Make them seem crazy?(51 Posts)
I was reading through the documents and statements from the original 1973 referendum campaign a few weeks ago and was not surprised to see that the basis of the 'in' campaign was to make the 'no' side look like lunatics and Nazis.
It was a very deliberate 'campaign' and you can see how it had an effect. Fake letters to the press from campaign members posing as members of the public was one notable strategy.
I just wonder if (disingenuously) we are being played like this again, en masse. I see evidence of this approach on here tonight, reading through recent threads. Some posters seem to be pushing a 'message' rather strongly, and it was this that made me remember the 73 campain docs.
Anyway, vote leave guys! Hundreds of reasons to do so!
"to make the 'no' side look like lunatics and Nazis"
Boris is doing that himself.
So rather than tackle the enormous weight of evidence and opinion from everyone from economists to foreign politicians to the nurses' union to even the RSPB that Brexit will be terrible for Britain, Vote Leave is resorting to accusations we, and all these organisations, are "being played"?
By who exactly?
And while there are many normal if misguided folk on the leave side, it is notable there are plenty of lunatics and racists on that side too.
So rather than engage with any of the discussions here, you thought you'd just share your cutting insight that those (and only those) putting across Remain perspectives are 'playing' everyone else.
Wow, I am astounded by by your intellect.
Actually, I stand corrected and I apologise, you have posted your conspiracy bollocks on other threads too!
I suggest you have a read
Of Cohen's excellent recent article.
that the basis of the 'in' campaign was to make the 'no' side look like lunatics and Nazis.
I just saw you post in another thread, and you were trying to make the "remain" side look like sovietic totalitarians (the post was, "Hopefully if it goes ahead we will all get a card with our comrade number instead of having to go and get it stamped our arms.")
So, a little bit of an ironic complaint maybe?
the enormous weight of evidence
Evidence? What evidence? I thought that we had all agreed that there are no facts. All we have is forecasts based on assumptions, and those assumptions will be skewed by bias.
There is no 'evidence'. Unless you have a crystal ball?
purits I agree. Neither side has a crystal ball, and Brexit is not about personalities. It's also not just about the Economy or Immigration which the rival campaigns are focusing on, or even mainly about those for many of us.
It's about democracy, supporting big business or small, whether we want to make our own laws or have them made by the EU, how we'd like to allocate taxpayers money or have it allocated for us, the kind of trade we'd like to do around the world, whether we want to avoid the EU's aims of ever-closer union, the euro and an EU army in the medium to longer term, whether or not we need to be politically unified with 27 other countries in order to collaborate with them, and many more factors.
There are no facts. But to say without facts there is no evidence is, for want of a better term, bollocks.
What you need to do is decide how much faith to place on the assessments made, how rigorous the research is, what the impetus behind their message is etc. and then consider which is the most convincing evidence.
For example, I would take the TUC saying the average worker will be £38 a week worse off in 14 years time with a massive pinch of salt (because it is a long term forecast). I would put more faith in the almost universal acceptance that there will be a massive deadweight on the economy from a leave vote this year (possibly even a recession). I would outright laugh when BoJo says that the EU wont let us sell bananas in bunches of more than 3 (because that is incorrect and a made up fact).
Bravery is making decisions with imperfect evidence.
There are definitely supporters on both sides who are not just actively campaigning, but also doing things like posting on social media sites/forums like this one, phoning into radio shows, etc.
It's fascinating not just how technology has changed since 1973, but how potential voters can be influenced. There are so many people nowadays who never read a newspaper or watch/hear a news bulletin.
But that said, people can spot patronising and political spin a mile off, and tend to read between the lines in terms of getting down to what they're not being told, rather than what the headline message is. Politicians are trusted less than ever.
I've posted this before so sorry for repeating myself. I think Cameron's biggest problem is that he called this referendum at all. As a national leader, you can't call a referendum on an issue of immense importance and then go round the country telling everyone that choosing one way will be a national disaster without looking either incompetent or cynical and untrustworthy. I don't see how he can escape from this. We need to hear way more from other voices - not him.
It's very common for the Outists to complain about any person or organisation with an authoritative voice, that doesn't support them.
For example, the Bank of England, and the IMF, and the President of the United States, ought to know what they are talking about, and it is their duty to examine the facts fairly and impartially, make a decision, and tell us what they think.
However, as soon as they do that (unless they are Outists) they are decried as non-impartial.
The Daily Mail, Boris, and some retired cricketer are of course under no such obligation to be fair, or even truthful.
the 'in' campaign was to make the 'no' side look like lunatics and Nazis.
The 'in' campaign didn't need to make the 'no' campaign look like lunatics, the 'inners' did it themselves & still are doing it with conspiracy theories that can't be substantiated. Eg the claim that joining the EEC was unconstitutional (the supreme court deemed it lawful - google Blackburn v Attorney General 1971); the use of out of context quotes, misquotes, doctored ones & even made up quotes; rewriting of history etc.
doh.. that should be the "outers" were doing it themselves
I find it strange that people don't do their own research, but would prefer to just 'outright laugh' at the idea that the EU has hundreds of opinions on bananas, for instance.
It seems to suit some to imagine this sort of thing isn't true, when it is so easy to find out from the EU's own websites. All their directives are available to view - it's all out there and as daft as you believe it to be. Can't say I've ever linked to such a tedious piece of EU information, but really maybe trust the EU's own document on bananas, rather than your own judgment on what you think would be sensible - the EU is every bit interfering in minutiae as its reputation
Curve of bananas mentioned as tenth item on the attached list headed "II Quality". This is the EU directive itself, fascinating reading and please bear in mind when next dismissing a "ridiculous" sounding assertion regarding the EU - rather than dismiss, find out for yourself whether it is true.
That's interesting, Roundabout.
Please tell me, which of the criteria in the "minimum standards" list do you think are unreasonable?
I. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE
This standard applies to bananas of the varieties (cultivars) of Musa (AAA) spp., Cavendish and Gros Michel subgroups, as well as hybrids, referred to in Annex IV, intended to be supplied fresh to the consumer after preparation and packaging. Plantains, bananas intended for industrial processing and fig bananas are not covered.
This standard defines the quality requirements to be met by unripened green bananas after preparation and packaging.
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the bananas must be:
— green and unripened,
— sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded,
— clean, practically free from visible foreign matter,
— practically free from pests,
— practically free from damage caused by pests,
— with the stalk intact, without bending, fungal damage or dessication,
— with pistils removed,
— free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers,
— practically free from bruises,
— practically free from damage due to low temperatures,
— free from abnormal external moisture,
— free from any foreign smell and/or taste.
In addition, hands and clusters (parts of hands) must include:
— a sufficient portion of crown of normal colouring, sound and free from fungal contamination,
— a cleanly cut crown, not beveled or torn, with no stalk fragments.
The physical development and ripeness of the bananas must be such as to enable them to:
— withstand transport and handling,
— arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination in order to attain an appropriate degree of maturity after ripening.
I don't see the word "curve" which you claim to see. Where do you see it?
I explicitly highlighted as 10 on list " curvature of fingers".
The post is to somebody above who "outright laughed" that the EU has opinions on how many fingers are required etc re bananas. Remember this is directed at wholesalers not the final result in supermarket. There will be other directives for that ....
The EU does affect business in all sorts of way, so perhaps you should discuss with the wholesalers who are actually affected by changing directives etc. if you can't grasp why the directives are a problem?
Clearly, you are very happy with resources spent redrafting and changing and implementing new directives on anything and everything.
The Spectator link I attached highlight the wasted resources spent on creating the new directive etc. and I quote :
Update: The European Parliament have been in touch to clarify that EU regulation 1333/2011 has now replaced the old regulation 2257/94. Whilst the numbers are different, the banana rules are the same, and the EU commission still says that bananas must be ‘free from abnormal curvature’. What’s more, the new regulation now contains 4,465 words – more than twice as many as the repealed edict.
Avocados directive is a good laugh too.
You've spectacular missed the point to think the post is regarding the quality of bananas .... Really rather funny that you think the only way to have a decent piece of fruit is for the EU to ensure it on my behalf and go to the trouble of listing the merits required of bananas.
I can choose to buy or not to buy any banana I wish: buyer power. A committee of bods discussing and redrafting endless documents on everything under the sun from bananas upwards, isn't required.
If the bananas in Tesco are rubbish, I'd go to Aldi etc - competition is what keeps standard up - not a costly committee in Brussels ensuring it on my behalf.
Let’s be clear originally all member states had their own food classifications & all the EEC/EU regulation does is standardise them so farmers don’t need to comply with different specifications.
Regulation (EC) 2257/94 stated that bananas must be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers” but only Extra class bananas had to comply fully with the shape specifications so the sale of bent bananas was never banned.
Boris Johnson’s recent claim was EU rules stop shops from selling bananas in bunches of more than 2 or 3. (EU) Regulation 1333/2011 goes into considerable detail about how unripe bananas should be presented by wholesalers (presumably to prevent them getting damaged) Nowhere does it say the sale of bunches with more than 2 or 3 bananas is not allowed.
There are some silly rules of course but it’s not worth leaving because of them. What many regard as the most burdensome regulations are self-inflicted. IF we do leave the EU we would still need to comply with many EU regulations in order to export, but we would have no say in them.
Ps I meant to say above that I find it funny - you listing the merits of bananas to me, as if my post was actually about bananas. It was about not dismissing what we hear because we do t like the speaker. Not a wise position.
Off out now and should apologise as I don't opt to get emailed updates on threads. However, thread should die a natural death - bananas all time low of EU discussions.
But do own research is what I'd like to encourage to poster above who initially mentioned bananas on this thread.
So when I asked "Please tell me, which of the criteria in the "minimum standards" list do you think are unreasonable?"
is your answer
"I object to the criterion free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
"CLOSING THE GAP: Remain camp haemorraghes support as latest poll shows surge for Brexit
DAVID Cameron’s Project Fear is turning off voters who are abandoning the Remain camp in their droves in favour of Brexit, the latest opinion poll suggests tonight.
They also unearthed evidence that undecided voters are abandoning the Europhile side in their droves amid a relentlessly negative, fearmongering campaign on behalf of Brussels.
Their poll shows that the Prime Minister’s Remain camp have shed support in the last month despite trotting out wave after wave of economists in a bid to scare voters."
Pundits are saying that it is getting desperate in the Remain camp as they are very worried and had to roll John Major out onto The Sunday Politics in order to sacrifice Conservative party unity and credibility to save the Establishment.
Cameron's lips now seem to be pursed in a permanent fashion and his wild-eyed grimace presages the seriousness of the situation and the looming calamity on the horizon for the Establishment side as victory for the people draws ever nearer.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Cameron is now resoeting to empty threats in a desperate bid to look as if he has a grip
"EU referendum: David Cameron says he'll make Brexit camp pay for ‘nonsense on stilts’"
Brexiters beware, "nonsense on stilts", is the last desperate slogan that the best teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge could come up with, and this phrase has been circulated to all senior members of the Estalishment who are prepared to grasp at any remaining straw in order to stave off disaster for themselves. John Major was heard using the phrase "nonsense on stilts" on the Sunday Politics. It is most likely an edict from the EU that that phrase should be splattered about liberally.
They are on their last stilts, the people are close to victory.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.