Europe submits voluntarily

[Derec]

Who do you think will get blamed when they start tripping over each other because of the density?

Either Israel or cis-gendered, heterosexual white men.

 

[repoman]

Who do you think will get blamed when they start tripping over each other because of the density?

Either Israel or cis-gendered, heterosexual white men.

Blame the Womb Intifada.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/blog/2017/4/6/is-over-population-in-gaza-an-act-of-resistance

 

[Derec]

Blame the Womb Intifada.

Cutting off your nose to spite Israel. Their children live in bad conditions mostly because of their decisions to have many children.

Neman Zorob, an 80-year-old Palestinian grandfather, recently had a baby girl after marrying again, after his first wife passed away. Zorob, who lives in Khan Younis, said he had a dream that he would have four children with her. "This is my first," he proudly declared.
"After the death of my wife at 68, I decided to marry another woman to help me live my life," he added. "I am healthier than most of the youngsters, and I will have more children."

Uh huh. I'd get a DNA test if I were you, oldtimer.

Naema el-Batsh is just 20 years old. She already has 11 children, including five sets of twins.

The fuck? At what age did she start? 12?
20 year old and her vagin already hang loose, like sleeve of wizard. Sad.

 

[angelo]

Cutting off your nose to spite Israel. Their children live in bad conditions mostly because of their decisions to have many children.

Neman Zorob, an 80-year-old Palestinian grandfather, recently had a baby girl after marrying again, after his first wife passed away. Zorob, who lives in Khan Younis, said he had a dream that he would have four children with her. "This is my first," he proudly declared.
"After the death of my wife at 68, I decided to marry another woman to help me live my life," he added. "I am healthier than most of the youngsters, and I will have more children."

Uh huh. I'd get a DNA test if I were you, oldtimer.

Naema el-Batsh is just 20 years old. She already has 11 children, including five sets of twins.

The fuck? At what age did she start? 12?
20 year old and her vagin already hang loose, like sleeve of wizard. Sad.

Poor brainwashed to accept females as lower class muzzie woman most probably had no choice in the matter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cutting off your nose to spite Israel. Their children live in bad conditions mostly because of their decisions to have many children.

Uh huh. I'd get a DNA test if I were you, oldtimer.

Naema el-Batsh is just 20 years old. She already has 11 children, including five sets of twins.

The fuck? At what age did she start? 12?
20 year old and her vagin already hang loose, like sleeve of wizard. Sad.

Poor brainwashed to accept females as lower class muzzie woman most probably had no choice in the matter.

I don't know about that. Based on what I've read I think it's the women who are the driving force behind this. In these tribal cultures women get status from having many kids. The more kids the higher status. But only among the other women. Men in the same culture do not have the same social pressure. They tend to want less kids, because they're the one who has to pay for them all. And the more kids, the less he's going to be able to fuck his wife. Their male friends from the same group often make fun of fathers of many kids. It's not how you become a cool guy with your mates.

Naema el-Batsh came to Sweden. A problem among immigrants to Sweden is that many of them are poor. For some reason Swedes think it's immoral to screen them and only allow in the most well educated. I have never understood why that is. Anyhoo. So we get a lot of illiterate goat herder type immigrants. It's a problem. I think their religion is the least of these guy's problems. They're all illiterate and dumb as bricks. Their kids will struggle in school, because the system assumes that the parents help the kids with their homework.

I have friends who are social workers who work with these people. A lot of them have no understanding that the point of welfare isn't to be permanent support. It's intended to be transitory. Many of them think that Swedish welfare is like an endless free bank account. It's not.

I heard a story just last week, from a friend who works as a social welfare worker. The relatives of a boy came into her office and was furious that the boy is forced to endure the humiliation of wearing second hand clothing. She had to explain that the kids legal guardian (grandmother, since both Syrian parents are dead) is fucking poor and will have to make do. Of course the angry relative wasn't going to buy the kid new clothes. It wasn't their responsibility. they thought it was the Swedish government's. There was just no way she could get them to understand.

Sure, they're refugees. So we have a moral obligation to take them. But we have no obligation to do else than just house them and feed them.

 

[Derec]

Naema el-Batsh came to Sweden.

With all her kids? And why the hell did Sweden agree to take her in? Her prolific womb will only accelerate islamization. Who known how many babies her vagina will spit out before she hits the menopause.

Anyway, a post by Dr. Zoidberg that is at least a little critical about the mass migration into Europe in general and Sweden in particular is surprising. Are my eyes deceiving me? Is this the 7th seal being broken? I mean, between Irma and North Korea, the Apocalypse might be upon us (jk).

 

[fromderinside]

No-ah?

Appropriated you jk elswhere.

 

[TSwizzle]

Sure, they're refugees. So we have a moral obligation to take them. But we have no obligation to do else than just house them and feed them.

Sure, most of them are not refugees. They are economic migrants. But those that are from Syria will soon be able to return there. Good luck with that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Naema el-Batsh came to Sweden.

With all her kids? And why the hell did Sweden agree to take her in? Her prolific womb will only accelerate islamization. Who known how many babies her vagina will spit out before she hits the menopause.

Anyway, a post by Dr. Zoidberg that is at least a little critical about the mass migration into Europe in general and Sweden in particular is surprising. Are my eyes deceiving me? Is this the 7th seal being broken? I mean, between Irma and North Korea, the Apocalypse might be upon us (jk).

She is a refugee, and her kids. Sweden has joined the UN refugee convention and has to, according to the law, take them in.

If a country makes agreements and then doesn't live by them, it makes the entire look bad and corrupt. Other countries who want to do business with Swedes, might take their money elsewhere

I find it entertaining that you guys on the loony fringe (sorry if that offends) see anybody willing to take in refugees as completely uncritical. It's only surprising to you because you haven't paid attention. Perhaps there's more things you've failed to notice?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sure, they're refugees. So we have a moral obligation to take them. But we have no obligation to do else than just house them and feed them.

Sure, most of them are not refugees. They are economic migrants. But those that are from Syria will soon be able to return there. Good luck with that.

It doesn't matter what most of them are. What matters is that we help the people we've said we would. If most are economic migrants then most of them won't get to stay here, because they're not allowed to.

Any refugee who has stayed here legally for 5 years or more automatically gets permanent residency. It's Swedish law. So you're probably right. But then again, if they stayed that long they probably know the language and have got jobs. So then it's not a problem. Syria wasn't the most advanced of nations. But it's not that backward. I think most Syrians will do fine here. And there's always a couple of fuck-ups in any group of people.

 

[angelo]

With all her kids? And why the hell did Sweden agree to take her in? Her prolific womb will only accelerate islamization. Who known how many babies her vagina will spit out before she hits the menopause.

Anyway, a post by Dr. Zoidberg that is at least a little critical about the mass migration into Europe in general and Sweden in particular is surprising. Are my eyes deceiving me? Is this the 7th seal being broken? I mean, between Irma and North Korea, the Apocalypse might be upon us (jk).

She is a refugee, and her kids. Sweden has joined the UN refugee convention and has to, according to the law, take them in.

If a country makes agreements and then doesn't live by them, it makes the entire look bad and corrupt. Other countries who want to do business with Swedes, might take their money elsewhere

I find it entertaining that you guys on the loony fringe (sorry if that offends) see anybody willing to take in refugees as completely uncritical. It's only surprising to you because you haven't paid attention. Perhaps there's more things you've failed to notice?

Wasn't unlimited immigration in the UK one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote? The problems are politicians not taking any notice of their constituents. Most polls [that are published] from most Western nations are showing up to 60% saying they want their borders closed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

She is a refugee, and her kids. Sweden has joined the UN refugee convention and has to, according to the law, take them in.

If a country makes agreements and then doesn't live by them, it makes the entire look bad and corrupt. Other countries who want to do business with Swedes, might take their money elsewhere

I find it entertaining that you guys on the loony fringe (sorry if that offends) see anybody willing to take in refugees as completely uncritical. It's only surprising to you because you haven't paid attention. Perhaps there's more things you've failed to notice?

Wasn't unlimited immigration in the UK one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote? The problems are politicians not taking any notice of their constituents. Most polls [that are published] from most Western nations are showing up to 60% saying they want their borders closed.

Yup. Moronic Brits who had fundamentally misunderstood what they were voting about. Most people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted to stop the Syrian refugees. Which makes them idiots. Because that's not what they were voting about. Johnson and Farage just lied to people. And since people don't seem to fact check anything, they just ate it up.

Brexit will have zero impact on immigration, other than kicking out a handful of well educated and competent East Europeans from Britain, which the UK actually need. The rest is just stuff that's great with the EU, that they won't get any more. The fucking morons. Brexit will be a financial disaster. And it will have zero impact on the number of refugees the UK takes in. Almost forgot, now loads of British pensioners living in Spain might have to move home (unless Spain makes legal changes). So now the UK will have to take care of them again.

Johnson and Farage also lied about how much EU costs Britain. Turns out... it's not that much. Fucking morons.

Democracy is great when it works. But it doesn't work if people can't be bothered to do even the most superficial of homeworks. The Sun and The Daily Mail isn't real news. But that's the kind of sources these morons use to "inform" themselves. Ha ha ha ha

 

[whichphilosophy]

She is a refugee, and her kids. Sweden has joined the UN refugee convention and has to, according to the law, take them in.

If a country makes agreements and then doesn't live by them, it makes the entire look bad and corrupt. Other countries who want to do business with Swedes, might take their money elsewhere

I find it entertaining that you guys on the loony fringe (sorry if that offends) see anybody willing to take in refugees as completely uncritical. It's only surprising to you because you haven't paid attention. Perhaps there's more things you've failed to notice?

Wasn't unlimited immigration in the UK one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote? The problems are politicians not taking any notice of their constituents. Most polls [that are published] from most Western nations are showing up to 60% saying they want their borders closed.

It was one of the main reasons. However the Jack-asses who run the country won't change anything. In fact the Tory government decided to pass all EU laws into English Law and then they can be debated out as necessary. That will take 1,000 years. When Teresa was in charge of immigration for 8 years she never reduced the amount coming in.

We need immigration but we don't need unsustainable amounts just for the sake of emptying the poorer countries. We are 2 million houses short in my estimate. We are also short of hospitals and schools.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wasn't unlimited immigration in the UK one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote? The problems are politicians not taking any notice of their constituents. Most polls [that are published] from most Western nations are showing up to 60% saying they want their borders closed.

It was one of the main reasons. However the Jack-asses who run the country won't change anything. In fact the Tory government decided to pass all EU laws into English Law and then they can be debated out as necessary. That will take 1,000 years. When Teresa was in charge of immigration for 8 years she never reduced the amount coming in.

We need immigration but we don't need unsustainable amounts just for the sake of emptying the poorer countries. We are 2 million houses short in my estimate. We are also short of hospitals and schools.

I think May is aiming for leaving the EU but negotiating so that the UK will still in practice be members. Because anybody with any clue realizes that leaving the EU would be a disaster for Britain. I think Britain will in the future be bound by EU law, but have just lost their power to have any say in the Eu parliament. Like Norway. Norway chose to stay out of the EU. But all their business is with EU countries. This means that they have to follow EU law, just like any EU member. They just get all the negatives, without any of the positives. Great going... ha ha ha.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It was one of the main reasons. However the Jack-asses who run the country won't change anything. In fact the Tory government decided to pass all EU laws into English Law and then they can be debated out as necessary. That will take 1,000 years. When Teresa was in charge of immigration for 8 years she never reduced the amount coming in.

We need immigration but we don't need unsustainable amounts just for the sake of emptying the poorer countries. We are 2 million houses short in my estimate. We are also short of hospitals and schools.

I think May is aiming for leaving the EU but negotiating so that the UK will still in practice be members. Because anybody with any clue realizes that leaving the EU would be a disaster for Britain. I think Britain will in the future be bound by EU law, but have just lost their power to have any say in the Eu parliament. Like Norway. Norway chose to stay out of the EU. But all their business is with EU countries. This means that they have to follow EU law, just like any EU member. They just get all the negatives, without any of the positives. Great going... ha ha ha.

A hard BREXIT would affect both parties. Since Britain imports far more than it exports it would be worse for Europe. Britain will be geographically and somewhat culturally in Europe but not in the EU. If you are exporting to EU of course you have to follow their laws e.g. import licences, customs etc.

 

[angelo]

Wasn't unlimited immigration in the UK one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote? The problems are politicians not taking any notice of their constituents. Most polls [that are published] from most Western nations are showing up to 60% saying they want their borders closed.

Yup. Moronic Brits who had fundamentally misunderstood what they were voting about. Most people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted to stop the Syrian refugees. Which makes them idiots. Because that's not what they were voting about. Johnson and Farage just lied to people. And since people don't seem to fact check anything, they just ate it up.

Brexit will have zero impact on immigration, other than kicking out a handful of well educated and competent East Europeans from Britain, which the UK actually need. The rest is just stuff that's great with the EU, that they won't get any more. The fucking morons. Brexit will be a financial disaster. And it will have zero impact on the number of refugees the UK takes in. Almost forgot, now loads of British pensioners living in Spain might have to move home (unless Spain makes legal changes). So now the UK will have to take care of them again.

Johnson and Farage also lied about how much EU costs Britain. Turns out... it's not that much. Fucking morons.

Democracy is great when it works. But it doesn't work if people can't be bothered to do even the most superficial of homeworks. The Sun and The Daily Mail isn't real news. But that's the kind of sources these morons use to "inform" themselves. Ha ha ha ha

Yea, democracy sometimes can be disastrous no doubt about it. It almost caused calamity at the last elections by Jeromy Corbyn, a far left socialist coming much too close to the treasury benches. All that was neccecery was to make the under 35 think there is such a thing as a free lunch!

 

[repoman]

This is about the US, but similar type opinion pieces have been made about Europe. As an atheist, but also white not sure how to feel.



Well they did just get $20 million from Katzenberg so that may partially explain it. Middle eastern descended people often like white decline.

 

[seanie]

A hard BREXIT would affect both parties. Since Britain imports far more than it exports it would be worse for Europe. Britain will be geographically and somewhat culturally in Europe but not in the EU. If you are exporting to EU of course you have to follow their laws e.g. import licences, customs etc.

A hard Brexit would be far worse for the UK. Yes we import more than we export, but our exports to the EU are around 45% of our trade, whereas the EU's exports to us are about 10% of their trade.

A hard Brexit would put us on worse trading terms with 27 of our closest neighbours. Those 27 would still have each other.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think May is aiming for leaving the EU but negotiating so that the UK will still in practice be members. Because anybody with any clue realizes that leaving the EU would be a disaster for Britain. I think Britain will in the future be bound by EU law, but have just lost their power to have any say in the Eu parliament. Like Norway. Norway chose to stay out of the EU. But all their business is with EU countries. This means that they have to follow EU law, just like any EU member. They just get all the negatives, without any of the positives. Great going... ha ha ha.

A hard BREXIT would affect both parties. Since Britain imports far more than it exports it would be worse for Europe. Britain will be geographically and somewhat culturally in Europe but not in the EU. If you are exporting to EU of course you have to follow their laws e.g. import licences, customs etc.

That's not how it works. We're all better off when following standards. The biggest player in any market will set the standard. It's irrelevant who is importing or who is exporting. I also highly doubt the UK mainly imports from. Europe. The numbers don't support your assessment.

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx

The UK has for centuries been closer aligned to Europe than USA. That's not going to change.

Nah. Not being an EU member means staying in the car but not being allowed to have an opinion on where it goes. Just dumb. Also makes the EU as a whole weaker. Real clever in times when Russia and China are flexing their muscles.

It was EU who stopped a complete Russian take-over of the Ukraine. Do you think stuff like that will be easier or harder now?

 

[whichphilosophy]

A hard BREXIT would affect both parties. Since Britain imports far more than it exports it would be worse for Europe. Britain will be geographically and somewhat culturally in Europe but not in the EU. If you are exporting to EU of course you have to follow their laws e.g. import licences, customs etc.

A hard Brexit would be far worse for the UK. Yes we import more than we export, but our exports to the EU are around 45% of our trade, whereas the EU's exports to us are about 10% of their trade.

A hard Brexit would put us on worse trading terms with 27 of our closest neighbours. Those 27 would still have each other.

Before, the EU, in fact before the Common market butter, beef and lamb were cheaper. New Zealand and Australia were selling these to us far cheaper than European countries did.

However we traded with the European countries before we joined the EU. The UK provides quality products for which the top 10 which are high standard and cost-efficient.


Machinery including computers: Mainly high tech industrial use
Vehicles :
Pharmaceuticals:
Gems, precious metals:
Electrical machinery, equipment:
Oil
Aircraft, spacecraft: $20.7 billion
Optical, technical, medical apparatus:
Plastics, plastic articles:
Organic chemicals:

There are other markets but we do not have the capacity to fill these. In the unlikely event of a trade boycott, other countries in Latin America, China Australasia and the Middle East (apart from Oil and LNG) would welcome these