Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonS said:
And on the issue of being a (to me) scary superstate, ask yourself which best fits nightmare future scenarios outlined in literature, film, science fiction etc - an ever larger EU or Britain as a fully sovereign country?
Click to expand...

It's never going to be a superstate... there's no "EU Army", there's no "United States of Europe"... That is scaremongering. It is simply a collective of nations working in political yet independent unity on a post-war continent that has maintained the peace and encouraged economic progression for decades. Because of the massive cultural, linguistic and political differences of all members of the EU, the idea of a superstate without instant rebellions all over the shop is a ridiculous one.

There's nothing to be afraid of with the EU. We had a guarantee on the ability to withdraw in the event of a treaty change. The only thing the EU is, and would ever be, is a trading bloc with a veneer of political co-operation. The superstate fear is a largely British-only phenomenon that, to me, is a hangover from being the "head" of the Commonwealth. A mindset of paranoia.

As Chris Patten said; "People can't go on pretending that we are on a journey to some ghastly superstate. That's never going to happen. It's a dumb argument and we should thump it on the head."
 
Tubey said:
It's never going to be a superstate... there's no "EU Army", there's no "United States of Europe"... That is scaremongering. It is simply a collective of nations working in political yet independent unity on a post-war continent that has maintained the peace and encouraged economic progression for decades. Because of the massive cultural, linguistic and political differences of all members of the EU, the idea of a superstate without instant rebellions all over the shop is a ridiculous one.

There's nothing to be afraid of with the EU. We had a guarantee on the ability to withdraw in the event of a treaty change. The only thing the EU is, and would ever be, is a trading bloc with a veneer of political co-operation. The superstate fear is a largely British-only phenomenon that, to me, is a hangover from being the "head" of the Commonwealth. A mindset of paranoia.

As Chris Patten said; "People can't go on pretending that we are on a journey to some ghastly superstate. That's never going to happen. It's a dumb argument and we should thump it on the head."
Click to expand...

Maybe my fears are exagerated or needless but hasn't the EU been talking about having it's own army and (to me) it increasingly does resemble a superstate rather than just a trading block (the Common Market that we had originally joined). I suspect that if it was still only a trading block that the referendum vote would have been remain.
 
Clint Planet said:
And once Scotland secedes - which is highly likely now Brexit is being triggered - we in England will be lumbered with those loveable Tories for the rest of our lives until, eventually, as the EU crumbles, we will be dragged into an inevitable, catastrophic European war.

Still, at least we're not going to be swamped by 76,000,000 Turkish rapist jihadists.....

vote-leave-turkey-is-joining-the-eu-poster1.jpg



Phew! That was a close one!
Click to expand...

Of course we are not. But are people wrong to be against even more of the Wahaabi branch of Islam that has become predominant over the last decade or two?

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-a...-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism
 
Number_25 said:
What in the hell has that got to do with us leaving the EU?

Adding 1 and 1 together, getting 4.
Click to expand...

It was a reply to Clint who had mentioned the leave campaign had suggested Turkey was going to join the EU and we were going to get many more immigrants.

As some people had probably voted for Brexit to help prevent more immigration of Islamic people I was trying to point out that wanting that is not necessarily a racist view but has a degree of common sense behind it whether you agree with it or not (apologies for not making myself clear)
 
JonS said:
It was a reply to Clint who had mentioned the leave campaign had suggested Turkey was going to join the EU and we were going to get many more immigrants.

As some people had probably voted for Brexit to help prevent more immigration of Islamic people I was trying to point out that wanting that is not necessarily a racist view but has a degree of common sense behind it whether you agree with it or not (apologies for not making myself clear)
Click to expand...

On what level is basing immigration on religion, "common sense"?
 
roydo said:
On what level is basing immigration on religion, "common sense"?
Click to expand...

The "common sense" to being concerned at further Islamic immigration to the UK would be that rather than Islam as it has perhaps previously been, with the current rise of Wahaabi Islam (which as the article describes has become pretty dominant and is taught in our Saudi funded mosques by Saudi trained Imans) then terrorism becomes more likely as does infringement of women's rights and other intolerances.

I would say the fault here is that we have allowed the Saudi funded Mosques and Imans to take root here and that when people are exposed to those teachings regularly in their mosques they are much more likely to carry out the teachings practically in their lives.

I do not think that Islamic immigration itself is the problem, but when combined with lack of action against teachings and practices that are common in the Islamic community it could be seen as being likely to make these issues worse.

And I do not think that someone is necessarily racist or predudiced for being of that opinion
 
JonS said:
Not necessarily. It could be used to have more of a global centric rather than Euro Centric view. The same applies to immigration. Why should there be different terms for someone from the EU wanting to come and live from the UK to someone from the rest of the world?

Rather than leaving the EU being Little Englander I would call the EU as Little Europeaner (or maybe Grosser Europeaner - EU EU uber alles).

Obviously we have different opinions about this, and I'd accept that some Brexit voters might be a bit Little Englander about it, but IMO there is something to be said for small, local and decentralised rather than an ever larger and (to me) increasingly scary superstate
Click to expand...
All of which has precisely nothing to do with my original question to the other fella that you jumped in on.

If you think that post Brexit the U.K. will suddenly open up to the rest of the World in terms of immigration then you're deluded. We took more non EU than EU migrants anyway, but bigoted from Barnsley decided we had too many foreigners, hence Brexit
 
JonS said:
The "common sense" to being concerned at further Islamic immigration to the UK would be that rather than Islam as it has perhaps previously been, with the current rise of Wahaabi Islam (which as the article describes has become pretty dominant and is taught in our Saudi funded mosques by Saudi trained Imans) then terrorism becomes more likely as does infringement of women's rights and other intolerances.

I would say the fault here is that we have allowed the Saudi funded Mosques and Imans to take root here and that when people are exposed to those teachings regularly in their mosques they are much more likely to carry out the teachings practically in their lives.

I do not think that Islamic immigration itself is the problem, but when combined with lack of action against teachings and practices that are common in the Islamic community it could be seen as being likely to make these issues worse.

And I do not think that someone is necessarily racist or predudiced for being of that opinion
Click to expand...

Examples?
 
roydo said:
On what level is basing immigration on religion, "common sense"?
Click to expand...
JonS said:
The "common sense" to being concerned at further Islamic immigration to the UK would be that rather than Islam as it has perhaps previously been, with the current rise of Wahaabi Islam (which as the article describes has become pretty dominant and is taught in our Saudi funded mosques by Saudi trained Imans) then terrorism becomes more likely as does infringement of women's rights and other intolerances.

I would say the fault here is that we have allowed the Saudi funded Mosques and Imans to take root here and that when people are exposed to those teachings regularly in their mosques they are much more likely to carry out the teachings practically in their lives.

I do not think that Islamic immigration itself is the problem, but when combined with lack of action against teachings and practices that are common in the Islamic community it could be seen as being likely to make these issues worse.

And I do not think that someone is necessarily racist or predudiced for being of that opinion
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Sadly, the people who are most anti-Islamic are also the people who are least likely to question the Right (because, let's face it, the lack of political will in questioning Wahhabism is an establishment phenomenon).
 
JonS said:
The subordination of women, believing that other religions or people are inferior, for starters.
Click to expand...

But that is the same in the Christian world. You (as a white male Anglo-Saxon) just don't see it.

Let me ask you this. Does it ever bemuse or frustrate you that seemingly intelligent people don't notice what you notice about Islam? Are they not as clever as you? Or is it that they see it but they just don't feel that threatened by it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top