Brexit now leading by 10 points

We are calling you a racist because we see your daily posting. Whether these other millions are, I can't judge until I get to know them. Some of us don't just assume one angry racist implies everybody who lives near him or looks like him is the same.

He very rarely does, or if he reads, he fails to comprehend. And therefore he has no point. Mental defect? Extreme drunkenness? Who's to say?

The link I provided said it was scientific and the organization which conducted it was not a right wing hate blog. It was a Saudi group.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...Britain-UK-EU-referendum-Brexit-Euro-2016/amp

Violent illegal alien scum have turned Calais into a war zone waging roving battles against police. Plus a violent leftist anarchist group called No Borders also through rocks at police and tried to stop them from arresting violent illegal aliens who were breaking into big rigs.

The French government really does seem powerless to deal with these thugs and why would anyone want to let in violent criminals who were chanting "fuck the UK", which is supposedly the country they want to move too?

Daily Express.

Then why ask:

You're asking a question why would Europe be different from half a millennium ago. That's reverting in some manner any way you slice it.

I didn't misread, you changed the goalposts with a clarification, which I'll answer.

European unification isn't the only thing that has happened, technological and social advancements have provided such dense trade of communication, ideas and goods the ties that bind go beyond treaties. Relationships are no longer as bound by borders as they once were, globalisation has made people accustomed to working alongside people from other countries.

That you believe the EU is the only thing stopping nations tearing at one another's throats is surprising, why are you so doubtful of Europe having a robust sense of civilisation?

The likes of Junker and Schauble show little sense in wishing to 'punish' the UK, but perhaps this more highlights the EU's lack of civilisation rather than the nations it apparently unites. I don't find adopting an omerta-level attitude to membership as particularly enlightened.

I disagree that you can sling the 'somewhat' and the 'slightly' together with the very. I mean, I'm heteroflexible, you may as well say I identify as gay, something my wife would laugh at.

There's a marked difference between taking some pride in some aspect of Britishness and drinking bulldog piss and calling it champagne.

And here you're conflating patriotism, nationalism and jingoism. Again with the multiple sets being merged into one, rather than recognising distinct concepts with overlaps.

Someone being proud of action A does not mean they'll necessarily be proud of action B if taken by the same actor.

I've bolded the word you missed twice for your benefit. However, you're still reading something into my post I didn't write:

Didn't say that at all. I think it is one valuable factor helping maintain peace, which is why I said leaving is one clear step towards making war more likely again, not tantamount to an immediate descent into slaughter.

https://www.rt.com/news/330284-economic-migrants-eu-refugees/

Even the EU estimates about 60% of the migrants are not refugees but just economic migrants. That is a very conservative number and the real number is actually higher.

That the problem is so obvious but the EU refuses to allow any reasonable change in policy... Well, that is how we got to Brexit being so popular.

You claimed that without the EU Europe would return to its old patterns of war. I am glad you have realized that claim is rubbish but stop trying to pretend you didn't move the goalpost.

I really wonder you try to affirm that someone saying they're slightly or somewhat patriotic is closer to them being 'not patriotic' than 'patriotic'. I don't think your analogy is a good one; it's hard to see how one could be bisexual in such a case, for example.

No, I don't think so. It seems rather that you've not grasped what I said. But perhaps you could explain the differences between patriotism, nationalism and jingoism and how that relates to my post.

John Oliver's take. I thought the song was amusing.

Y'know, I'm pretty sure all my ancestors were economic migrants. A good chunk of this country was built by economic migrants. What's wrong with it, exactly?

Oh, they like it just fine. From a historical perspective only. Now it's 'We're full up, full up, go somewhere else' while they try to build an iron curtain.

"I got mine; fuck the rest of you"?

Is that the new nickname for London Pride?

The problem comes when people lie and pretend they are refugees, who get automatic entry, when they are not refugees. Economic migrants can apply for visas or green cards and wait in line just like everyone else without the deception, the lies, and the arrogant line cutting.

So did all your ancestors come here for the welfare benefits or because they wanted to build something?

As Milton Friedman says, you can have free immigration or free welfare benefits, but not both.

I actually said the exact same thing and got dumb repped by the usual suspects. The problem for them is that Milton Friedman is exactly correct.

The only benefit the Brits get from the EU is that they get to pay about 30% more for an automobile. Be free, make alliances with the US and other countries.

It's a nice sound bite, but it's not particularly useful without some definitions. And as I would hope you realize, Friedman was wrong about all kinds of things.

But he's not wrong on that one.

If immigrants don't get a ton of benefits and still immigrate, it means they think the base level of opportunity in the US is greater than whatever they might achieve back home, whether due to social, political, or economic factors. Up through the early 1900's, millions of Europeans reached that conclusion and moved to the US, where they got nothing but a chance to succeed, whether by working, starting a business, or farming.

But if you add a generous welfare system into the mix, you pick up "welfare benefit shoppers" who are looking for the best deal for the least work. So you might have generations of hard working natives who built up our infrastructure and economy who eventually decide to provide lots of protections and benefits for the children of their fellow builders and workers who might be down on their luck. People in less prosperous countries see that, do the math, and decide they're rather be on welfare here than on the meager benefits available in their home countries. So you attract bums like ants at a picnic, and those weigh down the welfare system that the natives built for the natives.

So the open immigration state has to slash benefits, both to protect its budget and its economy and to reduce the incentive for welfare bums to come in and leech off a system they and their families have never contributed to. This means that the open immigration state can't have a nice welfare system.

But without the nice welfare system you can have open immigration because the people who show up show up not to be dependent and leech off others, but to build for themselves and contribute to their new homeland.

And then he points out that illegal immigration is great because the illegals don't get any benefits, so it selects for the hard workers instead of the bums. But it only works as long as the illegals remain illegal.

I am not sure if this is an EU policy or a German policy but it shows how retarded the migrant situation has gotten. 70% of the males under the age of 40 who lose their asylum cases and get ordered deported by the courts claim they are too sick to travel and so legally can't be deported. German doctors apparently give out these notes like candy to anyone who asks for one. Charge the worst offenders with fraud, I say, and make sure the rest lnow they are riskong their careers as well as possible jail time if they hand out false doctor's notes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sick-notes-migrants-saying-ill-deported.html

It just can't be that 70% of young male deportees are too sick to survive a plane flight.

Oh, you mean like the Puritans back in colonial times?

Oh, the Puritans had plenty of objectionable traits but at least they were hard workers and not just after free stuff paid for by other people. Compare that with your average welfare migrant who, in most interviews mentions free housing, free health care, and cash welfare payments as their primary motivation. They are mooching parasites with a tendency towards criminality and a desire for cultural conquest. Not a desirable addition to a western country by any stretch of the imagination.

So is Dinner advocating a full withdrawal from the Refugee Convention?

Apparently so, considering his continuation in #293.

There was a huge welfare policy that helped the Puritans, along will later arrivals, well in to the 19th century. It was called legally stolen free land. I just have to laugh at the people who don't realize that North America has always been a welfare state.

We already have discussed how the vast majority of them are not refugees. The remainder can be give temperary housing in some distant safe but thoroughly unpleasant place where they get their basic needs met but nothing more (food, water, shelter). South Georgia Island would fit the bill.

That ought to discourage a virtually all of them while still technically upholding the treaty. Once it becomes clear that, yeah, they will help you but life will suck and you will never get to move to Europe than vietually all of them will figure out alternatives.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189608

Australia is on the right path.