9 ms·

The EU archived “Euromyths” printed in UK media (2018)

94 points by DanBC 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
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.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Plus they could be false or true based on some technically or interpretation...
- radicalbyte 6y ago
  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.
  - JetSpiegel 6y ago
    Murdoch is Australian, therefore a subject of the British Crown, no? Not a "foreigner" per-se.
- docflabby 6y ago
  Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel.
  - oblio 6y ago
    Why would they be sued for libel? https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004143251/https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/mail-on-sunday-fails-to-serve-readers-full-facts-on-eu-food-allergen-rules-that-could-save-lives/ 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? :-)
- reddotX 6y ago
  British tabloids Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The Telegraph, FT etc. a cocktail of toxic trash
  - Veen 6y ago
    The Telegraph and the Financial Times are not tabloids.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      The FT isn't. The Telegraph certainly is, although it pretends so very hard not to be.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - bjohnson225 6y ago
      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)
- juki 6y ago
  The actual site (see the archive link by antientropic) has sources for them.
radicalbyte 6y ago
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
- coldtea 6y ago
  I could give you tons of bogus euromyths, but this is a legit complaint. How about "overprotecting children by closing down playgrounds is evil"?
  - gambiting 6y ago
    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.
  - tim333 6y ago
    The excessive "health and safety" people justly complain about is kind of a British speciality.
  - juki 6y ago
    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.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      You'd be surprised... https://www.cen.eu/news/brochures/brochures/CEN-CLC_Child-Safety_2014.pdf https://www.cen.eu/news/brochures/brochures/CEN-CLC_Child-Sa...
987yghj 6y ago
I keep hearing about all of this pro brexit propaganda and fake news and such, but close so 100% of everything I see it pro EU. Would be nice to also see the Brexit myths. I'm not holding my breath though.
stephvd 6y ago
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.
- Fiveplus 6y ago
  >I never consult the world news section of big name media publications Just curious, why not?
  - aardvarkr 6y ago
    My guess is they “just don’t trust it” without a reason. This type of person never has a reason, they just parrot what they’ve heard without thinking critically.
    - temp0826 6y ago
      Though I don't agree with the generalization of lumping together any/all publishers, how does one regain trust in a publisher after losing it for a legitimate reason?
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      In general, I find it useful to watch biased news, when you know who they're biased towards and why. It gives you interesting signals as to what various groups want you to think.
    - hn8788 6y ago
      And here you are "guessing" that they don't have a reason. Sounds like you are just making blanking statements without a reason as well.
    - jlund-molfese 6y ago
      What are your thoughts on the comment where they explained their reasoning?
  - stephvd 6y ago
sairam0542 6y ago
...
cbmuser 6y ago
> 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._2257/94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No....
- kjakm 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdasdf 6y ago
    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.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      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.)
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        If you and your competitors have exclusive suppliers, you’ll want your competition to have their suppliers banned while your suppliers are favored.
the-dude 6y ago
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?
- La1n 6y ago
  https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ 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://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20200131192225/https://... This one works
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
williesleg 6y ago
Nobody cares about the EU except china
docflabby 6y ago
Would have been more useful for a breakdown/fact check on where the basis "myth" came from. Otherwise it's useless as you have no way of knowing what the reality is/was.
- IshKebab 6y ago
  Also highlight which ones were written by Boris!
kristianc 6y ago
Boris Johnson essentially made his career at the Telegraph writing these. Brussels Correspondent was a pretty lowly role before he arrived. The condoms, the manure smelling, the bendy bananas, ‘Mumbai’ mix - all him. “[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-johnson-peddled-absurd-eu-myths-and-our-disgraceful-press-followed-his https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/boris-johns... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johnson-brussels-bashing-stories-shaped-politics https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johns...
temp8964 6y ago
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.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  There is nothing authoritarian about dispelling myths. These were not about opinions, they concerned literally false claims about EU directives and regulations.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    Lol. EU doesn't have NGO can do this? The government has to be the one to run the Truth department?
    - cinntaile 6y ago
      But what exactly is authoritarian about this? It's not like this is the only truth?
    - jonathanstrange 6y ago
      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.
    - wormik 6y ago
      If it would be EU sponsored NGO doing this, you would argue it's a department of truth proxy wouldn't you?
      - 6y ago
eertami 6y ago
>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.)
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  Just depends where you live. Plenty of gigabit connections in London.
  - eertami 6y ago
    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.
    - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
      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.
  - wdb 6y ago
    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
- 6y ago
antientropic 6y ago
Here is the actual (archived) Euromyths website: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ 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.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  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.
- tim333 6y ago
  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.
  - Veen 6y ago
    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.
dsun180 6y ago
What a garbage website with garbage information without sources.
- nerform 6y ago
  There's sources for each myth in the EU site.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lettergram 6y ago
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_Report_FINAL.pdf 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_conspiracy_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-memoir-beautiful-things-seeks-to-tell-just-where-hes-been 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.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  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.
lixtra 6y ago
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.
indigowind 6y ago
Thank God they're doing important stuff like this and not doing silly stuff like pre-ordering vaccines.
kstenerud 6y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
- ur-whale 6y ago
  > The TV show "Yes, Minister" The entire show is a jewel. Highly recommended.
  - kstenerud 6y ago
    Just don't watch the modern remake of "Yes, Prime Minister". It lost everything that made the original special and turned it into your standard low-brow buffoonery show.
- pbronez 6y ago
  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.
llimos 6y ago
The trouble is, you have no sense of what proportion of stories turned out to be true, since they only list the debunked ones.
- oblio 6y ago
  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.
e2021 6y ago
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://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://...
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  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://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/no-eu-plan-to-ban-union-flag-from-british-meat-packs/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004145238/https://...
  - e2021 6y ago
    I think we agree - I am using it as an example of a a myth that was actually debunked
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      Oh, sorry, d'oh!
- 6y ago
slibhb 6y ago
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/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/ 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.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  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?
  - slibhb 6y ago
    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.
temp8964 6y ago
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/1378455984549425153 https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/137845598454942515...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

94 points by DanBC 6y ago

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.

coldtea 6y ago
Plus they could be false or true based on some technically or interpretation...
radicalbyte 6y ago
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.
- JetSpiegel 6y ago
  Murdoch is Australian, therefore a subject of the British Crown, no? Not a "foreigner" per-se.
docflabby 6y ago
Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel.
- oblio 6y ago
  Why would they be sued for libel? https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004143251/https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/mail-on-sunday-fails-to-serve-readers-full-facts-on-eu-food-allergen-rules-that-could-save-lives/ 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? :-)
reddotX 6y ago
British tabloids Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The Telegraph, FT etc. a cocktail of toxic trash
- Veen 6y ago
  The Telegraph and the Financial Times are not tabloids.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    The FT isn't. The Telegraph certainly is, although it pretends so very hard not to be.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - bjohnson225 6y ago
    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)
juki 6y ago
The actual site (see the archive link by antientropic) has sources for them.

radicalbyte 6y ago

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

coldtea 6y ago
I could give you tons of bogus euromyths, but this is a legit complaint. How about "overprotecting children by closing down playgrounds is evil"?
- gambiting 6y ago
  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.
- tim333 6y ago
  The excessive "health and safety" people justly complain about is kind of a British speciality.
- juki 6y ago
  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.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    You'd be surprised... https://www.cen.eu/news/brochures/brochures/CEN-CLC_Child-Safety_2014.pdf https://www.cen.eu/news/brochures/brochures/CEN-CLC_Child-Sa...

987yghj 6y ago

I keep hearing about all of this pro brexit propaganda and fake news and such, but close so 100% of everything I see it pro EU. Would be nice to also see the Brexit myths. I'm not holding my breath though.

stephvd 6y ago

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.

Fiveplus 6y ago
>I never consult the world news section of big name media publications Just curious, why not?
- aardvarkr 6y ago
  My guess is they “just don’t trust it” without a reason. This type of person never has a reason, they just parrot what they’ve heard without thinking critically.
  - temp0826 6y ago
    Though I don't agree with the generalization of lumping together any/all publishers, how does one regain trust in a publisher after losing it for a legitimate reason?
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    In general, I find it useful to watch biased news, when you know who they're biased towards and why. It gives you interesting signals as to what various groups want you to think.
  - hn8788 6y ago
    And here you are "guessing" that they don't have a reason. Sounds like you are just making blanking statements without a reason as well.
  - jlund-molfese 6y ago
    What are your thoughts on the comment where they explained their reasoning?
- stephvd 6y ago

sairam0542 6y ago

...

cbmuser 6y ago

> 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._2257/94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No....

kjakm 6y ago
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 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jdasdf 6y ago
  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.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    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.)
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      If you and your competitors have exclusive suppliers, you’ll want your competition to have their suppliers banned while your suppliers are favored.

the-dude 6y ago

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?

La1n 6y ago
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ 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://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20200131192225/https://... This one works
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

williesleg 6y ago

Nobody cares about the EU except china

docflabby 6y ago

Would have been more useful for a breakdown/fact check on where the basis "myth" came from. Otherwise it's useless as you have no way of knowing what the reality is/was.

IshKebab 6y ago
Also highlight which ones were written by Boris!

kristianc 6y ago

Boris Johnson essentially made his career at the Telegraph writing these. Brussels Correspondent was a pretty lowly role before he arrived. The condoms, the manure smelling, the bendy bananas, ‘Mumbai’ mix - all him. “[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-johnson-peddled-absurd-eu-myths-and-our-disgraceful-press-followed-his https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/boris-johns... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johnson-brussels-bashing-stories-shaped-politics https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johns...

temp8964 6y ago

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.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
There is nothing authoritarian about dispelling myths. These were not about opinions, they concerned literally false claims about EU directives and regulations.
- temp8964 6y ago
  Lol. EU doesn't have NGO can do this? The government has to be the one to run the Truth department?
  - cinntaile 6y ago
    But what exactly is authoritarian about this? It's not like this is the only truth?
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    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.
  - wormik 6y ago
    If it would be EU sponsored NGO doing this, you would argue it's a department of truth proxy wouldn't you?
    - 6y ago

eertami 6y ago

>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.)

carmen_sandiego 6y ago
Just depends where you live. Plenty of gigabit connections in London.
- eertami 6y ago
  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.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    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.
- wdb 6y ago
  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
6y ago

antientropic 6y ago

Here is the actual (archived) Euromyths website: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ 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.

black_puppydog 6y ago
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.
tim333 6y ago
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.
- Veen 6y ago
  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.

dsun180 6y ago

What a garbage website with garbage information without sources.

nerform 6y ago
There's sources for each myth in the EU site.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lettergram 6y ago

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_Report_FINAL.pdf 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_conspiracy_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-memoir-beautiful-things-seeks-to-tell-just-where-hes-been 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.

rbanffy 6y ago
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.

lixtra 6y ago

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.

indigowind 6y ago

Thank God they're doing important stuff like this and not doing silly stuff like pre-ordering vaccines.

kstenerud 6y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

ur-whale 6y ago
> The TV show "Yes, Minister" The entire show is a jewel. Highly recommended.
- kstenerud 6y ago
  Just don't watch the modern remake of "Yes, Prime Minister". It lost everything that made the original special and turned it into your standard low-brow buffoonery show.
pbronez 6y ago
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.

llimos 6y ago

The trouble is, you have no sense of what proportion of stories turned out to be true, since they only list the debunked ones.

oblio 6y ago
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.

e2021 6y ago

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://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://...

LatteLazy 6y ago
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://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/no-eu-plan-to-ban-union-flag-from-british-meat-packs/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004145238/https://...
- e2021 6y ago
  I think we agree - I am using it as an example of a a myth that was actually debunked
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Oh, sorry, d'oh!
6y ago

slibhb 6y ago

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/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/ 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.

Jonnax 6y ago
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?
- slibhb 6y ago
  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.

temp8964 6y ago

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/1378455984549425153 https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/137845598454942515...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]