4 ms·

The claim that Leave overspent or had dodgy funding doesn't hold water: the rules are quite clearly being abused or twisted to try and nail the Leave campaign,

The claim that Leave overspent or had dodgy funding doesn't hold water: the rules are quite clearly being abused or twisted to try and nail the Leave campaign, just like the government used every other resource at its disposal to try and win. In particular the government spent millions of pounds - more than the entire allowed budget of the remain campaign - on a giant mailshot to the entire country arguing the case to remain. They claim this is OK because it was done just before the time period in which spending was limited began. Yet it was clearly spending on the campaign. They then turned around and claimed Leave broke the rules because of a few hundred thousand pounds. A lot of this revolves around a supposedly neutral electoral commission that is stuffed with people who openly stated they wanted Leave to lose. There is no credibility to any of the UK's campaign spending controls and they should probably all be scrapped. As for the "euromyths" site, you've been fooled I'm afraid. It is filled with non-debunkings of "myths" and "lies" (as you put it) that turn out on inspection to be true. It's deeply embarrassing for the EU and shows they don't really understand why a free press exists, and by implication that Leave's arguments about the EU being undemocratic have weight. For example one of the first stories listed on the page is "EU funding for African acrobats and trapeze artists, July 2015". The newspaper reports were completely true and the EU's response is to complain that they aren't appreciated enough: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-european-development-fund-offers-aid-to-the-poorest-countries-in-forms-that-are-most-likely-to-deliver-results-for-the-local-people/ https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-european-developmen... It says: The articles call funding for deprived communities in some of the poorest parts in the world “frivolous expenditure” and Elaborate metaphors and frivolous choice of visuals aside, mastering – to quote the articles – “the art of the trapeze” can open job opportunities for a person in Tanzania (by the way, the same project also provides courses in carpentry and sewing). The Commission not only missed the entire point the journalists were making - that EU member states struggling to pay their own healthcare and welfare bills should not be forced to fund trapeze lessons in Tanzania - but then also engaged in this embarrassing and condescending exercise as well. Far from the press lying to you, you've been tricked by the EU lying about the press.

derriz 8y ago
I really don't understand how you could describe it as "abuse" to raise questions about the DUP case; are you challenging any of the facts raised in the article - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44624299 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44624299 ? Btw. the Leave campaign also received public funding both in direct cash and to cover the costs of public mailings for example. It's all very well saying the spending limits should be scrapped but they were the rules in place for the referendum. You should campaign for a change in the rules, not covertly abuse the rules through shadowy shell companies and later - when exposed - argue that the rules shouldn't exists. Regarding the euromyths site, do you really find the newspaper's protrayal of EU foreign aid/development fund spending to be honest? I guess there is a certain subjectivenss to the question but I simply cannot reconsile the content of the the newspaper's stories "The Commission not only missed the entire point the journalists were making - that EU member states struggling to pay their own healthcare and welfare bills should not be forced to fund trapeze lessons in Tanzania - but then also engaged in this embarrassing and condescending exercise as well." This is where you've veered off from making any sort of reasonable point I could argue with to practicing the same EU-bashing the UK newspapers have been doing for years. The UK government spends about 15B EUR from it's own budget each year on foreign aid. The WHOLE OF the EU spends about 4B a year. The UK contributes NET about 7% of the EU budget, so on a pro-rata basis, the EU development fund costs the UK 250 million a year compared to the 15 billion it spends directly. So your "consern" about healthcare and welfare spendingn is completely misplaced or disingenious.
- repolfx 8y ago
  My point is that whatever rules were in place for the referendum clearly didn't work, they were simply ignored or worked around by the government by e.g. huge spending before the limiting period began. If one side clearly doesn't care about the rules at all and they aren't even enforced, then attempting to enforce them on the other side obviously opens up all sorts of suspicions of bias. I hadn't seen the BBC article you link to, but it looks like exactly what I mean. Someone who made a donation to the Leave campaign shipped some tyres to India in 2009? OK, how does that compare to Remain using the entire resources of the civil service in its attempt to win? It doesn't at all, the sums involved are trivial in comparison. Regarding the euromyths site, do you really find the newspaper's protrayal of EU foreign aid/development fund spending to be honest? Yes - what have they said that's false? The EU's "rebuttal" doesn't even claim the newspapers are wrong about anything. They just claim it's perfectly reasonable spending instead. Your last paragraph misses the point entirely I'm afraid. I don't care about foreign aid myself. We were talking about the euromyths site. This particular story is interesting because it shows that the EU is willing to lie to you in order to undermine the press. One of the purposes of the press is to hold government to account. Publicising spending that looks wasteful is a key part of that. This is civics 101. Does the British government complain that the press is "lying" when they question government spending? No, it doesn't, because it's run by people who know that this is part of the job of the press. Only the EU complains about the press doing their job and attacks them by asserting they're peddling "myths". But hey, if you want another dodgy Euromyths post, here it is: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-eu-is-a-supporter-of-europes-independent-cinema-production-not-a-threat-to-it/ https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-eu-is-a-supporter-o... This is about EU plans to eliminate per-region movie licensing. The EU's response adds nothing to the Independent's article, which is basically a selection of quotes from British movie producers saying they depend on per-region licensing to fund indy/arthouse movies, and if they couldn't do that anymore they feel they wouldn't be able to fund these movies. Now, maybe these producers are all wrong, maybe they're right, I am not an expert in movie financing so I don't know. But clearly there are some who feel this way. The "myths" response simply re-iterates the EU's position that it'll all be peachy and wonderful. The truth of the underlying article isn't challenged, the EU Commission is just saying they disagree. Lots of the articles are like that. Don't get me wrong. I think it's fine for a government to respond to press stories in a candid way and defend themselves. But the EU oversteps the line wildly here, by claiming they're revealing systematic lying by the British press, when just clicking through posts shows they often can't identify anything false about the stories. They just find them inconvenient.

derriz 8y ago

I really don't understand how you could describe it as "abuse" to raise questions about the DUP case; are you challenging any of the facts raised in the article - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44624299 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44624299 ? Btw. the Leave campaign also received public funding both in direct cash and to cover the costs of public mailings for example. It's all very well saying the spending limits should be scrapped but they were the rules in place for the referendum. You should campaign for a change in the rules, not covertly abuse the rules through shadowy shell companies and later - when exposed - argue that the rules shouldn't exists. Regarding the euromyths site, do you really find the newspaper's protrayal of EU foreign aid/development fund spending to be honest? I guess there is a certain subjectivenss to the question but I simply cannot reconsile the content of the the newspaper's stories "The Commission not only missed the entire point the journalists were making - that EU member states struggling to pay their own healthcare and welfare bills should not be forced to fund trapeze lessons in Tanzania - but then also engaged in this embarrassing and condescending exercise as well." This is where you've veered off from making any sort of reasonable point I could argue with to practicing the same EU-bashing the UK newspapers have been doing for years. The UK government spends about 15B EUR from it's own budget each year on foreign aid. The WHOLE OF the EU spends about 4B a year. The UK contributes NET about 7% of the EU budget, so on a pro-rata basis, the EU development fund costs the UK 250 million a year compared to the 15 billion it spends directly. So your "consern" about healthcare and welfare spendingn is completely misplaced or disingenious.

repolfx 8y ago
My point is that whatever rules were in place for the referendum clearly didn't work, they were simply ignored or worked around by the government by e.g. huge spending before the limiting period began. If one side clearly doesn't care about the rules at all and they aren't even enforced, then attempting to enforce them on the other side obviously opens up all sorts of suspicions of bias. I hadn't seen the BBC article you link to, but it looks like exactly what I mean. Someone who made a donation to the Leave campaign shipped some tyres to India in 2009? OK, how does that compare to Remain using the entire resources of the civil service in its attempt to win? It doesn't at all, the sums involved are trivial in comparison. Regarding the euromyths site, do you really find the newspaper's protrayal of EU foreign aid/development fund spending to be honest? Yes - what have they said that's false? The EU's "rebuttal" doesn't even claim the newspapers are wrong about anything. They just claim it's perfectly reasonable spending instead. Your last paragraph misses the point entirely I'm afraid. I don't care about foreign aid myself. We were talking about the euromyths site. This particular story is interesting because it shows that the EU is willing to lie to you in order to undermine the press. One of the purposes of the press is to hold government to account. Publicising spending that looks wasteful is a key part of that. This is civics 101. Does the British government complain that the press is "lying" when they question government spending? No, it doesn't, because it's run by people who know that this is part of the job of the press. Only the EU complains about the press doing their job and attacks them by asserting they're peddling "myths". But hey, if you want another dodgy Euromyths post, here it is: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-eu-is-a-supporter-of-europes-independent-cinema-production-not-a-threat-to-it/ https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-eu-is-a-supporter-o... This is about EU plans to eliminate per-region movie licensing. The EU's response adds nothing to the Independent's article, which is basically a selection of quotes from British movie producers saying they depend on per-region licensing to fund indy/arthouse movies, and if they couldn't do that anymore they feel they wouldn't be able to fund these movies. Now, maybe these producers are all wrong, maybe they're right, I am not an expert in movie financing so I don't know. But clearly there are some who feel this way. The "myths" response simply re-iterates the EU's position that it'll all be peachy and wonderful. The truth of the underlying article isn't challenged, the EU Commission is just saying they disagree. Lots of the articles are like that. Don't get me wrong. I think it's fine for a government to respond to press stories in a candid way and defend themselves. But the EU oversteps the line wildly here, by claiming they're revealing systematic lying by the British press, when just clicking through posts shows they often can't identify anything false about the stories. They just find them inconvenient.