Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thelondoneconomic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

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

#71

Post by jdasdf »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #53
jdasdf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not that simple. You're falling prey to a common misrepresentation of EU regulations. They were all initially very complex, sometimes looking almost absurd, because they were comprised and based on the bilaterial treaties and regulations of 28 member states. The EU then gradually simplified the regulation over the years. You'd think that simple combinatorics would make people understand the benefits of this proc…

Except i'm not. I'm stating that whatever regulations the EU could have made didn't have to involve banning anything, or indeed taking any power whatsoever from the national governments.

If the purpose was to facilitate trade, the way to do it is by providing information to those who want to trade, not by banning them from doing so.

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

#72

Post by temp8964 »

La1n wrote: post #64
temp8964 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. EU doesn't have NGO can do this? The government has to be the one to run the Truth department?

I don't see a difference in paying the salary of people to do it in your name, or funding a NGO and indirectly paying the salary of the people who do the work.

The difference is whether the government gets involved.

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

#73

Post by chrisseaton »

rbanffy wrote: post #55
chrisseaton wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

If you and your competitors have exclusive suppliers, you’ll want your competition to have their suppliers banned while your suppliers are favored.

Well that sounds like a bad reason not a good one!

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

#74

Post by kstenerud »

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

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

#76

Post by tim333 »

antientropic wrote: post #22

Here is the actual (archived) Euromyths website: https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004103218/https://... It appears the EC has deleted it since debunking myths in the British press has become rather pointless post-brexit.

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.

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

#77

Post by juki »

coldtea wrote: post #5
radicalbyte wrote: post #3

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 sa…

I could give you tons of bogus euromyths, but this is a legit complaint. How about "overprotecting children by closing down playgrounds is evil"?

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.

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

#78

Post by oblio »

docflabby wrote: post #15
zepto wrote: post #2

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.

Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel.

Why would they be sued for libel?

https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20191004143251/https://...

And sued by who? By Murdoch publications, the champions of lying from the top of their lungs in front of millions of people? :-)

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

#79

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

smcl wrote: post #46
cbmuser wrote: post #10

> 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....

Not really - there's a difference between stipulating that one class of banana be "free from deformation or abnormal curvature[1]" (if it weren't said banana would be Class II and still legal) and declaring the EU is banning curved bananas. It's just as dishonest as when someone like Andy Ngo sees "Alcohol Restricted Zone" signs in an area of the UK that had a substantial muslim minority population, then reporting th…

Literally the only things the Tory Party are good at is misrepresenting the truth for PR purposes, and using the misrepresentation to promote a toxic self-harming bubble of nationalism which they can ride to power.

Like most nationalists, they need three things - a flag, an enemy, and a compliant media machine.

Given those they can keep themselves in power almost indefinitely, while providing nothing of real national value.

Which is unfortunate, because the UK has a very strong talent base - which it's currently squandering in favour of corruption and nationalist authoritarian nonsense.

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

#80

Post by oblio »

llimos wrote: post #75

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

Considering how boring and involved the decision process in Brussels is, probably a tiny fraction. Definitely not worth making the fuss they're making about it in the press.

European decision making is consensus based so almost everyone needs to agree. EU decision making is based on proposal from member states governments, so it's usually pre-vetted by the member states governments. On top of that, it usually needs some sort of industry-wide agreement in many cases.

What I'm saying is, it's super unlikely for absurd stuff to make it through. The whole process is super slow (which is annoying), but crazy stuff rarely ends up at the other end. If it seems crazy to you personally, it's probably because you don't have intimate knowledge of the domains affected.

Post reply on HN