Twitter user demolishes major Brexiteer fallacy in epic thread
PUBLISHED: 22:12 22 January 2019 | UPDATED: 22:26 22 January 2019
A Twitter user has devoted umpteen tweets to an exhaustive debunk of one of the most common Brexiteer myths.
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism
Jim Grace (or @mac_puck, as per his handle) decided to address a common Brexiteer complaint: the supposed stranglehold that EU laws have on the UK.
He tweeted: “There is a type [of] brexiter who is motivated not by xenophobia, or Empire nostalgia, or buccaneering trade fantasies, but instead by “all them EU rules”. Sadly they can never name a single one.”
Setting off on the hunt for EU rules foisted rudely on us, he first points to the Commons library and a research briefing that Full Fact says comes from Leave.EU’s own campaign.
Jim crunches the numbers. Out of 34,105 laws passed in the UK, he says, 4,514 of them were influenced by EU laws.
And of those which were actually forced on the UK against our will?
“Vote Leave discovered 72 that were forced on us against our will. 72!”
That’s ... 0.2 per cent of the laws passed in the UK in the given time span.
But, some would say, that’s 0.2 per cent too much.
What are these rules that have ravaged our fair isles’ delicate sense of sovereignty?
In Jim’s epic thread, every single one has its own tweet.
The UK was forced to label aspartame in food, which he points out is merely a cancer prevention measure that was taken by bleeding heart corporate Pepsi in the USA by 2015.
The UK was held at gunpoint to sign up to better labelling of cow feed, an outrage because this country’s bovine herds have never had health issues.
In another example, Jim paraphrases: “EU: posted workers must be given the same pay and conditions as local workers,”
“UK: You’re kidding! The whole POINT of posted workers is to undercut the locals and undermine their employment rights.”
It goes on. One of the monstrous new rules was about the fair treatment of transported livestock, which agreeing with is practically treason.
The EU also compelled the UK to contribute to the repatriation costs of asylum seekers, which we objected to presumably because of our country’s well-known love for keeping refugees on UK soil.
In one instance Jim cites, the EU made the UK sign up to the compensation of delayed air passengers, which we objected to because ... “we don’t support this proposal because ... um ... because ... we are just utter, utter b*stards” suggests Jim.
But, Jim, we’re b*stards with sovereignty, and that’s apparently what counts.
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.Become a supporter