Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Europol: Terror threat in the EU is rising" video.

The EU allow in migrants from broken countries, unfortunately, at least some of those they let in broke them. In the interests of political correctness, the EU is reluctant to confront the problem of those most likely to be terrorists. Worst still, in an effort to punish the UK for brexit, the EU is willing to sever connections with an ally who is best equipped of all the member states to provide the information required to identify the terrorists and the threats they produce.
4
aleksander suur it was one of many reasons why people voted for brexit. I think the objections were mainly about numbers rather than race. In the east of England there are towns were migrants outnumber the indigenous population and this has resulted in a significant change in culture. I can speak from experience of the agression, arrogance and intimidation that some migrants exhibit. So yes migration played a part in the brexit referendum result, but it was not the only issue. In my case, I voted against joining in the first place. I was at university at the time and it was the first time I had a chance to vote. I was aware of the EU's federal ambitions and wanted no part of it. Later I became increasingly aware of the financial costs to the UK of EU membership, and have been opposed to UK membership from the start until now. I think you are correct in saying voters migrate to the extreme parties, when parties in the middle ground fail to address their concerns. As you suggest they may not agree with all or any of the extremist views expressed by these parties, but they have been disenfranchised by parties in the middle ground.
1
aleksander suur Not sure you are right. A number of member states are resisting further integration. Even Germany is not keen on the French plan. As I have said many, Germany expected to rule the EU not pay for it,
1
aleksander suur I assume you have your own conspiracy theory. I also have one which has generally been provided right, though it is periodically updated to fit the machinations of the eurocrates. It must be remembered that the EU was the child of the bankers and an super rich elite. Today the interests of this elite is globalisation and the EU serves that.
1
aleksander suur globalisation does not benefit the majority, it benefit the super rich elite that makes money from facilitating the trade between the rich regions of the world and the poor. The elite take the bulk of the profits by exploiting this wealth differential. That is why the wealth of the world is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The old weather of the decadent western nations is being transferred to the poor parts of the world in exchange for products made in low wage factories. The poor nations get slightly richer, but their environments suffer. The bulk of the money is syphoned off by the super rich who own the coorporations that own the factories the mines and the plantations that make the products the west imports. As the old money in the western countries are used up, they spiral into debt because they are addicted to the cheap goods that support the life style to which they have become accustomed. The western nations cannot compete with the low wage economies, they are simply priced out of the market. The EU is a microcosm of this global trade scam. The trade wars we are starting to see are a reaction to the effects of globalisation. It is the reason the US and UK are in so much debt, they above all others embraced the free trade philosophy where everything is for sale. The idealistic liberal elite welcomed globalisation because they saw the slight improvements in the wealth of the poor nations and because it fitted in with the idea of one world working together. What they did not understand was the damage that was being done to the environment and the earth's resilience to recover from natural disasters.. That also failed to attribute globalisation to the growing wealth gap between the super rich elite and the rest of the population. In the west, resentment is growing, hence the emergence of extreme political parties. The liberal ideas of creating codependence to eliminate wars is a flawed concept, it is creating the very conditions for conflict and violent revolution. One must assume the super rich have made contingency plans for the coming apocalypse, presumably they have luxury bunkers around the world in which to hide. One must wonder why they are not exercising some level of control to overt disaster, my guess is that greed is there main motivation and the pursuit of power. A one world government is not the goal of the super rich. Money cannot be made when everyone is equally poor. Globalisation only works if there are wealth differentials to exploit, so the world is being divided into large power blocks that will be played off against each other, the EU, US, Russia, China with Africa and the Middle East becoming their battle field play ground.
1
aleksander suur Glad you are doing so well, but your current success is not indicative of the state of society as a whole. An individual maybe doing well while the rest of society is failing. Sooner or later the macro effects will reach you. Maybe the company that employs you will go bust or relocate. Like global warming, it is the long term trend that is important, not the local snow storm. Learning economics will not help people if their lives are being manipulated by those with power on a global scale. The endemic corruption in US government is a classic example. The bribery of government officials is not even hidden any more. Control is exercised by massive campaign contributions. The people do not control the US government, billionaires do. Two siblings spring to mind. The debt problem is the result of globalisation. I this case we are not talking about personal debt, but the national debt. The US has allowed its industries to be exported or fall into foreign ownership. It has lost control of its means of production. It is a nation of consumers.
1