the "something" i remember personaly is before the elections when she said "we need a strong majority for a better brexit"...

nah, that was someone else...

the great economic success story that is the EU, oh come on. look up the economic development in the EU you say?
you mean the years of anaemic growth? the sky-high youth unemployment rates in southern europe that persist to this day? or do you mean the moderate growth we are experiencing now, but which is still far below what one would expect under a monetary policy which is as expansive as the ecb's?




you mean eastern europe bleeding out while countries like germany and the UK are flooded with workers from esatern europe? this, by the way, is a phenomenom that affects half of all EU member states. and this workforce migration has risen to the extent that it is making housing unaffordable in some places, is causing severe cultural stress for the local population and even was a significant factor for the brexit vote. and you call those circumstances effectively "something that has to be misrepresented to be portrayable as a problem"? and you are the guy who constantly tells me that I'm oh so wrong, take a one-sdied view of things and dont think my own arguments through? u serious?



I didnt say that, I said that the EU allowing moderate restrictions on inner migration would cause a paradigm shift that forces the EU to transform and adapt.




the pro EU parties performed better than post-brexit polls with inflated numbers for the nationalist parties/movement suggested. yes, the nationalist movement was stopped from taking over europe. nonetheless, in all those elections like the netherlands, france or the austrian presidential elections, the nationalist parties and candidates won record percentages. they underperformed their polls from a couple of months earlier, but they still achieved record results; despite falling short of taking over power.

the reality is far right candidates and parties like wilders' PvV becoming the second strongest party in the netherlands and expanding their previous result by 33%, le pen becoming the runner-up candidate for french presidency and receiving a vote share of 34%, and hofer receiving 48% of the votes and losing the race by a tiny 4% margin. if you consider this to be "the nationalist movement on a downhill path", it is you who hasnt been paying attention or didnt think his own arguments through. moreover, note that almost all parliamentary elections since brexit have led to sizable shift to the right and to a dramatic decline of social democratic parties. in the netherlands and france, they got all but annihilated. also not a good sign for the current EU and those dreaming of united states of europe, since social democrats have always been more keen on "international solidarity" than conservative parties.

yes, a nationalist takeover has been averted for now, but the threat is very clearly still out there.





I never suggested disregarding the priorities of the remainers or those 58%. I am in favour of a compromise that makes concessions to both sides. what you propose, on the other hand, is a one-sided solution that gives the rather large 42% minority nothing.

and just for the record: the UK snap election this year showed how much of a difference even percentages as small as 13% can make in the british political system: in 2015, the UKIP received almost 13% of the popular vote, but many of their voters were closer to labour than tories on economic topics. in 2017, the UKIP received only 1.8% of the popular vote. the result? despite gaining votes compared to the previous election and winning the highest percentage and absolute number of tory votes since the days of maggie thatcher, theresa may lost a ton of seats and a majority of her political power. this dramatic shift in outcome and power balance was mainly the result of a shift of those 11% of voters who left the UKIP behind. now imagine the potential disruption that can be caused in british politics if just half of those 42% are disregarded in the brexit negotiations and get so pissed that it makes them vote a different party than they would otherwise...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 28 2017 09:32am

and germany is next

What I'm most interested in is why Europe? There are numerous other Muslim majority countries in the East. Why not flee to them?

less welfare, whipping, beheading and cutting off of body parts if you are a criminal scumbag, and even those other muslim countries wouldnt be stupid enough to take in hundreds of thousands of unvetted guys from war- and terror-plagued zones.

It is facilitated on purpose to be a scapegoat for when the economy crashes. Mark my word, ISIS is going to suddenly show itself in Europe right before or after the stock markets of the world collapse.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but just look at how much a share of stock is. How do you reconcile that with the largest entity on the planet owing $20,000,000,000,000. It's odd that I could even say something like twenty trillion and it not be in the context of cosmology. But no one even bats an eye. This normalcy is going to reveal itself to be the most obvious lunacy, where people will look at us as the generation ( genderation lol ) that went through the greatest depression and all they will be able to say to us is: "Were you all really that fucking stupid?"

Obviously, but does it not make sense to move in/at least attempt to make your way into a society that practically mirrors your own? That would be like an American trying to move into a relatively safe (conflict free-ish) part of the Middle East. It wouldn't make sense. They wouldn't be a good fit by any stretch of the imagination. Americans and other fellow Europeans don't belong in certain parts of the world, whether visiting or living there permanently. It's not safe. You're a target the moment you set foot into those places, and even despite some regions lacking any real availability to technology, word travels fast when foreigners are in town.

This of course then raises the question of who, if anyone is responsible for housing and providing for these people? It seems the most logical and reasonable to conclude that the responsibility falls on the surrounding countries (at least Arab/predominantly Muslim), of which share a majority of these refugees political/religious/cultural ideology to take them in and deal with them. You set up guarded quarantine zones/encampments well away from any major cities or landmarks and take however many years necessary to monitor and vet these people individually (and let them into your society if they are deemed safe/stable).

There's really not much else you can do besides that. No doubt it'll be expensive, tedious, and dangerous, but it's far less hazardous than letting everyone just sweep across every corner of your nation and do as they please. Another issue that will certainly arise is the fact that there would probably be a large amount of unrest/rebellion and violence from those being held in these quarantine zones (not that I would blame them for acting this way when you consider basic human psychology/tendencies) as a result of not being allowed to simply walk about freely in society, but as I said before, what other choice do you have?

There's pros and cons to every conceivable solution you could possibly propose. It's not pretty, period, but to me what I've mentioned above seems to be the absolute best and most "humane" way to deal with such a situation.

Edit: Didn't mean to be so long-winded, but I don't see any "cliff notes" version to all this.

This post was edited by Unconscious on Jul 28 2017 08:52pm

The EU is an easier target than a more homogeneous country (grouping) would be.

The EU is relatively new, it's still dealing with internal squabbles. It's much easier to slip in between the cracks in a situation like this.

That was very offensive and very very funny. I don't even know what it could mean, its so nonsensical.