The EU archived “Euromyths” printed in UK media (2018)(thelondoneconomic.com)
thelondoneconomic.com
The EU archived “Euromyths” printed in UK media (2018)
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/the-eu-have-archived-all-of-the-euromyths-printed-in-uk-media-and-it-makes-for-some-disturbing-reading-108942/
137 comments
The TV show "Yes, Minister" was a truly amazing show because of the brilliant writing, and how humorously it could speak the truth:
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it’s really anti-Europe. The civil service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn’t work. That’s why we went into it. Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, French and Italians against the Germans, and the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?
Jim Hacker: It’s all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we are inside, we can make a big pig’s breakfast of the whole thing! Set the Germans against the French, French against Italians, Italians against Dutch —The Foreign Office is terribly pleased! It’s just like old times!
Jim Hacker: Surely we are committed to the European ideal!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister!
Jim Hacker: If not, why are we pressing for an increase in membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: For the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Jim Hacker: What appalling cynicism!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it’s really anti-Europe. The civil service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn’t work. That’s why we went into it. Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, French and Italians against the Germans, and the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?
Jim Hacker: It’s all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we are inside, we can make a big pig’s breakfast of the whole thing! Set the Germans against the French, French against Italians, Italians against Dutch —The Foreign Office is terribly pleased! It’s just like old times!
Jim Hacker: Surely we are committed to the European ideal!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister!
Jim Hacker: If not, why are we pressing for an increase in membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: For the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Jim Hacker: What appalling cynicism!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
> Jim Hacker: If not, why are we pressing for an increase in membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: For the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Jim Hacker: What appalling cynicism!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.”
This was more or less exactly what happened with the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. Britain pushed for the EU to enlarge as a way of slowing down decision making - and the resulting migration from Eastern European countries ended up being a key factor for people voting to Leave.
This was more or less exactly what happened with the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. Britain pushed for the EU to enlarge as a way of slowing down decision making - and the resulting migration from Eastern European countries ended up being a key factor for people voting to Leave.
> The TV show "Yes, Minister" […]
Was basically written as ideological propaganda, per the show creator:
> The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[17]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics
Was basically written as ideological propaganda, per the show creator:
> The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[17]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics
There’s also a book based on the show, which is roughly one chapter per episode. I found it enlightening, honestly. It’s like a set of fables about bureaucracy. They’re not true stories, but they highlight patterns and tendencies that crop up all the time.
Here is the actual (archived) Euromyths website: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://...
It appears the EC has deleted it since debunking myths in the British press has become rather pointless post-brexit.
It appears the EC has deleted it since debunking myths in the British press has become rather pointless post-brexit.
I'm hoping for a bit of a swing back. If not rejoining, perhaps being able to ship a lump of cheese to the EU without a £200 health certificate.
That seems unlikely to me. I voted remain, but it's a done deal and the EU vaccine situation makes Johnson look good. In spite of everything, Johnson still polls way ahead of Starmer. Unless he does something disastrous (alway a possibility), the Tories will win the next general election. It'll be a decade at least before rejoining is even a remote possibility.
Glad it has been archived. It might be futile to keep debunking, but it's important to remember where this anti-EU sentiment came from.
Here is the actual list of myths with some text on each one. [1] This gets posted on HN a lot, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who actually clicks through and reads the debunking? Only about a 30 - 40% are actually false (eg. "No EU plan to ban Union Flag from British meat packs"), the majority are true, and the "debunking" takes the form of explaining why it's a good thing (eg. "EC plan to ban noisy toys", " EU to ban powerful vaccuum cleaners"), or there are no facts involved at all
and they try to debunk someones opinion ("EU does not favour criminals over victims").
Also popular is distinction without a difference. The classic banana myth is one of these - No they don't ban vegetables with the wrong dimensions, they just put them in a lower quality class that no supermarkets will buy.
[1] https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://...
Also popular is distinction without a difference. The classic banana myth is one of these - No they don't ban vegetables with the wrong dimensions, they just put them in a lower quality class that no supermarkets will buy.
[1] https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://...
> No they don't ban vegetables with the wrong dimensions, they just put them in a lower quality class that no supermarkets will buy.
That’s not a distinction without a difference it’s literally the only thing relevant to fruit and veg classification.
Obviously Supermarket always buys classified fruit & veg (and did before the EU). And obviously in a common market those classifications must be the same. A ban on ugly bananas is just that, a ban on supermarkets selling anything under the top classification, or a classification that doesn’t allow the sale of lower grade at all. This isn’t it. No one bans anyone from selling 2nd grade fruit and the fruit isn’t classed as not for human consumption.
The whole ugly fruit movement where supermarkets now sell other grades is literally a response to this!
> No EU plan to ban Union Flag from British meat packs
I didn’t read the referenced article but surely flags are not only allowed but even encouraged on meat packaging? Obviously the flag must match the country of origin of the meat but if it does how can it be a problem?
If a manufacturer used a Union Jack or to sell Irish or Latvian meat I sure hope both local and EU law would object (regardless of whether that company had used it in its logo for 100s of years). Was that was happened? And was someone really upset about it?
That’s not a distinction without a difference it’s literally the only thing relevant to fruit and veg classification.
Obviously Supermarket always buys classified fruit & veg (and did before the EU). And obviously in a common market those classifications must be the same. A ban on ugly bananas is just that, a ban on supermarkets selling anything under the top classification, or a classification that doesn’t allow the sale of lower grade at all. This isn’t it. No one bans anyone from selling 2nd grade fruit and the fruit isn’t classed as not for human consumption.
The whole ugly fruit movement where supermarkets now sell other grades is literally a response to this!
> No EU plan to ban Union Flag from British meat packs
I didn’t read the referenced article but surely flags are not only allowed but even encouraged on meat packaging? Obviously the flag must match the country of origin of the meat but if it does how can it be a problem?
If a manufacturer used a Union Jack or to sell Irish or Latvian meat I sure hope both local and EU law would object (regardless of whether that company had used it in its logo for 100s of years). Was that was happened? And was someone really upset about it?
Is is good that fruit is classified this way? Isn't it a truism at this point that large, nice looking fruit tastes worse?
Even if classification is necessary (and pre-dates the EU), should every country use the same classification? Or should they each do their own? If France decides they're tired of using the EU classification system, are they allowed to?
There are real differences of opinion about questions like this and these differences (rather than bare facts) are what's being disputed here.
Even if classification is necessary (and pre-dates the EU), should every country use the same classification? Or should they each do their own? If France decides they're tired of using the EU classification system, are they allowed to?
There are real differences of opinion about questions like this and these differences (rather than bare facts) are what's being disputed here.
> Is is good that fruit is classified this way?
So long as consumers prefer it, It’s unavoidable I think. It’s also hard to change.
But the thing is, lower grade isn’t wasted or much cheaper, it’s a bit cheaper but not enough so that consumers would choose it. So if a supermarket has 10 kind of apples, not one will be 2nd class. Why? Lots of reasons. Because people believe good looking fruit keeps better or tastes better perhaps. Because consumers buy fruit also as decoration, for example. But the same consumers also buy juice and ketchup and that’s where they buy the 2nd class fruit! We buy most our fruit and veg that way. I want my 1 orange I buy to use for my old fashioned cocktail to be without blemishes. The 10 oranges I buy as orange juice I don’t care how ugly they are.
> Isn't it a truism at this point that large, nice looking fruit tastes worse?
I think it’s pretty common at least that well tasting and slow varieties have more taste but have been displaced by beautiful fast growing varieties. It’s a shame but I’m not sure there is an easy solution to this problem. For cooking veg I’d love to buy ugly and better tasting.
> Even if classification is necessary (and pre-dates the EU), should every country use the same classification? Or should they each do their own? If France decides they're tired of using the EU classification system, are they allowed to?
Why then use the same classification in the whole country? Where there is one market there is one classification system.
This isn’t a classification invented for consumers, this is so someone ordering a ton of apples can compare the price they get from the Spanish grower with that of the Italian one. Without actually seeing the produce. In the consumer end, these classifications are mostly useless. The question is then: could the EU market function and be fair without some of the regulations such as classifications? Perhaps. And these things come and go. For one country to get an exception is difficult. If France wishes to change the classification system they’d probably do better by trying to change it. Again - the classifications aren’t important for French supermarket shoppers, it’s about whether an importer can directly compare French and Spanish produce. If French exporters want to sell on the EU market they’ll probably need to follow those rules.
Could they drop some EU rule where supermarkets don’t need to display these classifications to consumers? That sounds much easier. I’m not sure that’s even a requirement and if it is it seems quite unnecessary.
So long as consumers prefer it, It’s unavoidable I think. It’s also hard to change.
But the thing is, lower grade isn’t wasted or much cheaper, it’s a bit cheaper but not enough so that consumers would choose it. So if a supermarket has 10 kind of apples, not one will be 2nd class. Why? Lots of reasons. Because people believe good looking fruit keeps better or tastes better perhaps. Because consumers buy fruit also as decoration, for example. But the same consumers also buy juice and ketchup and that’s where they buy the 2nd class fruit! We buy most our fruit and veg that way. I want my 1 orange I buy to use for my old fashioned cocktail to be without blemishes. The 10 oranges I buy as orange juice I don’t care how ugly they are.
> Isn't it a truism at this point that large, nice looking fruit tastes worse?
I think it’s pretty common at least that well tasting and slow varieties have more taste but have been displaced by beautiful fast growing varieties. It’s a shame but I’m not sure there is an easy solution to this problem. For cooking veg I’d love to buy ugly and better tasting.
> Even if classification is necessary (and pre-dates the EU), should every country use the same classification? Or should they each do their own? If France decides they're tired of using the EU classification system, are they allowed to?
Why then use the same classification in the whole country? Where there is one market there is one classification system.
This isn’t a classification invented for consumers, this is so someone ordering a ton of apples can compare the price they get from the Spanish grower with that of the Italian one. Without actually seeing the produce. In the consumer end, these classifications are mostly useless. The question is then: could the EU market function and be fair without some of the regulations such as classifications? Perhaps. And these things come and go. For one country to get an exception is difficult. If France wishes to change the classification system they’d probably do better by trying to change it. Again - the classifications aren’t important for French supermarket shoppers, it’s about whether an importer can directly compare French and Spanish produce. If French exporters want to sell on the EU market they’ll probably need to follow those rules.
Could they drop some EU rule where supermarkets don’t need to display these classifications to consumers? That sounds much easier. I’m not sure that’s even a requirement and if it is it seems quite unnecessary.
> No they don't ban vegetables with the wrong dimensions, they just put them in a lower quality class that no supermarkets will buy
Except they do. The premium supermarkets don't, but immigrant shops, etc. do buy class II veggies. It's the supermarkets's own choice what class they want to buy. Some deliberately buy even lower-class ones and market them (justifiably, I believe) as good for the environment as compared to discarding them.
Except they do. The premium supermarkets don't, but immigrant shops, etc. do buy class II veggies. It's the supermarkets's own choice what class they want to buy. Some deliberately buy even lower-class ones and market them (justifiably, I believe) as good for the environment as compared to discarding them.
Your example for the Union Jacks on meat [0] seems incorrect. They clarified that they don't plan to ban union Jack's on meat packaging:
>European Commission proposals on the labelling of pre-packaged fresh meat (from sheep, goats, poultry and pigs) will not prevent the use of the Union Jack or of other EU Member State flags.
And
>This is because – while the Commission has no intention of banning flags and other logos on pre-packaged meat – it does not intend either to propose making them compulsory.
That's a pretty solid debunking.
[0] https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004145238/https://...
>European Commission proposals on the labelling of pre-packaged fresh meat (from sheep, goats, poultry and pigs) will not prevent the use of the Union Jack or of other EU Member State flags.
And
>This is because – while the Commission has no intention of banning flags and other logos on pre-packaged meat – it does not intend either to propose making them compulsory.
That's a pretty solid debunking.
[0] https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004145238/https://...
It doesn’t seem to show which publications these were in. Some of these headlines only show up in this article itself, when I Google for them.
Without knowing what the sources are and what the articles say, there is no way to make sense of this list.
Without knowing what the sources are and what the articles say, there is no way to make sense of this list.
I would hazard a guess: Murdoch-owned papers. Because having the most powerful papers in England owned and ran by a foreigner from the opposite side of the planet is good for British Sovereignty.
Murdoch is Australian, therefore a subject of the British Crown, no? Not a "foreigner" per-se.
British tabloids Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The Telegraph, FT etc. a cocktail of toxic trash
The Telegraph and the Financial Times are not tabloids.
The FT isn't. The Telegraph certainly is, although it pretends so very hard not to be.
[deleted]
The Telegraph online is full of clickbait and articles worthy of a tabloid. There’s nothing broadsheet about it beyond the fonts/styling used and its historic reputation.
(In the interest of balance, The Guardian is shit too)
(In the interest of balance, The Guardian is shit too)
Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel.
Why would they be sued for libel?
https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004143251/https://...
And sued by who? By Murdoch publications, the champions of lying from the top of their lungs in front of millions of people? :-)
https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004143251/https://...
And sued by who? By Murdoch publications, the champions of lying from the top of their lungs in front of millions of people? :-)
The actual site (see the archive link by antientropic) has sources for them.
Plus they could be false or true based on some technically or interpretation...
The EU is evil because it protects children :facepalm:
* Playgrounds, safety – EU safety directives to ban playgrounds, trapeze artists and bagpipes, Aug 2005
* Playgrounds, safety – Safety rules force the closure of UK playgrounds, Oct 2003
* Playgrounds, safety, speed limits – Speed limits to be enforced on children’s roundabouts, Oct 2004
* Playgrounds, safety, swings – A village has to remove its swings due to safety rules, Jan 2003
* Playgrounds, safety – EU safety directives to ban playgrounds, trapeze artists and bagpipes, Aug 2005
* Playgrounds, safety – Safety rules force the closure of UK playgrounds, Oct 2003
* Playgrounds, safety, speed limits – Speed limits to be enforced on children’s roundabouts, Oct 2004
* Playgrounds, safety, swings – A village has to remove its swings due to safety rules, Jan 2003
I could give you tons of bogus euromyths, but this is a legit complaint.
How about "overprotecting children by closing down playgrounds is evil"?
How about "overprotecting children by closing down playgrounds is evil"?
Right, except that I am willing to bet money that in 99% of cases, playground closures happen because overprotective parents complain "my litle jimmy scraped their knee, you should close it until everything is made ouf ot foam!" and councils find it easier to just close a playground rather than fight a battle against parents, especially if they find few other households who think the same.
The excessive "health and safety" people justly complain about is kind of a British speciality.
It might be a legit complaint, but one that has nothing to do with the EU. The EU simply doesn't make safety standards for playgrounds.
You'd be surprised...
https://www.cen.eu/news/brochures/brochures/CEN-CLC_Child-Sa...
https://www.cen.eu/news/brochures/brochures/CEN-CLC_Child-Sa...
That's CEN, not EU
Yes, CEN, an public official standards body recognized by the EU, and whose members are "all member states of the European Union":
CEN is officially recognized as a European standards body by the European Union, European Free Trade Association and the United Kingdom; the other official European standards bodies are the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
CEN is officially recognized as a European standards body by the European Union, European Free Trade Association and the United Kingdom; the other official European standards bodies are the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
You seem to be making the (rather common) mistake of confusing European organisations with EU institutions. CEN is not a part of the EU. It was founded to establish standards among European countries long before the EU even existed, and it has members outside the EU as well. The EU does indeed recognize it, as does the UK (and did long before the EU even existed), but the EU didn't create it and doesn't control it.
>but the EU didn't create it and doesn't control it.
Doesn't have to, just have to embrace and enforce its standards.
(Btw, I'm from the EU, thanks for the lecture on Europe vs the EU, who would have thought!).
Doesn't have to, just have to embrace and enforce its standards.
(Btw, I'm from the EU, thanks for the lecture on Europe vs the EU, who would have thought!).
it's not exactly "it protect children", but "protect them in the same way accros the union" So that when people travel they have the same safety than at home.
>Broadband speeds, red tape – EU red tape force down broadband speeds, May 2016
I know all of these are nonsense, but this one is particularly funny to me.
In London I was limited to 80mbps copper cable, but since moving to a European city I now have gigabit fibre for around the same price (and 10 gigabit is available too for a small extra.)
I know all of these are nonsense, but this one is particularly funny to me.
In London I was limited to 80mbps copper cable, but since moving to a European city I now have gigabit fibre for around the same price (and 10 gigabit is available too for a small extra.)
> In London I was limited to 80mbps copper cable, but since moving to a European city I now have gigabit fibre for around the same price (and 10 gigabit is available too for a small extra.)
That's probably not because it's a "European city", but because it's a city in some specific European country. The UK has similar average broadband speeds compared to e.g. Germany.
That's probably not because it's a "European city", but because it's a city in some specific European country. The UK has similar average broadband speeds compared to e.g. Germany.
As much as internet access is a national infrastructure project, it does come down to the physical bits and bobs that connect your house to to the network. Sometimes you're just not on the right street for it, your house is old, the exchange is full, or your council/utility company don't want to foot the bill to tear up a road and replace old copper. The reasons are myriad.
Germany is hilariously behind other EU nations in regards to internet access and connection speed. After plans for FTTH got scrapped in 1983 (!!) Germany is still using copper telephone lines for the vast majority of its internet users.
While fiber is slowing being deployed there are still voices that oppose it because it's "too expensive". There are still entire industry areas connected over a single 50/10 MBit DSL connection. A company I applied to a few years ago was very proud to tell me that they had just had upgraded their connection from 3/0.3 MBit to 16/1 MBit. This company had 70 employees at that time and was located at the outskirts of a city with >300.000 citizens.
While fiber is slowing being deployed there are still voices that oppose it because it's "too expensive". There are still entire industry areas connected over a single 50/10 MBit DSL connection. A company I applied to a few years ago was very proud to tell me that they had just had upgraded their connection from 3/0.3 MBit to 16/1 MBit. This company had 70 employees at that time and was located at the outskirts of a city with >300.000 citizens.
> While fiber is slowing being deployed there are still voices that oppose it because it's "too expensive".
Former trench digger as a sub for the Telekom here. It is extremely expensive to build out fibre trenches - rural areas simply because of the vast distances and the comparatively few users and urban areas because the underground area is filled meaning you can't use excavators below 20cm depth and have to do everything by hand.
For the US people asking "why don't go aboveground" - The US way of laying cable aboveground doesn't fly here... in rural areas you don't want to have car crashes take down service lines, and in urban areas cable poles are seen as eyesore.
Former trench digger as a sub for the Telekom here. It is extremely expensive to build out fibre trenches - rural areas simply because of the vast distances and the comparatively few users and urban areas because the underground area is filled meaning you can't use excavators below 20cm depth and have to do everything by hand.
For the US people asking "why don't go aboveground" - The US way of laying cable aboveground doesn't fly here... in rural areas you don't want to have car crashes take down service lines, and in urban areas cable poles are seen as eyesore.
The question is: is it more expensive than getting lapped by other countries because the industry cannot keep up in regards to digitalization (also known under the marketing phrase "industry 4.0")?
It's incredibly sad to still have to look up how internet connectivity is going to be when you move. In a high-tech nation as Germany, I should be able to expect a fast internet connection in every house to be able to work from home. Especially because plans for FTTH were made in 1981 and got scrapped only because of corruption.
It's incredibly sad to still have to look up how internet connectivity is going to be when you move. In a high-tech nation as Germany, I should be able to expect a fast internet connection in every house to be able to work from home. Especially because plans for FTTH were made in 1981 and got scrapped only because of corruption.
> The question is: is it more expensive than getting lapped by other countries because the industry cannot keep up in regards to digitalization?
Of course it is but Conservatives lack the ability (or the will, given their party donors) to think of the future. "Wer Visionen hat soll zum Arzt gehen"...
Of course it is but Conservatives lack the ability (or the will, given their party donors) to think of the future. "Wer Visionen hat soll zum Arzt gehen"...
> Of course it is but Conservatives lack the ability (or the will, given their party donors) to think of the future. "Wer Visionen hat soll zum Arzt gehen"...
Schmidt was in SPD, not the CDU.
Schmidt was in SPD, not the CDU.
> Former trench digger as a sub for the Telekom here. It is extremely expensive to build out fibre trenches - rural areas simply because of the vast distances and the comparatively few users and urban areas because the underground area is filled meaning you can't use excavators below 20cm depth and have to do everything by hand.
If Romania can do it, with much of the same restrictions in place, but a lot less money available, Germany for sure could do it.
If Romania can do it, with much of the same restrictions in place, but a lot less money available, Germany for sure could do it.
Romanian wages are way lower, easy as that. And they get lots of EU subsidies too.
Our EU funds absorption rate is pitiful, I'm not sure that's the main reason.
The wages part might be true.
But it's utterly shameful that's the case considering that we're talking about residential fiber, so high density places where that cost can be spread out easily. Because in rural areas for sure they can use equipment to dig.
The wages part might be true.
But it's utterly shameful that's the case considering that we're talking about residential fiber, so high density places where that cost can be spread out easily. Because in rural areas for sure they can use equipment to dig.
> The UK has similar average broadband speeds compared to e.g. Germany.
German here, please don't use us as a basis to judge Europe!
Our broadband is atrocious, dating back to a decision of then-Chancellor Kohl in the 80s - public antenna-broadcast TV was "too left wing" (=in reality, too critical of his Conservative government), so he scrapped the fibre rollout plan of his predecessor and directed all the funding to cable TV networks where private programs could be aired.
And our mobile networks are atrocious because our red-green government in the early '00s was pressured by Conservatives to obtain a surplus budget ("Schwarze Null") so they extracted 50 billion € in license fees from the operators - money that they subsequently lacked building out the network. And a couple years past that, Merkel's Conservatives gained power - her most infamous line is "Das Internet ist Neuland" (Internet is a new area) in 2013 (!).
I wish I was joking about all of this, we're a goddamn laughing stock. Hopefully we get rid of this bunch in September.
German here, please don't use us as a basis to judge Europe!
Our broadband is atrocious, dating back to a decision of then-Chancellor Kohl in the 80s - public antenna-broadcast TV was "too left wing" (=in reality, too critical of his Conservative government), so he scrapped the fibre rollout plan of his predecessor and directed all the funding to cable TV networks where private programs could be aired.
And our mobile networks are atrocious because our red-green government in the early '00s was pressured by Conservatives to obtain a surplus budget ("Schwarze Null") so they extracted 50 billion € in license fees from the operators - money that they subsequently lacked building out the network. And a couple years past that, Merkel's Conservatives gained power - her most infamous line is "Das Internet ist Neuland" (Internet is a new area) in 2013 (!).
I wish I was joking about all of this, we're a goddamn laughing stock. Hopefully we get rid of this bunch in September.
[deleted]
Germany does poorly compared to the rest of the EU, so that's not an indicative comparison.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/02/uk-broadb...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/02/uk-broadb...
Sure, my point is: if EU-membership was a deciding factor in availability of high speed broadband, as the OP implied, you'd see high speeds in Germany (and you would've seen a large drop in broadband speeds when the UK exited). It's obviously not, it's a national policy decision that countries make but has nothing to do with being a member of the EU or not.
Just depends where you live. Plenty of gigabit connections in London.
London average fibre availability is 21%, sure that's better than nothing but I'm not sure I could say 1 in 5 is "plenty", especially compared to cities with >99% coverage.
There's no reason for London's poor coverage rates except deliberate telecoms underfunding. London should also have >99% coverage by now, but instead we play catch up in the post-covid world while available bandwidth for many residents can not adequately sustain a family working from home and distance learning.
There's no reason for London's poor coverage rates except deliberate telecoms underfunding. London should also have >99% coverage by now, but instead we play catch up in the post-covid world while available bandwidth for many residents can not adequately sustain a family working from home and distance learning.
There are other reasons. For example I think Kensington and Chelsea balked at the idea of having the on-street infra for some schemes. Same reason they don't have nice cycling infra.
I'm surprised line-of-sight across the rooftops hasn't taken off yet. Seems like the density would make it worthwhile, but maybe there's some unseen factor at play.
I'm surprised line-of-sight across the rooftops hasn't taken off yet. Seems like the density would make it worthwhile, but maybe there's some unseen factor at play.
I only seem to get it via business gigabit connection but that is costly. I can't seem get it via consumer internet here in Zone 1 near Hyde Park. Max is ~70+.
If Hyperoptic was available would be great but they seem to mostly to cover (new) apartment buildings. Having a Mews house is probably not helping
If Hyperoptic was available would be great but they seem to mostly to cover (new) apartment buildings. Having a Mews house is probably not helping
Good. Sets precedent for other major powers to document misinformation efforts by 'international media'. I never consult the world news section of big name media publications.
>I never consult the world news section of big name media publications
Just curious, why not?
Just curious, why not?
List things you consult.
[deleted]
Am I missing something? There is a huge list, which are rebuked here or somewhere.
But where exactly?
edit: additionally, needs 2018 in the title?
But where exactly?
edit: additionally, needs 2018 in the title?
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
I think it should be here, but it seems broken for me atm
Edit: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20200131192225/https://...
This one works
I think it should be here, but it seems broken for me atm
Edit: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20200131192225/https://...
This one works
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The trouble is, you have no sense of what proportion of stories turned out to be true, since they only list the debunked ones.
Considering how boring and involved the decision process in Brussels is, probably a tiny fraction. Definitely not worth making the fuss they're making about it in the press.
European decision making is consensus based so almost everyone needs to agree. EU decision making is based on proposal from member states governments, so it's usually pre-vetted by the member states governments. On top of that, it usually needs some sort of industry-wide agreement in many cases.
What I'm saying is, it's super unlikely for absurd stuff to make it through. The whole process is super slow (which is annoying), but crazy stuff rarely ends up at the other end. If it seems crazy to you personally, it's probably because you don't have intimate knowledge of the domains affected.
European decision making is consensus based so almost everyone needs to agree. EU decision making is based on proposal from member states governments, so it's usually pre-vetted by the member states governments. On top of that, it usually needs some sort of industry-wide agreement in many cases.
What I'm saying is, it's super unlikely for absurd stuff to make it through. The whole process is super slow (which is annoying), but crazy stuff rarely ends up at the other end. If it seems crazy to you personally, it's probably because you don't have intimate knowledge of the domains affected.
The differences here are over values not facts.
Specific examples aside, the EU buys into the idea that you can harmonize society with the right laws. The Brits were never going to be okay with that. It's a continental idea and inimical to common law. This is a country where they don't have ids. They passed a law to create ids but then it was repealed and the ids were destroyed. You can read Notes from a Small Island for more about this specifically British attitude. Or Orwell: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Anyway, there are good reasons for not being in the EU. Low voter turnout. Austerity policies (Boris Johnson is part of the conservative movement to the left on economics). The disastrous decision to share a currency (which plenty of economists warned against).
But the main reason the EU is going to atrophy over the next 50 years is that European identity is illusory. It's something for well-off cosmopolites. That doesn't make it wrong but most people in these countries are not a part of it, though they might go along when times are good. Moreover, as Hobbes put it, "covenants without swords are but words". Countries are about shared land, shared borders, and a shared duty to defend that land. The kind of people who feel European identity (or consider themselves "citizens of the world") are uncomfortable with this bloody-mindedness (and not for no reason). But nations are martial compacts and, for all of our discomfort with that, they are the best way we have of ensuring rights. The UN and EU have proven ineffective at that. In a crisis (like covid) Europeans will act singly as countries or not at all.
Specific examples aside, the EU buys into the idea that you can harmonize society with the right laws. The Brits were never going to be okay with that. It's a continental idea and inimical to common law. This is a country where they don't have ids. They passed a law to create ids but then it was repealed and the ids were destroyed. You can read Notes from a Small Island for more about this specifically British attitude. Or Orwell: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Anyway, there are good reasons for not being in the EU. Low voter turnout. Austerity policies (Boris Johnson is part of the conservative movement to the left on economics). The disastrous decision to share a currency (which plenty of economists warned against).
But the main reason the EU is going to atrophy over the next 50 years is that European identity is illusory. It's something for well-off cosmopolites. That doesn't make it wrong but most people in these countries are not a part of it, though they might go along when times are good. Moreover, as Hobbes put it, "covenants without swords are but words". Countries are about shared land, shared borders, and a shared duty to defend that land. The kind of people who feel European identity (or consider themselves "citizens of the world") are uncomfortable with this bloody-mindedness (and not for no reason). But nations are martial compacts and, for all of our discomfort with that, they are the best way we have of ensuring rights. The UN and EU have proven ineffective at that. In a crisis (like covid) Europeans will act singly as countries or not at all.
So you're saying that it was incompatible British Values that caused the UK media to lie about what the EU was doing.
So that list of 100+ lies printed by the UK Press was fine, as it was an effort to manipulate people to have a negative opinion of the EU.
Since those good reasons weren't enough to get what the Brexiters wanted?
So that list of 100+ lies printed by the UK Press was fine, as it was an effort to manipulate people to have a negative opinion of the EU.
Since those good reasons weren't enough to get what the Brexiters wanted?
Clearly lying is not good. I don't have strong opinions about whether the linked list can be accurately described as lies.
My strong opinion is that the differences here are about values not facts, and those differences are real.
My strong opinion is that the differences here are about values not facts, and those differences are real.
"Pubs, darts – Commission plans to outlaws darts in Pubs, Jun 1993"
Ah right. So this isn't a true/false statement. But a statement of values.
Thanks for clearing that up
Ah right. So this isn't a true/false statement. But a statement of values.
Thanks for clearing that up
If you want to go through that list, investigate every claim, and explain how some of them are completely made up, be my guest.
I doubt many of them are completely made up. I think most of them are exaggerations based on something. Almost all headlines fit that description.
My point is not so much that "no one lies, ever" but that lying is beside the point. The differences that lead people to prefer to leave the EU are not factual, they're questions of values. If you don't see that, fine, but you're missing something.
I doubt many of them are completely made up. I think most of them are exaggerations based on something. Almost all headlines fit that description.
My point is not so much that "no one lies, ever" but that lying is beside the point. The differences that lead people to prefer to leave the EU are not factual, they're questions of values. If you don't see that, fine, but you're missing something.
Right. So the EU is not allowed to create a site to inform their ministers to correct these lies.
Because the EU have to play by some rules you've made up.
Because the EU have to play by some rules you've made up.
Quote where I said "the EU is not allowed to create a site".
Also, quote where I said "there's no reason to want to remain in the EU".
The hostility in all of your responses is, um, interesting.
Also, quote where I said "there's no reason to want to remain in the EU".
The hostility in all of your responses is, um, interesting.
Okay, so for "The disastrous decision to share a currency", it seems that this argument is coming a lot in exchanges i have, and always with the same kind of people: those that either don't know about economy at all (because, let's face it, its not really interesting except for nerds like me), or those at the dunning-Kruger peak in macroeconomy.
You should read about ECU and ERM, and research speculative currency attack and how much money it cost England and Norway every year. There was a good reason for the Euro, especially for smaller countries in Europe.
You should read about ECU and ERM, and research speculative currency attack and how much money it cost England and Norway every year. There was a good reason for the Euro, especially for smaller countries in Europe.
>Okay, so for "The disastrous decision to share a currency"
As slibhb said, feel free to claim that economists like Stiglitz and Krugman are demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect when they write that the Euro is a bad idea.
The very pro-EU Guardian [speculated in 2013](http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/...) that if Britain had joined the Euro:
* The mid-2000s British housing bubble, and its collapse in 2007, would have been even bigger.
* Britain would have had to ask the IMF, ECB, and EU for loans.
* The Tories would in 2010 have promised a referendum to leave the Euro and won a majority. Labour would have won fewer than 100 seats, and UKIP would have "made spectacular gains".
* The anti-Euro side would have won the referendum, and the currency would have collapsed.
* "after a deep and painful recession economic recovery began".
* "Britain would have destroyed the euro on departure, and would now be on the point of leaving the EU altogether. The idea that Farage might be the next prime minister would be quite credible."
As slibhb said, feel free to claim that economists like Stiglitz and Krugman are demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect when they write that the Euro is a bad idea.
The very pro-EU Guardian [speculated in 2013](http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/...) that if Britain had joined the Euro:
* The mid-2000s British housing bubble, and its collapse in 2007, would have been even bigger.
* Britain would have had to ask the IMF, ECB, and EU for loans.
* The Tories would in 2010 have promised a referendum to leave the Euro and won a majority. Labour would have won fewer than 100 seats, and UKIP would have "made spectacular gains".
* The anti-Euro side would have won the referendum, and the currency would have collapsed.
* "after a deep and painful recession economic recovery began".
* "Britain would have destroyed the euro on departure, and would now be on the point of leaving the EU altogether. The idea that Farage might be the next prime minister would be quite credible."
> or those at the dunning-Kruger peak in macroeconomy.
There is no DK peak except rhe actual skill peak. DK has people’s self-ssessment of relative skill improving with actual skill, but consistently being pushed toward about the 70th percentile from actual relative performance.
There is no DK peak except rhe actual skill peak. DK has people’s self-ssessment of relative skill improving with actual skill, but consistently being pushed toward about the 70th percentile from actual relative performance.
I don't know a lot of economics (though I have opinions of course). I'm referencing economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.
You are free to disagree but referencing "Dunning-Kruger" is just ad-hominem. I can link various things that "you should read" too.
You are free to disagree but referencing "Dunning-Kruger" is just ad-hominem. I can link various things that "you should read" too.
This is equivalent to the “victor” of a conflict writing history.
Ideally, this stuff should show the original statement, their sources and a critique, then potentially a rebuttal.
So often, political coverage contains outright lies or mischaracterized truths from both sides.
Take in recent news the “hunter biden laptop”. A senate subcommittee documented it appeared legitimate (a quick search finds this https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...), yet the news almost everywhere claimed it’s “fake news”. Even Wikipedia claims it a “conspiracy theory”, which based on the senate report - it is a conspiracy, but not a theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspi...
The wiki even contains stuff that has since been retracted.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983159102/hunter-bidens-memoi...
> A previous version of this story said U.S. intelligence had discredited the laptop story. U.S. intelligence officials have not made a statement to that effect.
I think it’s fine to criticize stuff, but you have to present both sides. Not just say “fake news” and move on.
Ideally, this stuff should show the original statement, their sources and a critique, then potentially a rebuttal.
So often, political coverage contains outright lies or mischaracterized truths from both sides.
Take in recent news the “hunter biden laptop”. A senate subcommittee documented it appeared legitimate (a quick search finds this https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...), yet the news almost everywhere claimed it’s “fake news”. Even Wikipedia claims it a “conspiracy theory”, which based on the senate report - it is a conspiracy, but not a theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspi...
The wiki even contains stuff that has since been retracted.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983159102/hunter-bidens-memoi...
> A previous version of this story said U.S. intelligence had discredited the laptop story. U.S. intelligence officials have not made a statement to that effect.
I think it’s fine to criticize stuff, but you have to present both sides. Not just say “fake news” and move on.
The issue with presenting both sides is that one of the sides, much like whoever wrote these “myths”, is not actually engaging in honestly presenting a possibly valid representation of reality.
The tax money would have been better spent on myths spread by their own politicians. For example that the last election was about Weber vs. Timmermans.
> Other stories include speculation that curved bananas are to be banned
It’s acting not so far fetched as there was an actual regulation for this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No....
It’s acting not so far fetched as there was an actual regulation for this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No....
Not really - there's a difference between stipulating that one class of banana be "free from deformation or abnormal curvature[1]" (if it weren't said banana would be Class II and still legal) and declaring the EU is banning curved bananas. It's just as dishonest as when someone like Andy Ngo sees "Alcohol Restricted Zone" signs in an area of the UK that had a substantial muslim minority population, then reporting that the UK has areas governed by sharia law.
Both are examples of extremely deliberately dishonest retelling of something that originated in something true (that there exist both quality control regulations for fruit, and signs reminding you that street drinking is not permitted) which were blown up into something ridiculous for attention and to stoke mistrust and hatred of something each journalist disliked personally.
[1] - Also as an aside I am sure that while "abnormally curved" is a term that seems vague to us, those who actually deal with importing and selling bananas will have a good understanding what would fall under this.
Both are examples of extremely deliberately dishonest retelling of something that originated in something true (that there exist both quality control regulations for fruit, and signs reminding you that street drinking is not permitted) which were blown up into something ridiculous for attention and to stoke mistrust and hatred of something each journalist disliked personally.
[1] - Also as an aside I am sure that while "abnormally curved" is a term that seems vague to us, those who actually deal with importing and selling bananas will have a good understanding what would fall under this.
Literally the only things the Tory Party are good at is misrepresenting the truth for PR purposes, and using the misrepresentation to promote a toxic self-harming bubble of nationalism which they can ride to power.
Like most nationalists, they need three things - a flag, an enemy, and a compliant media machine.
Given those they can keep themselves in power almost indefinitely, while providing nothing of real national value.
Which is unfortunate, because the UK has a very strong talent base - which it's currently squandering in favour of corruption and nationalist authoritarian nonsense.
Like most nationalists, they need three things - a flag, an enemy, and a compliant media machine.
Given those they can keep themselves in power almost indefinitely, while providing nothing of real national value.
Which is unfortunate, because the UK has a very strong talent base - which it's currently squandering in favour of corruption and nationalist authoritarian nonsense.
It’s misrepresented. The regulation unified laws across countries to enable trade. It actually cut down on laws by creating one to cover all countries. Countries already had their own differing laws on food standards before making trade difficult.
[deleted]
Except you could enable trade without banning curvy bananas.
All they had to do was standardize a rating system for bananas, and then countries could chose to ban whichever ratings they liked.
Its a clear system that allows and enables trade, while letting countries have their own regulation.
All they had to do was standardize a rating system for bananas, and then countries could chose to ban whichever ratings they liked.
Its a clear system that allows and enables trade, while letting countries have their own regulation.
I don't think they were ever 'banned' in any sensible meaning of that word though - you could always sell them as a different class of banana.
(But I don't understand what anyone in industry or government has got against the curative of fruit in the first place - what a pointless thing to classify by.)
(But I don't understand what anyone in industry or government has got against the curative of fruit in the first place - what a pointless thing to classify by.)
If you and your competitors have exclusive suppliers, you’ll want your competition to have their suppliers banned while your suppliers are favored.
Well that sounds like a bad reason not a good one!
Why do you think companies spend millions with candidate donations and lobbyists?
It's not that simple. You're falling prey to a common misrepresentation of EU regulations. They were all initially very complex, sometimes looking almost absurd, because they were comprised and based on the bilaterial treaties and regulations of 28 member states. The EU then gradually simplified the regulation over the years.
You'd think that simple combinatorics would make people understand the benefits of this procedure, but unfortunately journalists always picked on the initial complexity of the rules. Especially during the 80s this was a "low hanging fruit" for writing another fun article.
In other words, pick any 28 random countries from the world and write an article that explains all of their import & export regulations, food safety standards, etc. You'll see what you get...
You'd think that simple combinatorics would make people understand the benefits of this procedure, but unfortunately journalists always picked on the initial complexity of the rules. Especially during the 80s this was a "low hanging fruit" for writing another fun article.
In other words, pick any 28 random countries from the world and write an article that explains all of their import & export regulations, food safety standards, etc. You'll see what you get...
Except i'm not. I'm stating that whatever regulations the EU could have made didn't have to involve banning anything, or indeed taking any power whatsoever from the national governments.
If the purpose was to facilitate trade, the way to do it is by providing information to those who want to trade, not by banning them from doing so.
If the purpose was to facilitate trade, the way to do it is by providing information to those who want to trade, not by banning them from doing so.
You still don't understand. The initial regulations were almost always directly derived from the individual regulations of the member countries and bilateral treaties from them. If they banned e.g. a certain form of trade, then that's because some member countries vigorously opposed to these kind of trades and e.g. block with a veto.
Of course, you can always lament that certain countries blocked certain trades - acting on their national interests instead of the interests of the trade union as a whole.
What you cannot claim is that a system with bilateral treaties between 28 would in any way offer an advantage in terms of the complexity of the regulations. This claim is just nonsense. You can look almost anywhere you like and will find that the EU regulations have simplified trade tremendously over the years. Unfortunately, writing articles about how simpler trade among member states has become is less popular than writing another article about the ridiculous initial regulations which were derived from the existing trade regulations of the member countries.
Of course, you can always lament that certain countries blocked certain trades - acting on their national interests instead of the interests of the trade union as a whole.
What you cannot claim is that a system with bilateral treaties between 28 would in any way offer an advantage in terms of the complexity of the regulations. This claim is just nonsense. You can look almost anywhere you like and will find that the EU regulations have simplified trade tremendously over the years. Unfortunately, writing articles about how simpler trade among member states has become is less popular than writing another article about the ridiculous initial regulations which were derived from the existing trade regulations of the member countries.
It doesn't seem that weird to have a regulation for having the same classes of quality across the union. Not every banana sold has to fall into the "extra" class.
To make a fair presentation, it also need to list truthful reports. By the end of the day, the simple logic is that the false reports do not hurt truthful reports. If the truthful reports prove their point, no matter how many false reports exist, the truth is the truth.
Otherwise this action itself is purely propaganda implementing a false logic.
If this is done by a neutral third party NGO, it would definitely list both truthful and wrong reports.
BTW, watch police disperse crowds at Belgian April Fool party https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/137845598454942515...
Otherwise this action itself is purely propaganda implementing a false logic.
If this is done by a neutral third party NGO, it would definitely list both truthful and wrong reports.
BTW, watch police disperse crowds at Belgian April Fool party https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/137845598454942515...
I can't believe official government resources are designated to this kind of stuff.
It sounds authoritarian to me.
No matter how you disprove the selected "euromyths". This action itself just directly prove the broader point: EU has an overarching government.
Wow. Got tons of downvotes. By the end of the day, the simple logic is that the false reports do not hurt truthful reports. If the truthful reports prove their point, no matter how many false reports exist, the truth is the truth. So this action itself is purely propaganda to prove a false point with a false logic.
It sounds authoritarian to me.
No matter how you disprove the selected "euromyths". This action itself just directly prove the broader point: EU has an overarching government.
Wow. Got tons of downvotes. By the end of the day, the simple logic is that the false reports do not hurt truthful reports. If the truthful reports prove their point, no matter how many false reports exist, the truth is the truth. So this action itself is purely propaganda to prove a false point with a false logic.
There is nothing authoritarian about dispelling myths. These were not about opinions, they concerned literally false claims about EU directives and regulations.
Selectively taking incorrect statements from one side is a way of technically being truthful while pushing one sided information, i.e. it's propaganda.
At least be fair about it. It's counter propaganda.
The garbage thrown about by those British publications is propaganda. Day in, day out, from many-many more publications, not just a puny web page.
The garbage thrown about by those British publications is propaganda. Day in, day out, from many-many more publications, not just a puny web page.
"The website, which offers officials in Brussels a chance to rebut media accusations of meddling, features hundreds of reports that are based on inaccurate or misleading information."
So it was made for officials to rebut lies printed in the media about the EU.
I take it that you don't mind "journalists" printing lies as long as they're lies that support your point of view?
So it was made for officials to rebut lies printed in the media about the EU.
I take it that you don't mind "journalists" printing lies as long as they're lies that support your point of view?
Lol. EU doesn't have NGO can do this? The government has to be the one to run the Truth department?
But what exactly is authoritarian about this? It's not like this is the only truth?
Every large institution rectifies blatant misrepresentations about themselves in press conferences, including all governments of the world and all companies. It's weird to assume they shouldn't.
If it would be EU sponsored NGO doing this, you would argue it's a department of truth proxy wouldn't you?
Of course. I assume there are concerned citizens in the EU can do this. Why does the government need to get involved in this?
You're being silly. To take an extreme scenario, if the KGB is financing entities spouting non-sense in various publications, you expect the US/CIA to just take it lying down? :-)
It's part of intelligence/counter-intelligence, you have to control the narrative because the average citizen isn't well informed enough and will just end up believing what the other party tells them... because they're the only ones saying anything.
Private individuals can do this, but governments have been doing this too, since the beginning of time (and of governments).
It's part of intelligence/counter-intelligence, you have to control the narrative because the average citizen isn't well informed enough and will just end up believing what the other party tells them... because they're the only ones saying anything.
Private individuals can do this, but governments have been doing this too, since the beginning of time (and of governments).
So the Brexit to EU is like KGB to US? Why do you want to keep UK inside EU then?
I'm not keeping anything, anywhere. The UK can do whatever it wants, as far as I care.
I was just doing a reductio ad abusrdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) to show you that your logic was faulty.
I was just doing a reductio ad abusrdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) to show you that your logic was faulty.
You didn't. I proved your RU-US example did not fit in the context of UK-EU.
You proved how? Why would the EU not be allowed to publish things proving that what the UK newspaper articles are false?
Is there some sort of legal principle I'm missing that says that government entities are not allowed to defend themselves from lies?
Is there some sort of legal principle I'm missing that says that government entities are not allowed to defend themselves from lies?
I don't see a difference in paying the salary of people to do it in your name, or funding a NGO and indirectly paying the salary of the people who do the work.
The difference is whether the government gets involved.
This was just a blog as part of regular press work by the European Commission in the UK. Every organization does that in publications and press conferences. It's normal to publish press releases to correct misunderstandings or point out the view of your organization/company. The UK government does the very same, for instance.
> No matter how you disprove the selected "euromyths". This action itself just directly prove the broader point: EU has an overarching government.
The EU can only do what its member state government delegate to it, and the same EU also has a fraction of the employees a regular state government has. France has about 65 million citizens and about 2 million state employees.
The entire EU has something like 50k employees, for the whole group of 450 million people.
The EU can only do what its member state government delegate to it, and the same EU also has a fraction of the employees a regular state government has. France has about 65 million citizens and about 2 million state employees.
The entire EU has something like 50k employees, for the whole group of 450 million people.
“[I] was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party – and it really gave me this, I suppose, rather weird sense of power,”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/boris-johns...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johns...