EU referendum/Brexit 2016

Oh if we could return to 1940, as Poles took part in the Battle of Britain and fought with so much valour it earnt them the immediate respect of their private school boy RAF colleagues. Could we tell them that their grandchildren and great grandchildren would be viewed as nought but greedy, stupid mugs in the country they fought to protect. Would they still head into their planes over the south coast, or would they tell Hitler 'it's all yours'? The unsung heroes of those days were men from countries you and your fellow nationalists think are unfit to wipe your arse. I know you want to wrap yourself up in a Union Jack and bow before a portrait of the Queen. I know you want to be first at Dover to personally spit in the face of every foreigner who arrives at Border Control. I know you want to stand at those white cliffs and shout 'Boo'. But try and rein in your lust for nationalism and generalising foreigners as 'unworthy', and learn some history instead.

These 'leachers' you refer to saved this island's bacon in more ways than you can imagine. Otherwise we really would have our laws decided by a German dictator, yes Boris don't think comparing Merkel to a Nazi went unnoticed.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Man, I am not a fan of you "everything is black and white, right or wrong" people. And thanks for ridiculously generalizing me a racist nationalist, not sure how you made that jump. AND why does every point I make no one cares about the economical sense, just always latch onto immigration? Fine, I'll talk about immigration. I'm not a racist nor a nationalist, I am physicist. Now, logically thinking, as a physicist would, if you take a glass (country) and start filling it with water (people) you will get to a point where the water rises to the top and you have to turn the tap off, otherwise the volume of water (people) exceeds the volume that the glass (country) can hold. Is that simply put enough for you? I don't give a hoot whether the people are Syrians, Poles, German or French, I like all people, but the point is that there has to be a limit otherwise the volume will exceed the capacity. That is not racist, that is not nationalist, that is logic and fact. A country cannot support infinite people. We need the ability to turn the tap off.

Never called anyone a racist, but yes, nationalist is appropriate. The poster said he thinks some people are more worthy of occupying arbitrary pieces of land than others. Like Farage he thinks Poles are ill educated knuckle draggera out to steal benefits. There is a practical debate to be had about what immigration is sustainable, but the likes of Nige and the person I quoted don't care about that. They think Eastern Europeans are unworthy of being in the same room as them.

We happened to be born on this island by matter of chance. In my view that doesn't give me any more right to live here than someone born elsewhere.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You quoted me! No, I don't think some people are more worthy, I think there is a limit to the amount of people that a country can successfully sustain, which shall be hit soon if we cannot limit immigration. Let us agree there is a limit, there must be, we may disagree on what that limit is, but we agree there is a limit? Where is the sense in allowing this limit to be overrun, resulting in an unsustainable population, resulting in recession, damage to the economy, to the eventual point that the UK becomes as developed an economy as say Poland? In that case everyone will be worth off. I would rather see a world where we keep the UK population at a sustainable level, allowing it to thrive, grow its economy and then share this wealth around the other EU countries (and those outside the EU) with trade. I would rather see the UK flourish to the point that we have a positive impact on countries like Poland, helping to grow their economy through trade deals, resulting in their becoming a more developed economy so that their population want to stay in their own country. Win, win. Flooding a developed country with the population of an undeveloped one harms both countries, if you want to be a humanitarian (which is a wonderful thing), then why do you not start by fixing the route of the problem, don't help Poles wanting to move countries, help Poles to have a country that they want to live in.

Finally, I abhor people telling me I must " think Eastern Europeans are unworthy of being in the same room as them", purely because I have a different view on how to improve peoples lives to you. I believe everyone should have as comfortable a life as possible, and it should not be dependent on where you are born. My solution however is a long term sustainable one which would result in millions better off, yours is to let people who want to move here, move here, dam the long term consequences to their country at their leaving, or our country to them coming.

I was on my phone, so couldn't see who quoted who.

1. Yes there is a limit on how many people can live in an area at a given time, and yes there is a limit on how many people can move into an area over a given time. Not in dispute.

2. I don't see the free movement of people as a problem. We don't have a God given right to tell people where they can and cannot live because we had the good fortune to be born here instead. You must understand I don't think of the world in terms of borders and nation states, I think of it in terms of one big planet that we are all entitled to enjoy.

3. Kind of related to 2), yes it would be good if there was worldwide prosperity. However there will always be 'haves' and 'have nots' in life, since wealth and poverty are relative. That being the case, I have no problem at all with Poles coming here to make a living. The disgusting rhetoric of Nigel Farage has made it harder for these people to settle here, but in my experience they are extremely hard working people who we should welcome with open arms.

4. You said it yourself, you see nations like Poland as leaching off the wealthier ones. I just find this grossly disrespectful to these countries and the people who live there. Yes there is a practical concern to the overall numbers, but the principle that anyone should be able to live where they want is one that I am right behind.

5. The allocation of funds in the EU is such that more money goes to the less developed nations to boost their economic development. The redistribution of wealth you talk about is already happening. I don't care about what happens to UK or Poland or Madagascar, I care about what happens to everybody.

Interesting, so I guess your vote is down to a fundamental belief in what the world should be like. Its optimistic, and whilst I disagree to the logic of it I'm very much a logic driven person and I'm aware many others aren't. Its a nice ideal non the less.

Anyone who opposes or deviates from the socialist system will be ostracised. For example, when the Austrian people had the temerity to elect `the wrong sort of Government' (it was considered too nationalistic and right wing by the EU) the EU pronounced the new Government unacceptable. With apparent magnanimity, the EU announced that it would `accept' an Italian President elected by the Italian people. All sorts of tricks are used to isolate and marginalise those who opposed the EU. Those questioning the EU are often portrayed as insular and parochial.

2. Like the USSR, the EU is governed by a group of people who appoint one another, are unaccountable to the public, enjoy generous salaries, massive perks and huge pensions, are pretty much above the law and cannot be sacked. The EU, like any committed socialist government, operates without any real feedback from the people, and certainly without any concern for what the people think. The state must always come first. The only people who benefit (as with all socialist and fascist organisations - and the two are, of course, interchangeable) are those who have put themselves and their friends in charge. The workers never really benefit from socialism. The profits of the hard working, the creative and the thrifty are redistributed to the bureaucracy: the lazy, the unthinking and the wasteful.

The central planners (in the case of the USSR they were in Moscow, in the case of the EU they are in Brussels) insist on making all the judgements and decisions but their lack of experience means that they get everything wrong so there are constant shortages and black markets.

State socialism in the EU has not led to affluence, equality and freedom but, effectively, to a one-party political system. (All three main parties in Britain support the EU and the destruction of Britain). The fascist EU has,inevitably, created a massive bureaucracy, heavy-handed secret police, government control of the media and endless secrecy and lies.

The socialist bureaucracy of the EU is run by people who arrogantly believe that they are the only ones who need to know and that they always know best.

3. There was one political party in the USSR (and no opposition) and the same is true of the EU. Political parties which don't support the EU are denied the oxygen of financial support. Politicians who do support the EU can look forward to good jobs (when they retire or leave domestic politics they may, like Neil Kinnock or Chris Patten, get jobs as EU commissioners). The system looks after its own. When the EU constitution was being debated, the main sticking point among delegates was not the sovereignty of their individual nations, or the rights of the voters, but the number of delegates each country would be allowed to send to EU meetings. Each nation's individuality was pushed to one side as irrelevant and inconsequential, in favour of the rights of politicians to attend regular, all expenses paid beanos.

4. Like the USSR, the EU was created with little or no respect for normal democratic principles. Much of what has happened within the EU has happened secretly and without the normal principles of democracy being considered or applied. What has happened over the last few decades has happened largely in secret.

5. Instead of information about the EU we have been fed a good deal of propaganda. The bureaucrats organise and control people and they try to control the availability of knowledge. The people are always controlled with lies and misinformation. (Today these are known as `spin'.) Anyone who dares to oppose the EU or to promote England is likely to be described as a `racist'. My book England Our England has proved enormously popular with readers (and was, within the first year, reprinted numerous times) but advertisements for the book were banned by a number of publications. Although the book is one of Britain's bestselling books on politics, it has never been reviewed in any national newspaper.

Very few Britons realise exactly what has already happened, how what has happened has already affected their lives and how things will now develop unless we do something very soon. A poll quietly taken for Britain's Foreign Office showed that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was already a member of the EU. Astonishingly, 7% of Britons thought that the USA was a member. This ignorance isn't unique to Britain. A poll in Germany showed that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission.

The bureaucrats realise that until there is more awareness of and interest in what has happened, and what is happening, there are unlikely to be any protests.

6. The former USSR was renowned for its vast number of laws, rules and regulations. But the USSR was nothing compared to the EU. The EC has become a law factory covering everything imaginable and enabling small petty-minded bureaucrats to hound small businesses and flex their puny muscles. One law on fire regulations alone cost UK businesses £8 billion. New regulations have poured out governing every aspect of our lives, and businessmen have been swamped by an avalanche of red tape.

Dairy farmers have been subjected, in the last few years alone, to 1,100 separate, specific new laws. Even teddy bear manufacturers have been targeted.

Huge numbers of new criminal offenses have been listed.

It is true that these new laws have to be debated by MEPs but the debates are managed at a such frenetic rate - with MEPs voting on as many as 400 issues in just 90 minutes - that in practice the laws proposed by the bureaucrats are just nodded through. Speakers in the European Parliament are allowed 90 seconds to read out prepared speeches. And then the voting begins.

There are so many new laws that the British Government cannot study them all. The Council of Ministers cannot even read the new laws which the EU passes. The real power now lies with faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability whatsoever.

The unknown bureaucrats in Brussels are so desperate to extend their own power and authority, that they have, through the production of miles and miles of unwanted red tape, effectively destroyed the European economy.

Our special tragedy is that Britain's economy has suffered more than most from these new laws.

The other big European nations (France, Germany and Italy) just ignore the rules they don't like. Both France and Germany have flagrantly broken the rules on government deficits but for these two countries there have been no sanctions, no fines and no penalties. `These are for smaller countries,' said a French Government spokesman with typical gallic arrogance. The French have ignored hundreds of directives relating to the single market (directives which Britain, of course, has obeyed slavishly). Commenting on why he had, like so many other Britons, bought a home in France, Lord Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor) said he'd bought it because it was such a relief to get away from the EU.

Britain, of course, obeys all the rules. And British people and British businessmen pay the ever increasing price.

7. It was a crime for individual countries to talk about quitting the USSR. Indeed, there was no procedure to enable countries to leave the soviet union. The EU is much the same.

8. Corruption usually starts from the bottom and works its way up through the system. In both the USSR and the EU the corruption starts at the top and works its way down. Corruption was systemic in the old USSR and it is systemic in the EU. The EU is riddled with the standard socialist form of corruption where the protagonists live by the motto: `what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine and I will chop your hands off if you try to take it'. This was the popular way of doing things in the USSR. Like the USSR, the EU operates in a way that ensures the redistribution of wealth. In both cases the system means that the wealth is redistributed from the workers to the bureaucrats.

9. Like a pyramid selling scheme the USSR needed to be aggressive and to continue growing in order to stay alive. If it stopped growing it would fail. The EU is the same. It makes absolutely no economic sense for the EU to take in small, poor countries. The countries encouraged to join the EU in 2004 were welcomed for ideological rather than economic reasons. The six original members of the Common Market have slowly become 25. And then how many will there be? The bureaucracy needs to grow to justify its existence and its demands for increasing amounts of money. All bureaucracies like to grow. It is, in part, their raison d'etre. As they grow so they become increasingly important. Assistants can have assistants of their own. Secretaries can have secretaries. The politicians of the existing countries are persuaded that if the EU grows they will have bigger markets. No one bothers about the fact that the new countries which join the EU will want to share in the subsidies which the EU hands out. Countries like the UK, which pay money to be members of the EU, will have to pay more money for even less reason.

The language problems are enormous. In the new EU there are hundreds of translation combinations. The EU now works like a series of Chinese whispers. Speakers in, say, Finnish are translated first into English and then into another language and then into a fourth language.

The new countries coming into the EU have many different cultures and laws. Just how they are going to fit into one superstate is something only the bureaucrats who have planned the whole thing can explain. (And, as always, they aren't talking.)

For example, consider Turkey, one of the new EU proposed members. Under Turkish law, if a rapist marries his victim he can walk free. The basis for this is that nobody would want to marry a girl who is not a virgin and so the rapist is doing the girl a favour.

Turkish law also allows a mother who murders her child to be given a reduced sentence if the baby was born out of wedlock.

Another Turkish law rules that kidnapping a married woman is a greater crime than kidnapping a woman who isn't married.

The Turkish authorities arrested a young journalist simply on suspicion of being linked to a banned political party. For this, she was sentenced to over 12 years in prison.

I mention all this not in criticism but simply to show just how much difference there is between Turkish culture and British culture. And yet the Turks and the British are expected to be citizens of the same 450 million citizen country; supposedly sharing customs, mores and laws. Naturally, all governments want harmonisation to be organised on their own terms.

(The Americans, incidentally, are desperate for Turkey to join the EU. They believe that if this happens it will make it impossible for Bin Laden and others to claim that the EU is another `Christian Superstate'.)

10. In the former USSR the citizens of individual countries were told that they should forget about their former national identities. They should, they were told, consider themselves members of the USSR rather than citizens of Ukraine or Russia. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU superstate.

The EU is intent on destroying and absorbing national states. Britain and England will both disappear completely as the EU superstate develops its identity.

11. The USSR was an ideological dictatorship. That is what the EU is. The aim of the EU is the formation of a state, the preservation of socialism within the state and the expansion of the principles of political correctness. Most political groups which oppose the EU are small, and will remain small, because it is virtually impossible to obtain funding or publicity for any group which opposes the EU.

In the UK there are just three main parties - all of which are supportive of the EU. This is manifestly unfair since it means that a majority of the British population must inevitably remain unrepresented.

Organisations which represent national interests (particularly English interests) are denied power, money and publicity on the grounds that they must be racist. Anyone who supports Britain or England will find themselves branded a racist. (Supporters of Wales and Scotland are never accused of being racist since both these countries will still exist as regions in the new EU superstate.)

12. The USSR had a gulag and so does the EU. The EU has an intellectual gulag; if your views differ from the `approved' views you will find it difficult to get them published.

Naturally, those who disapprove of the EU will find it difficult or impossible to obtain a job working for the EU. Making a speech or writing a book which criticises the EU (or the laws of the EU) may be regarded as a crime if it is considered subversive. (It is, of course, up to the bureaucrats of the EU to decide whether or not something is `subversive'.) One Englishman made the mistake of standing up at a public meeting and defending the rights and freedoms of English country people. As a result of his comments two police officers visited the speaker's home, arrested him (refusing to tell him why) took him to a police station and threw him into a cell.

When five Britons visited Brussels and drove around the city in vehicles which were decorated with posters which called for a referendum on the EU constitution they were arrested for `disturbing public order' and `demonstrating without permission'.

13. Citizens in the old USSR had to carry ID cards. The loss of civil liberties which this entailed used to be regarded with suspicion and some contempt by Western European democracies. In the new EU, citizens are losing their freedom and must carry ID cards. (It is a myth that ID cards contribute anything whatsoever to national security. ID cards always exist for one reason only: to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of the citizens who must carry them.)

It is very easy to lose your freedom, but very difficult to get it back.

14. Officers in the new EU police force have even greater privileges than officers in the much feared KGB. All members of the new EU police force have diplomatic immunity. They can walk into your home, arrest you, beat you up and steal your property and you cannot do a darned thing about it. Now do you believe me when I say that the EU is a fascist organisation?



Posted from TSR Mobile

What's wrong?
Can't handle the truth?


Posted from TSR Mobile

If UK leaves the EU, EU will collapse. Cos UK is essentially financing the entire EU with the strong £ against the failed €. Do you recall the George Osbourne tax rebate fiasco from 2 years ago? EU slapped a £1.7 billion on UK but Cameron vowed that he would not pay it. What happened in the end? UK still paid up and did so quietly.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29751124
http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-e...u-budget-bill/
http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-e...n-budget-bill/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ember-deadline
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...happening.html

Yesterday, the German finance minister said he would cry if UK voted Brexit. Of course he would! Cos UK is the one funding the EU and Germany gets to dictate who gets the money and what to do with it.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...-EU-referendum
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...718_story.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6909616.html

Please understand that Germany controls the EU and dictates to the other member states when to stand up and when to sit down. France is her close ally despite their colourful history.

If UK leaves, then the other poorer member states would want to follow suit. Do you recall last year when EU forced Greece to accept a humongous financial bailout which EU knew Greece would never be able to repay back cos the interests were just too high? and the greek banks allowed its citizens to withdraw only €120 per week? When this news first broke out in Greece, its citizens queued up outside the bank to withdraw their monies but the banks were shut. Do you recall this man who cried outside the bank and this image went viral?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-man-banks/



If UK leaves then many EU citizens working in the UK and living off benefits will have to return back to their home countries. These EU citizens based in UK, don't want this to happen because UK is the only country in EU that offers such amazing benefits.

Many of the lecturers in the UK unis are also against Brexit because if UK pulls out of it then these lecturers will have to return back to their home countries and re-apply via a work permit system. So far nothing unusual? The catch here is that these lecturers of EU origin will have to compete for lecturing jobs with equally abled or far better lecturers from New Zealand, Canada, Australia, India, Hong Kong and Singapore. This is the reason why many lecturers have been writing articles and blogs online to plead with UK citizens to vote in their favour. How selfish!

If you have studied politics at A-level or at uni, depending on who your lecturer is and which textbook you're reading, you will know that ever since UK joined the EU, she has given away her sovereignty to the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg. I can't help but wonder why UK still needs a Supreme Court when its no longer supreme and a British parliament when it's no longer sovereign?

Do you know that millions of British soldiers have died in several wars over the centuries to protect Queen and country? But Tony Blair let these millions of soldier died in vain because when he was in power for 10 years or so as the Prime Minister of UK, he allowed virtually everyone to enter the UKSomeone recently asked me why should people wanting to enter into another country, be checked for HIV/AIDS? This is because the government owes a duty to its citizens to protect them from people who may want to infect others with their communicable diseases. This is an extension of a 'social contract theory'. Read up on it if you have time. Educate yourself.


I'm German. As you know, many migrant men raped, molested and sexually abused many women in my country since New Year's Day.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35231046
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ks-list-crimes
http://www.news.com.au/finance/econo...d65045e65e141d

This is the list of sex crimes against German women in one night. I hope you have a strong stomach for this.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-sex-assaults/

You only have to see what the German police commissioner said on national TV to understand the true extent of the migrant crisis. Mind you, the higher command in Germany gave him a piece of their mind following the telecast of this interview. Watch it to believe it.



I hope all of you reading my post, bears this in mind. A country's sovereignty, security and safety of its citizens is so important. With Merkel's blunder, we have become a carbon copy of UK & the rest of EU and their set of problems.

Merkel has been in hiding for many months now. She's pushing 62 years of age. She won't throw in the towel just yet. If UK decides to remain in the EU, I am certain they will make EU into a united states of Europe and she would be the major contender for the post of PM of the USE. Tony Blair has quietened down way too much to be able to stake a claim for that coveted position.

Merkel studied physics and then chemistry. She has no knowledge and understanding about politics, law, finance and sociology. She tells the German public one thing and tells the EU another thing and then tells the world another thing. Sometime back she said that refugees must now return back to their countries of origin after the wars back home have ended.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...-idUSKCN0V80IH

With Turkey's inclusion into the EU imminent, there will be 77 million Turks who will get to make their debut appearance in any of the EU member states. They will not go to France because France has zero tolerance towards Muslims. They will continue to come to Germany or go to the UK where the borders are invincible and where the border agents have zero powers to turn people away.

And if you go onto the Oxbridge threads on this forum and some of the other top UK unis, you will see a growing number of EU students who simply want UK to stay in the EU so that they can apply for student loans because without it they will not be able to study in these top unis. Their main priority is to get the funding and get a place at these tops unis.

So you must be wondering whats wrong with that? Well, a growing number of EU students simply take these loans, one after another and then disappear after they've completed their studies without repaying the loans and the British government has to write off these debts. It's been reported several times and it's about time UK puts her foot down.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672...g-tuition-fees
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ing-loans.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...pay-debts.html

The money you send to EU can be used to invest in your NHS, build more hospitals, recruit more police officers, increase their salaries which should apply to teachers and junior doctors too, give incentives (funding, tax breaks) to British citizens to start their own businesses (entrepreneurship) and so much more.

Lastly, and I could be wrong but my observations tell me that several people on this forum who oppose Brexit are from two camps. The first comprises of first generation British citizens whose parents immigrated to UK which is why they feel as though people are trying to marginalize their parents when they vocally support Brexit. The second are people who were born abroad and immigrated to UK at a young age with their parents in tow and similarly feeling being discriminated against when people support Brexit.

In both instances these people are wrong. As a result of their personal bias (which is understandable), they are unable to see what Brexit actually means. So it doesn't matter how many of these threads are created, how many different ways the thread title is hashed and rehashed and/or how many more good points substantiated with hard evidence is provided, these people will never alter their position.

The only way we can move forward is when people remove the wool from their eyes, put their personal agendas aside and see the referendum for what it actually is. Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? and for the reasons I've stated, the answer is obvious. Need I elaborate more?

Vote Leave!

Nav, the biggest fraud there is. At least Jammy comes up with some original stuff thats his own.