UKC

Is some people's obsession with racism

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
distorting the EU debate out of all proportion?

It seems that no matter angle the debate here on the EU referendum is taken from, some will always try to bring it back to "Leave voters are racist/influenced by racists/ colluding with racists."

Ok, so for the sake of debate, let's take it as granted that this is true.

Does anyone think the outcome of the referendum will change if this is taken as a given?

If we prove that 95% of leave voters had some percentage of "racism" as a reason for voting out, will that make Cameron PM again, and leave Corbyn sitting pretty as opposition leader?

Will it enable a second referendum, so that we can change our minds?

Will it make the EU and its leaders renegotiate the terms of our membership?

Will it restore the FTSE to it's former glory and the boost the value of the £ sterling to $1.50US?

Will it make Boris's hair fall out, and Trump's wig blow away?

Apart from making some here feel oh so better than others, and smug in their moral superiority, what does this endless and unprovable debate that there may or may not have been a degree of "racism" in some people's motivation for voting prove?

Shouldn't we move on to debating the future?

41
 marsbar 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

My concern for racism is that several of the people I love are not white. If wanting them to live without fear and hate in their day to day life is moral superiority then fine.
3
 MG 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

No you can't undo what's happened.

However, legitimising explicitly or implicitly racist views, or xenophobic, or simply small-minded, inward looking views has consequences.

As an example I think I have just recruited an excellent French job candidate - he is visiting shortly to finalise things. In an email he explicitly asked about the effect of Brexit on "the atmosphere" and said can we discuss this on the visit? I am worried he may not come as a result of the vote and the perception (reality?) it has generated about UK attitudes to EU citizens.
5
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> My concern for racism is that several of the people I love are not white. If wanting them to live without fear and hate in their day to day life is moral superiority then fine.

Me too.

But why change at topic* from say "british politics in meltdown" or "what Bexit deal can we expect from the EU" into a debate on whether some people's voting was coloured by racism?

What does that actually achieve?


* not saying you personally did this.
6
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to MG:

> No you can't undo what's happened.

Agreed.

> However, legitimising explicitly or implicitly racist views, or xenophobic, or simply small-minded, inward looking views has consequences.

Yes agreed, but does it have to become the inevitable theme of every Brexit debate here?

> As an example I think I have just recruited an excellent French job candidate - he is visiting shortly to finalise things. In an email he explicitly asked about the effect of Brexit on "the atmosphere" and said can we discuss this on the visit? I am worried he may not come as a result of the vote and the perception (reality?) it has generated about UK attitudes to EU citizens.

That's a worthy topic for debate in itself though, is it not?
1
baron 28 Jun 2016
In reply to MG:
As far as I'm aware racist, xenophobic, small minded and inward looking are already legitimate views. In that none of them are unlawful and many people (all leave voters if you believe some people) hold them.
They may not be the views that you, or I, agree with or support but that doesn't make them illegitimate.
For far too long the lid has been kept on the racism debate with any form of sensible discussion buried by successive governments.
Many people, including second generation migrants have what to them are genuine concerns and fears over the changes they see to their neighbourhoods.
The blanket response of 'migrants contribute more than they take out' does nothing to allay their fears.
The referendum allowed some of these people to, rightly or wrongly, express those fears.
We don't need another referendum, we need politicians who are brave enough to recognise that there is a problem and to deal with it.
Yes, time to move forward.
 MG 28 Jun 2016
In reply to baron:
> As far as I'm aware racist, xenophobic, small minded and inward looking are already legitimate views. In that none of them are unlawful and many people (all leave voters if you believe some people) hold them.

That is true, legally, of course. Socially they are less legitimate, particularly racism. This is a good thing as it encourages capable people to come and live and work in the UK. Making them more socially legitimate, as the leave campaign did, is therefore a bad thing.

> Many people, including second generation migrants have what to them are genuine concerns and fears over the changes they see to their neighbourhoods.

True. And those need to be handled well, not by demonising immigrants as the leave campaign did.
Post edited at 08:49
 Geronimus 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

from what the reminers are saying thers 17 millon racists in this country. dont think that can be true
6
 summo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to MG:
> As an example I think I have just recruited an excellent French job candidate -

I think it's easy to see migration is 100% positive if you have a professional job and recruit professionals from other countries. If you are unskilled or low skilled in the UK, often through no fault of your own, competing for low paid work with 1/2billion people, then sending your kids to school in a class bursting at the seams several miles away, because you didn't get a place at the one nearest etc... then it's pretty easy to see where hate begins for many people. No amount of you telling them we are all one happy Europe will change their position. Migration has not caused any of the problems in the UK, most of them are caused by lack of funding, but migration has highlighted them, or given people something to blame, when generally too low a tax take is the root cause.

Perhaps if politicians were honest and said hospitals, schools etc.. were struggling because we need to raise taxes, not because of a few percent of migration then people's views would change, but no politician dare suggest a tax rise.
 doz generale 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

The premise of this thread is disgraceful! Yes all the racists voted to leave. No not all leavers are racist. But what you suggest is that we should afford a certain level of racism some legitimacy. It's a dangerous and slippery slope. Racism should never be given any legitimacy and should be stamped out where ever it appears. It's not going to undo hat's happened but It should not be ignored

It' a fact there there is more likely to be racism where you have poverty and lack of education. The way to fight it is prosperity and education not division and isolation
3
 MG 28 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

True of course and there is gross political failure to address those problems.

But the OP was asking why racism is an "obsession" of the EU debate. The answer is that racism and its more moderate relatives was made a central theme of the Brexit campaign and that is now having immediate consequences in social problems and, if my anecdote is typical, recruitment of capable, tax-paying, job-creating people we need.
1
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to doz generale:

> The premise of this thread is disgraceful! Yes all the racists voted to leave. No not all leavers are racist. But what you suggest is that we should afford a certain level of racism some legitimacy. It's a dangerous and slippery slope. Racism should never be given any legitimacy and should be stamped out where ever it appears. It's not going to undo hat's happened but It should not be ignored

So every thread on Brexit should become one on racism, ok, got you.

> It' a fact there there is more likely to be racism where you have poverty and lack of education. The way to fight it is prosperity and education not division and isolation

Yes, every thread on Brexit should become one on racism, ok, got you.

Did you actually read the OP?
8
 marsbar 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Geronimus:

I can't find anywhere that anyone actually said that ALL leave voters are racist. It's been said a lot, but I can't find a reference.

2
KevinD 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:


> Did you actually read the OP?

Since you cant be arsed reading their post and just make shit up why should they bother with what you write?
2
 wbo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger: while i dont doubt theres a degree of outright racism, and ITS become emboldened, i would say that xenophobia is a better description.

My parents live in East Anglia, in Fenland, a real hotbed of the leave vote. If i ask relatively who voted leave why, 'Therese taking all the Jobs is a commom reply', and the other stuff. Now as long as I've knows the place, getting on 50 years it's been backwards and career options are limited. That hasnt changed, but they have a new bogeyman for lack of develpment, for poor pay and limited options.Most people are pretty poor , and unless something amazing happens that's how it will stay.

When they boot Eastern European labour out I do not know what will happen - it will likely get poorer. Where will the labour come from - migrant seasonal workers from other parts of England.? If crops aren't collected then there's no money coming to town, if they have to pay a better wage food prices are impacted.

That's the logical part, but the reality is, I think, people voted out as a protest vote. And to be honest, I doubt if you're on benefits in Hartlepool, or Ebbw Vale, I doubt you give a f**k about the FTSE 100 as it's irrelevant to you - that's a London thing.

While I don't think it needs to be the focus of all threads any solution needs an acceptable story on immigration , especially as UKIP and Leave leave happily mixed it into the story.

OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Since you cant be arsed reading their post and just make shit up why should they bother with what you write?

What?

Did you not get the sarcasm?
Post edited at 10:14
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to wbo:

> While I don't think it needs to be the focus of all threads any solution needs an acceptable story on immigration , especially as UKIP and Leave leave happily mixed it into the story.

Agreed.

 jkarran 28 Jun 2016
In reply to baron:

> As far as I'm aware racist, xenophobic, small minded and inward looking are already legitimate views. In that none of them are unlawful and many people (all leave voters if you believe some people) hold them.
> They may not be the views that you, or I, agree with or support but that doesn't make them illegitimate.

The expression of some of those views under certain circumstances is rightly illegal. What people mean by the Leave campaign lending legitimacy to those views is that some people are now feeling emboldened once more to express and act on their odious (and yes, I would personally describe them as illegitimate) views in harmful, sometimes illegal ways.
jk
2
baron 28 Jun 2016
In reply to jkarran:
If you break the law you should be punished.
If you offend someone you can expect a reaction.

 Lord_ash2000 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
My view is that the UK has some raciest in it. It always has done and probably always will do, these people have as much right to a view on things as everyone else does and their vote is a legitimate as anyone elses.

I remember a few years back when the BNP were at their political height, although there was little doubt they were raciest I felt they were treated very unfairly. Many of there campaign materials were banned, they were denied a platform in many cases, either directly or because of protests, and I remember the big fuss when nick griffin got on question time, with people trying to stop it happening.

In my view, under a democratic system everyone gets a vote and everyone is entitled to be heard, when you get a large number of people with a view on something (raciest or not) then you'll get people standing for election on those platforms and those views then get represented on behalf of those people in parliament.

Now, we may not like racist attitudes and views but I don't think it's right to deny the people who hold them a voice, all this does is fuel discontent and make it worse. If we want to reduce racism, and reduce the political influence they have in the UK then we need to educate people and win them over, we need to insure people aren't feeling hard done by as a result of immigration and make them realise that it's better for us all if we get along.

When there is enough of a racist sentiment in the UK to effect the politics, it simply demonstrates that the rest of us are failing in those tasks, simply ignoring the underlying problem is not the answer.
Post edited at 10:28
3
 Ramblin dave 28 Jun 2016
In reply to wbo:
> While I don't think it needs to be the focus of all threads any solution needs an acceptable story on immigration , especially as UKIP and Leave leave happily mixed it into the story.

Does it need an acceptable story on immigration, or does it need an acceptable story on jobs, housing and public services, that doesn't have to be "immigrants are stealing them from you"?

The difficulty being that politicians and the media using immigrant-blaming as a cheap populist tactic have built up a lot of entrenched prejudice, so it's much easier to get political capital in the short term by continuing to exploit that prejudice than by working to sell an alternative view.
Post edited at 10:29
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> When there is enough of a racist sentiment in the UK to effect the politics, it simply demonstrates that the rest of us are failing in those tasks, simply ignoring the underlying problem is not the answer.

That was not the question posed though
 summo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to MG:

> But the OP was asking why racism is an "obsession" of the EU debate.

Remainers, be it politicians or some people on here, won't acknowledge or even enter a migration debate, they try their best to close it down by instantly calling people racist xenophobes etc.. many people went quiet, so rather than being educated a little on migration or having an adult debate etc.. they simply bided their time and rightly or wrongly had their say at the ballot box.

If the remainers had been more adult in their campaign, the likes of Farage and the far right would have been closed down and his supporters silenced months ago. The Labour party probably has more appeal in some of the regions that are perhaps more against migrant workers, but there is another thread about their lack involvement.
1
 summo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to wbo:

> That's the logical part, but the reality is, I think, people voted out as a protest vote. And to be honest, I doubt if you're on benefits in Hartlepool, or Ebbw Vale.......................

certainly in my home area of the North East, it's probably first time in 30years Maggie hasn't been blamed for why 2-3 generations of people can't quite manage to find a job.
 Lord_ash2000 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> That was not the question posed though

Okay, well to answer it more directly:

"Does anyone think the outcome of the referendum will change if this is taken as a given?"

No I do not think it can or should change anything. As I said above the vote of a racist is worth just as much as the vote of anyone else, if people don't like that view / vote then they need to work on decreasing aversion towards immigrants / those of other races.

"Shouldn't we move on to debating the future? "

Yes, what's done is done we need to accept the result and now both sides need to work on how to get the best possible deals for a UK outside of Europe.
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Thanks mate, very good reply.
1
 GrahamD 28 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> Remainers, be it politicians or some people on here, won't acknowledge or even enter a migration debate, they try their best to close it down by instantly calling people racist xenophobes etc..

Bit unfair to tar us all with the same brush, isn't it ? Most people I know voted remain and are quite happy to discuss migration. And just because some leavers' motivation is not driven by being xenophobic, there are plenty who are. I would suggest one of your prominent figureheads, for a start.

3
 Jon Stewart 28 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:
> Remainers, be it politicians or some people on here, won't acknowledge or even enter a migration debate, they try their best to close it down by instantly calling people racist xenophobes etc..

It's been years since pro-EU and more generally pro-immigration politicians have been saying "it isn't racist to have concerns about migration" - while offering no solution to people's concerns. But they haven't been calling everyone racists, especially after the hilarious Gillian Duffy incident back in 2010.

On the internet, there's loads of anger flying about with the "stupid racists" comments. The leave campaign was racist - the famous poster that made Michael Gove "shudder" - so it's hardly going to be ignored. An unknown percentage of the leave vote was from racists who thought that voting out would mean an end to immigration. These things are undeniable, but they don't represent everyone who voted leave.

Anyone who thinks that a campaign which had conspicuous racist elements, and which led to a decision arguably swung by racists, is not going to generate a lot of anger about racism is living on another planet. Especially when we see the outpouring of hatred following the result. This is pretty jaw-droppingly awful stuff.

It isn't the majority of people, nor the majority of leave voters, but it's enormously significant.

> If the remainers had been more adult in their campaign...

Sorry, but it's impossible to take seriously an argument that the racism stirred up is the fault of the Remain campaign. I don't even know why you're trying.
Post edited at 11:33
3
 doz generale 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> So every thread on Brexit should become one on racism, ok, got you.

> Yes, every thread on Brexit should become one on racism, ok, got you.

> Did you actually read the OP?

Yes I did read the original post. You are suggesting we accept the undercurrent of racism behind the brexit vote and just get on with our lives. I think that this is bad and the racism should be confronted and dealt with at every opportunity rather then swept under the carpet. I never said every post about brexit should be about racism.
1
 Jon Stewart 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> In my view, under a democratic system everyone gets a vote and everyone is entitled to be heard...

> Now, we may not like racist attitudes and views but I don't think it's right to deny the people who hold them a voice, all this does is fuel discontent and make it worse...

> When there is enough of a racist sentiment in the UK to effect the politics, it simply demonstrates that the rest of us are failing in those tasks, simply ignoring the underlying problem is not the answer.

I generally agree with this, which is why I'm in favour of PR. There's a bit more to it though: in a democracy like ours, anyone with money has a much louder voice than those without. Money allows powerful people to lie to the masses on an industrial scale. We don't have an answer to how we keep the information people get reliable, so we don't have any safeguards against dreadful political decisions being made on the basis of lies and prejudice. Hence the situation today.

Quite what the solution is, I don't know. But the aim is surely to get the best outcomes for the most people, rather than just to ensure that everyone feels like their opinions matter. Is there a way of balancing these two goals?
1
 wbo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave: good comments. Someone needs to come up with a good story otherwise dropping back to the status quo, or a poorer version of it is asking for trouble.

Jim - I don't believe Leave created racism, but having a campaign based on kicking foreigners out, getting our country back certainly emboldened many.

1
 Trevers 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I'm going to try and lay out my thoughts here succinctly, and hopefully I won't cause offence.

I'm NOT calling Leave voters racist. I believe that the vast majority of them deplore the attacks that have already taken place as much as I do.

BUT...

The campaigns to leave openly embraced xenophobia and flirted with racism. The vote to leave has legitimised those voices. The attacks are being done in the name of the Leave campaigns. If people didn't think an increase in xenophobia was the inevitable result of a Leave vote then they haven't really been paying attention. They're NOT responsible for those attacks, but nor can they turn a blind eye to them and claim it's nothing to do with them, or simply trying to ignore it's happening (as I've seen people saying on Facebook).

As I said in another thread - it's one of the tragedies of the referendum that moderate and reasoned views get conflated with extremist ones. We must all work to make sure they don't in the days to come, which is a responsibility that Leavers must share with Remainers.
2
 Goucho 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I think someone said recently, that not everyone who is a Leave voter is a racist, but everyone who is a racist is a Leave voter
3
 summo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Bit unfair to tar us all with the same brush, isn't it ?

I didn't tar everyone, I said some.
 Bob Hughes 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
well, it probably isn't productive to have every debate descend into accusations of racism - but perhaps thats an exaggeration anyway - but it is valid to question how much of the vote to leave was motivated by racism and / or xenophobia. After all, the Leave campaign needs to decide why they wanted to leave and consequently, what they will fight for in negotiations with the EU. Was it to stem the flow of (largely brown-skinned if we believe that poster) immigration, a la Farage, or was it something else? Johnson, for one, seems to like immigrants.

It is also worthwhile asking to what extent the Leave campaign played on racist fears because many of the leading lights of the Leave campaign are gaining in stature. We'd do well to keep an eye on what kind of leaders they would make.

So an obsession with racism is unhealthy, as is completely sweeping the issue under the rug.
Post edited at 12:54
1
In reply to Goucho:

Not true, Jeremy Clarkson came out for remain
 Jon Stewart 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Not true, Jeremy Clarkson came out for remain

Very good!
1
 winhill 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Goucho:

> I think someone said recently, that not everyone who is a Leave voter is a racist, but everyone who is a racist is a Leave voter

Anjem Choudary came out for Remain, he's so far to the Right of Farage, he's beyond the horizon.

So perhaps you have a little bias over whop is racist and who isn't?

Certainly the British are less racist than the rest of Europe and most of the world.

Immigration has driven Britain to the right in 2 ways, firstly immigrants tend to be much more racist (Choudary, Muslims, Indians, the Germans, the Italians, the French, the Dutch, any Eastern European country).

And secondly it has pushed our own right even further right.

If you are willing to work with racists as long as they are continental racists and not British racists, does that not make you a little bit racist? It's just that you prefer your racists to have an unusual accent.
5
 Jon Stewart 28 Jun 2016
In reply to winhill:

What a load of unsubstantiated guff. Do you actually believe any of the crap you post?
2
 GrahamD 28 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> I didn't tar everyone, I said some.

Doesn't say some remainers, it says remainers:

"Remainers, be it politicians or some people on here, won't acknowledge"
 summo 28 Jun 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> Doesn't say some remainers, it says remainers:
> "Remainers, be it politicians or some people on here, won't acknowledge"

the "be it politicians or SOME people on here" between the comas, adds the detail of who I am referring to, not all remainers, but some specifically.

Otherwise I would have just said "Remainers won't acknowledge."
Post edited at 14:14
 Bootrock 28 Jun 2016
In reply to doz generale:
I know a lot of Scottish people who voted remain purely to "stick it to the English b*stards" and get a 2nd referendum.

So your reasoning of "All racists voted leave" is quite wrong and ignorant.
Post edited at 14:21
1
 Goucho 28 Jun 2016
In reply to winhill:

> Anjem Choudary came out for Remain, he's so far to the Right of Farage, he's beyond the horizon.

> So perhaps you have a little bias over whop is racist and who isn't?

> Certainly the British are less racist than the rest of Europe and most of the world.

> Immigration has driven Britain to the right in 2 ways, firstly immigrants tend to be much more racist (Choudary, Muslims, Indians, the Germans, the Italians, the French, the Dutch, any Eastern European country).

> And secondly it has pushed our own right even further right.

> If you are willing to work with racists as long as they are continental racists and not British racists, does that not make you a little bit racist? It's just that you prefer your racists to have an unusual accent.

Is this a synopsis for a remake of Love Thy Neighbour?

Who've you got in mind for the Jack Smethhurst role?
2
 Trevers 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I know a lot of Scottish people who voted remain purely to "stick it to the English b*stards" and get a 2nd referendum.

> So your reasoning of "All racists voted leave" is quite wrong and ignorant.

Not quite sure how that works? Since a close Remain victory was expected, surely a second referendum would've been best realised by their voting Leave?
1
 marsbar 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Remain wouldn't be reason to trigger Scottish independence debate again. Leave is. So if you are trying to make out the Scottish wanting independence are racist (which is nonsense btw) then you are strengthening the argument for leave being racist. I think you are a bit confused.
1
 SenzuBean 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Quite what the solution is, I don't know. But the aim is surely to get the best outcomes for the most people, rather than just to ensure that everyone feels like their opinions matter. Is there a way of balancing these two goals?

Not only that, but decisions need to take into account the environment, and the outcomes for people who can't vote yet (children, and the next generation). It should be obvious that deciding something by pure referendum is going to leave some (many? most?) without a voice and therefore shouldn't be used directly to make decisions that affect those who can't vote (e.g. the environment and the children).
This is ancient knowledge - if you give the people direct power to vote for their future with a simple majority, they'll vote to empty the treasury and that'll be the end of the democracy there and then.
1
 Offwidth 28 Jun 2016
In reply to baron:
"As far as I'm aware racist.......... are already legitimate views. In that none of them are unlawful and many people (all leave voters if you believe some people) hold them."

You need more awareness then, as pretty much any public expression of racism is illegal.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

The all too common denial that racists and xenophobes swung the brexit vote is really pathetic (compare the half million with EDL, BNP and UKIP support).

The accusations that ordinary remain voters think all brexit voters are racists or xenophobes is bizarre (I guess the truth, that many remainers feel racism swung it and are probably right, is a bit close to the bone). Racism is an issue on both sides: as a sceptic of EU democracy not lining up with the vast majority of racists and xenophobes and the unpalatable leading lights of the right wing of the leave campaign (Farage, Gove, IDS etc) and some on the left ( Galloway and some of the SWP) was part of my solid remain vote.
Post edited at 19:37
1
baron 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
Well I never.
It would appear that if I am 'unfriendly' to a person because of their race or religion I will have comitted an offence.
You live and learn!
 SenzuBean 28 Jun 2016
In reply to baron:

> Well I never.

> It would appear that if I am 'unfriendly' to a person because of their race or religion I will have comitted an offence.
Note that that carries a legal definition:
Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.

It's not just saying you don't want to share their packet of chips, which I hope was not what you intended to imply.
1
 Bootrock 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Scotland wanting independence is not racist. But a lot of the supporters for it were. Or can you not be racist to white people? I knew SNP and Indy supporters who were just as racist towards the English and EU migrants as the cases we see now.

I am not confused. The SNP cult voted opposite to the rest of the UK. Scotland had a majority Remain vote. Thus they are being taken out of the EU against their will. It's a constitutional change. And sturgeon was always going to demand another referendum.


>"Not quite sure how that works? Since a close Remain victory was expected, surely a second referendum would've been best realised by their voting Leave?"

No. Sturgeon always wanted to stay in the EU. Some mental idea about Scotland taking the UKs place or in the original referendum, getting an automatic place in the EU.

They knew a lot of people in the rest of the UK wanted to leave. So stood firmly on the remain side.

Ironically I knew people who voted leave to the UK and the EU. Not realising it's the SNPs intention to get back in bed with the EU.



 Ridge 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Remain wouldn't be reason to trigger Scottish independence debate again. Leave is. So if you are trying to make out the Scottish wanting independence are racist (which is nonsense btw) then you are strengthening the argument for leave being racist. I think you are a bit confused.

Not all Scots who voted for independance are nasty little racists who hate the English, but all the nasty little racist Scots who hate the English voted for independance. Therefore any sucessful referendum for Scottish independence will be sucessful because the Scots have aligned with the nasty little racists in their midst. Isn't that the logic used up thread?
1
 marsbar 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I'm not sure if Scottish vs English white on white is racist or not from a legal point of view. Certainly bigoted. But then so is the whole sectarianism thing as well. I can't make sense of it all.




baron 28 Jun 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
Sorry, I only read part of Offwidth's link. That'll teach me. So I can still express my racist beliefs as long as it isn't harrassment, assault, etc?

 Timmd 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Ridge:
> Not all Scots who voted for independance are nasty little racists who hate the English, but all the nasty little racist Scots who hate the English voted for independance. Therefore any sucessful referendum for Scottish independence will be sucessful because the Scots have aligned with the nasty little racists in their midst. Isn't that the logic used up thread?

I don't think you can look at the poster Farage stood in front of, which was hundreds of brown people 'waiting to get in', and not think he was (however un/consciously) aligning with the segment of the leave voters who want less immigration and are a bit racist too, and not think that it would have pushed the 'race' buttons in any racist leave voters.

Saying that this happened, and that while not all leave voters are racist, anybody who is racist who doesn't like immigration would have voted leave, isn't at all the same as saying that to have a successful Out vote, the SNP will have to tap into anti English/racist sentiment - because that isn't true, they could create other arguments instead.

It is true that Farage pictured immigration as being brown people waiting to get in, though, which if it isn't quite racist is pretty damn close.

Post edited at 22:38
 Ridge 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm not sure if Scottish vs English white on white is racist or not from a legal point of view. Certainly bigoted. But then so is the whole sectarianism thing as well. I can't make sense of it all.

English vs Polish white on white seems to be classed as racist? But I agree, it's all a mess.
 marsbar 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Ridge:

I just have this child like wish that everyone would get on, or at least if they don't its for a reason, not for no reason.

In the end, black white Polish whatever we all bleed red. Its so sad to see hate.
2
 rogerwebb 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm not sure if Scottish vs English white on white is racist or not from a legal point of view. Certainly bigoted. But then so is the whole sectarianism thing as well. I can't make sense of it all.

It is very definitely racist in terms of the law in Scotland.
By coincidence I have a few racist aggravation cases on the go at the moment
None involve anybody who isn't white.

 Bootrock 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

It is. The term racist is an umbrella term used by the police.

English/Scottish/Welsh vs Polish/Romanian/Other country. White on white is classed as a racist situation.

I can't quite understand it, itnhas many flaws but I have seen it used in very vague situations as a quick fix, or ease of conviction.



 Bootrock 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Nothing wrong with that. I agree with you.


Unfortunately it's a very complex issue. And not one that can be solved by just throwing the word "racist" about.


 Timmd 28 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:
> I just have this child like wish that everyone would get on, or at least if they don't its for a reason, not for no reason.

> In the end, black white Polish whatever we all bleed red. Its so sad to see hate.

youtube.com/watch?v=uYjSpUqYMwQ&

It can almost feel like the 80's.

We need The Specials for our times.
Post edited at 23:10
 rogerwebb 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Timmd:

>

> Saying that this happened, and that while not all leave voters are racist, anybody who is racist who doesn't like immigration would have voted leave, isn't at all the same as saying that to have a successful Out vote, the SNP will have to tap into anti English/racist sentiment - because that isn't true, they could create other arguments instead.

>
The SNP will not and do not use racist arguments. I have campaigned against them frequently and that is a charge I would not make against the party.
They do have members who are but have a good record in dealing with them.

There are however a significant number of people who align themselves with the SNP who are very anti English. (for instance the man who called for the deanglification of Scotland on Radio Scotland phone in on Monday) but you cannot blame the SNP for them but they are encouraged by the SNP 's success. Likewise 'Leave' had honourable people in it who are in no way racist and were appalled by 'the poster' and said so. Their success was not built on racism (unless you consider questioning immigration to be racism) but their success has encouraged the minority who are bigoted.

Leave like the SNP could make all reasoned arguments but they will still attract fringe support. The SNP have dealt with their undesirables very effectively because they are a very disciplined party, Leave are a loose coalition so cannot control their undesirables.
Blaming the many for the few seems harsh.
2
In reply to Big Ger:

>what does this endless and unprovable debate that there may or may not have been a degree of "racism" in some people's motivation for voting prove?

You're the only one debating it. Why don't you answer the same question - what are *you* trying to prove?

With particular reference to, say, this video

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153850480776939/?pnref=story

jcm
 Timmd 28 Jun 2016
In reply to rogerwebb:
That's well put and interesting, and fair enough.

I don't know how it was ment, but I'm not blaming the many for the few, I'm blaming Farage for being a f*ckwit in standing in front of a poster depicting immigrants as 'brown people waiting to get in'. That it'd have hit the big red button in racists is a certainty.
Post edited at 23:33
 rogerwebb 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Timmd:

On that basis I am not disagreeing with you!
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> well, it probably isn't productive to have every debate descend into accusations of racism - but perhaps thats an exaggeration anyway -

Find a Brexit debate here that doesn't?
OP Big Ger 28 Jun 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> >what does this endless and unprovable debate that there may or may not have been a degree of "racism" in some people's motivation for voting prove?

> You're the only one debating it. Why don't you answer the same question - what are *you* trying to prove?

To claim I'm the only one "debating it" when this thread has 66 replies, is a bit daft. I was the only one to raise the fact for debate that all Brexit threads seem to end up talking about perceived racism, you could say.

I'm not trying to 'prove" anything, I'm raising the issue that the the Brexit debate here always seems to end up debating "racism", and whether this is actually achieving anything.
Post edited at 23:44
In reply to Big Ger:

It's not achieving anything really, no. It's obvious many Leave voters are racist. You seem to have a problem admitting that, and consequently you keep asking what it achieves to point it out.

I suppose what it achieves is to point out that our country has a considerable problem. Admitting that is always the first step to any kind of measure to improve it.

jcm
1
 Roadrunner5 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

That it's disgisting, it was encouraged, they played on anti-immigration.

Since the vote we've had what? A 50% increase in racial attacks. Disgusting..
 Roadrunner5 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

'Perceived racism' you know very well it was actual racism.
 off-duty 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> That it's disgisting, it was encouraged, they played on anti-immigration.

> Since the vote we've had what? A 50% increase in racial attacks. Disgusting..

A 57% increase in reports of hate crime. Which isn't the same thing. (Though I agree racist abuse is disgusting)
 Roadrunner5 28 Jun 2016
In reply to off-duty:

> A 57% increase in reports of hate crime. Which isn't the same thing. (Though I agree racist abuse is disgusting)

Ok, xenophobic abuse then. It's not been sexual has its generally been related to race or nationality hasn't it?
 aln 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I know a lot of Scottish people who voted remain purely to "stick it to the English b*stards" and get a 2nd referendum

Your arse. That's a new twist on the referendum bullocks that's been spouted. I haven't heard that from a single Scottish person since this whole thing started.
 off-duty 28 Jun 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Ok, xenophobic abuse then. It's not been sexual has its generally been related to race or nationality hasn't it?

I'm referring more to your statement that there has been an increase in incidents, when what we have is an increase in reports.
 Bootrock 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

That's a big number. Have you got a link to confirm that percentage?
I am hearing a lot, but I have yet to see evidence that isn't a newspaper article.


 Bootrock 29 Jun 2016
In reply to aln:
I think you'll find you have.


Post edited at 00:03
1
 off-duty 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> That's a big number. Have you got a link to confirm that percentage?

> I am hearing a lot, but I have yet to see evidence that isn't a newspaper article.

http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-is-unacceptable-in-any-circu...

With the proviso this is an increase in reports of hate crime, not quite the same thing as an increase in the number of incidents.
 orejas 29 Jun 2016
In reply to baron:

> Well I never.

> It would appear that if I am 'unfriendly' to a person because of their race or religion I will have comitted an offence.

> You live and learn!

As far as I know your only offence would be stupidity, and yes you would be guilty as charged.
OP Big Ger 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> 'Perceived racism' you know very well it was actual racism.

I don't have your mind reading abilities, or a crystal ball, to determine why 17,410,742 British people voted out, far less your surety it was due to "racism".

But there again, I'm sure you are soon going to show us how you know this truth.
3
OP Big Ger 29 Jun 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> It's not achieving anything really, no. It's obvious many Leave voters are racist. You seem to have a problem admitting that, and consequently you keep asking what it achieves to point it out.

Oh dear, please quote where I have denied that some "leave voters" are racist?

(Hint: each time I have asked you to back up your accusations with quotes, you have failed to provide on. Stop lying.)

Here, just to save you further embarrassment;

"I, Big Ger, fully and openly admit that I think a percentage of the "leave vote" was made on the grounds of racism, and anti-immigrant sentiment."


1
In reply to Big Ger:

>I don't have your mind reading abilities, or a crystal ball, to determine why 17,410,742 British people voted out, far less your surety it was due to "racism".

You're getting tiresome. One last time. They didn't all vote that way due to racism. Some of them did.

>But there again, I'm sure you are soon going to show us how you know this truth.

Well, hell, OK, then, I'll post it again.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153850480776939/?pnref=story

Or the Barnsley fellow on the BBC saying Europeans were OK but he did it to keep those Africans, Syrians and Iraqis out. Or my barrister friend saying the same thing. Or the many recent we-voted-you-out-go-home stories we've all seen all over the internet lately. The cards delivered to children with 'No more Polish vermin' written on them in English and Polish. My neighbour's children, born here and don't even speak Polish, have had remarks along those lines made to them.

River in Africa, mate, river in Africa.

jcm
OP Big Ger 29 Jun 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


> You're getting tiresome. One last time. They didn't all vote that way due to racism. Some of them did.

A fact no one has denied.
 Roadrunner5 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I don't have your mind reading abilities, or a crystal ball, to determine why 17,410,742 British people voted out, far less your surety it was due to "racism".

> But there again, I'm sure you are soon going to show us how you know this truth.

Don't be silly. I never said how many, but there was actual racism, even you admit that. Using the term perceived suggests it may not have happened. By saying actual it makes no inferences on how many of the 17 million did.
OP Big Ger 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Don't be silly. I never said how many, but there was actual racism, even you admit that. Using the term perceived suggests it may not have happened. By saying actual it makes no inferences on how many of the 17 million did.

Sorry to disagree but using the term "perceived" recognises that some may "perceived" more, (or less,) racism than others, and it is this perception of the degree to which racism was an influence which is being debated.

I think we we were cross posted by JCM quoting you, and saying, (quite erroneously,) that I haven't admitted that there was racism, (I have,) and it all got a bit muddled in that
 andyfallsoff 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> If the remainers had been more adult in their campaign, the likes of Farage and the far right would have been closed down and his supporters silenced months ago.

I have a real problem with this - you're saying you're happy with a major constitutional change being effected because of a poor campaign by the Remain side, even though you acknowledge they should have won? Isn't that incredibly concerning, given this is a decision that could change the shape of the UK forever?

 summo 29 Jun 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I have a real problem with this - you're saying you're happy with a major constitutional change being effected because of a poor campaign by the Remain side, even though you acknowledge they should have won? Isn't that incredibly concerning, given this is a decision that could change the shape of the UK forever?

I didn't say they should have won, I said their campaign would have been more effective. Perhaps then the brexit campaign would have been more mature too, but the end result the same? It is all unknowns, it was campaign of lies on both sides. There are other problems within the EU, not just the ones the far right rant about. That EU democracy where the big leaders from France, Germany etc... have already had a meeting about Brexit, before the big meeting of all 27 today. Good to know the little nations are being steered by big brother into the right course of action, don't want them having any ideas of their own, they need to know their place in the big scheme of things.
 andyfallsoff 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> I didn't say they should have won, I said their campaign would have been more effective. Perhaps then the brexit campaign would have been more mature too, but the end result the same?

It seems a reasonable inference (give that it is accepted that *some* of those who voted out did so based on these reasons) that it would have shifted the balance the other way - but I do appreciate this is just speculation.

> It is all unknowns, it was campaign of lies on both sides.

There is a difference between a lie ("Brexit will reduce immigration"; "let's give the NHS the £350m we send to the EU every week" - both disowned immediately after the outcome) and a forecast that you aren't convinced by. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that the remain camp was just as bad as the leave campaign - saying you don't believe someone's prediction is not the same as saying they are lying.
 summo 29 Jun 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> There is a difference between a lie and a forecast that you aren't convinced by.

very true, "the markets will crash", we'll lose billions instantly and never recover. Doesn't appear to be playing out, I am sure more market turbulence is to come, but it's not a crash or even close.
2
 aln 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I think you'll find you have.

You know what I've heard, but I don't? What a stupid post.
 The New NickB 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> I didn't tar everyone, I said some.

> Remainers, be it politicians or some people on here, won't acknowledge or even enter a migration debate, they try their best to close it down by instantly calling people racist xenophobes etc..

The clear inference is all remainers.
1
 jkarran 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> very true, "the markets will crash", we'll lose billions instantly and never recover. Doesn't appear to be playing out, I am sure more market turbulence is to come, but it's not a crash or even close.

We haven't left the EU yet, we're nowhere close. We've barely signaled intent. That alone triggered a note-worthy crash and the effects are already tangible in workplaces across the country, not just in the trading rooms of London. What is sustained uncertainty and the successive shocks that come as we legally unpick ourselves from the EU and the EEA then the announcement of each new (almost inevitably poorer than we had) trade deal going to do to our economic prospects...

What's the point of all this bluster? You may ultimately be proved right (fingers crossed eh) but we probably won't know for years, we certainly don't know yet but the future's not looking rosy from where I'm sat.
jk
Post edited at 14:34
3
In reply to summo:

> very true, "the markets will crash", we'll lose billions instantly and never recover. Doesn't appear to be playing out, I am sure more market turbulence is to come, but it's not a crash or even close.

Because Cameron didn't send the Article 50 letter and Boris didn't try and force him to do so. People are now thinking nothing will happen for three months and that if exit is not going to happen for three months quite likely it won't happen at all.
 Roadrunner5 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> very true, "the markets will crash", we'll lose billions instantly and never recover. Doesn't appear to be playing out, I am sure more market turbulence is to come, but it's not a crash or even close.

Nothing has happened yet!

Is this really that hard to understand? We've had massive wobbles but until Article 50 is invoked, and even then, until single market access and trade become clearer not much will.

We've already seen projects cancelled, investments stalled. I doubt many UK scientists are going to work on EU grant proposals for the next year or so until we know so R & D will be hit.

But the big stuff won't happen until we know more. Nissan aren't going to leave the UK just on the threat that we may leave the EU and even then the single market is probably their bigger concern. Likewise Airbus, they've said little so far but I can't see them risking wings not being supplied or costing a lot more.
2
 Offwidth 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:
The markets have crashed and trillions have been lost worldwide (affecting anyone with pensions or other investments) and the pound has devalued by about 10%. Things may improve but the most positive outlooks depend on Boris and co negotiating something sensible on free movement. How many people noticed the 2008 crash in the first week... yet we sure felt the effects of that (and still do).

As for the effects of the pound...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36641174
Post edited at 15:36
1
 summo 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
> The markets have crashed

But they haven't crashed. A few percent off the value, much of which has been gained back since is not a crash. Many shares have moved within their normal annual undulation. The pound is creeping back up, gaining 1-2% of pretty much all currencies around the world.

It is highly unlikely that the UK won't remain in some form of trade agreement with the EU, so everything will remain the same there on after.
Post edited at 16:49
 summo 29 Jun 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Because Cameron didn't send the Article 50 letter and Boris didn't try and force him to do so. People are now thinking nothing will happen for three months and that if exit is not going to happen for three months quite likely it won't happen at all.

perhaps of a fashion, I think we will leave, but remain in the EEA, financial passporting and with worker migration. Leaving a little space between the referendum and negotiation, will allow peoples memories to fade of what was promised in May and June. Which is fine, the markets will be happy and stabilise more, perhaps even gain now the 1 year ponder about the referendum is over.
 andyfallsoff 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> perhaps of a fashion, I think we will leave, but remain in the EEA, financial passporting and with worker migration. Leaving a little space between the referendum and negotiation, will allow peoples memories to fade of what was promised in May and June. Which is fine, the markets will be happy and stabilise more, perhaps even gain now the 1 year ponder about the referendum is over.

I just don't see how that outcome is any improvement. We still have to pay in to the EU, we lose the right to fight for the rules to suit us but still have to comply with them, and we run a serious risk of still losing some significant aspects of financial services that we have fought for (namely, the right to clear Euro trades, which Frankfurt has been trying to say has to be in the Eurozone - an argument which was defeated by our EU membership).

So your preferred outcome is - the same, but worse.
1
 FreshSlate 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:
> But they haven't crashed.

"A stock market crash is a sudden dramatic decline of stock prices across a significant cross-section of a stock market, resulting in a significant loss of paper wealth."

"A record $3 trillion was wiped out from global markets on Friday and Monday"

If that's not a crash, what is?

 Roadrunner5 29 Jun 2016
In reply to summo:

> But they haven't crashed. A few percent off the value, much of which has been gained back since is not a crash. Many shares have moved within their normal annual undulation. The pound is creeping back up, gaining 1-2% of pretty much all currencies around the world.

> It is highly unlikely that the UK won't remain in some form of trade agreement with the EU, so everything will remain the same there on after.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-cannot-have-single-...

Its looking pretty clear we won't get single market access without freedom of movement.

 Offwidth 29 Jun 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:
Maybe he thinks its not as big a crash as someone on the remain side was said to have said it would be? Armageddon would be pretty much worse afterall (jeez, the return of hellfire and all that).

Its all about the rhetoric, never mind pensions, inflation, austerity etc. Plus the clever looking wheeze of Cameron not to instigate article 50 immediately and the current backtracking of Boris must have settled the panic and will have been is factored in (including a clear chance now the vote will not even lead to a brexit) if we still try a brexit, and then when the reality of the negotiations hit lets see how bad the market reacts (the EU owe us no favours and need to encourage 'les autres'; we need a well led and motivated skilled 'army' of negotiators we probably have Boris and an inexperienced and austerity battered troop of civil servants, most of whom from being highly educated and London based will have voted to stay).

Clegg and his crystal ball nailed it here:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
Post edited at 18:59
1
 winhill 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> "As far as I'm aware racist.......... are already legitimate views. In that none of them are unlawful and many people (all leave voters if you believe some people) hold them."

> You need more awareness then, as pretty much any public expression of racism is illegal.


WTF?

You may as well link to an on-line copy of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, this legislation outlaws no views at all.
1
 Offwidth 29 Jun 2016
In reply to winhill:

The act speaks for itself. Racists can think what they like but what they can write and say in public is the issue.
1
Gone for good 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:



> Its looking pretty clear we won't get single market access without freedom of movement.

It's pretty obvious that British manufacturing will collapse in the absence of incoming workers.
I work in recruitment services for the automotive industry, mainly at tier 1 level, and 50 - 60% of our workforce originates from eastern Europe.

Movement has to be allowed in order to prevent a collapse although how much freedom will be permitted is anyone's guess at this point.

Unfortunately it is not a widely held view that the resurgence in British manufacturing has coincided with the freedom given to the 6 accession state members since 2004. Too me it's blindingly obvious.
 winhill 29 Jun 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> The act speaks for itself. Racists can think what they like but what they can write and say in public is the issue.

The Act may speak for itself but you don't speak for it, how can you be so wrong on this?
 Offwidth 30 Jun 2016
In reply to winhill:

Wrong in what sense exactly?

More advice on the subject:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/hate-crime/racist-and-reli...
1
Jim C 01 Jul 2016
In reply to Gone for good:

No one is stopping immigration, just looking to control the flow to suit the countries requirements.

Take Australia, they are encouraging people to come, not cutting back , they are rightly carefull on who they take, and when they have enough, they will stop taking any more.

If they had an open policy, when they reached their target, they would still have more coming in than they need or could cope with , thus damaging their economy. Hence they have controls, it just makes sense.

We want to do that too.
3
 Offwidth 02 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Australia doesn't have a million plus gap in unskilled jobs that aussies wont fill. They also had to rewrite the points system recently to let in semi skilled workers ... the brexit dream of limiting migration and immigration with no effect on the economy or trade remains a complete fantasy.
2
Donald82 02 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Bizarre post.

If there was racism in the leave campaign, and if racism has increased it's worth discussing. I think it's particularly important for leavers to call it out.

Moreover, leavers on here seem to take any mention of racism as a blanket accusation against all leavers, even when people clearly state it's not. In fact, the only suggestion ive seen on hear that leavers on here *might* be racist, came from me when someone refused to condemn some of the worse parts of the leave campaign. And all I said was it made me wonder - which it did, why wouldn't any decent person condemn that?
2
Donald82 02 Jul 2016
In reply to summo:

> But they haven't crashed. A few percent off the value, much of which has been gained back since is not a crash. Many shares have moved within their normal annual undulation. The pound is creeping back up, gaining 1-2% of pretty much all currencies around the world.

With you..

> It is highly unlikely that the UK won't remain in some form of trade agreement with the EU, so everything will remain the same there on after.

Until here... lolz
1
 Mark Edwards 02 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> "Leave voters are racist/influenced by racists/ colluding with racists."
> Ok, so for the sake of debate, let's take it as granted that this is true.

I’m a leave voter. And much as I hate to lower myself to the lower level of discussion on this forum – F*CK YOU.
During the 80’s I was heavily involved with a Muslim woman. You think things are bad now? At that time my father was a racist (much as it hurts me to say) and her family wanted to kill me. However, the heart wants what it wants. It was a strange relationship with very defined limits, but it just happened that for a period in our lives we wanted to be together and it is one of the most treasured memories I have (eventually she went on to have the arranged marriage that was destined for her and she has become a person of national significance – very much a woman with her own mind who had a great struggle against what was expected of her, to become who she is today).
I voted leave because I believe that the EU is set on a course dictated by its ideals which I don’t agree with, nothing to do with immigration. It’s not people I have a problem with, it’s the organisation.
Let’s not forget DC’s words of 2014 “If I don’t get the reforms (on immigration [unfortunately]) I want I will lead the UK out of the EU”. So isn’t that a tacit acceptance that if you don’t agree with the EU, then leaving is an option. Hell, he even promised to lead.
Sorry for the rant but that really touched a nerve.


3
Donald82 02 Jul 2016
In reply to Mark Edwards:

I think you've missed BG's point. He's comlaining about people suggesting leavers are racist.

Given your post I hope you were thoroughly disgusted by the leave campaign.

2
OP Big Ger 02 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> If there was racism in the leave campaign, and if racism has increased it's worth discussing. I think it's particularly important for leavers to call it out.

No one has suggested that discussing racism in wrong or not worthy. I was just noting that it has become the sticking point of just about every "Brexit" debate, and that the debate is not moving forward as people almost inevitably end up talking about how much racism is to blame, rather than where we go from here.



1
OP Big Ger 02 Jul 2016
In reply to Mark Edwards:

> I’m a leave voter. And much as I hate to lower myself to the lower level of discussion on this forum – F*CK YOU.

Try reading properly the point being made, before emotionally erupting.

Donald82 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Possibly one of the things we need to do from here is to prevent further dog whistle politics....
1
 RomTheBear 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

What is some people's obsession with "moral superiority" ?
1
Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
> ?..They also had to rewrite the points system recently to let in semi skilled workers ... the brexit dream of limiting migration and immigration with no effect on the economy or trade remains a complete fantasy.

So if a points system does not work , why did they not dump it?
They tweaked it instead, and quite right, you have to try and write the rules as you see them at the time, and then try to anticipate the future. If that then does not suit, you alter the rules not scrap them.

Actually, your point makes my point, you said they had to rewrite the rules to allow in semi skilled workers as that's is where they now had a gap. ( very sensible)
The very fact that those rules were keeping them out semi- skilled workers proves that the points system does work, you just havet to continuously modify it to your countries changing needs.

The dream continues of a fair immigration system open equally to all countries , where an equal test is applied across the board, targeting particular skills shortages, and not getting ahead of the countries ability to provide the necessary infrastructure, services etc.

In time, Australia may have to stop certain types of immigration , and if that day comes ,they can, we should too, it's not no immigration, but sensible controlled immigration.
Post edited at 09:17
Donald82 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

All very sensible (apart from the fair bit - nothing unfair about agreeing free movement with your neighbours and not others).

But I think Offwidth's point is that a sensible points based system as you describe won't reduce immigration much.
1
 RomTheBear 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> So if a points system does not work , why did they not dump it?

> They tweaked it instead, and quite right, you have to try and write the rules as you see them at the time, and then try to anticipate the future. If that then does not suit, you alter the rules not scrap them.

> Actually, your point makes my point, you said they had to rewrite the rules to allow in semi skilled workers as that's is where they now had a gap. ( very sensible)

> The very fact that those rules were keeping them out semi- skilled workers proves that the points system does work, you just havet to continuously modify it to your countries changing needs.

> The dream continues of a fair immigration system open equally to all countries , where an equal test is applied across the board, targeting particular skills shortages, and not getting ahead of the countries ability to provide the necessary infrastructure, services etc.

And yet, we get a much higher proportion of skilled worker through EU migration that "we can't control" than through non-EU migration that we do control. In fact we do much better than pretty much every other country in the world at attracting talents, and a lot better than Australia BTW, despite having "no control"

That's probably because the key to attract skilled workers is

1) Have an economy and jobs that attracts them
2) Make it easy for them to come : i.e free movement, i.e. not complicated, expensive, limited visa with rules that change all the time.
Post edited at 10:48
1
 Offwidth 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

I'd love to see you apply a fair test for maybe hundreds of millions of people across the world interested in unskilled position in the UK What I could see is some deal where people work for a period and then go home: so we get to be like the rich arab states. The fact we need these workers for our economy is undeniable so either we continue withmfree EU movement, have some sensible alternative plan or take a big economic hit to keep the xenophobes and racists happy.
Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> so either we continue withmfree EU movement, have some sensible alternative plan or take a big economic hit to keep the xenophobes and racists happy.

Why can we not have a sensible conversation about immigration without talking about racism and xenophobia .

Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> distorting the EU debate out of all proportion?

> Will it make Boris's hair fall out, and Trump's wig blow away?

Would anyone have a wig that bad?

Edit, I forgot about this guy....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-michael-fabricant-admits-35241...
Post edited at 14:06
 Offwidth 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Ask the xenophobes: they are the vast majority of those who don't want migrants, despite the economy needing them. Why are so few suppoting the fact our economy is boosted massively by these people and the fact that claimed resource issues due to them (outside housing) are just lies to cover up austerity and incompetance in fair goverment distribution (as resources per capita would be tighter without them as they pax more in taxes and use services less than the average UK resident).
Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Ask the xenophobes: they are the vast majority of those who don't want migrants.....
Can you post some credible evidence of that ? ( not that I accept that we don't want any migrants )

Why are so few suppoting the fact our economy is boosted massively by these people and the fact that claimed resource issues due to them (outside housing) are just lies to cover up austerity and incompetance in fair goverment distribution (as resources per capita would be tighter without them as they pay more in taxes and use services less than the average UK resident.

We have heard that argument to death during the campaign, and yet the majority still voted for Brexit.

There is no question of having NO migrants, the argument is over a fair immigration process for everyone, and being able to choose who comes from where, in the numbers that match the needs of the economy, and our ability to provide services for them.

I work with very many ( highly skilled) migrants, and those that I have spoken to , from out with the EU , agree with an across the board points based system ( as that is what they went through to come here)
The EU migrants, not surprisingly , prefer to keep the system that favours them. No one has said that they thought the doors are being closed to migration. (I welcome them all, but favour a system that applies equally to everyone. )

I get the feeling there will be no valid democratic vote for you, until the vote is for the result you want.
1
 Timmd 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
There is a precedent where a vote against the majority has to be 65% in favour of change, IIRC.

Farage said that a 48/52 spilt if Vote Leave lost would be inconclusive, too. His words may come back to bite him?
Post edited at 17:49
 Offwidth 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
Try and explain to me who will fill those million plus minimum wage jobs in a way that will reduce migrants. The vote of xenophobes is cake and eat it stuff, that goes against logic. If those jobs dont get filled it would close business, hit those local economies hardest, would pressure for local closures of services. Are we back on Tebbit's bike or the magic respendable money from the 350 million being redistributed to regions, or what?

Just out from the social attitudes survey:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36699050

Ill informed people blaming migration despite the net additional contribution they make on average, that if channelled properly by government should mean no extra pressure on local services (and with money spare).
Post edited at 18:26
Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

xenaphobes ( again) !



2
Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> There is a precedent where a vote against the majority has to be 65% in favour of change, IIRC.

> Farage said that a 48/52 spilt if Vote Leave lost would be inconclusive, too. His words may come back to bite him?

Absolutely correct , he said that , and his views were dismissed as the establishment thought that they were going to win ( narrowly)
 Offwidth 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
Xenophobes again for delivering the brexit vote (we only needed half a million... just a couple of a percent). Of the ordinary Brits I know away from my work (young, middle class, well educated, internationalist), I'd class way more than double that proportion of having such attitudes; even in climbing (despite heavily pro-remain surveys here and on UKB),

The social attitudes survey will contain anti austerity voters and others annoyed about local distributions of funds to meet population needs and the plain ill informed who would have no issue with migration if their services were seemingly unaffected, as well as any xenophobes.
Post edited at 19:06
Jim C 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring !

youtube.com/watch?v=-qE3x0dw9xI&

Move on and look to the opportunities this decision brings ( not my words)
 FactorXXX 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Try and explain to me who will fill those million plus minimum wage jobs in a way that will reduce migrants. The vote of xenophobes is cake and eat it stuff, that goes against logic. If those jobs dont get filled it would close business, hit those local economies hardest, would pressure for local closures of services.
Ill informed people blaming migration despite the net additional contribution they make on average, that if channelled properly by government should mean no extra pressure on local services (and with money spare).


I voted Remain and in so doing so, endorse the free movement of people within the EU.
I also know, that many 'technical' jobs are filled by migrants that would otherwise leave a shortfall in employment sectors like the NHS and that overall, they are said to benefit the economy.
However, there are employment areas that are being negatively impacted by migration and in the main, that is at the lower end of the wage spectrum. How that can be resolved, if at all, I don't know. Unfortunately, it seems as if this can't be discussed in a sensible manner, without those people with concerns being called xenophobes, etc.
For example, when I started in my current job, the Production lines were predominately staffed by people from the UK. Now, they are predominately staffed by non-UK people. The job hasn't changed, all that's changed is that the migrant workers are better educated, more likely to work unsociable hours at short notice and be employed via a agency on shit contracts, etc. I suppose you could argue that the indigenous workers could join the same agency and under the same conditions, but I thought the aim was to improve working conditions, not make them worse.
1
Donald82 03 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
I think this is a bit unfair re genuinely held concerns about immigration, although many are unfounded and due to bombardment with anti immigrant p!sh from the tabloid press.

My granny (lovely lady, not at all racist) read the express and the mail and genuinely believed lots of untrue stuff. When explained to her she'd change her mind.

Xenophobia may be the right word but only in its technical sense - fear of the other.

What gets me is people that should know better.
Post edited at 19:17
Donald82 03 Jul 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

Very true.
 Offwidth 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
Your gran would maybe be in my third category. I always meant the normal view of the word: an unreasonable fear of foriegners. My basic point on xenophobia is that it is wrong and stupid (usually based on propaganda to disguise a real cause) and swung the vote. Sure the right wing press are guilty of peddling it, thats the propaganda bit. Sure not every leave votor is a xenophobe (for the nth time). Yet, the levels have increased to a point where alongside a much smaller group of racists it almost certainly swung the vote and is looking dangerous to our society.


Post edited at 05:58
1
 Offwidth 04 Jul 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

Any negative impacts on lower paid jobs above minimum wage are not the migrant's fault. Work conditions can be improved by strengthening employment rules (red tape to some!) improving minimum wages (something this government did do) and made worse by legislativelty attacking the trade unions (like this government planned). Agency workers are both expensive and damage productivity so organisations using them on a normal basis are simply not planning properly.

A well regulated market should makes us all richer: blame the regulation that its not, not the migrants. Yes the EU is part of the problem, but our democratically elected government is worse.
1
 Offwidth 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
Sorry, but I will do my level best to fight this dishonest outcome and the dangerous xenophobia that delivered it. The vote is only advisory, opposed by the vast majority of our MPs in a representaive democracy, facing legal and practical problems (where is this army of well prepared trade negotiators in a austerity starved civil service, who by a large majority would have voted remain).

As for the link, if Gideon followed the austerity logic we would be facing the next austerity budget. Marr is dishonest in those questions as he knows they have given up on austerity for political not economic reasons. Our houses have devalued right now by 10% compared to international norms. I'm hoping in the new found pragmatic view in the treasury (Keynsian?) that growth will now be above the most dire forecasts but inflation and a 3.5% hit are perfectly realistic if we go all isolationist and cut migration. The infamous 350 million is equivalent to less than 1% growth.
Post edited at 06:31
1
 MG 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Any negative impacts on lower paid jobs above minimum wage are not the migrant's fault. Work conditions can be improved by strengthening employment rules

That's not true for the self employed, such as many tradesman.
1
 Offwidth 04 Jul 2016
In reply to MG:
There are regulations for trades and migrants with a new business start at a big disadvantage (housing is expensive in the UK, you need to invest and learn and deal with UK customers) and will have roughly the same running costs and need for a profit so to compete must be offering much better value (quality vs cost) for any service. The London plumber situation was infamous pre EU migration.
Post edited at 07:30
1
 The New NickB 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Some interesting results from the social attitudes survey.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racism-on-the-rise-in-uk-wit...
1
 ben b 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Apart from making some here feel oh so better than others, and smug in their moral superiority, what does this endless and unprovable debate that there may or may not have been a degree of "racism" in some people's motivation for voting prove?

Is it because it is important that racist behaviour is challenged and not accepted?

> Shouldn't we move on to debating the future?

Yes, but not forgetting that - like it or not - an unpleasantly large contribution to the Leave vote came from xenophobic bigotry. Forgetting racism and intolerance rather than calling it out? I hope not. If people have been recipients of this then they have the right to forgive, but it isn't for others to forget.

Unfortunately, to use an appalling phrase, "we are where we are" and the next step is probably minimising the economic, political and societal damage. I was in the UK again last week and for someone paying in another currency everything was 10% off - all purchases, the economy, etc. How nice it would be for someone to have some sensible ideas about what to do about it....

b
1
 Shani 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Apart from making some here feel oh so better than others, and smug in their moral superiority, what does this endless and unprovable debate that there may or may not have been a degree of "racism" in some people's motivation for voting prove?

> Shouldn't we move on to debating the future?

Classic opinion of the 'stale, male and pale' in the face of racism and xenophobia.
1
 Timmd 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Shani:
I think it's true that the luckiest people can wonder what the problem is to do with racism where they happen to be from the majority race. In Taiwan it's white people who can bare the brunt of it.

Having heard Trevor Philips grumble about 'North London types' who (in his opinion) seem to like to speak up on behalf of minorities for their own benefit or sense of goodness, I guess I can see where people might be coming from in calling others smug?

On the other hand, it's almost as if you can't mention having a friend of a different race to you on here (where it's relevant in the context of what's being discussed) without some people putting the label 'smug liberal' onto you, which is rather tiresome, & a bit narrow minded I dare say too.
Post edited at 11:37
1
OP Big Ger 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Shani:

> Classic opinion of the 'stale, male and pale' in the face of racism and xenophobia.

Classic reply of the white-middle-class-guilt-ridden-lefty.
4
 Timmd 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
I think he means that the privileged people less readily see the problem (which is definitely true).

There was a recent racism incident in Taiwan against some white people which has sparked native Taiwanese people talking about 'the need to face up to the problem' and that kind of thing, what your average 'white middle class guilt ridden lefty' might say.

ahem
Post edited at 22:31
1
 jkarran 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Move on and look to the opportunities this decision brings ( not my words)

The opportunities are bullshit. Exit offers us nothing we didn't or more to the point couldn't already have if we weren't governed by kleptocratic assclowns. What we get (thanks!) is an absolutely massive pile of utterly useless distraction and uncertainty that's likely to drag on for years.

At this point though we're going round in circles.
jk
Post edited at 22:41
2
Jim C 04 Jul 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> The opportunities are bullshit. Exit offers us nothing we didn't or more to the point couldn't already have but for an absolutely massive pile of utterly useless distraction and uncertainty that's likely to drag on for years.

> At this point though we're going round in circles.

> jk

You're ( not we're ) certainly in a spiral of dispair , whilst others , particularly in the government, are looking and moving forward.
7
OP Big Ger 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I think he means that the privileged people less readily see the problem (which is definitely true).

Well he should know.

 jkarran 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

That's their job. It doesn't mean they wouldn't be looking at a significantly rosier future had we not voted for this disaster.
jk
1
 Timmd 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Forgot a winky smiley after my ahem...
1
 Pete Pozman 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I know some noble people who voted against Europe on democracy grounds and I can vouch for the fact that they are not racists. I still cannot fathom what on earth they were thinking of. I personally have more respect for the unelected "bureaucrats" in Brussels than I do for my own government.
2
 Timmd 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Same here, though I remain optimistic we could have a government to be proud of some day.
Post edited at 23:04
2
 mwr72 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> There are regulations for trades and migrants with a new business start at a big disadvantage (housing is expensive in the UK, you need to invest and learn and deal with UK customers) and will have roughly the same running costs and need for a profit so to compete must be offering much better value (quality vs cost) for any service. The London plumber situation was infamous pre EU migration.

You want to try working in construction for a week or so then you may realise the damage that has been caused by greedy companies employing overseas "trades"(quite a few are chancers) who will work for minimum wage or less, they get around this by using self employed trades and offering diabolical prices on the work offered.

There are thousands of trades who have been forced out of construction and have had to move in to other sectors just because they couldn't make a wage on site.
 balmybaldwin 04 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> You're ( not we're ) certainly in a spiral of dispair , whilst others , particularly in the government, are looking and moving forward.

You must be referring to someone else's government? ours appears to be navel gazing and procrastinating and certainly not moving forward.
In reply to Jim C:
> You're ( not we're ) certainly in a spiral of dispair , whilst others , particularly in the government, are looking and moving forward.

No way our politicians are looking forward. They're either resigning or watching their back.
Post edited at 23:22
OP Big Ger 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> I personally have more respect for the unelected "bureaucrats" in Brussels than I do for my own government.

Can you explain why? That sounds remarkably strange.
4
 Roadrunner5 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Can you explain why? That sounds remarkably strange.

Out right lying, whipping up a hateful atmosphere with xenophobic posters, back stabbing, disloyalty, corrupt expenses... At a guess..
OP Big Ger 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

That's still no reason to trust unelected foreign bureaucrats over local politicians, but let's see what the man himself has to say.
4
 Roadrunner5 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
When the whole unelected thing really is blown up. Its like saying the UK isnt a democracy because we have the lords. There are unelected components, but ultimately most of it comes down to the MEPs, who can block the commission.

In the UK the unelected Lords can block bills.

And yes it is. If the elected politicians have no accountability, lie freely, then yes, they are worse than people who are unelected.

That's the problem with the UK system. A safe seat politician can be pretty much an unaccountable arse because his seat is safe.
Post edited at 04:19
 Offwidth 05 Jul 2016
In reply to mwr72:
Rule breakiers and chancers and criminals are not limited to migrants and exploitation (those british companies) is hardly something we should be blaming migrants for. I know plenty of tradesfolk, builders, surveyers and civil engineers and although its tough during austerity your picture is not the norm (plenty are doing OK) nor is it migrants fault. Genuine low quality labour leads to shit results which cost more in the end given the way contracts are set.

The british workers on our site seemed very happy with the vote and cheered when they heard the news of the crash following it.. rich people getting it I suppose.... wonder who pays for their jobs a few years down the line.
Post edited at 07:43
Donald82 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I find it weird you either can't see or don't care what a horrible, racist, dishonest campaign it was from leave.

This should bother decent people, regardless of how they voted.
 andyfallsoff 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> That's still no reason to trust unelected foreign bureaucrats over local politicians, but let's see what the man himself has to say.

Also what does "foreign" have to do with it? Why would someone being foreign make any difference whatsoever to how trustworthy they are? And if it doesn't make any difference, why include that word in the sentence?
OP Big Ger 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> I find it weird you either can't see or don't care what a horrible, racist, dishonest campaign it was from leave.

I can see that there was a racist tinge to some of the Leave campaign.

What I can also see is that while some of the Leave campaign was "horrible, racist, dishonest " by focussing on that exclusively some people lost all perspectives on the bigger picture.

The remain team's campaign was hardly a shining example of decency either.

> This should bother decent people, regardless of how they voted.

As I say, some people prefer to focus on the perceived "racism", and hence lose sight of the actual debate.
OP Big Ger 05 Jul 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Also what does "foreign" have to do with it?

They are remote from, and unaccountable too, the electorate.

> Why would someone being foreign make any difference whatsoever to how trustworthy they are?

Nobody said it did, these are words you are putting into other people's mouths.




 Offwidth 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
You mean like The Queen, The Lords, the quangos, Dacre and Murdoch doing for Boris, the civil servants who will write our new trade agreements with no careful democratic checks that would apply to such changes in the EU.
Post edited at 09:53
1
 andyfallsoff 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

In your previous sentence you use "foreign" as one of the reasons why we shouldn't trust EU "bureaucrats". So I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm responding to exactly the point you were suggesting.
1
 winhill 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> I find it weird you either can't see or don't care what a horrible, racist, dishonest campaign it was from leave.

I guess the point of the thread would be that your sort of stupid has dominated the debate and not the Left case for Leave?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/the-labour-case-for-a-leave...

Signed

Kelvin Hopkins MP Labour, Luton North
Kate Hoey MP Labour, Vauxhall
Graham Stringer MP Labour, Blackley and Broughton
Roger Godsiff MP Labour, Birmingham Hall Green
Elaine Smith MSP Labour, Central Scotland
Ronnie Draper General secretary, BFAWU
Tosh McDonald National president, ASLEF
Arthur Scargill Former president, NUM
Steve Hedley Assistant general secretary, RMT
Gawain Little National executive, NUT
Alan Gibson National executive, NUJ
Mandy Brown National executive, UCU
Karen Reissmann National executive, Unison
Paul Williams National executive, PCS
John Sweeney Ucatt
Len Hockey Unite
Tam Dewar CWU
Val Guiraud NASUWT
Doug Nicolls Chair, Trade Unions Against the EU
Brendan Chilton General secretary, Labour Leave

When you get cocks saying there are no opportunities from a Brexit, it's like they don't even know the leave case.

3
 andyfallsoff 05 Jul 2016
In reply to winhill:

> I guess the point of the thread would be that your sort of stupid has dominated the debate and not the Left case for Leave?

"your sort of stupid" - is this insult really necessary?

> When you get cocks saying there are no opportunities from a Brexit, it's like they don't even know the leave case.

Again, needless insults. But anyway:

I don't think most people are saying there are no opportunities. Just that the opportunities have been exaggerated by an over-eager leave campaign, and are outweighed by the numerous downsides.

As for the labour case for leave - you're effectively saying that a leave vote is a chance to reset the political landscape and revert to several traditional left wing policies. The clear problems are: (1) that there isn't any indication that this is the direction politics will take - in fact, quite the opposite, as the right wing of the tory party has been emboldened by the leave vote; and (2) for all that these policies are supposed to make society fairer, this completely neglects the damage that is highly likely to be caused by the disruption caused by the exit vote.
 Timmd 05 Jul 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I think he's possibly talking about Remainers saying Leave voters are stupid/sort of stupid?
1
 Pete Pozman 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

No doubt we can agree that we went into Iraq with no plan A, let alone a plan B, and we'll be quick to condemn the politicians who got us into the mess. At least with Brexit the Bridish Peeble have only themselves to blame, the Plan A being Leave and the Plan B being Leave and the Plan C being let's move on. "Keep calm and carry on" looks good on a coffee mug but it's just not good enough as a policy.
It's happening again in the Tory leadership campaign. Lord save us from our "Leaders".
1
Donald82 05 Jul 2016
In reply to winhill:

Er... That has nothing to do with my point. I Hope all those people are concerned by the leave campaign....
1
Donald82 05 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Which ever way you vote, its quite possible to criticise the leave campaign for its racism and have a sensible debate too.
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

But is it possible not to tar all leave supporters with the "racist" brush, and should any perceived racism dominate the debate?
1
 marsbar 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

You really are going for the wooden spoon award. Stir stir stir.

You know damn well it's not perceived, and you know damn well no one actually called all the leave voters racists.

I know you are bored, but these are real people getting beaten, getting threatened, getting scarves pulled off, and being verbally abused.
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:


> You know damn well it's not perceived, and you know damn well no one actually called all the leave voters racists.

So it's all "real" racism, and no one has called all the leave voters racist?



 marsbar 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I asked days ago for evidence that anyone called all the leave voters racist. No answers...
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

So we're all agreed that not all leave voters are racist? Great, that's a step forward.

So why then is it that the debate always seems to return to "racism"? (Please find me a "Brexit" debate where "racism" doesn't crop up.)

1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> In your previous sentence you use "foreign" as one of the reasons why we shouldn't trust EU "bureaucrats".

That's true, the actual quote was;

> I personally have more respect for the unelected "bureaucrats" in Brussels than I do for my own government.

So I'm in error to say "trust" and not "respect", my bad, mea culpa.

Though why Pete Pozman has more respect for foreign bureaucrats, over home grown ones, is also rather strange. How does he know these bureaucrats are worthy of "respect"?
Donald82 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

My complaint is about 1. the *campaign* being racist and 2. leave voters ignoring this. Not leave voters being racists.

I think both points are very important. Particularly when you have people calling it, "perceived racism", and seeing any mention of racism as an accusation against all.

Other points are important too.

All should be discussed. And are discussed..

1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> My complaint is about 1. the *campaign* being racist and

Ok, so is it that you believe;

1) the whole of the leave campaign is racist.
2) some of the leave campaign is racist?
3) some aspects of the leave campaign can be seen as racist?
4) "I'll look for what I see as racism, and tar the whole campaign with that"?

> 2. leave voters ignoring this. Not leave voters being racists.

Ok, how much should this perceived "racism" influence the Leave voter?

1) any racism demonstrated should make them immediately change their vote
2) If racism is shown to exist, they should think about voting otherwise.
3) They should take the racism of other people as an indication the leave campaign may be a bad thing.
4) They should consider the racism factor as one influencing aspect amongst all the various factors for voting out.
5) They should ignore the racism of others and voting on the principles they believe in.
Post edited at 07:33
 Sir Chasm 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Ok, how much should this perceived "racism" influence the Leave voter?

You know the campaign is over don't you? News has reached the antipodes?

> 1) any racism demonstrated should make them immediately change their vote

It's unlikely to make racist voters change their vote, don't you think?

> 2) If racism is shown to exist, they should think about voting otherwise.

Again, not likely to make racists change. And your "if racism is shown to exist" is pathetic.

> 3) They should take the racism of other people as an indication the leave campaign may be a bad thing.

They should take it as an indication that the racist aspects are bad, wouldn't you say?

> 4) They should consider the racism factor as one influencing aspect amongst all the various factors for voting out.

At least you seem to accept it was a factor, progress of sorts.

> 5) They should ignore the racism of others and voting on the principles they believe in.

You think racism should be ignored? How lumpy is your carpet? But of course, they can vote on their own principles. Just like the racists did.
1
Donald82 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

It seems very clear to me that the leave campaign, as a whole, was a racist and dishonest campaign.

I don't think this should *necessarily* make people that would otherwise vote leave change their vote, but it should be a relevant factor they consider - and at very least they should voice their disgust even if they still vote leave. The ends don't always justify the means and it's important for democracy that, at some stage, politicians get punished if they campaign dishonestly, or stoke up racism.

(If the Yes campaign in Scotland had been like the leave campaign I hope and believe that I would have changed my vote to No.)
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> It seems very clear to me that the leave campaign, as a whole, was a racist and dishonest campaign.

So you believe the whole of the campaign was 'racist", do you not see how that may lead people to believe you are either dishonest or , to put it bluntly, nieve?

Could you tell me which part of this is "racist"?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/campaign


> I don't think this should *necessarily* make people that would otherwise vote leave change their vote, but it should be a relevant factor they consider - and at very least they should voice their disgust even if they still vote leave.

That is a very fair assessment.

> The ends don't always justify the means and it's important for democracy that, at some stage, politicians get punished if they campaign dishonestly, or stoke up racism.

No disagreement from me.

> (If the Yes campaign in Scotland had been like the leave campaign I hope and believe that I would have changed my vote to No.)

That would be honest of you.
 jkarran 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> So we're all agreed that not all leave voters are racist? Great, that's a step forward.
> So why then is it that the debate always seems to return to "racism"? (Please find me a "Brexit" debate where "racism" doesn't crop up.)

Perhaps: because unabashed xenophobia was the centerpiece of the deeply divisive leave campaign we've been subjected to in the UK for the last few weeks and police-reported hatecrime has increased five fold since the result. Nice down there in Australia is it?
jk
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> Perhaps: because unabashed xenophobia was the centerpiece of the deeply divisive leave campaign we've been subjected to in the UK for the last few weeks and police-reported hatecrime has increased five fold since the result.

I disagree. But I don't think there's the slightest chance in hell that I can change your views.

> Nice down there in Australia is it?

Nicer than anywhere you are.
1
 andyfallsoff 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I disagree. But I don't think there's the slightest chance in hell that I can change your views.

You disagree that these incidences are happening?

> Nicer than anywhere you are.

I think that's precisely the point - you aren't here to experience quite how nasty things feel, and how much openly racist and xenophobic abuse is flying around. Which makes it a bit rich for you to tell us who are here that we should be quiet about it.
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> You disagree that these incidences are happening?

No, of course not. I do doubt that; "unabashed xenophobia was the centerpiece of the deeply divisive leave campaign"

> I think that's precisely the point - you aren't here to experience quite how nasty things feel, and how much openly racist and xenophobic abuse is flying around. Which makes it a bit rich for you to tell us who are here that we should be quiet about it.

I've not told anyone they should be quiet about it.
Post edited at 10:25
 Timmd 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> No, of course not. I do doubt that; "unabashed xenophobia was the centerpiece of the deeply divisive leave campaign"

> I've not told anyone they should be quiet about it.

Not 'literally' you haven't, no...

'' Apart from making some here feel oh so better than others, and smug in their moral superiority, what does this endless and unprovable debate that there may or may not have been a degree of "racism" in some people's motivation for voting prove? Shouldn't we move on to debating the future? ''

Post edited at 10:31
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Yes, that was the point I was making, and, seeing as we've had 187 replies I can hardly be accused of trying to silence people can I? Quite the opposite in fact.
 Timmd 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
There's more than one way to achieve/say the same thing. Saying people have a smug sense of moral superiority (or whatever it was) in saying something, isn't exactly welcoming it as something to discuss, I would suggest.

If the campaign wasn't racist and xenophobic itself (Baroness Warzi seems to think it was), since Brexit, with how there's been an increase in brown/foreign sounding people being asked why they're still here, and being told that it's time for them to leave, and different kinds of hate crime/instances of intolerance occurring, it doesn't like a leap of thought to think that it's somehow tapped into peoples' more negative feelings about people they don't see as being British, namely people who aren't white and who don't sound native-English.

I get the feeling this could go round in circles...
Post edited at 10:55
1
 Shani 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Is your middle name 'An'?
1
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:
> There's more than one way to achieve/say the same thing. Saying people have a smug sense of moral superiority (or whatever it was) in saying something, isn't exactly welcoming it as something to discuss, I would suggest.

Well that depends if you are one of those people who feel morally superior about their stances or not.

> If the campaign wasn't racist and xenophobic itself (Baroness Warzi seems to think it was), since Brexit, with how there's been an increase in brown/foreign sounding people being asked why they're still here, and being told that it's time for them to leave, and different kinds of hate crime/instances of intolerance occurring, it doesn't like a leap of thought to think that it's somehow tapped into peoples' more negative feelings about people they don't see as being British, namely people who aren't white and who don't sound native-English.

If that is happening, and I've no reason to doubt it is, it is then it should be sh@t on from a great height. However, allowing some racist thugs to dominate the debate, and to divert attention away from the serious issue of EU membership choices, serves no one any good.

This is one of the problems that I was trying to highlight. The fixation on "racism" had perverted debate. Racism should be exposed wherever it occurs, but there is far more to the EU debate than perceived racism, and I believe a lot of intelligent political debate is being lost.

> I get the feeling this could go round in circles...

Its already lapped itself old chum.
Post edited at 11:04
 Timmd 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Well that depends if you are one of those people who feel morally superior about their stances or not.

I don't follow the logic?

> If that is happening, and I've no reason to doubt it is, it is then it should be sh@t on from a great height. However, allowing some racist thugs to dominate the debate, and to divert attention away from the serious issue of EU membership choices, serves no one any good.
> This is one of the problems that I was trying to highlight. The fixation on "racism" had perverted debate. Racism should be exposed wherever it occurs, but there is far more to the EU debate than perceived racism, and I believe a lot of intelligent political debate is being lost.

That's fair enough.



 Pete Pozman 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Can you explain why? That sounds remarkably strange.

The diplomats, bureaucrats, commissioners and elected politicians in EU institutions have to negotiate carefully and pragmatically to ensure the progress of a common project taking into account the massive diversity inherent in an organisation involving 28 sovereign states.
In the UK our politicians have shown themselves capable of massive disregard for our national safety and prosperity by putting the perceived needs of political parties above the common wealth. I cite Cameron's manifesto pledge to hold a referendum in the first place and Corbyn's current effort to secure the Labour Party for the Far Left.
Our UK politicians have shown themselves inadequate in every area of governance but most starkly in their willingness to lie and espouse views and beliefs for the convenience of the advancement of their own careers.

The public behave like visitors to a theme park. They get on the roller coaster and never give a thought as to whether the engineers in charge of it are qualified to keep them safe. They don't distrust politicians enough in my opinion, although "distrust" is often cited for the protest element in the Brexit vote. It never occurs to them that the country will actually come off the rails; that they might become utterly destitute or that their loved ones might become embroiled in war or permanent civil unrest.
And the politicians use their gullibility and inexperience to try to fulfil their own dreams of power and fame.
I believe that the EU was on a slow steady rise to prosperity and peace. I believe that our UK politicians are leading us to ruin.
Think about it. How have you been adversely affected by the EU and its "laws"? I can think of lots of ways our UK politicians have cynically shafted us and continue to .
1
 jkarran 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> I disagree.

On what grounds do you disagree, on the basis of the limited media coverage you get of British news in Australia?

Yeah, that seems totally reasonable, you're clearly better placed to assess how the campaign looked and felt than people who actually had to put up with it on their TV, radio and news stands pretty much constantly for 2 months...
jk
Post edited at 12:27
1
 Bob Hughes 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> The fixation on "racism" had perverted debate. Racism should be exposed wherever it occurs, but there is far more to the EU debate than perceived racism, and I believe a lot of intelligent political debate is being lost.

Further up thread I linked to 5 Brexit threads on here in which racism didn't drown out intelligent debate. (it didn't even drown out stupid debate in some cases...) . Since then a few more threads have been started which haven't so far descended into racism.



 marsbar 06 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> I asked days ago for evidence that anyone called all the leave voters racist. No answers...

https://www.facebook.com/atasteoftheawful/photos/a.1635658216752441.1073741...
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't follow the logic?

Well if you accept you are one of those people who feel morally superior about their stances, then you would not be worried by me referring to you as such. If you are not, then I wasn't referring to you.

OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Further up thread I linked to 5 Brexit threads on here in which racism didn't drown out intelligent debate. (it didn't even drown out stupid debate in some cases...) . Since then a few more threads have been started which haven't so far descended into racism.

That's good news then.
OP Big Ger 06 Jul 2016
In reply to jkarran:
> On what grounds do you disagree, on the basis of the limited media coverage you get of British news in Australia?

We don't have the internet here are you implying? We don't have VPN to watch the BBC/ITV etc? We do not get British papers here?

You really are sounding either desperate of ridiculous now.

> Yeah, that seems totally reasonable, you're clearly better placed to assess how the campaign looked and felt than people who actually had to put up with it on their TV, radio and news stands pretty much constantly for 2 months...

Or actually, you're sounding very silly. Where have I claimed to know better? Am I not allowed a viewpoint, are you for suppressing free speech?

Your parochial, narrow minded, bigoted, and almost fascistic stance against people who do not live in the UK is clearly driven by a warped ideology, of the sort that led to Stalin's purges.


> BG
Post edited at 22:57
2
 jkarran 06 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Selection bias.
Jk

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...