Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech

Supporters of political organisations like the freedom association and Ukip often claim that the UK's current hate speech and anti-defamation laws are simple attacks on free speech designed to curtail political expression and with a more Americanised approach the the situation the country would be far better off. The United States enjoys apparent freedom of speech under the US constitution yet despite these constitutional guarantees it has fallen sharply in the press freedom rankings tumbling from 20th to 46th position in just four years due to government pressure currently being placed on journalists and news agencies that are reporting on activities like NSA spying that put the government in a bad light. All this is happening as extremist groups like the Westbro Baptist church are allowed to spread their message of hate and and exclusion without legal consequence due to free speech protections.

It is this apparent freedom that the TFA and other organisations want to bring here in an argument that is often backed by the phrase "political correctness gone mad" but what does that actually mean? In the right-wing press political correctness if often attacked as an idiotic method of appeasing minority groups. I find that political correctness is simply an evolution of the English language, for example you would no call a co-worker, friend or stranger the n-word so why should you be able to use homophobic and sexist slurs in the workplace and in public? What these right-wingers fail to understand is that the right to free-speech does not extend to the right to belittle, offend or harass someone based on superficial points.

In this country we have real issues regarding freedom of speech. The United Kingdom itself has fallen sharply from 19th to 33rd in just four years as the governments attack on the Guardian, the security services harassment of David Miranda and the extent of how anti-terror legislation can be used against journalists and activists was revealed. These acts of state-repression should be fought against by free speech campaigns but starting a FoS campaign when all you want is the right to attack minorities is not only offensive and disingenuous but it also demeans the work of honest FoS campaigns that seek to protect journalists, activists and average citizens from legislation that in its current form can be used as a method of repression.

Euroscepticism and foreign policy.

If you've ever listened to a Ukip supporter argue for long enough you'll notice that they constantly talk about the apparent freedoms we're missing out of as part of the European Union and one of these rights seemingly lost to Brussels is an independent foreign policy, with sceptics claiming that if we left the European Union we could strike our own deals with trading partners and forge closer links with the Commonwealth.

I've always found this particular idea to be completely moronic as it is often based on a romanticised and simplified version of the past. In the days of the British Empire the world was a wildly different place with London able to maintain a strong position in world affairs simply because it was head of the largest empire in the world and could martial together the resources of millions of citizens, today that Empire has long disappeared and the axis of power has shifted. As part of the European Union the United Kingdom can maintain a strong position in trade deals and quickly organise sanctions and humanitarian missions in response to changing events. As an individual nation the UK would have a far weaker position in potential trade deals and sanctions/humanitarian missions would be harder to coordinate.

 In response to this i've heard sceptics claim that instead of working with the EU the country should forge closer relations with the Commonwealth but developing a trading union with a Commonwealth nation like Australia (population 22.9m, GDP 18th in the world, 10,000 miles away) would not be preferable to maintaining our trading union with the EU (population 503.5m, GDP 1st in the world, 21 miles away) and would surely require a standardised regulatory structure similar to the current European Union.

As a nation we must stop living in the past and accept the fact that the world is becoming less isolationist and power becoming less concentrated in nature.

Spirit of '45.

I shall hopefully be returning to full activity once again with a slight change in schedule. If everything is normal I should be posting articles every Monday and Friday. Here is an extremely short post I wrote after watching the Spirit of '45 on netflix

In the Second World War the vast industrial capacity of the United Kingdom was focused towards a singular goal, the destruction of Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers. Politics flew out of the window as all parties worked together in order to ensure production converting consumer goods factory to produce goods for the front lines and nationalising mines in order to ensure a constant rate of production. After achieving this victory the country was faced with a multitude of challenges damage from the blitz and the remnants of slum housing from the 30's combined with the near bankrupt nature of the country. Today we face the aftermath of one of the largest financial disasters since the great depression and a housing crisis that has been compounded by decades worth of government inaction. As a result people on the left and right have started blaming migrant communities for the shortage in housing, schools, hospitals and other local public services claiming that the influx of people as overwhelmed the system and led to the current situation but even if this was the case (its not) the current crisis remains and for a solution we must look at the actions of past governments

During the 45 election campaign Clement Atlee and the Labour Party pledged to remove the slums of the past and replace them with quality homes that will provide a stable foundation for the creation of the modern welfare state. After achieving a landslide victory Nye Bevan, then Minister of Health stepped into the role working with town planners and architects to construct attractive low-income housing (that was obviously a massive increase in quality from the slums of the past), nationalising former privately owned hospitals and constructing new clinics to suit the needs of the population. We need to re-kindle the spirit of 45 and empower national and local government not only to construct new homes, schools and hospitals but repair current empty lots and re-open public services forced to close due to government cuts. An end to the damaging policy of austerity and a solution to the public services crisis that does not involve scapegoating immigrants.

A case for re-nationalisation.

When our rail, energy and water networks were privatised the British people were promised a revolution with new capitalist competition paving the way for cheaper and more effective services. Instead of this the private companies have seen fit to record sky-high profits whilst ignoring complaints about poor service, confusing tariffs and constant above inflation price rises that in the case of the energy industry never seem to come down when energy is cheaper in the summer. I've talked about the inefficient rail network in the past and how private companies are glad to pocket the money while leaving the state to pick up the short stick and the same principle applies to the energy and water sectors. Nationalising these portions of the economy with greatly help those in fuel poverty across the country by giving them a permanent break from the extortionate prices rises of private industry.

Critics will highlight the fact that nationalised industry in the UK was inefficient but it does not have to be that way. In the past our nationalised industries performed admirably and we have efficient state-owned companies in the rest of Europe to look on upon for guidance. Instead of pessimistically looking at the works of times we should focus on the benefits that nationalisation will bring to the country and think of ways to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

Public Relations 101: Some tips for UKIP

As a political commentator and a fairly argumentative tweeter I have talked to dozens of supporters of Ukip with varying levels of civility, discussing everything from certain types of EU regulations to controversial statements made by junior and senior members of the organisation, and over the months of back and forth arguing  I discovered something rather interesting. When talking to these members one comment is almost expected to appear in the conversation, no it is not a supreme hatred of the European Union, workers rights of a distrust of everything foreign but talk of an organised smear campaign being carried out by the political establishment, the national press and not surprisingly the European Union.

After providing someone with evidence linking Ukip members to offensive comments, whether it is Roger Helmers multitude of inappropriate comments levelled against everything from homosexuals to seal cubs or Nigel Farage's own racist comments about Romanians and other foreign speakers an individual will either mark the publication as "leftist", a statement that does not change the validity of the quotations or it will be marked as part of an organised smear campaign made because the political and media establishment are afraid of the rise of Ukip.

I'm not going to go into details about how Nigel Farage a privately educated former conservative whose only real work experience is in the financial sector is really a part of the establishment or why the party is funded by wealthy millionaires with a grudge against the conservative party but I will give some advice on future conduct. What Ukip and its supporters need to understand is that reporting the news does not and has never been considered part of a smear campaign and perhaps in the future they should stop making comments that the majority of the population find offensive especially if they want to represent the same people on a local, national or regional level. Ukip can only become a mature political party once they stop with the paranoid assumption that everyone is out against them and no longer resort to childish and petty insults when they are challenged to a reasonable debate on immigration or asked to make a policy statement that does not immediately go back to the EU like the Deputy Leaders favourable position on the privatisation of the National Health Service. Until then Ukip will always be a wasted vote.

Greens vs Labour

Labour have constantly attacked the coalition government for not doing anything to solve the current cost of living crisis but it is the Greens not Labour that have the real progressive solution to the problem, a worrying sign that the party has long abandoned the successful policies of Atlee and instead turned towards the neo-liberalist policies of Tony Blair that accelerated income inequality and created an unfair housing market.

The Green Party support the creation of a living wage, an item of legislation that would mean working class families would no longer have to depend on state money for basic requirements like the monthly food bill or energy bills. This is a real progressive solution that people on the left side of the political spectrum should be supporting with full force especially when you consider Labours alternative simply provides a minimum wage increase that would have families across the country still relying on government money despite being employed. The establishment of a living wage would restore some pride to these people, relieve a portion of the national budget (that could then be invested elsewhere) and even contribute to increased consumer spending as those previously living on the breadline would be in possession of disposable income.

On energy Ed Milliband garnered controversy and criticism from the right-wing community when he said that a Labour government would help those hit by the increasing cost of living by freezing energy prices but like others this solution does nothing to alleviate the crisis especially when combined with the party's lacklustre approach to stagnating wages. Whats needed is a radical approach designed to directly tackle the problems of the energy sector, the greed of private companies involved. The Greens plans to nationalise the energy market would ensure that fuel bills are kept consistent all year with price increases that don't constantly rise above inflation, the same can be said with the rail companies and with this we have a recent to look at and analyse. When the East Coast mainline was nationalised it was in complete disarray, the result of complete incompetence from the private company that ran it into the ground yet after a few years of being under state-control the company managed to record a sizeable profit while investing record sums on infrastructure improvements, keeping customers satisfied all while not raising ticket prices above inflation yet despite the obvious success of the franchise and the benefit it gave the commuter and taxpayer the government is going ahead with its plan to sell the franchises to another private contract. Who are the only ones opposing this on a national level, is it Labour? A party that allowed the railways to be privatised ? No. It was the Greens..

The Green Party are the only political organisation that will tackle the rising cost of living, protect vital public services, protect the environment and put an end to the climate of fear and hatred surrounding the immigrant population. Labour have long abandoned the left and its time to remind of that via the ballot box.

Vacuum Cleaners and Brussels.

A few weeks ago I was debating with someone about the benefits and negatives of the UK's continued membership of the European Union when they suddenly claimed that the European Union was going to ban hoovers, a rather ludicrous claim that I immediately asked him to support with evidence. After being linked to a rather inefficient Daily Mail article that did not even bother to quote the directive in question I went off in search to find my own information and discovered that like other stories promoted by sceptics it was only partially true. The EU regulation in question shall eventually restrict  the power of vacuum cleaners to 900 watts (2017 implementation) as part of a general direction directive designed to cut energy requirements across the European Union by 2020 and does in no shape or form ban hoovers.

After some more searching I found another common misconception was people thinking this legislation would make hoovers more inefficient and lead to more energy being wasted as people would have to use the device for longer to get the same result. In reality the opposite is true with new ecodesign and labelling regulations ensuring that consumers will get a better vacuum cleaner. In the past no legislation existed that enforced standards on the performance and reliability of vacuum cleaners and companies could sell inefficient machines without risk of punishment and the creation of such regulation will ensure the development of new machines that will reduce household bills and benefit the environment.

Global warming is one of the largest challenges facing this planet and regulation like this is desperately needed as reducing energy consumption makes it easier for member states to replace polluting  non-renewable sources of energy with renewable power plants. Instead of being a weapon to strike the EU with the sceptics have accidentally stumbled upon a perfect reason of why the union should exist, as only through the international cooperation fostered by the EU can we create methods to tackle the thread of climate change.

Mangoes: An EU adventure.

The European Union is often blamed for a lot of things by eurosceptics whether it is the decline of the British fishing industry, flooding in the South West or a whole host of other myths and half-proven tales, the sceptic is always quick to seek out a story and turn it into a stick to beat the EU with.

I recently became aware that the European Union was being blamed for banning mangoes from entering the UK, a story that was so wild at the time that I actually failed to believe it and assumed it was a hoax, certain eurosceptics however seemingly had no problem with using it as part of their arsenal so I decided to do some basic research on the story and find out it was true or complete and utter tripe. What I found was certainly interesting and actually confirmed the Ukip story that mangoes had been banned across the European Union, what the sceptics conveniently failed to mention was that the EU had imposed the ban after finding several large shipments of the fruit had been contaminated with fruit flies, a threat that not only endangered the health of citizens but also to agriculture across Europe.

While it is understandable for British Asians to be annoyed about a possible problem with obtaining Indian mangoes in the future it is perfectly understandable for the European Union to issue this ban in order to protect EU citizens and agriculture. As an invasive species alien intruders like Asian fruit flies could seriously damage businesses across Europe and biting into a seemingly fresh mango that has been infested with fruit flies is disgusting and certainly not good for consumer confidence. It seems to me that this is another example of sceptics trying to turn a non-story into scandal and another reason to factcheck every ludicrous claim you hear on social media outlets.

5 More Common Arguments against the EU.

When I wrote my article on immigration and the European Union I recognised that my history of erratic posting schedules and my months of inactivity would significantly reduce the the potential viewership of the blog and harm my attempts to restart it, so I was pleasantly surprised to see that my article on the EU had gained a considerable amount of views and greatly contributed towards articles being created on a semi-regular basis (something that I seek to improve in the future), the combination of unexpected success and several heated arguments i've had with another group of eurosceptics has led me to write once more about EU myths.

1. The European Union is spending £300 million to spy on us with drones.

Whilst it is correct that the EU is funding the development of drones  they are not being researched to spy on individual citizens instead the focus of the project is strengthening current border security projects and saving the lives of migrants by creating a stable long-ranged unmanned vehicle that can patrol large areas of the coast and contact the appropriate authorities if they spot a vessel in trouble, something that should greatly reduce the tragic deaths of migrants attempting to flee violence, persecution and poverty at home. On top of these facts current legislative hurdles prevent them from being used to spy on EU citizens and any attempt to switch the focus of an EU drone project should be relatively easy to spot and campaign against.

2. The EU won't let us nationalise our railways!

A lie i've seen recently spread by eurosceptics is that EU Directive 91/440 makes it impossible for member states like the UK to nationalise its railway networks, a claim easily disproven by the existence of nationalised railway networks in France, Germany and other EU member States. The EU Directive in question just requires infrastructure and railway companies to be separate, a requirement that would be met by the UK retaining a nationalised network rail for infrastructure and a British Rail for commercial rail operations.

3. The EUSSR is just a communist/socialist plot to takeover the UK!

I'm still rather shocked that people seriously hold this position on the European Union but to those folks detached from reality I ask you to look at both the definition of communism and socialism and then try to make a connection to the European Union. You won't.

Communism - a stateless, moneyless society with no class system in which the means of production belong to the workers.
Socialism - democratic ownership of the means of production by the proletariat.

4. EU regulation damages our economy!

UKIP and eurosceptic Conservatives love to repeatedly claim that regulation enforced by the European Union is not only harmful to the economy but also to the population and while they can tout a report by the Chamber of Commerce and other organisations that states regulation costs the UK economy several billion pounds a year they fail to take into consideration data that promotes the resulting trade and direct investment that comes with EU membership, the validity of these sources and the timeline it covers.

British companies also benefit from the establishment of a single-regulatory system across the EU as they know with confidence that services and goods produced across the continent don't need to be adapted to suit dozens of localised regulations that would usually hamper the effectiveness of commerce. Individuals also see positive results from regulation passed in Brussels with EU wide legislation regarding tariffs and equality in the workplace making it easier for Brits to both visit and work abroad.

5. We're being dictated to by Brussels!

Another tidbit of misinformation being widely spread is that a majority of our laws (70% according to some) are designed in Brussels and not in Westminster and that in order to save democracy as we know it and British sovereignty we must leave the EU at once. It is rather shameful and indicative of our mainstream media that such a bald faced lie is not immediately jumped upon with the news presenter providing the viewer with the real figure and asking the person making the claim what fantasy world they pulled the 70% figure from, sadly instead of doing this the misinformation cycle continues and skews opinion polls with only dedicated political channels attempting to counter it. We need a mainstream media that is not afraid to tackle misinformation from guests and attacks politics from all sides with data relevant to the discussion. Only then can we have a truly informed electorate.

The Common Fisheries Policy and the future of the British fishing industry.

One of the most consistent arguments against Britain's continued membership of the European Union is that the EU's Common Fisheries Policy has led to the decline of the once powerful fishing industry but is this actually the case? Upon first glance it seems quite logical to assume that the declining fish quotas would have a major impact on the profitability of the British fishing fleet and arguably it has but one has to look at the full reasoning behind the establishment of the quota. Decades of overfishing across European waters led to a sharp decline in fish stocks raising concerns that within years commercial fishing would be impossible, the establishment of the Common Fisheries Policy and future reforms of the quota system based more accurately on scientific data and a long awaited ban on discards shall go some way to ensuring that the British fishing industry is sustainable and not lost forever because of irresponsible unregulated levels of fishing.

Exclusive Economic Zone of the EU

Does this drive towards sustainability mean that fish will become more expensive in the future? It will mean that we will get less fish from the sea but recent advancements in sustainable fish farms seen across Europe and the wider world show great potential in providing food security, ensuring the protection of native fish stocks and providing employment for the citizens of Europe. The United Kingdom stands at a crossroads, we can either embrace the Common Fisheries Policy and encourage the fishing industry to diversify into the emerging multi-billion market of fish farms or we can continue complaining and slowly lose our share of the market.

The GCHQ, NSA and Edward Snowden.

Revelations by whistle blower Edward Snowden have awakened the population of several countries to not only the scope of intelligence gathering by the National Intelligence Agency (NSA) but also the extent of cooperation between the NSA and similar intelligence agencies across the world. In the United Kingdom it has been revealed that GSHQ are fully fledged partners of the NSA, utilising them spy on close allies and to disrupt the efforts of privacy activists and journalists that are actively working to expose these intelligence networks.

A healthy stream of newspaper articles and television segments initially led to a large-scale public backlash against intelligence agencies but in recent months the intelligence services have been fighting back in order to maintain as much control of these programs despite the large public backing against such efforts. One method commonly used is to falsely create an illusion that these leaks are are goldmine to terrorist groups or that national security has been damaged in some fashion, a rather ludicrous claim that has been proven to be the opposite of the truth. Journalists and activists covering this story have also been attacked, either directly through the legal system, indirectly via a smear campaign (often attacking the targets patriotism) or through intimidation of loved ones.

So how can we fight against this colossus intelligence agency and its collaborators inside government, media and the apathetic population? Contact your local representative and tell them how concerned you are about the lack of accountability surrounding the intelligence agencies, contact media outlets and share your frustrations or write them down and share them to anyone who will listen and if the politicians you contact won't listen to you campaign for local and national representatives that will fight for reform or if you have the funds and confidence you could run for office yourself. At the moment the challenge of facing a large organisation like the NSA and GCHQ might seem impossible but at the moment multiple paths are available and several organisations are already leading the efforts against these agencies, as long as people work together then we can achieve real change and not the whitewash reform recently offered by President Obama.

Why is foreign aid an easy target?

UKIP and the Daily Mail have recently started a campaign to force the government to divert funds currently being used for foreign aid to pay for damages caused by the horrific floods that have devastated our country in recent months, but why is foreign aid seemingly the first to be sent towards the firing squad? The Guardian recently posed this exact question in a comments article I thought it justified a small response.

Whilst searching for information on the floods and opinions on the governments handling of the disaster on social media I came across multiple opinions on why foreign aid should be diverted to pay for the cost of repairing infrastructure and housing and I shall respond to some of the most common arguments I saw posted. Foreign Aid is often attacked by self-confessed nationalists as putting foreigners ahead of our own citizens, an attack that is completely nonsensical as it seems to negate the fact that the remaining majority of our budget is spent on our own population, it seems to be nothing more than failed nationalist dogma that quickly falls apart under scrutiny, another attack more commonly seen and supported by a portion of the mainstream media is that money is being spent on countries that don't deserve it, a great example of this being India who currently have a minor space program. The justification for cuts being that if the Indian government can afford a national space program then it can afford for the welfare of its own citizens and whilst that might be true in a perfect world the reality is that British efforts in India have had a visible benefit  to the country and this argument will soon disappear as funding for India is cut in 2015

Lastly one of most misinformative but sadly frequent arguments against foreign aid is that it does not do anything worthwhile. Decades worth of depressing images from the African continent by the mainstream media have given the British public the misconception that nothing has changed when that is opposite from the truth, with everything from infant mortality, malaria infection rates and deaths from preventable illnesses like diarrhoea reduced significantly in recent years thanks to the contribution of foreign aid.  In conclusion misinformation and misguided nationalist rhetoric has led to the call for foreign aid to be scrapped and the mainstream media should address this concern instead of feeding into it, as for funding flood relief efforts? Clamping down on tax avoidance, cutting trident or short-term borrowing would provide the funds without cutting an invaluable service.

The Taxpayers Alliance.

I recently came across an article written in the telegraph that claimed an organisation named the Taxpayers Alliance had identified over one hundred billion pounds worth of government waste, an amount that seems incredibly large at a glance but not when you take into consideration the think-tanks agenda.

1.Who are the Taxpayers Alliance?

The Taxpayers Alliance are a right-wing think tank that seek to lower income taxes for the wealthiest in society and corporation tax whilst simultaneously dismantling public institutions that benefit the working and middle class.

2. Are they linked to any political party?

Yes. Whilst the Taxpayers Alliance claim they are not politically connected they are frequently supported by members of the Conservative Party and UKIP who give public speeches at events held by the organisation.

3. How are they funded?

Wealthy Conservative Party supporters donate a considerably large amount of cash to the organisation to keep the war chest full.

4. Why are they so prevalent in the media?

Outlets like the BBC invite guests from the Taxpayers Alliance because they feel that it fulfils the organisations neutrality requirements whilst right-wing media outlets love hearing from organisations that want to lower-taxes for the rich and lower non-defence related spending.

5. Why are you writing this article against the TPA?

The Taxpayers Alliance frequently portray themselves as an organisation on the side of the working class and small businesses, saving them from oppressive regulation and taxes, when in reality all they care about is funding tax cuts for the wealthiest in society and large corporations by cutting public services that greatly benefit the working and middle classes (NHS and Welfare), implementing idiotic methods of cutting spending and removing regulation that protect the working population from abuse (sick and holiday pay). I'm against the destruction of these noble institutions and as a social democrat I think that the richest in society should pay more in taxes in order to maintain these establishments for the future.

5 Common Arguments against the EU.

I decided to write this article after debating with several people and organisations that seemed incredibly happy to purposely spread misinformation about the European Union. I don't have a problem with a proper debate on the UK's future in the European Union and future reform but I do have a strong issue with people spreading lies.

1. The European Union is so full of corruption and fraud that the Auditors have not passed the budget in over ten years!

The European Court of Auditors have deemed successive EU budgets to be free from major fraud and corruption with a majority of wrongful spending being blamed on a poor understanding of current legislation rather then fraud or waste. In addition to highlighting mispent funds the Court of Auditors also make valuable recommendations on how to reduce this erroneous spending in the future.

2. So why do people think that the Auditors have not passed a budget?

Whilst the European Court of Auditors have reviewed and passed successive EU budgets they have not been able to issue a declaration of assurance, why? Well this is because the auditors need to account for 100 percent of the EU's budget. An impossible task when you consider that a simple mistake on the part of a member state results in a failure of assurance.

3. Our government has surrendered control of our flood defences to the EU.

Somehow the European Union has managed to receive flak for the recent poor response to the horrific floods in the South West. EU Directive 2007/60/EC is blamed for this however it just requires all member states to assess rivers/coastal areas to determine if they are at risk of flooding and take appropriate action to ensure that does not happen. In the case of the United Kingdom it should ensure that flood risks are reduced across the country whilst allowing coordination between countries inside the European Union that share rivers at risk of overflowing like Germany and The Netherlands.

4. EU quotas have killed the British fishing industry.

It is true that the British fishing industry has declined steadily over the past few years but decades of over-fishing are to blame for the decline. EU quotas are an attempt to reverse damage inflicted upon European fish stocks from years of overfishing and future reforms aim to ensure the continued survival of several key species and the long-term prosperity of the industry.

5. The United Kingdom should leave the European Union and join EFTA. We'd get the benefits of free trade without having to follow regulation.

As a member of EFTA the United Kingdom would still have to pay a fee and follow a majority of EU regulation, it would just have no say on the make-up of these regulations. EFTA membership is considerably less democratic then EU membership.

Immigration in the UK

The removal of immigration restrictions from Romania and Bulgaria following both countries full ascension to the European Union has reignited the political debate over immigration with supporters of UKIP and more rebellious parts of the Conservative Party targeting the amounts of immigrants that come into the UK from the European Union as part of a strong anti-EU campaign, seemingly blaming them from everything to a lack of employment, the poor state of local government services, infrastructures and the current state of our educational and health service, but is this conservative rhetoric supported by data? Are they an unfair burden to the taxpayer that should be clamped down upon or are they a welcome reprieve to our governments treasury balance? Research recently carried out by the Centre of Research and Analysis of Migration partly answers that question and seems to completely disprove this anti-immigration rhetoric with the university study concluding that on average from 2000-2011 EU immigrants actually provided the UK treasury with more in taxes then they take in return for welfare payments and social housing, the report even going as far to say that non-EU immigrants contributed slightly more in taxes for the amount of benefits they received with recent numbers showing an equality with British workers during the same time period. 

So then why is current public opinion seemingly weighted against immigration even from the European Union? The answer to that question lies with our nations mainstream media with right-wing outlets like the Daily Mail and the Daily Star frequently running articles that severely demonize the immigrant community and help spread a false perception that immigrants rely on benefits and get access to superior social housing before anyone else when the reality is quite the opposite. If Pro-EU institutions wish to see our country remain inside the EU then they must win the propaganda battle against their opposite numbers and counter these ingrained beliefs with energetic enthusiasm and the confident use of current data.