Why are the British so anti Europe?

McDave

PeadarCo wrote: »

Its actually interesting that the USA, Australia and Japan have come out against Britain leaving the EU. Whether the UK heeds those warning is its own business but obviously allies outside the EU see the Britain in the EU as a very good thing and a net positive in its relations with them.

Recently there was a review of the powers the UK had given the EU. The financial times have a summary. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f722ac4-f37d-11e2-942f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aFh59vaN

In one of their opinion pieces one the FT columnists said that as a whole the report shows the EU and the powers it has broadly benefits the UK. I realise the FT is UK participation in the EU but I find it interesting that given the problems the EU issue has posed the UK government the UK press didn't give it more attention. That would lead me to believe that the report doesn't lend itself to the argument of the UK leaving Britain. Even reading the summary by and large the plus points for the EU outweigh the negatives. Apparently this is the first of a series and there are more similar reports to come on the EU/UK relationship.

One one level, membership of the EU is a simple and pragmatic deepening of a country's commitment to trading with neighbours. When countries are routinely exposed to each other's ways of doing business, it's not much of a step to comparing economic approaches and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

For its part, Britain had its major experiment with 20th century laissez faire, and after a couple of international crashes, the deregulation model and free market mantras have been found wanting. So too has the overly dirigiste state approach of the French, and the protectionist and devil-may-care approaches of the Italians.

After all the experiments of recent decades, the more sober economies of northern Europe with their commitment to both market and social mechanisms have fared quite well. Germany stands out in particular.

Consequently, Britain's continued pitching of brickbats at the Continent seems more and more outdated and pointless. The countries you mention would much prefer to see the UK participating constructively, even if this means resorting to regular criticism. Instead, Britain is stuck in a rut and finds it hard to develop a narrative that enables it to cooperate straight up with other countries.

The world has moved on. In particular, the 'Western' world has mostly moved on from imperialism and from WW2. It's time Britain did too. They've lost so much ground to Germany in particular, the longer they postpone the attitude readjustment the more painful it will be in the end.

petronius

If a referendum was held today the UK would leave the EU?
It would be a bad thing for the EU, and the UK and Ireland!

Why are the UK so anti-EU?
In my mind the reasons why are
1) The media is laden with anti-EU types, any faux-pas by the EU is highlighted and any benefit is ignored or not portrayed as being from the EU
2) The EU does itself no favours by some crazy laws e.g. the straight banana fodder for the sun et al, also by encroaching on matters that are not in its remit
3) Even positive measures can be labeled non-sense bureaucracy - throwing fish back into the water when they wont survive etc.
4) Lack of the EU advocating where it can benefit UK subjects, by availing of EU healthcare rather than be on NHS waiting lists
5) Consumer benefits of being in the EU no tariffs open market


The EU needs to get its act together
State that it brings more benefits to the UK than people perceive
Get rid of the non-sense laws
Include UK more rather than default to franco-german axis
Respect the votes of people in referenda in Holland, France and Ireland and not repackage to get through or hoodwink by threats or obfuscation

McDave

petronius wrote: »

The EU needs to get its act together
State that it brings more benefits to the UK than people perceive
Get rid of the non-sense laws
Include UK more rather than default to franco-german axis
Respect the votes of people in referenda in Holland, France and Ireland and not repackage to get through or hoodwink by threats or obfuscation

It's my own view that most people misunderstand what the EU actually is. What it is not is a truly autonomous entity with its own identity and sovereign will. It is a strictly rules based entity which can only operate in specific fields of endeavour laid out by international treaty. Of course these fields of endeavour are broadly familiar to many, having been activities pursued by *many* countries at national level, for decades, if not centuries.

I highlight the word "many" for a reason. Much of what is laid down in EU treaties has been pre-EU performed successfully at national level in some countries. In reality, it is a core of countries which takes leadership in developing the legal, policy and technical standards around certain activities. What the EU typically does is harmonise existing national rules. For some countries this means minimal adaptation to their own rules and customs. For others it means introducing instruments and practices which have never existed before - something we Irish are well familiar with.

Of course, in recent decades more activities have come within the purview of regulation, such as equal treatment, consumer rights, environmental regulation, and latterly macroeconomic standards. None are without intellectual or philosophical underpinnings, and all are open to debate. But the EU process is about identifying ground which can be worked to common purpose and coming to agreement. It is a process which by definition can never end, because human endeavour and cooperation never comes to an end, let alone a state of perfection.

Which in a way brings us nicely to the issue of the UK. I'm well familiar with both the UK and with continental Europe, through family connections, career and personal interest. I take media in many languages - English, French, German and Spanish. I consider myself conversant enough with European cultures and histories to make sufficiently balanced comparative judgements.

I'm afraid when all is said and done, and I've been around the block a few times, I'm not very sanguine about the UK and its relationship with the EU. On a broad institutional and political level, the UK makes precious little effort do real business with the continent. While the French and Germans were constructing their post-war rapprochement through the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC, the UK set up a directly competing entity, EFTA. This entity failed in pretty short order, and the UK jumped ship into the EEC not much more than a decade later.

Once in the EEC, the EEC went to great lengths to adapt the way it did business, particularly in the European Court of Justice which took on many of the common law ways of doing court business under the leadership of Justice McKenzie. But the UK was barely a decade in the door when Thatcher's Tories set about undermining the EC, not least in pushing for broadening membership to dilute the ability of the EC to legislate in the aftermath of 1989. Subsequently the UK stayed out of social policy and the single currency. And when it came to Iraq, Blair explicitly opted to throw his lot in with a reactionary right wing US president, rather than side with mainstream EU opinion and policy.

I'm afraid the 'EU' is done waiting for the UK to 'come on board'. The last amendments to the EU treaties have seen to that, allowing sets of EU countries to proceed with certain policies which others do not wish to participate in. At this point Britain has three choices, only two of which are realistic:
- Leave the EU (realistic, but unlikely);
- Stay a semidetached member (realistic and likely);
- Become a leading core member alongside Germany and France (unrealistic and unlikely).

At this stage, I'm rather agnostic about which path Britain chooses to take. I'm tired of the snide press whining, smart-arsed political types, and the permanent inability of the country as a whole to accept their diminished importance in the world.

In particular, the largely destructive and even derisive position adopted by the British establishment on the Euro and the crisis leads me to believe its better for the EU to slowly move away from Britain. With the Euro, the UK had a chance to get in on the ground floor on a truly historic development they could have done much to mould. But, let's face it, the British just can't let go of the US's apron strings, and don't seem confident of doing real political business with France and especially Germany.

In reality, there's not much bureaucrats in Brussels can do to change this. Their roles are much more limited than what most people think. The real work is done in the powerful European capitals. By opting out of cooperation and policy formulation, London has effectively written itself out of the game.

petronius

I just think the EU and its member states need to be aware of the concerns of ordinary voters.
Particularly in the UK where they are very suspicious of all things non-british

One major way is for the EU to be seen not as authoritarian dictating insane policy items
Overtly politically correct measures
The straight banana etc.
Some Health and Safety Measure which are not beneficial and not common sense
Dumping healthy fish
Waste of funds
Subsidies which are seen to promote inactivity

And emphasis things like
Transfer of health care- how would those on waiting lists in the south of england feel if they were able to get their appointment, operation brought forward, and delivered in France, Holland, Belgium or Germany rather than waiting months and years on waiting lists
Celebrate where EU law has brought advances in safety such as the Motor industry or electrical consumer goods
That the EU has delivered cheaper travel by its open market

McDave

The EU passes truckloads of technical measures every year. The British red top press is pretty much alone in making mountains out of molehills on stuff like the so-called "straight bananas" story [check out the myth behind this particular piece of Eurosceptic rubbish at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth and http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/take_part/myths_en.htm ]. In this case there was actually no 'insane' policy, let alone 'authoritarian dictating'.

Which overtly 'politically correct measures' are you talking about?

Both nation states and the EU propose rafts of policies, some of which require revisiting. It's really silly to pick out the EU in this regard. You may as well level the charge of 'authoritarian dictating' at states as well.

On your positive thinking point, the EU does attempt to promote its successes, but in reality good news rarely trumps a good old bunfight. Same goes for the referenda campaigns here. The pro-Lisbon camp attempted to spread the good word, albeit in a really half-assed way, especially in the first referendum. They had to contend with deeply negative anti-Lisbon campaigns. In reality, they only got real traction in Lisbon 2 when they went for the jugular. Which they did very effectively, especially on the night of the big TV debate when Michael O'Leary trashed Declan Ganley.

It's my experience that people on the continent see the EU in the round as a generally good thing. Of course it's not all sweetness and light, and when a proposal for a European constitution was put to voters, it was decisively enough rejected. But that demonstrates that EU citizens are prepared to support an EU which integrates, but does not become a state-type entity.

There is no such nuance in the EU debate in the UK, which is characterised by dissension, dismissiveness, disinformation and disrespect. In the end, it's not the EU's job to advocate the path Britain should take. That's for British people alone. They could, however, make a constructive start by leaving out all this defensive, malign rubbish about 'straight bananas' and giving jingoistic buffoons like UKIP the heave-ho.

petronius

I think it is very rich to try and portray the anti-lisbon treaty as negative only.
The pro-lisbon side used more negative campaigning

Remember the slogan "Vote Yes for Jobs" FG claiming it would result in NEW jobs
Other Groups (the disappeared Civic Groups!) claimed a No would result in FDI jobs being lost
Or even threats that voting no would result in Ireland being evicted from the EU!?
Do your remember the Solemn Guarantee? (and National Guarantee probably not Solemn!)
That the EU would not interfer in Ireland's Corporation Tax Laws, or our Abortion/Pro-Life laws .
The lisbon debate was laden with tacit or overt threats by the Yes side

It is the misinformation campaigns used by pro-federal-eu and lazy Irish Politicians which make people suspicious.

Rather than state, the common new social policy benefits all since it does such and such! common policy on reducing bureaucracy benefits citizens and business by...
we have safer cars because of EU law
we have transferable education and trade qualifications because of a eu measure
we have health care available to citizens of the eu in different states because of the eu laws
Rather than issue threatening slogans, if you dont endorse the change in the EU treaties all hell will break loose

petronius

One other major negative publicity which the EU rightly gets from the british media is the fact for a lot of the quangos and officials it is a gravy train. the waste of money in phenomenal
How much does a EU Commissioner, an MEP get in pay(tax free) and expenses - these are the equivalent to a lottery win.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

I think it is very rich to try and portray the anti-lisbon treaty as negative only.
The pro-lisbon side used more negative campaigning

It's my view. The No campaign was IMO very negative.

Especially during Lisbon 1, I was looking to Libertas for an alternative vision. It never materialised. In fact it got worse during the reactionary European Parliament campaign when Ganley came across more like a Farage mini-me associating with all kinds of ragbag Eurosceptics across Europe, and making a play for Dana transfers.

By the time Lisbon 2 came around, Libertas were widely seen as a reactionary ginger group, which is on of the reasons the No campaign got so little traction.

micosoft

Petronius - you tell some outright porkies like the "straight banana". This is pointed out to you. Rather then addressing the fact you told an easily verifiable untruth you then move on to claiming that the pro -federal-eu are lazy politicians who told lies during the Lisbon 2 treaty?????

Let's be very clear here, while some of the claims on the pro EU side were simplistic (not lies, just simplistic) the sort of guff you posit are straight out untruths that are so easily verified that it's hard to take your opinion as being sincere. On the other hand the anti-treaty side had no proposal on how a better treaty could be negotiated with 27 other member states. That's the very definition of negative campaigning. We know what we are against but not what we are for.

- Remember the slogan "Vote Yes for Jobs" FG claiming it would result in NEW jobs. No I don't, because you just inserted the word "NEW" right there.
- FDI would suffer - true - all the major multinationals came out including Intel and Microsoft to suggest Ireland not being at the heart of Europe would negatively impact FDI investment by their companies in Ireland. Of course your type then suggested it was interference in our internal affairs.... In any case, so far proved right as FDI is one of the few successes in our moribund economy.
- No significant member of the Yes campaign, party or EU official suggested we were going to be kicked out of the EU if we voted no. Show me a link with some form of evidence.
- Nor have the EU interfered with our corporation tax or had any influence on the availability or otherwise of Abortion in Ireland. Other EU member states are perfectly entitled to be unhappy about our tax rate especially if we are asking for money from them.
- The EU is no more and no less "corrupt" or "full of quangos" then any national government. Moat cleaning in the UK anyone? Actually for the most part the EU seems to be less corrupt then many member countries and far more professional.

It's the deliberate misinformation by individuals such as yourself that make people confused. You deliberately create this confusion to subvert our ability to have reasoned debates during referendums over important & complex treaties seriously, which ultimately had the effect of undermining our democracy.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

It is the misinformation campaigns used by pro-federal-eu and lazy Irish Politicians which make people suspicious.

I don't think people are as suspicious as you make out. First of all, European federalists don't get much of a look in these days. Second, the EU gains to date which you outline elsewhere are like eaten bread. Soon forgotten. And an almost impossible sale.

Finally, every time a major new issue presents itself, the EU has to somehow make a case on the merits of the proposed change. Something like a single currency is hard enough to sell. But in the end, I think enough people understand that a single currency will somehow give us more strength on the international economic stage and go along with relative blandishments like better growth prospects and more jobs. No matter which decision is taken, no-one will be able to prove the efficacy of the path not taken. So people take it largely on trust, probably on the basis that if the whole affair goes belly up, we'll just revert to our national systems. So what's to be lost by giving it a try? Especially as the EU has worked out quite well in the round for most.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

One other major negative publicity which the EU rightly gets from the british media is the fact for a lot of the quangos and officials it is a gravy train. the waste of money in phenomenal
How much does a EU Commissioner, an MEP get in pay(tax free) and expenses - these are the equivalent to a lottery win.

Someone once pointed out there were more civil servants in the British Ministry of Defence than in the whole EU bureaucracy. I don't know how true that is today, but it still provides perspective.

There's phenomenal waste of money at national level, involving much greater sums of money. By I don't see you taking a cut at, say, the UK government.

It seems to me you're overly focussing on the failings of the EU, and giving a free pass to misdeeds at national level. IMO, that's simply not balanced analysis or opinion.

petronius

Well I agree there is waste at National Level and that is equally unforgivable.
But perception is very important - National Parliaments and there appointees are seen as coming from the democratic franchise of the people.
And the spending plans of a national government are its responsibility(mostly ) if you disagree with them you can vote them out
European Figures since they are appointed my surrogacy of the member states and the power battles within are seen as being divorced from the people - Like the 3 senior EU officials, Barosso, VonRumpy and Baroness whatshername what connection or thrust to the people of europe have in thesE
I never voted for barosso and how can i vote against him!
Further down the line the commissioners are seen as a gravy train appointments McCreevy, Desmond, Flynn, MGQ all have healthy bank balances after their jobs in europe

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

Well I agree there is waste at National Level and that is equally unforgivable.
But perception is very important - National Parliaments and there appointees are seen as coming from the democratic franchise of the people.
And the spending plans of a national government are its responsibility(mostly ) if you disagree with them you can vote them out
European Figures since they are appointed my surrogacy of the member states and the power battles within are seen as being divorced from the people - Like the 3 senior EU officials, Barosso, VonRumpy and Baroness whatshername what connection or thrust to the people of europe have in thesE
I never voted for barosso and how can i vote against him!
Further down the line the commissioners are seen as a gravy train appointments McCreevy, Desmond, Flynn, MGQ all have healthy bank balances after their jobs in europe

Unless you live in Witney (UK) or Mayo (Ireland) you didn't vote for either Cameron or Kenny either.... Even the US president is not directly elected. So I'm not really sure what your point is.... The heads of state of every EU nation propose the President of the EU and the European Parliament approve or reject his/her appointment. So go talk to our local MEP and/or vote for a different candidate if you want to influence who is appointed president - exactly the same way that you change a Taoiseach or prime minister.

Why exactly are you going vote against Barosso for? Is it his handling of the Bolkestein Directive??? Of do you just hold the EU to an impossibly high standard that could never conceivably be met and complain about that....

In any case - do you accept your initial claims about the EU were untrue?

Getting back to the nub of the question (which is what this thread is about) I think it's a kind of incoherent xenophobia which is prevalent in the UK and beginning to arrive in Ireland. There is no rationale for it - just an abiding distrust of "foreigners" whose purpose is not just to top up drinks in a Spanish resort.
Really this is something that needs to be addressed in Schools, both with better language teaching and more interaction with continental EU schools at every level of the system. Better Civic education would help too. But the reality is that during a recession it's very hard to counteract demagoguery.

petronius

Absolutely not! state in what way do you think anything I have said is in anyway less than true.

Tony Benn said the measure of a democracy is if you can vote for (or against) the leader or the party of the leader
that is not the case with the eu heads where as I can vote against the party(s) which put Enda or Dave in power

Of course education is vital but it is also the education by experiences delivered from EU bodies, and articulated in the media which is what shapes peoples views

You can understand people who wish to keep their own traditions and culture objecting to stuff which the EU dabbled in in the past
ideas like banning the sale of products in Imperial measurements
the idea that you couldnt sell beer in a pint measure or butter by the pound is easily a way to antagonise the british
Other mooted ideas was to not allow what we call chocolate to be called chocolate due to the vegetable fat content...
and try and have it rebranded vegolate or something

Rather than advocate positive measures of the EU like the e1-11 allows you to get medical treatment when in an EU country or the e?? allows you to get an operation in an EU country which may not be available or timely in your country
or that this measure made cars safer
or this measure made mobile phone charges cheaper

McDave

petronius wrote: »

Well I agree there is waste at National Level and that is equally unforgivable.
But perception is very important - National Parliaments and there appointees are seen as coming from the democratic franchise of the people.
And the spending plans of a national government are its responsibility(mostly ) if you disagree with them you can vote them out
European Figures since they are appointed my surrogacy of the member states and the power battles within are seen as being divorced from the people - Like the 3 senior EU officials, Barosso, VonRumpy and Baroness whatshername what connection or thrust to the people of europe have in thesE
I never voted for barosso and how can i vote against him!

Seems to me like you're making a case for some kind of European state. If you are, come out and make the case for a European state or federal structure.

As things stand, the EU's primary democratic legitimacy come from decisions made by representatives of the member states acting through the Council, i.e. ministers of governments derived from national elections.

If you want elected heads of EU institutions which in turn have much greater powers, then you need a fundamental reworking of the whole set up.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

Further down the line the commissioners are seen as a gravy train appointments McCreevy, Desmond, Flynn, MGQ all have healthy bank balances after their jobs in europe

We have also appointed quite powerful Commissioners.

Generally speaking though, the Commission doesn't have enormous powers, so appointments all round are generally not as significant as those to powerful national portfolios.

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

Absolutely not! state in what way do you think anything I have said is in anyway less than true.

Your opening post which I already addressed and you have refused to respond to. Worse yet you continue to tell porkies in this post!!! Do you have any concept of what the truth is?

petronius wrote: »

Tony Benn said the measure of a democracy is if you can vote for (or against) the leader or the party of the leader
that is not the case with the eu heads where as I can vote against the party(s) which put Enda or Dave in power

You can vote in an MEP (who is a member of a party in the parliament) that will vote against the President. I don't see how that is different to voting in an MP who will vote against the Prime Minister or his Government.

petronius wrote: »

Of course education is vital but it is also the education by experiences delivered from EU bodies, and articulated in the media which is what shapes peoples views

You mean the EU are to blame for all the nasty stuff being said about them? They do set aside a small budget for PR which led to accusations of setting up a dept. of propaganda. But yes, it is an issue that people believe clear untruths being told in the redtop press.

petronius wrote: »

You can understand people who wish to keep their own traditions and culture objecting to stuff which the EU dabbled in in the past

I could if there were any truth to that assertion. The truth is that the EU has done a lot to protect traditions and cultures such as enforcing descriptions on goods (so Parma ham must come from Parma).

petronius wrote: »

ideas like banning the sale of products in Imperial measurements

Untrue. The UK govt. decided to decimalise one year before they joined the EEC. This is a British decision. They told the EU they would complete it within five years but failed to do so.

petronius wrote: »

the idea that you couldnt sell beer in a pint measure or butter by the pound is easily a way to antagonise the british

Perhaps you should vote against the Tories given they introduced the metrication board. Labour got rid of the need to stop using imperial units in 2009 so you can put a imperial measurement on a good AS LONG as you also put the SI unit on it. This is the sort of thing you need in a open market which I thought was what the Euro Skeptics wanted. You need a shared method of measuring goods no?

petronius wrote: »

Other mooted ideas was to not allow what we call chocolate to be called chocolate due to the vegetable fat content...
and try and have it rebranded vegolate or something

Again completely untrue. There was no such proposal.

petronius wrote: »

Rather than advocate positive measures of the EU like the e1-11 allows you to get medical treatment when in an EU country or the e?? allows you to get an operation in an EU country which may not be available or timely in your country
or that this measure made cars safer
or this measure made mobile phone charges cheaper

Yes - the EU does a lot of fantastic things. The problem is they are drowned out by persons such as yourself spreading deliberate falsehoods including the renowned straight banana story.

petronius

Here is an article about how there had to be a vote to allow chocolate from the uk (and ireland) be sold in the eu

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/678141.stm

EC Commission Regulation No 2257/94, all bananas must be "free of abnormal curvature" and at least 14 cm in length.

Bent banana and curved cucumber rules dropped
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2453204/Bent-banana-and-curved-cucumber-rules-dropped-by-EU.html

The crazy thing is these measures had to fought against - painting the EU in a bad light

petronius

From the second Lisbon treaty Referendum a “Yes For Jobs” leaflet from IBEC with the sub heading “New Start , New Deal, New Opportunities”.

http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ibeclisbon1.png

It was IBEC who used the word "New" after the yes for jobs leaflets and posters and tv ads and spokes people

At an oireachtas committee on european affairs Deputy Hayes of Fine Gael while explaining Fine Gaels "Yes for Jobs" poster

Our posters say “Yes to jobs” but the European Union is not going to arrive in here on 5 October and say now that we have voted “Yes”, we can have 500,000 jobs. It has, however, put together a multi-billion euro stimulus package for major projects and Ireland can share in that.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EUJ2009092400003

So am I wrong to say that this was inferred as New Jobs from this package - which you seem to be denying.

(a simple apology will suffice )

View

petronius wrote: »

So am I wrong to say that this was inferred as New Jobs from this package - which you seem to be denying.

If you incorrectly infer something that is your error and your responsibility.

You seem to be operating a peculiar form of double-standard with regard to the statements made in the referenda as you seem happy to overlook the factually incorrect statements made by the No side.

"We was out-lied" is not a very dignified complaint to be making because ultimately it merely makes a strong case against the use of referenda in important decision making.

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

Here is an article about how there had to be a vote to allow chocolate from the uk (and ireland) be sold in the eu

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/678141.stm

But what you said in your earlier post was completely different:

petronius wrote: »

Other mooted ideas was to not allow what we call chocolate to be called chocolate due to the vegetable fat content...
and try and have it rebranded vegolate or something

Which is untrue. Goal post shifting....

Other EU countries are perfectly entitled to insist second third rate chocolate is properly marked as not being made with very much Cocoa.

petronius wrote: »

EC Commission Regulation No 2257/94, all bananas must be "free of abnormal curvature" and at least 14 cm in length.

Bent banana and curved cucumber rules dropped
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2453204/Bent-banana-and-curved-cucumber-rules-dropped-by-EU.html

Again an untrue assertion. The EU never banned nor did they attempt to ban any banana's or cucumbers. To save time here is a list of other made up stories including the Banana example.

petronius wrote: »

The crazy thing is these measures had to fought against - painting the EU in a bad light

The only person painting the EU in a bad is you. Nothing was "fought against" because they never existed except in your and some redtop journalists imagination. See the Bombay mix story which shows how these things are invented.

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

From the second Lisbon treaty Referendum a “Yes For Jobs” leaflet from IBEC with the sub heading “New Start , New Deal, New Opportunities”.

http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ibeclisbon1.png

It was IBEC who used the word "New" after the yes for jobs leaflets and posters and tv ads and spokes people

You said

petronius wrote: »

Remember the slogan "Vote Yes for Jobs" FG claiming it would result in NEW jobs

So I'm not sure what IBEC's poster has to do with that unless they merged. Even so it's hardly a smoking gun. The poster does not state "Vote Yes for New Jobs". It says “New Start , New Deal, New Opportunities” and you can read whatever you want into those meaningless platitudes.

petronius wrote: »

The former example does not say "yes to new jobs"
At an oireachtas committee on european affairs Deputy Hayes of Fine Gael while explaining Fine Gaels "Yes for Jobs" poster

Our posters say “Yes to jobs” but the European Union is not going to arrive in here on 5 October and say now that we have voted “Yes”, we can have 500,000 jobs from the EU. It has, however, put together a multi-billion euro stimulus package for major projects and Ireland can share in that.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EUJ2009092400003

So am I wrong to say that this was inferred as New Jobs from this package - which you seem to be denying.

Yes, you are wrong to infer it because its right there on front of you. You actually quoted the important part - Tom Hayes stating clearly that just because we voted yes we won't get 500k jobs. Completely separate to that was the Euro Stimulus package. You quoted it there in black and white.

petronius wrote: »

(a simple apology will suffice )

:rolleyes:

petronius

Hayes was explaining after being challenged on the Fine Gael poster being a threat to existing jobs - he did overtly infer the stimulus package would result in new jobs and shied away from it being any threat to existing ones
IBEC did advertise NEW start NEW opportunities in their yes for jobs posters
are you trying to deny that this is what they did?

Chocolate producers in the UK did have to campaign and lobby to get the EU to change its mind on preventing them selling their product as chocolate - the eurocrats even devised names for it

As for bananas the EC (at the time) directive did specify a shape for both bananas and cucumbers which people particularly in the UK led by the redtops found infuriating

The argument that you make that because the No side in the euro referenda issued lies (in your opinion its ok for the yes side to do so? further undermines integrity in pro-european policies and the political system)

If the EU is to get a positive impression in the UK the EU should be straight forward and honest and be self critical of where it has got things wrong not trying and explain them away as you seem to be doing
When its supporters try and mislead the electorate they should be critical of this as well

View

petronius wrote: »

The argument that you make that because the No side in the euro referenda issued lies (in your opinion its ok for the yes side to do so? further undermines integrity in pro-european policies and the political system)

No one here apart possibly from you is claiming the Yes side lied (and your claim seems to be based on you drawing speculative inferences from what people said).

On the other hand, the No side clearly dd lie and the Referendum Commission had high-lighted these "errors" during the campaign (not that this stopped many of the No campaign continuing to repeat them).

You are applying an extra-ordinary double standard to the two sides in the debate. One - the No side - is free to lie to its heart's content, the other - the Yes side - must be saintly in its conduct as should it even point out the vote doesn't exist in a vacuum but does have wider political and economic repercussions that is somehow "lying".

Basically you are just whinging - the No side was happy to act the playground bully until it ran into someone tougher, after that it is "Boo, Hoo - I was bullied".

petronius

I am saying the "civic bodies" and government and by that you can assume Pro-Europeans or Pro-Federal-European-Union people did mislead

Hayes a Fine Gael TD at the oireachtas committee on europe did articulate that their yes for jobs was not a treat but that the stimulus package would result in jobs.!

Also IBEC often quoted as being the spokespeople for irish businesses did advertise with posters - which their is a image linked to in my previous post of "Yes for Jobs" - New Start, New Opportunities.

If we are wishing to have an EU look in a favourable light (for any future in out referendum) to our nearest neighbours it has to appear honest, and not engage in Spin. And don't try and explain away misleading information by pro-Europeans as Pat Rabbitte may say "You say those things at elections".

If the EU is to gain thrust from the British, then the EU and its Supporters must earn it.
You cant control what you opponents say, but only confront them with cogent arguments, but when your Own side and its supports are discrediting your arguments with misleading arguments you have to acknowledge them, not ignore them or say (well the no side said this), and correct them.
And when the measures of the entity (EU) you favour are as silly or aggravating as many are by people in the UK, condemned and corrected where needs be not spun to try and explain it aways

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

Hayes was explaining after being challenged on the Fine Gael poster being a threat to existing jobs - he did overtly infer the stimulus package would result in new jobs and shied away from it being any threat to existing ones
IBEC did advertise NEW start NEW opportunities in their yes for jobs posters
are you trying to deny that this is what they did?

He didn't overtly infer anything of the kind. He said the Yes vote was not going to create 500k jobs. Separately there was a EU stimulus which did create jobs (though I personally disagree with this method of job creation). So factually correct. As an aside what threat did Lisbon give to existing jobs? What evidence do you have since Lisbon we have lost jobs because of Lisbon? Has any business said they have let staff go, stopped recruited or closed because of the Lisbon yes vote.......

I'm not denying IBEC they said that - it's there in black and white. New Start, New Opportunities could mean a lot of things - New start with Europe. New opportunities for inward investment - you are simply choosing to interpret that it means "New Opportunity for New jobs" which is a stretch.

In any case you claimed Fine Gael said there would be NEW Jobs because of a Yes to LISBON 2 Vote. The emphasis through the campaign was that we would lose jobs if we voted against Lisbon 2 which was supported by the Multinationals and IBEC (see your example). So on balance a vote Yes for Lisbon was a vote for jobs. You can argue against this all you want but the reality is the vast vast vast bulk of employers in Ireland supported a yes vote on Lisbon which it was good for their business which invariably means it supported jobs.

For the rest let's go back to what you originally said shall we given your propensity to shift goalposts....

petronius wrote: »

Other mooted ideas was to not allow what we call chocolate to be called chocolate due to the vegetable fat content...
and try and have it rebranded vegolate or something

That bit is untrue - the UK was never going to be "forced" to call chocolate vegolate or anything else for that matter though it was proposed that the packaging contain additional explanation on the back on Cocoa content. You shifted your goalposts again to now include lobbying by the British chocolate industry to allow their low Cocoa high Vegetable Fat "chocolate" be sold in other EU countries that currently insist that products called chocolate actually contain mostly chocolate and not cheap vegetable fat. A really interesting article here on the damage British lobbying has done on poorer african countries who rely on Cocoa exports. Nothing to do with mad Eurocrats, everything to do with greedy lobbyists.

petronius wrote: »

2) The EU does itself no favours by some crazy laws e.g. the straight banana fodder for the sun et al, also by encroaching on matters that are not in its remit

Which is untrue and you are shifting your language and goal posts again. As a trading block with trading agreements we do have regulations (not directives) on imported goods (we don't really tend to grow bananas in England). It is disingenuous to state that this is a "directive" for straight bananas because it merely describes the grading of bananas for import duty purposes. Of course most countries have the exact same regulations because, like any other grower or importer of agricultural produce, they grade and apply customs tax applied appropriately. Knock yourself out with those crazy Aussiecrats in Camberra who have a wonderful code. This is also all negotiated under auspices of the World Trade Organisation. If the UK were not in the EU, UKcrats would be putting the exact same regulation into British law.

It is ironic though that the claimed examples you give are part of the EU you probably think should stay "It should only be a free trade organisation".

micosoft

Petronius - you have failed to seriously address a single one of the porkies you have told and just keep repeating them in slightly different ways to see if they will stick.
The EU as an organisation made up of 28 states with many languages, customs, agendas etc and may not be perfect but they are streets ahead of the petty, deceitful jingoists that oppose it in the UK and elsewhere for entirely nationalistic reasons.

If you have real suggestions on how to improve the EU I'm all ears. Instead you have decided to repeat cheap falsehoods. No amount of facts or corrections will change that - and I accept that. However it's incumbent on the rest of us to engage with the EU as members and add and improve on it while at the same time challenging critics like yourself and ask you what you really want, which I suspect is a pre '39 collection of nationalistic states. The clock is not going back and all that will possibly happen is that the UK will make itself even more irrelevant in the global arena.

petronius

micosoft -

EU/EC did have a policy against UK and Irish Chocolate being branded Chocolate - FACT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/678141.stm

EU/EC did have a policy specifying the definition curvature and length boundaries of
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ped-by-EU.html

FG TD Hayes said the FG Yes for Jobs was NOT a threat on existing ones but via stimulus package NEW JOBS - surely you can deny this is a FACT - its on the oireachtas record!
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas....J2009092400003

Pro-EU IBEC - did use Yes for Jobs with NEW Opportunities etc. - FACT
http://irishelectionliterature.files...beclisbon1.png

To try and dish what i have posted and the related links, and not address where the EU and its supporters got it wrong, is part of the problem with the EU delivering its message.

If the UK public are wary and don't trust the EU, it is never going to be changed if the EU and its supporters attack facts and ignore it.
Rather than acknowledge it, condemn it and correct it.

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

micosoft -

EU/EC did have a policy against UK and Irish Chocolate being branded Chocolate - FACT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/678141.stm

From the article you just posted: Since 1973, EU law has allowed each member state to decide whether or not to ban the use of vegetable fats in its own and imported chocolate. Until Wednesday's ruling, seven EU countries allow vegetable fat and eight - Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Germany, Greece and Holland - chose not to sell the product.

That is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Let's stick with just this one (I've already addressed the others but will do again if needs be). Do you accept you are wrong to say the EU/EC had a policy against UK and Irish Chocolate. Individual EU members did. The EU is now forcing them to permit this sale.

Yes or No answer will suffice.

View

petronius wrote: »

I am saying the "civic bodies" and government and by that you can assume Pro-Europeans or Pro-Federal-European-Union people did mislead

So far all we have is you drawing erroneous inferences from what others said.

As such the problem isn't the Yes side misleading rather your misunderstanding of what was said.

But then again you seem happy enough with the No sides "errors" during the campaign, so it would seem to be a case your main issue is your favoured side lost..

petronius wrote: »

If the EU is to gain thrust from the British, then the EU and its Supporters must earn it.

You seem to be labouring under a misaphrension. It isn't up to EU to "gain trust" from the British. The EU has no legal or political basis for doing so.

Rather the issue of what, if any, relationship the UK wants with the rest of the EU is primarily an internal UK matter since the UK to date seems incapable of deciding what it wants. The rest of the EU - which has given the UK opt-out after opt-out - can't spend its time guessing what the UK public want. That debate is largely one for the UK public and politicians.

petronius

View here we are discussing how it can be argued that EU is beneficial and that the UK can benefit
The issues with the UK in europe is that is doesnt trust it, has had bad experiences perception or otherwise.

I recall a car safety measure lauded on "Top Gear" (yeah I know) but it was described as a new law which improved safety and forced car companies to implement it. The measure was a result of an EU policy (not a UK or US one) yet the good folks at Top Gear failed to mention this. It is positive stories like this which should be articulated to show where the EU does good.

The negative stories should not be brushed aways or tried to be explained aways by spin - when the EU does something "Barmy" - Pro EU people should equally condemn them! and fight against them via the EU channels showing that such participation works

When there is evidence that pro-eu-treaty campaigners have issued misinformation like Deputy Hayes and IBEC then not counter this argument with well the no side said blah blah..

micosoft

Yes or No. Do you accept that your post on "barmy chocolate ban by the EU" was a myth.

View

petronius wrote: »

When there is evidence that pro-eu-treaty campaigners have issued misinformation like Deputy Hayes and IBEC then not counter this argument with well the no side said blah blah..

So far you haven't provided any evidence they misled. Instead your posts consist of claims that YOU made erroneous inferences from their statements. Which is not to say anyone else did - you do realise that most people don't follow the ponderings of Oireachtas committees, don't you?

View

petronius wrote: »

View here we are discussing how it can be argued that EU is beneficial and that the UK can benefit

Read the thread title, that isn't what it says.

It is up to the UK to figure out what it wants not for anyone else to guess for them.

The UK can pay attention to either the ramblings if its tabloids or to the recent report by a House of Commons committee which said apart from a few minor niggles (such as anyone might complain about their local council) their relationship with the EU is just fine.

That's their decision not anyone else's in the rest of the EU.

McDave

petronius wrote: »

The issues with the UK in europe is that is doesnt trust it, has had bad experiences perception or otherwise.

What 'bad experiences' has the UK had? Realistically - 'straight bananas' don't count.

thomas.frink

petronius wrote: »

View here we are discussing how it can be argued that EU is beneficial and that the UK can benefit

It can be argued that the EU is beneficial because it is beneficial. It can be argues that the EU is not beneficial, because it is not beneficial.

The EU is neither 100% one or the other, and is a mixture of both. It seems to be a mistake to think that across the EU individuals judge the EU on the basis of whether or not it is perceived to be a little more one way or the other.

In the UK, for example, there is a body of opinion which has long been concerned with the democratic deficit and who sees the EU as anti democratic. Some see the EU as a vast and unaccountable bureaucracy where much of the money it spends is wasted and unaccounted for to such an extent that the EU's auditors are unable to find or track where much of the cash ends up. In the UK they don't like that, whereas in other countries there seems to be little concern at money going missing.

This thread is about why the British are so anti Europe. In ireland there has often seemed to be a sense that the EU must not be criticised openly. We've seen the same attitude with the Irish government agreeing to whatever was proposed for the bail out, and have seen how disastrous that attitude can be, and has been, and continued to be on Ireland.

In the UK that attitude does not prevail, and the UK works on the basis that they can and should question everything, including the EU. (For example, when the Euro was proposed, the UK debated the issue at lenght, debated how good or bad it was likely to be for the UK to join in the Euro, and concluded on balance not to join. In Ireland, there was no notable debate and it was just assumed that if the EU wanted ireland to join in, that Ireland would do as it was told without rocking the boat).

To conclude that the UK is anti europe because it questoins, and does not do as it is instructed by the EU on every issue, is to misunderstand. Sometimes our better friends are the ones who are brave enough to tell us the truth, rather than those friends which prefer flattery to the awkwardness of truth.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

In the UK, for example, there is a body of opinion which has long been concerned with the democratic deficit and who sees the EU as anti democratic.

Setting aside the question of whether the EU is undemocratic (which would be a strange assertion in its own right, given that it's the only supranational organisation with a directly elected parliament) to accuse it of being anti-democratic would suggest that it is in some way opposed to democracy, and has the undermining of democracy as one of its goals.

If you're going to claim that, be so good as to adduce some evidence for it.

Some see the EU as a vast and unaccountable bureaucracy where much of the money it spends is wasted and unaccounted for to such an extent that the EU's auditors are unable to find or track where much of the cash ends up.

The first two words of that sentence would get it labeled with a [weasel words] tag in Wikipedia.

Insofar as the EU's auditors are unable to account for wastage of EU funds, those funds are being wasted by the member states. It seems that you're trying to peddle the oft-debunked myth that the EU's auditors won't sign off on its accounts - that's a very, very tired canard on this forum.

In ireland there has often seemed to be a sense that the EU must not be criticised openly.

[citation needed]

To conclude that the UK is anti europe because it questoins, and does not do as it is instructed by the EU on every issue, is to misunderstand.

Happily, nobody other than your pet straw man is concluding that. Those of us who conclude that the UK is anti-EU do so on the basis of the myths that the UK appear to be happier to believe about the EU than the rather less colourful facts.

thomas.frink

oscarBravo wrote: »

Setting aside the question of whether the EU is undemocratic (which would be a strange assertion in its own right, given that it's the only supranational organisation with a directly elected parliament) to accuse it of being anti-democratic would suggest that it is in some way opposed to democracy, and has the undermining of democracy as one of its goals.

If you're going to claim that, be so good as to adduce some evidence for it.

I wasn't planning on claiming it. I was explaining what some in the UK think, and the idea of the democratic deficit is one often discussed in the UK. This thread is about the UK and not about me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Insofar as the EU's auditors are unable to account for wastage of EU funds, those funds are being wasted by the member states. It seems that you're trying to peddle the oft-debunked myth that the EU's auditors won't sign off on its accounts - that's a very, very tired canard on this forum. [citation needed] Happily, nobody other than your pet straw man is concluding that. Those of us who conclude that the UK is anti-EU do so on the basis of the myths that the UK appear to be happier to believe about the EU than the rather less colourful facts.

I didn't mention anything about accounts being signed off or not, so you are simply incorrect to say i did.

I am afraid you are simply wrong, and many in the UK believe that money is wasted by the EU. They may well be wrong to believe it, but believe it they do. This thread is about why the UK is anti EU, and that belief is just one reason why the UK appears to be so.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

In the UK, for example, there is a body of opinion which has long been concerned with the democratic deficit and who sees the EU as anti democratic. Some see the EU as a vast and unaccountable bureaucracy where much of the money it spends is wasted and unaccounted for to such an extent that the EU's auditors are unable to find or track where much of the cash ends up. In the UK they don't like that, whereas in other countries there seems to be little concern at money going missing.

I'll take thin and specious claims like this more seriously when I see Tory and UKIP types arguing for a federal EU, with all the attendant institutions that go with it.

The fact of the matter is that most power as affects the EU and its member states is still based around the nation. The notion of the EU as a 'vast' bureaucracy is a simple British Europhobe lie. There are British ministries bigger than the EU bureaucracy. 'Some see' this Big Lie as evidence of Britain's inability to make a positive contribution to the EU.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

In the UK that attitude does not prevail, and the UK works on the basis that they can and should question everything, including the EU. (For example, when the Euro was proposed, the UK debated the issue at lenght, debated how good or bad it was likely to be for the UK to join in the Euro, and concluded on balance not to join. In Ireland, there was no notable debate and it was just assumed that if the EU wanted ireland to join in, that Ireland would do as it was told without rocking the boat).

You make the UK sound like a four year old child, or a university fresher, when in reality Britain is on of the world's oldest and most experienced states. They were well within their rights to argue to stay out o the Euro. But what has been most telling has been the obstructionist tone it has adopted throughout the international financial crisis, not least its attempt to block EZ institutional funding action, which led to the 25 setting up a mechanism outside the EU.

The saddest thing is that with every passing month, Britain's scepticism on the ability of the Euro to succeed is looking like poorer and poorer judgement, hidebound by theories that because nothing like it has succeeded in the past, it cannot possibly succeed in the future either. Well, innovative political and economic thinking behind the EZ has called the Anglo-Saxon sceptics on this, and in due course, theorists will be tipping their hats to the ability of European politicians and technocrats to direct such an unwieldy beast.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

To conclude that the UK is anti europe because it questoins, and does not do as it is instructed by the EU on every issue, is to misunderstand. Sometimes our better friends are the ones who are brave enough to tell us the truth, rather than those friends which prefer flattery to the awkwardness of truth.

The UK is not 'instructed' by the EU.

It's sad that you see one of the most powerful countries in Europe as a passive actor.

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

I wasn't planning on claiming it. I was explaining what some in the UK think, and the idea of the democratic deficit is one often discussed in the UK. This thread is about the UK and not about me.

Some people in the UK think that the royal family are alien lizards. A discussion forum isn't about what "some people" think, it's about discussing what you believe, and why.

I didn't mention anything about accounts being signed off or not, so you are simply incorrect to say i did.

If you're going to use your weasel words as a way to make points without having to stand over them, there isn't really the basis of a discussion here.

I am afraid you are simply wrong, and many in the UK believe that money is wasted by the EU. They may well be wrong to believe it, but believe it they do. This thread is about why the UK is anti EU, and that belief is just one reason why the UK appears to be so.

So your point, in essence, is that the UK is anti-EU because "some people" believe bad things about the EU, and the question of whether or not those bad things are true is not something you consider in any way germane to the discussion?

Lemming

thomas.frink wrote: »

I am afraid you are simply wrong, and many in the UK believe that money is wasted by the EU. They may well be wrong to believe it, but believe it they do. This thread is about why the UK is anti EU, and that belief is just one reason why the UK appears to be so.

The major cuplrit in the UK regards why "many" believe the EU to be some great satan is the British media; or rather segments of it, as so eloquently displayed today with this response from the EU commission office in the UK to claims of the EU planning to mandate car speed limiters.

Having lived in the UK for several years now; there is a strong bias against the EU in media articles; however subtle that bias may be at times from even the more "respected" company names. In part because of that - and in part due to government incompetence/inaction - the general population of the UK is woefully ignorant of even the most basic structures of the EU and its relationship with its member states. If you're told time and time again by some newspaper that isn't challenged, that x is good, and y is bad, you will eventually believe it.

On top of that; the media (more so the red-top brigade + Murdoch empire) try to frequently steer the politics of the day. The end result is depressingly predictable in that you have a population falling hook line and sinker for any old nonsense.

thomas.frink

Lemming wrote: »

The major cuplrit in the UK regards why "many" believe the EU to be some great satan is the British media; or rather segments of it, as so eloquently displayed today with this response from the EU commission office in the UK to claims of the EU planning to mandate car speed limiters.

Having lived in the UK for several years now; there is a strong bias against the EU in media articles; however subtle that bias may be at times from even the more "respected" company names. In part because of that - and in part due to government incompetence/inaction - the general population of the UK is woefully ignorant of even the most basic structures of the EU and its relationship with its member states. If you're told time and time again by some newspaper that isn't challenged, that x is good, and y is bad, you will eventually believe it.

On top of that; the media (more so the red-top brigade + Murdoch empire) try to frequently steer the politics of the day. The end result is depressingly predictable in that you have a population falling hook line and sinker for any old nonsense.

The democratic deficit is widely discussed politicially and across the country and in the press.

But even if it were not, the media has every right to be as biased, or not, as it wants to be within legal parameters. I see a more balanced media than your do, with some papers being anti Eu, some being pro Eu, and organisations like the BBC being largely pro EU and stations like LBC being, largely, neutral or at least balanced.

Bearing in mind the majority of the population across the EU now say they distrust the EU and would possibly vote to leave it, an argument could be made that the press in the rest of the EU, including Ireland, is biased in that the overwhelming reportage of EU issues does not reflect that opinion. Bias is not just seen where it disagrees with ones own position, but is also there when it flatters ones own opinions.

In the UK issues like the democratic deficit are argued by many outside the media, such as by politicians and in forums up and down the country, in tv studios and on the national airwaves, and ferocious debates are had, and not just in the media.

View

thomas.frink wrote: »

But even if it were not, the media has every right to be as biased, or not, as it wants to be within legal parameters. I see a more balanced media than your do, with some papers being anti Eu, some being pro Eu, and organisations like the BBC being largely pro EU and stations like LBC being, largely, neutral or at least balanced.

The BBC has been found to have an anti-EU bias in its reportage by independent media studies so if you regard it as pro-EU your bias is hardly neutral.

Likewise the Leeveson report found clear bias in the UK newsprint media - and it wasn't "spin", it was actual fabrication - which goes a long way to explain the "debate" in the UK. You can't have a balanced debate if one side is fabricating "information" since people are responding to lies in that case.

thomas.frink

View wrote: »

The BBC has been found to have an anti-EU bias in its reportage by independent media studies so if you regard it as pro-EU your bias is hardly neutral.

Likewise the Leeveson report found clear bias in the UK newsprint media - and it wasn't "spin", it was actual fabrication - which goes a long way to explain the "debate" in the UK. You can't have a balanced debate if one side is fabricating "information" since people are responding to lies in that case.

Of course, non of us has a neutral bias, and it would be absurd to think any of us has.

I know its entirely possible to have a debate about, for example, the democratic deficit, even if one "side" is making up stupid stories about straight bananas. In fact, I know it's possible because I see and hear it in the UK reasonably regularly, and the fact that one newspaper or newspapers are making up stories about straight bananas has little to do with a debate about a democratic deficit. None of the arguments made for or against the democratic deficit include stories about straight bananas or other stuff invented by some media.

micosoft

thomas.frink wrote: »

the media has every right to be as biased

The media and you have a right to your own opinions.

You don't have a right to your own facts.

What we are clearly discussing here is the fact that the English populace are fed a steady stream of lies about the EU to support the anti EU "opinion" in the UK media. These lies have been done to death on many threads. That's not balanced.

micosoft

thomas.frink wrote: »

Of course, non of us has a neutral bias, and it would be absurd to think any of us has.

I know its entirely possible to have a debate about, for example, the democratic deficit, even if one "side" is making up stupid stories about straight bananas. In fact, I know it's possible because I see and hear it in the UK reasonably regularly, and the fact that one newspaper or newspapers are making up stories about straight bananas has little to do with a debate about a democratic deficit. None of the arguments made for or against the democratic deficit include stories about straight bananas or other stuff invented by some media.

Not really no. It' not possible to have a fair and impartial debate when one side spreads disinformation. I think it says a lot about your mindset that you'd even write the above. These stories are deliberate and malicious propaganda to discredit the EU. It has worked and will have serious geopolitical consquences for the UK and Europe including Ireland.

thomas.frink

micosoft wrote: »

Not really no. It' not possible to have a fair and impartial debate when one side spreads disinformation. I think it says a lot about your mindset that you'd even write the above. These stories are deliberate and malicious propaganda to discredit the EU. It has worked and will have serious geopolitical consquences for the UK and Europe including Ireland.

The UK situation, like every other country, it as it is. If you judge it impossible to have a fair and impartial debate, then that's what you judge.

What do you propose? That debate should be banned? Or that the media should be censored in a way of which you approve? Or something else entirely?

In the world in which I live, its usually both sides which spread propaganda, and not just one side. And the duty of an adult is to try to see through the propaganda to the issues. If someone can't do that (as you imply many or most in the UK can't) then in a democracy we still have to accept that. Thats how a democracy works. (Fascism or a dictatorship works partially by banning others from having opinions informed by the "wrong" evidence, or of which opinions are not approved, and by banning discussion of certain topics).

oscarBravo

thomas.frink wrote: »

The UK situation, like every other country, it as it is. If you judge it impossible to have a fair and impartial debate, then that's what you judge.

What do you propose? That debate should be banned? Or that the media should be censored in a way of which you approve? Or something else entirely?

In the world in which I live, its usually both sides which spread propaganda, and not just one side. And the duty of an adult is to try to see through the propaganda to the issues. If someone can't do that (as you imply many or most in the UK can't) then in a democracy we still have to accept that. Thats how a democracy works. (Fascism or a dictatorship works partially by banning others from having opinions informed by the "wrong" evidence, or of which opinions are not approved, and by banning discussion of certain topics).

You're invoking the "teach the controversy" fallacy: the idea that an objective fact and a bare-faced lie have equal validity, and that if more people believe the lie than believe the facts, then the lie wins.

Aggressive marketing doesn't make a lie true, and any decision made on the basis of believing something that isn't true is ipso facto a flawed decision.