Should We Leave the EU?

[DarloRich]

Had an interesting letter come today entitled: "The UK and the European Union: THE FACTS". Perhaps it ought to have been called "The UK and the EU: SOME CAREFULLY CHOSEN FACTS"

Funded by Vote leave. Odd that a leaflet, presented as an official and impartial leaflet, is ok but one for vote stay is not.................

 

[Domh245]

I have now received the same leaflet. Since your location says 'Nottingham' and I live in London, I'm guessing this leaflet delivery is reasonably national and therefore the group behind it has considerable resources.

I'm pretty disgusted by it because it is so clearly designed to mislead people into thinking it's an impartial/educational leaflet when on a more careful read it becomes apparent that it's actually part of an 'out' campaign. The 'facts' themselves are not entirely correct (as I noted earlier, one of them - the claim that the EU costs us £350M a week is simply not true) and are clearly carefully selected to promote the 'out' argument, but nowhere is this indicated. Even when the facts presented are literally true, accompanying context that would indicate the true picture is omitted (Example: 'You don't have to be a member of the EU to trade with it' - strictly true, but doesn't mention that you'd still have to negotiate agreements/conform to much of EU law/etc.) And of course, as Domh245 noted, there is no explicit indication of who is behind the leaflet.

Many out campaigners like to label the 'in' campaign as 'Project Fear' but it seems to me that the various out campaigns can themselves be very accurately described as 'Project Lie' or 'Project Mislead'

Strictly speaking, my location has been inaccurate over the past couple of weeks - I'm in (south) london over the holiday!

On a similar note, the government are sending out their dossier on why we should stay in the EU, plastered with official signs. That (whilst more official) might be seen as using the power of officialdom to persuade people. I know that the governments view is in, but I feel that a leaflet sent by some equivalent group to 'vote leave' would be more fair?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Funded by Vote leave.

Is it? How have you figured that out?

 

[yorksrob]

So your Nigel Farage came to the Netherlands to say to us that we should vote against the tradetreaty with Ukraine tomorrow. So in June we (the Dutch) in return will come to your country to say to you to leave the EU as every time you try to take the people on the mainland hostage if it does not go your way!

Out of interest, will your compatriots be holding a referendum on TTIP ?

That appears to be the more worrying in terms of National self-government.

 

[DarloRich]

Is it? How have you figured that out?

back page, very small print - i assumed it to be an impartial leaflet. Always read the small print.

 

[furnessvale]

back page, very small print - i assumed it to be an impartial leaflet. Always read the small print.

At least there will be no need to read the small print on the new government pro EU leaflet when it arrives.

We all know who is funding that. ALL taxpayers, no matter what their views are!

 

[DarloRich]

At least there will be no need to read the small print on the new government pro EU leaflet when it arrives.

We all know who is funding that. ALL taxpayers, no matter what their views are!

But the government is also funding the free post for all of the vote leave documents regardless of who pumps them out. Why should the government not inform the electorate of their views on such an important issue?

Are you happy with a vote leave leaflet that purports to be an impartial document but is anything but that? it is actually a spin sheet for the leave party! You surely cant be happy that people might be conned into believing these facts are presented impartially? or that people might make their choice based upon these "impartial" facts. Despite the front cover the leaflet offers no facts and presents the same old half baked rubbish the leavers love to spread. That cant be a good thing.

Lots of us want clear, unbiased, FACTS upon which to make our descion. We don't want the spin or bull or the outright lies we are being fed. Those facts seems thin on the ground, especially where the leave campaign are concerned.

 

[Senex]

But the government is also funding the free post for all of the vote leave documents regardless of who pumps them out. Why should the government not inform the electorate of their views on such an important issue?

Are you happy with a vote leave leaflet that purports to be an impartial document but is anything but that? it is actually a spin sheet for the leave party! You surely cant be happy that people might be conned into believing these facts are presented impartially? or that people might make their choice based upon these "impartial" facts. Despite the front cover the leaflet offers no facts and presents the same old half baked rubbish the leavers love to spread. That cant be a good thing.

Lots of us want clear, unbiased, FACTS upon which to make our descion. We don't want the spin or bull or the outright lies we are being fed. Those facts seems thin on the ground, especially where the leave campaign are concerned.

Despite coming at it from a very different political angle from yours, I agree with you totally, particuarly with what you say in your last paragraph.

If the considered position of the government is to recommend "In", then it would be failing in its duty to the electorate not to inform them as clearly and factually as possible of its reasons for making that recommendation, and that is still something that can best be done on paper.

Equally, the "Out" campaign should be free to circulate people. But there should be some check on the material put out by both sides to ensure that what claims to be a presentation of facts is indeed just that, and not plain prejudice and propaganda, based on things claimed to be facts that are in fact anything but.

 

[yorksrob]

Someone (I think it was David Aaronovitch) made the very good point in The Times that just as in the Scottish referendum that there will be no such thing as an impartial list of facts because, in truth, no one really knows what a Britain outside of the EU would be like , so it is down to comparing competing sets of conjecture.

In the end, people will just have to consider what sort of Britain they want to live in and trust their instincts.

 

[richa2002]

I love the idea on here that there should be some higher body which checks 'facts'. Are we not all grown ups who do our own research and see beyond BS? Fact is, I find it hard to believe any body could truly claim to be impartial so it's better if you just use your own skills of analysis. Or does the electorate need to be spoon fed information by the government?

Fact is too, this is more than just 'facts'. It's about whether you want to be a self-governing nation or not, it really is quite simple. If you have the ability to, use your own mind to weigh up the pros and cons of democracy.

 

[DarloRich]

I love the idea on here that there should be some higher body which checks 'facts'. Are we not all grown ups who do our own research and see beyond BS? Fact is, I find it hard to believe any body could truly claim to be impartial so it's better if you just use your own skills of analysis. Or does the electorate need to be spoon fed information by the government?

Fact is too, this is more than just 'facts'. It's about whether you want to be a self-governing nation or not, it really is quite simple. If you have the ability to, use your own mind to weigh up the pros and cons of democracy.

again you use the kind rubbish the leavers want to rely on. We are a self governing nation. We will be self governing nation in the future! We remain part of a democracy! What silliness.

:roll:This is EXACTLY why facts are needed. You might not like facts, preferring to rely on the same old little Englander we won the war how dare these dirty foreigners tell us what to do rubbish, but I don't want to decide something so important on that basis thank you very much.

 

[miami]

I love the idea on here that there should be some higher body which checks 'facts'. Are we not all grown ups who do our own research and see beyond BS? Fact is, I find it hard to believe any body could truly claim to be impartial so it's better if you just use your own skills of analysis. Or does the electorate need to be spoon fed information by the government?

Fact is too, this is more than just 'facts'. It's about whether you want to be a self-governing nation or not, it really is quite simple. If you have the ability to, use your own mind to weigh up the pros and cons of democracy.

There's a fundamental question of "do you want international trade agreements set by a body you have a say in, or by a body you don't".

The EU is more democratic, and the members of parliament represent far more of the population than the UK system. While Brexiters think how great it will be to shut down EU funding of our poorest area, they really should think about a reality check of who is in charge of the UK at the moment, and what will actually happen.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

back page, very small print - i assumed it to be an impartial leaflet. Always read the small print.

Ah yes, I see it. It's also not in its own paragraph (as I think would be traditional for 'who published this' information) but is buried amongst the data protection stuff that explains what happens to your information if you fill in the survey form on the back. I rather suspect that's been done deliberately to make it less likely that anyone will read that sentence and find out who is behind the leaflet.

 

[DarloRich]

Ah yes, I see it. It's also not in its own paragraph (as I think would be traditional for 'who published this' information) but is buried amongst the data protection stuff that explains what happens to your information if you fill in the survey form on the back. I rather suspect that's been done deliberately to make it less likely that anyone will read that sentence and find out who is behind the leaflet.

surely not!

 

[yorksrob]

There's a fundamental question of "do you want international trade agreements set by a body you have a say in, or by a body you don't".

The EU is more democratic, and the members of parliament represent far more of the population than the UK system. While Brexiters think how great it will be to shut down EU funding of our poorest area, they really should think about a reality check of who is in charge of the UK at the moment, and what will actually happen.

That's actually a fair point. Much as I would prefer the country to be self governing and disagree with the extent of the common market, I'd be a lot happier voting for it were the Tory party not looming over us.

The problem is, I would be happy to acquiesce to the EU as a bulwark against Conservatism were it not hell bent on adopting Thatcherite market economics such as the "liberalisation" of public services. And that's before you get to policy mistakes such as the single currency which, to be fair to them, have nothing to do with the Tory party and everything to do with EU hubris.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We all know who is funding that. ALL taxpayers, no matter what their views are!

Good to know that we are all giving a helping hand..

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I love the idea on here that there should be some higher body which checks 'facts'. Are we not all grown ups who do our own research and see beyond BS?

On that basis, would you argue for scrapping the Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Press Standards Organisation? After all, since we are all adults and can do our own research, presumably we don't need any Government body to check that adverts or stories in the press are accurate - we can do that research ourselves, individually, for everything we read....

In reality, most people do not do their own research, but will tend to believe what they read, unless stuff is very obviously wrong (or conflicts too heavily with strongly held prior beliefs ).

 

[Antman]

Fact is too, this is more than just 'facts'. It's about whether you want to be a self-governing nation or not, it really is quite simple. If you have the ability to, use your own mind to weigh up the pros and cons of democracy.

You've summed it up perfectly

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you have the ability to, use your own mind to weigh up the pros and cons of democracy.

Uh? Are you unaware that the European Parliament is democratically elected (arguably it's more democratic than Westminster since - unlike for Westminster - the electoral system is reasonably proportional)?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I still find myself in exactly the same decision mode that I decided upon as soon as this referendum was first announced, but I have found this particular thread to be a source of cheering me up on days when medically, I am none too well.

 

[richa2002]

Uh? Are you unaware that the European Parliament is democratically elected (arguably it's more democratic than Westminster since - unlike for Westminster - the electoral system is reasonably proportional)?

If you consider yourself as part of the country of Europe then yes, the Parliament is democratically elected. I personally don't think a French/German/whatever MEP should have as much say over the laws I have to abide by as a British MEP though. Like I say, it simply depends on whether you think Britain is a self-governing country or part of a one nation Europe where Joe Bloggs from Germany has as much say as Joe Bloggs from Britain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On that basis, would you argue for scrapping the Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Press Standards Organisation? After all, since we are all adults and can do our own research, presumably we don't need any Government body to check that adverts or stories in the press are accurate - we can do that research ourselves, individually, for everything we read....

In reality, most people do not do their own research, but will tend to believe what they read, unless stuff is very obviously wrong (or conflicts too heavily with strongly held prior beliefs ).

It's a fair-ish point but for me, the difference is that the government don't have a vested interest (on the most part) as to the standards of an advert or press article and whether it's misleading. When it comes to Europe, they are most definitely for staying in and as such, can not be trusted to decide what are the 'facts', or trusted to appoint an independent body.

 

[Barn]

It's not even 'carefully chosen facts' - at least one of the 'facts' on that sheet appears to be an outright lie: The claim that the EU costs us £350M/week. This figure is oft-repeated, but is actually the amount that the UK would pay per week if it didn't have a rebate, and before you factor in the amount that the EU spends in the UK. As far as I can work out, the actual net 'what we pay' (= what we actually pay to the EU minus what the EU actually pays to us) appears to be in the region of £160M/week (see eg. fullfact).

I've never really liked that argument. It's a bit like me taking away £500 from your monthly paycheque and giving some of it back to you in vouchers which you can only spend at Argos.

Technically I've returned a measurable value to you and reduced my net deduction, but you wouldn't really see it that way as you've lost the ability to spend your money as you choose.

It's not fair therefore to represent that we are only 'down' by the 'net' amount.
Now some of the spending would probably be replicated domestically (such as university research funding and some agricultural subsidies), so it is probably not fair either to suggest that we could save the full gross amount by leaving.

The most fair figure would be somewhere in between.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Fact is too, this is more than just 'facts'. It's about whether you want to be a self-governing nation or not, it really is quite simple. If you have the ability to, use your own mind to weigh up the pros and cons of democracy.

I wasn't aware that we had no say in who became MEPs! Those elections must have been all a dream.

 

[DarloRich]

I still find myself in exactly the same decision mode that I decided upon as soon as this referendum was first announced, but I have found this particular thread to be a source of cheering me up on days when medically, I am none too well.

Paul - I hope you are not unwell. I would miss debating/arguing with you. I may not agree with you but I do respect your position and the expression of that view.

I haven't yet made my mind up on the referendum. For the first time in my voting life I am one of those awful undecideds. I simply don't think I have enough information to make an informed choice and nor do I know where to find the data!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Uh? Are you unaware that the European Parliament is democratically elected (arguably it's more democratic than Westminster since - unlike for Westminster - the electoral system is reasonably proportional)?

When the government has been blaming their shortfalls on the EU for decades and banging on about how unelected and despotic they are (despite us having our own House of Lords...), it's no wonder people take all the good that the EU does for granted (since Westminster takes credit), and blame all the bad on the EU regardless of the truth.

 

[richa2002]

I wasn't aware that we had no say in who became MEPs! Those elections must have been all a dream.

I reiterate:

If you consider yourself as part of the country of Europe then yes, the Parliament is democratically elected. I personally don't think a French/German/whatever MEP should have as much say over the laws I have to abide by as a British MEP though. Like I say, it simply depends on whether you think Britain is a self-governing country or part of a one nation Europe where Joe Bloggs from Germany has as much say as Joe Bloggs from Britain.

 

[DarloRich]

If you consider yourself as part of the country of Europe then yes, the Parliament is democratically elected. I personally don't think a French/German/whatever MEP should have as much say over the laws I have to abide by as a British MEP though. Like I say, it simply depends on whether you think Britain is a self-governing country or part of a one nation Europe where Joe Bloggs from Germany has as much say as Joe Bloggs from Britain.

that just isn't true. In several areas we have MORE power over EU policy than other members. You could ask why the UK is able to hold up or block legislation that has been agreed upon by the majority of members!

I think you misunderstand or perhaps don't really understand the point you make about self governing.

 

[richa2002]

When the government has been blaming their shortfalls on the EU for decades and banging on about how unelected and despotic they are (despite us having our own House of Lords...), it's no wonder people take all the good that the EU does for granted (since Westminster takes credit), and blame all the bad on the EU regardless of the truth.

The point being that we choose the government so it's our own fault if they're not good enough. Supporting undemocratic institutions because they happen to do things you agree with at the time is very dangerous. If they start doing things you disagree with, good luck in throwing them out.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I've never really liked that argument. It's a bit like me taking away £500 from your monthly paycheque and giving some of it back to you in vouchers which you can only spend at Argos.

Technically I've returned a measurable value to you and reduced my net deduction, but you wouldn't really see it that way as you've lost the ability to spend your money as you choose.

It's not fair therefore to represent that we are only 'down' by the 'net' amount.
Now some of the spending would probably be replicated domestically (such as university research funding and some agricultural subsidies), so it is probably not fair either to suggest that we could save the full gross amount by leaving.

The most fair figure would be somewhere in between.

More like many, many times as much. Plus it's not in "Argos vouchers", since it's still hard cash.

Whilst we have net outgoings in government spending to the EU, it's downright disingenuous to imply that that is the only sort of wealth that mattes. What is completely forgotten are the billions made daily through easier trade (etc.).

After all, GDP = Consumer Spending + Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports

That government spending is massively outweighed by the others.

 

[furnessvale]

Uh? Are you unaware that the European Parliament is democratically elected (arguably it's more democratic than Westminster since - unlike for Westminster - the electoral system is reasonably proportional)?

The EU lists 14 institutions in its brief description of its make up.

Unless I am mistaken we get to vote for members of one of those institutions, MEPs.

The other 13 bodies are all appointees.

Some democracy!