The EU archived “Euromyths” printed in UK media (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #60

luckylion wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.) That's probably not because it's a "European city", but because it's a city in some specific European country. The UK has similar average broadband speeds compared to e.g. Germany.

> The UK has similar average broadband speeds compared to e.g. Germany. German here, please don't use us as a basis to judge Europe! Our broadband is atrocious , dating back to a decision of then-Chancellor Kohl in the 80s - public antenna-broadcast TV was "too left wing" (=in reality, too critical of his Conservative government), so he scrapped the fibre rollout plan of his predecessor and directed all the funding t…

[deleted]

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

#102

Post by temp8964 » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

Jonnax wrote: post #98

987yghj wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selectively taking incorrect statements from one side is a way of technically being truthful while pushing one sided information, i.e. it's propaganda.

"The website, which offers officials in Brussels a chance to rebut media accusations of meddling, features hundreds of reports that are based on inaccurate or misleading information." So it was made for officials to rebut lies printed in the media about the EU. I take it that you don't mind "journalists" printing lies as long as they're lies that support your point of view?

Shouldn't the website also list factual reports proving their point that EU is over-regulated?

No matter how many reports got wrong, they don't hurt the reports are factual and correct.

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

#103

Post by LatteLazy » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

e2021 wrote: post #84

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"…

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://...

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

#104

Post by e2021 » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #103

e2021 wrote: post #84

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"…

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 logo…

I think we agree - I am using it as an example of a a myth that was actually debunked

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

#105

Post by 13415 » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #72

La1n wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This was just a blog as part of regular press work by the European Commission in the UK. Every organization does that in publications and press conferences. It's normal to publish press releases to correct misunderstandings or point out the view of your organization/company. The UK government does the very same, for instance.

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

#106

Post by tormeh » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

e2021 wrote: post #84

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"…

> No they don't ban vegetables with the wrong dimensions, they just put them in a lower quality class that no supermarkets will buy

Except they do. The premium supermarkets don't, but immigrant shops, etc. do buy class II veggies. It's the supermarkets's own choice what class they want to buy. Some deliberately buy even lower-class ones and market them (justifiably, I believe) as good for the environment as compared to discarding them.

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

#107

Post by oblio » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #99

oblio wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being silly. To take an extreme scenario, if the KGB is financing entities spouting non-sense in various publications, you expect the US/CIA to just take it lying down? :-) It's part of intelligence/counter-intelligence, you have to control the narrative because the average citizen isn't well informed enough and will just end up believing what the other party tells them... because they're the only ones saying…

So the Brexit to EU is like KGB to US? Why do you want to keep UK inside EU then?

I'm not keeping anything, anywhere. The UK can do whatever it wants, as far as I care.

I was just doing a reductio ad abusrdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) to show you that your logic was faulty.

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

#108

Post by bjohnson225 » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #43

reddotX wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

British tabloids Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The Telegraph, FT etc. a cocktail of toxic trash

The Telegraph and the Financial Times are not tabloids.

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)

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

#109

Post by LatteLazy » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

e2021 wrote: post #104

LatteLazy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 logo…

I think we agree - I am using it as an example of a a myth that was actually debunked

Oh, sorry, d'oh!

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

#110

Post by kristianc » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #74

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 cre…

> 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.”

This was more or less exactly what happened with the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. Britain pushed for the EU to enlarge as a way of slowing down decision making - and the resulting migration from Eastern European countries ended up being a key factor for people voting to Leave.