Mutually Assured Destruction is what kept Europe and the world safe during the cold war. Since the fall of the Berlin wall NATO has been expanding eastwards in an attempt to nullify the threat of Russias nuclear arsenal. That's what has them upset, it's what they have been saying is upsetting them for the past decade or more. NATO is trying to engineer a situation in which a Russia would not be able to respond to a nuclear attack on it's country because there are NATO missile defence weapons completely surrounding them.

Upsetting the balance of power is exactly what has caused the current tensions with Russia. It's not in their interests to let Ukraine become a part of the EU and join NATO as it means NATO troops and missiles on their border hence why they are supporting the separatists and invaded Crimea (NATO rules prevent members with border disputes from joining the alliance). Just imagine the shit fit USA would throw if Canada or Mexico decided to host Russian nukes. Or the shit fit the USA did throw when Cuba tried to.

So what? You say that like it's a bad thing, NATO expansionism and agression is the reason for the new cold war. NATOs persistent expansion into Eastern Europe is the exact reason for the current tensions with Russia, it's why they invaded Crimea and are stoking the civil war in Ukraine. They don't want NATO anti-missile defences and nuclear weapons on their borders disrupting the balance of power that kept Europe safe for decades.

Hillary and Obama are the globalists not Trump (if Trump is to be believed he would be a protectionist which would benefit the working class). NAFTA / TPP etc are what has destroyed the American working/middle class as low and semi skilled labour has been outsourced to developing countries in the names of bigger profits for the large corporations. They're trying to do it again in Europe with the TTIP but the French and Spanish are kicking up a fuss as they realise what it will do to their working class.

HL admins and players don't owe 6s players new tournaments. If somebody thinks it would be useful for 6s to have a newbie cup this summer, then host one rather than telling people who are volunteering their own time that they should cater to your interests and not their own.

Highlander has around the same number of players as 6s, there is an existing community who obviously like playing highlander and want it to grow (even if you do not). They have every right to host and promote events for HL.

If you guys want a 6s tournament, literally nobody is stopping you from stepping up and hosting one yourself.

Simply not true. There is a massive housing crisis in the UK, there isn't a political party in the UK that doesn't accept there is a housing crisis. The price of an average house compared to an average income is the worst it has ever been in the UK. Housing is less affordable now than it has been for decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/30/uk-throes-of--housing-crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/housing-market-gulf-salaries-house-prices

"The gap between income and house prices has sky-rocketed so much in the last 20 years that even in the most affordable regions of England and Wales buyers are forced to spend six times their income, a new data analysis reveals.
The situation is most dire in the capital, where the median house now costs 12 times the median London income.

In 1995, the median income in London was £19,000 and the median house price was £83,000, meaning that people were spending 4.4 times their income on buying a property. But by 2012-13, the median income in London had increased to £24,600 and the median house price in the capital had increased to £300,000"

Immigration was definitely a big part of the discussion, but wanting control over immigration does not mean you are racist. If anything our current immigration policy is racist as a skilled worker from outside the EU would have a harder time coming to this country than somebody without any skills who happens to have an EU passport. Now they will both have to meet the same requirements.

Except it was all over the news here. Anybody who paid any attention to it would have known about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34329825
"The UK has opted against taking part in the relocation scheme and has its own plan to resettle migrants directly from Syrian refugee camps."

The UK used its opt out. The UK did not have to accept a single Syrian immigrant/refugee that it didn't want, the EU immigration issue is not related to Syrians.

You're showing how you know very little about this at all. The UK was not obligated to take refugees from Syria like the rest of the EU was, we had negotiated an exception re refugees before the Syrian crisis even began. The immigration issue in the UK is focused on the huge numbers of Eastern Europeans who have come over the past 2 decades with no way for the UK government to decide how many we are able to take. If they want to come they have to be accepted, and around 300k of them came here every year and the vast majority never went home.

I really wish you guys would stop pretending like you even have an inkling of why the British people voted for what they did. Just because you read a few articles on the BBC and you watch Top Gear, that doesn't make you an expert on British culture. You really have no clue about the subject, you can't understand it from your dorm rooms in the USA.

Besides, wanting control over immigration is not racism. What other country has an open door immigration policy (which is what the EU has)? The USA sure doesn't allow unlimited numbers of immigrants to come, neither does Canada.

The UK is a small country of 65million people. There were somewhere around 300k mostly low skilled immigrants coming from ex Warsaw-pact countries to stay here every year and there was no way for the UK government to control that flow while still part of the EU. Skilled immigrants from outside of the EU were being rejected in order to keep the total numbers coming in at a managable level. We don't need to do that anymore, maybe we'll even have more immigration now that we have left the EU, but we will have control over it and the British people can choose rather than being dictated to by the EU.

What's very large. Is it 1%, or maybe 10%, or is it 50%+? Where are you getting this from, I'd love to see your sources for claiming "a very large portion" of the 17 million people who voted to leave are unabashed racists.

Let me guess, you saw one interview on the BBC with some moron saying something dumb about Muslims and immediately decided that 52% of the population of the UK are bigots even though you've probably never been here and don't understand the North/South/London political divide in the UK?

It's a common theme with liberals to brand anyone who disagrees with them a racist. They try to silence dissenting ideas by name calling anyone who has a different opinion.

There are plenty of good reasons to want to leave the EU and none of them involve racism.

http://www.cfpo.org.uk/download/acf70ab8-4f58-11e5-a8eb-a3bc19f46bdb/

"Just last week a Newlyn based trawler accidently caught over 10 tonnes of spurdog while fishing for John Dory around
the Isles of Scilly. This meant damaged fishing gear, lost fishing time and a great deal of frustration for the skipper nvolved. To make it even worse under current EU fishing rules not one of the spurdog could be landed for human consumption or sold"

This is a common issue, 10 tonnes of fish. The majority of which will have died in the nets, thrown back into the ocean because of EU quotas. This doesn't help the fish, nor does it help the fishermen.

The people actually affected by these policies voted to leave them behind, but I'm sure you, an American college student (who has probably never even set foot in the UK and learned everything he knows about the EU and the UK from BBC and CNN articles) knows better than the people who have to live under them.

Do you even know why the quotas are set where they are? Why the French get a bigger quota of haddock in the English channel than the English?
Do you know that in order to meet their quotas on specific species English fisherman have to throw back the majority of their catch (most of which die anyway) defeating the point of the quota in the first place?

The idea of having sustainable fishing isn't the issue, the issue is that the way the EU has structured it has destroyed much of the fishing industry in Cornwall because it wasn't seen as a priority by London based politicians. They were happy to give the French most of the catch in that area because they didn't want to spend political capital on getting a better deal for English fishermen.

You don't know anything about English politics or culture, you are just an opinionated American college student.

Yeah but EU quotas and policies destroyed a lot of industry in those regions in the first place.
http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/looe-fisherman-slams-eu-quotas-spotting-french/story-28618220-detail/story.html
https://www.businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-location/penzance-business-news/2014/12/eu-fishing-quotas-reaction/
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/fishermen-south-west-braced-damaging-cut-eu/story-24766610-detail/story.html

"Deep cuts to fish quotas by Brussels could devastate the South West fishing industry by removing as much as 12% of the total annual catch, experts have claimed."

...

"A furious Looe skipper has branded EU haddock fishing quotas "ridiculous" after French vessels were seen fishing for the species in British waters, while his crew were stuck in port."

...

"French boats, which under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) are able to take 2,000kg of haddock each day, whereas British vessels are restricted to 250kg - a month."

...

“Therefore simple economics means once again, fishermen will be worse off – and in some cases, possibly forced out of the industry or face having to reduce the number of their crew to stay viable.”

There will be plenty of fisherman in Cornwall who'll do much better once we've left the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7ePqtOIMQ