Brexit is a Whitehall farce that threatens the heart of Europe

There are many problems afflicting the British economy, and many afflicting the European Union. The trouble with Brexit is that it is almost guaranteed to aggravate both.

Although I continue to emphasise the economic damage likely to result from cutting ourselves off from half of our export market, in common with many Remainers I am also exercised by the geopolitical risks in any move that encourages the current outbreak of nationalism in Europe.

One of the many depressing aspects of the referendum has been the way some of the more extreme Brexiters have been exulting in interpreting it as the first step on the road to the break-up of the European Union. What is it about these people? Don’t they realise that the postwar arrangement that evolved into the EU was set up principally so that we should not yet again see Europe tearing itself apart?

It began as a move towards political union by economic means. But even the most zealous “federalists” learn from experience: towards the end of his life, Jean Monnet himself, one of the EU’s founding fathers, told a British historian that he no longer believed in “ever closer union”.

I once met Monnet; he was the honoured guest at a Financial Times dinner. He asked me whether I thought Britain was serious about Europe. I replied that I was not sure …

British politicians of both major parties spent more than a decade trying to persuade the French that we should be allowed to join what was then the European Economic Community. Now the allegiance of France itself is threatened by the possibility that the Front National will triumph in the French elections. And Marine Le Pen has delighted in the thought that our referendum result may be giving an extra push to her own campaign.

One of the motives behind our original application was the realisation that membership of the European Free Trade Area (Efta) was not enough. Yet Brexiters fantasise about the wonders of going back to that primitive state: a state that – as Sir Ivan Rogers, former ambassador to the EU, told the Brexit select committee last week – could take a decade to achieve, if not more.

Rogers is the realist whose judgment and sound advice were too much for that converted Brexiter Theresa May to stomach. He emphasised in public last week what he had previously tried to get across in private: that the road to a satisfactory Brexit deal would be arduous. Indeed, between the lines his view seems to be that a “satisfactory” deal is probably not achievable at all.

If it were not so serious, the course of the Brexit debate could reasonably qualify as the stuff of high farce. The British media seem obsessed by the travails of the Ukip leadership; but who cares about Ukip? They have served their dubious historical purpose, and, to all intents and purposes, what was once the Conservative and Unionist party might just as well be renamed the Conservative and Ukip party.

A central element in this sad tale is, of course, the role of immigration.

We are told that immigration was the main reason for the discontent that surfaced on 23 June last year. Yet my old friend David Davis – many friendships go through trying times – continues to make it abundantly clear that, throughout the nonsense of the Brexit “process”, our economy will continue to need skilled and unskilled immigrants from the rest of the EU. (By the way, contrary to what a Manchester taxi driver recently told me, we are still in the EU and may be for some time. Needless to say, this cab driver was a first-generation immigrant who told me there were too many immigrants in this country.)

Even Liam Fox, a hard-line Brexiter if ever there were one, recently conceded that he knew of no recent free trade agreement that did not also involve concessions on migration.

So why the hell are we having to risk sacrificing much of our European trade, and potential future investment and prosperity, for the sake of offering sops to the Cerberus of Ukip?

It should surely have become obvious by now to May that she is living in a fantasy world if she thinks the rest of the EU is going to take our exit from the EU lying down. It will demand that we pay up for our £50bn of legal obligations, which will dwarf the putative £350m a week promised on the ridiculous Leavers’ battle bus during the referendum campaign.

Ah, but “the people have spoken”, have they not? Well, it is a fine democratic tradition that, after they have spoken in a general election, the people can speak again, often with a somewhat different view. It was therefore a most welcome contribution to the Lords’ debate on Brexit last week when Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary, said: “My lords, one has to ask why those who base their arguments for Brexit on the will of the people are now opposed to consulting the people on the outcome of the negotiations. One has to suspect that they fear that they will get a different answer.”

The problem is that much damage is likely to be wreaked meanwhile.

Personally, I think it would be an act of real statesmanship if, as things go from bad to worse in the next year, May were to address the nation and say that, while in good faith she had tried to carry out the will of the people, she had come to the view that Brexit would after all be a historic, calamitous mistake.

Alas, some hope!


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/brexit-whitehall-farce-threatens-heart-europe

geez who would of thought that Hill shepherds have no fucking clue about economics or geopolitics

the Chinese are completely right about Europe(including the Uk as part of Europe), it's recent powerful status has just been an anomaly they are returning to the small isolated poor barbaric states that they traditionally are.

Fuck off you racist geranium, Why don't you come on over and meet some "hill shepherds" yourself? You wont because you'd find out that you are spouting bollocks,--------as usual.

nicko wrote:Fuck off you racist geranium,  Why don't you come on over and meet some "hill shepherds" yourself?  You wont because you'd find out that you are spouting bollocks,--------as usual.

Most of the hill shepherds that I met during my years of working for the farming industry were hard working, diligent, skilled and highly intelligent people.

Veya clearly experiences some difficulties in relating to them.

@fred
that could only be so inefficient due to the 100%plus tariffs the EU put on non-EU agricultural products.
All will be unemployed when the UK has to trade on equal terms without the economic protections of the EU.

AND hillshpeherds are not farmers that are morons like Nicko and tommy that are worried about their hills (small segments of land) and feel the need to protect it because they know they are incapable of competing in the globalized marketplace.

And I have made fiends amongst the Agricultural workers in my new town, Although there is very few since Agriculture is largely Automated in MODERN agricultural economies... Most agricultural workers here are machinists that mechanics or in to biochemistry.

WHERE is the claimed "racism" in veya's comments...

Some of the Englische on here (wistfuly pining for those long-lost glory days of Empire..) really do need to learn the proper meanings of some of the words they try to use as insults against some of us poor down-trodden former 'colonials'..

Maybe if veya had described said 'hill shepherds' as "black", "whitebread honky", "coloured", "green" or "Asian",  nicko might have had a case  ?

nicko wrote:Fuck off you racist geranium,  Why don't you come on over and meet some "hill shepherds" yourself?  You wont because you'd find out that you are spouting bollocks,--------as usual.

It is clear you out source your thinking to others.
just like you did your morals during your career

Why do I need to go to the shit hole
when I can read what you guys write here and see how backward you are.
unless of course you're suggesting the UK posters here are generally considered useless incompetents even by UK standards.
And Why On earth would I want to go somewhere that the people that live there make sound so fucking terrible?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

WHERE is the claimed "racism" in veya's comments...

Some of the Englische on here (wistfuly pining for those long-lost glory days of Empire..) really do need to learn the proper meanings of some of the words they try to use as insults against some of us poor down-trodden former 'colonials'..

Maybe if veya had described said 'hill shepherds' as "black", "whitebread honky", "coloured", "green" or "Asian",  nicko might have had a case  ?

he has less brains than a sardine, that's all
he thinks hillshepeherd means Englishman which is true enough of our posters (a couple of exceptions) rather than understanding it is a term of people that think like him and tommy etc, those cannot see beyond their 'hill'. so blame what ever is an easy target on their hill rather than accept and adapt to the globalized world.

Like I said VERY true what the Chinese wisely say about them.

Veya, it,s now coming out that British children were subjected to prolonged sexual abuse by Australians when the children were sent there after the second world war. Thousands were treated as slaves and sexual playthings. And you blather on and on about how great the Australians are, it seams your a nation of Peodophiles !!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

nicko wrote:Fuck off you racist geranium,  Why don't you come on over and meet some "hill shepherds" yourself?  You wont because you'd find out that you are spouting bollocks,--------as usual.

Most of the hill shepherds that I met during my years of working for the farming industry were hard working, diligent, skilled and highly intelligent people.

Veya clearly experiences some difficulties in relating to them.

To be honest Fred, I think veya is speaking about a pluralist picture of society.  That is, "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."  Think: a game of hopscotch:


In a pluralist society, one can have a foot in the square of "hard working, diligent, skilled and highly intelligent" realm, yet another foot in the square of the KKK.  We have experienced that kind of pluralism in the American south, where some citizens can act like completely responsible people, yet they are abject racists.

We see such divisions when we call upon persons for a specific task: to serve on a jury, or indeed, simply to vote.  That single facet only comes out in them when they are doing that task.  As a juror, they would convict a black man, where they would acquit a white man (jurors on Zimmerman case).  As a voter, they would vote for a white tramp over a black lawyer or minister.  (I use race only as an example, as there are millions of pluralist spheres--eg, the growing antipathy toward Muslims, or wealth and class.)

"Hill shepard" refers not to the whole person, but to that facet of the person that is backwards and parochial, in a role that causes him to bring out that quality.  I have many friends and in-laws from New Orleans.  Yes, they are lovely people...until you meet that side of them.

Lets have Veya's reply to the enquiry about Australian pedo's.

his people are not so lily white are they?

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Most of the hill shepherds that I met during my years of working for the farming industry were hard working, diligent, skilled and highly intelligent people.

Veya clearly experiences some difficulties in relating to them.

To be honest Fred, I think veya is speaking about a pluralist picture of society.  That is, "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."  Think: a game of hopscotch:

In a pluralist society, one can have a foot in the square of "hard working, diligent, skilled and highly intelligent" realm, yet another foot in the square of the KKK.  We have experienced that kind of pluralism in the American south, where some citizens can act like completely responsible people, yet they are abject racists.

We see such divisions when we call upon persons for a specific task: to serve on a jury, or indeed, simply to vote.  That single facet only comes out in them when they are doing that task.  As a juror, they would convict a black man, where they would acquit a white man (jurors on Zimmerman case).  As a voter, they would vote for a white tramp over a black lawyer or minister.  (I use race only as an example, as there are millions of pluralist spheres--eg, the growing antipathy toward Muslims, or wealth and class.)

"Hill shepard" refers not to the whole person, but to that facet of the person that is backwards and parochial, in a role that causes him to bring out that quality.  I have many friends and in-laws from New Orleans.  Yes, they are lovely people...until you meet that side of them.

Oh dear, I will write out 100 times: "I must not do irony and mild, playful sarcasm."

Mind you, you have to admit that Veya does employ some, er, colourful words and phrases when describing we Brits and our fair country...not that I mind personally, you understand: I'm a Yorkshireman and living next door to those surly buggers from Lancashire means we have grown to expect such abuse."

It seems to me that veya is always basing his opinions on the uk through the prism of thought of what is the reality there in australia... whereby he consistently fails to recognise/understand the totally different reality that is here in the uk...


Australia is a vast continent of uninhabited land with huge quantities of natural resources... with only about 20 million people there...


This is such a vast expanse of land, that JUST ONE FARM (shown in an episode of 'Top gear') is 3.2 million acres... this is the equivalent size of almost the whole of the south East of England!!!


Total population there of about only a dozen people!!!


Compared to the south East of England and london with a population of around 15 million people!!!



Australia needs more people to utilise the vast swathes of untapped resources/land and therefore add to their production/tradeable commodities/economy... while these new arrivals will also be able to be housed by building on vast amounts of also available land too... a win win!!!


While here in uk we are a tiny island that is already overpopulated... and more people arriving has an opposite effect on putting even more pressure on an already overpopulated land that is already utilised throughout and with limited available area for the accommodation of many new arrivals...


The direct effects are detrimental with problems with the rising costs of living and need for wage increases to business/manufacturing that make them ever more uncompetitive etc... while the numbers coming also have the adverse effects on wages by increasing supply of cheaper labour and driving down wages/holding down wages increases...


Plus the direct extra costs to public services while wage stagnation that also means no extra taxes raised, means increased costs to govt and taxpayer... directly negatively impacting on people already here!!!


As well as the direct negative impact on those already here by the increase in numbers on roads/ public transport/nhs/schools and all other public services!!!

We should re-direct all migrants to Australia, they have more room than us.

PS, no, that wouldn't work, Australian Government is bunging them all on a small island or two and not letting them in.

nicko wrote:Lets have Veya's reply to the enquiry about Australian pedo's.

his people are not so lily white are they?

No they're all colours, Multiculturalism remember

WHEN have I ever said we are perfect or are the best ???
find one case ..
I just say we are better than the UK that's all.
I mean heaps of nations are better than the UK so not really an achievement

As I have told you I think you are pathetic for holding such Nazi like nationalistic views of the world.
Pathetic to tie ones pride in the random piece of land one was born in

Austrialia is only a random piece of land then, so one can't say it's better than another random piece of land.

Raggamuffin wrote:Austrialia is only a random piece of land then, so one can't say it's better than another random piece of land.

I quite agree.
I don't even understand being "proud" of your country, to be honest.
I'm only here becasue my dad lived here and so did my mum and they Fucked each other and had me.
Accident that I'm here really....so why am I proud of it becasue I landed here by accident?

This is a genuine wonderment. I could live anywhere and be happy if I was happy within myself.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Austrialia is only a random piece of land then, so one can't say it's better than another random piece of land.

I quite agree.
I don't even understand being "proud" of your country, to be honest.
I'm only here becasue my dad lived here and so did my mum and they Fucked each other and had me.
Accident that I'm here really....so why am I proud of it becasue I landed here by accident?

This is a genuine wonderment. I could live anywhere and be happy if I was happy within myself.

I agree.
People who are always banging on about how much better they, their country, their bank balance, their jobs, their houses, their neighbours blah blah bloody blah are.....are obviously trying to convince themselves, because I doubt they convince anyone else.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To be honest Fred, I think veya is speaking about a pluralist picture of society.  That is, "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."  Think: a game of hopscotch:

In a pluralist society, one can have a foot in the square of "hard working, diligent, skilled and highly intelligent" realm, yet another foot in the square of the KKK.  We have experienced that kind of pluralism in the American south, where some citizens can act like completely responsible people, yet they are abject racists.

We see such divisions when we call upon persons for a specific task: to serve on a jury, or indeed, simply to vote.  That single facet only comes out in them when they are doing that task.  As a juror, they would convict a black man, where they would acquit a white man (jurors on Zimmerman case).  As a voter, they would vote for a white tramp over a black lawyer or minister.  (I use race only as an example, as there are millions of pluralist spheres--eg, the growing antipathy toward Muslims, or wealth and class.)

"Hill shepard" refers not to the whole person, but to that facet of the person that is backwards and parochial, in a role that causes him to bring out that quality.  I have many friends and in-laws from New Orleans.  Yes, they are lovely people...until you meet that side of them.

Oh dear, I will write out 100 times: "I must not do irony and mild, playful sarcasm."

Mind you, you have to admit that Veya does employ some, er, colourful words and phrases when describing we Brits and our fair country...not that I mind personally, you understand: I'm a Yorkshireman and living next door to those surly buggers from Lancashire means we have grown to expect such abuse."

  Yes, those surly Lancastrians are a mean lot.  Imagine if Blanche had married Eddie instead of John. Would have saved England some 50-years of civil war.

If you are someone who was sent to war to protect our freedom that must be a very proud feeling and I respect those who fought for our freedom and gave their lives .

If they didn't do that we would be ruled by nazis so being proud of our country is a great thing . I have a the George Cross flag flying in my front drive - I'm very proud of my country .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you are someone who was sent to war to protect our freedom that must be a very proud feeling and I respect those who fought for our freedom and gave their lives .

If they didn't do that we would be ruled by nazis so being proud of our country is a great thing . I have a the George Cross flag flying in my front drive - I'm very proud of my country .

Protect your freedom? When was the last time the British Isles were invaded by a military force of a foreign power? Anyone know?

Or was this an invasion of another country by the British?

Original Quill wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you are someone who was sent to war to protect our freedom that must be a very proud feeling and I respect those who fought for our freedom and gave their lives .

If they didn't do that we would be ruled by nazis so being proud of our country is a great thing . I have a the George Cross flag flying in my front drive - I'm very proud of my country .

Protect your freedom?  When was the last time the British Isles were invaded by a military force of a foreign power?  Anyone know?

Or was this an invasion of another country by the British?

Islamic invasion happening right under your nose in your country and mine .

Get lost Quill, you know what she ment, You'd just put your hands up and surrender without a fight.

nicko wrote:Get lost Quill, you know what she ment,   You'd just put your hands up and surrender without a fight.

I know, perhaps you like invading countries not your own? Get used to it. It's about time we start calling out our own leaders on this duplicity.

It should only be called "defending" if the fight is on your country's soil. Otherwise you are the aggressor, or terrorist...whichever term you prefer.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Protect your freedom?  When was the last time the British Isles were invaded by a military force of a foreign power?  Anyone know?

Or was this an invasion of another country by the British?

Islamic invasion happening right under your nose in your country and mine .

Call the police. It's a simple matter of law and order.

"Call the Police" have you ever heard such a stupid statement.

Give me strength.

nicko wrote:"Call the Police"   have you ever heard such a stupid statement.

Give me strength.

Or, don't call the police if you don't think it is warranted. I'm sure there are more false alarms that real threats.

T .HE police wont come out if your burgled, let alone to a man with an AK47

nicko wrote:T .HE police wont come out if your burgled,  let alone to a man with an AK47

Well, now you're beginning to acknowledge the point at least.  If police departments are ineffectual where you are, fire them and get a new contingent.  I recognize that is the case in some cities...faced with a choice of calling the cops, or not, sometimes people elect not to call them.  They actually figure they're better off without.

But in no wise does that justify calling out the military for swatting a fly.  The Iraq War II was the worst decision since the 1812 War.  Not only was in based upon a lie, but it begat worse conditions than what allegedly prompted it.

I agree with you on that !

Original Quill wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you are someone who was sent to war to protect our freedom that must be a very proud feeling and I respect those who fought for our freedom and gave their lives .

If they didn't do that we would be ruled by nazis so being proud of our country is a great thing . I have a the George Cross flag flying in my front drive - I'm very proud of my country .

Protect your freedom?  When was the last time the British Isles were invaded by a military force of a foreign power?  Anyone know?

Or was this an invasion of another country by the British?

You do know that Hitler planned to invade Britain don't you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Protect your freedom?  When was the last time the British Isles were invaded by a military force of a foreign power?  Anyone know?

Or was this an invasion of another country by the British?

You do know that Hitler planned to invade Britain don't you?

He called off Operation Sea Lion for two reasons: (a) The RAF had won the Battle of Britain and robbed the Lutfwaffe of essential air superiority and (b) he was so desperate for liebenstraum in the east (apologies for any spelling mistakes - I don't speak German) that he decided to invade Russia instead.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You do know that Hitler planned to invade Britain don't you?

He called off Operation Sea Lion for two reasons: (a) The RAF had won the Battle of Britain and robbed the Lutfwaffe of essential air superiority and (b) he was so desperate for liebenstraum in the east (apologies for any spelling mistakes - I don't speak German) that he decided to invade Russia instead.

Most historians agree that he never seriously entertained the idea of invading Britain and believed he could intimidate them into negotiation rf surrendering. He clearly did not bank on the will of Churchill or the Enigma machine codes being broken. It gave the British the advantage. 

Though the Wehrmacht also rejected the idea of the planned narrow front invasion by the Navy. Hence why the plans to invade were constantly changed.

Even if the Luftwaffe had of beaten the RAF, of which it was winning the battle of attrition. (until the tactics was changed from attacking the air bases etc, to the cities. Another smart move by Churchill to order the raid on Berlin.) Its doubtful they would have invaded, due to their inferior Navy. Not been able to protect the landing force (though if the invasion had been successful. Britain's army, would have quickly succumbed). They kriegsmarine had suffered heavy loses in the invasion of Norway. So I would add another reason, to the two you have pointed out, of which I concur. The odds were simple too high against succeeding, of which Hitler was well aware of.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you are someone who was sent to war to protect our freedom that must be a very proud feeling and I respect those who fought for our freedom and gave their lives .

If they didn't do that we would be ruled by nazis so being proud of our country is a great thing . I have a the George Cross flag flying in my front drive - I'm very proud of my country .

No westerner has been sent to protect our freedom since world war 2,

we sometime have propaganda that we are protecting others freedom's, whether they want us to or not

and there is no Islamic invasion (just nonsense), it is just as Nicko points out the British system is a failure can't even run a police force
an Invasion is what the British used to do, come in a steal the land remove the locals with lethal force. not poor families and individuals seeking a better life with a better economic outlook and by in large complying with local laws and customs.

Your problem is that the Anglo-Christian customs are being rejected by Western cCvilization, it is not the Islamic people that are against you (they hold many of the same homophobic and sexist beliefs being rooted in the same theology as you) It is the good free thinking westerner that is against you and your discriminatory and prejudiced traditions.

veya_victaous wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you are someone who was sent to war to protect our freedom that must be a very proud feeling and I respect those who fought for our freedom and gave their lives .

If they didn't do that we would be ruled by nazis so being proud of our country is a great thing . I have a the George Cross flag flying in my front drive - I'm very proud of my country .

No westerner has been sent to protect our freedom since world war 2,

we sometime have propaganda that we are protecting others freedom's, whether they want us to or not

and there is no Islamic invasion (just nonsense), it is just as Nicko points out the British system is a failure can't even run a police force
an Invasion is what the British used to do, come in a steal the land remove the locals with lethal force. not poor families and individuals seeking a better life with a better economic outlook and by in large complying with local laws and customs.

Your problem is that the Anglo-Christian customs are being rejected by Western cCvilization, it is not the Islamic people that are against you (they hold many of the same homophobic and sexist beliefs being rooted in the same theology as you) It is the good free thinking westerner that is against you and your discriminatory and prejudiced traditions.

All I can say is that I wish I had your confidence. I doubt whether any European government knows just how many radical Islamic sleepers have managed to sneak in through our notoriously porous borders and are even now preparing the next atrocity.

You in Australia might be content to shrug off the next London bus or tube train to be blown up, but I'm afraid that your trendy Left wing waffle is not going to compensate for the blood that will be spilled on our streets.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

No westerner has been sent to protect our freedom since world war 2,

we sometime have propaganda that we are protecting others freedom's, whether they want us to or not

and there is no Islamic invasion (just nonsense), it is just as Nicko points out the British system is a failure can't even run a police force
an Invasion is what the British used to do, come in a steal the land remove the locals with lethal force. not poor families and individuals seeking a better life with a better economic outlook and by in large complying with local laws and customs.

Your problem is that the Anglo-Christian customs are being rejected by Western cCvilization, it is not the Islamic people that are against you (they hold many of the same homophobic and sexist beliefs being rooted in the same theology as you) It is the good free thinking westerner that is against you and your discriminatory and prejudiced traditions.

All I can say is that I wish I had your confidence. I doubt whether any European government knows just how many radical Islamic sleepers have managed to sneak in through our notoriously porous borders and are even now preparing the next atrocity.

You in Australia might be content to shrug off the next London bus or tube train to be blown up, but I'm afraid that your trendy Left wing waffle is not going to compensate for the blood that will be spilled on our streets.

Well, that is an interesting point.
7/7 was carried out by those who were British born, bar one who was a convert originally from Jamaica.
You do realise that in many cases, the vast majority, in the UK, such attempts and attacks have been carried out by those British born?
I think people should start crediting the fact so many attacks have been thwarted by our security services and the Police.
Are you claiming an Islamic invasion based off immigration of Muslims?
Have never read in our history books, that Christian immigrants to the Uk was a Christian invasion, even though the country changed to Christianity.
Do you see how badly and supercharged a claim that is, based on people coming here?

@fred
if more Brits had my confidence, which is derived from being able to read and understand statistics and geopolitics like the fact that western nations armies have invaded multiple Muslims nations in the past 2 decades and ZERO Muslim nations have invaded a western one.... you wouldn't be in this situation...
As Nicko Said 'cant even run a police force' to busy being wishy washy whinning about some make believe issue in the tabloid papers...


BUT seriously I have said before the problem with the modern Brit is they are too disconnected from 'the natural risks involved with life' expect zero threats or risks which is just NOT what life is about. there is always risk assess it's level and act accordingly the Reality is the risk of terrorism is very low or was you guys are making it worse by pretending that Muslims are not people with all the same fears and desires as yourselves. They can rightly say that westerns drop bombs on their cities like it was a party trick, blow up wedding ceremonies of innocents by mistake an it is just 'collateral damage', they have far more reason to fear us then we them, no different than snakes or spiders really.

I'll add some Aussies are like that too, I believe a regular import of refugees is needed to make people realize how good we actually have it.

From my friend Phil:



I bought a Brexit calculator the other day. Nothing adds up but it's excellent at taking away and division.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Austrialia is only a random piece of land then, so one can't say it's better than another random piece of land.

I quite agree.
I don't even understand being "proud" of your country, to be honest.
I'm only here becasue my dad lived here and so did my mum and they Fucked each other and had me.
Accident that I'm here really....so why am I proud of it becasue I landed here by accident?

This is a genuine wonderment. I could live anywhere and be happy if I was happy within myself.

I'm patriotic.   I tend not to look back at my country's past, anymore than I do at any other country.  I don't hate Germans because of Hitler, so why should I be ashamed to be British because of things that happened in the past.   People died in two world wars to keep this country free and safe, so I feel a certain amount of national pride in that.

just 22% still support hard remain now according to yougov poll