SS said:
The EU is about to let Turkey into the EU superstate, allowing thousands of people who hate our guts free passage to our nation. It also allows the free movement of useless people into our nation, and as we've seen with the migrant crisis allowed a demographic timebomb to be planted
Can you possibly offer us a source (from as balanced and reputable a source as you can find) to support this allegation?
Now, i might read your user name as "SS" and draw the (apparently false - according to you) conclusion that you must be a nazi sympathiser or a neo-nazi.
If i were to repeat this theory to another member of the forum, they may well believe it to be true, based on available evidence.
I apologise for bringing this up again, but i am attempting to make a serious point about how easily spurious myths spread, often to the point of being widely-believed "truth".
In the same way, if a writer/blogger/journalist/stormfront poster were to spread the myth that "thousands of people who hate our guts" are coming to live in my country - would it be wise of me to simply believe them? Personally i would question such sentiment, and use my critical thinking skills to research this further.
Who said it?
What is their story? Their agenda? Do they have a reputation for journalistic integrity?
In what context was it alleged that "thousands of people" who "hate our guts" will be relocating to the British Isles?
Do you have a really reliable source that "the EU is allowing
thousands of turks who hate our [British, presumably?] guts free passage into our nation"
Have all of these people been surveyed, questioned or otherwise interrogated regarding the question of "How do you feel about the people of Britain?"
And if you'll excuse all the questions, was the "
hate their guts response unanimous amongst these Turkish folk - or simply a good old-fashioned Westminster System majority-rules scenario.
It does seem to be
just a tad hyperbolic and therefore rather questionable in its accuracy - do you agree?
On the other hand, you are propagating such ideas, so perhaps you can show me that i'm just a cynic who asks too many questions?
Because i'll own up to that - if you can provide some evidence that it is true - but until then, i'm calling bullshit on the whole statement.
If what you're saying does happen to be...a bit of an exaggeration or unfounded allegation (as i suspect) - i feel compelled to ask you - what exactly is your agenda in all of this? It seems to go far deeper than the topic at hand.
I
would ask you to expand on the bit about what you mean by "our nation" and "our culture" in a post-Colonial, globalist world, as well - but i cannot see how any such digression would contribute much to the discussion.
It would seem to come back to your observation that I seem to think that "being insular is necessarily a bad thing".
In the context of international geopolitics as they stand as of 2016, i would argue that a nation "being insular" is very much a "bad thing".
Unless you think North Korea is a success story? And even they have a number of vital allies, without whom they would likely have been bombed to oblivion or reunified with the South Decades ago.
And as national sovereignty - it's a great concept, in an abstract kind of way.
But what right do the United Kingdom have to talk about soverignity (and their natural right to it) as opposed to, say, the Soverign rights of Iraq and the Iraqi people?
Or Afghanistan, Libya - or the countless other examples that are too messy to get into - that UK governments and military and intelligence forces were instrumental in destroying or undermining over the years?
Is UK Sovereignty a more pressing issue than that of - say, for example - Palestinian Sovereignty?
They're being occupied by military forces with international (ie UK) backing and funding - but is there some other other important reason i'm missing as to why Britain needs to break free of this unbearable stability, regionally-relative prosperity and reasonable standing amongst her allies?
I can see that national pride can be an important part of people's sense of self and nationhood - but i'd be surprised if EU forces are carrying out extrajudicial killings in Manchester, or bulldozing the homes of families of suspected militants in Bristol - again, without trial.
If this is happening, it is disgraceful, and obviously should he stopped by any means.
But it isn't, is it? Good save your gracious Queen and all that, but frankly the whole notion of British Sovereignty is starting to seem rather quaint (to put it lightly).
Yes, the Empire has a legacy that i suspect will be evident for many years to come.
But as for standing on her own two feet? The United Kingdom never did that very well - a couple of centuries of naval primacy and the resulting global plunder has spread British culture all across the globe.
That's how it is now, and no withdrawing into pseudo-isolationism is ever going to keep the rest of the world sharing their culture, language, religion, philosophy or migrants back to you.
You cannot turn back history - we can only move forward; but if it
were possible to alter the past, I've little doubt that some regions would be far more eager to that Britain - specifically people from places who systematically invaded, oppressed and killed on-masse in the name of the British Empire and the Crown.
It's not my place to tell you your passion is misguided, SS, but in the scheme of things, i'm rather amazed at the intensity of commitment you have to the "leave the EU" cause.
I'd love to know where you'd emigrate to, should the British people back the status quo in the referendum.
May i suggest
Hutt River Province?
Sure, you'd be somewhat geographically close to where i live - but i'm cool with people travelling over here, even if they "hate my guts"*
*
(a joke; i know that comment was not directed at me)
