*scratches head* Why is the Remain campaign so rattled?

[TheABC]

I genuinely don't get it. They have already spent £9 million on leaflets, wheeled out everyone from the IMF to the American President and the telephone polls are putting them in the lead. Admittedly, the campaign feels a bit "meh" in that they are talking about potential losses instead of positive future plans, but they still seem to be doing OK.

So why does it feel like they are panicking? Could it just be the way it's reported?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11825412/Foreign-worker-numbers-soar-as-Romanians-registering-in-Britain-triple-in-just-one-year.html

"The very large numbers of NI numbers issued to people coming here from abroad are quite remarkable.

"From some countries very many more have been issued than the numbers of people we are told are in the UK.

^^ Based on NI numbers - even the self employed need one.

There is also massive cash in hand industry, where no one will bother or know what NI is. There is a huge transient population that lives in lodgings with no formal agreements, and work cash in hand. We simply do not know any true numbers.

I could google and find hundreds of articles on immigration, on the effects, negative its having, but why bother> If you dont think its a problem you have your head under a stone, a large one.

"Kent social services are massively struggling with new arrivals."

I'm well aware of the difficulties Kent are having, it has been seriously documented already, they've also recieved very little extra funding to help with this which is shocking.

"I suppose all posters here realize all papers have a bias? That no one should rely on one source but then again that doesn't mean you can discredit every single article from any of them either? "

We do, but it seems that an awful lot of the links provided by Brexiters are to the Mail,, Express, Telegraph etc.

I'm not aware of the Guardian's coverage that you are criticising.

Still, I'll continue with my point that using the NYE attacks as a reason for leaving the EU is spurious.

I'm not aware of the Guardian's coverage that you are criticising

No, because your not interested in it.

Where are people supposed to link too?
I see my local GP has stopped new registration, ( as an example) I speak to the receptionist who tells me why. Lurked I know you dont care for people who work in places to speak with any authority But I listen. I hear other things, I have a rummage round the internet to see if I can find anything on it, local papers are reporting it and then Guardian ignores, but DM picks up. So DM gets the link.

Guardian, like many posters here - just ignore. Omit.

Its this very omission, this very head in the sand way of looking at the world that makes me want to get the hell out.

Good news though, a pal has told me Obama has tipped her and her DH to voting out.

I've looked at the Guardian's coverage and can't find any of the straight news reporting to be faulty, and they certainly covered it and at the same time as others.

Was it an opinion piece I may have missed? All of the news outlets seemed to pick it up a few days late because there was a news blackout on it from Germany.

BTW, I don't link to the Guardian either. The DM has long record of hysterical reporting that fudges the facts which is why I won't credit it.

Its not that I don't care for people in work places saying things, but I think when the broader data posts in other ways in can be questioned.

Obama's intervention does not seem to carry much weight in the eyes of the rest of America. Opinion here It is just Shiny Dave and his mates doing each other favours

The problem is that both sides are forecasting the unknown. A vote for Remain is not life carrying on as it is now, Europe in 5 or 10 years could be a very different beast to how it is today. A vote for Brexit may mean short term compromises but would it bring increased safety and prosperity in the future, who knows? I think the only thing we do know for sure is that the "Powers That Be" very much want us to stay in

Hmm I'm not sure you can call Obama the most polarising after Bush...

I'd have thought so too lurked but, firstly, I didn't say that, the Wall Street Journal did and, secondly, my friends in America do seem to think that way. They either approve of him very much or have turned into rabid opposers

The WSJ is fairly conservative though.. my us friends tend to be Democrats and love him. There has been a lot of unfounded stuff aimed at him though (looks at Donald Trump )

How many can the other European countries and Turkey cope with is an equally relevant question.

Absolutely.

an anonymous article is not exactly "the rest of America"

(to be honest I suspect 90+% of Americans have no idea there's a Brexit referendum happening)

I would say that yes, Obama is the most polarizing president in recent history. The tea partiers and religious fundamentalist nutjobs hate him so absolutely that they prefer to bring government to a standstill rather than do anything he may even remotely agree with (even if it's something they agree with themselves!). He is a black man therefore he secretely hates white people, he is a closet muslim, he tried to bring COMMUNISM to America (ie universal healthcare)... you name it, they'll believe it.

two things about the contents:

1. the "problem", according to the author, is that Obama is merely stating his own "policy choice", and that the next president may think differently - this is ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that the very likely next president has already said she fully agreed

2. the recommended strategy is to use a US-Britain deal as leverage to force the EU to accept more deregulation. Which implies that said US-Britain trade deal would be an even more deregulated, multinational-friendly version of TTIP...

So I don't actually find this reassuring at all.

Obama's current Presidential approval rating is 48%

www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Yet he won two terms..

48% could just mean a middling "meh" feeling from everyone, but that's not the case - half the country absolutely hates him (the half that is anti-abortion, pro-gun rights and anti-universal healthcare), a quarter used to love him but is disappointed he couldn't do more, and the last quarter still loves him. That's my rough estimate, but not too far from the truth I think ;-)

Obama's popularity, or lack thereof, doesn't have much to do with the matter though. Don't think it has impacted trade negotiations, and anyway Hilary is likely moving in next.

It's also way higher than bush'so approval rating at the same time and about on par with Reagan and LBJ, way lower than Clinton though.

Dave would probably live to have Obama's approval rating

yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/camerons-ratings-now-lower-corbyns/

PuttingouthefirewithGasoline, comparing NI figures with immigration statistics is like comparing apples with pears. They don't measure the same thing. People could have been living or working here for many years before registering for NI & many of those who did register may have been here short term & left the UK. See independent fact checking;

fullfact.org/europe/can-we-trust-immigration-figures/

Oops a typo Should say. 'Would love'

People could have been living or working here for many years before registering for NI & many of those who did register may have been here short term & left the UK

But the Govt will know how many are active / inactive

The BBC Daily Politics has been monitoring researchers attempts to obtain that data. Government was/is? refusing to release.

There's nothing unprecedented about the government sending out leaflets setting out their position in referenda. The Wilson government did it in the EEC referendum 1975 & the coalition government also during the Scottish referendum.

IF campaigns on either side shoot the messenger rather than the message it suggests they are not confident of their counter-arguments.

The BBC Daily Politics has been monitoring researchers attempts to obtain that data. Government was/is? refusing to release.

The problem is the published figures simply show how many NI number have been issued—not whether they are actually being used. DWP issued a statement in Dec or Jan stating the figures requested weren't compiled in a form that could be published & they would be released when available. More recently it was announced they will be released before the referendum in May.

Even when they are released they won't be accurate because migrants may be here working without an NI number or NI may be inactive even though someone is still in the UK.

Gove was talking about him thinking we should exit..To be honest after he screwed up schools it was the best reason I had seen for staying.

StarryOne, you could apply that argument to either side.

Didn't David Camneron win a set of agreements regarding immigrants and access to benefits and not having to be involved in closer political union.

This "set of agreements" is not a done deal at this stage, and may never happen. It would only happen, if at all, after the referendum, and would need the approval of all 27 other member states.

It is also far less than the Tories would have liked, if you look at the EU-related parts of their 2015 general election manifesto.

It's been agreed at council though, the reason it hadn't been ratified is that we are having a referendum, I doubt it would be gone back on

As for "not a done deal at this stage, and may never happen," it applies a million times more to the promises fantasies of the Flounce Out campaign such as Boris, Farage, Le Pen and Griffin