By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Brexiters OUTRAGED after discovering that voting to abolish free movement means movement will no longer be free

How dare they! The Americans only ask two thirds of the world to pay nearly a hundred quid to enter their country! Shame, shame, shame!

So basically, they are charging for a tourist card?



Epic was right all along... 

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Helloplite said:

I do not know who that person is, but it is comforting to know that you still have no idea what you are talking about.

I never intended to make this into a conversation of qualifications, by any means. If you insist, I am a final-year doctoral student of political theory at a University in the United Kingdom. I teach global politics, global security, and democratic theory (three modules) to first and second-year undergraduates at a Russel Group University. In the course of the past five years, I have taught to over 600 individual students, from across the UK, Europe, and the rest of the world. I have spent the last 7 years researching critical global politics and political philosophy, from Aristotle and Plato to Schmitt, Derrida, Foucault and contemporary post-structuralists. I am well versed in all forms of political theory, from the classics to medieval theorists (such as Hobbes and Machiavelli, to the enlightenment period (Rousseau, Tocqueville), American political philosophy (Wilson, Madison, Hamilton), liberalism, nationalism (Ozkirimli, Armstrong, Smith, Gellner), Marxism, structuralism, post-Marxism, anarchism, and post-structuralism.

Personally, the outcomes of BREXIT are of little importance to me -- I will probably not be affected as much as others who are in more perilous and precarious situations, such as low-wage manual labour, etc. As a human being, I am of course concerned that Britain is fast losing its touch with reality and core democratic principles of accountability and human rights. 

You go ahead now, give me your qualifications since this is so important to you and to this conversation (to which you have still not responded -- just branding my position as 'lame crap' is a cop-out, and not much more).

 

"

Are you aware of the many profoundly mindless rubbish that you've just posted in this thread ? SMDH 

Tbh Helloplite‘s comments on the matter are some of the most refreshing and smartest stuff I’ve read on this site in a long time.



Helloplite said:

Let me tl;dr your answer for you: LOL

Fair enough, I guess. No matter what I could have said, your response would still have been the same and we both know it.

If my academic background is not good enough for you, then on what basis does yours render you capable of comprehending these concepts? Last time I checked, engineering has very little to do with understanding questions of society, including nationalism. At least I am literally teaching these concepts. What does having stricter criteria for entry or study at "your university" got to do with anything?

By all means, provide me with this biological understanding that I am so lacking. Tell me of these Caucasians. Produce something to counter my points. You have for nothing so far, other than ad hominems and questions that you yourself avoid to provide an answer to. All of your responses here are mere questions and accusations. You can (hopefully) do better than this. if not consider this the end of this one-sided "conversation".

Quite frankly, I do not want to see you as an academic equal when the training involved between the two studies is not even remotely comparable at the same level of rigor because we have to endure far more ordeals to truly help and make a real impact on modern civilization ...

You're teaching inconsistency, FYI so please do explain how that's supposed to help anyone or any of your students ? (just about any noobie can start picking up political concepts and make up interpretations about them like you can) 

I could elaborate on your biological understanding that you are lacking but since it's dragged out long enough along with the fact that you call others on here a "lost cause", I see no reason to since you seem very obstinate on trying to +1 others around here in this thread to enforce a confirmation bias so I'm going to gladly fuck right off when conduct of your caliber is downright repulsive ... (word of advice, don't expect to be treated with intellect in discussions if you don't treat others with intellect) 



KoiIroRazu said:
KingCherry said:

You seem to have a lot to say on this matter, however it appears you don't have a fucking clue, like a lot of others commenting here!

Does it offend you that Japan openly wants to maintain their one race nation status? Or is to okay because they're in Asia? How about Saudi Arabia refusing Muslim asylum seekers, yet offering to build Mosques all over Christian countries as their way of contribution? Do you not see a problem there?

The EU accepts migrants from the Third World, then spreads them out everywhere across Western Europe. Nations who ironically take more out of the EU than they put in, like Poland, The Czech Republic & Hungary are okay, they shun non white migrants to absolutely no criticism or comeback. It's all on countries like the UK, hence the resentment.

Muslim migrants are an absolute disgrace in Britain, the level of crime committed per head is absolutely ridiculous. People born in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia top the unemployment tables. Do you know about Rotherham and the Pakistani child grooming gangs, is this acceptable to you? Now more Muslim migrants are coming in on EU passports, alongside the other feckless migrants who are then branded British after bringing nothing to the table.

It's a dangerous prospect for most, The Coudenhove Kalergi plan in action. People are right to have genuine concerns, the EU is fucking frightening, multiculturalism is cynical, and it appears you're just another useless idiot unwittingly promoting the demise of the West.

You gotta stay on topic. Why are you trying to discuss the ins and outs of immigration as a whole all of a sudden? I'll try to respond to your arguments anyway.

1st bold: Yes.

2nd bold: They didn't force them to take these immigrants. That is exactly why Poland and the Czech Republic could get away with not taking any of them. It was the UK's own decision.

3rd bold: Seems to me like lack of proper integration factors into this. By the way: it's always good to through in a couple of uncited statistics without any sources into a rant about politics. 

4th bold: I lol'd.

5th bold: Belittling your discussion partner(s) and confirming that you can't be taken seriously at once.

You just don't seem fun to be around.

2, No, Poland, Czech & Hungary point blank refuse, to no criticism. However, they're not in the spotlight, and contribute little to the EU.

3, Uncited statistics? Google what I said about worklessness by country of birth, Google Rotherham child grooming, etc.

4, It probably is funny to you, as you're German.

5, Belittling and aggression goes hand in hand on this board, you're guilty yourself. I can't be taken seriously because like others, the Kalergi plan & forced Multiculturalism is seen as sinister?

Grow up!



Helloplite said:
contestgamer said:

Because I want countries to maintain their identities. Multicultural countries become Americanized countries. European countries have existed for thousands of years, with rich culture, geneology, customs, etc. America/Canada can be multicultural, because thats how they were created. Not every country needs to be. I dont even care if theyre good people or not, I care about maintaining identity and heritage. 

Define British heritage. Is it tea? Porcelain chinaware? The slaves traded all over the world? Is it, per chance, the East India Company? Is it apartheid? Is it the Boer concentration camps? Is it the Yemen massacre in the 60s? Is it the Amritsar massacre? Is it the crimes committed in Iraq in the 20s, denying their freedom? Is it the massacre of over 3000 Cypriots in the 60s and 70s, for the same reasons? Is it the famines and violence in Bengali? Is it the fine legacy of British Colonialism?

 

Oh please do tell me more of this British identity and heritage of yours. It really sounds rather fascinating and jolly. You must know enough about it to educate a pathetic non-British like me! Perhaps you could colonize me to make me appreciate your culture better?

Ha, make a large list stating everything bad you could find on British history, then portray that as everything that defines the British? No mention of the swathe of enlightenment from science, industry, the arts, music, literature, etc....

You're fellow nationals are happy, at the same time, to flood into Britain and grab a slice of that colonial pie. 



Around the Network
KingCherry said:
Helloplite said:

Define British heritage. Is it tea? Porcelain chinaware? The slaves traded all over the world? Is it, per chance, the East India Company? Is it apartheid? Is it the Boer concentration camps? Is it the Yemen massacre in the 60s? Is it the Amritsar massacre? Is it the crimes committed in Iraq in the 20s, denying their freedom? Is it the massacre of over 3000 Cypriots in the 60s and 70s, for the same reasons? Is it the famines and violence in Bengali? Is it the fine legacy of British Colonialism?

 

Oh please do tell me more of this British identity and heritage of yours. It really sounds rather fascinating and jolly. You must know enough about it to educate a pathetic non-British like me! Perhaps you could colonize me to make me appreciate your culture better?

Ha, make a large list stating everything bad you could find on British history, then portray that as everything that defines the British? No mention of the swathe of enlightenment from science, industry, the arts, music, literature, etc....

You're fellow nationals are happy, at the same time, to flood into Britain and grab a slice of that colonial pie. 

Actually I admire British culture and philosophy, as well as its vast contributions on all fields. That does not mean that I will pretend that it all smells jolly. There is really no way to understate the importance British people had on the destiny of human kind - both for good as well as for bad. The point, however stands in its entirety: I'd have (and I do!) said the same for my own culture and nationality (Greek, if interested). 

 

This discussion is about BREXIT, and by extension about the side tracked discussion on nationalism, racism, and history. When it comes to this discussion, there is no much leeway to dress up a pile of garbage in nice flower beads.

 

Aristotle was a philosophical Colossus. He was also the teacher of Alexander the "Great", the Icon of Empire and early forms of colonialism. Science, culture, arts, they are important stuff but let us never forget that there is a very shady dimension to these.

 

When I have the chance to extol British culture, arts, and science, I will. Britain did not become "Great" for nothing. But that doesn't wash away centuries of violence, domination, and it being the first truly global Empire to spread its underlying culture through sword and spear and extermination.



Quite frankly, I do not want to see you as an academic equal when the training involved between the two studies is not even remotely comparable at the same level of rigor because we have to endure far more ordeals to truly help and make a real impact on modern civilization ...

I am not asking you to see me as an 'academic equal' -- whatever that means. It is true that political theory, including international relations as a whole, is not a science. This is basic stuff, really. Science proceeds to operate through observation, testable experimentation, proof by repetition, and independent verification of findings. The arts, whether that is philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, economics, or literary critique, is by definition not a science. One cannot 'prove' Plato, or Marx, or Nietzsche. You can only contemplate their views, weigh them up, and produce a substantive but ultimately subjective perspective of the topic/concept/idea you are studying.

That does not however mean that to study politics is in its entirety an 'art' in the strict sense. Studying politics and IR is by nature the study of an amalgamation of other arts, which is why a student of politics must be well versed in philosophy, as well as in sociology, economics, and even history. My second bachelor's degree was actually in international history, rather than politics. History is an entirely different beast. It is not a science, either, but it does entail weighing up proofs, information, and points-of-view in order to distill the truth of an event. You cannot 'argue' that colonialism didn't happen. What you can do is demonstrate why narratives that portray it as a negative event were incorrect, based on other historical data and information.

Do you endure far more ordeals? Quite possibly. Since my first bachelor's was in computer games development, I know full well that studying a science topic requires a far more rigorous mode of study, far more learning of formulae, calculus, and so forth. My experience studying in the field of computing gave me both an appreciation of scientific study, and was at the same time a process that resulted in me accepting that I needed to study something else, as I wouldn't have been a good game developer. That does not in any way however mean that studying politics all the way to doctorate level was a trivial or routine task. I assure you that it did not involve just coming up with stuff. I had to study everything from Marxist economics, to Criminal and International Law, including arduous and nebulous topics such as the British Politcal System, and the EU, its laws and its complex institutions. If your point is to merely underestimate then I will let others judge as to who between the two of us knows better what things they are talking about.

You're teaching inconsistency, FYI so please do explain how that's supposed to help anyone or any of your students ? (just about any noobie can start picking up political concepts and make up interpretations about them like you can) 

I am teaching inconsistency? What does that even mean? I know this is your modus operanti, to try to get people so annoyed that they lose an argument by virtue of losing their ****, but I do not fall for this stuff. We do not start picking up political concepts and make-up interpretations on the go. That is not what political theory, or studying International Relations is about. To say this only reveals your own ignorance of the vast difference between the layman's use of political concepts and their implementation in an academic context. Furthermore, I do not merely come up with ideas from my own head. I wish I had thought of these ideas. On the contrary, I can provide a citation for everything I am saying here. This is stuff I learned by explicitly studying, for example, Nationalism; Balkan History; and Colonial History respectively.

Since this has become a ridiculous litany of assaults and ad hominems, I am happy to give you my name and full academic profile so you can judge for yourself, on the proviso that you do the same. As I said earlier, I am happy to allow others to pass on judgment as to whether I am making things up here, or not.

I could elaborate on your biological understanding that you are lacking but since it's dragged out long enough along with the fact that you call others on here a "lost cause", I see no reason to since you seem very obstinate on trying to +1 others around here in this thread to enforce a confirmation bias so I'm going to gladly fuck right off when conduct of your caliber is downright repulsive ... (word of advice, don't expect to be treated with intellect in discussions if you don't treat others with intellect) 

No you couldn't. There is no rigorous scientific study of race and genetics that demonstrates a close link. For example, studies comparing the genomes of Bosnian Muslims, versus Bosnian Serbs (Christians), showed several consistencies across chromosome haplogroups (43.5% and 30.9%, respectively), which in the authors' words "shows that different ethnic groups in Bosnia [...] share a large subset of their paternal lineages" (1), despite these groups believing they have different ethnicity. The whole concept of 'race' is tenuous and political in itself (2). The use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research has been described as "problematic at best, and harmful at worst" -- not by political theorists but by geneticists (3). Of course, I am not trying to simplify a vastly complex topic here, nor to assert that there is no scientific research into how aspects of the concept of 'race' could indeed turn out to reflect actual different genetic characteristics between populations (4). Such research, like Reich's (professor of genetics at Harvard) article below, does exist but even there the author is careful to avoid completely denying the socially constructed aspects of the concept of race. This does not mean that there are no genomic differences between a group of people living in Mozambique and a group of people living in Iceland, but it does mean that at the individual level most of us have probably very little idea of 'where we come from', genetically speaking. 'Race' as we commonly understand it is mostly wishful-thinking. Dr Foeman, professor of intercultural communication, has focused her research on individuals whose sense of 'race' differs from what genetic studies about them reveal (5). She has come across 'biracial' people who were entirely of European descent. Christians of Jewish descent.  I really could go on and on, but this is neither my field of study, nor do I think it is productive to do so. You, and anyone else interested, can have a look at the resources below. The National Geographic article, in particular, is the most useful for this discussion. But for a counter-point, I'd take a look at Reich's position as well.

I am not pressing the +1 to "enforce a confirmation bias". The button is there. I don't know what makes you so sensitive about this, but let me clear this up for you, once and for all:

I don't seek your validation, nor do I want you to treat me as an intellectual equal. Nothing about this conversation is about validation for me. This is a forum, with a topic, and we are discussants. This is the extent and context of this debate. My attitude is what it is, and if and when it gets too offensive or aggressive I know when to back down and apologize. This, however, has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply making my points and defending them. This is entirely within the intended function and behaviour of a forum. If you can provide an actual substantiation of your positions other than ad hominems, go ahead. That is all I expect from you. Whether you, or I, or anyone else is an intellectual equal or not is really not the point of this conversation. The point is BREXIT and I will stand by my opinion that those who voted to leave the EU based on nationalist and racist propaganda have no idea what they are doing, or what they even believe in (6). By that, I literally mean that they have no knowledge of history, or politics. There you go. Enjoy.

 

(1) Kovacevics et al (2014) "Standing at the Gateway to Europe - The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and Haploid Markers", PLoS ONE 9:8.
(2) Collins (2004) "What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era", Nature Genetics, 36, pp. 13-15. 
(3) Yudell et al (2016) "Taking race out of human genetics", Science, 351: 6273, pp. 564-565.
(4) Reich (2018) "How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'", The New York Times, 23 March 2018, URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
(5) Kolbert (2018) "There is no Scientific Basis for Race - It's a Made-Up Label", National Geographic, April 2018, URL: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
(6) To those few who actually voted based on another basis, I am truly sorry that your voice and preference has been drowned. I am sure you did not intend or wish for BREXIT to become, the banner flag and the resurgence of, opaque racism in Britain. I was one of those who, in the Greek referendum some years ago, supported the 'NO' vote against the EU.

P.S.: If anyone does not have access to these academic journals, I can provide PDFs to read by request.

Last edited by Helloplite - on 02 May 2018

6£ for 3 years? That's really cheap...
Especially with how expensive life in the UK is.



AsGryffynn said:
How dare they! The Americans only ask two thirds of the world to pay nearly a hundred quid to enter their country! Shame, shame, shame!

So basically, they are charging for a tourist card?

It's pretty bad going the other way too.  My youngest took a trip to Canada last December and the passport alone was $110 but since we needed it within 2 months, I had to add another another $60 to expedite it and then another $35 just for processing.  That's $195.  But since I don't live in a city with a Regional Passport Agency (closest one is a 6 hour drive), I have to pay for a representative to appear for us.  That service was another $450.  Plus other fees. 

Total cost was $650 for one passport.  I'll take a 6£ for 3 years tourist card.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

I'm an American, so I'm not informed on the subject matter. But is the problem that they are going to charge six euro to people in Britain every time they leave Britain to re-enter the EU (whether it be for business or pleasure)?

That doesn't seem like a whole lot of money, assuming that was the only repercussions to leaving the EU in the first place. So what's the deal?