[C19th Fox]

When Britain held its referendum to remain in what was then the Common Market political parties were divided but most of the press apart from the Morning Star were in favour. 2/3of those that voted were in favour with a high turnout of 64.5%.

Over the years the EEC evolved to what it is today. We now have an apparent eurosceptic population although the extent of that eurosceptism has never been properly assessed. We also have a press that is more eurosceptic possibly because of journalists moving from one paper with eurosceptic stance to another and changing the stance of that paper..

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

Yes some of the things that have eminated from Brussels have in part contributed to the mood, but this view that we should simply leave rather than be at the heart of Europe arguing for more democratic accountability and arguing against waste and beurocracy does seem to reflect the views of a certain proprietor.

Those who argue about the lack of European democarcy should reflect on the role of a eurosceptic newspaper proprietor and the influence his papers have had by drip feeding stories that whilst true (probably) have had a eurosceptic stance and have not reported on the positive things that membership of the European Union has brought to this country and how such bias reporting is akin to brainwashing.

We have now reached the stage where press coverage of any future referendum would be biased towards the eurosceptic stance and this gives me a great deal of concern. How can people decide on the facts when they have been had a daily diet of eurosceptism for the last 20 years? How can that be fair?

It is my belief that no referendum can be fairly held on the question of the future relationship between this country and an ever increasing form of federal europe whilst the editorial freedom of the press is not certain and whilst we have a eurosceptic press. At the very least it would require some form of legislation that ensured that the press could only report the facts and had to give equal platform and coverage of the real benefits that membership of the European community brings.

We may not like Brussells telling us what to do at times, but even more importantly we should not put up with an octogenarian Aussie telling us how to think in a very subversive manner.

No doubt Eurosceptics will jump on this, but before they do they should ask themselves why they wish to dismiss Europe rather than fight for a better Europe that would benefit everyone. What led them to their views - was it I dare suggest the newspaper they read?

[glasshalffull]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

When Britain held its referendum to remain in what was then the Common Market political parties were divided but most of the press apart from the Morning Star were in favour. 2/3of those that voted were in favour with a high turnout of 64.5%.

Over the years the EEC evolved to what it is today. We now have an apparent eurosceptic population although the extent of that eurosceptism has never been properly assessed. We also have a press that is more eurosceptic possibly because of journalists moving from one paper with eurosceptic stance to another and changing the stance of that paper..

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

Yes some of the things that have eminated from Brussels have in part contributed to the mood, but this view that we should simply leave rather than be at the heart of Europe arguing for more democratic accountability and arguing against waste and beurocracy does seem to reflect the views of a certain proprietor.

Those who argue about the lack of European democarcy should reflect on the role of a eurosceptic newspaper proprietor and the influence his papers have had by drip feeding stories that whilst true (probably) have had a eurosceptic stance and have not reported on the positive things that membership of the European Union has brought to this country and how such bias reporting is akin to brainwashing.

We have now reached the stage where press coverage of any future referendum would be biased towards the eurosceptic stance and this gives me a great deal of concern. How can people decide on the facts when they have been had a daily diet of eurosceptism for the last 20 years? How can that be fair?

It is my belief that no referendum can be fairly held on the question of the future relationship between this country and an ever increasing form of federal europe whilst the editorial freedom of the press is not certain and whilst we have a eurosceptic press. At the very least it would require some form of legislation that ensured that the press could only report the facts and had to give equal platform and coverage of the real benefits that membership of the European community brings.

We may not like Brussells telling us what to do at times, but even more importantly we should not put up with an octogenarian Aussie telling us how to think in a very subversive manner.

No doubt Eurosceptics will jump on this, but before they do they should ask themselves why they wish to dismiss Europe rather than fight for a better Europe that would benefit everyone. What led them to their views - was it I dare suggest the newspaper they read?

Octogenarian American...he had to change his citizenship in order to be allowed to have control of so much media in the USA....irony in the world's largest capitalist/free market economy I've always thought.

And blame the ruddy Commonwealth for the fact he got away with it here.

[vanzandtfan]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

When Britain held its referendum to remain in what was then the Common Market political parties were divided but most of the press apart from the Morning Star were in favour. 2/3of those that voted were in favour with a high turnout of 64.5%.

Over the years the EEC evolved to what it is today. We now have an apparent eurosceptic population although the extent of that eurosceptism has never been properly assessed. We also have a press that is more eurosceptic possibly because of journalists moving from one paper with eurosceptic stance to another and changing the stance of that paper..

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

Yes some of the things that have eminated from Brussels have in part contributed to the mood, but this view that we should simply leave rather than be at the heart of Europe arguing for more democratic accountability and arguing against waste and beurocracy does seem to reflect the views of a certain proprietor.

Those who argue about the lack of European democarcy should reflect on the role of a eurosceptic newspaper proprietor and the influence his papers have had by drip feeding stories that whilst true (probably) have had a eurosceptic stance and have not reported on the positive things that membership of the European Union has brought to this country and how such bias reporting is akin to brainwashing.

We have now reached the stage where press coverage of any future referendum would be biased towards the eurosceptic stance and this gives me a great deal of concern. How can people decide on the facts when they have been had a daily diet of eurosceptism for the last 20 years? How can that be fair?

It is my belief that no referendum can be fairly held on the question of the future relationship between this country and an ever increasing form of federal europe whilst the editorial freedom of the press is not certain and whilst we have a eurosceptic press. At the very least it would require some form of legislation that ensured that the press could only report the facts and had to give equal platform and coverage of the real benefits that membership of the European community brings.

We may not like Brussells telling us what to do at times, but even more importantly we should not put up with an octogenarian Aussie telling us how to think in a very subversive manner.

No doubt Eurosceptics will jump on this, but before they do they should ask themselves why they wish to dismiss Europe rather than fight for a better Europe that would benefit everyone. What led them to their views - was it I dare suggest the newspaper they read?

So, to clarify. When we held a referendum and the press were in favour of Europe it was all find and dandy. Now the press are sceptical (in truth, they are far more balanced) we need legislation that tells the press what they can and can't say. Very convenient. I wonder if you would be so concerned if the press was still as Pro-Europe as they were in the 1970s.

In regards to your last paragraph, I don't read the murdoch press. The reason I think that the idea that we should "be at the heart of Europe arguing for more democratic accountability and arguing against waste and beurocracy" is a non-starter is because the Blair government tried it, and got no where. Why repeat the mistakes of the past?

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

When Britain held its referendum to remain in what was then the Common Market political parties were divided but most of the press apart from the Morning Star were in favour. 2/3of those that voted were in favour with a high turnout of 64.5%.

Over the years the EEC evolved to what it is today. We now have an apparent eurosceptic population although the extent of that eurosceptism has never been properly assessed. We also have a press that is more eurosceptic possibly because of journalists moving from one paper with eurosceptic stance to another and changing the stance of that paper..

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

Yes some of the things that have eminated from Brussels have in part contributed to the mood, but this view that we should simply leave rather than be at the heart of Europe arguing for more democratic accountability and arguing against waste and beurocracy does seem to reflect the views of a certain proprietor.

Those who argue about the lack of European democarcy should reflect on the role of a eurosceptic newspaper proprietor and the influence his papers have had by drip feeding stories that whilst true (probably) have had a eurosceptic stance and have not reported on the positive things that membership of the European Union has brought to this country and how such bias reporting is akin to brainwashing.

We have now reached the stage where press coverage of any future referendum would be biased towards the eurosceptic stance and this gives me a great deal of concern. How can people decide on the facts when they have been had a daily diet of eurosceptism for the last 20 years? How can that be fair?

It is my belief that no referendum can be fairly held on the question of the future relationship between this country and an ever increasing form of federal europe whilst the editorial freedom of the press is not certain and whilst we have a eurosceptic press. At the very least it would require some form of legislation that ensured that the press could only report the facts and had to give equal platform and coverage of the real benefits that membership of the European community brings.

We may not like Brussells telling us what to do at times, but even more importantly we should not put up with an octogenarian Aussie telling us how to think in a very subversive manner.

No doubt Eurosceptics will jump on this, but before they do they should ask themselves why they wish to dismiss Europe rather than fight for a better Europe that would benefit everyone. What led them to their views - was it I dare suggest the newspaper they read?

Well there's a fair level of codswallop in what you say but chances are the press will be the better source of information regarding what's at stake, whatever their take on the EU. When we were asked, in 1975, whether we wished to remain in the Common Market, people didn't know what they were in because they were never told the full facts and the only reason that referendum was held was to settle in/out arguments within the Labour Party.

Just so you don't get carried away, 64.5% isn't a high turn out and with two thirds of the votes saying "in", means that the "in" was carried with only 43% of those registered to vote.

[Bester]

Back in 2003 two independent studies were done, analyzing the costs and benefits of British membership of the EU. I believe that these two reports were instigated based on a suggestion that Britain could join NAFTA.

One was done by accountants Chantrey Vellacott, on behalf of the Institute of Directors, the other, by the International Trade Commission for the US Congress.

The British study found that costs outweighed benefits by a massive £15-£25 Billion a year. And they said that would have doubled if we'd joined the euro.

The ITC study found that should Britain pull out of the EU then at worst the effect would be neutral, but quite possibly we'd be better off.

Europhiles often quote the dependence of c32m British jobs on our membership of the EU. This figure originally came from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, however, the Director of NIESR has denounced the claim that these jobs rely on membership of the EU. They depend on trade with the EU. There is no credible case that we would do less trade with the Single Market if we were not members of the EU. We import far more from the EU than the rest of the EU imports from us. So it is inconceivable that they would seek to apply adverse trade terms if we left. In any case, even if we had to pay the EU's common external tariff on all British exports to the EU, that would be less than our current contributions to the EU budget.

Millions of jobs in the US and South East Asia depend on trade with the Single Market, but they don't depend on membership of the EU, and still less on joining the Euro. Also exports into the EU from the USA have grown twice as fast, over the last decade, as exports from Britain to the EU, proving that non-membership of the 'exclusive' club doesn't necessarily adversely affect your ability to trade with them.

What about all the wonderful grants we get from the EU? The money we get back from the EU in grants, and in agricultural support and so on, is far less than we actually pay in. Each pound we get in EU funding costs the British economy around £2.60. Not a very good deal. They give us back a little of what was our own to start with, they tell us what to do with it, then they expect us to be grateful.

There's also the Europhile claim that the EU has maintained peace in Europe for nearly 70 years - nonsense. It was NATO, and the transatlantic alliance that won the Cold War, and then NATO and the UN that sorted out Bosnia. The EU largely sat around with their collective d1ck in their hands while Yugoslavia was ripping itself apart.

I don't think Murdoch has anything to do with anything of the above, but perhaps his opinion's formed by a similar understanding of the facts.

I dismiss Europe on the basis that we're better off without it, and considering that we've only ever really been interested in sharing free trade, we'd be better off out, like Switzerland, but with broad unilateral trade agreements that essentially afford the same trade privileges as members anyway. Why should we pay a higher premium just so that we can have Brussels impose laws that the minority here want?

Edit: The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Britain and NAFTA in December of last year;

Link

[Markjuk]

Originally Posted by Bester

Back in 2003 two independent studies were done, analyzing the costs and benefits of British membership of the EU. I believe that these two reports were instigated based on a suggestion that Britain could join NAFTA.

One was done by accountants Chantrey Vellacott, on behalf of the Institute of Directors, the other, by the International Trade Commission for the US Congress.

The British study found that costs outweighed benefits by a massive £15-£25 Billion a year. And they said that would have doubled if we'd joined the euro.

The ITC study found that should Britain pull out of the EU then at worst the effect would be neutral, but quite possibly we'd be better off.

Europhiles often quote the dependence of c32m British jobs on our membership of the EU. This figure originally came from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, however, the Director of NIESR has denounced the claim that these jobs rely on membership of the EU. They depend on trade with the EU. There is no credible case that we would do less trade with the Single Market if we were not members of the EU. We import far more from the EU than the rest of the EU imports from us. So it is inconceivable that they would seek to apply adverse trade terms if we left. In any case, even if we had to pay the EU's common external tariff on all British exports to the EU, that would be less than our current contributions to the EU budget.

Millions of jobs in the US and South East Asia depend on trade with the Single Market, but they don't depend on membership of the EU, and still less on joining the Euro. Also exports into the EU from the USA have grown twice as fast, over the last decade, as exports from Britain to the EU, proving that non-membership of the 'exclusive' club doesn't necessarily adversely affect your ability to trade with them.

What about all the wonderful grants we get from the EU? The money we get back from the EU in grants, and in agricultural support and so on, is far less than we actually pay in. Each pound we get in EU funding costs the British economy around £2.60. Not a very good deal. They give us back a little of what was our own to start with, they tell us what to do with it, then they expect us to be grateful.

There's also the Europhile claim that the EU has maintained peace in Europe for nearly 70 years - nonsense. It was NATO, and the transatlantic alliance that won the Cold War, and then NATO and the UN that sorted out Bosnia. The EU largely sat around with their collective d1ck in their hands while Yugoslavia was ripping itself apart.

I don't think Murdoch has anything to do with anything of the above, but perhaps his opinion's formed by a similar understanding of the facts.

I dismiss Europe on the basis that we're better off without it, and considering that we've only ever really been interested in sharing free trade, we'd be better off out, like Switzerland, but with broad unilateral trade agreements that essentially afford the same trade privileges as members anyway. Why should we pay a higher premium just so that we can have Brussels impose laws that the minority here want?

Edit: The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Britain and NAFTA in December of last year;

Link

Excellent Post

One of the biggest bug bears I have with the EU is the free movement of people

The UK is being swamped (and has been for a number of years) with people from other EU countries when:

a) A large number of jobs that used to exist here have now been moved to other EU countries such as Romania and Poland. Remember this every time you chomp on a Mars Bar or a Cadbury's Double Decker it has been manufactured in Poland. Originally they were made here with large numbers of jobs lost to accommodate the move abroad. Yet with large numbers of jobs that used to exist here moving to Poland the Poles still arrive here in masses looking for work.
b) Potentially unlimited numbers able to come here and work when we have increasing unemployment and record levels of youth unemployment.

Whilst I understand immigration is needed it needs to be strictly controlled for both non-EU and EU immigrants.

[Doc Shmok]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

In the 90's and noughties Murdoch tried to take over the Continent. Kirch and Berlusconi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/08/bu...ted=all&src=pm
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/09/news/09iht-tv.t.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1697778.stm
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/15326/...CMP=ILC-SEARCH



IMO there is definitely an element of sour grapes and he instrumentalised the British public.

I also find "Tomorrow Never dies" interesting, which imo refers to Kirch (A German Media Mogul) and not to Murdoch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120347/


I wouldn't wonder if Kirch, Berlusconi and Murdoch used their various audiences. We all now about Berlusconi.

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

So no chance that the people might be put off by the flaws in the whole project - its simply brainwashing by some Yank.

No doubt Eurosceptics will jump on this, but before they do they should ask themselves why they wish to dismiss Europe rather than fight for a better Europe that would benefit everyone.

Because people simply do not want the vision of Europe that is on offer. Ever closer union is not what people were asked to sign up for (in the days before Murdoch) and nobody has ever bothered to ask them if their views have changed.

What led them to their views - was it I dare suggest the newspaper they read?

If you think that the Sun has that much power you are too paranoid

[Doc Shmok]

Originally Posted by Majlis

So no chance that the people might be put off by the flaws in the whole project - its simply brainwashing by some Yank.

Sadly things in life are rarely caused by one thing or process alone. Hence one uses Multivariate statistics to get a clearer picture.

Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...istics&f=false

Both sides see some element of the truth but both sides think it's the only one.

Fox News clearly pushes a solely right wing agenda which then causes effects. Would there be no right wing views he would have no audience. I would definitely define large Media corps as amplifiers if the power of the owner chooses to do so, which Murdoch clearly does. Berlusconi also used the media to his advantage.

Our decisions are based on the information we are given. If propaganda wouldn't be seen as important Goebbels would have had no job. Propaganda obviously works on the faults if the perceived enemy. One could have also concentrated on the positive aspects.

All News are largely negative based. It seems to be what humans want.

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by Doc Shmok

Our decisions are based on the information we are given. If propaganda wouldn't be seen as important Goebbels would have had no job.

I would totally agree - but propaganda is a 2-way street and any eurosceptic propaganda is more than matched by the pro-eu propaganda.

Luckily most people are not that susceptible to propaganda from whatever source

[Doc Shmok]

Originally Posted by Majlis

I would totally agree - but propaganda is a 2-way street and any eurosceptic propaganda is more than matched by the pro-eu propaganda.

Luckily most people are not that susceptible to propaganda from whatever source

To sell news you first need to find what is popular. When you achieved market coverage you can make the news. For example the ARD is really into protests in Russia. Meanwhile 70 Occupy demonstrations in Frankfurt were cancelled by police. Spanish protests were not reported. So we can assume fighting for democracy is only a good thing elsewhere. If I watch Newsnight reporting it totally differs from German program in the intensity of the panic.

The BBC is OMFG, OMFG while the Tagesschau definitely works against panic. Ie today an italian based reporter giving a lengthy speech about how you can talk Italy down.

Propaganda, even if unintentional is everywhere.

Murdoch: If the boss hates Continental Europe because he can't get in and makes grumpy comments without any direct orders, I would doubt that the Editor of one of his outlets would run with a story that focuses on a fluffy positive Europe. So these Media Outlets are, at minimum, amplifiers of certain opinions. Free Press is not automatically a fair press. Only the Internet brought more opinions. But only as long as Google's algorithms decide that this is profitable.

[BomoLad]

Originally Posted by Majlis

I would totally agree - but propaganda is a 2-way street and any eurosceptic propaganda is more than matched by the pro-eu propaganda.

Luckily most people are not that susceptible to propaganda from whatever source

I think you probably might be. Indeed if you think that coverage of Europe in the British media is 'matched' or 'more than matched' then it's probably a sure sign that you are.

To use a footballing analogy it'd be like claiming Scunthorpe enjoy just as much media attention as Arsenal. The anti-EU agenda drives large parts of the populist and popular newspapers. The same cannot be said for pro-EU agenda. There is no doubt both agendas exist but if you see the balance of play between the two in the UK media and conclude that it's even or hinting that pro-EU arguments are forwarded more strongly and forcefully in the media, then it does indicate you probably are buying into the anti-EU agenda after all.

It is, essentially, a one sided argument in the sense that one side routinely makes their case and the other side does not. Yet you're under the impression that the latter 'more than makes up' for coverage of the former?

With respect you don't sound like someone bereft of influence from propaganda.

[clinch]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

When Britain held its referendum to remain in what was then the Common Market political parties were divided but most of the press apart from the Morning Star were in favour. 2/3of those that voted were in favour with a high turnout of 64.5%.

Over the years the EEC evolved to what it is today. We now have an apparent eurosceptic population although the extent of that eurosceptism has never been properly assessed. We also have a press that is more eurosceptic possibly because of journalists moving from one paper with eurosceptic stance to another and changing the stance of that paper..

Following John Major's revelation at the Leverson enquiry there appears to be a clear link between the increase of eurosceptism and the views of the press and one proprietor in particular (who is not even European) and I cannot help but wander whether the increase in Eurosceptism can be linked to brainwashing of the masses by the press belonging to a Eurosceptic newspaper proprietor.

Yes some of the things that have eminated from Brussels have in part contributed to the mood, but this view that we should simply leave rather than be at the heart of Europe arguing for more democratic accountability and arguing against waste and beurocracy does seem to reflect the views of a certain proprietor.

Those who argue about the lack of European democarcy should reflect on the role of a eurosceptic newspaper proprietor and the influence his papers have had by drip feeding stories that whilst true (probably) have had a eurosceptic stance and have not reported on the positive things that membership of the European Union has brought to this country and how such bias reporting is akin to brainwashing.

We have now reached the stage where press coverage of any future referendum would be biased towards the eurosceptic stance and this gives me a great deal of concern. How can people decide on the facts when they have been had a daily diet of eurosceptism for the last 20 years? How can that be fair?

It is my belief that no referendum can be fairly held on the question of the future relationship between this country and an ever increasing form of federal europe whilst the editorial freedom of the press is not certain and whilst we have a eurosceptic press. At the very least it would require some form of legislation that ensured that the press could only report the facts and had to give equal platform and coverage of the real benefits that membership of the European community brings.

We may not like Brussells telling us what to do at times, but even more importantly we should not put up with an octogenarian Aussie telling us how to think in a very subversive manner.

No doubt Eurosceptics will jump on this, but before they do they should ask themselves why they wish to dismiss Europe rather than fight for a better Europe that would benefit everyone. What led them to their views - was it I dare suggest the newspaper they read?

The British electorate who voted in the 1975 referendum (and I was one of them) were sold a lie. We were told it was simply a trading arrangement. There have been various lies and deceptions since then on the way to the planned eventual creation of a single European state. Remember the promised referendum on the constitution. No problem, just remove the word constitution and replace it with the word treaty. No vote. I assume that if we ever get to vote again, you would like the press muzzled so that our politicians can continue to lie completely unchallenged.

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by Doc Shmok

Murdoch: If the boss hates Continental Europe because he can't get in and makes grumpy comments without any direct orders, I would doubt that the Editor of one of his outlets would run with a story that focuses on a fluffy positive Europe. So these Media Outlets are, at minimum, amplifiers of certain opinions. Free Press is not automatically a fair press.

I would totally agree - but as Murdoch does not have a monopoly on the press his views are balanced by others. Murdoch controls around 30% of the UK newspaper market - if the EU project is threatened by a guy with such little control then it surely has deeper problems rather than simply its bad PR.

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by BomoLad

It is, essentially, a one sided argument in the sense that one side routinely makes their case and the other side does not. Yet you're under the impression that the latter 'more than makes up' for coverage of the former?

With respect you don't sound like someone bereft of influence from propaganda.

Total rubbish. For over 40 years every major political party has been in favour of EU integration and the biggest news media group in the UK (the BBC) gave up any pretence of balance decades ago. To try and claim that the main problem with the EU project is simply lack of PR is Pro-EU propaganda of the highest order.

[Hiding]

Originally Posted by Majlis

I would totally agree - but as Murdoch does not have a monopoly on the press his views are balanced by others. Murdoch controls around 30% of the UK newspaper market - if the EU project is threatened by a guy with such little control then it surely has deeper problems rather than simply its bad PR.

You only need to buy the swing papers to set the agenda. 30% is more than enough.

[glasshalffull]

Originally Posted by Majlis

So no chance that the people might be put off by the flaws in the whole project - its simply brainwashing by some Yank.



Because people simply do not want the vision of Europe that is on offer. Ever closer union is not what people were asked to sign up for (in the days before Murdoch) and nobody has ever bothered to ask them if their views have changed.




If you think that the Sun has that much power you are too paranoid

The days before Murdoch?

You mean before 1969 when he bought The Screws and was still an Australian?

Before 1969 UK membership for the EEC had been turned down twice...vetoed on both occasions (1963 and 1967) by France.

I guess The Digger saw himself as inheriting De Gaulle's veto on UK/European economic relations...Le General would be spinning at the thought of it

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by Hiding

You only need to buy the swing papers to set the agenda. 30% is more than enough.

Sorry, but I dont believe it was the 'Sun wot won it'. Murdocks influence is vastly overrated.

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by glasshalffull

The days before Murdoch?

You mean before 1969 when he bought The Screws and was still an Australian?

Before 1969 UK membership for the EEC had been turned down twice...vetoed on both occasions (1963 and 1967) by France.

In those days we trying (and eventually succeeded) in joining a trading bloc - nobody said at the time (if fact we were assured the reverse) that it would some day become a europe-wide government.

[glasshalffull]

Originally Posted by Majlis

In those days we trying (and eventually succeeded) in joining a trading bloc - nobody said at the time (if fact we were assured the reverse) that it would some day become a europe-wide government.

Oh I know what you mean...if it wasn't for Europe we could still buy bendy bananas

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by glasshalffull

Oh I know what you mean...if it wasn't for Europe we could still buy bendy bananas

Yes - because not being in has decimated Norways and Switzerlands economies.

[clinch]

Originally Posted by Majlis

Yes - because not being in has decimated Norways and Switzerlands economies.

It must be terrible being one of those poor countries outside the EU doing so badly. I bet they wish they could be like Greece or Portugal, Spain or Italy.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by clinch

It must be terrible being one of those poor countries outside the EU doing so badly. I bet they wish they could be like Greece or Portugal, Spain or Italy.

Like China you mean?

[clinch]

Originally Posted by allaorta

Like China you mean?

Or Australia, Brazil, India. Hell, it must be terrible being outside that booming Eurozone.

[jmclaugh]

Most amusing and there's me thinking we've been fed a diet of there is no option but to stay in and we should get onboard with the Europe project or risk isolation and being left on the sidelines etc etc.