lived forever and had unlimited memories, we might all be specialists. Until then, we need each other to trust each other, not based on promises but on proven results.


And again, you have some very strange beliefs for an anarchist.


Well, my dear man - paint me a world that is anarchistic in your perception and that DOES NOT have rules?

Anarchism is merely the belief that no single man is better than any other, no man should FORCE another. In an anarchy we voluntarily give up some of our rights - for the better of all. We choose to be "governed" - by reason, skills and knowledge, not by the ones with the biggest mouths.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


we need rules, Laws and regulations. Even anarchists are totally willing to offer a bit of their personal freedom for the general good. As long as they can understand it's for the general good..

We need advisors to create our Laws, rules and regulations. Alas, we pick very strange advisors! We allow laymen, that specialise in scoffing at others instead of in thinking about generally acceptable solutions, to decide for us. That's stupid.


We don't allow laymen .... We have a democratic vote, and as

such although not everyone gets the politician they want the majority

do.



Laws, rules and regulations should be designed by people that have committed their lives to study and apply knowledge, that have the proper skills. Not some fool whose main specialism is to be able to negatively yap about others to make himself look better..


The politicians invariably have had the best of educations...though

democracy allows for any Tom, Dick or Harry to be a politician if

they get enough votes from 'joe public.'

As the government they also have access to employ/use the best

brains of any area where expertise of a specialist nature is required,

so no fools making rules and laws!!!





The difference between government and advisors is that government can dictate rules (one man over the other) while advisors can't, but simply rely on your acceptance of the rules. You in turn will willingly accept rules that make sense.



Advisors = Advice

Governments = Govern

A *democratic* government doesn't *dictate* decisions get

voted.




I believe the EU government can gradually better itself into a group of specialists, whose decisions are quite well thought out and will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people. Voluntarily.


What makes you think that group of (I say loosely) EU politicians are

any more qualified, or better placed to make decisions

for a more diverse population ???

LOL!! A one world government ..... eg. Ms Merkel overstepping

the mark like inviting all in sundry to Germany and then when she can

not cope wanting to allocate her mistake/overflow to other countries.



The bigger problem are the national parliaments. They are populated by politicians, whose specialty often is limited to scoffing others. Their ideas are often absurd, and they need to be, to draw the attention of the population
.

That is not the problem They unlike the EU politicians were voted

for by the people of their country, their speciality is knowing what their

people want/require.



If you want to fight that, give more credit to the EU and help steering them into the right direction.


ONE SIZE CANT FIT ALL
edit on 26-1-2016 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


No. Specialists. Not 'elite' specialists, that's nonsense, the fact that I know a lot about something you don't know anything about (vice versa, one hopes!) exists. You should accept IMHO that those that spent 20-30 years studying and building skills are better at something than you can ever be. You trust you doctor, don't you?



Some specialists are better than others!! who decides??

Trusting your doctor doesn't mean they cant make mistakes??

Ever asked for a second opinion?




That's not how it works. The EU creates rules and regulations, but can't impose any on anybody. That's done by your local government. They force you to do what the EU wants, and their biggest neglect is that they fail to inform and consult the public so they understand why the rules are (we hope) benefactory to the majority. They simply vote 'yes' and hence you're getting the notion that they force something on you without your consent. But note again: it are you NATIONAL parliaments that enforce EU rules.



That is a Dictatorship by proxy.




It's better to have rules that are well thought out, explained to you (if you feel the need, sometimes we simply trust others, especially in an anarchy) - and hence you will accept them not by force but by conviction.



"We simply trust"? ......... NO trust is earned not simply given




I prefer that governace to be consentual, not based on force or elections held every 4 years. I believe that most of us understand that we can't figure it out all by ourselves, hence we need specialists. They are indeed an "elite" - but not
because they are my better human beings, merely because they have proven skills and knowledge I don't have.



The larger the population the more impossible to be consentual that's where

democracy acts for the majority.



no single man is better than any other, no man should FORCE another. we voluntarily give up some of our rights - for the better of all. We choose to be "governed" - by reason, skills and knowledge, not by the ones with the biggest mouths.


Yes and *everyone* has a *different* view form their own windows




top topics



 
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join