The EU sowed the seeds of its own destruction when, drunk on their own wild aspirations, they expanded the EU to encompass most of Eastern Europe.
The inevitable consequence will be the Balkanisation of Europe over time, maybe to a geography more like the Holy Roman Empire than even the Europe of 1900.

The catalyst for the beginning of disintegration is of course the invasion by millions of mostly young muslim men which is set to continue for maybe three years or more.
We already see more and more countries resisting the calls from Brussels to pull together and accept these people as refugees. Borders will be strengthened, fences will be put up, people will be pushed this way and that and national tempers will rise even more than we already see.

But more than that, what I see happening is that many of the new member states will come to see they can defy Brussels and get away with it. After all, what can the bureaucrats do? Threaten to cut off funding for this or that?
Such threats from the Commission, when they are seen to be hollow, will hasten their own demise.

This will be a gradual process. Non-cooperation will run to taking what can be got but giving nothing in return. Sooner or later though states will exit the union, a process that will continue till the EU perhaps shrinks back to its core membership.
However it will not be able to act like its core membership because the central core will still need the markets of the former members. Bilateral trade deals will replace free trade until even the core is only a union in name.

The day will come when tourists will be shown through ghost buildings and the guide will say, this is where the European Parliament used to meet, these were the offices of the EU Commission.

Breitbart:
A second wave of migrants is set to break across Europe as the wives and children of men who have already made the journey set out to join them. According to European Union law, migrants already settled in member states are entitled to bring their families to live with them in their adopted country as part of their right to a family life.

As January draws to a close, the demographics of those arriving by boat in Greece has already shifted, revealing the changing face of the migration crisis. 2015 was characterised by predominantly male migration – 73 percent of those landing on Greek shores last summer were men.

But that figure has already dropped to 45 percent, while the number of women has doubled. Greece has also seen a huge rise in the number of under 18s arriving; they now make up a third of migrants landing on the Greek Islands, according to figures from the UN’s Refugee Agency.


Migrants from Syria the most demographically mixed; men make up just 47 percent of new Syrian arrivals in Greece. The figure suggests that huge numbers of Syrian men who travelled predominantly to Germany in 2015 – thanks to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s offer of automatic asylum for anyone with a Syrian passport – are now settled and bringing their families to join them.

However, it has also been suggested that children in particular are increasingly making the trip as European countries are more inclined to grant them asylum, allowing their families to later join them.

In the UK, any migrant under the age of 18 automatically becomes the responsibility of the local authority which first registers their arrival. That local authority is expected to pay for their housing and schooling until they reach the age of 18. Last year Kent County Council warned of a massive hole being created in its budget thanks to the number of unaccompanied children who were being ferried across the Channel at Dover and abandoned by the side of the road.

The number of these so-called ‘grappling hook kids’ has exploded in the last year or so – Sweden recorded the arrivals of nearly twice as many unaccompanied children in 2015 as it did in 2014, which itself saw an 80 percent rise on the previous year’s figures.

A more detailed breakdown of the numbers arriving into Italy over the last year shows the scale of the issue: unaccompanied children outnumbered accompanied children by a factor of ten to one in December of 2015, and were the second largest demographic after the men.

With the number of lone women travellers also on the rise, migrant rights organisations have urged European nations to do more to protect the women as they travel. Many migrant shelters on the routes through the Balkans lack segregated accommodation for men and women, and there are numerous reports of rape and sexual assault by the male migrants.

“The health and rights of victims of wars and persecution, especially women and adolescent girls, should not be treated like an afterthought in humanitarian response,” said Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UN population fund, UNFPA.

Vincent Cochetel, the director of UNHCR’s bureau for Europe added: “Many women and girls travelling on their own are entirely exposed, deprived of their family or community to protect them. Even those travelling with family are often vulnerable to abuse.”

The chances of a Brexit must be increasing day by day, whether David Cameron wants it or whether it might precipitate another Scottish referendum.
I think the English have had it up to here with the Scots and they've certainly had it with uninvited migrant workers and asylum seekers.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:36am:

The chances of a Brexit must be increasing day by day, whether David Cameron wants it or whether it might precipitate another Scottish referendum. I think the English have had it up to here with the Scots and they've certainly had it with uninvited migrant workers and asylum seekers.

whats the answer??... we cant be this naive to believe these will all integrate and in about 5 to 10 years none will remember any of this?....

the English have always been sitting ducks for everyone to load the blame on.. whilst they sit back and do bugger all....the Scots were very quick to say No to self govt wshen they found out they would have to pay everything themselves...

takes on a whole differetn look doesnt it..

maybe its time these so called refugees paid to enter another country.....they seem to have funds for people smugglers....lets put a charge on entry...and no welfare of any kind for 10 years....

we may actually see the real refugee in that case...

SMH, Davos:
Europe's leaders have issued a passionate plea for Britain to remain in the European Union, fearing that "Brexit" could set off a disastrous chain of events at a time of existential crisis for the European Union.

Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, said the whole of European civilisation was under grave threat and the region must stick together in self-defence. He said the departure of the UK "would be a tragedy".

Mr Valls warned that the European system was alarmingly fragile. "Europe could lose its historical footing and the project could die quickly. Things could fall apart within months," he told the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"We are involved in a world war against terrorism. We're going to have to live with this threat for years," he said, insisting that Europe must go on the offensive to defeat Isil and jihadi forces in Libya, the African Sahel, and Syria.


Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, implored the British people to vote yes to Europe in this year's referendum. "It would be a disaster otherwise," he said.

Political leaders in Berlin are deeply concerned that British withdrawal could change the balance of power and the internal chemistry of the EU, leaving Germany with an unwelcome hegemony that would strain the Franco-German partnership to breaking point.

Mr Schaeuble has warned in the past that if the EU is unable to stop one of its more prosperous members from walking out in frustration, hard-headed investors in Asia, the US, and around the world, will take it as evidence that the EU was in terminal decline.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:59am:

SMH, Davos: Europe's leaders have issued a passionate plea for Britain to remain in the European Union, fearing that "Brexit" could set off a disastrous chain of events at a time of existential crisis for the European Union. Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, said the whole of European civilisation was under grave threat and the region must stick together in self-defence. He said the departure of the UK "would be a tragedy". Mr Valls warned that the European system was alarmingly fragile. "Europe could lose its historical footing and the project could die quickly. Things could fall apart within months," he told the World Economic Forum in Davos. "We are involved in a world war against terrorism. We're going to have to live with this threat for years," he said, insisting that Europe must go on the offensive to defeat Isil and jihadi forces in Libya, the African Sahel, and Syria. Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, implored the British people to vote yes to Europe in this year's referendum. "It would be a disaster otherwise," he said. Political leaders in Berlin are deeply concerned that British withdrawal could change the balance of power and the internal chemistry of the EU, leaving Germany with an unwelcome hegemony that would strain the Franco-German partnership to breaking point. Mr Schaeuble has warned in the past that if the EU is unable to stop one of its more prosperous members from walking out in frustration, hard-headed investors in Asia, the US, and around the world, will take it as evidence that the EU was in terminal decline.

the French it makes me laugh they hate Britain..

Europe is a trading bloc. It won’t decline because of a few refugees.

Quite the opposite - Europe has an aging population. Many of those young, fit refugees are being snapped up by German factories. Germany and France need the labour. Why else would Merkel open up her arms?

Give me your tired, hungry masses, yearning to breathe free. New York is the centre of the world thanks to immigration. Immigration is a huge economic advantage, not a  drain on resources. Why do you think everybody does it?

Empires will continue to rise and fall, but not because of labour migration and easy transportation.

cods wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:58am:

the Scots were very quick to say No to self govt wshen they found out they would have to pay everything themselves...

A very simplistic stereotype.

The vote actually came very close, but the areas of highest unemployment were the strongholds of the yes vote. The so-called bludgers almost unanimously wanted an independent Scotland.  The Shetlanders do not readily see themselves as part of Scotland, and had Shetland been excluded, the "Yes" vote would have prevailed (with disastrous results)

The "No" vote was overwhelming in the educated demographic who realised that breaking up the 5th biggest economy in the world would send shudders through World markets that would make the Greek debt reactions look like minor corrections. 

So give some credence to the fact that (on the whole) the Scots are pretty savvy when it comes to economics.  They pioneered it, if you remember Adam Smith, John Law, David Hume and others.  Financial acumen runs in the DNA, as does education. In the 1830s, literacy in Scotland was almost universal while only a small proportion of the population was literate South of the border. 

You just have do a quick Google search to realise that London has almost double the population but  four times the unemployment of Scotland.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 6:13pm:

Europe is a trading bloc. It won’t decline because of a few refugees. Quite the opposite - Europe has an aging population. Many of those young, fit refugees are being snapped up by German factories. Germany and France need the labour. Why else would Merkel open up her arms? Give me your tired, hungry masses, yearning to breathe free. New York is the centre of the world thanks to immigration. Immigration is a huge economic advantage, not a  drain on resources. Why do you think everybody does it? Empires will continue to rise and fall, but not because of labour migration and easy transportation.

It's more than a trading block (that's your Marxist training again, reducing everything to economics). It's collection of nation states, each with their own unique identity and culture(s). Only the money hungry oligarchs, and idiotic old fashioned Marxists, view the state as solely an economic entity. The people don't.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 6:13pm: Europe is a trading bloc. It won’t decline because of a few refugees. Quite the opposite - Europe has an aging population. Many of those young, fit refugees are being snapped up by German factories. Germany and France need the labour. Why else would Merkel open up her arms? Give me your tired, hungry masses, yearning to breathe free. New York is the centre of the world thanks to immigration. Immigration is a huge economic advantage, not a  drain on resources. Why do you think everybody does it? Empires will continue to rise and fall, but not because of labour migration and easy transportation. It's more than a trading block (that's your Marxist training again, reducing everything to economics). It's collection of nation states, each with their own unique identity and culture(s). Only the money hungry oligarchs, and idiotic old fashioned Marxists, view the state as solely an economic entity. The people don't.

Europe is also.a dream, a project. The two world wars had economic causes - Finance, inflation, competition for resources and labour, etc. Europe is really Europe today because of a shared currency.

Yes, Europe comes down to the Euro. It’s hard to believe that human evolution could come down to a currency, but it has. From silver to gold to US dollars to the Euro.

We could include things like tulips, but this would confuse things. Europe is now united by a currency. Most else - the borders, the treaties, the Hague, the Eurovision Song Contest - follows this.

Europe is a dream with a very finite beginning and end. It starts with a common market and a currency. It ends with a huge market for goods and financial stability. This is the very purpose of the EU.

If markets and currencies can bring war, it stands to reason they can bring peace too. Why else would nationalist leaders like Charles de Gaul fight for the Euro?

"Progressives".

Don't be a dumbarse. The French don't view themselves as Germans nor do the Italians view themselves as Austrians because of a shared currency.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Don't be a dumbarse. The French don't view themselves as Germans nor do the Italians view themselves as Austrians because of a shared currency.

Do you view yourself as a Turk? An economic migrant? A cosmopolitan? What?

I’m curious.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 6:13pm:

. Why else would Merkel open up her arms? Give me your tired, hungry masses, yearning to breathe free. New York is the centre of the world thanks to immigration. Immigration is a huge economic advantage, not a  drain on resources. Why do you think everybody does it?

Sure, but they didnt have comprehensive social security support based on the number of children you breed. Muslims arent going to Europe for a new life based on hard work and entrepreneurship, they are going because they pay them to breed.


Quote:

Empires will continue to rise and fall, but not because of labour migration and easy transportation.

Muslims and labor ? Lol. you really arent up with this at all are you? Muslims are migrating to western countries so they dont have to work.

So how do you account for all the Muslims in my workplace, Ian? Statistical aberations? A tiny minority? Dare I say it, nothing to do with Islam?

Europe isn't multicultural Australia Karnal.

We're not talking here about muslims per se, we're talking about an invasion crisis coming on top of other issues embattling Europe:
- the North/South divide
- Greece
- debt
- massive unemployment
- Eastern European member states with little in common with the core community.

And a pending potential crunch for many states would be what happens about a Turkey application. The EU bureaucrats and probably Germany would push for it but most would be opposed.

Look for signs of strain appearing more often in the grand project - a socialist dream - and watch for growing refusals to accept EU directives.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 11:15am:

Europe isn't multicultural Australia Karnal. We're not talking here about muslims per se, we're talking about an invasion crisis coming on top of other issues embattling Europe: - the North/South divide - Greece - debt - massive unemployment - Eastern European member states with little in common with the core community. And a pending potential crunch for many states would be what happens about a Turkey application. The EU bureaucrats and probably Germany would push for it but most would be opposed. Look for signs of strain appearing more often in the grand project - a socialist dream - and watch for growing refusals to accept EU directives.

Turkey can’t apply for at least 12 years, and won’t. Nobody wants poor old Turkey anyway.

History, innit.

The massive unemployment in Greece and Spain is indeed a problem, but seems so far, to have changed nothing politically - unlike, say, the Great Depression.

The countries "fighting back" against refugees are in northern Europe, where the refugees are going. Note that they’re notgoing to join the dole queues of Greece and Spain, but the job opportunities of Germany, France and the UK.

People have good reason to be worried. The new years violence showed what largely African refugees are capable of. The West sympathises with the plight of women in north Africa. Now, the refugees have brought the problem to Europe. It’s a big worry.

Northern Europe, it seems, has the police resources to deal with it. What it might not have is the will of its people to tolerate some of the teething problems.

The economic problems you mention are not an issue in northern Europe. Yes, Germans are rightfully annoyed to be bailing out Greece and Spain, but ultimately, it’s the payoff for having those markets to sell to. Germany is hugely prosperous because of this. Just think, it tried taking over Europe for the same reasons in the 1930s. Today, it has the same benefits without all the grief.

Today, Europe is as close to a German and French-led empire as you’ll find anywhere in history. The difference, I guess, is sovereignty and autonomy. For Europe, it really is the best of both worlds.

A few million refugees and the resulting tightening of borders, won’t change this. Europe has weathered the Greek crisis and come out intact. The UK will get a vote on pulling out of the EU soon, but there is no way its leadership will allow this to happen. The common market is too beneficial to the UK to allow a few pesky Polish and Romanian immigrants to get in the way.

Europe will prevail, and it should. It is the best security Europe has. Rather than fighting between themselves as they have for milennia, European states have joined forces. Sure, competitors like the US mightn’t like it, but European integration is in the world’s best interest too.

Europe is the best example we have of the success of focusing on what unites people rather than what divides them. It’s worth defending Europe, Bogie, just as it’s worth supporting closer partnerships with our neighbours too.

If the opportunities are shared, economic integration brings peace. In Europe, this is not a utopian dream, but a reality.

How could this possibly be a bad thing?

cods wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 10:06am:

the French it makes me laugh they hate Britain..

Yes a nice change the French wanting Britain to stay, of course they are only worried about their own dunghill

Keep you friends close and your enemies closer sort of!   ;D

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:30am:

So how do you account for all the Muslims in my workplace, Ian? Statistical aberations? A tiny minority? Dare I say it, nothing to do with Islam?

Without giving any secrets away what type of industry/workplace do you work in Karnal?

and how many muslims are we talking about?

men? women?

ian wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 11:43pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 6:13pm: . Why else would Merkel open up her arms? Give me your tired, hungry masses, yearning to breathe free. New York is the centre of the world thanks to immigration. Immigration is a huge economic advantage, not a  drain on resources. Why do you think everybody does it? Sure, but they didnt have comprehensive social security support based on the number of children you breed. Muslims arent going to Europe for a new life based on hard work and entrepreneurship, they are going because they pay them to breed. Quote: Empires will continue to rise and fall, but not because of labour migration and easy transportation. Muslims and labor ? Lol. you really arent up with this at all are you? Muslims are migrating to western countries so they dont have to work.

seems that way doesnt it???....all that bloody praying...you could really only do that if your were unemployed couldnt you?.. ::)

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 12:21pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: So how do you account for all the Muslims in my workplace, Ian? Statistical aberations? A tiny minority? Dare I say it, nothing to do with Islam? Without giving any secrets away what type of industry/workplace do you work in Karnal? and how many muslims are we talking about? men? women?

he could be in the prayer mat weaving business... ::) ::) ::)

its just a thought.

.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 12:21pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: So how do you account for all the Muslims in my workplace, Ian? Statistical aberations? A tiny minority? Dare I say it, nothing to do with Islam? Without giving any secrets away what type of industry/workplace do you work in Karnal? and how many muslims are we talking about? men? women?

I work in.social services, in which I include a range of government agencies and NGOs. I’ve worked closely with 5 Muslims - one Australian, twoTurks, a Syrian and an Indian. None were too religious. I know others in different agencies. Most celebrate festivals like Eid, but don’t regularly attend the mosque. Most follow minimal dietary restrictions, such as not eating pork, but they’re not adverse to having a drink.

I’ve worked in other jobs with Muslims. Again, few were religious. The closest I came to religious Muslims was a course I did at the Bankstown campus of UWS. The footballer al.Masri’s brother was one, but he wasn’t all that religious. A few shaved their arms according to rules on shaving body hair, but none had beards. One had a prominant prayer bump on his forehead, and was well respected by the others as "spiritual".All were kind, considerate and interesting people to be with. They were all Arabs. Their families, like many immigrant parents, instilled the virtue of studying hard and joining the professional class.

I now live in an immigrant neighbourhood with a lot of Muslims in Western Sydney. It’s not majority Muslim because it doesn’t work that way. Suburbs seem to shape demographically along ethnic, not religious lines. Hence, my suburb has Lebanese churches and a Lebanese mosque. There’s a predominantly Lebanese Muslim prayer hall on my street. Only men and boys attend.

Down the road, in Auburn, they get largely Turks, hence the Gallipoli Mosque and a few smaller Turkish Coptic Christian churches. The largest ethnic group in the area is Chinese, and many of them have become Christians. I live near an old sandstone Anglican cathedral, and I think the only services they do now are in Mandarin and Cantonese.

North from here, Indians have congregated in Harris Park. I’m not sure of the ethnic group the majority of Indians belong to, but a lot are Gujuratis. They’re nearly all Hindus. I haven’t seen an Indian church or mosque around here. I’m told there’s a Pakistani mosque somewhere in Sydney. I knew a Pakistani Muslim who attended the Lebanese mosque in Cleveland Street, and he wasn’t too fond of Arabs. He believed they look down on Pakistanis. He said the most racist and intolerant people in the world are from the rich gulf states.

I currently work in the community, but I have only ever worked with one Muslim family - Iranians. They were more communist intellectuals than Muslim, and didn’t practice. A colleague worked with an Iraqi family who were quite religious. They were planning, believe it or not, to move back to Iraq. I don’t know if they made it back.

Karnal, this isn't a muslim issue predominantly though you seem to want to make it one.

The EU will collapse eventually, not saying it's an overnight thing.
Peace is not an issue in Europe anymore, other than for problems that breakout on Russia's borders.
What is an issue is that a political union on a socialist model run by bureaucrats in Brussels isn't what people want or what they signed up for.
Interference in national economies or in the daily running of their lives, business and farms isn't what they signed up for.

Economically it isn't working for most of Europe. Germany is sucking her prosperity out of everybody else. How did that happen? I know they are efficient and fairly hard working but the rest of Europe is beginning to feel they have been conned.

When you say a few refugees, it's likely to be several millions unless they can stop them at the external borders. More probably it descends into what I said - a shoving back & forth which leads to more & more tension.

I can see you applaud the vision of One Europe, One Government, One socialist economic system that you think will benefit everybody.
Not doing too well now. Ask the people of Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, France etc.

It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode.

"It's the demography, stupid!"

In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as "globalization" is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite--that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China--and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That's the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald's and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo . . .

What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%.

...

There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.

Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122531242161281449

Read the whole thing.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 1:05pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 12:21pm: Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: So how do you account for all the Muslims in my workplace, Ian? Statistical aberations? A tiny minority? Dare I say it, nothing to do with Islam? Without giving any secrets away what type of industry/workplace do you work in Karnal? and how many muslims are we talking about? men? women? I work in.social services, in which I include a range of government agencies and NGOs. I’ve worked closely with 5 Muslims - one Australian, twoTurks, a Syrian and an Indian. None were too religious. I know others in different agencies. Most celebrate festivals like Eid, but don’t regularly attend the mosque. Most follow minimal dietary restrictions, such as not eating pork, but they’re not adverse to having a drink. I’ve worked in other jobs with Muslims. Again, few were religious. The closest I came to religious Muslims was a course I did at the Bankstown campus of UWS. The footballer al.Masri’s brother was one, but he wasn’t all that religious. A few shaved their arms according to rules on shaving body hair, but none had beards. One had a prominant prayer bump on his forehead, and was well respected by the others as "spiritual".All were kind, considerate and interesting people to be with. They were all Arabs. Their families, like many immigrant parents, instilled the virtue of studying hard and joining the professional class. I now live in an immigrant neighbourhood with a lot of Muslims in Western Sydney. It’s not majority Muslim because it doesn’t work that way. Suburbs seem to shape demographically along ethnic, not religious lines. Hence, my suburb has Lebanese churches and a Lebanese mosque. There’s a predominantly Lebanese Muslim prayer hall on my street. Only men and boys attend. Down the road, in Auburn, they get largely Turks, hence the Gallipoli Mosque and a few smaller Turkish Coptic Christian churches. The largest ethnic group in the area is Chinese, and many of them have become Christians. I live near an old sandstone Anglican cathedral, and I think the only services they do now are in Mandarin and Cantonese. North from here, Indians have congregated in Harris Park. I’m not sure of the ethnic group the majority of Indians belong to, but a lot are Gujuratis. They’re nearly all Hindus. I haven’t seen an Indian church or mosque around here. I’m told there’s a Pakistani mosque somewhere in Sydney. I knew a Pakistani Muslim who attended the Lebanese mosque in Cleveland Street, and he wasn’t too fond of Arabs. He believed they look down on Pakistanis. He said the most racist and intolerant people in the world are from the rich gulf states. I currently work in the community, but I have only ever worked with one Muslim family - Iranians. They were more communist intellectuals than Muslim, and didn’t practice. A colleague worked with an Iraqi family who were quite religious. They were planning, believe it or not, to move back to Iraq. I don’t know if they made it back.

Thanks Karnal, 

very interesting

based on that you should know what you are talking about regarding integration and willingness to work etc.

Cheers

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 1:45pm:

It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode.

And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders. 

The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII.

There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law.

I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face.

Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened.

Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 5:16pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII.

Stupid as always.

WWIII IS under way already. And when was the last time a "form of global governance" solved ANY problem??

And who is going to enforce a "global rule of law"?   You are an old, stupid, clapped out 60s ideologist/idealist.  Nothing, absolutely nothing, will unfold the way you project from your nostalgic, failed and ridiculously reactionary perspective.i

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 5:16pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII. Stupid as always. WWIII IS under way already. And when was the last time a "form of global governance" solved ANY problem??

Only at Bretton-Woods, dear boy.

Still, we'll give up all that Keynesean nonsense. Let's pray for the acceleration and Final Ascention instead.

You should be alright. You're a Lutheran, ya?

Some good posts Karnal.

Yes west did so many things wrong in Europe so far so the time is coming to face the music and "enjoy" the fruits of own greed and arrogance.
For example in Balkans instead to sport Christian population against Muslims west even bombarded them.  Well, now enjoy the party.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:36am:

I think the English have had it up to here with the Scots

The feeling is probably mutual.

I agree with you Athos. Bombing Serbia was a prime example of western stupidity.

The EU bureaucracy seeking to supplant the decisions of national govts:

DeutscheWelle:
The European Commission, the EU's executive, last week launched an inquiry into recent Polish reforms of the judiciary, the media, Internet surveillance and other areas of public life.

Since coming to power in October, the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) government has sought to sideline the constitutional tribunal, stack public media with placemen and introduce legislation that politicizes the civil service. The issues have split Polish society and play into Poland's intensifying culture wars between liberals and conservatives, with the country's place in the EU a key battlefield.

On one side are those who argue that Poland needs the EU to help it remember what democracy is about. "It's definitely good that the EU is looking into Polish democracy, because as soon as PiS came into power, democracy seems to have been shaken with every step the ruling party is taking," says Maja Piotrowska, who runs her own PR company in Warsaw. "The idea of the debate on Polish matters in the European Parliament was good, too, provided there are some effects from it."

Defiant speech

In some quarters in Poland, though, Prime Minister Beata Szydlo's assertion this week in Strasbourg that Brussels was meddling in Polish affairs went down well. More than half of Poles said Germany should not have the right to judge Poland's democracy, a poll by SW Research for Newsweek noted this week.

"Today I have the feeling of injustice that we are the subject of an experiment," Szydlo told the European Parliament. "We are a sovereign state, we are a free nation. Polish problems have to be discussed and solved in Poland, because whenever third parties [have] tried to solve our problems for us, that was disastrous. There have been no violations of the constitution in Poland recently," Szydlo said. "We are Europeans and we are proud of it," she added.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:16am:

The EU bureaucracy seeking to supplant the decisions of national govts: DeutscheWelle: The European Commission, the EU's executive, last week launched an inquiry into recent Polish reforms of the judiciary, the media, Internet surveillance and other areas of public life. Since coming to power in October, the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) government has sought to sideline the constitutional tribunal, stack public media with placemen and introduce legislation that politicizes the civil service. The issues have split Polish society and play into Poland's intensifying culture wars between liberals and conservatives, with the country's place in the EU a key battlefield. On one side are those who argue that Poland needs the EU to help it remember what democracy is about. "It's definitely good that the EU is looking into Polish democracy, because as soon as PiS came into power, democracy seems to have been shaken with every step the ruling party is taking," says Maja Piotrowska, who runs her own PR company in Warsaw. "The idea of the debate on Polish matters in the European Parliament was good, too, provided there are some effects from it." Defiant speech In some quarters in Poland, though, Prime Minister Beata Szydlo's assertion this week in Strasbourg that Brussels was meddling in Polish affairs went down well. More than half of Poles said Germany should not have the right to judge Poland's democracy, a poll by SW Research for Newsweek noted this week. "Today I have the feeling of injustice that we are the subject of an experiment," Szydlo told the European Parliament. "We are a sovereign state, we are a free nation. Polish problems have to be discussed and solved in Poland, because whenever third parties [have] tried to solve our problems for us, that was disastrous. There have been no violations of the constitution in Poland recently," Szydlo said. "We are Europeans and we are proud of it," she added.

Fighting back, eh? The benefit for Poles in being in the EU is clear to all in Europe.

Poles get to vote with their feet and move out of Poland.

Taking Poland out of the EU would only benefit Europe.

They have to get their hands dirty if they want to preserve their precious socialist dream . . .but they won't:

New York Times:

AMSTERDAM — European Union interior ministers clashed on Monday over how to check the flow of migrants across their countries’ borders amid growing concern that the Continent’s commitment to the free movement of people within the bloc is at risk of collapse.
Some of the wealthy northern nations that are the preferred destinations of many migrants suggested that much of the solution should rest with their neighbors to the south, especially Greece, the main entry point into the European Union for refugees arriving from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan via Turkey. At a meeting here, Germany told Greece to do its “homework” to stop the flow at its borders, and Austria suggested that Greece could be excluded from the Schengen area, which allows border-free travel across much of the European Union.
Ioannis Mouzalas, a Greek minister for immigration policy, criticized the focus on his country, saying that the bloc had not made good on its pledges of more assistance in managing the flow of people — nearly 1.1 million arrived last year in the European Union — and that some European politicians were spreading “lies” about the crisis and the role of the government in Athens.

There is a “blame game against Greece,” Mr. Mouzalas said.

The larger question hanging over the ministers’ two-day meeting in Amsterdam is whether the European Union can agree on a collective approach to limiting the influx of migrants at Europe’s external borders — or whether that approach becomes an every-country-for-itself scramble to harden individual borders in response to domestic political, social and economic pressures.
Thousands of migrants are still arriving daily, and with no sign of a peaceful resolution in countries like Syria and Iraq, many more are expected this year as spring approaches and travel conditions from Turkey improve.

In the absence of any agreement on how to ease the flow of people into Greece and Italy, the crisis has become a political time bomb.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is under increased pressure from conservatives to reverse her government’s policy of welcoming migrants. In Brussels, there are even concerns that the failure to agree on a solution could threaten the entire European Union project, which began after World War II with the goal of unifying the Continent and ensuring its peaceable future.
The European Union has been trying to persuade Turkey to take a more active role in resolving the crisis by doing more to look after refugees there and stop them from trying the journey to the European Union. Another idea that has gained growing attention is to choke off some of the northward flow of migrants at the border between Greece and Macedonia, potentially leaving huge numbers of migrants in Greece at a time when that country is still recovering from its depressionlike downturn.

“There are now signs the European debate could very quickly transition to ways of keeping the refugees in Greece regardless of the economic impact that would have, including a renewed risk of pressure on Greece to exit the eurozone,” said Mujtaba Rahman, the Europe director for the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy.

Reaching a long-discussed deal between the European Union and Turkey to ease the flow of migrants would substantially lessen those dangers, Mr. Rahman said.

On Monday, over lunch at the Dutch National Maritime Museum, the ministers discussed freezing the free movement of people inside parts of the bloc for up to a further two years.

So far, six countries, including Germany and Austria, have suspended the system for a legally permissible period of six months. For Germany and Austria, that six-month period expires in late spring, just as a surge of new arrivals from the Middle East and Africa is expected.

Such suspensions can be renewed four more times. But keeping national border controls in place would be a sign of how difficult it will be for the bloc to back an arrangement to share the burden.

Klaas Dijkhoff, the Dutch state secretary for security and justice, said at a news conference that extending the border controls would be “inevitable” given current conditions, but he underlined that such a step “couldn’t replace the search for a real solution.”

The European Commission would first need to recommend such an extension, and a majority of European Union governments would then need to give their approval before it was granted.

The ministers, meeting informally in the Netherlands, which is leading the bloc’s ministerial meetings for the next six months, also agreed to continue hashing out plans to create a European Border and Coast Guard Agency.

That plan would double the staff of the current border agency, Frontex, and would create a separate reserve force to be deployed even when a member state rejects help. But some politicians suspect a blunt power grab by Brussels intended to diminish national sovereignty.
Arriving at the meeting in Amsterdam, the Austrian interior minister, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, warned that “the external Schengen border will move back towards Central Europe” — a thinly veiled threat to exclude Greece from the passport-free area unless Athens acted more forcefully.

“It is a myth to think that the Greek-Turkish border cannot be secured,” Ms. Mikl-Leitner said, adding, “The Greek Navy has sufficient capacities to protect this border.”

Prime Minister Miro Cerar of Slovenia has recently proposed fortifying the border between Greece and Macedonia. That would serve as a firewall for Slovenia, a member state of the European Union and a participant in Schengen, by stopping migrants from making their way northward through Balkan countries like Macedonia.

The reaction from Mr. Mouzalas, the Greek immigration minister, was to portray much of the rest of the bloc as bullying and unfair.

Mr. Mouzalas said at a news conference on Monday that his country’s actions had been repeatedly misrepresented in some areas, including its willingness to accept help policing its coasts.

“They are saying we don’t want coast guards — it’s a lie,” said Mr. Mouzalas, who declined to identify those responsible for spreading false information.

Asked whether European resources should be used to help Macedonia strengthen controls on its border with Greece, Mr. Mouzalas suggested that such a plan would be illegal if it involved Frontex, the European border agency.

“We need Frontex in Greece,” he said.

Mr. Mouzalas also blamed other European Union countries for failing to fulfill his country’s requests for sufficient equipment to patrol the sea and islands near the Turkish coast. He said that a European Union proposal last year to move up to 160,000 migrants from Italy and Greece to other parts of the bloc had never been fully carried out, adding that only about 200 people had been relocated so far.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2yobz91.jpg

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:06pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 8:40pm: Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 5:16pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII. Stupid as always. WWIII IS under way already. And when was the last time a "form of global governance" solved ANY problem?? Only at Bretton-Woods, dear boy.

Really?  And what problem did that solve? 

Please explain.

We are experiencing 21st century warfare, warfare and conquering without guns ( for the most part ), the muslims are invading and conquering Europe by migration and the UN bureaucrats are conquering the world by using political correctness and government fiat.

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:06pm: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 8:40pm: Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 5:16pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII. Stupid as always. WWIII IS under way already. And when was the last time a "form of global governance" solved ANY problem?? Only at Bretton-Woods, dear boy. Really?  And what problem did that solve?  Please explain.

You look.back on the dozens of posts I’ve written on this, old chap - all posts you responded to.

I do tire of this repetition, you know. I’m.sure you think it’s marvellous, but you’re brain damaged, you poor old thing.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:

We are experiencing 21st century warfare, warfare and conquering without guns ( for the most part ), the muslims are invading and conquering Europe by migration and the UN bureaucrats are conquering the world by using political correctness and government fiat.

i think adolf said in the bunker that if the german people could not hold off the invaders, they deserved annhiliation.
Prophetic words.
i do wonder if all the good strong british alpha male semen ended up on the fields of the Somme and all the good strong german alpha male semen ended up in the streets of Stalingrad.

Evolutionary pressure left the weak and cowardly beta male semen to propagate the british and german herds.

Strains & Stresses:

Breitbart London:

BERLIN (Reuters) – It is unacceptable for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to cut deals on Europe’s refugee crisis with French President Francois Hollande and the head of the European Commission without involving Italy, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said.

Renzi, whose country is on the frontline of Europe’s refugee crisis, has stepped up his criticism of the EU on several fronts as he wrestles with Italy’s stubbornly low economic growth after three years of recession.

Speaking ahead of a meeting with Merkel in Berlin on Friday, Renzi told Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily he would be delighted if the German chancellor and Hollande could solve all Europe’s problems.

“But that is generally not the case,” he said in an interview published in the paper’s Thursday edition.
“If we’re looking for a joint European strategy to solve the refugee question, it can’t be sufficient for Angela to first call Hollande and then EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, and that I learn of the result in the press,” he added.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:43pm: We are experiencing 21st century warfare, warfare and conquering without guns ( for the most part ), the muslims are invading and conquering Europe by migration and the UN bureaucrats are conquering the world by using political correctness and government fiat. i think adolf said in the bunker that if the german people could not hold off the invaders, they deserved annhiliation. Prophetic words.

Good point, Aquascoot. You're quoting Hitler to support the genocide of millions of refugees.

Should we put this down as the Final Solution, or shall we keep brainstorming?

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 1:33pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:30am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:43pm: We are experiencing 21st century warfare, warfare and conquering without guns ( for the most part ), the muslims are invading and conquering Europe by migration and the UN bureaucrats are conquering the world by using political correctness and government fiat. i think adolf said in the bunker that if the german people could not hold off the invaders, they deserved annhiliation. Prophetic words. Good point, Aquascoot. You're quoting Hitler to support the genocide of millions of refugees. Should we put this down as the Final Solution, or shall we keep brainstorming?

nothing of the sort.
I'm quoting hitler, that if you give up and let the invader take your country, you were the weaker race and the laws of nature were being followed.
Those pesky weeds will try to take over your garden .
If you are weak and have the wrong attitude and dont convert the right attitude into activity, guess what....

they
will
Take It  ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 2:30pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 1:33pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:30am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:43pm: We are experiencing 21st century warfare, warfare and conquering without guns ( for the most part ), the muslims are invading and conquering Europe by migration and the UN bureaucrats are conquering the world by using political correctness and government fiat. i think adolf said in the bunker that if the german people could not hold off the invaders, they deserved annhiliation. Prophetic words. Good point, Aquascoot. You're quoting Hitler to support the genocide of millions of refugees. Should we put this down as the Final Solution, or shall we keep brainstorming? nothing of the sort. I'm quoting hitler, that if you give up and let the invader take your country, you were the weaker race and the laws of nature were being followed. Those pesky weeds will try to take over your garden . If you are weak and have the wrong attitude and dont convert the right attitude into activity, guess what.... they will Take It  ;)

Should we purify the blood of the Australian people too?

I'm curious.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 5:16pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII.

You confuse, deliberately I think, trade/finance and demography and cultural character.

The EU will implode becuase of the unacceptable and unnecessary and wholly harmful influx of people from OUTSIDE the EU, and the West generally, INTO the EU and the West.

That is not trade and finance, that is demographic and cultural transformation.  No economic or trade block has a mandate for that from its people. A million backward Muslims invading Euroie every year for the next few years will destroy the EU.

Soren wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 5:16pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII. You confuse, deliberately I think, trade/finance and demography and cultural character. The EU will implode becuase of the unacceptable and unnecessary and wholly harmful influx of people from OUTSIDE the EU, and the West generally, INTO the EU and the West. That is not trade and finance, that is demographic and cultural transformation.  No economic or trade block has a mandate for that from its people. A million backward Muslims invading Euroie every year for the next few years will destroy the EU.

And yet, you think Uncle's hanging in there, despite an historically unparallelled demographic shift due to Latino immigration. In some states Latinos are the majority. The Latin vote has come to decide elections. Spanish is now the second US language. One of the big deciders in the Republican primaries will be who appeals most to Latino voters.

And Uncle won't change this for all the tea in China. Why? Finance needs labor. Trade needs customers. Economic growth requires population growth. As Peter Costello said, demography is destiny.

Uncle's not going anywhere, old boy, and neither's the EU. Immigration and migration are one of the critical factors in both economies - a point no serious pundit denies.

Only a knucklehead would deny it, as every schoolboy knows.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 4:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 30th, 2016 at 3:55pm: Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 5:16pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII. You confuse, deliberately I think, trade/finance and demography and cultural character. The EU will implode becuase of the unacceptable and unnecessary and wholly harmful influx of people from OUTSIDE the EU, and the West generally, INTO the EU and the West. That is not trade and finance, that is demographic and cultural transformation.  No economic or trade block has a mandate for that from its people. A million backward Muslims invading Euroie every year for the next few years will destroy the EU. And yet, you think Uncle's hanging in there, despite an historically unparallelled demographic shift due to Latino immigration. In some states Latinos are the majority. The Latin vote has come to decide elections. Spanish is now the second US language. One of the big deciders in the Republican primaries will be who appeals most to Latino voters. And Uncle won't change this for all the tea in China. Why? Finance needs labor. Trade needs customers. Economic growth requires population growth. As Peter Costello said, demography is destiny. Uncle's not going anywhere, old boy, and neither's the EU. Immigration and migration are one of the critical factors in both economies - a point no serious pundit denies. Only a knucklehead would deny it, as every schoolboy knows.

Not just ANY immigration, knucklehead. Not just any.

NO country needs more Muslims, Africans, Arabs, Pakistanis.  They do not improve any country. They are simply not worth the trouble.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:36am:

The chances of a Brexit must be increasing day by day, whether David Cameron wants it or whether it might precipitate another Scottish referendum. I think the English have had it up to here with the Scots and they've certainly had it with uninvited migrant workers and asylum seekers.

I think a Brexit would make Scottish independence LESS likely. For a start, should Brexit occur and then Scotland break away from the UK because it prefers to be in the EU then it'll find itself at the back of a queue and it could take years before it is readmitted as a new Member State. And, even if it is readmitted, it will have to join the euro at some point, despite most Scots being against joining the euro. So if a Brexit occurs despite most Scots voting to stay in and the SNP therefore call for another Scottish "independence" referendum (the SNP do not want Scottish independence. They just want to swap rule from London with rule from Brussels), these are something the Scots will have to bear in mind. They'll have to be reminded time and again that an "independent" Scotland within the EU will have to join the euro at some point, as all EU Member States have to join it as some point, with the exception of the UK and Denmark.

Also, the Scots voted to stay in the UK despite knowing that an EU in/out referendum is on the way in the future. They shouldn't expect to vote democratically to stay within the UK and then complain later when the UK votes to leave the EU. If they're so keen on staying within the EU they should have voted to leave the UK when they and the chance. Westminster could just tell the Scots to bugger off and that they're not having another referendum. Only Westminster can grant one.

Also, the Scots

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 6:48pm:

You just have do a quick Google search to realise that London has almost double the population but  four times the unemployment of Scotland.

Scotland's unemployment rate is 6.1%.

London's unemployment rate is 7.5%. In the last two years, the number in employment in London has gone up by 312,000 – much higher than any other region.

Both are above the UK average of 5.4%.

Not looking good for Cameron's faux opposition to the EU:


by Raheem Kassam3 Feb 2016544
 

A majority of Britons believe that David Cameron’s EU renegotiation deal is “bad” for Britain, a snap poll by Sky News has revealed.
Over a thousand people were asked by Sky News whether they believed Mr. Cameron had secured a “good” or a “bad” deal for Britain, as his famous “renegotiation” came to light yesterday afternoon.

The Prime Minister was pilloried by even the pro-EU mainstream media this morning, and now it can be revealed that 69 per cent of Britons feel the same way.

Just 31 per cent said they thought Mr. Cameron had secured a good deal for Britain, with the breakdown of these figures revealing even more interesting trends.

Fifty-seven per cent of young people thought Mr. Cameron’s deal was bad, with 43 per cent being in favour. A whopping 76 per cent of those aged over 55 slammed the PM’s deal, and 70 per cent between 35 and 54 years of age called it “bad”.

Those in the North of England thought worst of the deal, while Scottish voters were most complimentary about it, with 41 per cent endorsing it.

And intriguingly, the deal was less popular with women than men. Seventy per cent of women felt Mr. Cameron had failed to secure a good deal for Britain, whereas 68 per cent of men said they felt the same.

Of all socioeconomic groups, only the richest in Britain thought that Mr. Cameron had secured a good deal. Sixty-three per cent of those polled in Experian’s ‘A’ category, According to the organisation, this group represents “the wealthiest 10 per cent of people in the UK, set in their careers and with substantial equity and net worth.”

Asked if the draft EU deal make people more or less likely to vote to stay in the EU, 44 per cent said it makes them less likely to vote to remain, and just 19 per cent said it convinces them to stay.

Soren wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 8:41pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 30th, 2016 at 4:33pm: Soren wrote on Jan 30th, 2016 at 3:55pm: Melanias purse wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 5:16pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 1:45pm: It's a flawed idea and eventually destined to implode. And yet, all the evidence points in the other direction. Nation states are knocking down trade, finance and even migration barriers quicker than at any other time in human history. This is not only multi-lateral (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc), but bi-lateral. We share a very loose "border" with New Zealand, and this is occurring between neighbours all over the world. In our region, even Burma is finally opening its borders.  The only idea destined to implode is the re-erection of trade walls and barriers. The Great Depression saw this happen, and it led, inevitably, to WWII. The architecture of the post-war world, the UN, World Bank, IMF, and yes, the European Common Market, was designed to prevent WWIII. There is no sinister campaign for One World Socialist Government, but a form of global governance will, most likely, be required. The majority of global business today is done by multinationals, those who fly outside the radar of nation states. We are heading towards a global rule of law. I say most likely because we could go either way. We can close the shop, draw up alliances and mobilize our forces. Or we can keep trade barriers down and search the expanding horizon for more investment opportunities. This is literally the dichotomy we face. Personally, I can't imagine us taking the former route, but I'm not ruling it out. If we stay on the current trajectory, we will eventually need a global rule of law, in whatever form that takes. The refugee crisis in Europe is a good example of the use of a multinational forum to solve local problems. The EU will be required to manage this problem, given the borders are shared. If the EU had existed in 1939, WWII would never have happened. Believe it. The fall of the EU, if it ever occurs, will be the opening curtain for WWIII. You confuse, deliberately I think, trade/finance and demography and cultural character. The EU will implode becuase of the unacceptable and unnecessary and wholly harmful influx of people from OUTSIDE the EU, and the West generally, INTO the EU and the West. That is not trade and finance, that is demographic and cultural transformation.  No economic or trade block has a mandate for that from its people. A million backward Muslims invading Euroie every year for the next few years will destroy the EU. And yet, you think Uncle's hanging in there, despite an historically unparallelled demographic shift due to Latino immigration. In some states Latinos are the majority. The Latin vote has come to decide elections. Spanish is now the second US language. One of the big deciders in the Republican primaries will be who appeals most to Latino voters. And Uncle won't change this for all the tea in China. Why? Finance needs labor. Trade needs customers. Economic growth requires population growth. As Peter Costello said, demography is destiny. Uncle's not going anywhere, old boy, and neither's the EU. Immigration and migration are one of the critical factors in both economies - a point no serious pundit denies. Only a knucklehead would deny it, as every schoolboy knows. Not just ANY immigration, knucklehead. Not just any. NO country needs more Muslims, Africans, Arabs, Pakistanis.  They do not improve any country. They are simply not worth the trouble.

What about dirty, lazy Mexicans, dear boy? You haven't said.

The disintegration of the EU

Finaly

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/111.jpg

https://youtu.be/HNxkMHChBN0?t=41

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 10:08am:

What about dirty, lazy Mexicans, dear boy? You haven't said.

What has the sub-culture of the Gold Coast got to do with it?

The EU wants to be a socialist only club:

In a shot across the bows of certain European politicians, the French President has spoken about the possibility of member states being suspended or expelled from the European Union (EU) if ‘right-wing’ governments come to power.
The threat to kick out EU member states who offend certain rules was made by socialist President Francois Hollande during a France Inter radio interview, reports Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten. He said a country can be “suspended” from the EU as “Europe has legal tools, through articles in treaties, to prevent a country from violating democratic principles.”

He added: “When the freedom of the media is at stake or when constitutions and human rights are endangered, Europe cannot act just as a safety net. It has to put in place procedures to suspend offending countries. It can go that far.”

In the history of the EU to date no such measure has been taken against any country. However, in a warning to certain democratically elected governments of member states, President Hollande did state that “checks” are necessary to monitor the proposed reform programme of Poland’s Law and Justice Party government.
The only EU precedent for such an action pre-dates the ability of the bloc to expel a member state. Austria was sanctioned in 2000 because of the inclusion in coalition government of the late Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party of Austria. Expelling a member state was not possible at the time, but in light of Mr. Haider’s praise for the German Nazi Party’s employment policies and his referring to concentration camps as penal camps other member states did threaten a diplomatic boycott.

In the event, other than formal EU meetings, contacts between Austria and the then 14 other member states of the EU were reduced.

Some predict that President Hollande’s proposal could end up backfiring. French voters who do not identify as ‘right-wing’ but do see themselves as Eurosceptics could end up voting for Marine Le Pen’s National Front as a means of speeding up the country’s exit from the EU.

Indeed in recent polling Ms. Le Pen’s brand of anti-mass migration euroscepticism is proving to be more popular with the voting public than President Hollande’s socialism, although she does fall marginally behind his Prime Minister, Manuel Valls.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nothing will break up the EU faster than the creeping power & control of the Left-wing thought police.