Cameron spending £9 Million on Brexit Propaganda.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Government is not neutral in this matter.

They have examined the options and taken a position that Remaining in the EU is firmly in the UK's National Interest and therefore this is now government policy.

It is only right that they should now actively try to ensure that their policy choice can be implemented. That is after all the entire point of a government.

Presumably then we will all get leaflets on junior doctor contracts? HS2/3/4? Schools switched to academies? Tax credit changes?

Afterall, the government examined the options and took a position that they believe was firmly in the UK's national interest.....

Mistermeaner

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Presumably then we will all get leaflets on junior doctor contracts? HS2/3/4? Schools switched to academies? Tax credit changes?

Afterall, the government examined the options and took a position that they believe was firmly in the UK's national interest.....

What a stupid post. How many of those are the subject of referendums. Honestly

Graham_Devon

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Perhaps a pro leaver could critique the document rather than the process?

It's already been done all over the news.

However, one part of the leaflet states that air fares have fallen 40% due to being part of the EU.

How is this measured? How does this explain air fares to Hong Kong, South Africa, Canada also having fallen?

The leaflet is full of truth, but truth which you can't instantly pin on being part of the EU. They have, though, pinned it on being part of the EU. This is the problem with Hamish et all stating "tell me whats a lie". There's nothing in there that's a lie. Air fairs have fallen 40% (allowing for inflation) since joining the EU in the 70's.

But to extrapolate the joining of the EU and the falling of air fares and to conclude that air fares have fallen because were in the EU is something else altogether. It's neither a statistic or a lie. The best it can be put down to is coincidence, unless they have some verified data (which they dont).

Equally it would be stupid to suggest that the price of fuel has increased since the 70's because we are part of the EU. It would be true to state that the price of fuel has increased since we joined the EU though. You won't find any out campaign using this sort of rollocks though and suggesting that the price of fuel has increased due to being part of the EU, that's for sure.

There also a bit about the possibility of your groceries increasing in price. But crucially, theres no detail on why, how much, when. It's just a simple "the cost might increase". Well the cost might increase at any point due to any economic or political event.

Graham_Devon

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What a stupid post. How many of those are the subject of referendums. Honestly

Step back a second.

The cash used to pay for this isn't using money designated for the referendum. There is cash for the referendum campaign and that money will get split equally between the in and out campaign groups.

It is using the general taxation pot to promote government policy.

As it's using money from general taxation to provide leaflets on government policy, should we not expect leaflets (paid for from the general taxation pot) on other large government policies....some examples above.

Your point would stand if this leaflet was paid for using the designated campaigning monies for the referendum. But it's not.

Rinoa

Sign the petition:

Prime Minister David Cameron plans to spend British taxpayers’ money on a pro-EU document to be sent to every household in the United Kingdom in the run up to the EU referendum. We believe voters deserve a fair referendum - without taxpayer-funded biased interceptions by the Government.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116762

88000 signed so far.

tommix

Most people will vote to leave the EU just to see the back of Cameron. Who really gives a fig about the EU. If a 'get out' vote means getting rid of the to$$er running the Country then count me in/out!:beer:

BobQ

Leaflet seems quite reasonable to me. It is factually correct and states the Government's decision. The website provides more detail as people have asked.

https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/

As I recall in 1975 there was a Yes booklet and a No booklet but the Government still sent out a statement of its position.

It is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of running the Referendum itself.

BobQ

tommix wrote: »

Most people will vote to leave the EU just to see the back of Cameron. Who really gives a fig about the EU. If a 'get out' vote means getting rid of the to$$er running the Country then count me in/out!:beer:

The to$$ers are the ones who would vote on that basis in a serious decision for this country.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I thought we were dealing in facts - Isn't the agreement a sliding scale rather than 'scrapping for 4 years', the '4 years' is actually 'up to 4 years', it will only be applied on a temporary basis as an emergency brake not forever and only if agreed by all other member states.

Still, no 'red lines' have been crossed!

And has this sliding scale even been agreed in terms of detail yet?

What's the scale? It could be 80% of benefits in the first year, 85% in second and so on. Will hardly make a difference.

Or it could be 5% in the first year, 20% in the second. Will make a difference.

The detail of this "secured deal" is everything. Yet it's the very thing we haven't got....and were supposed to go to a referendum based partly on this. Normally when the detail isn't put forward it's not particularly flattering.

It's a bit like taking a job offer on the basis that "there will be a payment". Obviously you'd want to know how much before taking the job on.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And has this sliding scale even been agreed in terms of detail yet?

What's the scale? It could be 80% of benefits in the first year, 85% in second and so on. Will hardly make a difference.

Or it could be 5% in the first year, 20% in the second. Will make a difference.

The detail of this "secured deal" is everything. Yet it's the very thing we haven't got....and were supposed to go to a referendum based partly on this. Normally when the detail isn't put forward it's not particularly flattering.

It's a bit like taking a job offer on the basis that "there will be a payment". Obviously you'd want to know how much before taking the job on.

Here's the agreement:

http://www.politico.eu/article/full-text-of-deal-changing-britain-eu-membership-brexit-referendum/

The UK, and any other EU state, will be able to cut off all welfare to all EU migrants under EU law. The impact of UK's laws on this is not the problem or interest of the EU.