In our recent 'voting intentions' thread there was a little discussion about the lack of honest discussion on the genuine pros and cons of EU membership. I thought I'd resurrect that train of thought here because this morning's Independent is making my blood boil ... under the headline 'The £23bn question', the entire front page is given over to what is, frankly, scaremongering. Or rather it would be scaremongering if it wasn't such a blatant tissue of lies, half-truths and spin. I have seen better written defences of Europe from 'A' level geography students. Here's just one of the priceless nuggets of nonsense:
Quote:
|
In October 2000 Britain incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. By withdrawing from the Convention and repealing this legislation British citizens would no longer be protected by a set of fundamental human rights.
|
What the &*£$ # ?
The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation that pre-dates the EU. The Convention is adhered to by the EU, it does not belong to the EU. Withdrawing from the EU would in no way involve withdrawing from the Convention. And in any case, the Convention is now enshrined within our own Law. Repealing it would be a matter entirely separate from any concerns about which international organisations we belong to.
Honestly, the anti-Europe camp have been accused of scaremongering and lies but this takes some beating. I'm not proposing to re-type the entire article here (I am supposed to be at work
) but I would urge anyone with an interest in the whole Europe debate to get a look at it.
This is a sad day for rational debate.