Hungary Referendum result...

I can't see why it needs to be 50% its a simple Yes/No result so if the deliberate
stay at homers haven't voted its their thought

Cadmus Emesa
‏@Papinian90
@eszterz Hungarian EU membership referendum in 2003 turnout was 45.6% ... Was it invalid?

The bias media are making the most of the minor short fall of the 50 % required,
saying invalid bla bla bla.

on the other hand it's expected to be a huge win from the 45 % ish that voted,
so surely if a large % are saying we don't want this cr@p entering our country the
government have got to act on it.....s0d the boycotter's

95 % being mentioned for votes for NO

daft swedish EU b1nt on BBC this morning was trying to rubbish the Hungaians

racist, racist, etc, etc, not "progressive" like us

BBC are a disgrace Platini.

This is the way it should be done, hats off to the Hungarians.

How can they seriously be expected to accept migrants or allow them to move through
the country when this amount of people obviously DON'T WANT IT/THEM

Abbott should be taken to task for her similar comments.
Mind you calling 17m racists not good for future votes, the silly cow.

That invalidity rule must be one of the greatest affronts to democracy ever conceived. Effectively if you think your are going to lose a referendum your vote is worth more if you don't go to the polling station than exercising your political franchise.

Are Hungary leaving the EU?
That would be terrible.

Racist.

The invalidity rule has been used to keep Hungary in the EU. To be fair there was a warning about the turnout needed.

To stay in the EU they have to allow this immigration.

It is why we are out, we said no to immigration.

It's a ridiculous request to let them in if near half the country are voting against it bg.

It's a warning, so to allow it to happen & then imagine there was unbelievable consequences, who's to blame? its blatantly obvious these people do not integrate
one sodding bit so where do Hungary go from here?

I agree Ron, I do not think these people integrate well with us.

Unfortunately those that rule us, seem to think they do, or at least the rest of us can put up with it.

This is an incredibly emotive subject and we are divided on this.

I think everybody regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, sex and sexuality are equal.

But there is a practical reality here, that does not mean we mix well, sometimes we are better apart.

Just my own opinion.

As I have quoted before, all the animals in the zoo do not get put in one cage.

as Bernard said Just because a dog was born in a stable does not make if a horse

Its sick the way the onus is put on us to accept, when we know damn well it's 100% wrong

Very good Ron

I like the idea of separate countries. I do not want us to be all the same, even in our own society, as long as everybody obeys the law.

But we need boundaries or bars, we discard these at our peril.

Human beings fall out at the drop of a hat. I do not think the answer is to make us all the same, we need to learn to respect our

differences.

But we have to acknowledge reality, there needs to be clear boundaries and rules, so people can feel safe in what they are.

My own view of this

Why can't we go back to the days where all we had to moan about
was "****ing northerners coming down here nicking our jobs"

If the European Union bureaucrats try to spin this result to their own advantage due to the low turnout, Orban should call their bluff and give the Hungarian people a straight IN or OUT referendum based on a simple majority.

In the current climate, an OUT poll would likely prevail and the whole corrupt house of cards would tumble.

The media is keen on informing us that Hungary benefits financially from EU membership, but forty-something percent of its population clearly are not too happy with the deal.  Money isn't everything, folks don't like being ordered about by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

agree Poker.

it's about quality of life for a lot of people...Especially for me.

all a sudden being sexually assaulted or raped wasn't in most European women's
plans for some reason

It seems to me ...this whole immigration problem was caused by the Yanks ...trampling all over the Middle East with their size twelve boots !
They've de-stabilised Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria and we the Europeans pick up the pieces !
Mass immigration of Muslims into Europe ...their culture, beliefs and lifestyle totally different to ours and as the Qoran states they are forbidden to integrate with the infidels.
So Hungary being a "Christian Country" ...quite rightly don't want them.

I read an interesting book on my hols. I think it's a little unfair to pin it on one guy as there was a bit before and certainly after, but for me the main instigator for all the trouble in the Middle East was Reagan.

Firstly he was so focused on defeating the Soviets, even looking to rub their noses in it when Gorbachev came to power and effectively said "we're broke and can't keep building missiles and defence systems", that he funded and provided weapons to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to prolong the war against the Soviets and cripple them and with no exit strategy of what to do in the region once it was over.
Alongside this, the yanks turned a complete blind eye to Israel's repeated incursions into Lebanon and it reneging on its promises to return Palestinian land it had grabbed illegally.

There'd been some distrust for several years, obviously from the bright idea to create a land for the jews in the middle of muslim territory at the get go, but then from LBJ and Kissinger in 1967 who allowed them to invade and keep East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, making hundreds of thousands of Muslims there refugees. Carter was done up like a kipper by Begin in the late 70s too then you had Bush I going hell for leather in expelling the Iraqis out of Kuwait and Bush II seeing his primary purpose as to get Saddam no matter what but I think it was Reagan with his defeat the Soviets at all costs ethos that led to the situation today more than any other single politician.

I think it's a bit unfair to blame the problems in the Middle East on Reagan. Really we have to go further back, to the start of WW2 and Anthony Eden and Britains declaration of war in Germany and Japan.  and the consequences of this decision, the inevitable end of empire and Atlee and the labour gov .

The outcome of Britain going to war with Germany led to the rise of the Soviet empire and Mao's China and generations living under repression and torture and millions of deaths, the evil legacy we still can see in countries such as N. Korea.

This was the outcome of WW2 and perhaps Eden and Churchill and Atlee must take more blame than Reagan, although I don't think Stalin and Mao were entirely blameless, and certainly not Hitler.

Eden?

I think whether we'd declared war or not, it wouldn't have changed Stalin or Mao. It was a funny time. The British Empire was coming to an end, pushed over the line by FDR's Atlantic Charter. USA had emerged from a decade of insularity and not meddling in world affairs with a new desire to be a world superpower while Stalin obviously had designs on extending the Soviet Empire and Communism. I don't think those things wouldn't have happened if we'd have not entered the war (I doubt Hitler wouldn't have had a go at us anyway).

The Middle East was simply left to get on with it until we decided to plonk a load of jews in the middle of the Muslim holy lands in 48. That was probably the biggest catalyst surely. But I'm talking more about why the US is so universally hated across the Middle East. From all I've read I still think Reagan's term, which was the biggest (post LBJ) time of turning a blind eye to some atrocious Israeli behaviour and simultaneously arming what would become the Taliban, was the key turning point. Clinton probably came closest of anyone to broaching some kind of peace but even he couldn't get the Israelis to make it a lasting peace deal.

No of course the nature of Stalin and Mao and their murderous regimes would not have changed, but the point is without the intervention of Britain and the US then Getmany would have been able to defeat communist Russia and Japan not China would have been the main power in Asia. This would have left the British empire intact throughout the Middle East ensuring stability and progress and peace.
European Jews could have been resettled in Palestine under British rule, this would have been better for the region and the Jewish homeland and the British empire and would have saved millions of lives.

No matter how you look at it Reagan as far as I know did not really want the US to be involved in WW2 , and was very anti communist. He may have had some bad points as well, his films ?

I think that's a bit fanciful. Hitler defeating Russia was by no means a given due to the size, the conditions, and Stalin's willingness to throw so many of his citizens at it.

Japan attacked the US, so the idea that they would not respond is again not realistic.


True, the League of Nations did a fairly terrible job of dividing up the Arab World into the modern day countries we have today and probably contributed massively to the intra-Arab wars and bloodshed that have happened since. If anything the mess Britain made of handling our territories there contributed too. Much like the Yanks 50 years later we turned a blind eye to the Jews settling there, who kept demanding more and more for themselves. It's not like everything was hunky dory until we stopped ruling the place.


Not sure about Reagan and WW2. I think he served the army but didn't see any active duty if I remember correctly. He was very much in bed with the McCarthyists informing on potential Communist sympathisers in Hollywood and was also one of the key Republican agitators, alongside Goldwater, to force LBJ into Vietnam.

No I have great faith in the Germany would have prevailed over communist Russia, and could even have done so while fighting on a number of fronts against the US and Britain and Russia.

Of course when Japan attacked the US it made it inevitable that America would have to come to war against Japan, in a similar way after 9-11

It's irregardless to Germany's military ability it is interesting to note that the commander of the allied forces Isenhower was German as was Swartzkov in the first gulf war.

Reagan of course as a patriot realised the real dangers of soviet sympathers in the US, they were prepared to sell American military secrets and betray their country

Not sure which military secrets were being handled in Hollywood at that time but hey ho. We'll agree to disagree on how patriotic McCarthy and McCarthyism was.

In Holywood there were communist sympathisers and atomic bomb and other military and scientific and technological secrets were being sold to the Soviets. At a time when Stalin and Mao were imprisioning and torturing and murdering millions of people.
Now the US was not blameless, but they were against a merciless regime and many in Holywood share the guilt of not speaking up against Stalin and Mao when they knew about the killings and repression

logistics in the war with russia was the biggest problem for the nazis.

only a deluded ****wit would have tried such a move.

lfc1971  • October 3, 2016 12:41 PM BST 
In Holywood there were communist sympathisers and atomic bomb and other military and scientific and technological secrets were being sold to the Soviets. At a time when Stalin and Mao were imprisioning and torturing and murdering millions of people.
Now the US was not blameless, but they were against a merciless regime and many in Holywood share the guilt of not speaking up against Stalin and Mao when they knew about the killings and repression

The soviets obtained the secret of the Atom Bomb, from this country the U.K....by spies recruited at Cambridge
before WWII

The Cambridge Spies. The members of the ring were Donald Maclean (1913 - 1983), Guy Burgess (1911 - 1963), Harold 'Kim' Philby (1912 - 1988) and Anthony Blunt (1907 - 1983). Several other people have been suggested as belonging to the ring, including John Cairncross.

They believed in the theory of communism, equality for all. But were probably unaware of the true state

of things in the USSR under Stalin, he killed millions of people.

None of the leaders after Stalin were anything like as bad. But eventually the Russians rejected communism themselves in the 1980's.

The McCarthy with hunt was appalling.
Peoples careers were ruined.
Nobody was guilty.

witch hunt

new evidence that has come to light just recently show that McCarthy was essentially right.
Old Soviet files in Moscow, and FBI recordings of Soviet embassy recordings show that in the US there was a vast spy and influence network involved in stealing secrets, atomic and technical and influencing American foreign policy.
there were many cover ups used to smear McCarthy
Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a main figure in the communist conspiracy had been Roosevelts main advisor on China policy
Yet the FBI had files on him and known to the whitehouse but only recently released
Lattimore supported Soviet policy at every turn. He described the Stalin purges as "sounding like democracy to me"

new documents realised after the fall of communism show that the US communist party was financed by Moscow, and used as a base for espionage.

I believe that lfc1971.

But I don't think there were ever communist spies in Hollywood.
I am sure there were some elsewhere.

I believe in communism/socialism myself but it has its faults.
One is human beings are essentially capitalist, we work better if there is something in it for ourselves
The other problem with communism is it is one party, so if a tyrant gets into they cannot be voted out.

The trouble with capitalism though, is it leads to appalling inequalities in society, and at its worst, people at the bottom who
do not compete well, starve to death.

I believe the best governments are a compromise between the needs of capitalism and the needs of socialism.
We do not always get this right....but we have to try.

Ebul
Holywood only made one anti communist film...the wonderful ' I married a COMMUNIST' !!  by Robert Stevenson.  and it seems he may have been blacklisted by the communists

It shows the communists at their ruthless worst and Holywood didn't like it, I think it was real eased by Howard Hughes and he was no communist as you can imagine.

American communists were awful people.

great modern history lesson on this thread. refreshing to see and light years away from the usual bile discussions turn into on here

The soviets obtained the secret of the Atom Bomb, from this country the U.K....by spies recruited at Cambridge
before WWII

Not completely true,the atam bomb secrets were given to Stalin via a Canadian spy network within the US according to a superb book i am reading now about the end of the war and the cold war that resulted from USA pulling out immediately. The US state department and treasury were full of communist spies, Harry Dexter White and others at the very top , who even arranged the lease lend deals with Churchill and Keynes with the intention of crippling Great Britain,supported by Roosevelt who was a democrat who hated the Empire image of GB and regarded Stalin as a good guy ? The fact Stalin killed,murdered or displaced whole races from Kulaks,Cossack,Poles and muslims,more than 35 million, via the Gulags was lost on him !
Read The Poisoned Peace to get a full understanding of how events unfolded when Stalin stood back from Warsaw as the people rose against the Nazis and he deliberately allowed more than a million Poles to be slaughtered by German tanks and SS,shamefully under reported.

I stand corrected Treetop

One must remember before communism/socialism life was very hard for people at the bottom. One only has to look back it our own history to see that.
Compassionate/Intelligent people tried to find a way of combatting this. Thus we see the birth of socialist/communist theories. It was meant to
benefit people not harm people.

It was particularly bad in Russia. Where Bolshevism eventually triumphed. The West actually invaded Russia to try and over throw it.
This may have helped Stalin to power. There we see all the terrible problems caused trying to impose this. Stalin was an ex Bank robber.
But this was hidden from the West. Good people in the West still believed in it.

I repeat no Russian communist leader after Stalin was ever as bad as him.

I think socialism is the better answer, a compromise with Capitalism, I accept we cannot live without Capitalism.

Capitalism is not without it's faults, it is what gave us the Credit Crunch, the results of which the World is suffering from at the moment.

One must also remember Roosevelt governed America during the great economic depression of the 1930's.
The reason for the depression was the 1929 Wall Street crash, a complete failure of Capitalism.

I understand the sympathies of people for communism in the 1930's, usually from people who themselves were
comfortably off. They were utterly sickened by the greed and hypocrisy of their own class, while seeing how the poor suffered.

Communism was never meant to be a bad thing, although great evil was done in it's name by Stalin, Mao and of course Pol Pot.
We have to be Capitalist, but I still demand a fairer society.