Politically Incorrect Facts

I'm interested in seeing this proof. The United States of America would probably disagree with you.

A bit misleading to use smart as synonymous with high IQ.

Well, Northern Italy, Germany, the Netherlands disagree.

Have you heard of Gary, Indiana and Flint, Michigan Jordan? ****ing shitholes they are.

Meanwhile, the city states of the Holy roman empire? There was a historian whose name I cannot recall who pointed out that allowing local governments a large level or complete autonomy leads to generally more prosperous people. Of course in large centralised states you will have huge centres of power that dwarf those of decentralised states, compare Paris and Bremen for instance. However, you also end up with really horrible areas too, like the ones I pointed out. Decentralised states avoid this generally, which is why the north of Italy with cities like Milan, Venice, Florence is a first world country while the south is almost third world, even in the capital of the preceding kingdom, Naples.

It is counterfactual to suggest that the EU wasn't a power for centralisation, even remain has to admit that because it is objective truth. Law is made for all member states and overrides said laws.

And yet the EU has been a huge force for wealth distribution. There are some horribly run-down areas of the UK, and all of them are that way due to chronic underfunding by our own government.

We could split the UK up into individual counties and Northumberland would be better off, because the Northumberland government wouldn't be spending all their money on new skyscrapers in London. Alternatively, the UK government stop distributing wealth unfairly. But then, if we gave Northumberland autonomy, there'd still be little *****y pockets in Northumberland and areas that were disproportionately well off.

The countries with the highest standards of living are almost all huge nations or members of the EU. Gary, Indiana is an absolute **** hole, but the people living there are still probably better off than the vast majority of people in the world. They have access to electricity and running water, and some degree of healthcare and education.

If you look at any country in Africa or South America, you will see enormous wealth inequality in tiny countries. Places where half the country is a paradise and everyone is rich, but the other half is made up of slums that people born in the first world couldn't imagine.

I don't think centralisation itself is a problem. It makes it easy for some areas to be ignored, but in a modern democracy with access to information, that doesn't have to be a problem. There's a huge uproar over the Flint water crisis because it's so easy to spread that kind of information. In the past it could have been ignored, but not now, so I think decentralisation isn't as much of a problem now. If a government can be held accountable, and the population have access to information from across the nation, a central government can be made to work for everyone.

You ignore that many European countries have been empires. They were hardly decentralised when you take that into account. Before you use Germany as a counter-example (as it didn't have a large empire), it was, pre-unification, constantly being bullied by France. Just observe how the border changed through time. After reunification, that reversed completely

I have PMed you

The only reason they're less intelligent then is the fact that they can't afford the education because all the money's going down south and to Brussels. People who voted Remain tend to be richer and more educated because of all the money they got. I have a cousin that went to Uni, and she supported Brexit, as did most of my family. Also, a majority of that article did not even prove your point.

Going to Brussels? The EU invests billions in the poorest regions of the UK.

Once again, prove it.

Going to Brussels? The EU invests billions in the poorest regions of the UK.

There are many poor areas around where I live, I see no investment from the EU at all

and remember, we give money to the EU, so it would not really be the EU investing, it would be the EU spending British money on Britain, hardly an investment.

Where do you live? If it's one of the poorest areas of the country, it's almost definitely had EU investment.



Okay? And when the government invests money in my region they're actually spending MY money. That's how taxes work. I don't understand why it makes a difference whether it's the EU investing your taxes in your area or the British government doing it? The fact is that the EU invests in the poorest regions and the British government neglects them.

there is a positive correlation between penis size and income. fact.

As I am not going to give credit to an organisation that does not deserve it. If you give me £100 and I then provide you with £50 worth of something, I do not deserve credit or praise. Especially if that £50 I spent on you is not want you even asked for. Do you have any evince that the money that the EU does spend (which is our money remember), is actually spent on things that the locals want or need? No, you don't.