As one of those 'filthy colonists' who got out of the EU (before it even existed!), there isn't necessarily a whole bunch of information available on Brexit, not when you compare it to Europe itself, anyways. (Probably has something to do with the Battle of the Titans - Godzilla vs Ghidora - over here.) There's the information in this thread, as well as a couple of videos I've seen (one by Stefan Molyneaux, who is usually on-target with his analyses), and a couple of articles from the BBC.
That being said, even though as a filthy colonist, I can't vote in this, there are some things that I would like clarification on.
1: I get that it's the nature of insurgent movements (like Brexit) to sometimes make arguments that aren't on rock-solid ground, but sound good in order to motivate people. That being said, what do the Leavers get right, and what is (to use your British terminology) dodgy?
2: One of the particular videos I watched featured a few clips from the former Greek financial minister, Varoufakis, in which he claimed - or at least, what I heard between the lines - was that when the Greek financial crisis happened, Greece itself was not allowed to implement the solutions that Varoufakis and his staff came up with, but were instead forced to take the German solution (no irony there, absolutely none) to the problem. That's actually a frequent criticism I've heard of the EU - Germany runs everything, and Merkel is the worst German leader since...well, you know. Again, how much is right, and what's not?
3: Where does this myth - if it is a myth, which is what I'm hearing in the thread - that the EU is basically staffed by unelectable, unaccountable, foreign officials come from?
Also, one last thing.
There are a lot of Muslims who favor "sharia law" but think it should only be applied to Muslims, not other segments of the population. Also, there are at least some of those in favor who said it should only apply to family and property disputes, but not all aspects of the law.
Which is all well and fine, but consider this. (Be warned, I tend to go long on my explanations, and I might seem to go off on tangents, but stick with me, and it'll all make sense, I swear.)
One of the issues coming to light in developed countries in the last...I'll say within my generation, is the issue of population replacement. Japan in particular is having problems with having to close down schools, support an aging, retiring population, and other such problems that occur.
I don't normally use it for a discussion on population, but my high school history teacher, when he taught us about Social Security, used this illustration - when it was first implemented in the 1930s, Social Security paid out for one person for every thirty-plus people paying in. When he gave us this illustration, in 2001, that ratio had fallen to one person paying out for every three people paying in. (He did note that a large reason for the change was the vast improvement of medical care in the near-seventy years since Social Security was first implemented.)
He rounded out the illustration by telling us that when the Baby Boomer generation retired, the pyramid would become inverted
- multiple people paying out for every person that paid in. In fairness to him, he was not one of those 'your generation is never going to see a dollar of the money you pay into Social Security' guys - but he did
want us thinking about what would happen to the system if it was forced to undergo a flip like that.
So, you have aging populations, a sub-replacement fertility rate (recognized as 2.1 children born per woman) in a lot of the West. (The latest figure I could find stated that in the US, in 2015, 1.87 children were born per US woman.) Now, contrast that with the higher fertility rates in countries like Syria, which is 2.6 children/woman.
Let's say a law gets passed in Britain, saying that sharia law exists, but only applies to Muslims. Would it not be possible for, over generations, in the long-term, more and more of the population in the UK to be raised as Muslims (owing to their higher fertility rate), and thus the law applies to more and more people, until the majority of the country were Muslims, and thus sharia supplants actual British law? In fairness, this would be an exceedingly long-term
plan - generations upon generations, as opposed to what the scaremongers claim about it happening in the next 20 years or some BS like that.
Now, I want to clarify. In having read the publicly available data, there is a lot, lot
less worry about a scenario like that happened than the anti-Islamic scaremongers would have you believe - Saudi Arabia is 2.12 (barely above replacement); Turkey is 2.05 (barely under it); Egypt is 2.83 (over, but Egypt is also a bit more developed than most Mideast nations).
For all the trouble we hear over Iran
, Iranians aren't doing much better than us - their rates are actually lower
than here - 1.83
children per woman.
Sorry, I lied, one last technical thing.
Painting people with such a broad brush does smell of racism to me.
I know this is nitpicking, and language policing of the highest technical order, but it is not
racist to criticize Islam or Muslims. Muslims are not a race - Malcom X was Muslim, but everyone identifies him as African-American. It is bigoted, but it is not racist.
Now, criticizing people because they are Arabic, or Kurdish, that
is racist. It's a question of what are you criticizing people for - their ideology, or their genetics?