Most cultural research disagrees with you, and pretty much defines culture as the unwritten norms of living together. Or, commonly, 'how things are done around here'.

Here's a popular source https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
https://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofste...ensions_theory

Ok, I thought you were insulted that I suggested you preferred a physical trial based asylum system. It turns out you're fine with that characterisation but you were insulted I suggested you were isolated in holding that opinion. Not sure why that would matter to someone confident in their opinion but it's probably the "one correct opinion" thing in your culture.

Ok, with all the countries in the world I can't prove exhaustively that none of the others support the same system and undoubtedly some do, so that was an exaggeration on my part.

About what other countries think I'd say its often the reverse of the situation you describe. When it's on TV people think "Let's get some of these poor families over here where its safe." When thousands of people are massing on the border they think "****, close the border, get more guards".

You asked me to define parts of your culture. British culture has nothing to do with German culture, as evidenced by statements like:

... a chilling reminder for any British person of how dangerous the European project could potentially be.

So culture is not about religion, it's what media people consume? In that case it might seem obvious why you think cultural integration is going to be easy, but pretty much the whole output of the European film industry is haraam under Islam, so I'm still mystified.

Like Alexdb says, the normal definition of culture is how people interact with each other. For example in Slovakia when a man visits another man the host is expected to offer a 50ml shot (or some other alcoholic drink) to the guest (it's rude not to). The guest accepts the drink (it's rude not to) and they do a toast, maintaining eye contact (it's rude not to). Basically when people from other countries (such as me) arrive in Slovakia they have to adapt to the culture here or leave, which is how it should be. How do you see that working with muslims?.

Why does the visa category or what programme they are from matter? There are still people from Donetsk and Aleppo around the place and the reason they are here is the situation in their home countries and they want to be somewhere safe.

I don't necessarily agree with everything the Slovak government does, but it was asked what they were doing directly if they didn't agree with the EU programme and the answer is that yes they are taking people.

Firstly, it's a myth that Muslims are forbidden from drinking alcohol - this is one of those cultural behaviours that you're referring to because it depends which Muslims you're talking about.

Secondly, there are obviously extenuating circumstances in your silly anecdote, such as if the visitor is unable to drink alcohol for medical reasons. Presumably the Slovak host would extend the same latitude to a Muslim if the latter didn't want to drink becherovka with him, and if he lacked the grace to do this then the fault is with him.

I thought free movement in the EU is without conditions. So now I would have to leave a country because I dont offer Lektor a shot when he knocks on my door.

Probably simplest never to invite him in in the first place.

It's funny how someone who's taken advantage of EU law to live in another EU country is in favour of Brexit.

Well thats easy to answer. Because now he has a nice living with wife and kids and wants to protect it at all costs and sees everybody coming to his country as a threat. He probably himself was a refugee because of the higher costs of living in the UK so it was just easier to make a living in Slowakia as poker player.

OK, in other words he's just another selfish Brexiteer **nt.

"Firstly, it's a myth that Muslims are forbidden from drinking alcohol - this is one of those cultural behaviours that you're referring to because it depends which Muslims you're talking about."

A cursory look at Wikipedia would seem to imply that (with the exception of a couple of relatively minor sects) alcohol is forbidden as any sort of intoxicant, with a (disputed) allowance for use in cooking (where it would be boiled off)

Is this wrong? Better cite source? I'm just trying to get an understanding of the topic.

MM MD

The Koran originally banned people from turning up at mosque inebriated. This was later hardened to include any consumption of alcohol, so as with most religions people's behaviour varies with the version of the faith people they're following.

Interesting Economist article

This is a cultural more than a religious phenomenon.

Good times, you think you would become slightly numbed to reading epically off the charts dumb **** on the internet, but it keeps on giving, this is some good stuff right here, quality idiocy, gold.

I had to leave der Sloviakia once my diplomatic immunity just been revoked for not drinking shot looking deh man in eye.

Do I have to leave the UK because I dont like cricket?

I know a few guys who dont drink tea, assume they are first on the list once Brexit goes through.

Yes. People who fail the Tebbit test are very welcome but we have to draw the line somewhere

In Turkey, men sit around in and outside bars drinking beer all the time. I'm quite fond of Turkish Efes Pilsner.

The Prophet drank alcohol, just as the Buddha ate meat, and the Koran deplores drunkenness (as St Paul does, a lot, rather repetitively), not alcohol as such. The Rubaiyat praises wine. The drink-ban in many Muslim societies is a cultural accretion. (And is by no means always observed.)

So, kind of like American catholics using birth control? Hadn't thought about it much, but when we visited Turkey beer and wine were common - although I rightly or wrongly more or less viewed Turkey as "Islam LIte".

Wonder how (and if) this will change under Erdogan.

MM MD

I never said you "had" to leave. You can simply be an outsider and never integrate - some people are fine with that. You might find it lonely though and in practice most leave - maybe if you can get a ton of people who feel the same to move at the same time and set up a parallel community ....

Then some are more adaptable than others obviously. The muslims who actively choose Slovakia e.g. as a location to study, knowing what to expect, are often quite pro-alcohol and pro-gambling for example though that varies.

The trouble with EU forced refugee quotas is that you are picking random people many of whom were hoping for something like the multi-stream culture of the big cities of western Europe, who have not actively chosen Slovakia and they will set up a parallel culture here.

Of course its debatable whether that's desirable or not, but if it's so desirable then why don't we have a situation where western countries are trying to hog all the muslims themselves? The mainstream politicians in those countries all say how wonderful it is to live in a multicultural society but that doesn't seem honest when they are using threats to try to get other countries to take people off their hands.

Sure they'll be fine with it, but it comes down to making allowances for a welcome, exotic guest rather than real integration.

To take another example, one time I went for dinner at a Libyan friend's flat. The meal was prepared by his wife in the kitchen but I never met her, she stayed hidden the whole time. I didn't really mind myself as I'd come to see him, but I don't see how integration is meant to work when people can't even meet when you have a whole family visit a whole family. (Btw that family isn't around anymore.)

I moved to Slovakia in 2002 i.e. before it joined the EU and met my wife in 2003. While it's true that since 2004 I've been registered as "EEA Citizen" rather than the previous "English Teacher" or the likely post 2019 "Spouse" I would still have been here anyway if they'd never joined.

You don't need force it under "EU Law" if you are actually wanted by the receiving country under the rules it's written itself. I don't see why so many people are attracted to the idea of doing it non-consensually.

The reaction from lots of people from the EU does actually start to tie into the overblown nonsense about EU bullying etc that you get from the likes of the Mail. It's now playing on assorted news feeds - so it feels the "bullying" thing has come true. They talk about having unity and one voice, but it's a regular chorus of 'not good enough' and a feel of ganging up of many against one...

It does kind of feel they're trying to apply the boot to the neck now, knowing May's got no wriggle room whatsoever. And even if she had room, she seems so utterly inept and useless that she'll bollox it right up anyway.

I hope the Queen's speech gets outvoted so May gets booted - we need someone half competent (or at least with a majority government) in charge. May staying at the helm seems a one-way ticket to disaster.

If I were a Tory strategist right now, I'd want this and hope for a labour majority win, so they can **** up the negotiations with some half-assed half-in half-out solution, then run on a ticket of 'full brexit' in 2022 when nothing has really changed.

I feel confident that we will still escape the EU (I was hoping the EU might actually reform to be less centralising and federalising, but it seems to be running the other way with Macron etc) but it might take another bloody 5 years on top of the 5-10 I assumed anyway.

And on top of that we'll have to overcome the 5 years of labour economic damage too, but in the long term, that's nothing compared to scraping off the giant parasitic, democracy-destroying organism that is the EU in its current form.

I am shocked that when countries negotiate with each other they will try to exploit each others weaknesses to get the best deal possible for themselves. If Macron had lost in France and Wilders got more power in Holland then the UK would have used that to pressure the EU. Too bad for the UK that it didn't turn out that way. If you think negotiating with the EU is bad then wait till the UK has to work out new trade deals with China.

worrying about eu bullying is silly imo. welcome to negotiations, not a surprise that they are briefing against their opposite number. i'd frankly be a lot more worried if the other side was telling their mates in the press about how wonderful the british negotiating positions are

i reckon the thing to be worried about is whether eu ideologues have enough influence over negotiations to submarine the talks. the idea from their pov being that ok we hurt the interests of both british and eu citizens, but in the long run it'll dissuade other countries from leaving therefore stronger eu institutions therefore a brighter future overall

i dunno enough about the eu or its major players to know whether the above is likely/plausible/stupid tho

oh btw the 'omg britain gonna be soooooo outplayed when it negotiates with x' narrative going around is quite lol, we have a world class civil service and diplomatic corps for our politicians to rely on, oxbridge pumps out high class operators deal with it

I have no doubt the UK has good negotiators. Every country has them. But the current political situation in the UK is something every country will use that deals with them. May or her successor will need to show these 'better' trade deals they promised they can get when they are out of the EU. That will again put time pressure on the negotiations that the other side doesn't have and can leverage.

Except that our best one was forced out by Leave ideologues.

Which is the real problem, many if not most of the Leave ideologues actually believe the spew they gurgitated in the referendum, which at the time I only assumed they were spewing to win over weak minded folk in said election.

Ah yes these high class Oxford operators like Cameron, Osborne and Bonkers who landed us in this mess in the first place because they were so arrogant and conceited they assumed they'd win.

no need to be snobbish about our snobs

if ppl dont wanna acknowledge that our universities offer just about the best education the world has to offer then w/e, doesn't make it any less true

Having the best universities doesn't really mean that your government ends up with their top students. Those top students are just as likely working for the EU or China.

I think most people who have a degree and got a job later will tell you that education doenst translate 100% into praxis. For a lot of things experience beats pure knowledge.

I don't think BOIDS meant the Bullingdon posh-boys, I think he meant professional administrators like my late friend Barb. She was a Cambridge science First, and a classy person in the true sense but non-posh -- she always had a northern intonation from her Cheshire upbringing. She was the senior pro diplomat in charge of negotiating the handover of Hong Kong (Chris Patten as the figurehead doesn't count), for which she got the OBE.

I remember she had to hold one meeting with a Chinese general who turned up with his pyjama sleeves sticking out of his uniform. She realised that this was not negligent, it was theatre, and was intended as a deadly insult, but of course she didn't have the Chinese obsession with 'face' so it just amused her and didn't bother her one bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguard...ngton-obituary

Unfortunately, Brexit is not being handled by her type person but by Tory loons. I'd far rather my neighbour Keir Starmer were in charge, but he isn't.