UK referendum on EU membership June 23rd

[Thin Lizzy]

 

[obsidian]

SHOULD BE IMPALED -------> OB1 <------- SHOULD BE IMPALED

 

[OB1]

Why?
Because I point out the reliability or better: the non-existent reliability of your sources?

Anyway...
Provide reliable sources or even better: stop the propaganda altogether.

[Mitch]

I believe Brits will vote for leaving, but w/e they vote, UK will stay in EU because Angie has her strap-on deep into Cameron's ass.

[OB1]

I believe Brits will vote for leaving, but w/e they vote, UK will stay in EU because Angie has her strap-on deep into Cameron's ass.

Pretty accurate observation.

[B_B_C]

The emotion of the debate will probably be mainly about the  UK sovereignty so expect to hear a lot about the 9000 USA military men and women stationed in the UK and of the three USAF bases

[local hero]

The emotion of the debate will probably be mainly about the  UK sovereignty so expect to hear a lot about the 9000 USA military men and women stationed in the UK and of the three USAF bases

Never heard it mentioned ever, don't think I ever will again.....

[BigRo]

I believe Brits will vote for leaving, but w/e they vote, UK will stay in EU because Angie has her strap-on deep into Cameron's ass.

hear hear.

[Conker]

i don't know why merkel gets such bad press, she's one of the only european leaders that actually has any integrity. all the rest are just populist c@nts.

her proposal to take a large number of refugees from syria is morally correct. for one(and most importantly), europe is greatly responsible for the current mess in syria/middle east. so it is only right that we should do our bit to help alleviate the humanitarian situation.

the surrounding relatively poor countries in the region like jordan and lebanon already have millions of refugees between them.

[shootfighter1]

i don't know why merkel gets such bad press, she's one of the only european leaders that actually has any integrity. all the rest are just populist c@nts.

her proposal to take a large number of refugees from syria is morally correct. for one(and most importantly), europe is greatly responsible for the current mess in syria/middle east. so it is only right that we should do our bit to help alleviate the humanitarian situation.

the surrounding relatively poor countries in the region like jordan and lebanon already have millions of refugees between them.

Respectfully, there is no moral obligation to take in millions of people from the middle east, most who don't want to assimilate.  They need to change their countries from within. 

[Conker]

Respectfully, there is no moral obligation to take in millions of people from the middle east, most who don't want to assimilate.  They need to change their countries from within. 

no moral obligation when you're greatly responsible for causing the mess in the 1st place?

and why won't syrians assimilate? they're culturally not too different from turks or even greeks, immigrants of which have both done very well in the uk. syria like iraq was quite a secular country before we helped let the extremist lunatics in.

[Hypo]

i don't know why merkel gets such bad press, she's one of the only european leaders that actually has any integrity. all the rest are just populist c@nts.

her proposal to take a large number of refugees from syria is morally correct. for one(and most importantly), europe is greatly responsible for the current mess in syria/middle east. so it is only right that we should do our bit to help alleviate the humanitarian situation.

the surrounding relatively poor countries in the region like jordan and lebanon already have millions of refugees between them.

Haha. Responsible. I would say the blame can be laid on the nation that started these recent wars:

Gulf War I
Gulf War II (WMD)
Afghanistan

Therefore, by your reasoning, the US should take them all in.

[Conker]

Haha. Responsible. I would say the blame can be laid on the nation that started these recent wars:

Gulf War I
Gulf War II (WMD)
Afghanistan

Therefore, by your reasoning, the US should take them all in.

western involvement in the first gulf war was justified imo(and never really caused any refugees anyway), as for the rest, whilst being the instigator the US didn't act alone.

[Hypo]

So, by you're reasoning, the US, being the main party responsible, should take the lion's share of refugees then? After all, they may not have acted alone, but they were responsible, and being responsible means they should take them in, no?

[Conker]

So, by you're reasoning, the US, being the main party responsible, should take the lion's share of refugees then? After all, they may not have acted alone, but they were responsible, and being responsible means they should take them in, no?

of course yes, if we're talking about what's morally correct.

[Tapeworm]

So, by you're reasoning, the US, being the main party responsible, should take the lion's share of refugees then? After all, they may not have acted alone, but they were responsible, and being responsible means they should take them in, no?

I'm sorry, sir.  That's not our policy.

[honest]

Britain to far gone already for opting out to give them any real benefit the immigrant population will eventually breed them into minority status. Glad i left the shite hole, lazy native population sew the seeds of today by opting for welfare over work a generation or so ago, pushing politicians to the easy decision of bringing in cheaper immigrant labour, basket case thats been copied all over the world only thing is today its even worse, most refugees these days are just looking to live as welfare supported immigrants not embrace the country they arrive in for opportunity, like Europe needs more people with their unemployment numbers and financial position. Worlds gone mad most politicians more concerned with if Steve can marry Larry than the  real issues confronting the population.  Outside of Putin there aren't any politicians anymore just populists.

[Griffith]

no moral obligation when you're greatly responsible for causing the mess in the 1st place?

and why won't syrians assimilate? they're culturally not too different from turks or even greeks, immigrants of which have both done very well in the uk. syria like iraq was quite a secular country before we helped let the extremist lunatics in.

Then the same could be said about Americans, that they should accept even more millions of refugees because of the illegal war in Iraq and then Obama pulling out troops which allowed ISIS to take over.

[BigRo]

Theres a difference between accepting genuine refugees (however pressure should be put on Saudi Arabia to do its part) and allowing your country to be colonized by a Hijrah.

[bigmc]

no moral obligation when you're greatly responsible for causing the mess in the 1st place?

and why won't syrians assimilate? they're culturally not too different from turks or even greeks, immigrants of which have both done very well in the uk. syria like iraq was quite a secular country before we helped let the extremist lunatics in.

you arent morally obliged to take people in to your country that hate your way of life

want to change to draconian sharia law

and would kill you in a heartbeat

but are still happy to live off your benefits

fuck them

if we bring anyone in it should be orphaned children who can be raised and integrated in to our values

there are enough of them to save without taking in the jihaddy waddy boys

[Raymondo]

The referendum is a sham. The UK's membership in the EU is not in question. This was just a way for Cameron to solve the problems within his party, so his glassy-eyed, Euro-hating backbenchers wouldn't rebel like they did with Major in 92.

Cameron chose to elevate a party management problem into a national issue. Politics uber alles.

[Griffith]

you arent morally obliged to take people in to your country that hate your way of life

want to change to draconian sharia law

and would kill you in a heartbeat

but are still happy to live off your benefits

fuck them

if we bring anyone in it should be orphaned children who can be raised and integrated in to our values

there are enough of them to save without taking in the jihaddy waddy boys

Exactly!

Look at countries in Asia, they have policies to protect their culture and do not hide this fact.

Actually, most of the world does except for the wealthier Western countries.

[Thespritz0]

Since London controls the US and Europe this is just show.

^^
Watch this: 

[OB1]

^^
Watch this: 

LOL.
Sure.

[Conker]

you arent morally obliged to take people in to your country that hate your way of life

want to change to draconian sharia law

and would kill you in a heartbeat

but are still happy to live off your benefits

fuck them

if we bring anyone in it should be orphaned children who can be raised and integrated in to our values

there are enough of them to save without taking in the jihaddy waddy boys

you are morally obliged to take refugees when you are greatly responsible for causing the refugees.

you're falling for the BS right wing propaganda. the vast majority of syrian civilians do not support sharia law. syria was a secular state before we helped jihadis grab large swathes of the country.