*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?

Oh I missed lurked's post. Well that's two different studies showing the same thing then.

Gasoline,

Bear in mind that the Torygraph has a virulent anti-EU agenda, so you can't trust it to comment on media bias.

Lurked - Because many of he people doing so tar everyone with the same brush. As well as by conflating the Rotherham issue with cologne it then becomes,immigrants are bad not some men behave badly irrespective of cultural back ground. To blame it on the culture is racist. You are very wrong about this. This is a useful way to think about things: Our starting point is Philip Zimbardo's work on explanations for evil acts. Why do some people behave badly? His very powerful conclusions were that it's not the people who are bad, it's the situations/ideologies that they find themselves in that are bad. So, the starting point is a group of randomly selected citizens, just like all of us on these boards. You put half into a 'perpetrator' situation and half into a 'victim' situation. The perpetrators behave badly, not because they are bad but because they have been subjected or exposed, on a repeated basis, to bad enabling conditions and beliefs (culture). If you are subsumed in a sexist, racist ideology, where bad behaviour is enabled, you too will do these bad things. We all would because we are all remarkably similar, the world over (similar IQ, similar emotions, similar reactions to pain). We would behave badly because of conditions enabling 'badness'. You are not a bad man and I am not a bad woman. However, some aspects of our cultures, ours included, are very bad indeed. That's why it's absolutely fine to call out sexism., racism, subjugation, aggression, and objectification wherever you see it. You must have noticed that many, many social groups have done profound work on Western sexist, racist and whatever else aspects of our culture. Indeed, sometimes that's all we talk about. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss the negative aspects of NYE Cologne attacks in relation to immigration, because that's the reality of the situation, as discussed by Merkel, her authorised biographer, her ministers and everyone else. When we discuss date rape in European countries, we focus on the important features of that bad behaviour. If you want a discussion comparing the two, we can have one, but then that's a different discussion altogether. As marriage guidance counsellors advise, never drag in elements from other situations because then there's no stop-point. Stick to the issue under discussion; otherwise there is no discussion.

Thats an interesting proposal.

What conditions do you think the owners of the Daily Mail were exposed to that cause them to profit by feeding the credulous with a constant diet of anti-foreigner and anti -Musim propaganda? And before that, of anti-foreigner and anti-semitic propaganda?

. "That's why it's absolutely fine to call out sexism., racism, subjugation, aggression, and objectification wherever you see it."

Of course its fine, but you and others are being subjective, for example where is the discussion of the Okroberfest attacks? The entire argument you are framing is in terms of race and culture, but an evaluation of race and culture based on the actions of a minority.

Piglet - this applies equally to all situations, but, as I said above, the discursive purpose is better served by having this discussion in addition to other discussions, perhaps on a separate thread, rather than sidestepping into a conflation of different issues.

Both - there are millions of discussions going on every day. You are perhaps choosing to see what you want to see and are ignoring the rest. Perpetual conflict, strife and aggression, sexism, racism, general nastiness, etc. are deeply unpleasant to one and all so, as far as I can tell, we are aall working toward a better society. I have had just as many discussions about the sexualisation and objectification of women in pole dancing clubs as I have about NYECologne. Have you?

I'm referring to this conversation, where the Cologne attacks etc are being used as justification for withdrawal from Europe, under "safety" fears which is fairly spurious. There is a lot of conflation going on, for example the poster saying about men coming here from Turkey and MENA countries putting their daughters at risk, when there are hundreds of thousands of people from those countries here, who gained access through the kind of immigration we will have outside the EU.

I volunteer for a women's charity that opposes forced marriage, underage marriage and overall encourages the rights of women and girls all over the world especially increases their opportunities through education. I've discussed a whole range ofissues with many, many people.

My take on the migrant crisis is practical - there is a war driving people out of the middle east and into Turkey/Europe, that's just the way it is. Trying to figure out how many of them are potential rapists and how many of them are innocent men, women and children doesn't change the problem. They are here, there is no way round it unless we want to push them all back into Syria to be starved/raped/killed. So what do we do with them?

From what I gather the Brexit argument seems to be (but correct me if I'm wrong) that Britain can just remove itself from the situation and not have to deal with these inconvenient people.

In my opinion this is both factually wrong (ie the migrants crisis will affect Britain either way, arguably marginally less so outside of the EU, but that's debatable), and morally questionable (why should Turkey and/or other European countries be the only ones to be negatively impacted, especially when the root of the crisis is the middle east wars that Britain took part in).

I think it's a Europe-wide problem that needs to be solved in collaboration and through discussion and negotiations, to reach as fair as solution (on both the migrants and the European people) as possible. Not by having every country say "not my problem, you deal with it".

Well said.

If we leave the EU, Britain can decide for itself how to assist refugees and which economic migrants it would like to accept. Britain can collaborate effectively without any need to stay in the EU.

We already accept less refugees than our European counterparts though:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911

What I said was that Britain can decide for itself. This could mean accepting more refugees than we currently do.

It would also mean we could give an equal chance to economic migrants from around the world, instead of preferential treatment to those from EU countries.

For example Germany accepted about 468,000 last year, the UK will accept 20,000 between now and 2020.

As I said I think this is being blown out of proportion in this discussion.

Britain is unlikely to "decide for itself" and then just let other European countries know what its decision was. It will happen through discussions and negotiations, and the migrants won't be discussed in a vacuum, other economic and political questions will be used as negotiating tools.

It's really not clear to me that Britain will be in a stronger negotiating position post-Brexit, as it's trying to strike a trade deal with the EU, than it is right now as part of the EU. (And that's not even getting into the moral responsibility side of the problem.)

If we stay in the EU, I think Britain will be increasingly told what to do, with little or no say in what happens in our own country. They'll say well you've chosen to stay in, so now you do as we say.

If the EU hasn't even been open to Cameron's attempts at negotiating a "new deal" when we may be leaving the EU, why would this change if we stay?

The moral responsibility will be with us either way.

"If we stay in the EU, I think Britain will be increasingly told what to do, with little or no say in what happens in our own country"

And you are basing this on what evidence? 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.

As we already take far less refugees than other countries I don't think this argument stands up.

Bear in mind that the Torygraph has a virulent anti-EU agenda, so you can't trust it to comment on media bias

Oh yes thanks

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?

The Guardians report on Cologne was an eye opener for many readers on just how biased it is.

I already knew this.

there comes a point, when so many papers report the same things - the same slant on some stories, one wonders is there smoke without fire?

Re the Beeb, we know its biased.

Lurked, how many refugees other countries take is neither here nor there is it.

How many can the UK cope with is the question.

Kent social services are massively struggling with new arrivals. Do you think its fair on traumatized children to be shoved into such a system? Or do you think they should be placed with care, into a system that can help them?
Because you are aware of the failings in child care in the UK arnt you?

especially when the root of the crisis is the middle east wars that Britain took part in

what a load of baloney.

Yes this is part of the problem, but your conveniently leaving out a whole host of other reasons too.

There are fundamental issues with the middle east style of government.

Arab spring anyone?

Fourmummy your posts are excellent but I fear - Pearls and Swine comes to mind.

newsthump.com/2016/04/25/youll-all-lose-your-jobs-to-eu-migrants-like-you-did-to-the-bulgarians-says-gove/

"You’ll all lose your jobs to EU migrants like you did to the Bulgarians," says Gove

Michael Gove has insisted the country will be overrun by immigrants, exactly like it was two years ago when Romanians and Bulgarians were given access to the UK.

Vote Leave member Gove said there would be an immigration ‘free for all’ if potential new members to the EU such as Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania were given free access to work in the UK.

Writing in The Times, Gove said, “I’m sure you all remember the start of 2014 when Bulgaria and Romania were given access to the UK, and turning up to work only to find out that a Bulgarian was sitting at your desk having stolen your job.

“Then not being able to see an NHS dentist because five-hundred Romanians has jumped the queue to get their horrific former communist teeth fixed.

“The airports, train stations and ports were overrun with hundreds of thousands of people from these destitute countries swarming to our shores the very minute they were allowed in. It was horrific, as I’m sure you remember.

“Well, that will happen again, mark my words. Learning the lessons of history is important, and if we learned anything from the last time new countries were added to the EU, it’s that every single one of them, bar none, will want to come here.”

Voter Simon Williams told us, “Ah, yes, I remember the start of 2014, and the Daily Mail warning of an ‘immigration armageddon’ and the collapse of society as we know it.

“Didn’t a UKIP delegation to go Luton airport to meet the hundreds of planes bringing Romanians and Bulgarians, only to find that two plumbers were the only Bulgarians coming here to work?

“Anyway, I decided to have a look at the actual figures for myself, and it seems in the first year after they were allowed in, a grand total of 22,000 extra workers from Bulgaria and Romania came into the UK.

“But it’s the other side embarking on Project Fear, right?”

Puttingout even assuming it's all "a load of baloney" and the UK had absolutely nothing to do with the instability and war in the middle east (and it did have a little bit to do with it, as you admit), it doesn't change my basic point.

How many can the UK cope with is the question.

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