Europeans' opinions on UK's EU Referendum...

The Dark Elf wrote: (and is there really any Islamic country one would want live in if you're Christian, atheist, gay, liberal, Buddhist, Hindu, Rastafarian, secularist or a woman?

Bangladesh used not to be so bad for Hindus but lately it seems to be turning towards a fundamentalist direction.  And let's not forget Bangladesh is being made over as an Islamic nation.  It used to be just one half of Bengal and is therefore very much a part of the Indian sub continental culture.  I have friends living in Malaysia and they seem to be ok. But these are the most moderate examples.  There are also Indians (Hindu Indians to be specific) living in the Middle East who do so by giving up a good part of their way of life to adapt to the ME culture.  If they wanted to be able to wear their Hinduism on their sleeve, that would be problematic, yes (probably also the case in Malaysia, come to think of it).

rogerthat wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: (and is there really any Islamic country one would want live in if you're Christian, atheist, gay, liberal, Buddhist, Hindu, Rastafarian, secularist or a woman?  Bangladesh used not to be so bad for Hindus but lately it seems to be turning towards a fundamentalist direction.  And let's not forget Bangladesh is being made over as an Islamic nation.  It used to be just one half of Bengal and is therefore very much a part of the Indian sub continental culture.  I have friends living in Malaysia and they seem to be ok. But these are the most moderate examples.  There are also Indians (Hindu Indians to be specific) living in the Middle East who do so by giving up a good part of their way of life to adapt to the ME culture.  If they wanted to be able to wear their Hinduism on their sleeve, that would be problematic, yes (probably also the case in Malaysia, come to think of it).

Radical Islamists in Turkey attacked a Radiohead party at a local record store and beat the sh*t out of people with pipes and bottles for simply wanting to hear the new album. No one was arrested. But when people protested the unwarranted violence in this alleged democratic country, they were met by police with water cannons.

Erdogan's comments were telling in regards to the attack: "Using brute force to interfere is as wrong as organising an event spilling onto the street during Ramadan."

Because, of course, it's more important that we don't offend the Muslim majority than it is assuring secularists have the freedom to live their lives without Islam. Or drink a beer on a holiday for a religion that is not your own.

The Dark Elf wrote: The immigrant issue may be rightly considered racist; however, from commentary I've seen from Great Britain (and not the Farage camp), there is a genuine concern about flooding the country with Muslims, in part because of Germany's inane willingness to transport whole Islamic countries to Europe.

[Right of asylum]

(1) Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum.

(2) Paragraph (1) of this Article may not be invoked by a person who enters the federal territory from a member state of the European Communities or from another third state in which application of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is assured. The states outside the European Communities to which the criteria of the first sentence of this paragraph apply shall be specified by a law requiring the consent of the Bundesrat. In the cases specified in the first sentence of this paragraph, measures to terminate an applicant’s stay may be implemented without regard to any legal challenge that may have been instituted against them.

(3) By a law requiring the consent of the Bundesrat, states may be specified in which, on the basis of their laws, enforcement practices and general political conditions, it can be safely concluded that neither political persecution nor inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment exists. It shall be presumed that a foreigner from such a state is not persecuted, unless he presents evidence justifying the conclusion that, contrary to this presumption, he is persecuted on political grounds.

(4) In the cases specified by paragraph (3) of this Article and in other cases that are plainly unfounded or considered to be plainly unfounded, the implementation of measures to terminate an applicant’s stay may be suspended by a court only if serious doubts exist as to their legality; the scope of review may be limited, and tardy objections may be disregarded. Details shall be determined by a law.

(5) Paragraphs (1) to (4) of this Article shall not preclude the conclusion of international agreements of member states of the European Communities with each other or with those third states which, with due regard for the obligations arising from the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whose enforcement must be assured in the contracting states, adopt rules conferring jurisdiction to decide on applications for asylum, including the reciprocal recognition of asylum decisions.

This is already a watered-down version of the original article; many people (including me) would have preferred to stick to the original article. Due to historic reasons Germany has a special responsibility for all kinds of fugitives.

Let me first say that I support helping any refugees, and they have my deepest sympathy. Anyone in danger should receive help, regardless.

From what I have been able to observe for several years in Germany now, it seems that most decisions of the conservative German government are based on purely financial considerations. Social considerations have ceased playing any role whatsoever.

Applied to the refugee problem, this means that I have the strong suspicion that the strong influx of immigrants is deliberate, because after an initial outlay for basic education and integration, Germany has got itself over a million new taxpayers. Any social consequences seem to play no role at all. I sense a strong case of Schäuble-rism at work yet again.

Refugees in Germany have to visit a number of mandatory integration courses, which seems strange, because at the same time the government has informed the public (and the refugees themselves) that they will be going home after the crises have passed. They even mention a time span of three years, although heaven knows where they got that optimistic number from.

Now, when the refugees arrived, it would have been fine had they been distributed evenly over the European countries, as probably should have happened. But basically all other countries refused. After all, Germany had welcomed them all with open arms in bulk, why would they be needed? Let them cope, the silly buggers. And additionally, why should Angela Merkel be able to dictate to other countries unilaterally, how many refugees they should accept to even out the balance? Other countries are slowly having enough of her dictatorial and overbearing methods.

I find it difficult to attribute any of this to any naivety on Angela Merkel’s part. Naive she's not, no way. So basically, I think that almost all refugees immigrating into Germany was probably intended for fiscal reasons.

I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but for the life of me I can't find any other explanation, and I'm unwilling to accept incompetence or pure arrogance on the German government's part on this issue. They’re just too damn smart for that.