£9 million on "Bremain" leaflet drop

[Infinite Chaos]

The government is spending more than £9m on sending a leaflet to every UK household setting out the case for remaining in the European Union.
It says the 14-page document, to be sent to 27 million homes, responds to public demand for more details about the EU referendum by setting out the facts behind the government's position.
~
The government says the mail drop will cost £9.3m, or about 34p per household.
The designated Leave campaign, and its Remain opponent, will be able to spend up to £7m each on advertising and promotion once the official campaign period starts next week. This includes £600,000 of public grants set aside for free mailshots and TV broadcasts.
Katie Ghose, of the Electoral Reform Society, said "rushing" to spend £9.3m on the mail drop before stricter rules kicked in could make people feel the government was "playing fast and loose with the situation". Link.

Personally, I think this stinks; I want facts but I want them from both sides. I also thought the campaign / referendum would be fair and equally funded - rushing this leaflet out before the referendum rules are in force to produce a one sided leaflet is disappointing. Why couldn't the Govt have produced something that had facts from both sides of the argument if they were going to use public money?

 

[PeteEU]

Personally, I think this stinks; I want facts but I want them from both sides. I also thought the campaign / referendum would be fair and equally funded - rushing this leaflet out before the referendum rules are in force to produce a one sided leaflet is disappointing. Why couldn't the Govt have produced something that had facts from both sides of the argument if they were going to use public money?

One could argue, what facts on the leave side? That is the problem with the leave side... not many facts that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Plenty of nationalistic chest thumping propaganda and wishful thinking sure, but actual facts?

I am not saying that the leaflet is a good thing nor that it contains actual facts (since I have not read it), just point out based on the "facts" requirement, there aint much from the leave campaign.

But yes, any "government funded" leaflet should have facts from both sides.

 

[shrubnose]

Personally, I think this stinks; I want facts but I want them from both sides. I also thought the campaign / referendum would be fair and equally funded - rushing this leaflet out before the referendum rules are in force to produce a one sided leaflet is disappointing.

Why couldn't the Govt have produced something that had facts from both sides of the argument if they were going to use public money

?

My guess is that they wanted to promote one side of the argument.

 

[joG]

Personally, I think this stinks; I want facts but I want them from both sides. I also thought the campaign / referendum would be fair and equally funded - rushing this leaflet out before the referendum rules are in force to produce a one sided leaflet is disappointing. Why couldn't the Govt have produced something that had facts from both sides of the argument if they were going to use public money?

Personally, I think you are right. Though, it is a mandate of government to supply solid information, the head of government has a vested and very personal interest in the out come of the referendum. This certainly taints the credibility of the information, but also can very really be considered misuse of public funds.

 

[joG]

My guess is that they wanted to promote one side of the argument.

That, young man, is a shrewd guess.

You seem to know the ways of man and mouse!

 

[joG]

One could argue, what facts on the leave side? That is the problem with the leave side... not many facts that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Plenty of nationalistic chest thumping propaganda and wishful thinking sure, but actual facts?

I am not saying that the leaflet is a good thing nor that it contains actual facts (since I have not read it), just point out based on the "facts" requirement, there aint much from the leave campaign.

But yes, any "government funded" leaflet should have facts from both sides.

That puts your presented views in a nutshell. You do not even know the arguments of both sides.

 

[PeteEU]

That puts your presented views in a nutshell. You do not even know the arguments of both sides.

I said facts.. not arguments.

Fact.. we know what we have now. We have influence on what we can have in the future.
Fact.. Leaving the EU, we do not know what we will have in the future and our influence set that future is highly limited.

Agree or not?

 

[Andalublue]

It's a government information document giving the government's position. They are not neutral on this; they want people to vote yes, just as they did when they issued leaflets to Scottish homes urging them to vote to remain in the UK.

I'm not saying they're right to do so, just that they're not setting a precedent or doing something new and nefarious.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

One could argue, what facts on the leave side? That is the problem with the leave side... not many facts that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Plenty of nationalistic chest thumping propaganda and wishful thinking sure, but actual facts? ~

The justification given for this was that it "responds to public demand for more details about the EU referendum by setting out the facts behind the government's positions." I'd argue that what undecideds like me are asking is facts from both sides - if the Govt were so sure about their case, shouldn't they have challenged the "Brexit" side to demonstrate their facts and enter them in the same leaflet?

If Brexit is based purely on feelings and rhetoric then surely it would have helped the Govt case to say "we asked them for facts and they couldn't supply any."

It's a government information document giving the government's position. They are not neutral on this; they want people to vote yes, just as they did when they issued leaflets to Scottish homes urging them to vote to remain in the UK.

I'm not saying they're right to do so, just that they're not setting a precedent or doing something new and nefarious.

Agree, to argue that it represents the Govt position is dangerous when so many in the Conservative Party are "Brexit" people. If for example Cameron was "Brexit" and the whole cabinet was "Bremain" - nobody could argue it was a Govt position..

 

[gunner]

One could argue, what facts on the leave side? That is the problem with the leave side... not many facts that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Plenty of nationalistic chest thumping propaganda and wishful thinking sure, but actual facts?

I am not saying that the leaflet is a good thing nor that it contains actual facts (since I have not read it), just point out based on the "facts" requirement, there aint much from the leave campaign.

But yes, any "government funded" leaflet should have facts from both sides.

Most of what you say over Europe is contested from a neutral standpoint. I mean, anyone with EU after their name is hardly going to give a balanced view.

 

[Andalublue]

Agree, to argue that it represents the Govt position is dangerous when so many in the Conservative Party are "Brexit" people.

Well IC, government policy is government policy. It is the position on which the cabinet has agreed, perhaps not unanimously, but nevertheless officially. It's not dangerous to argue that, it's just a fact.

If for example Cameron was "Brexit" and the whole cabinet was "Bremain" - nobody could argue it was a Govt position..

Of course they could. If the policy is agreed in cabinet, it becomes government policy, no matter how many vote against it in the minority. I dare say had Cameron been a Brexiter, and the cabinet voted to remain, he'd probably have resigned, but that's not what happened.

 

[Camlon]

One could argue, what facts on the leave side? That is the problem with the leave side... not many facts that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Plenty of nationalistic chest thumping propaganda and wishful thinking sure, but actual facts?

Do you know how regressive you sound?

The problem with the stay camp is that they don't even want a debate.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Well IC, government policy is government policy. It is the position on which the cabinet has agreed, perhaps not unanimously, but nevertheless officially. It's not dangerous to argue that, it's just a fact.
Of course they could. If the policy is agreed in cabinet, it becomes government policy, no matter how many vote against it in the minority. I dare say had Cameron been a Brexiter, and the cabinet voted to remain, he'd probably have resigned, but that's not what happened.

OK, I concede all those points. Any further points I tried would be nit-picking.

 

[PeteEU]

The justification given for this was that it "responds to public demand for more details about the EU referendum by setting out the facts behind the government's positions." I'd argue that what undecideds like me are asking is facts from both sides - if the Govt were so sure about their case, shouldn't they have challenged the "Brexit" side to demonstrate their facts and enter them in the same leaflet?

They could have done that, but which Brexit side? The Brexit side is split and uncoordinated. Had they chosen one then the others would have bitched and so on. But I agree they should have made the effort.

If Brexit is based purely on feelings and rhetoric then surely it would have helped the Govt case to say "we asked them for facts and they couldn't supply any."

I agree. Or at least offered a similar leaflet to the Brexit side. But then again one could argue, that with the amount of rich business people funding the Brexit side and the amount of newspapers owned by these people.. then the Brexit has muliple leaflets daily.

 

[PeteEU]

Do you know how regressive you sound?

The problem with the stay camp is that they don't even want a debate.

On that I disagree. But you cant debate with out accepting basic logic and facts.. which the leave side often do not.

 

[Camlon]

On that I disagree. But you cant debate with out accepting basic logic and facts.. which the leave side often do not.

You don't disagree, if you really wanted a debate then you would focus on the arguments/facts.

You just want everyone to shut up and agree with you.

 

[PeteEU]

Most of what you say over Europe is contested from a neutral standpoint. I mean, anyone with EU after their name is hardly going to give a balanced view.

My name is relevant.. does it mean that you are a gun nut or an Arsenal fan that cant spell?

Any debate like this should be based on facts and the truth. This is not what the Brexit side wants and that is clear. Just look at their attempt to blame the EU for the disproportionate amount of money the UK pays for healthcare to other EU nations. Blaming inefficient hospitals, the EU and others, instead of say the truth and facts... more Brits that go abroad to live are much older and require more healthcare than EU nationals that come to the UK for work. The reason that the UK pays considerably more to Spain for its citizens healthcare than Spain pays to the UK.. it is simple... Spanish pensioners dont go to the UK to live, where as a huge portion of Brits in Spain are pensioners who need more healthcare than young people. It aint hard, and yet the out campaign tried use this and many other issues to their advantage by blaming Europe.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

They could have done that, but which Brexit side? The Brexit side is split and uncoordinated. ~

Aargh - just watched the Boris video on the page and he claims that 60% of our laws are made in Brussels. There's a Parliamentary library pdf report here which is far more accurate.

What I have found from the report is -

the House of Commons Library concluded, it is "possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts, depending on the approach."

So, it would help if the Brexit camp looked at figures rather than threw out wild guesses.

 

[PeteEU]

You don't disagree, if you really wanted a debate then you would focus on the arguments/facts.

I do focus on the arguments and facts! That is the whole point. The Brexit side doe not come up with any arguments or facts! They come most up with fairtales and wishful thinking and zero facts.

For example. The Brexit side says the EU costs the UK billions a year. Yes that is a fact. What they dont tell people, is that is just the money the UK government pays, and does not include the financial and business access that the UK has by being in the EU. This is of course hard to calculate.... but lets take a look at it.

The UK exports about 10-11 billion a month to the EU. Why is that not part of the calculation or the debate?

You just want everyone to shut up and agree with you.

Hell no, bring on the facts and arguments and lets discuss it.

 

[PeteEU]

Aargh - just watched the Boris video on the page and he claims that 60% of our laws are made in Brussels. There's a Parliamentary library pdf report here which is far more accurate.

What I have found from the report is -



So, it would help if the Brexit camp looked at figures rather than threw out wild guesses.

10 p that he wont be challenged on it.... all he is doing is promoting a myth and cementing it in the electorate.

 

[Camlon]

I do focus on the arguments and facts! That is the whole point. The Brexit side doe not come up with any arguments or facts! They come most up with fairtales and wishful thinking and zero facts.

No, you don't. Most of your posts is about hos stupid you think your opponent are. You believe your argument is so superior, that you don't even need to debate.

For example. The Brexit side says the EU costs the UK billions a year. Yes that is a fact. What they dont tell people, is that is just the money the UK government pays, and does not include the financial and business access that the UK has by being in the EU. This is of course hard to calculate.... but lets take a look at it.

The UK exports about 10-11 billion a month to the EU. Why is that not part of the calculation or the debate?

And when you make that argument, you don't tell people that EU cost UK government billions a year, do you? Of course they don't include the arguments from the remain campaign.

In addition, the leave campaign believes UK will get a free trade deal, so they have no reason to include it.

 

[Chagos]

No, you don't. Most of your posts is about hos stupid you think your opponent are. You believe your argument is so superior, that you don't even need to debate.

Well, there doesn't seem to be much meat that you are bringing to the table here and where you are actually debating is anyone's guess.

And when you make that argument, you don't tell people that EU cost UK government billions a year, do you? Of course they don't include the arguments from the remain campaign.

Considering that the bolded was conceded in the very post you quote, one wonders whether you actually read anything.

In addition, the leave campaign believes UK will get a free trade deal, so they have no reason to include it.

.......... that sounds pretty much as though any campaigning group would be prudent in offering beliefs as fact. The very thing that, where and when it is done, is being decried in here.

Three posts of yours in this thread and none offering anything of substance but all simply serving to fulfil the need for personal attack.

 

[Camlon]

Well, there doesn't seem to be much meat that you are bringing to the table here and where you are actually debating is anyone's guess.

I don't intend to debate EU in this thread, there is another thread for that. The reason I pointed out that PeteEU is not interested in debating, is because I have seen him before.

Considering that the bolded was conceded in the very post you quote, one wonders whether you actually read anything.

Here you didn't think very far, I was obviously talking about his previous posts where he has made that argument repeately without mentioning EU cost UK government billions a year.

.......... that sounds pretty much as though any campaigning group would be prudent in offering beliefs as fact. The very thing that, where and when it is done, is being decried in here.

Three posts of yours in this thread and none offering anything of substance but all simply serving to fulfil the need for personal attack.

Yes I have offered little of substance, but that is equally true for you and peteEU. It doesn't feel right to have a serious discussion in a very unserious thread.

 

[Chagos]

I don't intend to debate EU in this thread,..................

Then why bother even entering?

Whatever, since you had the decency to clear that up, I guess anything in the rest of your above post requires no further address.

Cheers

 

[Camlon]

Then why bother even entering?

Because my reply fit well in this thread. PeteEU claimed that brexit supporters have no facts, without providing evidence. Then it makes sense to point out that he is not even willing to debate the facts.

Whatever, since you had the decency to clear that up, I guess anything in the rest of your above post requires no further address.

Same to you.

Cheers