Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brexit was about more than just mass immigration, it also had to do with national sovereignty.
Indeed Britain remaining in the EU is pointless, we don't want to be part of any political intergration with Europe, don't want to be part of a Federal United States of Europe, don't want a European Military, don't want to give up our currency, don't want to join the Eurozone , don't want to give up border controls and join Schenghen and we are unhappy about more and more European laws being passed and more and more regulations.
We want Britain to retain national sovereignty and for our Parliament and Courts to decide our laws rather than the European Court of Justce taking Judicial precedence or for unelected bureaucrats making laws, whilst the European Parliament actually has few powers in relation to scrutiny, indeed it has less power than the House of Lords in the UK.
A few days ago, I hired a tour guide to show my family and I around London. We stopped at a traditional English pub for an authentic English lunch, and during our lunch, I brought up the topic of Brexit.
He explained how the country was being flooded with Poles and other poor Eastern Europeans who are taking away the jobs from citizens.
I said to him, at least your invaders are white. I wish the Mexicans were white. It must be very liberating to be able to discuss this without a racial component involved.
He said “Oh. No. If you say you are against the Poles coming here, people will call you racist.”
I said, “How does it make you racist? You are the same race.”
He said “I know! It is bloody insane!”
So what does the term “racist” mean now? It clearly means something different than it did 10 or 20 years ago.
It seems to me, like the term “racist” now applies to anyone that is not a globalist.
Fair enough. I'm a Londoner by birth, the city holds 2000 years of history and Brexit is a mere blip. You saw 'Brexit', and I saw 'London'.
I am British, and in terms of Brexit it wasn't just about immigration there were a series of other considerations, and as I have already mentioned Britain is never going to go down the federalisst road to political and economic intergration.
Brexit at least allows us an opportunity to rethink our relationship, and the UK has three main options now that a hard no deal Brexit has been ruled out, the first is a deal based around the current deal with some form of temporary customs union, the second is remaining in the customs union and the single market in an EFTA type situation such as Norway and the other is a second vote, which will not resolve the division and anger in relation to the issue and could make it a lot worse.
Remaining in the EU and going down a federalist path is not really a realistic option.
I'm a Little Englander. All the double talk and fluff is wasted on me. I'm happy to use a passport to get to France. Hope this helps.
What are you going on about, you have always had to use a passport to get to France, and Brexit is about numerous issues including those I have mentioned and is nothing to do with being a Little Englander.
People generally revert to ternms such as Little Englander or call people Nazi's when they don't have the brains to respond to an argumnent in a constructive and logical way, so have to respond in a childish and juvenile way
The UK asked for reform, and the EU wouldn't reform, however even the EU is now starting to admit it's own failures, and is dreading the upcoming European elections.
In terms of reform Macron now wants EU countries to be responsible for each others debt and a European Minimum Wage, which is the total opposite of the reform needed which is returning more power to national parliaments and concentrating on improving trade, rather than this fixastion with political unity and federalism, as the whole United States of Europe aim some federalist have isn't going to work in a continent as culturally and historically diverse as Europe.
Last edited by Brave New World; 04-20-2019 at 05:00 AM..
A few days ago, I hired a tour guide to show my family and I around London. We stopped at a traditional English pub for an authentic English lunch, and during our lunch, I brought up the topic of Brexit.
He explained how the country was being flooded with Poles and other poor Eastern Europeans who are taking away the jobs from citizens.
I said to him, at least your invaders are white. I wish the Mexicans were white. It must be very liberating to be able to discuss this without a racial component involved.
He said “Oh. No. If you say you are against the Poles coming here, people will call you racist.”
I said, “How does it make you racist? You are the same race.”
He said “I know! It is bloody insane!”
So what does the term “racist” mean now? It clearly means something different than it did 10 or 20 years ago.
It seems to me, like the term “racist” now applies to anyone that is not a globalist.
When you say, I wish the Mexicans were white, why do you wish this? Are white people better looking? Do you think it is easier to assimilate them as a result of their skin color or their cultural background? And if they don't assimilate, it's okay because they are white. I think this is racism.
If Western European countries are struggling to accept Eastern white Europeans, I think it shows that just being white alone does not always mean assimilation. This is anti-globalist.
Is it being used incorrectly? Yes, but it seems to set people off which is the reaction people want.
When you say, I wish the Mexicans were white, why do you wish this? Are white people better looking? Do you think it is easier to assimilate them as a result of their skin color or their cultural background? And if they don't assimilate, it's okay because they are white. I think this is racism.
If Western European countries are struggling to accept Eastern white Europeans, I think it shows that just being white alone does not always mean assimilation. This is anti-globalist.
Is it being used incorrectly? Yes, but it seems to set people off which is the reaction people want.
Yeah when o originally read that part I was startled. But after reading the whole post I see that the OP means they wish they were white so people wouldn’t conflate racism with complaints about immigration.
When you say, I wish the Mexicans were white, why do you wish this? Are white people better looking? Do you think it is easier to assimilate them as a result of their skin color or their cultural background? And if they don't assimilate, it's okay because they are white. I think this is racism.
If Western European countries are struggling to accept Eastern white Europeans, I think it shows that just being white alone does not always mean assimilation. This is anti-globalist.
Is it being used incorrectly? Yes, but it seems to set people off which is the reaction people want.
I don’t think you read what I was saying very carefully. I only wish they were white so that the subject of racism isn’t involved in the immigration debate. It would be a much cleaner debate. Other than that, I don’t care.
But as my British tour guide explained, they will call you racist anyway. Even if the invaders are your own race. So it doesn’t matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
