Every home in the UK to receive a leaflet outlining why the government wants to stay in the EU
41 replies, posted
[img]http://i.imgur.com/hn3wO8K.png[/img]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571[/url]
[quote]The government is spending more than £9m on sending a leaflet to every UK household setting out the case for remaining in the European Union.
It says the 14-page document, to be sent to 27 million homes, responds to public demand for more details about the EU referendum by setting out the facts behind the government's position.
Leave campaigners reacted with fury.
Boris Johnson said it was wrong to try to "stampede" voters while Nigel Farage said the document was "full of lies".
UKIP leader Mr Farage said the exercise was a "scam" and reinforced his view that the EU referendum on 23 June would be "defined by the battle of the people against the political elite".[/quote]
saw an advert from 'UK government' today on instagram outlining why i should vote stay. pretty weird since most government things i've ever seen have been insanely impartial
This is good because I know next to nothing about both sides on why to stay or why to leave so this'll no doubt help.
[QUOTE=Bobie;50084339]saw an advert from 'UK government' today on instagram outlining why i should vote stay. pretty weird since most government things i've ever seen have been insanely impartial[/QUOTE]
Because they're supposed to be impartial. The article even mentions how Cameron said he wouldn't spend taxpayers dollars on this and yet he is.
I think this is ridiculous. To spend so much of taxpayer money on what's obviously a "look at the resources we have to forward our agenda, we're the government lol". It's an insult to us naysayers, to spend our money on this -and you can guarantee it will be biased to all hell. I wouldn't count on the validity of their information either.
[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]
"Use the research [I]that the government shows[/I] to make their decision"
Well you can get to fuck if you think I'm that stupid.
Edit: I got another one this morning, saying why we should leave. Thought it was a late April Fools.
Is this the government that won the election and got every seat from the data that was shown was gonna be completely different outcome?
[QUOTE=Passing;50084538]Is this the government that won the election and got every seat from the data that was shown was gonna be completely outcome?[/QUOTE]
This is the government that really went far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like
[QUOTE=smurfy;50084549]This is the government that really went far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like[/QUOTE]
But do they think it be like it is?
Maybe if the leave side of the argument was able to sort its shit out and actually explain what they plan to do if we leave the eu we might have more of a debate.
I would much prefer the UK remains in the EU. I think it would foolish and outright stupid should the UK leave the EU.
With that said, I do find it odd that the government is using tax-payer funded propaganda to push a partisan issue. I don't think the ruling government should advertise a specifically-partisan issue.
In the United States it is semi-illegal. I say semi because of the War on Drugs and what we've seen with the Iraq War. But I don't believe anything in the US has ever come to this level since the 1950s.
£9M, for the government, isn't exactly a vast amount of money. Divided by the current population of Britain, take five million to account for whatever, you're only paying 15p for this. I wouldn't really complain about a use of taxpayer money when it is to benefit us, a lot of people are clueless about the EU.
TBH I've had so many leaflets come in telling me why Britain should leave it seems only fair to get something from the other side of the argument.
I mean if the brochure lays out the pros and cons i see nothing wrong with that, the government here does this during referendums although by an independent commission not themselves
i wouldnt be surprised if the referendum is rigged to go Cameron's way at this rate
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50085059]Maybe if the leave side of the argument was able to sort its shit out and actually explain what they plan to do if we leave the eu we might have more of a debate.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, a lot of them are pretty big on their free market philosophy though, I'm concerned they want out to lift EU restrictions and turn us into a free market experiment.
i got a leaflet saying why the UK should leave a couple of days ago
i don't get why people think the government should be impartial about this, it's a matter of policy that the government has always taken an approach on (staying in the EU)
the government is elected because people think that they are smart enough to represent them and lead the country (that's the theory anyway) - the government has said that staying in the EU would be the best course of action, so that's what the government is going to push forwards
why is this confusing to some people
[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]
like, it wasn't the government's job to advertise the pros and cons, and give a balanced argument to the scottish referendum - why the fuck would they do it here??
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50085361]i got a leaflet saying why the UK should leave a couple of days ago
i don't get why people think the government should be impartial about this, it's a matter of policy that the government has always taken an approach on (staying in the EU)
the government is elected because people think that they are smart enough to represent them and lead the country (that's the theory anyway) - the government has said that staying in the EU would be the best course of action, so that's what the government is going to push forwards
why is this confusing to some people
[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]
like, it wasn't the government's job to advertise the pros and cons, and give a balanced argument to the scottish referendum - why the fuck would they do it here??[/QUOTE]
I think the concern is that the government has far more resources to push an agenda than an opposing campaign.
Also the attitude that if they're elected the must be the smartest guys and we have to trust them is a bad one. They were let in by 25% of the eligible voting population, and over the last few months we've seen deeply through the looking glass of conservative incompetence over missed targets, increasing deficits, lies, spending cuts being used to allow tax cuts, . It's the job of the people to constantly scrutinise their government, rather than just accept "oh well, they were elected, they must know what they're doing, better ride out all this bullshit"
Austerity in action
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50085416]I think the concern is that the government has far more resources to push an agenda than an opposing campaign.
Also the attitude that if they're elected the must be the smartest guys and we have to trust them is a bad one. They were let in by 25% of the eligible voting population, and over the last few months we've seen deeply through the looking glass of conservative incompetence over missed targets, increasing deficits, lies, spending cuts being used to allow tax cuts, . It's the job of the people to constantly scrutinise their government, rather than just accept "oh well, they were elected, they must know what they're doing, better ride out all this bullshit"[/QUOTE]
but the government doesn't
because the opposition can spend as much money as they want (eurosceptics don't tend to be the poor, working class everymen) without any public attention, but the government spending is public
ergo: opposition spends a shit load of money campaigning against the EU - nobody bats an eyelid
government spends a shit load of money campaigning for the EU - "THOSE ARE MY TAX POUNDS THEY'RE SPENDING"
i'm not saying that we [I]must[/I] have elected the smartest guys - if you're saying that the system doesn't work then the argument ends here because the government doesn't represent us and we might as well give up because FPTP was voted FOR by the public
we voted FOR a system that didn't represent US - that's the choice that was made. The public doesn't get to complain about having an unrepresentative government because we voted for a system that enabled that
what i'm saying is that this view that the government has to be impartial when it comes to decisions is ridiculous, because the government believes that staying in the EU is the right thing - they're not going to support shit policy on the basis that they have to be impartial
Outrage over nothing. Age old "taxpayers money!!!11" fallacial whining.
I'm glad they're sending information to people because as the government points out, something that the trash media won't tell you, a lot of people don't have a clue what will happen either way, and that makes sense, because its a complicated issue involving economics, politics, imminent doom theories, etc. Even if you actively look at arguments from both sides, you'll see people saying the exact same fucking thing, twisted both ways, non stop.
People complaining about it being essentially biased propaganda seem to live in a bubble where we don't already have millions of idiots in this country that trip over themselves in a race to be outraged every time more propaganda comes out of the tabloid machine. A while ago, a pro-leave business man also spent a stupid amount of money in the millions sending leaflets with some bizarre 115~ points to homes. Basically using the same tactics as the media, only at least the government isn't pathetic enough to label the opposition as scaremongers.
[img]http://puu.sh/o9mt3/286f1a8b83.jpg[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/o9mtX/d5dcdafe30.jpg[/img]
Anyone that thinks that this is really far fetched probably has their head stuck far up their arse.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;50085821]Isn't this government the one that proposed to leave the EU in the first place?[/QUOTE]
So-so, I think. It's the tabloid propaganda machine which usually aligns itself with the current Conservative government who acted as the mouthpiece for leaving the EU for years, no doubt because it'd serve their business interests.
So fucking confused right now... wasn't it "the government"'s decision to have a vote to leave? I thought Cameron wanted to get out of the EU.
Anyway, I can't help but notice some fucking hilarious ironies between this and the Scottish referendum.
There does seem to be a trend by the leave campaign of calling anything negative about leaving "fear mongering". Cameron talking about the jungle in Calais moving over was fear mongering. Leave suggesting that we'd have more terrorist attacks if we stay is fear mongering. Saying that we'd have large amounts of economic uncertainty whilst we renegotiated whatever FTA we were going for, and that we'd likely end up with a similar deal to the ones which already exist is just common sense, but because it's inconvenient it's just dismissed.
[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scotchair;50085902]So fucking confused right now... wasn't it "the government"'s decision to have a vote to leave? I thought Cameron wanted to get out of the EU.
Anyway, I can't help but notice some fucking hilarious ironies between this and the Scottish referendum.[/QUOTE]
Cameron allowed a referendum to prevent his party haemorrhaging votes to ukip in the election, but wants to stay.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;50085902]So fucking confused right now... wasn't it "the government"'s decision to have a vote to leave?[/QUOTE]
Well ultimately yes but there was a growing interest in it from a notable sized group of people.
I have got a few of these leaflets from the pro leave campaigns, they have yet to make a good argument to leave IMO. The only genuine issue they have brought up is that the EU leaders aren't democratically elected. But unless you are extremely far right then the majority of the EU policies are decent, not to say they don't have some bad ones as well.
Biggest reason to stay in the EU for me is workers rights, leave the EU and that gives companies far more say over what they do with their employees, goodbye statutory sick pay, goodbye minimum annual leave allowances, considering i work in the NHS i'd be bound to get fucked over ( again )
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50085907]There does seem to be a trend by the leave campaign of calling anything negative about leaving "fear mongering". Cameron talking about the jungle in Calais moving over was fear mongering. Leave suggesting that we'd have more terrorist attacks if we stay is fear mongering. Saying that we'd have large amounts of economic uncertainty whilst we renegotiated whatever FTA we were going for, and that we'd likely end up with a similar deal to the ones which already exist is just common sense, but because it's inconvenient it's just dismissed.[/QUOTE]
That is the one thing above all others that makes the leave campaign totally unapproachable for me. How can there be a debate on the issue when one side simply collects any argument put forth by the other side and dismisses them all collectively as 'project fear'? Lazy, condescending but effective as I see it parroted around a lot.
Negative consequences of an action are part of decision making and must be considered in order to make a good decision. Dismissing them all under a snazzy hashtag slogan isn't debating.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50085931]EU leaders aren't democratically elected.[/QUOTE]
How? The decisive power is shared between the council (consisting of member state elected politicians) and the directly elected parliament.
edit: even the highest executive officials are approved by both of these parties and the single highest official is nominated by the council and chosen by the parliament.
The thing is, if we had an elected EU president or whatever then the EU leadership wouldn't be directly answerable to the national governments and sovereignty would suffer; it would start to look more like a federal Europe, and Eurosceptics would be furious. But if you have the leadership appointed by the national governments then sovereignty is protected, but it's not democratic and the Eurosceptics get furious about unelected EU bureaucrats. So I'm not sure what the solution is, really.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50085999]The thing is, if we had an elected EU president or whatever then the EU leadership wouldn't be directly answerable to the national governments and sovereignty would suffer; it would start to look more like a federal Europe, and Eurosceptics would be furious. But if you have the leadership appointed by the national governments then sovereignty is protected, but it's not democratic and the Eurosceptics get furious about unelected EU bureaucrats. So I'm not sure what the solution is, really.[/QUOTE]
the thing is the top bureaucrats are democratically approved by directly elected officials.
the bureaucratic side is about professionally preparing legislation and executing it. the executive branch needs approved professionals, not direct representatives.
The thought of Theresa May having free reign over our civil liberties scares me (given most laws she wants to pass get struck down by the EU).
Instead of this leaflet they should have just printed a photo of her face and posted it through everyone's letterboxes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.