EU Referendum – are you in or out?

As Dan Jarvis and MP after MP said being concerned about immigration does not make you a racist of a xenophobe

Doesn’t matter who or how many said it if they’re all incorrect.

1) Why are people concerned about immigration?
2) Do any, some, or all of those reasons fall under either of the two definitions given under the dictionary entry above for the word xenophobe?

If the answer to (2) is yes, then those are xenophobic reasons. Someone using xenophobic reasons to justify their position is, by definition, a xenophobe. If they discriminate, or wish to discriminate, based upon those xenophobic reasons, then those actions may in some circumstances be considered racist.

the Remainers here are responsible for 99% of the abuse and name calling

There is a point where even the most reasoned individual cannot deal with an incessant barrage of complete untruths and wilful disinformation posted to deliberately de-rail a debate. There is also a point where if someone continually posts demonstrable falsehoods then they and their argument become one and the same, and equally open to criticism or rebuke. As you crossed that boundary a long time ago, you shouldn’t be surprised by what follows.

If you are concerned that the countries population is too high then you would also be for controlling the population via other means (number of children permitted etc,.) but don’t hear that mentioned much?

If you suggest population control by limiting incomers you get called a racist. If you suggest population control by limiting family numbers you get called a Nazi – the angst is far worse.

I’m not a brexiter but I am in favour of population control by both limiting immigration *and* limiting family numbers, I rarely admit to the former in conversation and I would never dare admit to the latter. There are some things you can’t say.

Interestingly, although 90pc of my friends would go ballistic if I admitted the above, they *all* object to any new build planning applications in our area and campaign accordingly.

But i am allowed to judge them by the company they keep and the Brexy campaign was walking shoulder to shoulder with EDL beliefs.

Well in that case I think we can all agree that the Nazis believed in a united Europe, so can we tar the remain campaign with the same brush?

Well in that case I think we can all agree that the Nazis believed in a united Europe, so can we tar the remain campaign with the same brush?

…and nobody will ever better them in terms of moving Labour between countries.

I suppose the big difference between the Nazi view of a United Europe and the EU view is that the Nazis wanted it to be dominated by Germany… Oh hang on…

Brexie snowflakes 😉 complaining about namecalling?

the problem is that the rightwing press have been able to spout xenophobic nonsense for decades (thanks to an an impotent PCC)
from health tourism to bendy bananas

making fertile ground for UKIP and the staright up lies of Vote Leave
to scapegoat the EU for our own government failings

its happy days if you are a racist, Brexit & Trump, LePenn the politics of hate and the alt-right are a powerful lure to those whove been left behind by their own governments

On name calling… this just brings us back to…

“It’s not about immigrants”
“It’s all about immigrants”

Suggest that fear of immigrants, or blaming of immigrants, or, at its very worst, hatred of immigrants, are core motivations for many people who voted Leave, and you are accused of name calling.

Suggest that a Leave vote was not a mandate to stop FoM, and you are accused of trying to subvert democracy.

So… Leave… is it not about immigrants… is it all about immigrants…?

ooohh can I just add that my favourite insult of the alt-right (they use it on here a bit) is ‘Virtue Signalling’

because signalling that you are virtuous is obviously a bad thing 🙄

On name calling… this just brings us back to…

“It’s not about immigrants”
“It’s all about immigrants”

Suggest that fear of immigrants, or blaming of immigrants, or, at it’s very worst, hatred of immigrants are core motivations for many people who voted Leave, and you are accused of name calling,

Suggest that a Leave vote was not a mandate to stop FoM, and you are accused of trying to subvert democracy.

So… Leave… is it not about immigrants… is it all about immigrants…?

False dichotomy. It can be all about immigration, without being all about immigrants.

They recently built 5000 homes near me. Everyone was up in arms. We didn’t want 5000 new families crowding out our already crowded area.

We didn’t have any personal issue with the people moving in, but we didn’t want them there all the same.

In the same way, if they built 5000 and sold them to Eskimos, we’d still be against it. But it wouldn’t be a problem with Eskimos.

And yes, people would point out the economic benefit we got. The near worthless agricultural land near us is now worth many many millions.

But none that matters, if you’re arguing with a racist, calling him a racist *still* doesn’t help win the argument. You have to explain the the benefits and hope that overcomes his dislike of the race in question. It won’t always, but just stating “You are a racist” definitely won’t.

Trying to guess people’s motives never wins an argument – they know what their motives are, you don’t need to guess and tell them what your guess is.

because signalling that you are virtuous is obviously a bad thing

It’s bad if what you’re asking for is unworkable.

The time to worry about whether it is counter productive to call xenophobes and racists out for being xenophobic and racist is as you say Jamba gone.
Now is the time to start stamping on xenophobia and racism every time you see it.

Ninfan – I’m calling you out as a barrack room lawyer. And not a good one as by your logic all nazis would be Romans. Fool

“Now is the time to start stamping on xenophobia and racism every time you see it.”

Very commendable. Can you give me an example of you doing that recently, being really specific about what the racism was and what your stamping consisted of.

some good points from Ivan Rogers putting the

‘we should just leave now’ brexies in their place

He says a lot of single market access depends upon trade being certified by bodies that the UK will not recognise after Brexit. So access to the single market will automatically lapse without new agreements.

For example, medicines authorised by EU bodies will not be able to go on sale after Brexit without that authorisation.

If the UK walks away without a deal, and is reliant on WTO terms, you need to understand what that means.

If the UK walks away without a deal, and is reliant on WTO terms, you need to understand what that means.[/I]

Yep, been saying it every since whichever idiot it was that said we’d go WTO ‘terms’.

And now go look at the implication on agricultural export under WTO. Who’s going to give up quota’s to enable us to sell back into the EU?

Do you dispute this?

No, I am disputing the idea that Brexies have already resorted to murder. You appear to be struggling with that and the core issues under debate here.

grow up

Ok, but how will I be able to engage with you then?

That all depends why you are concerned and what it is based on.

Indeed, the concerns expressed had no factual basis and we based purely on an irrational fear of foreigners ie, xenophobia. It was a very clear example, about as clear as you could get.

From Bank’s book

I’m clear how we can help win the referendum: by acting as the provisional wing of the Brexit campaign, doing and saying the things that, as leader of Britain’s third biggest political party, Nigel can’t. I’ve told him my priority will be to put immigration at the heart of the debate and engage millions of voters who dislike and distrust the political classes…..

….‘Let’s shake this up,’ I said cheerfully. ‘The more outrageous we are, the more attention we’ll get; the more attention we get, the more outrageous we’ll be.’ He (NF) looked a little unconvinced by this strategy. ‘Only time will tell if you and Wigmore are geniuses or complete idiots,’ he said.

Both?

OOB – given it will be easy for you to check, you will find examples on this very thread where I have suggested to individuals that they might want to reconsider their words as the potential to be interpreted as xenophobic / racist was there. Gentle stamping perhaps, but language was moderated – for a bit at least.

teamhurtmore – Member

Do you dispute this?

No, I am disputing the idea that Brexies have already resorted to murder. You appear to be struggling with that and the core issues under debate here.[/quote]

He is a Brexy. He resorted to murder. As you say, QED.

outofbreath, does it matter to you if your new neighbours are from Yorkshire, or Linconshire? Now, does it matter to you if they are from England or Poland? Questioning people’s motivation is essential when looking at these things. Why do we not have calls for more controls over people moving within a country, only between them?

IGM, you will find examples on this very thread where I have suggested to individuals that they might want to reconsider their words as the potential to be interpreted as joining the Brexshiteers in excess hyperbole was there. Gentle stamping perhaps, but language still not moderated – not for now at least.

There is time.

(a wee jpke IGM, not that I am suggesting that you are demonstrating other friend’s lack of basic comprehension)

OOB – trying to convince racists because calling them racist won’t help you win the argument.
The racists have already won the argument. It doesn’t matter anymore. Time to be honest with them.

Questioning people’s motivation is essential when looking at these things.

How?

Why do we not have calls for more controls over people moving within a country, only between them?

We do. In the last two places I live the common complaint is “They keep forcing the overspill from London on us.”.

THM – like it. 😉
I may not agree but I laughed

I have suggested to individuals that they might want to reconsider their words as the potential to be interpreted as xenophobic / racist was there

LOL. So like me you haven’t met a European racist for years. What you’ve done is twisted people’s words on the internet to make them look racist.

Glad you laughed – it was meant as a gentle joke. Humour can work better than BS occasionally!

Questioning people’s motivation is essential when looking at these things.

How?[/quote]
Same way you interview somebody, same way you get information you want and assess people. Ask questions, talk, engage see what really drives them, sometimes confronting people – it’s great being a white male immigrant really does let you have some shock value when you call out somebody for their behaviour.

Same way you interview somebody, same way you get information you want and assess people. Ask questions, talk, engage see what really drives them, sometimes confronting people – it’s great being a white male immigrant really does let you have some shock value when you call out somebody for their behaviour.

You know what I meant, how does guessing a motivation help you win a debate?

It’s irrelevant. He already knows his motivation.

All you can do is spell out your case, and point out any factual errors he makes.

I’ve met people who are open to being persuaded, many are just mislead. Part of understanding what why is understanding what they believe.

does it matter to you if your new neighbours are from Yorkshire, or Linconshire? Now, does it matter to you if they are from England or Poland?

Exactly.

So wanting less immigration is nothing to do with the Country of origin. Yorkshire, Poland, it makes no odds. So if what you say is true, being anti-immigration can’t possibly be racist.

The point is Land is a zero sum game. If someone else is using a bit of land[1], you have a bit less of it. It’s that simple.

[1] Putting a dwelling on it. Driving a car on it. Mountain biking on it. Whatever.

Part of understanding what why is understanding what they believe.

Calling them racist.

…and you know what. Doesn’t this last bit of debate prove my point.

We’re spending all this time arguing about whether it’s racist to want a lower population in the Uk, but even if we reach agreement you still haven’t convinced me that larger population improves my life.

The argument lost the debate for remain, it was a total distraction.

OOB – yes I’ve met racists. Trust me.

We’re spending all this time arguing about whether it’s racist to want a lower population in the Uk, but even if we reach agreement you still haven’t convinced me that larger population improves my life.

Exactly, if you moved another family into your house, and they paid half the bills, financially you’d be better off, would your quality of life?

OOB – yes I’ve met racists. Trust me.

Go on then, answer my original question with one of them. Don’t be shy.

Exactly, if you moved another family into your house, and they paid half the bills, financially you’d be better off, would your quality of life?

This.

Maybe it is better to live two families to a house, but the way to convince the family of that is not to say “You must just hate the people we’re moving in with you” it’s to convince them of the benefits. Somehow. 🙂

That’s all very well but how do you explain why the New Forest was one of the highest vote leave areas.

They certainly don’t like immigrants in the New Forest (from my experience), yet there is zero impact to people in the New Forest. Not exactly overcrowded so the population argument is not relevant and I would guess immigration is some of the lowest in the country.

I could tell you why they don’t like immigration but it would involve calling them racist. And yes you can try and debate with them but how many times have you debated with a racist about other races/cultures and how successful was that for you?

Maybe it is better to live two families to a house, but the way to convince the family of that is not to say “You must just hate the people we’re moving in with you” it’s to convince them of the benefits. Somehow

No, but I’m sure that telling them that if they dare to complain about it they are racist xenophobic scum isn’t going to endear them to the concept either 😉

That’s all very well but how do you explain why the New Forest was one of the highest vote leave areas.

They certainly don’t like immigrants in the New Forest (from my experience), yet there is zero impact to people in the New Forest. Not exactly overcrowded so the population argument is not relevant and I would guess immigration is some of the lowest in the country.

Because they look ten, fifteen miles down the road and say “**** that for a game of soldiers, no thanks”

I don’t think anyone is moving into your house.

Still, if that person was a surgeon, and you needed an op, you might mind less.

If your roof was falling in, and that person was a roofer, you might mind less.

The idea that “extra people” just take up room, rather than improving the country, is a popular viewpoint, for sure.

That’s all very well but how do you explain why the New Forest was one of the highest vote leave areas.

Because they leave tacks on the road during sportives?

That’s all very well but how do you explain why the New Forest was one of the highest vote leave areas.

Have you tried to drive through the New Forest on summers day? Any of the attractions you care to name are heaving. They’re building in a big way all along the M27 corridor to the East and that’s just the bits I know about. Even on weekdays commuting from Lymington to Sotton is a nightmare.

It’s rammed! A pretty poor example of somewhere that is improving with a rising population/

If your roof was falling in, and that person was a roofer, you might mind less.

Although perhaps if you were a roofer too, you might be less happy about it, particularly when you found out that he was willing to do the job for less than you could afford to, because housing benefit was paying his rent.