Mark Wadsworth has listed a series of points that could be used by a future YES2EU campaign based on the same idea that the NO2AV campaign used to push the FPTP system.

In other words lies, half truths and invalid facts. The point is that the lies need refuting and clarifying and explaining. To do that means you have to write detailed articles to explain why the lies are wrong. But by then you are already on the back foot with the electorate. They will only read the simple short points and not detailed essays. They will also only notice points which connect with them. With the AV/FPTP referendum nothing in it connected with the vast majority of the electorate. Most of them seemed to have said “meh”.

Anyway, if there was a NO2EU campaign that got its attack in first then I’ve listed some points that could be used. They don’t need to be true, only perceived to be true. They can be totally false. The figures used need to be correct, but can be twisted just like any statistic issued by Number 10.

• X number of jobs depend on foreign trade outside of the EU.
• The EU has the European Arrest Warrant which trumps our justice system.
• The EU takes x amount in taxes etc from our government. It only gives back y.
• Being out of the EU means we can do things locally according to British practises, not French or German or Spanish.
• We can buy British products without being forced to buy other country’s products.
• We don’t need to prop up French farms.
• We don’t need to bail out failing countries.
• We aren’t a big world power any more, we should tactically retreat.
• The ‘in’ campaign is funded by communists.
• The EU can only survive by taking more and more of our laws.
• Our parliament has to ask the EU for certain laws.
• The queen is subservient to the EU.
• The EU is an unelected organisation.
• We can have our pounds/ounces.
• The EU forces us to let prisoners vote.

Have I got the list right? I’m sure more points could be added.

For some ideas this out of date list of the top fifty reasons why the EU is good could be used.

SBML

berlusconi
May 8, 2011 at 23:00

Love point 3 of the link to the reasons to being in the eu — sooooo true — the others really just disappear into the ether

Span Ows
May 9, 2011 at 12:47

Brilliant: not quite listed in order but we get the picture! LOL! I bet they wish they could hide that page.

WitteringWitney
May 8, 2011 at 23:24

Keep your eyes skinned on Witterings from Witney – a post coming up on just this subject in the next 24 hours!

EU – Economic Prison
May 8, 2011 at 23:35

Try these points :

1. From 2000-2009 Britain’s cumulative trade deficit with the EU was around £260 billion.

2. In terms of share of world trade the EU is in long term decline. In 1980 the EU accounted for 36% of world trade, by 2010 this had fallen to 26% and by 2025 it is estimated that the EU’s share of world trade will be 15%.

3. In 2010 Britain paid a membership fee of £19.7 billion to remain a member of a protectionist customs union where further EU directives and regulations burden the British economy with additional costs estimated at around £100 billion per annum

4.Over the last ten years, British trade with the world outside the EU has grown significantly faster than British trade with the EU.”

http://globalbritain.org/BNN/BN68GrowthExportsImports1.pdf

5. “Less than ten per cent of the British economy is involved in exporting to the EU .Yet EU regulation is imposed on the more than ninety per cent
of the economy which is NOT involved in exporting to the EU”

http://globalbritain.org/BNN/BN67PropUKeconomyExptoEU1.pdf

6. Britain cannot sign a trade deal without EU approval and yet Norway and Switzerland , outside of the EU but in EFTA, are part of EU trade deals and can develop their own trade deals without the EU

7. Britain should look to the commonwealth – 55 independent, democratic
countries that already account for over a third of global GDP and
40% of the world’s labour force. The EU currently accounts for around 9% of the worlds population and this will decline even further by 2050.

8. Britain does not have to be in the EU to trade. The EU will soon have Free Trade Agreements with 80 per cent of all the non-EU countries in the world. Several non-EU countries already export more to the EU than does the UK.
http://globalbritain.org/BNN/BN61.pdf

9. Around 70 per cent of Swiss foreign trade is with the EU despite Switzerland not being in the EU . For the UK the comparable proportion is around 40 per cent.

10. The EU Common Agricultural Policy costs each British family around £100 extra per month in extra food costs.

11. EU laws around climate change and renewable energy will add around £1,000 extra to household bills.

Span Ows
May 9, 2011 at 12:49

Good stuff. These leaflets are going to be “dossier” sized.

EU – Economic Prison
May 8, 2011 at 23:42

The EU has helped bring peace and stability to Europe

This argument is deeply flawed on a number of counts :

1. The attached briefing note by the think tank Global Britain highlights why this argument is a fallacy.

http://globalbritain.org/BNN/BN71KeepingthePeace.pdf

“Keeping the Peace‰ in Western Europe
Since 1945, no Western European nation has gone to war with another.
This has nothing to do with the European Union.”

2. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have never joined the EU and yet they have not gone to war or descended into violence.

3. Greenland left the EU in 1982 and somehow, without the EU, seems to have managed to avoid warfare and a collapse into chaos.

4. In 2011 which war is the EU preventing today ?

5. The spread of democracy ,for the most part helps prevent war as democracies rarely go to war with each other.

6. Non EU countries like Canada, Australia, Japan and the whole of Latin America etc appear not to have descended into violence without the help of the EU.

gladiolys
May 8, 2011 at 23:59

“Since 1945, no Western European nation has gone to war with another.” Because none have us could afford to after WW2. It was also not in our best interests. We’ve only just recovered in reality.

“Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have never joined the EU and yet they have not gone to war or descended into violence.” We had conflict with gunboats from Iceland over fishing rights. But with their size, populations and locations, with whom would they go to war and are they in any way, in terms of population, economy, size, interest or influence in any way comparable with UK, France or Germany?

“Greenland left the EU in 1982 and somehow, without the EU, seems to have managed to avoid warfare and a collapse into chaos.” With a population of 57,670 (July 2011 est.), you cannot be serious. Greenland is nearer to North America than Europe and it’s secession happened after independence from Denmark.

“In 2011 which war is the EU preventing today ?” Well, there’s no war in Europe and it’s doing it’s damnedest in Kosovo.

Point 5 would seem to be American propaganda.

“Non EU countries like Canada, Australia, Japan and the whole of Latin America etc appear not to have descended into violence without the help of the EU.” That’s because THEY ARE NOT IN EUROPE.

You won’t win your campaign by being totally, patently, ridiculous.

Span Ows
May 9, 2011 at 12:54

But not so patently ridiculous: some may be a bit strained but that is only to highlight the ridiculousness of the pro EU angle. Your lack of a decent reply to point 1 shows this. The EU hasn’t prevented any wars between European countries and affordability has nothing to do with it.

Kingbingo
May 9, 2011 at 19:32

“We’ve only just recovered in reality.”

Have we? In WWII we went overseas to defeat socialism/fascism (same thing really) only to introduce them at home regularly.

gladiolys
May 8, 2011 at 23:44

“They don’t need to be true, only perceived to be true. ” – which would make the whole campaign a hypocritical piece of shit and lead to a deception of the British people. You really want to lie about this? To get your own way? Isn’t that everything this blog is against? If you lie about this, why am I going to believe your pieces about the Court of Protection, which I take very seriously? Why would I believe you about anything else if you just want to be manipulative for your own ends? And there’s me developing a sense that blogs will tell the truth MSM won’t – but obviously I’m deceived.

Anyway:
“Have I got the list right?” No.
4 and 5 wrong, EU practices are not specifically French, German or Spanish, but Eurocrat, which is a better term of abuse, and we are still free to choose to buy whatever we find in our shops – cheap Chinese goods anyone? (But do you ever see Chinese cheese? People buy British when it’s better, and preferably cheaper.)
9 is pointless hysteria – they are only communists if you view power being wielded in the sense of a pan European community – they are not communists in the Stalinist/Maoist mode, whatever you want to believe.
10 – prove it.
11 – I’d like an example before I believe it.
12 – the Queen is in reality subservient to our Parliament. If she tried to exercise any real power beyond the will of Parliament there would be a constitutional crisis.
13 – you need to present the difference between the European Commission (unelected, powerful), and the European Parliament (elected, decorative)
14 – We still have pounds and ounces – they just have to show metric measures as well
15 – the ECHR has told us to sort out how we decide which prisoners should be allowed to vote and that we should tell them on sentencing, which is not the same as allowing all prisoners to vote, nor is it the EU – the ECHR is a Council of Europe institution, not EU. People can spot the difference, despite what the Mail believes it can get away with.

I’m not meaning to be abusive, nut honestly, I go back to “I’ve listed some points that could be used. They don’t need to be true, only perceived to be true. ” Total bollocks. Excuse me, I’ve been drinking.

I’m neither supporting nor opposing you – just saying if you want to win the argument, get your facts sorted. Don’t flatter to deceive. People are not as stupid as you want them to be. (God, at least I hope not.)

berlusconi
May 9, 2011 at 00:33

I’m not sure that the author of this piece is the same author who has previously written about the court of protection … just as an observation about your first paragraph

Otherwise – I think the author was trying to illustrate the concept of perception politics.

Using the example of the inane pro con AV politics and hype, the same style of argument could or maybe would be used in a pro con EU referendum.

No style, no verifiable evidence and no substance – which really just about sums up British politics anyway perhaps, even without the biased media frenzy.

SadButMadLad
May 9, 2011 at 07:46

Correct. Anna and I are different people.

I personally would not like to tell lies to get my point across but if the other side will use it you have to be prepared to counter likewise. Don’t forget that some of the people involved in any EU in/out campaign will be politicians in which lying is a major job requirement.

Span Ows
May 9, 2011 at 12:56

And you seem to be missing the point, most of this is a direct – and in the same vein – rebuttal of pro EU lists.

EU – Economic Prison
May 8, 2011 at 23:47

1. “EUROPEAN UNION: COSTS ARE FIVE TIMES THE BENEFITS

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/bulletin.aspx?bulletinid=42

2. The Times : “EU ‘costs Britain £118bn a year’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198708/EU-costs-Britain-118bn-a-year.html

3. The EU Common Fisheries Policy has destroyed the British fishing industry as well as being an environmental catastrophe, whereas Norway, outside the EU, exports record levels of fish to the EU and has healthy fishing stocks.

“Record year for Norwegian seafood export”

http://www.eu-norway.org/news1/Record-year-for-Norwegian-seafood-export/

58 percent of the total seafood export in 2010 went to the EU, and the total value of the seafood export to EU increased with 4.6 billion kroner.

Trooper Thompson
May 9, 2011 at 00:31

We do indeed need to get our facts straight, but a list of debatable assertions will not help us. The key argument, I believe is that of democratic accountability, ergo:

The laws and taxes of this country should be set in this country by people who are accountable to the electorate and removable by the electorate.

Also we should stress that all the advantages presented by the EU federasts can be achieved without the need for the political institutions of Brussels. It is important to focus on Brussels. Herman van Rumpy should be seen as one of our assets.

Some kind of Union Jack-waving, Last Night of the Proms approach would be a massive blunder, because it only resonates with a minority and plays into the hands of the enemy. So:

Democratic accountability
Brussels is not needed
Call them out on all their fear-mongering, and show them up as the real extremists
Try to awaken the kind of quiet, level-headed patriotic spirit that our nation shows at its best.
Leave alone the Rule Britannia stuff

Carl
May 9, 2011 at 00:37

The ‘out’ campaign also has communists – http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_N3ghwQQrU4A/Si1lhq-9jzI/AAAAAAAAAFM/ICqjCiWjafg/s400/left_alliance_set_to_shake_up_eu_elections_large.jpg

foundavoice
May 9, 2011 at 06:19

I left this post at Mark’s Place:

That was pretty much what my local Tory MP wrote to me.

Let me try the counter arguments:

1. 6 million jobs would be created by leaving the EU

2. The EU usurps long-standing British rights of freedom and sovereignty

3. The EU costs £x billion more than gives back to the UK

4. If we leave the EU we will be free to decide which rules and regulations we would like to adopt

5.Britain has the world’s 5th largest economy and 4th largest military; sharing this with the EU dilutes our influence and strength

6. Visas will be reintroduced to properly control our borders and healthcare will be provided under reciprocal arrangements.

7. The resulting richer Britons will be better able to buy properties in the EU and our talents would remain in demand

8. Only extremists and fruitcakes that wish to you to be undemocratically ruled over support the EU

9. People who want ‘in’ are narrow-minded apologists ashamed of their proud British heritage.

10. The ‘In’ campaign is funded by the EU, which is against its own rules (see Ireland).

Cheers
FAV

JohnM de Melle
May 9, 2011 at 08:32

Point 3. The EU takes x amount in taxes etc from our government. It only gives back y.

Rubbish. The government has no money. It is us (the Taxpayer) who ‘gives’ the money to the EU, but it is the government who receive money from the EU. Even then this money has, usually, be matched with an equal sum fro us to enable the project to proceed.

Murray Rothbard
May 9, 2011 at 09:13

One of the problems with referendums (and democratic politics) is that most people really don’t understand the issues. They are either intellectually incapable of independent reason or simply not interested enough to find out and analyse the facts.

A lot of voting is simply tribal, “My father and his father and everyone in my family votes labour, I am therefore labour and I will always vote labour” (Or just as often conservative). If Labour support the In vote, then I support the In vote.

A lot of voting replaces the complicated reasoning required to evaluate all the options with simple heuristics.
I am poor, the poor vote for labour, I will vote the way labour want.
I am rich, the rich vote conservative, I will vote the conservative way.
I want to save the environment, the greens want to save the environment, I will vote the way the greens tell me.

This is of course quite rational behaviour. To make a truly informed choice you would need a deep understanding of economics, philosophy and politics. Even then there are different schools of thought in each discipline, even amongst the “experts”:

Austrian economists v Keynesian economists, Libertarians v Socialists, etc, etc. You would need to examine the policies of both sides and evaluate the impact they would have on you and those you care about.

After expending all this effort your vote will only actually make any difference to the outcome if there is a dead heat between all the other people who generally have no idea what they are voting for.

So a rational person would simply not expend the amount of effort required, given the almost certain outcome that their vote will make no difference at all.

Democratic politics is not about winning a reasoned argument, it is about marketing, spin and deception. If you try to win a campaign on the issues, particularly if your arguments are more complicated than your opponents
(And the truth is usually more complicated than error) you will surely lose.

Campaigns are won by the side that can generate the most fear about their opponents or promise to give the most to the voters.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” – Alexander Tytler (Attributed)

Given all this, here is my sure-fire strategy for winning the Out vote on any future EU referendum.

1) Ignore all the economic issues, they will just confuse people.

2) Use as many popular celebrities as possible in all the propaganda material, “If its good enough for Simon Cowell (or Cheryl Cole), (or Coleen Nolan), (or Peter Andre) (or any big brother winner) then its good enough for me” is a powerful heuristic, used by advertising agencies to sell all sorts of products.

3) Promise to spend all the money saved on christmas hampers, containing lots of alcohol, to be distributed to each household every year.

Adopt this strategy and the out vote is as good as in the bag

foundavoice
May 9, 2011 at 10:41

“A lot of voting is simply tribal, “My father and his father and everyone in my family votes labour, I am therefore labour and I will always vote labour” (Or just as often conservative). If Labour support the In vote, then I support the In vote. ”

I call this “football team politics”. And I hate it.

Rex
May 9, 2011 at 10:00

Can anyone explain why the EU is so popular with the majority of MP’s of all persuasions?

Katabasis
May 9, 2011 at 11:37

Guaranteed sinecures for the best behaved boys and girls.

Richard B
May 9, 2011 at 10:06

“Can anyone explain why the EU is so popular with the majority of MP’s of all persuasions?”

Careerism.

Knowing on which side your bread is buttered.

Mark Wadsworth
May 9, 2011 at 11:06

Ta for link.

I think that the only stragtegy with any hope of success is to ignore what the Stay In propaganda says and just think up our own list, such as yours, EUEP’s, FAV’s and so on in the comments above.

Whether any of our bullet points are particularly true or even relevant doesn’t seem to matter. Golden rule appears to be that Counter Propaganda trumps countering propaganda.

As MR says, forget economic issues, they just confuse people. Votes for prisoners seems to be a very unpopular idea even though I personally am not fussed one way or another.

Adam Collyer
May 9, 2011 at 11:52

Don’t forget “once Turkey gets into the EU there will be another wave of millions of immigrants, which EU rules on free movement will prevent us stopping”.

The most potent weapon of the pro-EU camp will be FEAR – we need some fear of our own about the future under the EU.

Come to think of it, dark mutterings about how the EU might force us to adopt continental-style restrictions on mortgage provision, and thus wreck the housing market, could just about clinch it

Livewire
May 9, 2011 at 12:02

What! Miserable pro-EUers daring to stick their heads above the parapet while John Bull’s been away. The Tunbridge Wells re-education facility has a waterboard reserved for you.

Put your hands in the air, Simple Herman says
We’ll decide what is fair, Simple Herman says

You will bail out the Piigs, Simple Herman says
Or we’ll snap you like twigs, Simple Herman says

You’ll give prisoners their votes, Simple Herman says
Even nonces and scrotes, Simple Herman says

The 4th Reich wins the war, Simple Herman says
With no guns and no gore, Simple Herman says

Katabasis
May 9, 2011 at 12:17

This article is essential reading regarding the fate of the ‘yes’ campaign and its utter arrogance. (I say that as someone who voted yes too…).

Probably worth taking those lessons to heart as it is likely to be the same people we will be up against in a no2EU campaign.

Bill Quango MP
May 9, 2011 at 12:49

Keep the arguments simple.
Keep the arguments to issues that the public already agree with.

So reducing immigration is a major theme.
Increasing sentencing for criminals, linked to the HR act. {This isn’t anything to do with the EU but can easily be made to appear so}

Then, stick to familiar, tested themes.

A} Banks / bankers – The ECB and the EURO keeps prices in countries high. A UK holidaymaker used to be able visit Spain and buy a steak meal and dessert and beers for a fiver. Now its more expensive that ever! Blame the Germans {not our heavily devalued currency}

B} MP Expenses – Euro expenses are excessive, corrupt and unaccountable. A list of a single MPs pension, perks, duties, actual time spent in work, and a really annoying law hey have drafted should cause resentment. A made up MEP might work as well.

C} Redistribution of wealth from hard working to feckless.
– All that hard earned Northern Europe money flowing to Spain/Greece/Ireland/Portugal/Hungry etc. If you can find a bathplug and a moat its a done deal.

D} Germans. – Just in general. Its easy to blame the Germans for benefiting hugely from interest rates that they set, that stifle the southern EU economies. Germany has 4% growth. Portugal has none.

E} Petty bureaucracy – Legion examples of bent bananas , fish dumping, carbon emissions that add say, £100 p/a to a leccy bill. Blame Health and safety on them too. Conkers,Christmas cards, Corgi certificates.

F} Flags. We’re nuts about not being able to fly our flag. Blame the EU and hint that only EU flags can flown.

G} Bailouts. UK taxpayers are bailing out the Euro, that we don’t even belong to. {We aren’t, but people think we are. So use that to frighten voters with fears of UK on the hook for SPAIN – BELGIUM – ITALY – £65,000 / person of debt. And we will never get it back. }

H} Commonwealth of nations , Canada/Aus/NZ/ And the good sounding countries from Africa and Caribbean. NZ lamb, Nigerian oil, Australian minerals, Jamaican sugar .Stir the memories of the old folks. They’re the most likely to vote after all. Include the return of the special postal tariff to commonwealth countries abolished under the EU postal harmonisation in 2009.
{It may not have been anything to do with postal harmonisation but it was abolished.}

A heady mix of Truth, lies and half truths/ half lies.

And as a lesson from the No2AV, deploy your simplest, most potent arguments first.
I’d go for
1. immigration will end
2. The saving of ‘x’ billion will mean an increase of ‘x’ number of nurses, without any need for NHS reform, tax increases or the mooted death tax.

Oh yeah, and taxation. Its a massive argument, that is harder to deploy. So keep it simple. Vat must be paid on power, or the differing rates of capital gains between say UK and Jersey {Jersey being non EU/Non UK}

Mark Wadsworth
May 9, 2011 at 13:22

“A heady mix of Truth, lies and half truths/ half lies. ”

That’s exactly the right mix. It’s probably worth while chucking some lies in as well, because then the Yes2EU people have to waste time debunking them rather than pushing their own lies.

This is standard practice in court proceedings.

Livewire
May 9, 2011 at 13:42

I’d simplify it even more and make it visceral. The WW2 stuff was too mild but there were some great wall posters from WW1 e.g. the fiend-faced Hun in pointy helmet with a swooning maiden in his grasp and blood dripping off his teeth. For the Frogs you’d have to go back to the Napoleonic wars but some of the Boney cartoons were promising, the insatiable greedy Gallic carving up the globe was a good one. And lots of Sharpe’s Rifles and The Dambusters on TV for the subconscious message (even with THAT name cut from the soundtrack…).

Trooper Thompson
May 9, 2011 at 20:03

We must pay attention to how we will be caricatured by the other side, and not give them what they need to misrepresent our case.

Go for their weak point, get them on the back foot, get them on the one thing they can’t defend against: and that is the lack of democracy.

Banging on about immigration would be an own goal.

Mark Wadsworth
May 9, 2011 at 23:26

TT, immigration is one of those ‘hot topics’.

I can’t say it’s top of my personal list of concerns (because I am a) open minded b) half foreign anyway and c) quite well off, so it probably benefits me; BUT if you are further down the scale it genuinely and provably makes you worse off, and what’s the point in having an expensive welfare system to help people further down the scale and and then f-ing them over with immigration?) but it is an easy button to push.

The danger is that by pushing this button (as the Mail and Express do endlessly) you lay yourself open to accusations of racism, Little Englander-ism and so on.

Hmmm….

Adam Collyer
May 9, 2011 at 21:40

“UK taxpayers are bailing out the Euro, that we don’t even belong to. {We aren’t, but people think we are. ”

We are, actually. See here for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13328038

“The chancellor said that the UK was a “reluctant participant” in the bailout of Portugal.”

Bill Quango MP
May 10, 2011 at 23:45

What I mean is we are borrowing that money at our AAA rates and lending it at higher rates as a loan to the Greeks, Irish etc.

As long as they repay the debt, or even just the interest on the debt, then we will make on the deal. The Uk has lent to Ireland at 5.8%.

ukipwebmaster
May 9, 2011 at 13:14

Happy Europe day everyone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1VfjWc8wo0

Michael Fowke
May 9, 2011 at 15:05

The EU lot are in league with the devil.