Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Double post.

This:

 Selym wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:


This may be true, but I have to ask why the requirement is on Great Britain to be the one who is tolerant of mass migration?. If we are to become a German-led 'United States' of Europe...then shouldn't the requirement be for all Nations to be treated equally? Shouldn't Poland be pulling its weight?

Because it's our fault for being racist imperialists who think they still rule the world, and commit genocides (such as in the Boer war) across the world.

 Selym wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:


This may be true, but I have to ask why the requirement is on Great Britain to be the one who is tolerant of mass migration?. If we are to become a German-led 'United States' of Europe...then shouldn't the requirement be for all Nations to be treated equally? Shouldn't Poland be pulling its weight?

Because it's our fault for being racist imperialists who think they still rule the world, and commit genocides (such as in the Boer war) across the world.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:


This may be true, but I have to ask why the requirement is on Great Britain to be the one who is tolerant of mass migration?. If we are to become a German-led 'United States' of Europe...then shouldn't the requirement be for all Nations to be treated equally? Shouldn't Poland be pulling its weight?

Because it's our fault for being racist imperialists who think they still rule the world, and commit genocides (such as in the Boer war) across the world.

You are taking that out of context.

Its Racist for British people to be concerned about mass migration into the UK with no control measures...but not for Polish people if the British where to mass-migrate into Poland? I'm taking that out of context?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I think it was just a counter weight to Selym flagellating himself because the dill weed brigade have been out doing what they probably do every other Saturday night.

Seriously, what happened to the stiff upper lip?

Stiff upper lip? That's been an outdated British stereotype for the better part of half a century.

Hardly, Stoicism has been a trademark characteristic it of many Brits who have gone before. To see so many youngsters flail around in the face of a vote that didn't go the way they hoped is risible.

 notprop wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I think it was just a counter weight to Selym flagellating himself because the dill weed brigade have been out doing what they probably do every other Saturday night.

Seriously, what happened to the stiff upper lip?

Stiff upper lip? That's been an outdated British stereotype for the better part of half a century.

Hardly, Stoicism has been a trademark characteristic it of many Brits who have gone before. To see so many youngsters flail around in the face of a vote that didn't go the way they hoped is risible.

I agree with this. I was disappointed the original Scottish independence referendum did not work but I accepted the result as the will of the people.

 Monokuma wrote:

Its Racist for British people to be concerned about mass migration into the UK with no control measures...but not for Polish people if the British where to mass-migrate into Poland? I'm taking that out of context?

Whats that got to do with Imperialism?

It most certainly is racist to put up the gak in that BBC article or to beat up people for being Polish, attempting to pretend that its not as bad because "thats what would happen in Poland" is utter pish.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

Its Racist for British people to be concerned about mass migration into the UK with no control measures...but not for Polish people if the British where to mass-migrate into Poland? I'm taking that out of context?

Whats that got to do with Imperialism?

It most certainly is racist to put up the gak in that BBC article or to beat up people for being Polish, attempting to pretend that its not as bad because "thats what would happen in Poland" is utter pish.

That IS Racist and I disagree with that. Thats not what I said however. It is one thing to be against migration, but another to break laws in showing that.

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

 notprop wrote:
I think it was just a counter weight to Selym flagellating himself because the dill weed brigade have been out doing what they probably do every other Saturday night.

Seriously, what happened to the stiff upper lip?

It got punched by a racist for being "unnatural".

 notprop wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I think it was just a counter weight to Selym flagellating himself because the dill weed brigade have been out doing what they probably do every other Saturday night.

Seriously, what happened to the stiff upper lip?

Stiff upper lip? That's been an outdated British stereotype for the better part of half a century.

Hardly, Stoicism has been a trademark characteristic it of many Brits who have gone before. To see so many youngsters flail around in the face of a vote that didn't go the way they hoped is risible.

Good point. Should have said quarter century.

Germany and France are stated to be in agreement on how to handle Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36636762

BBC wrote:French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke on Sunday night about how to respond to the UK's Brexit vote.
An aide to the French leader said both were in "full agreement on how to handle the situation" and the need to act quickly to "avoid uncertainties"

Yes, so a detail-less statement was the way to go. Leaders indeed.

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

It is for a small island. You should take the bigger picture into context too, the future that is. I can see the benefits of an Australian border system.

Over a short space of time

 Monokuma wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

It is for a small island.

You do realise how much of this "small island" is developed? Here's a hint, not a lot. We have plenty of space.

The future is not us cutting ourselves off, that much is very clear. Our economy relies on immigration., like it or not, those are facts.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

It is for a small island.

You do realise how much of this "small island" is developed? Here's a hint, not a lot. We have plenty of space.

Yes, as does Poland.

The future is not us cutting ourselves off, that much is very clear. Our economy relies on immigration., like it or not, those are facts.

I do not disagree with this. I'm very much in favour of the EEC with an Australian means-tested border system. Free trade, strong borders, immigration that benefits host nations and no loss at all to national sovereignty. Its hard to see a disadvantage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If a million brits swarmed into Poland they would get the same treatment from many of the locals. ... ...

Obviously that doesn't make it right.

Sure, and I am also sure Jeebus would be appalled, but then JC is out of business these days, so "right" and "wrong" is all a bit up in the air. Until some new caste of priests can hypnotise us with a new ideology, people are going to go with what suits their perceived self-interest.

 SolarCross wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If a million brits swarmed into Poland they would get the same treatment from many of the locals. ... ...

Obviously that doesn't make it right.

Sure, and I am also sure Jeebus would be appalled, but then JC is out of business these days, so "right" and "wrong" is all a bit up in the air. Until some new caste of priests can hypnotise us with a new ideology, people are going to go with what suits their perceived self-interest.

That is laughably false. People do not rely on religion for morality.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That is laughably false. People do not rely on religion for morality.

Indeed, but real morality is driven by self-interest. It takes religion to persuade people to act against their own self-interest.

Morality is driven by Biology. Not Religion, Atheism, Science or Philosophy or any other man-made discipline. If there is a natural reason to not be selfish and if there is a benefit to it, it will happen.

 SolarCross wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That is laughably false. People do not rely on religion for morality.

Indeed, but real morality is driven by self-interest. It takes religion to persuade people to act against their own self-interest.

No, it doesn't. We all (with the exception of some mentally ill people) have the capacity for empathy. We do not require religion to feel how our actions impact others and to wonder whether we are okay with causing pain or suffering.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

No, it doesn't. We all (with the exception of some mentally ill people) have the capacity for empathy. We do not require religion to feel how our actions impact others and to wonder whether we are okay with causing pain or suffering.

Yes but empathy arises from our biology and has self-interested core raison d'etre, caring for others encourages them to care in return. That said natural empathy is selective, it is discriminatory. We empathise with, our family, our children, our friends easily, we are more casual about strangers of our own clan or nationality, and indifferent to those outside our clan. I will feel sorry for my dog when he is ill, whilst munching quite casually on a cow burger without a care in the world for the hell that cow went through to be my next meal.

 Monokuma wrote:


I do not disagree with this. I'm very much in favour of the EEC with an Australian means-tested border system. Free trade, strong borders, immigration that benefits host nations and no loss at all to national sovereignty. Its hard to see a disadvantage.

EEC decision making ground to a halt after it expanded from 12 to 20+ members. Going back isn't really practical anymore. Free trade ironically requires a lot of legislation, regulation and coordination to make and keep it free. Access to the common market means free movement of workers, goods, capital and services, otherwise it wont be a single 'market'. The UK is not part of Schengen, so it has control of its borders already, and even EU citizens need work to stay for more than three months.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

You know that is per annum right?

I was never concerned by the immigration issue (the last three Governments have had clear reason to promote it), but effect upon the nations infrastructure is clear. In the same decade that has seen 0.5% per annum immigration the BSF funding has dried up, new Hospital projects (as in additional not replacement) are few and far between and house building is at a low.

Also whomever said we have plenty of undeveloped land is confused. Most population per km2 will rate the UK as the most crowed and tar aced space on the planet. Planning laws here are deliberately set to prevent further encroachment on the Green belt.

 Monokuma wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

It is for a small island.

You do realise how much of this "small island" is developed? Here's a hint, not a lot. We have plenty of space.

Yes, as does Poland.

Empty space alone is not enough to accommodate refugees and migrants. You can't just dump those people in a Polish forest and leave them to die. They need food, medical care, education for their kids etc. The British state has far more means than the Polish state to provide these things, which is the main reason Britain is expected to take in more migrants than Poland. It is simple pragmatism. The second reason is that many of these migrants simply do not want to go to Poland, but they want to go to the UK, Germany, Sweden etc. They would have to be forced to stay in Poland against their will, which is again not very practical.
Also, in regards to influx of asylum seekers Britain has actually little to complain in comparison to many other EU members:

As you can see, Britain is not actually getting all that many immigrants anymore compared to the rest of Europe (altough this chart of course does not take into account EU migration and non-asylum seeking immigrants)

 Monokuma wrote:

The future is not us cutting ourselves off, that much is very clear. Our economy relies on immigration., like it or not, those are facts.

I do not disagree with this. I'm very much in favour of the EEC with an Australian means-tested border system. Free trade, strong borders, immigration that benefits host nations and no loss at all to national sovereignty. Its hard to see a disadvantage.

The EEC requires open borders. Without open borders it simply will not work. Don't expect this core value to be negotiable for the EU, it goes straight against EU law. Britain could implent an Australia-style system for immigrants from outside of the EEC, but it would have to accept free movement of people within the EEC.

 notprop wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:
Merkel said previously that she was seeking trade deals with the UK post-Brexit. This is interesting. The French even more so, they usually try to sabotage things.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Monokuma wrote:

I did notice the anglophobia in how the United Kingdom is expected to accept more migrants than other nations.

You know that it doesn't, right?

That is why I said 'Expected'. The Germans did intend to push more Syrians onto us. We already have enough unchecked mass migration to deal with.

Yes, 0.5% of the population is definitely "unchecked mass immigration"

You know that is per annum right?

I was never concerned by the immigration issue (the last three Governments have had clear reason to promote it), but effect upon the nations infrastructure is clear. In the same decade that has seen 0.5% per annum immigration the BSF funding has dried up, new Hospital projects (as in additional not replacement) are few and far between and house building is at a low.

Also whomever said we have plenty of undeveloped land is confused. Most population per km2 will rate the UK as the most crowed and tar aced space on the planet. Planning laws here are deliberately set to prevent further encroachment on the Green belt.

Which ends up happening anyway, cause there's no bloody space.
If a spot on British soil isn't covered by housing, it's got a farm or uninhabitable (for various reasons) territory.

Immigration is not the core reason for fewer hospitals being built, fewer houses being built, and so on.

The basic reason is government policies over the past 30 years. It's got worse in the past eight years due to the policy of austerity after the recession in which billions were spent on propping up the banks.

Banks deserve free money y'know!