FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit Media Coverage
Brexit Media Coverage
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"And what's your point?" I wrote two whole paragraphs; "However, I have posted the Summary hear to underline the fact that immigration drove Brexit. This forum underlines this fact as questions about other "reasons" for Leaving and all of the practical implications are only just surfacing. No, I am not accusing anyone of racism or fascism or any other such nonsense, just to accept that like it or not our decisions were subconsciously informed by our perceptions about the terms of the decision." It also might prove informative to just read the Summary or better yet the actual paper. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
"The Remain campaign was fear driven and based on the boring topic of the economy. The Leave campaign was fear driven and based on the far more visceral topic of immigration. Remember that this was at the height of the Syrian exodus and EU immigration was being conflated with this and the threat of Islamic terror. "Project Fear" was always going to win. "Project Fact" was, and is, boring. | |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
"I read the leaflet, it was balanced. It said remain say a,b,c, leave say a,b,c. nothing more or less. | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. " Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
I read the leaflet, it was balanced. It said remain say a,b,c, leave say a,b,c. nothing more or less."Balanced? You must have got a different leaflet to me (and everyone else). My leaflet had 'Why the government believes voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK' on the front. It states 'This leaflet explains why the Government thinks a vote to remain in the EU is best for the people of the UK.' Maybe you should have another read https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525022/20160523_Leaflet_EASY_READ_FINAL_VERSION.pdf | |||
| |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one." The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"?" That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point?" Of course it was and your assessment is correct .  | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. " Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. | |||
| |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence." Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. " I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so? 
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave. | |||
"The country would of still been dived if the vote had gone the other way tho " ...and would there have been an on-going campaign to Leave? | |||
"The country would of still been dived if the vote had gone the other way tho ...and would there have been an on-going campaign to Leave?" Dam right there would be farage said so himself.Any brexiter who says otherwise is a liar.  | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so?
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave."I don't care whether you accept it or not. You think I care about what you think? If Soros couldn't change it, you sure cannot! Never forget that. It's happening, so get used to it! | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point?" Of course. But so what? | |||
"The country would of still been dived if the vote had gone the other way tho ...and would there have been an on-going campaign to Leave? Dam right there would be farage said so himself.Any brexiter who says otherwise is a liar. "I think we're lucky. Ukip could well be in power if they'd lost. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what?" That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration | |||
"The country would of still been dived if the vote had gone the other way tho ...and would there have been an on-going campaign to Leave? Dam right there would be farage said so himself.Any brexiter who says otherwise is a liar.
I think we're lucky. Ukip could well be in power if they'd lost. "I don't think so, but they might have had a sniff of coalition or policy hostage taking like the DUP. That is because they could continue to spin the yarn of how easy leaving would be and how great the result would be. Perhaps we do have to go though the pain to realise that is not the case? Perhaps we've already learned enough over the last two years? Perhaps we need to experience it fully? | |||
"It attempts to be balanced. Not impartial. That’s a key difference. And having reread it, none of it seems to be untrue, even with hindsight. The most you can say is it doesn’t present some or the leave arguments. Maybe it would have benefited from talking about sovereignty. And immigration. But a lot of leaves position seems very “the eu *could* result in this. If you take some points to an extreme conclusion” (see: unlimited immigration, Eu army etc). I wonder what the balanced immigration points would be worded as ...." | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so?
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. You think I care about what you think?
If Soros couldn't change it, you sure cannot! Never forget that.
It's happening, so get used to it!
"No. I don't. I don't know what you care about. You've only ever identified yourself by what you hate. That is instructive in itself. What Soros is it about Soros that you don't like? Soros has contributed to a campaign in the same way that Aaron Banks did. At the last count 48% of referendum voters agreed with him that the UK is better in the EU. So you think that there was no use of fear of Muslim immigrants from outside the UK by the Leave campaign? | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration "Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%."They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't."How about second or third generation? | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so?
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. You think I care about what you think?
If Soros couldn't change it, you sure cannot! Never forget that.
It's happening, so get used to it!
No. I don't. I don't know what you care about. You've only ever identified yourself by what you hate. That is instructive in itself.
What Soros is it about Soros that you don't like? Soros has contributed to a campaign in the same way that Aaron Banks did. At the last count 48% of referendum voters agreed with him that the UK is better in the EU.
So you think that there was no use of fear of Muslim immigrants from outside the UK by the Leave campaign?"They didn't need to campaign about them. Everybody knew. Look at which areas voted for Brexit. Every area of Lancashire for instance. Where is there a massive grooming problem? And Banks campaigned BEFORE the vote. Soros is trying to overturn a democratic vote, by definition AFTER the event. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't."Some more aren't today, as they have had their citizenship removed by the Court of Appeal. They were part of the Lancashire Grooming Gangs. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
Some more aren't today, as they have had their citizenship removed by the Court of Appeal. They were part of the Lancashire Grooming Gangs."I hope they don't miss out on prison time. | |||
| |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
How about second or third generation? "For voting, yes they could. The academic studies exclude this and are focused on "native populations". Hire levels of interaction lead to higher levels of acceptance. Not really a big leap in understanding. Are you implying that white British people are inherently racist? That the only remedy is zero diversity? As you haven't stated your point I'm just saying what I guess you'd like me to. I don't think that's inherently the case but if it takes the conversation somewhere vaguely interesting... | |||
"No, they've done that, been released and have appealed May's ruling to deport when released and have lost. Of course they can appeal to the Supreme Court (again at the taxpayers expense, as they have had Legal Aid up to the present) and then to the European Court of Human Rights, who will probably say that they can stay." Good that they've been convicted. Good that they have had citizenship revoked if that is the case. The judiciary is independent. I think that's a good thing. Legal decisions shouldn't be made by politicians. Shame they can't be deported, but if it is genuinely somewhere that they would be tortured or killed as a direct consequence then so be it. That is unless "native" British citizens were also deported to the same places as a matter of a course such that the sentence of the court was applied equally for the same crime. I.e. x months UK custody + torture and/or death in another country. Campaign to change the law if you don't like legal aid. It's limited to the most serious cases already. ECHR nothing to do with the EU. | |||
| |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so?
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. You think I care about what you think?
If Soros couldn't change it, you sure cannot! Never forget that.
It's happening, so get used to it!
No. I don't. I don't know what you care about. You've only ever identified yourself by what you hate. That is instructive in itself.
What Soros is it about Soros that you don't like? Soros has contributed to a campaign in the same way that Aaron Banks did. At the last count 48% of referendum voters agreed with him that the UK is better in the EU.
So you think that there was no use of fear of Muslim immigrants from outside the UK by the Leave campaign?
They didn't need to campaign about them. Everybody knew. Look at which areas voted for Brexit. Every area of Lancashire for instance. Where is there a massive grooming problem?
And Banks campaigned BEFORE the vote. Soros is trying to overturn a democratic vote, by definition AFTER the event."So the Leave campaign did use fear if muslim immigrants from outside the EU during the referendum vote? Are all muslims paedophiles? Most of them? Some? Exactly the same proportion as any other segment of society? Was the problem because many men were involved or because the investigation was so awfully managed? Does that have anything to do with the EU? | |||
"Brexit is our opportunity to free ourselves from the ECHR. " Could have done it anyway. We could have "freed ourselves" from the court that we created at any time. That wasn't on the ballot paper though. Is it also our "opportunity" to end maternity leave and all annual holiday entitlements? | |||
| |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so?
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. You think I care about what you think?
If Soros couldn't change it, you sure cannot! Never forget that.
It's happening, so get used to it!
No. I don't. I don't know what you care about. You've only ever identified yourself by what you hate. That is instructive in itself.
What Soros is it about Soros that you don't like? Soros has contributed to a campaign in the same way that Aaron Banks did. At the last count 48% of referendum voters agreed with him that the UK is better in the EU.
So you think that there was no use of fear of Muslim immigrants from outside the UK by the Leave campaign?
They didn't need to campaign about them. Everybody knew. Look at which areas voted for Brexit. Every area of Lancashire for instance. Where is there a massive grooming problem?
And Banks campaigned BEFORE the vote. Soros is trying to overturn a democratic vote, by definition AFTER the event.
So the Leave campaign did use fear if muslim immigrants from outside the EU during the referendum vote?
Are all muslims paedophiles? Most of them? Some? Exactly the same proportion as any other segment of society? Was the problem because many men were involved or because the investigation was so awfully managed? Does that have anything to do with the EU?"It's a male, muslim problem and it's an epidemic. It's nothing to do with investigations or anything but those people and their culture and the way they view vulnerable white girls. Hence why the Home Secretary has launched an investigation. | |||
"I'd look at the maternity leave and holiday entitlement issues yes. The ECJ has taken them too far." Should we add sick pay and, notice of dismissal and union representation? You didn't actually understand the ECJ ruling on holiday entitlement for long term sickness did you? | |||
"Immigration and EU control/further integration/further loss of powers - call the 2nd point what you will, drove Brexit. And so what? There has to be a catalyst for anything. Look at the ECJ and Sovereignty threads. The Leave contribution, including your own, is limp to say the least. Then lookup some of the threads on immigration. The so what is pretending that that fear drive the Leave vote any less than the Remain one. The Leave contribution is fine. Leave won remember. And that fact alone, and the fact that you hate that so much and that hatred is just eating you up, as you post on here about that hatred day after day makes me feel good and I laugh about you every day. Every day for the rest of your life, you will hate the fact that we left the crappy EU, whereas I shall celebrate every day. And that makes me so happy and you so mad. I won and you lost. Loser. Back to the standard playbook of insult and anger and denial that there are really any problems with leaving or any benefits of remaining. This is it? The decisive arguments of the playground. This is what belittles everything Leave says and does. So you do not think that immigration was the main point? Have you managed in anyway to communicate what the plan for Leave is or what the benefits are other than pleasure in the unhappiness of others? Does this work for general elections too? I do not like that the country has ended up so divided. I do not like that it will become less influential internationally. I do not like that it will become even more beholden to the USA, China and India. I do not like that it will be controlled even more by the demands of international corporations. I do not like that it will the poorest who suffer as a consequence. Just accept that we're leaving the EU and that it is a good thing, because continually being on here, re-hashing what was put forward in 2016 with your biased Remoaner commentary isn't going to change the result. Miller and Soros and a fair few other sore losers tried it, and it failed. We're into the last few months now and in the Spring the transition starts. I should accept that it is a good thing because you say so?
You cannot define what you want by leaving.
You cannot identify any potential problems of leaving nor benefits of remaining and call me biased.
This is the best you can manage?
This is the future you hoped for? One half bullying and shouting at the other half of the population.
You are expressing the most deeply unpleasant characteristics of the country and you are speaking in support of Leave.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. You think I care about what you think?
If Soros couldn't change it, you sure cannot! Never forget that.
It's happening, so get used to it!
No. I don't. I don't know what you care about. You've only ever identified yourself by what you hate. That is instructive in itself.
What Soros is it about Soros that you don't like? Soros has contributed to a campaign in the same way that Aaron Banks did. At the last count 48% of referendum voters agreed with him that the UK is better in the EU.
So you think that there was no use of fear of Muslim immigrants from outside the UK by the Leave campaign?
They didn't need to campaign about them. Everybody knew. Look at which areas voted for Brexit. Every area of Lancashire for instance. Where is there a massive grooming problem?
And Banks campaigned BEFORE the vote. Soros is trying to overturn a democratic vote, by definition AFTER the event.
So the Leave campaign did use fear if muslim immigrants from outside the EU during the referendum vote?
Are all muslims paedophiles? Most of them? Some? Exactly the same proportion as any other segment of society? Was the problem because many men were involved or because the investigation was so awfully managed? Does that have anything to do with the EU?
It's a male, muslim problem and it's an epidemic. It's nothing to do with investigations or anything but those people and their culture and the way they view vulnerable white girls.
Hence why the Home Secretary has launched an investigation.
"All male muslims think that it is appropriate to abuse children? If not, what proportion? How does that compare to non-muslim men? | |||
| |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
How about second or third generation?
For voting, yes they could. The academic studies exclude this and are focused on "native populations". Hire levels of interaction lead to higher levels of acceptance. Not really a big leap in understanding.
Are you implying that white British people are inherently racist? That the only remedy is zero diversity?
As you haven't stated your point I'm just saying what I guess you'd like me to.
I don't think that's inherently the case but if it takes the conversation somewhere vaguely interesting..."A higher level of acceptance, or a watered down level of intolerance? | |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
The Remain campaign was fear driven and based on the boring topic of the economy.
The Leave campaign was fear driven and based on the far more visceral topic of immigration. Remember that this was at the height of the Syrian exodus and EU immigration was being conflated with this and the threat of Islamic terror.
"Project Fear" was always going to win.
"Project Fact" was, and is, boring."So you say "Project Fear" (leave) was always going to win, LOL. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. You see unlike you I was on Fabs forum for the full duration of the EU referendum in 2016, and there were so many cock sure arrogant remainers on here at the time who said they had it in the bag and they would win easily. People just like you really, condescending know it all remainers were 10 a penny on here. When I said on here in 2016 leave would win many of them laughed at me. Many of them went unlos or didn't post anymore after the result was announced, lol. I guess a quote Nigel Farage used in the European Parliament just after the result is very fitting "You're not laughing now are you".
And I find your naming of the Remain campaign "Project Fact" utterly ridiculous and frankly laughable.
Many of the remain campaigns predictions and forecasts have already been proved false, so you have already been discredited.
An immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote.....Never happened.
500,000 job losses in the event of a leave vote....never happened.
The £4300 worse off by the year 2030 is also ridiculous when you consider George Osborne couldn't forecast his figures correctly 1 year forward never mind 14 years in the future.
"Project Fact" my arse! | |||
| |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
How about second or third generation?
For voting, yes they could. The academic studies exclude this and are focused on "native populations". Hire levels of interaction lead to higher levels of acceptance. Not really a big leap in understanding.
Are you implying that white British people are inherently racist? That the only remedy is zero diversity?
As you haven't stated your point I'm just saying what I guess you'd like me to.
I don't think that's inherently the case but if it takes the conversation somewhere vaguely interesting...
A higher level of acceptance, or a watered down level of intolerance? "Could be either. What point would you like to make? | |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
"The £9 million quid tax payer funded government leaflet was Remain propaganda. It was also deeply unfair when you consider £9 million of taxpayers money was not equally afforded to the Leave side. Cameron used to harp on about British values but proved himself to be a charlatan. He walked all over the British value of a sense of fair play with that leaflet and I think that is why it really annoyed so many British people (millions also signed a petition against it). Even with his blatant and bare faced attempt to stack the deck in remains favour though he still lost, and it speaks volumes about how wrong he was. | |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
The Remain campaign was fear driven and based on the boring topic of the economy.
The Leave campaign was fear driven and based on the far more visceral topic of immigration. Remember that this was at the height of the Syrian exodus and EU immigration was being conflated with this and the threat of Islamic terror.
"Project Fear" was always going to win.
"Project Fact" was, and is, boring.
So you say "Project Fear" (leave) was always going to win, LOL. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. You see unlike you I was on Fabs forum for the full duration of the EU referendum in 2016, and there were so many cock sure arrogant remainers on here at the time who said they had it in the bag and they would win easily. People just like you really, condescending know it all remainers were 10 a penny on here. When I said on here in 2016 leave would win many of them laughed at me. Many of them went unlos or didn't post anymore after the result was announced, lol. I guess a quote Nigel Farage used in the European Parliament just after the result is very fitting "You're not laughing now are you".
And I find your naming of the Remain campaign "Project Fact" utterly ridiculous and frankly laughable.
Many of the remain campaigns predictions and forecasts have already been proved false, so you have already been discredited.
An immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote.....Never happened.
500,000 job losses in the event of a leave vote....never happened.
The £4300 worse off by the year 2030 is also ridiculous when you consider George Osborne couldn't forecast his figures correctly 1 year forward never mind 14 years in the future.
"Project Fact" my arse! "You didn't understand the post Centaur. Again. You tried to bend what was written to suit your narrative. Read. Just read and understand. Both campaigns were based on fear so "Project fear" was going to win regardless. Actual facts were ignored or exaggerated making lies seem plausible and allowing likely scenarios to be dismissed as the worst case didn't come to pass. I have consistently identified problems with the remain referendum campaign and negative aspects of EU membership as well as positive Leave arguments. How well have you done? How well do you do actually responding to the material in the post rather than behaving like a politician on Newsnight? Do you think that this analysis of the media coverage of Brexit is accurate? Do you think immigration was the primary message and that non EU muslim immigration was used to bring out a Leave vote or not at all? | |||
"I think the government were just too dam lazy to push as hard as the leave side thinking it was a given that people would vote to keep things the way they were. They could have fought a whole lot harder and used the 9 million in a much more effective way but chose to do a leaflet drop and nobody reads leaflets
The £9 million quid tax payer funded government leaflet was Remain propaganda.
It was also deeply unfair when you consider £9 million of taxpayers money was not equally afforded to the Leave side.
Cameron used to harp on about British values but proved himself to be a charlatan. He walked all over the British value of a sense of fair play with that leaflet and I think that is why it really annoyed so many British people (millions also signed a petition against it).
Even with his blatant and bare faced attempt to stack the deck in remains favour though he still lost, and it speaks volumes about how wrong he was. "I don't like Cameron or Osborne, or Farage or Corbyn either. It says little for British politics. It says very little about media coverage of the referendum. | |||
| |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
How about second or third generation?
For voting, yes they could. The academic studies exclude this and are focused on "native populations". Hire levels of interaction lead to higher levels of acceptance. Not really a big leap in understanding.
Are you implying that white British people are inherently racist? That the only remedy is zero diversity?
As you haven't stated your point I'm just saying what I guess you'd like me to.
I don't think that's inherently the case but if it takes the conversation somewhere vaguely interesting...
A higher level of acceptance, or a watered down level of intolerance?
Could be either. What point would you like to make?"I think the point you were making was that areas that haven't been affected by immigrants are more anti migrants than areas that have been affected by immigrants? I remember Ilford was quite anti immigrant 25 years ago. Now it isnt. | |||
"So name the white male grooming gangs in the majority white (at the moment) UK, that the Home Secretary is investigating." I can say that there I know of two Asian male grooming gangs of which there were a total of 20 men involved. I believe that this is 20 too many. I am confident that 20 is quite a small proportion of the total male muslim population of the UK. I can say that social services and the Police failed to act on reports and evidence from the girls being abused. Social services and the Police say the same thing. I can say that the 2013 CEOP statistics indicate that 50% of the groups abusing vulnerable people (Type 1 abuse) were asian, 21% white and the rest mixed. I can't name where any other than the Rotherham and Rochdale because they weren't widely reported in the press. I can say that 100% of geoups who targeted children (Type 2 abuse) specifically for that reason were white. I can say that there is no ethnic breakdown of lone abusers. I can say that all of these statistics are under-reported. I can say that the Home Secretary should be investigating why grooming by Asian gangs occurred without earlier interdiction by the authorities. I can say that absolutely none of this has anything to do with the EU. You have, it seems, proven my point about muslim immigration being an inflammatory topic regardless of the evidence. | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
How about second or third generation?
For voting, yes they could. The academic studies exclude this and are focused on "native populations". Hire levels of interaction lead to higher levels of acceptance. Not really a big leap in understanding.
Are you implying that white British people are inherently racist? That the only remedy is zero diversity?
As you haven't stated your point I'm just saying what I guess you'd like me to.
I don't think that's inherently the case but if it takes the conversation somewhere vaguely interesting...
A higher level of acceptance, or a watered down level of intolerance?
Could be either. What point would you like to make?
I think the point you were making was that areas that haven't been affected by immigrants are more anti migrants than areas that have been affected by immigrants? I remember Ilford was quite anti immigrant 25 years ago. Now it isnt."The actual point I was making was about media coverage of Brexit being dominated by immigration of which much was of non EU muslim refugees. | |||
"And do you think people listened to any of the campaigns, or trusted any of the politicians? People were sick of politicians, and the establishment, and the metropolitan elite and their lies and all the scandals that surrounded out of touch politicians. Expenses scandals. People work for companies. They know full-well that they could never put such things on expenses and would never try for instance. People had already made their minds up. People were already sick of the EU. Long before the referendum, UKIP and Farage had a massive boost as voted flooded to UKIP in the EU elections. He never had so many MEPs. People saw the effects of uncontrolled immigration with their own eyes. People coming here to claim benefits from the British taxpayer, to send back to their families abroad. Benefits that were not available in their own countries. Economic migrants. They saw the effect of muslim immigrants from "shit-hole" countries, as Trump called them, in Germany, in the media, and in Southern Europe, when they went on holiday, and in the UK. They were sick of EU diktats. They were sick of paying massive amounts to the EU that the EU then handed over to other crap countries that joined the EU. And they looked at the countries that were queuing up to join, and they made their own mind up. Have you ever been to Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey? I have. And I can tell you how much funding they need and who is going to fund that? Greece perhaps? Portugal? Ireland? " I think that covers it. You don't like foreigners and everyone else is to blame for everything and you aren't interested in what the actual situation is as opposed to your perception of it. Every one of your points has been covered more than once and I don't have the time or inclination to go through one by one as I might have done in the past. I don't think you'd be interested anyway because you "know". | |||
"So Leave could have won if all they said was "vote leave, and we'll reduce immigration"? That is, pretty much, what they did say. It was, essentially, everything will be as it is or better in every way + no immigration. Do you not think immigration was the biggest Leave selling point? Of course. But so what? That's the point. All the remaining arguments are specious. It would be nice if that was acknowledged so that we cancan stop pretending that anything else will "improve" as a consequence. Once we go through the fee months, years, decades of "minor economic readjustments" and find that nothing has improved or things actually become worse, then what? We didn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. More than half, the non-EU, could always be controlled. We could, and can, be smarter about negotiating over EU immigration by asking for EU capitol investment for infrastructure in areas which have been directly effected by large influxes. Of course, the fact that the areas where there are least exposed to immigrants are the most anti-immigration
Well that makes sense doesn't it? If 50 Cornish men in a town of 50 are anti immigration then 100% of that town is anti. If 50 immigrants move in then i suspect the percentage of those against immigration would be 50%.
They couldn't vote unless they were British citizens. Most immigrants aren't.
How about second or third generation?
For voting, yes they could. The academic studies exclude this and are focused on "native populations". Hire levels of interaction lead to higher levels of acceptance. Not really a big leap in understanding.
Are you implying that white British people are inherently racist? That the only remedy is zero diversity?
As you haven't stated your point I'm just saying what I guess you'd like me to.
I don't think that's inherently the case but if it takes the conversation somewhere vaguely interesting...
A higher level of acceptance, or a watered down level of intolerance?
Could be either. What point would you like to make?
I think the point you were making was that areas that haven't been affected by immigrants are more anti migrants than areas that have been affected by immigrants? I remember Ilford was quite anti immigrant 25 years ago. Now it isnt.
The actual point I was making was about media coverage of Brexit being dominated by immigration of which much was of non EU muslim refugees."You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. | |||
"So name the white male grooming gangs in the majority white (at the moment) UK, that the Home Secretary is investigating." Can you name the Eu grooming gangs being investigated ? What an odd thing to bring up in the midst of a brexit thread. | |||
"Brexit is our opportunity to free ourselves from the ECHR. " How do you start to argue fact and common sense twitch stupidity such as that comment. | |||
" You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. " You have made an attempt to engage for a change. You did ignore the fact that this is specifically about an analysis of media coverage of the referendum and that fear of external Muslim immigration was used as a tactic to win votes by the Leave campaign. However, you have just given a master-class in doing just that. You are impressive. As good as any politician or journalist wishing to sell a policy of fear. It's difficult to show an emphasis so I'm using hash marks. "...Angela Merkel welcomed million#s# of those Syrians and African migrants..." 1.3 million over a period of 3 years. It is exaggerated to sound like far more than it was. Still a very large number, but in the midst of a very specific crisis. About 25% are under the age of 4. "...she #fully intended# on giving them German citizenship..." This implies that she wants every one of them to become German citizens for some unspecified reason. Anything to substantiate that? The most likely outcome is that the normal proportion of those applicants who are granted asylum and then apply for citizenship will get it. "#I think# it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens...#2 years now#..." You have picked a number out of the air that makes it seem imminent and increase the sense of crisis by shortening the timeline. An asylum application takes 8-11 months. A citizenship application takes 6-8 years. This assumes that an application will be made immediately. "#Once# these million#s# of new non EU migrants #get EU citizenship#..." This implies that citizenship is inevitable. About 50% of asylum applications are successful. Not all will apply for citizenship. Number exaggerated again. "#We# don't want these people here..." You are speaking for yourself. You imply that it includes a much larger group than you know it to be. "These people" include women, children and the elderly. Injured, maimed, tortured, sexually abused and traumatised. They are refugees from conflict. You have dehumanised them. "#Many# of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS...would just love the chance to #get into the UK# to cause havoc You have no idea of how many. "Many" implies a high proportion. This is beyond unlikely. The whole phrase links all refugees to being ISIS terrorists. Not true. You also imply that they all want to come to the UK. Refugees and terrorists. After having made a life in Germany, why would legitimate refugees want to move here? Why is UK a more prized target for ISIS terrorists than Germany? Why go to the effort of getting German citizenship to attack the UK? The only Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK have unfortunately come from British citizens. | |||
" You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. You have made an attempt to engage for a change. You did ignore the fact that this is specifically about an analysis of media coverage of the referendum and that fear of external Muslim immigration was used as a tactic to win votes by the Leave campaign. However, you have just given a master-class in doing just that. You are impressive. As good as any politician or journalist wishing to sell a policy of fear. It's difficult to show an emphasis so I'm using hash marks. "...Angela Merkel welcomed million#s# of those Syrians and African migrants..." 1.3 million over a period of 3 years. It is exaggerated to sound like far more than it was. Still a very large number, but in the midst of a very specific crisis. About 25% are under the age of 4. "...she #fully intended# on giving them German citizenship..." This implies that she wants every one of them to become German citizens for some unspecified reason. Anything to substantiate that? The most likely outcome is that the normal proportion of those applicants who are granted asylum and then apply for citizenship will get it. "#I think# it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens...#2 years now#..." You have picked a number out of the air that makes it seem imminent and increase the sense of crisis by shortening the timeline. An asylum application takes 8-11 months. A citizenship application takes 6-8 years. This assumes that an application will be made immediately. "#Once# these million#s# of new non EU migrants #get EU citizenship#..." This implies that citizenship is inevitable. About 50% of asylum applications are successful. Not all will apply for citizenship. Number exaggerated again. "#We# don't want these people here..." You are speaking for yourself. You imply that it includes a much larger group than you know it to be. "These people" include women, children and the elderly. Injured, maimed, tortured, sexually abused and traumatised. They are refugees from conflict. You have dehumanised them. "#Many# of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS...would just love the chance to #get into the UK# to cause havoc You have no idea of how many. "Many" implies a high proportion. This is beyond unlikely. The whole phrase links all refugees to being ISIS terrorists. Not true. You also imply that they all want to come to the UK. Refugees and terrorists. After having made a life in Germany, why would legitimate refugees want to move here? Why is UK a more prized target for ISIS terrorists than Germany? Why go to the effort of getting German citizenship to attack the UK? The only Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK have unfortunately come from British citizens." Can we clear a point please? Under EU rules FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT only applies for 90 days! After 90 days you technically need a visa - although some countries do not enforce the rule. | |||
| |||
"I can say that there I know of two Asian male grooming gangs of which there were a total of 20 men involved. I believe that this is 20 too many. I am confident that 20 is quite a small proportion of the total male muslim population of the UK. I can say that social services and the Police failed to act on reports and evidence from the girls being abused. Social services and the Police say the same thing. I can say that the 2013 CEOP statistics indicate that 50% of the groups abusing vulnerable people (Type 1 abuse) were asian, 21% white and the rest mixed. I can't name where any other than the Rotherham and Rochdale because they weren't widely reported in the press. I can say that 100% of geoups who targeted children (Type 2 abuse) specifically for that reason were white. I can say that there is no ethnic breakdown of lone abusers. I can say that all of these statistics are under-reported. I can say that the Home Secretary should be investigating why grooming by Asian gangs occurred without earlier interdiction by the authorities. I can say that absolutely none of this has anything to do with the EU. You have, it seems, proven my point about muslim immigration being an inflammatory topic regardless of the evidence." There are considerably more than two cases of Asian grooming gangs that have been widely reported in the press. Some of them are listed below. Keighley (2005 and 2013) Blackpool (2006) Oldham (2007 and 2008) Blackburn (2007, 2008 and 2009) Sheffield (2008) Manchester (2008 and 2013) Skipton (2009) Rochdale (two cases in 2010, one in 2012 and another in 2013) Nelson (2010) Preston (2010) Rotherham (2010) Telford (2012) Bradford (2012) Ipswich (2013) Birmingham (2013) Oxford (2013) Barking (2013) Gangs with Asian members Derby (2010) Peterborough (2013) The Type 1 CEOP statistics you quoted were for groups comprising of offenders from a single ethnic group. You should have said "26 (50 per cent) comprised all Asian offenders, 11 (21 per cent) were all white, 9 (17 per cent) groups had offenders from multiple ethnicity, 4 (8 per cent) were all black offenders and there were 2 (4 per cent) exclusively Arab groups. The CEOP statistics also added that of the 306 offenders whose ethnicity was noted, 75 per cent were categorised as Asian, 17 per cent white, and the remaining 8 per cent black (5 per cent) or Arab (3 per cent). | |||
| |||
| |||
"wasnt the wider point of the stats that this seemed to have nothing to do with the EU. I’m not sure who is arguing Asians aren’t over represented in the statistics. " The OP posted some statistics on Asian grooming gangs. I added to those statistics and pointed out some errors. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I can say that there I know of two Asian male grooming gangs of which there were a total of 20 men involved. I believe that this is 20 too many. I am confident that 20 is quite a small proportion of the total male muslim population of the UK. I can say that social services and the Police failed to act on reports and evidence from the girls being abused. Social services and the Police say the same thing. I can say that the 2013 CEOP statistics indicate that 50% of the groups abusing vulnerable people (Type 1 abuse) were asian, 21% white and the rest mixed. I can't name where any other than the Rotherham and Rochdale because they weren't widely reported in the press. I can say that 100% of geoups who targeted children (Type 2 abuse) specifically for that reason were white. I can say that there is no ethnic breakdown of lone abusers. I can say that all of these statistics are under-reported. I can say that the Home Secretary should be investigating why grooming by Asian gangs occurred without earlier interdiction by the authorities. I can say that absolutely none of this has anything to do with the EU. You have, it seems, proven my point about muslim immigration being an inflammatory topic regardless of the evidence. There are considerably more than two cases of Asian grooming gangs that have been widely reported in the press. Some of them are listed below. Keighley (2005 and 2013) Blackpool (2006) Oldham (2007 and 2008) Blackburn (2007, 2008 and 2009) Sheffield (2008) Manchester (2008 and 2013) Skipton (2009) Rochdale (two cases in 2010, one in 2012 and another in 2013) Nelson (2010) Preston (2010) Rotherham (2010) Telford (2012) Bradford (2012) Ipswich (2013) Birmingham (2013) Oxford (2013) Barking (2013) Gangs with Asian members Derby (2010) Peterborough (2013) The Type 1 CEOP statistics you quoted were for groups comprising of offenders from a single ethnic group. You should have said "26 (50 per cent) comprised all Asian offenders, 11 (21 per cent) were all white, 9 (17 per cent) groups had offenders from multiple ethnicity, 4 (8 per cent) were all black offenders and there were 2 (4 per cent) exclusively Arab groups. The CEOP statistics also added that of the 306 offenders whose ethnicity was noted, 75 per cent were categorised as Asian, 17 per cent white, and the remaining 8 per cent black (5 per cent) or Arab (3 per cent)." I was answering a specific question. "So name the white male grooming gangs in the majority white (at the moment) UK, that the Home Secretary is investigating." I only knew of two because they were widely reported in the press. I would suggest that is true for the majority of the population. I made no errors in my post. You felt the need to add additional information to indicate that Asian men involved in this crime is even larger than the significant level that I acknowledged. Why? Nobody was denying anything or apologising for their conduct. Considering this is a thread in press coverage of the EU referendum why did you not post a full list of white grooming gangs? Perhaps conduct dome research into if they are UK born? What proportion of the UK Arab and Asian (or just non-white if that's your point) male population do all these convicted men represent? What's the percentage? Does this imply a "problem" in dark skinned communities or are they a tiny minority? Why did you not find additional data on the 100% white Type 2 paedophile gangs? Why was that not worth finding out extra information about? Should we be suspicious of all white men? Should other countries specifically restrict the movements of white British men and prevent their immigration? Do you have anything to add about fear of non-EU immigration being used to influence the referendum vote or just confirming that it was? | |||
"But it doesn't take away from the fact that the grooming is almost exclusively being carried out by Asian males of a certain background. Hence why the Home Secretary has launched an investigation." What proportion of the UK Asian male population does this represent? What's the percentage? Is it a large proportion or a tiny one? I will refer you to the 100% incidence of paedophile gangs being white. Exclusively. Should there be an investigation into this? Are you able to tell me if this this topic is likely to generate the emotion of fear and anger with respect to immigration in general? Are you able to tell me if this then makes people more or less likely to vote against all immigration? | |||
"I think you mean to say - the rule is unenforceable." It is perfectly enforceable. Most EU states register immigrants EU or non-EU. It is unenforceable in the UK because w do neither. | |||
| |||
"And how do we then track them down, when they just disappear? Should we electronic tag them? And what do we do, when they cut the tag off? " No different to tracking down any other criminal. Do you know what proportion of EU immigrants this will actually effect? I'd be far more interested in you responding to the other, questions that I've asked which are more pertinent to the thread. | |||
| |||
"Which ones? " Before the one you replied to. I have no argument with you being outraged by these crimes. We all are, and should be. There is a new thread on this specifically, so we could move this there. The specific question for this thread is about using this fear to generalise to all immigrants and then to EU immigrants to then drive votes in the referendum. Fear being used by the Leave campaign. An unconnected subject being associated with the EU to get people to vote in a specific way. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Oh I've answered that before. Look at where these grooming scandals happened and look the areas that voted for Brexit. They are one and the same. The people who actually live and work and send their kids to school in these areas don't need some metropolitan elite politician to come from London and tell them anything. I doubt they even read the leaflet. They saw with their own eyes, and through their experiences what immigration was doing to the country. They didn't need a leaflet from some posh, rich guy who lives in Kensington, or in Chipping Norton, and wouldn't know anything about what it's like to live in a town with mass Muslim immigration like Rochdale. They can make their own minds up and see it for themselves. If you want to say that people in Chipping Norton voted to Leave, because someone put a leaflet through their door, which said - Vote Leave, because you don't want beautiful Chipping Norton to turn into a dump like Rochdale, because of immigration, then you might have a point, about "Project Fear" But Chipping Camden where there is no mass Muslim Immigration voted Remain and Rochdale where there is mass Muslim Immigration voted Leave. So you've lost that argument before you even started. The leaflets, like most advertising were a waste of time, and influenced no-one. " Still good if you read the post and address the other points in the grooming thread that has been started. No. You addressed a different point last time and are doing so again. Many, many people had not already made up there minds. Some had and you are quite right, no campaign would change their mind. The remain "project fear" would therefore be no better or worse. Campaigns are aimed at the undecided. It was not just leaflets. It was saturated in the papers, on the news, televised debates, Facebook and targeted internet adverts. Money is not spent in this way for fun. It is intended to persuade and influence. Nobody is immune. Step through it with me. It's not a trick. Does this sort of crime make people angry or fearful? Do you think that all or most or many or a few or a tiny number of muslim men commit this crime? Are the people involved in these crimes EU immigrants? Why were discussions of non EU immigrants, terrorism and grooming gangs pertinent to our membership of the EU? | |||
| |||
| |||
" You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. You have made an attempt to engage for a change. You did ignore the fact that this is specifically about an analysis of media coverage of the referendum and that fear of external Muslim immigration was used as a tactic to win votes by the Leave campaign. However, you have just given a master-class in doing just that. You are impressive. As good as any politician or journalist wishing to sell a policy of fear. It's difficult to show an emphasis so I'm using hash marks. "...Angela Merkel welcomed million#s# of those Syrians and African migrants..." 1.3 million over a period of 3 years. It is exaggerated to sound like far more than it was. Still a very large number, but in the midst of a very specific crisis. About 25% are under the age of 4. "...she #fully intended# on giving them German citizenship..." This implies that she wants every one of them to become German citizens for some unspecified reason. Anything to substantiate that? The most likely outcome is that the normal proportion of those applicants who are granted asylum and then apply for citizenship will get it. "#I think# it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens...#2 years now#..." You have picked a number out of the air that makes it seem imminent and increase the sense of crisis by shortening the timeline. An asylum application takes 8-11 months. A citizenship application takes 6-8 years. This assumes that an application will be made immediately. "#Once# these million#s# of new non EU migrants #get EU citizenship#..." This implies that citizenship is inevitable. About 50% of asylum applications are successful. Not all will apply for citizenship. Number exaggerated again. "#We# don't want these people here..." You are speaking for yourself. You imply that it includes a much larger group than you know it to be. "These people" include women, children and the elderly. Injured, maimed, tortured, sexually abused and traumatised. They are refugees from conflict. You have dehumanised them. "#Many# of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS...would just love the chance to #get into the UK# to cause havoc You have no idea of how many. "Many" implies a high proportion. This is beyond unlikely. The whole phrase links all refugees to being ISIS terrorists. Not true. You also imply that they all want to come to the UK. Refugees and terrorists. After having made a life in Germany, why would legitimate refugees want to move here? Why is UK a more prized target for ISIS terrorists than Germany? Why go to the effort of getting German citizenship to attack the UK? The only Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK have unfortunately come from British citizens." Your analysis of what I said is deeply flawed in many areas. Let's take your points one at a time. 1. Millions of migrants coming from Syria and Africa = 100% accurate statement. I gave Germany as 1 example, which you have taken completely out of context, even though you admit more than 1 million entered Germany alone. One particular quote from my earlier post to emphasise I was talking about the wider EU and not just Germany as follows....."once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any EU country they settle in", this is more than clear I was making reference to the wider EU and not just Germany. When you add up how many have settled in Germany, Italy, Greece, France, Austria, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, and so on then the numbers do indeed run into millions and is NOT exaggerated, don't try to pretend otherwise. 2. Now specific to Germany, Angela Merkel fully intended on giving them German citizenship. Again true, Merkel said they were all welcome in Germany and as Germany's workforce is an ageing workforce, Merkel wanted these migrants to stay for the German economy. By staying that means they get German citizenship and access to free movement within the EU (a free pass to enter into the uk). 3. They get German citizenship in 4 year's (2 years now we're talking about events 2 years ago). You say it's 6 years and so that is still a relatively short period of time, and the events we're talking about were 2 years ago during the referendum (the thread is about referendum media coverage) so under your 6 year time period, they will now become EU citizens in 4 years if they applied 2 years ago during the referendum. 4. (Again) once these millions of new non EU citizens get European citizenship in any EU country they settle in. You again imply it's exaggerated as only 50% apply for citizenship but that's only if you're looking at Germany in isolation. As my wording clearly indicated I was talking about the wider EU, then you really should be looking at the EU as a whole and millions of new non EU migrants will have applied for citizenship in various EU countries (not just Germany). So again the number is NOT exaggerated. 5. We don't want these people here. Yes I was speaking for myself but as ukip is an anti immigration party as well as an anti EU party and got 4 million votes in the general election in 2015 (just 1 year before the referendum) I feel confident that I can speak for them as I also voted ukip myself in 2015. As the Conservative party also had a manifesto commitment for over a decade to cut immigration to below 100,000 per year I could have also been speaking for many Tory voters who want to see immigration reduced. You also say these migrants were women, children and the elderly, and the sick, injured and maimed but the vast majority of those coming from Syria and Africa were without doubt young healthy adult males. The television footage of migrants on the routes in Europe would alone prove this to you, as well as those congregating in camps like the Jungle in Calais were young healthy adult men. You also claim they were all refugees from conflict which is false. Many of them were economic migrants from countries in Africa where there is no conflict. 6. Many of the Migrants coming from Syria and places like Libya are sleeper ISIS operatives. Also true, as I said ISIS themselves said they intended to smuggle sleepper cells into Europe through the migrant routes posing as refugees. There has also already been documented cases of this happening where they've been caught. 7. Why is the UK a more prized target for isis than Germany? Because ISIS themselves have said the USA and the UK are their main targets. The UK has engaged in direct military action with isis in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (among other places) where Germany has not or has to a lesser extent than the UK. That makes uk a bigger target. 8. Why would they settle in Germany if they wanted to attack the UK? Already answered. Is because by gaining German citizenship they can then get a German passport and get unrestricted access into the UK through EU free movement of people rules. That option would be completely closed off unless they settled in Germany (or another EU country first) and gained an EU passport. | |||
" You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. You have made an attempt to engage for a change. You did ignore the fact that this is specifically about an analysis of media coverage of the referendum and that fear of external Muslim immigration was used as a tactic to win votes by the Leave campaign. However, you have just given a master-class in doing just that. You are impressive. As good as any politician or journalist wishing to sell a policy of fear. It's difficult to show an emphasis so I'm using hash marks. "...Angela Merkel welcomed million#s# of those Syrians and African migrants..." 1.3 million over a period of 3 years. It is exaggerated to sound like far more than it was. Still a very large number, but in the midst of a very specific crisis. About 25% are under the age of 4. "...she #fully intended# on giving them German citizenship..." This implies that she wants every one of them to become German citizens for some unspecified reason. Anything to substantiate that? The most likely outcome is that the normal proportion of those applicants who are granted asylum and then apply for citizenship will get it. "#I think# it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens...#2 years now#..." You have picked a number out of the air that makes it seem imminent and increase the sense of crisis by shortening the timeline. An asylum application takes 8-11 months. A citizenship application takes 6-8 years. This assumes that an application will be made immediately. "#Once# these million#s# of new non EU migrants #get EU citizenship#..." This implies that citizenship is inevitable. About 50% of asylum applications are successful. Not all will apply for citizenship. Number exaggerated again. "#We# don't want these people here..." You are speaking for yourself. You imply that it includes a much larger group than you know it to be. "These people" include women, children and the elderly. Injured, maimed, tortured, sexually abused and traumatised. They are refugees from conflict. You have dehumanised them. "#Many# of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS...would just love the chance to #get into the UK# to cause havoc You have no idea of how many. "Many" implies a high proportion. This is beyond unlikely. The whole phrase links all refugees to being ISIS terrorists. Not true. You also imply that they all want to come to the UK. Refugees and terrorists. After having made a life in Germany, why would legitimate refugees want to move here? Why is UK a more prized target for ISIS terrorists than Germany? Why go to the effort of getting German citizenship to attack the UK? The only Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK have unfortunately come from British citizens. Your analysis of what I said is deeply flawed in many areas. Let's take your points one at a time. 1. Millions of migrants coming from Syria and Africa = 100% accurate statement. I gave Germany as 1 example, which you have taken completely out of context, even though you admit more than 1 million entered Germany alone. One particular quote from my earlier post to emphasise I was talking about the wider EU and not just Germany as follows....."once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any EU country they settle in", this is more than clear I was making reference to the wider EU and not just Germany. When you add up how many have settled in Germany, Italy, Greece, France, Austria, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, and so on then the numbers do indeed run into millions and is NOT exaggerated, don't try to pretend otherwise. 2. Now specific to Germany, Angela Merkel fully intended on giving them German citizenship. Again true, Merkel said they were all welcome in Germany and as Germany's workforce is an ageing workforce, Merkel wanted these migrants to stay for the German economy. By staying that means they get German citizenship and access to free movement within the EU (a free pass to enter into the uk). 3. They get German citizenship in 4 year's (2 years now we're talking about events 2 years ago). You say it's 6 years and so that is still a relatively short period of time, and the events we're talking about were 2 years ago during the referendum (the thread is about referendum media coverage) so under your 6 year time period, they will now become EU citizens in 4 years if they applied 2 years ago during the referendum. 4. (Again) once these millions of new non EU citizens get European citizenship in any EU country they settle in. You again imply it's exaggerated as only 50% apply for citizenship but that's only if you're looking at Germany in isolation. As my wording clearly indicated I was talking about the wider EU, then you really should be looking at the EU as a whole and millions of new non EU migrants will have applied for citizenship in various EU countries (not just Germany). So again the number is NOT exaggerated. 5. We don't want these people here. Yes I was speaking for myself but as ukip is an anti immigration party as well as an anti EU party and got 4 million votes in the general election in 2015 (just 1 year before the referendum) I feel confident that I can speak for them as I also voted ukip myself in 2015. As the Conservative party also had a manifesto commitment for over a decade to cut immigration to below 100,000 per year I could have also been speaking for many Tory voters who want to see immigration reduced. You also say these migrants were women, children and the elderly, and the sick, injured and maimed but the vast majority of those coming from Syria and Africa were without doubt young healthy adult males. The television footage of migrants on the routes in Europe would alone prove this to you, as well as those congregating in camps like the Jungle in Calais were young healthy adult men. You also claim they were all refugees from conflict which is false. Many of them were economic migrants from countries in Africa where there is no conflict. 6. Many of the Migrants coming from Syria and places like Libya are sleeper ISIS operatives. Also true, as I said ISIS themselves said they intended to smuggle sleepper cells into Europe through the migrant routes posing as refugees. There has also already been documented cases of this happening where they've been caught. 7. Why is the UK a more prized target for isis than Germany? Because ISIS themselves have said the USA and the UK are their main targets. The UK has engaged in direct military action with isis in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (among other places) where Germany has not or has to a lesser extent than the UK. That makes uk a bigger target. 8. Why would they settle in Germany if they wanted to attack the UK? Already answered. Is because by gaining German citizenship they can then get a German passport and get unrestricted access into the UK through EU free movement of people rules. That option would be completely closed off unless they settled in Germany (or another EU country first) and gained an EU passport. " Leave Project Fear Q.E.D. | |||
"You don't like my answer, so now you want to change the question. I answered what you posted. Maybe you answer my point. Tell us why the people voted Leave in every grooming area." The question hasn't changed and you haven't come nowhere close to addressing it. I imagine that they voted Leave because they were encouraged by the Leave campaign to connect crimes conducted by British and Asian abusers to immigration from the EU. This was in turn linked to immigration of refugees from outside the EU. These completely unrelated facts were then linked to immigration from from the EU encouraging people to vote to Leave because they were scared and angry. Both you and Centaur prove my point perfectly. Thank you. | |||
"You don't like my answer, so now you want to change the question. I answered what you posted. Maybe you answer my point. Tell us why the people voted Leave in every grooming area. The question hasn't changed and you haven't come nowhere close to addressing it. I imagine that they voted Leave because they were encouraged by the Leave campaign to connect crimes conducted by British and Asian abusers to immigration from the EU. This was in turn linked to immigration of refugees from outside the EU. These completely unrelated facts were then linked to immigration from from the EU encouraging people to vote to Leave because they were scared and angry. Both you and Centaur prove my point perfectly. Thank you. " They are not unrelated though as has already been explained to you in depth on the thread. | |||
"You don't like my answer, so now you want to change the question. I answered what you posted. Maybe you answer my point. Tell us why the people voted Leave in every grooming area. The question hasn't changed and you haven't come nowhere close to addressing it. I imagine that they voted Leave because they were encouraged by the Leave campaign to connect crimes conducted by British and Asian abusers to immigration from the EU. This was in turn linked to immigration of refugees from outside the EU. These completely unrelated facts were then linked to immigration from from the EU encouraging people to vote to Leave because they were scared and angry. Both you and Centaur prove my point perfectly. Thank you. They are not unrelated though as has already been explained to you in depth on the thread. "Leave Project Fear  | |||
" You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. You have made an attempt to engage for a change. You did ignore the fact that this is specifically about an analysis of media coverage of the referendum and that fear of external Muslim immigration was used as a tactic to win votes by the Leave campaign. However, you have just given a master-class in doing just that. You are impressive. As good as any politician or journalist wishing to sell a policy of fear. It's difficult to show an emphasis so I'm using hash marks. "...Angela Merkel welcomed million#s# of those Syrians and African migrants..." 1.3 million over a period of 3 years. It is exaggerated to sound like far more than it was. Still a very large number, but in the midst of a very specific crisis. About 25% are under the age of 4. "...she #fully intended# on giving them German citizenship..." This implies that she wants every one of them to become German citizens for some unspecified reason. Anything to substantiate that? The most likely outcome is that the normal proportion of those applicants who are granted asylum and then apply for citizenship will get it. "#I think# it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens...#2 years now#..." You have picked a number out of the air that makes it seem imminent and increase the sense of crisis by shortening the timeline. An asylum application takes 8-11 months. A citizenship application takes 6-8 years. This assumes that an application will be made immediately. "#Once# these million#s# of new non EU migrants #get EU citizenship#..." This implies that citizenship is inevitable. About 50% of asylum applications are successful. Not all will apply for citizenship. Number exaggerated again. "#We# don't want these people here..." You are speaking for yourself. You imply that it includes a much larger group than you know it to be. "These people" include women, children and the elderly. Injured, maimed, tortured, sexually abused and traumatised. They are refugees from conflict. You have dehumanised them. "#Many# of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS...would just love the chance to #get into the UK# to cause havoc You have no idea of how many. "Many" implies a high proportion. This is beyond unlikely. The whole phrase links all refugees to being ISIS terrorists. Not true. You also imply that they all want to come to the UK. Refugees and terrorists. After having made a life in Germany, why would legitimate refugees want to move here? Why is UK a more prized target for ISIS terrorists than Germany? Why go to the effort of getting German citizenship to attack the UK? The only Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK have unfortunately come from British citizens. Your analysis of what I said is deeply flawed in many areas. Let's take your points one at a time. 1. Millions of migrants coming from Syria and Africa = 100% accurate statement. I gave Germany as 1 example, which you have taken completely out of context, even though you admit more than 1 million entered Germany alone. One particular quote from my earlier post to emphasise I was talking about the wider EU and not just Germany as follows....."once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any EU country they settle in", this is more than clear I was making reference to the wider EU and not just Germany. When you add up how many have settled in Germany, Italy, Greece, France, Austria, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, and so on then the numbers do indeed run into millions and is NOT exaggerated, don't try to pretend otherwise. 2. Now specific to Germany, Angela Merkel fully intended on giving them German citizenship. Again true, Merkel said they were all welcome in Germany and as Germany's workforce is an ageing workforce, Merkel wanted these migrants to stay for the German economy. By staying that means they get German citizenship and access to free movement within the EU (a free pass to enter into the uk). 3. They get German citizenship in 4 year's (2 years now we're talking about events 2 years ago). You say it's 6 years and so that is still a relatively short period of time, and the events we're talking about were 2 years ago during the referendum (the thread is about referendum media coverage) so under your 6 year time period, they will now become EU citizens in 4 years if they applied 2 years ago during the referendum. 4. (Again) once these millions of new non EU citizens get European citizenship in any EU country they settle in. You again imply it's exaggerated as only 50% apply for citizenship but that's only if you're looking at Germany in isolation. As my wording clearly indicated I was talking about the wider EU, then you really should be looking at the EU as a whole and millions of new non EU migrants will have applied for citizenship in various EU countries (not just Germany). So again the number is NOT exaggerated. 5. We don't want these people here. Yes I was speaking for myself but as ukip is an anti immigration party as well as an anti EU party and got 4 million votes in the general election in 2015 (just 1 year before the referendum) I feel confident that I can speak for them as I also voted ukip myself in 2015. As the Conservative party also had a manifesto commitment for over a decade to cut immigration to below 100,000 per year I could have also been speaking for many Tory voters who want to see immigration reduced. You also say these migrants were women, children and the elderly, and the sick, injured and maimed but the vast majority of those coming from Syria and Africa were without doubt young healthy adult males. The television footage of migrants on the routes in Europe would alone prove this to you, as well as those congregating in camps like the Jungle in Calais were young healthy adult men. You also claim they were all refugees from conflict which is false. Many of them were economic migrants from countries in Africa where there is no conflict. 6. Many of the Migrants coming from Syria and places like Libya are sleeper ISIS operatives. Also true, as I said ISIS themselves said they intended to smuggle sleepper cells into Europe through the migrant routes posing as refugees. There has also already been documented cases of this happening where they've been caught. 7. Why is the UK a more prized target for isis than Germany? Because ISIS themselves have said the USA and the UK are their main targets. The UK has engaged in direct military action with isis in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (among other places) where Germany has not or has to a lesser extent than the UK. That makes uk a bigger target. 8. Why would they settle in Germany if they wanted to attack the UK? Already answered. Is because by gaining German citizenship they can then get a German passport and get unrestricted access into the UK through EU free movement of people rules. That option would be completely closed off unless they settled in Germany (or another EU country first) and gained an EU passport. Leave Project Fear Q.E.D." No. I think the term you used earlier was "Project Fact". | |||
" You seem to be missing the point about this though when you keep trying to distance the issue away from the EU. When Angela Merkel welcomed millions of those Syrians and African migrants into Germany she fully intended on giving them German citizenship. I think it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens and given German passports (2 years now as the events we're talking about were 2 years ago). Once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any European country they settle in then they have full access to EU free movement of people rules. If we had remained a member of the EU that means they have right to come to the UK under free movement. We don't want these people here and this is why they were not allowed to come here 2 years ago. Many of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS operatives who would just love the chance to get into the UK to cause havoc. ISIS themselves said it was one of their objectives to get sleeper cells into Europe through the migrant routes. We have no intention of letting these people have access to free movement through gaining European citizenship and getting into the UK through the back door. You have made an attempt to engage for a change. You did ignore the fact that this is specifically about an analysis of media coverage of the referendum and that fear of external Muslim immigration was used as a tactic to win votes by the Leave campaign. However, you have just given a master-class in doing just that. You are impressive. As good as any politician or journalist wishing to sell a policy of fear. It's difficult to show an emphasis so I'm using hash marks. "...Angela Merkel welcomed million#s# of those Syrians and African migrants..." 1.3 million over a period of 3 years. It is exaggerated to sound like far more than it was. Still a very large number, but in the midst of a very specific crisis. About 25% are under the age of 4. "...she #fully intended# on giving them German citizenship..." This implies that she wants every one of them to become German citizens for some unspecified reason. Anything to substantiate that? The most likely outcome is that the normal proportion of those applicants who are granted asylum and then apply for citizenship will get it. "#I think# it could be in as little as 4 years that they can be declared German citizens...#2 years now#..." You have picked a number out of the air that makes it seem imminent and increase the sense of crisis by shortening the timeline. An asylum application takes 8-11 months. A citizenship application takes 6-8 years. This assumes that an application will be made immediately. "#Once# these million#s# of new non EU migrants #get EU citizenship#..." This implies that citizenship is inevitable. About 50% of asylum applications are successful. Not all will apply for citizenship. Number exaggerated again. "#We# don't want these people here..." You are speaking for yourself. You imply that it includes a much larger group than you know it to be. "These people" include women, children and the elderly. Injured, maimed, tortured, sexually abused and traumatised. They are refugees from conflict. You have dehumanised them. "#Many# of the migrants coming from Syria and places like Lybia are sleeper ISIS...would just love the chance to #get into the UK# to cause havoc You have no idea of how many. "Many" implies a high proportion. This is beyond unlikely. The whole phrase links all refugees to being ISIS terrorists. Not true. You also imply that they all want to come to the UK. Refugees and terrorists. After having made a life in Germany, why would legitimate refugees want to move here? Why is UK a more prized target for ISIS terrorists than Germany? Why go to the effort of getting German citizenship to attack the UK? The only Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK have unfortunately come from British citizens. Your analysis of what I said is deeply flawed in many areas. Let's take your points one at a time. 1. Millions of migrants coming from Syria and Africa = 100% accurate statement. I gave Germany as 1 example, which you have taken completely out of context, even though you admit more than 1 million entered Germany alone. One particular quote from my earlier post to emphasise I was talking about the wider EU and not just Germany as follows....."once these millions of new non EU migrants get EU citizenship in any EU country they settle in", this is more than clear I was making reference to the wider EU and not just Germany. When you add up how many have settled in Germany, Italy, Greece, France, Austria, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, and so on then the numbers do indeed run into millions and is NOT exaggerated, don't try to pretend otherwise. 2. Now specific to Germany, Angela Merkel fully intended on giving them German citizenship. Again true, Merkel said they were all welcome in Germany and as Germany's workforce is an ageing workforce, Merkel wanted these migrants to stay for the German economy. By staying that means they get German citizenship and access to free movement within the EU (a free pass to enter into the uk). 3. They get German citizenship in 4 year's (2 years now we're talking about events 2 years ago). You say it's 6 years and so that is still a relatively short period of time, and the events we're talking about were 2 years ago during the referendum (the thread is about referendum media coverage) so under your 6 year time period, they will now become EU citizens in 4 years if they applied 2 years ago during the referendum. 4. (Again) once these millions of new non EU citizens get European citizenship in any EU country they settle in. You again imply it's exaggerated as only 50% apply for citizenship but that's only if you're looking at Germany in isolation. As my wording clearly indicated I was talking about the wider EU, then you really should be looking at the EU as a whole and millions of new non EU migrants will have applied for citizenship in various EU countries (not just Germany). So again the number is NOT exaggerated. 5. We don't want these people here. Yes I was speaking for myself but as ukip is an anti immigration party as well as an anti EU party and got 4 million votes in the general election in 2015 (just 1 year before the referendum) I feel confident that I can speak for them as I also voted ukip myself in 2015. As the Conservative party also had a manifesto commitment for over a decade to cut immigration to below 100,000 per year I could have also been speaking for many Tory voters who want to see immigration reduced. You also say these migrants were women, children and the elderly, and the sick, injured and maimed but the vast majority of those coming from Syria and Africa were without doubt young healthy adult males. The television footage of migrants on the routes in Europe would alone prove this to you, as well as those congregating in camps like the Jungle in Calais were young healthy adult men. You also claim they were all refugees from conflict which is false. Many of them were economic migrants from countries in Africa where there is no conflict. 6. Many of the Migrants coming from Syria and places like Libya are sleeper ISIS operatives. Also true, as I said ISIS themselves said they intended to smuggle sleepper cells into Europe through the migrant routes posing as refugees. There has also already been documented cases of this happening where they've been caught. 7. Why is the UK a more prized target for isis than Germany? Because ISIS themselves have said the USA and the UK are their main targets. The UK has engaged in direct military action with isis in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (among other places) where Germany has not or has to a lesser extent than the UK. That makes uk a bigger target. 8. Why would they settle in Germany if they wanted to attack the UK? Already answered. Is because by gaining German citizenship they can then get a German passport and get unrestricted access into the UK through EU free movement of people rules. That option would be completely closed off unless they settled in Germany (or another EU country first) and gained an EU passport. Leave Project Fear Q.E.D. No. I think the term you used earlier was "Project Fact". "Words have never been your friend Centaur. You just don't seem to get what they mean. Talking about "millions" of muslim terrorists coming yo the UK "from the EU" is not intended to illicit fear? Bless | |||
"Previously, I said that it was: Immigration; EU Diktats; Control by EU; Cost of EU; Cost of New/not yet members. The specific point in this thread that I was asked to address was: "The specific question for this thread is about using this fear to generalise to all immigrants and then to EU immigrants to then drive votes in the referendum. Fear being used by the Leave campaign." And I have. So next time you want to suggest that I am being contradictory, please do some research. " I meant a few months ago. If I have confused you with another regular poster I apologise. It’s just I’ve heard this position before (or at least what I think is what you’re saying...) Because I am confused if you are saying people may have voted out because of wider (non Eu) immigration because of the Rotherham sex scandal. Or not. I read it as you were saying people did, and therefore didn’t need leaflets to stoke these flames. Your point being there was no need for leave to start a project fear as people had already made up their minds. | |||
