Notice I said EU and non EU immigration. Have no illusions. The EU wants to totally undermine national homogeneity within Europe as Peter Sutherland proudly boasts. They will use mass immigration to rub out cultural and national identity for a giant European superstate. Turkey needs to achieve a 30 point plan, at the moment it seems impossible as they have barely hit two of them but the fatcats want them, and will do all in their power to achieve it. At the moment they are formulating a divide, something to set people at each others throats will will lead to civil unrest in some areas, possibly even war in a few decades. The Islamic invasion, along with masses of sub Saharan Africans through the Libyan corridor is their weapon to bring about conflict - problem, reaction, solution - the state intervening until the masses are malleable once again. It sounds insane, I know it does but there is so many quotes out there from these pieces of filth that it defies belief. They do everything now to shut down truth - scream 'racist' at people who wonder why 80% of these 'migrants' are young, fighting age men. The rapes in not just Cologne but a few dozen German cities, the media complicate in not reporting the sex attacks, the constant bending to appease this vile death cult, telling parents to dress their children accordingly so it doesn't encourage rape,etc Within a few years if immigration to Germany continues ethnic German men between 20-30 will become a minority. Now, when the Chinese settled three million people into Tibet to breed the Tibetans out, people called it genocide. With low birth rates and explosive third world breeding patterns that will occur in Germany and Sweden sooner or later. Demographics is sadly destiny. We are looking at our population hitting some 80 million by 2040 but everything's fine I guess. Build more schools and hospitals people cry, oh and more houses but don't say anything about a sensible immigration policy from the EU or the third world for Christ sake. Statistics are racist after all.
See, I don't get this EU superstate fear. Britain is made up of more than one country with separate identities... We intermingle... But you have a problem with other Europeans coming over? Considering the birth rate is dropping throughout Europe, and how intrinsically linked birth-rate can be to economic prosperity, I think people coming here is a good thing?
This is the NUFC board! Can we get back to more important things like.............. ..............we haven't won a game in weeks, sack Rafa!!!
The Birth rate issue is the constant thing Politicians harp on about. How we are an 'ageing' population and we need mass, unrestricted immigration to ressolve it. What we must remember some breeding patterns are higher than others. So, instead of encouraging young families, they decide to import people who will breed like rabbits, rapidly changing countries. Replacing ethnic Germans, Swedes, etc is not a good thing and to encourage it, as far as I'm concerned, is a form of genocide and war on the peoples of Europa. You see, I am not looking at a few years from now, but a few decades from now. With Mama Merkel opening the doors to more than 1.5 million people, mainly young Sunni Muslim men with the envitable link up with their families which we probably see something like 4-6 million muslims wanting to settle in Europe - well, the chances of conflict will raise considerably.
> DarloGeordie. To be honest, both sides have been light on the facts. I would be more inclined to support the Exit campaign (not that I can vote being an itinerant) if someone actually stood up on the steps of an aeroplane and showed us the agreement signed between us and the EU* saying that we would trade a la the Norwegian Model, the Swiss Model or some other Model. Until that happens it's foolish to vote to head into the Great Unknown. When I put a punt on a horse, as I do for my daily bread, if I am not sure about the value of the bet (i.e. I can list the risk:reward for each transaction) then I make sure that I don't do it. The same applies to trading the stock market, the forex or whatever: if you don't know the risk: reward then don't do it. The same applies here. We know the risks of staying in but we don't know how we will trade leaving and that for anyone with a modicum of common sense should be enough. Show me the agreement on what would happen if we left and the figures derived from that and if they add up then it's a Leave vote all the way for me. But if no-one can then it's a Remain vote. *A bit like Chamberlain's signed agreement and we know how well that went. But at least then we would know what we were voting for.
If we followed your logic no one would ever do anything, how without the use of a crystal ball can you say what will happen in the future, be it staying in or opting out, I lived in England until I was 35 and knew exactly what was happening I emigrated to Australia where I had no idea what was happening , there are risks if you just stay in bed, there are risks when you cross the road, if you are happy with the EU vote stay if you are not happy vote out New Zealand and Australia do OK without having someone make decisions for them , do you for one moment believe that the UK the hub of financial markets does not have the ability to look after its own interests ? get some backbone
JPF summed up my feelings on the E.U membership pretty effectively. Staying in is a no-brainer for me - intellectually and emotionally. Major reform is, of course, required, and the UK should be central to that.
It's kind of funny how people think that the UK will be ruined if we leave the EU. We are one of the big five economies on the planet and the EU needs us a lot more than we need them! Basically, the EU want to create a massive federal state that swallows up the history and identity of all member states. Should we vote to stay then for me that is what will be the ruin of us. As you said, Australia and New Zealand manage perfectly well on their own. This island nation of ours is more than capable of doing the same. The EU knows that, Cameron knows that.
try assuming I'm voting for what I think in my opinion is the best for my country and try assuming I am voting out because I think that will be the best for this country and the people of this country not because I dislike foreigners,( a question you asked) you may have a different opinion and vote in, because of this I wouldn't question you on anything other than the benefits of staying in, and I would try to give you the benefits of leaving , we would probably disagree but hopefully during the conversation the line "is it because you don't like foreigners in your country" wouldnt arise. I think its called a debate
What makes you think the EU will ever listen? 'There can be no democratic choice against European treaties' as Mr Juncker puts it. They have openly admitted to want to undermine national homogeneity within its states and they will never deal with anyone remotely bordering the 'far right' (which really means anything remotely conservative) but anything remotely far left is fine - you know, like the Green party of Sweden which has long been infiltrated by Islamist groups. Like the far left German leftists who talk gleefully of ethnic Germans becoming minorities in their own cities and claiming this 'is a good thing' - why are they so delighted to deal with groups such as this but damn anyone as racist in wanting to protect their nation along with its cultural institutions? Even old Gorby spoke of the West, which as we all know was an constant logger heads with the Soviet Union, why on earth they damned their way of thinking when the EU seems intent on doing the same with Europe? They slowly but surely drive it into a super state with no borders, no loyalties,- just subservience to the EU. Even in its early infancy a quote from Jean Monett surmises it quite well 'Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having a economic purpose, but will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation'. The EU, rather than strengthening its borders, seem more intent on alliances in shutting down free speech these days. Ignore the rapes and spiraling crimes statistics in Germany but speak about it on the net - well expect a visit from PC liberal ****er. Apparent 'hate speech' is far worse than Islamic terror attacks.
On the point of reform Cameron has tried recently in relation to ourselves and how do you rate his efforts on that? I have my view but for you its your view that counts. We have, I think, a weighted vote equal to 8.24%. We have been in the EU in its different guises since 1975. It is accepted that reform is required of the EU. What is it that suggests after 40 years of being within the "Club" that we will be able to engineer the appropriate changes now? This especially when more countries are envisaged joining which will only go to dilute our ability to instigate the necessary change and Cameron's, in my view, very limited successes recently.
What you have described, as you will be aware, is the aim of the Coudenhove Kalergi Plan. Some of the doubters on here would do well to Google it and read it. Scares the **** out of me as this describes the end of our civilisation as we know it and the ultimate Islamification of the earth as the Koran commands.
For the conspiracy theorists amongst us there is also the plan by the Germans at the end of the second world war to create a 'fourth' reich via democratic means, i.e. via a common market and Union....
Scary **** to be fair.... http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/
BBC site with an easy breakdown of the issues and respective sides views http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36027205
It's an extreme view and a conspiracy theory. And that web site is hardly going to give a neutral view.
