7 ms·

Wow, quite a few of these are very xenophobic. Very much playing off of an anti Middle East sentiment. I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this doc

Wow, quite a few of these are very xenophobic. Very much playing off of an anti Middle East sentiment. I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this document: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and-sport/Fake_news_evidence/Vote-Leave-50-Million-Ads.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu.... 2924.jpg 2966.jpg 2968.jpg

noncoml 8y ago
They do know that UK could have vetoed the entrance of Turkey, Macedonia, etc in EU...
- petepete 8y ago
  Of course they do. They also know that migrant workers have a positive impact on our economy. They also know the unelected bureaucrats are elected and held to account. And they also knew that there would be issues around Northern Ireland's border that wouldn't be easy to resolve. And they also knew that... I'm bored now but you get the picture.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Maybe they decided that the trade-offs are worth it.
  - nailer 8y ago
    MEPs do not propose legistlation, that is done by a seperate group, the European Commission. The European Commission is not directly elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission > There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council[5] and elected by the European Parliament.[6] The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[7] The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014, following the elections for the European Parliament in May of the same year.
    - nailer 8y ago
      I don't normally comment on moderation, but the post above is a statement of fact linking to a very well referenced source.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  That’s irrelevant. UK is split 50/50 on the issue. It depends which government is in leadership it the time of decision. There’s is no security in knowing that it could be vetoed, until the next election. Brexit was the only long term answer for those who were worried about it.
  - oblio 8y ago
    If the UK is split, how are you sure that Brexit is the only long-term answer? Surely the other camp can get the upper hand and rejoin the EU at some point :)
- mcintyre1994 8y ago
  They were ridiculously early in the process and even if he'd stayed PM as long as he wanted I doubt it'd have been Cameron who eventually made that decision. But it'd have been damaging for a British PM to say they'd veto them even if they did everything required to join, so he was really stuck dodging the question when asked if he would.
oh_sigh 8y ago
How are any of those xenophobic? To me that sounds similar to labeling someone as antisocial if they don't want a stranger living in their house.
- contrast 8y ago
  No, the equivalent here would be saying "vote for me or my opponent will force a stranger into your house". The ads are lies targeted at people whose xenophobia is stronger than their grip on the facts.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Wouldn't turkey joining the EU mean that Turkish citizens would have the right to freely emigrate to the UK?
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      That would be one of the consequences, yes. However, Turkey isn’t even remotely close to joining the EU and given the current political situation in Turkey I would not expect talks to move forward any time soon. So pretending there’s even a remote chance is disingenuous. It uses fears of foreigner not founded in reality. That’s pretty much the definition of xenophobic.
      - googlryas 8y ago
        Which goes back to the original point. You don't need to be afraid of foreigners to not want them emigrating into your country en-masse(or, have the free option to should they be willing to take it). Just like you don't need to be afraid of strangers or anti-social to not want strangers to live in your house.
        pjc50 8y ago
        > You don't need to be afraid of foreigners to not want them emigrating into your country en-masse Actually, you do - because otherwise what is your objection to them? Compare with free movement within countries; it would be obviously prejudiced to say e.g. "I don't want Scousers moving to London", and that's not a position which anyone is going to take seriously.
rayiner 8y ago
What is "xenophobic" about those three images? Turkey is currently undergoing a very public internal war between western secularism and Islamic fundamentalism. Why would a western country want to enter into democratic union with such a country at this stage? Not every judgment regarding other countries is "xenophobic." Imagine if Alabama or Mississippi were trying to join the U.S. today. Would it be "xenophobic" of Californians to be skeptical of the impact that would have on shared democratic institutions?
- oblio 8y ago
  If it's not xenophobic, it's at least hypocrisy: * the UK was one of the biggest proponents for Eastern EU expansion * the UK did not impose any restriction on labor from the new EU members, which every EU member could do, up to 10 years from the date of the new members joining * then, surprise-surprise!, when a lot of Poles, especially, moved to the major English speaking country in the EU, the UK decided all of a sudden they're against immigration :) * the UK, even post-Brexit, but before Erdogan purges, through the voice of Boris Johnson, was pushing for Turkey becoming an EU members And these ads are from 2016, when public perception of Erdogan wasn't what it was now. The angle was purely: "the Turks are going to swarm us". While the same government was pushing for Turkey in the EU. Furthermore, the UK could just veto Turkey indefinitely. Absolutely every EU member must agree to accession of a new members.
  - makomk 8y ago
    The UK government was also one of the biggest proponents for the UK remaining in the EU, so it's... not exactly surprising that the Leave campaign didn't align with the government position
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Yeah, it's easy forget that the referendum was designed to be a sop to euroskeptics within the majority party, because by separating out the question to its own referendum rather than the parliamentary elections, those euroskeptics would stay with the party leadership, who they agreed with on non-EU issues. Since the referendum was seen as a slam dunk for Remain when it was set, this was seen as a zero-cost way of protecting the government's parliamentary majority, with the possible side benefit of quieting the anti-EU faction down since their expected failure in the referendum would be something that could be pointed to in future discussions.
tathougies 8y ago
2966 and 2968 are about what the new borders of the UK would effectively be if Turkey is allowed to join the EU. Regardless of your thoughts on the Middle East, it is clear that there are dangerous people in Iraq. Given that the EU has open borders and markets (for the most part), isn't it a germaine discussion if that supranational entity wants to enlarge its borders to include ports of entry from a somewhat unstable country? I mean... britain wouldn't be the ones policing the border, it would be turkey. Yet, those crossing the border would have some rights to enter and work in Britain, right? I mean, in the US, the Mexican border is a rather scary place. For a long time, some of the American border towns were the kidnapping capitals of the world mainly due to their proximity to the border. Who you border certainly matters to your country's security. 2924 makes sense to me in the context of the other statistics. It does seem strange to include two countries with such large wage and economic disparities in the same 'federal' system (which is effectively what the EU is). EDIT: I find your claims of xenophobia even less compelling after I viewed what the British have to say about Spain (bullfighting), Norway (whale hunting), France (unemployment), Portugal (unemployment), etc. Unless you claim that any kind of criticism of an outside country is xenophobia, the Leave campaign seems quite comprehensive in its criticisms of EU member countries (and potential members).
- pimmen 8y ago
  But then they're disingenuous about how the EU works. Member countries have to unanimously agree to new member countries, the UK could just veto the ascension of Turkey indefinitely.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    I didn't know that. I agree the ads are disingenuous; but they are not xenophobic. In my opinion, xenophobic is one of those labels that can be applied without evidence to stymie conversation in lieu of more compelling criticisms (like the one you present). Why resort to name calling if you have actual criticisms?
- derriz 8y ago
  “Yet, those crossing the border would have some rights to enter and work in Britain, right?” Absolutely wrong. Where did you get that idea?
ABCLAW 8y ago
It's interesting to see how elements of a given political situation are extracted from their context, then dressed up emotively ("the EU is trying to take away our cuppa!") in order to herd people into supporting a position. When you see ad after ad structured in this way, it really drives home what the playbook is. I wonder how much similar content I've ingested without noticing.
drewmol 8y ago
Isn't the anti Middle East sentimate more a fear of or aversion to people of cultures seen as tolerant of implementing Islamic theocracy in governance?
detaro 8y ago
I find 2942 a stronger example. Not even about membership or job competition (as strenuous that is in many cases), just about visa-free travel. I guess the "official" reading of that is "illegal immigration", it's just helpfully not mentioned? Generally that type seems very weak on actual arguments instead of what I suppose is intended to be a general feeling of uneasiness, and projecting powerlessness despite UK governments being part of the processes. (Although the latter sadly isn't unique to the UK when it comes to dealing with the EU, governments love to play the victim of decisions they helped decide the way they were decided)

noncoml 8y ago

They do know that UK could have vetoed the entrance of Turkey, Macedonia, etc in EU...

petepete 8y ago
Of course they do. They also know that migrant workers have a positive impact on our economy. They also know the unelected bureaucrats are elected and held to account. And they also knew that there would be issues around Northern Ireland's border that wouldn't be easy to resolve. And they also knew that... I'm bored now but you get the picture.
- tomp 8y ago
  Maybe they decided that the trade-offs are worth it.
- nailer 8y ago
  MEPs do not propose legistlation, that is done by a seperate group, the European Commission. The European Commission is not directly elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission > There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council[5] and elected by the European Parliament.[6] The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[7] The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014, following the elections for the European Parliament in May of the same year.
  - nailer 8y ago
    I don't normally comment on moderation, but the post above is a statement of fact linking to a very well referenced source.
WillPostForFood 8y ago
That’s irrelevant. UK is split 50/50 on the issue. It depends which government is in leadership it the time of decision. There’s is no security in knowing that it could be vetoed, until the next election. Brexit was the only long term answer for those who were worried about it.
- oblio 8y ago
  If the UK is split, how are you sure that Brexit is the only long-term answer? Surely the other camp can get the upper hand and rejoin the EU at some point :)
mcintyre1994 8y ago
They were ridiculously early in the process and even if he'd stayed PM as long as he wanted I doubt it'd have been Cameron who eventually made that decision. But it'd have been damaging for a British PM to say they'd veto them even if they did everything required to join, so he was really stuck dodging the question when asked if he would.

oh_sigh 8y ago

How are any of those xenophobic? To me that sounds similar to labeling someone as antisocial if they don't want a stranger living in their house.

contrast 8y ago
No, the equivalent here would be saying "vote for me or my opponent will force a stranger into your house". The ads are lies targeted at people whose xenophobia is stronger than their grip on the facts.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Wouldn't turkey joining the EU mean that Turkish citizens would have the right to freely emigrate to the UK?
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    That would be one of the consequences, yes. However, Turkey isn’t even remotely close to joining the EU and given the current political situation in Turkey I would not expect talks to move forward any time soon. So pretending there’s even a remote chance is disingenuous. It uses fears of foreigner not founded in reality. That’s pretty much the definition of xenophobic.
    - googlryas 8y ago
      Which goes back to the original point. You don't need to be afraid of foreigners to not want them emigrating into your country en-masse(or, have the free option to should they be willing to take it). Just like you don't need to be afraid of strangers or anti-social to not want strangers to live in your house.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        > You don't need to be afraid of foreigners to not want them emigrating into your country en-masse Actually, you do - because otherwise what is your objection to them? Compare with free movement within countries; it would be obviously prejudiced to say e.g. "I don't want Scousers moving to London", and that's not a position which anyone is going to take seriously.

rayiner 8y ago

What is "xenophobic" about those three images? Turkey is currently undergoing a very public internal war between western secularism and Islamic fundamentalism. Why would a western country want to enter into democratic union with such a country at this stage? Not every judgment regarding other countries is "xenophobic." Imagine if Alabama or Mississippi were trying to join the U.S. today. Would it be "xenophobic" of Californians to be skeptical of the impact that would have on shared democratic institutions?

oblio 8y ago
If it's not xenophobic, it's at least hypocrisy: * the UK was one of the biggest proponents for Eastern EU expansion * the UK did not impose any restriction on labor from the new EU members, which every EU member could do, up to 10 years from the date of the new members joining * then, surprise-surprise!, when a lot of Poles, especially, moved to the major English speaking country in the EU, the UK decided all of a sudden they're against immigration :) * the UK, even post-Brexit, but before Erdogan purges, through the voice of Boris Johnson, was pushing for Turkey becoming an EU members And these ads are from 2016, when public perception of Erdogan wasn't what it was now. The angle was purely: "the Turks are going to swarm us". While the same government was pushing for Turkey in the EU. Furthermore, the UK could just veto Turkey indefinitely. Absolutely every EU member must agree to accession of a new members.
- makomk 8y ago
  The UK government was also one of the biggest proponents for the UK remaining in the EU, so it's... not exactly surprising that the Leave campaign didn't align with the government position
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Yeah, it's easy forget that the referendum was designed to be a sop to euroskeptics within the majority party, because by separating out the question to its own referendum rather than the parliamentary elections, those euroskeptics would stay with the party leadership, who they agreed with on non-EU issues. Since the referendum was seen as a slam dunk for Remain when it was set, this was seen as a zero-cost way of protecting the government's parliamentary majority, with the possible side benefit of quieting the anti-EU faction down since their expected failure in the referendum would be something that could be pointed to in future discussions.

tathougies 8y ago

2966 and 2968 are about what the new borders of the UK would effectively be if Turkey is allowed to join the EU. Regardless of your thoughts on the Middle East, it is clear that there are dangerous people in Iraq. Given that the EU has open borders and markets (for the most part), isn't it a germaine discussion if that supranational entity wants to enlarge its borders to include ports of entry from a somewhat unstable country? I mean... britain wouldn't be the ones policing the border, it would be turkey. Yet, those crossing the border would have some rights to enter and work in Britain, right? I mean, in the US, the Mexican border is a rather scary place. For a long time, some of the American border towns were the kidnapping capitals of the world mainly due to their proximity to the border. Who you border certainly matters to your country's security. 2924 makes sense to me in the context of the other statistics. It does seem strange to include two countries with such large wage and economic disparities in the same 'federal' system (which is effectively what the EU is). EDIT: I find your claims of xenophobia even less compelling after I viewed what the British have to say about Spain (bullfighting), Norway (whale hunting), France (unemployment), Portugal (unemployment), etc. Unless you claim that any kind of criticism of an outside country is xenophobia, the Leave campaign seems quite comprehensive in its criticisms of EU member countries (and potential members).

pimmen 8y ago
But then they're disingenuous about how the EU works. Member countries have to unanimously agree to new member countries, the UK could just veto the ascension of Turkey indefinitely.
- tathougies 8y ago
  I didn't know that. I agree the ads are disingenuous; but they are not xenophobic. In my opinion, xenophobic is one of those labels that can be applied without evidence to stymie conversation in lieu of more compelling criticisms (like the one you present). Why resort to name calling if you have actual criticisms?
derriz 8y ago
“Yet, those crossing the border would have some rights to enter and work in Britain, right?” Absolutely wrong. Where did you get that idea?

ABCLAW 8y ago

It's interesting to see how elements of a given political situation are extracted from their context, then dressed up emotively ("the EU is trying to take away our cuppa!") in order to herd people into supporting a position. When you see ad after ad structured in this way, it really drives home what the playbook is. I wonder how much similar content I've ingested without noticing.

drewmol 8y ago

Isn't the anti Middle East sentimate more a fear of or aversion to people of cultures seen as tolerant of implementing Islamic theocracy in governance?

detaro 8y ago

I find 2942 a stronger example. Not even about membership or job competition (as strenuous that is in many cases), just about visa-free travel. I guess the "official" reading of that is "illegal immigration", it's just helpfully not mentioned? Generally that type seems very weak on actual arguments instead of what I suppose is intended to be a general feeling of uneasiness, and projecting powerlessness despite UK governments being part of the processes. (Although the latter sadly isn't unique to the UK when it comes to dealing with the EU, governments love to play the victim of decisions they helped decide the way they were decided)