EU Referendum

[websaway]

Unfortunately the British public have been systematically fed a diet of anti-migrant stories for as long as I can remember. The tabloid press (and that includes the Daily Mail and Daily Express, despite their olde-style masthead giving a veneer of respectability) are as guilty as anyone of inciting hatred, often with bogus stories such as Christmas being banned and so on. I'm not surprised that we now have so much fear and resentment swilling around our population. Just look at today's main Sun headline on the front page: "AUNTIE IS ANTI WHITE. TELLY JOBS JUST FOR MINORITIES" (= inaccurate and inflammatory). Or yesterday's Star front page: "ENGLAND'S CRUSADER FANS FACE RACE FURY" (The article begins: 'England fans will dress as knights at Euro 2016 despite fears crusader costumers "might offend"') - and that's their 'race fury' front page - that some people "might" be offended. I am absolutely sick of this constant demonisation, this constant stoking of the hornets' nest that these scummy papers have been profiting from for years. Sad and unlikely as it may seem, a lot of people still rely heavily on their daily tabloid to find out what's going on in the country and in the world at large. So when the Daily Mail knowingly run false stories about Christmas being renamed Winterval or the latest "PC Gone Mad" bollocks, it has real, tangible consequences. If I had a penny for every time I've seen the words "...in case it offends Muslims" in a paper headline, I'd be as rich as the lying billionaire proprietors and their pathetic editors who serve up this incendiary tripe.

Seems hypocritical because this is a hate post.

 

[websaway]

I was absolutely delighted the little Japanese lad was found safe and well after his parents left him as a punishment and he disappeared.

 

[Toonz]

If you are referring to white British, that was not a slip of the tongue it's a demographic measurement. So let's just drop the racist card it's old hat and had it's day.

You're wrong. If you look back, you'll see that it was me who defended you after your 'white' remark:

I understand what you mean and your reference to 'white' was probably just a clumsy bit of categorisation rather than racism.​

So accusing me of using the racist card in response to you is misplaced.

That said, for you to now attempt to justify it on the grounds that "it's a demographic measurement" still doesn't explain why you felt it relevant to introduce that demographic measurement in the first place. After all, we weren't talking about race, we were talking about immigration.

It's funny, I often hear people with your views banging on about how, when you try to air your legitimate concerns about immigration, the nasty PC brigade call you racist. And yet - you were the one who brought up white people and made it about race.

 

[signature]

If you are referring to white British, that was not a slip of the tongue it's a demographic measurement. So let's just drop the racist card it's old hat and had it's day.

British values and culture and for those it's essential to leave the EU
and regain our own ability to govern our immigration policy.
If we don't leave then the future for white Britain looks bleak,
the next generation will be a minority.

At the last count its probably about 6% of the population are ethic minorities and 10% including others from the EU countries. You can argue that this needs controlling, you can argue immigration polices, arguing about immigration does not make anyone racist, but when you start saying "White Britain" that's a different meaning to 'White British'.

I want move away from this back and fort between you and I, we have a decision to make in 3 weeks, we need to be clear of pros and cons of the EU, we should not mix it up with failed government policies.

I don't know how I will vote either, there are positives and negatives on both sides, but basing a decision on situations that will arise either IN or OUT is a bit shallow.

 

[websaway]

You're wrong. If you look back, you'll see that it was me who defended you after your 'white' remark:

I understand what you mean and your reference to 'white' was probably just a clumsy bit of categorisation rather than racism.​

So accusing me of using the racist card in response to you is misplaced.

That said, for you to now attempt to justify it on the grounds that "it's a demographic measurement" still doesn't explain why you felt it relevant to introduce that demographic measurement in the first place. After all, we weren't talking about race, we were talking about immigration.

It's funny, I often hear people with your views banging on about how, when you try to air your legitimate concerns about immigration, the nasty PC brigade call you racist. And yet - you were the one who brought up white people and made it about race.

It wasn't clumsy, it was a measurement, parts of the UK have British white minorities, that's simply an observation, but it has huge cultural implications.

 

[Edwin]

A question for anyone in the "Leave" camp who voted in the last election for any party other than UKIP...

Even if you don't trust Cameron and the Conservatives, why do you no longer trust the party you gave your vote to just over a year ago? (After all, every party except UKIP is advocating "Remain")

 

[Toonz]

Seems hypocritical because this is a hate post.

I don't know what you think you mean by 'hate post' but I'm pretty sure it's not comparable with 'hate speech' as we understand that term. I'm hating on hate. Not minorities. Not majorities. Not white people. Not black people.

It wasn't clumsy, it was a measurement, parts of the UK have British white minorities, that's simply an observation, but it has huge cultural implications.

As I said a couple of days ago, I do have sympathy with people's concerns about large scale immigration and the very real pressure this places on community cohesion as a result of rapid cultural shifts. Believe me, I do get that and it's not racist to have those concerns. I just think that, when discussing culture, bringing up 'white' was neither helpful nor necessary because race and culture are connected but not intrinsically so, and to some extent integration depends on breaking down those ties.

 

[PaulK]

100% correct

I think it's possible to worry about population growth and future demographics due to outside forces without being a racist. The 'racist' word seems to be bandied about now whenever someone has an opinion that differs from the mainstream.

 

[bonusmedia]

You don't have to be racist to be worried about immigration... but it helps

The problem is as soon as you draw attention to racism the Anti-PC brigade plays the 'playing the race card' card.

 

[RobM]

A question for anyone in the "Leave" camp who voted in the last election for any party other than UKIP...

Even if you don't trust Cameron and the Conservatives, why do you no longer trust the party you gave your vote to just over a year ago? (After all, every party except UKIP is advocating "Remain")

They got 4 million votes. Are you saying that only 4 million people will vote leave?

 

[Edwin]

They got 4 million votes. Are you saying that only 4 million people will vote leave?

No, not for one second. The "Leave" position in the referendum is completely logical and compatible for anyone who supported UKIP. After all, the primary purpose of UKIP has always been to advocate withdrawing from the EU - and now that chance has finally come around. I would expect 99%+ of UKIP supporters to vote "Leave".

However, it is obvious from polls that the "Leave" camp has far wider support than just UKIP voters.

That's why my question was aimed at other voters i.e. anyone who voted in the last election for a non-UKIP party, yet supports "Leave" now, and was aimed at understanding why they made that choice (since choosing "Leave" implies they no longer trust the opinion of the party they voted for at the last election, which is advocating "Remain")

 

[PaulK]

No, not for one second. The "Leave" position in the referendum is completely logical and compatible for anyone who supported UKIP. After all, the primary purpose of UKIP has always been to advocate withdrawing from the EU - and now that chance has finally come around. I would expect 99%+ of UKIP supporters to vote "Leave".

However, it is obvious from polls that the "Leave" camp has far wider support than just UKIP voters.

That's why my question was aimed at other voters i.e. anyone who voted in the last election for a non-UKIP party, yet supports "Leave" now, and was aimed at understanding why they made that choice (since choosing "Leave" implies they no longer trust the opinion of the party they voted for at the last election, which is advocating "Remain")

Things evolve and opinions change, parties don't do what they promise!

 

[scottmccloud]

No, not for one second. The "Leave" position in the referendum is completely logical and compatible for anyone who supported UKIP. After all, the primary purpose of UKIP has always been to advocate withdrawing from the EU - and now that chance has finally come around. I would expect 99%+ of UKIP supporters to vote "Leave".

However, it is obvious from polls that the "Leave" camp has far wider support than just UKIP voters.

That's why my question was aimed at other voters i.e. anyone who voted in the last election for a non-UKIP party, yet supports "Leave" now, and was aimed at understanding why they made that choice (since choosing "Leave" implies they no longer trust the opinion of the party they voted for at the last election, which is advocating "Remain")

Up until recently I was quite heavily involved with the Labour Party and from my experience knocking on doors, there is a significant number of Labour voters (I'd go as far as to say a majority in some areas) who are Eurosceptic. Many people vote Labour because that's just what they do and they will never vote Tory. But given the chance to vote on an in/out on the EU, they'll vote out.

As an aside, I think many people misread where UKIP's support comes from. Yes there are many disaffected Tories but I suspect there are just as many disaffected Labour party members within their ranks.

 

[signature]

However, it is obvious from polls that the "Leave" camp has far wider support than just UKIP voters.

That's why my question was aimed at other voters i.e. anyone who voted in the last election for a non-UKIP party, yet supports "Leave" now, and was aimed at understanding why they made that choice (since choosing "Leave" implies they no longer trust the opinion of the party they voted for at the last election, which is advocating "Remain")

In the last election we voted as a result of many promised policies which EU policies is part of, its not a matter of not trusting the party you voted for, EU referendum vote is cross party politics.

 

[Toonz]

A question for anyone in the "Leave" camp who voted in the last election for any party other than UKIP...

Even if you don't trust Cameron and the Conservatives, why do you no longer trust the party you gave your vote to just over a year ago? (After all, every party except UKIP is advocating "Remain")

Although it wasn't aimed at me, I think it's because few people these days trust any political parties, and we're all used to having to vote for parties with which we might disagree profoundly on many things.

Tory voters have long been renowned for being opposed to the EU (and out of step with the leadership on it) so it's no great surprise that the majority would have favoured leaving. Many will have voted Tory because they found UKIP too distasteful and feel that the Tories are the only serious right-leaning party of government.

Labour voters have long been out of step with their party on all sorts of things (think how the working class voter feels about Islingtonian identity politics, for instance). However, Corbyn was actually elected Labour leader in the belief that, as a protégé of Tony Benn, he was, at best, ambivalent about remaining in the EU if not outright opposed to its neoliberal leaning and quasi-imperial expansionist ambitions. It would probably also be true to say that the EU has never been a big issue among 'New Labour' supporters.

 

[RobM]

No, not for one second. The "Leave" position in the referendum is completely logical and compatible for anyone who supported UKIP. After all, the primary purpose of UKIP has always been to advocate withdrawing from the EU - and now that chance has finally come around. I would expect 99%+ of UKIP supporters to vote "Leave".

However, it is obvious from polls that the "Leave" camp has far wider support than just UKIP voters.

That's why my question was aimed at other voters i.e. anyone who voted in the last election for a non-UKIP party, yet supports "Leave" now, and was aimed at understanding why they made that choice (since choosing "Leave" implies they no longer trust the opinion of the party they voted for at the last election, which is advocating "Remain")

Ah see what you mean. Sorry I misunderstood.

 

[gimpydog]

I think a lot of the issue is people unable to distinguish between immigrant, illegal immigrant, and economic migrants. They are not all the same but the media portrays them as one depending on their bias.

Anyone who watches only the BBC or Channel4 news will be unaware of anything other than "desperate" migrants.

Remember the Syrian kids washed up on a Greek beach? They were portrayed as 'desperate migrants fleeing persecution in Syria'.

In fact, they were leaving a safe refugee camp in Turkey & the father subsequently returned to Syria (with a film crew) a few days later to bury the children.

Honest journalism seldom makes for a good headline.

 

[websaway]

Had the prime minister been genuine, he would have returned from Brussels, admitted that he had not got the changes he wanted and not tried to pull the wool over peoples eyes, then I think he may have retained some credibility. But as it is he's saying he got concessions that the leave camp know full well make little or no difference to the objective position of the EU.

 

[Toonz]

Had the prime minister been genuine, he would have returned from Brussels, admitted that he had not got the changes he wanted and not tried to pull the wool over peoples eyes, then I think he may have retained some credibility. But as it is he's saying he got concessions that the leave camp know full well make little or no difference to the objective position of the EU.

I think what we were led to believe were the pre-negotiations were actually the negotiations. Everything after that was theatre, designed for the audience back home to look like he was battling to get the best possible deal for Britain. I think this had been agreed between leaders long before the big reveal. At least that's the impression I get. It seems pretty obvious that no-one - on either side of this debate - is likely to have been swayed by Dave's five concessions!

 

[gimpydog]

I think it's possible to worry about population growth and future demographics due to outside forces without being a racist. The 'racist' word seems to be bandied about now whenever someone has an opinion that differs from the mainstream.

You don't have to be racist to be worried about immigration... but it helps

The problem is as soon as you draw attention to racism the Anti-PC brigade plays the 'playing the race card' card.

The real problem is thick MPs, such as Pat Glass & journalists, such as The Guardian's Zoe Williams, who propagate all the PC shit by playing the racism card, without actually knowing what racism is.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies