UKH

Here's a link detailing all the known Euromyths (many hundreds of them) published in UK media in recent decades:

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

Clicking on many at random, they unsurprisingly originated in the Sun/Mail/Telegraph. Is there any wonder readers of such misinformation over a long period ended up with negative opinions of the EU that apparently are deeply held but not easy to rationalise without resorting to yet more EU lies ('They're being mean')?

Anyway, some of them are quite funny: "Army’s gun salute banned for being too noisy"; "EC to ban prawn cocktail crisps"; "Farmers forced to issue pigs with toys"; "Organic farmers ordered by EU to use homeopathic medicine", etc.

You should be glad that the Sunday Sport isn’t still published.

Aw I miss the Sunday Sport. How will I know if they ever got that double decker bus off the moon?

“High up” signs to be put on mountains  .   who knew?

Including these ones.....

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/brussels-to-take-the-fun-out-of-climbi...

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/high-up-signs-to-be-put-on-mountains/

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/new-procurement-rules-threaten-rescue-...

And so good it needs its own post, ad it isnt related to climbing, but for all you brexiteers who think the EU just wants us out,.....

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/a-europe-without-england/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35962999  Cabbage regulations.

We're all mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them sh.......
And there's a myth in itself

It was not solely the likes of the daily stormtroopers though. It invaded climbing too. 

Remember all those folk panic buying RPs when the CE regs were coming in? 

Can't remember whether it was on ukc or in the comics or both but it certainly happened. 

Effing heartbreaking.

And yet of you showed that to a Brexiteer, they would most likely nod sagely and say 'no smoke without fire...' or something similar.

Effing heartbreaking.

And yet of you showed that to a Brexiteer, they would most likely nod sagely and say 'no smoke without fire...' or something similar.

There's a good article in New Yorker Magazine that describes this process pretty well:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-min...

An excerpt:

"Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

"The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies—you guessed it—were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who’d originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile."

Well worth reading the whole article; some gratuitous Trump-bashing thrown in too for added feel-good factor!

Actually I would say -

“bloody EU, spending all the money we give it on compiling articles to show how it’s misrepresented in the press! How much did that that bloody cost?!!!! Rant, rant, rant.”

At least that’s what I’d say if I was a Brexiteer.

It's all true I tell you.  Look at that bastard Working time directive and the extra Red tape that gave workers rights to holiday pay!

bastard EU.  It is still throwing its money round improving infrastructure in Cumbria - How dare it?

One of my favorite shows from one of my favorite programmes. The show itself is an absolute delight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b074zy97

Weren't these Euromyths the things that Boris the journalist kept feeding in? 

Presumably confirmation bias must also apply to the lovely folk of the Remain persuasion. And we do see lots of dodgy items in the largely pro EU press and tv, apparently swallowed without consideration by Remainers. And Remainers seem to want to ignore  the fact that we have had more than a quarter of a century to watch the EU train crash develop, something that apparently passed Remain by. But never mind. You can continue to slag off a vote you did in fact lose, denigrate a country that some of you actually live in and be prepared to sneer at all and every criticism that comes your way. Good people I salute you.

Would you care to substantiate any of that? Or is it just stuff that sounds good within your bubble?

What the f*ck are you talking about? Never was a profile name more appropriate.

"Presumably confirmation bias must also apply to the lovely folk of the Remain persuasion." - Confirmation bias is agnostic to what is being confirmed by a group so, yes. People in glass houses, etc.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjngv6...

Eu transparency over expenses?

€300 a day for hotel and food, paid without receipts. Etc. Pension, transition payments, first class travel. They make the lords look cheap. 

The eu aren't exactly very public on the €20bn /month they are borrowing for QE again from November. 

I'm sure Stone Idol will be delighted that you've sprung to his defence, particularly by quoting things he'd never even mentioned.

But daily subsistence rates? Really?

Far from me to want to justify expenses policies that are open to abuse but is that really the first thing that came to mind when jumping to the support of someone describing an "EU train crash"?

No doubt you'll now pretend it wasn't uppermost in your mind and you'll attempt to make up for it by throwing in lots of other accusations that you didn't consider as important to explain as the drop in the ocean of daily subsistence rates and first class travel. But your immediate reference to such things is a fine example of appealing to populist emotion on things they can relate to on a personal level, rather than highlighting genuinely important policies you (and quite likely me too) think are damaging within the EU and in need of reform.

40% of the EU budget is spent subsidising land ownership, those grouse moors the ukcers love etc. That's what annoys me most by a very long way.

But the fact the EU refused to publically air it's own finance figures and expenses isn't what you'd expect from such a fantastic open democratic organisation many claim the eu is? 

If it was the UK government would you tolerate such secrecy? 

"you'll attempt to make up for it by throwing in lots of other accusations that you didn't consider as important to explain ... genuinely important policies you (and quite likely me too) think are damaging within the EU and in need of reform."

Yep, I think you came up with the goods on that one

There's a phrase about glass houses that seems particularly relevant here in our times of Government impact reports, Yellowhammer and secret non-documents containing secret non-new proposals. None of which is right but by the same token little of which can be singled out as being notably worse in the EU.

You don't think I may have just played along deliberately?

It's a fact 40% of budget goes on CAP.

It's a fact the EU refused to publish its expenses budget.

As much as many would wish otherwise, it's just possible that those who voted for Brexit have a viewpoint that is correct. There are and were lies and myths on both sides.  

What, fatally weakened any argument you might of had and made yourself look silly. It wouldn’t be my go to tactic, but 10/10 for effort.

How frequently have pro-Remain press reported on the EU's excesses? There are lies of omission too.

Fair enough. Guess it's easier to target me than acknowledge flaws in the eu. 

I’m not targeting you Summo, I’m highlighting the flaws in your argument. All organisations have flaws, large and complex ones like the EU are certainly not exempt from that. However, this thread is about the mendacious campaign that has waged against the EU for decades. 

40% of their budget flaws?

In times of austerity across Europe, the eu increases it's budget, tax payers money, but refused to publish its own expenses. 

These to me aren't minor issues,  it's our money they are spending secretly. Perhaps some of the anti eu propaganda is justified? 

The EU is audited, remember it one of those lies that gets trotted out that it isn’t. 

You think the whole CAP spending is wasted? I assumed you don’t give a f*ck about food poverty, biodiversity or soil management. It’s a flawed system, but you or indeed the government who will need to, haven’t come up with a better one.

Can you link me the audited expenses budget of MEPs? 

And in what way is payment per hectare to a grouse moor or even a vineyard owner doing to improve any of that ? It doesn't fund food production, there is no payment related kilo of whatever produced, it supports land ownership. 

40% of the EU budget goes on grouse moors and vineyard. I never knew that. I’m off out to support Brexit now!

For example?

And so this begs the question, when are we going to create laws that defines what makes a free press?  Surely, to own a paper you need to live in the country, pay your taxes here and only be allowed to have one publication. 

Never has the the cry 'freedom of the press' ever been so abused to push one agenda. The Sun, Mail, Express and Telegraph dominate political discourse, and serves whom exactly. 

We are all sheep! It started with Thatcher. I don't get what this society wants and I am going underground. 

It started with Thatcher - seriously? I think it goes back a bit further. 

"Hurrah for the Blackshirts"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/UlA-hGQmfJI/AAAAAAAABnk/PaZ5i5EhsgQ/s...

Yes, but the Thatcher government allowed Murdoch to buy the Times and changed the rules about media ownership. A sensible country that was not being controlled and played by a small group, would change its media ownership laws, and stare the 'Press Freedom' shriekers down. 

Are you saying EUR 300 when you have to cover accommodation in Brussels or Strasbourg is excessive as a per diem? A decade ago my employer gave us 75 a day for those cities when accommodation was already paid for. I suspect if it's short notice you'd spend a lot of the 300 on a reasonably central hotel.

I wonder how those figures compare to expenses for others, eg British MPs or lords when travelling ? I remember we had a visit from a House of Lords committee several years ago & I suspect their expenses were similar, if not more as they had two nights in a central Paris hotel

I offer you the post vote emergency budget, euro war 3, the EU army and federalisation, the back of the queue for a US trade deal - all just for starters. All peddled by Remain (So nothing to say how good the EU was - not possible as it was not) or did you conveniently forget? 

Let's take just one of those Euro War 3...it was Boris who twisted Cameron speech to claim he said leaving the EU would lead to WW3.

No; but it's paid without receipts, they do get other subsistence on top of this as well. And most critically they refused to publish any details of who claims what and how much.  

Ps. Just checked plenty 4* on booking for tomorrow night, central, around £200. Plus I'm sure they will have contract with some chains and get better rates. If they haven't they should. 

It's the secrecy I take issue with. It's taxpayers money. Strasbourg is a farce in itself, so much for countries trying to trim their excesses to meet budget rules set by the eu, but the eu just keeps adding 5% to it's budget. 

It's not the value. It's the fact they refused to publish their budget of how they spend taxpayers money on themselves. Some democracy.

So, have you raised this issue with your MEP? What was the outcome?

Factcheck - the EU budget increased from 123bn euro to 142bn between 2004 and 2014, a compound rate of slightly less than 1.3% pa.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget-european-union

It is planned many years in advance. I must have missed them slapping the occasional 5% on.........

Correct ish. Just looked.

Isn't it a commitment increase of 3.2% in 2019 and a payment increase of 2.4%. Plus €20bn of additional borrowing for QE every month?

Plus there have been years when they asked member nations for extra funds due to unexpected invoices.. 2015 maybe. And also when they recalculate payments based on GDP many countries needed to pay extra.

In 2000 the eu budget was just over 80bn, now it's 165bn. Doubled in 19 years. Even with compound increases that's more than average of 2 or 3%. 

You don't think it would be only right to see how it's spent? Perhaps the eu might find more support if they weren't so secretive over their accounting. 

Edit. QE is the scary bit. The eu budget is 165bn, but they are borrowing 240bn every year. That puts their debt to budget ratio in another realm altogether. 

do these answer your questions?

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/how-it-works/fact-check_en

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-budget/expenditure_en

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+eu+budget+spent

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjngv6...

So why the secrets? Why pay expenses without receipts etc.  

Why do so many here tolerate the eu doing something whilst not accepting UK government expenses being kept secret too? It's all taxpayers money. 

We (the UK, not Sweden) seem to accept a pretty similar system in the House of Lords.

Why do you resort to lying?

Reading some of this has reminded me of my first job after finishing my PhD in a UK gouvernment research centre which involved a lot of field work & time away. Fixed rate expenses (£75 per 24 hours I think, in 1990) & no need for invoices. Much of the time we camped & some weeks my expenses were more than my salary. No doubt that's all changed.

It is - but not 5%

Plus €20bn of additional borrowing for QE every month?

That sort of thing doesnt seem to bother othe governments; its become quite a popular way of "easing" problems.

And some less.

In 2000 it was 97bn. The reason i chose 2004 is because it is after the last expansion.

There are many internet resources showing how it is spent. Down to the level you seem to demand is a bit much, and its my job to go through stuff like this sometimes!

Edit - it isn't necessarily tolerated any more than the expenses scandal was in 2011 (?) in the UK. 

QE does not involve borrowing, it involves basically creating money, buying government bonds from institutions thus giving them extra liquidity to go invest in other products offering a greater return. By pumping cheap money into the markets, it allows others to borrow and invest more cheaply. It's only useful when interest rates are very low;

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing

The Double Decker bus was at one of the poles. It was a B17 on the moon!

Another way of looking at it is offering more choice. If the employer is willing pay expenses up to €300 then there will be a strong temptation to book hotels, etc. up to very close to that amount. Leaving the value fixed but the choice up to individuals can be seen as an added 'perk' that costs the employer nothing.

I'm not saying it's as simple as that but it's certainly a reasonable viewpoint. In my work it's usually the case where accommodation is paid against receipts but subsistence is paid as a fixed rate - generally I believe to avoid time-consuming micro-accounting.

There is no reason with web based hr and expenses systems why a list can't be created, or some table populated very easily.

I think it's important to know if some MEPs are taking the piss with their claims. 

Which is why we shouldn't tolerate another institution deliberately hiding it's expenses. 

But it's still debt, it's different and it isn't likely to be repaid. In the case of the EU it's just too vast a sum to even consider repaying, so it's destined to sit on the ecbs books forever. It hasn't had much impact on interest rates or growth either, but it's only card card they've got left to play and without it the eu will clearly drift into recession. In some cases qe has a negative effect longer term on weaker economies, it's happened with those sharing the dollar and will no doubt happen to weaker euro nations. 

Actually the lords are public, unlike the eu. Here they are from April 2019.. 

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/members-allowances/house-of...

Why won't the eu do the same?

If you get a flat rate, per diem system, its much more difficult to take the piss with and much cheaper to operate.

No, it really isn't debt. See the previous link (and read it this time), or read this.

https://www.quora.com/Does-quantitative-easing-shrink-or-increase-the-debt-...

It wont have an effect on interest rates as they are already historically low, and the only time QE can work effectively is in times of low debt.

I think the eu was hoping to push up growth to the point where interest rates need to come up a few points. In their dreams. 

If you continue with QE to the point where interest rates need to rise to counter inflation caused by the QE, then you dont know what you are doing. It is introduced when lowering interest rates doesnt have the desired effect of stimulating investment. The reason it is popular at present is because interest rate movement is ineffective when it is so low anyway.

Note that its efficacy has been questioned; of the $4 trillion of QE introduced by the Fed post 2008, 2/3 was kept by the banks as cash. The intent behind the UKs use of QE at the same time was to strengthen their balnce sheets in the wake of the 2008 crisis, ie they were trading their bond assets for liquidity.

Do you accept yet that it isn't debt?

The funny bit is that the ECB and indeed the entire Euro project was condemned for years as unworkable because unlike a national central bank the ECB could not work as a lender of last resort. Following the rule changes it now can*, but apparently that is not OK either. Make up your minds!

CB

edit * to an extent, but effectively this is what it does. IMO the main flaw was that it could not do so already in 2008.