PART 1 OF 3
This whole "Brexit" drama is just that. Britain held a referendum to leave the EU, and it was approved. That should the end of the story, shouldn't it? I suppose they could hold an appeal, but that's about as far as the chain needs to go. The decision was left up to the people entirely, and everyone had their day at the ballot box to vote.
Also, many people are trying to make this about "Hurr durr progressives vs reactionaries" which doesn't make sense to me at all. After all, I'm more progressive than most, yet I support the decision. The truth is the EU is becoming too powerful and trying to directly violate national sovereignty through standardization of laws and customs. This in turn has terrified the British, who see it as a threat, however unintentional, to their sense of national identity and pride.
There's also a growing consensus within the EU that states like Germany are wielding disproportionate influence with regards to decision making, and not sharing or reporting inconvenient situations with regards to how decisions are made in the EU and thus are causing instability throughout. An example of this would be the decision to take in Syrian refugees. On one hand, I do believe that the nations of Europe should be willing to take in refugees as a matter of humanitarian principle. On the other hand, there is no need to take in tens of thousands per year per nation, for the following reasons:
(Cont'd)
>>79089896
PART 2 OF 4
1. Immigration rates need to take account of the fact that new nationals or legal residents must be given some time to acclimate to the new culture and mores of their new parent nation (this is why nations have quotas, btw.) As a part of this assimilation process, newcomers to a nation need to be exposed early and often to native, well established residents of that nation who reflect the ideas and principles of that nations. In the case of Syrian refugees, who are coming from nations where religious freedom is either non-existent or a matter of mortal danger, they must be exposed to situations where a large, diverse community of religious believers unlike themselves and even like themselves are not only living in harmony, despite their differences, but that they can still survive as a nation by doing so. Migrants from other nations must be assimilated into the culture at large, so that they can function as productive citizens and accept difference; after all, the difference between an assimilated Muslim and an assimilated Muslim is that the first will simply turn down hoisting a pint at the pub (and do so politely) while the latter will attack you for the suggestion. Also, while the unassimilated will feel forever as an outsider, the assimilated will feel a sense of pride with their new identity and perspective of being a member of their new home.
>>79090024
PART 3 OF 4
2. When taking in immigrants, and especially refugees (since most refugees have little to no chance of departing,) one needs to take into account the economic consequences of doing so. If an economy is really strong, and there is an extreme shortage of available labor, then taking in immigrants and refugees can help to fill the gap. But when economic times are tough, the belt, like with all things, must be tightened, and the country should restrict the number of refugees and general immigration that it allows. After all, one of the other wedge points of social tension, as with all nations, is competition between various racial, ethnic, cultural, sexual and ideological groups to make ends meet and protect their influence within society, and when there is enough work to go around to all the groups, you have a generally more orderly, civilized dialogue within that society between its members at large, which in turn leads to less crime and violence, and by extension more stability and security for everyone. When there is a shortage of available jobs, however, people become more polarized, and tensions that lie under the surface bubble over and are pushed to the forefront of societal politics. In extreme cases, violence ensues. For this reasons, too much immigration too quick can damage the economy.
>>79090128
PART 4 OF 4
3. No matter how well you vet immigrants, you are always going to end up with some rotten apples, just like with native citizens. Keeping the number of immigrants low decreases the chance of bringing in scumbags, and the few who slip through the cracks will be more easily dealt with, and less visible, thus decreasing the chance that law-abiding immigrants with be tarred with their ill reputation in turn. Bring in too many immigrants, and the number of losers you bring in increases, and even though the proportion may remain the same, they will be untimately more visible, and damaging both to the immigrant communitites that they are associated with, as well as the concept of societal safety and trust as a whole. Not reporting those crimes, to try and cover this error, will only backfire, and someone is gonna find out. Also, in the case of those who haven't already gained full citizenship, a conviction for serious offenses (think rape, murder, kidnapping, violent crime, etc.) should be deported swiftly; compassion does not and should not equal foolishness on the part of the admitting nation.
(The issue of refuges, isn't merely limited to Britain either; I support taking refugees in as an American, but more like a couple hundred than a couple ten thousand. This makes them easier to vet, and greatly decreases their social clout in case they group together, as immigrants are want to do, easing the process of assimilating them successfully.)
Thoughts?
>>79089896
>PART 1 OF 3
Thought it would end up in three parts, whoops.
TLDR
On point and well written but tl;dr for /pol/.
>>79092575
Figured as much, but still wanted to say something. Some people think that by ebing liberal I support the EU, which is why I can't comprehend why anyone, including other liberals, support it. It's nuts.
>>79093418
our socialists are nothing like yours, many socialist democrat voters would be considered right wing here. it's a completely different mindset, freedom is not highly rated in europe at all, people like to think the state acts in their interest at all times.
>>79093815
*our socialists are nothing like your liberals is probably more accurate
>>79093418
Well really this is a culture clash problem. With the EU they're still dealing with the issue of culture clash. Historically when this happens you see one group or more being eliminated in a conflict or alternatively they're absorbed/pushed into a submissive position. Limited rate immigration prevents the above in the sense it prevents the overrun situation.
You can consider this thermodynamics or you can view it as a battery short scenario as well. If you short the battery out, you'll deliver a huge amount of energy and probably damage whatever circuitry that got shorted out. Limited current flow produces useful work or function out of the circuit and prevents damage to the circuit and battery.
>>79090024
>Immigration rates need to take account of the fact that new nationals or legal residents must be given some time to acclimate to the new culture
>>79093815
That seems to be what I'm realizing. You have my sympathies, too many liberal elites in Britain seem to be suicidal cucks.
>>79093930
Probably
>>79094145
That's an excellent analogy. Sad I didn't think of that, since my own father works with electrical circuits sometimes at his weld shop.
>>79089896
>see it as a threat, however unintentional
It's 100% intentional, senior EU figures are on the record many times as being opposed to the very concept of nation states, exactly like (((Soros.))) Usually they don't even try to hide their arrogant contempt for the little people. That's why this has caused a transatlantic shitstorm, it was a vote against undemocratic globalists / neoliberals who have controlled Europe for decades.
>>79096072
I don't mean to say everyone saw it as unintentional, just that there would probably be some loser who thinks unrestricted immigration is a good thing, or feels that the elites have good intentions (they don't) but just can't figure out why they were doing it. (Because they trust elites too much)
