People love to squabble about the specifics. Whether or not people should have applied early for citizenship/visas, democratic mechanisms, about who is to blame, who deserves what and such, if we should focus on other groups of immigrants &co. I think most people here in the comments are overlooking the deeply disgusting and hurtful nature of nationalism. How about we say that is not in our interest? No matter if it’s nationalism in the case of Brexit or Swedes cracking down on immigration.
In an ideal world, there are no states and no borders.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to. The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to.
Who says we must? F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world go round. Immigrants for example.
The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders? No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables. It is no better than what UKIP and Sweden Democrats base their decision making on, in fact it boils down to the same thing. It’s nationalism.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to.Who says we must?
To be polite to others?
F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world go round. Immigrants for example.
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders?
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught.
What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Like every penalty if you think about it.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.“In the first version of the study, the “learner” could be heard banging on the wall at 300 volts and 315 volts and then falling silent. The experiments unexpectedly found that a very high proportion of subjects would obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts” -The Milgram Experiment
‘Following orders’ is a part of humanity. If your plans require its absence they will fail.
'Following orders’ is a part of humanity
Human nature argument that can be safely ignored.