The EU is the Fourth Reich

Johnny Utah

This is a conspiracy theory which I believe in and it's happening right now. The powers that be are taking control, not through armed force, but through economic control. Ireland is not the only EU country which is at the mercy of the ECB right now. Even the UK is in dire straits. Eventually, the entire EU will be taken over and we will effectively be slaves in our own country.


Anyone agree?

Di0genes

Johnny Utah wrote: »

This is a conspiracy theory which I believe in and it's happening right now. The powers that be are taking control, not through armed force, but through economic control. Ireland is not the only EU country which is at the mercy of the ECB right now. Even the UK is in dire straits. Eventually, the entire EU will be taken over and we will effectively be slaves in our own country.


Anyone agree?

No.

Foxhound38

Lets say for a moment that the EU did become more unified as a result of the crisis - why would that necessitate slavery? Even if the EU was eventually to become a giant superstate in the future, theoretically it could do this under a highly federalised and democratic framework, and it would certaintly be in its interests to do this if it were to go that route.

What makes you think that the EU even wishes to enslave anyone?

senordingdong

Slaves to whom?

HAnding up all our hard earned money to a faceless authorities in Europe.
Sure were doing the same thing here.

If anything I'd welcome the unification.

Foxhound38

senordingdong wrote: »

Slaves to whom?

HAnding up all our hard earned money to a faceless authorities in Europe.
Sure were doing the same thing here.

If anything I'd welcome the unification.

So this is an issue of taxation? We already pay tax to the EU, as does everyone else in Europe. That's what paid for our lovely roads and schools etc over the years

Torakx

Im not sure about fourth reich.
I see each block as an experiemnt.All over the world different experiments are being done with different states and continents.
Ireland has the flouride experiment amongst other things.Lisbon anyone? nevermind we dont care or cant consider...
The Soviet Union was probably a very informative one politically.
The U.S.A is a powerhouse for forcing sh1te down peoples throats.Fast food,corperations galore,monsanto for an example.
You could say they might be victims of trauma based experiments and mind control on many levels.Holly - wood being one of the main ones globally too.

I know it can be argued we are not slaves and all this stuff is just greed and corruption in a random order.
It may be so too.It also may be that i am right lol
We had the third reich supposedly supported by bussiness men who have ties to many strange people and places along history.I dont believe in coincedance for all the stuff i have read over the years.
It might just be greedy families grabbing power but they are organised that is becoming more and more obvious.It used to be a conspiracy theory about a new world order.Does anyone still deny its wanted now politically?

Ps seniordingdong, i think the people we are handing money to now and here are passing it up the pyramid.It is eventually for the most part reaching the same people.The higher you look i am thinking the smaller the group becomes.

todolist

The EU is a rotten corrupt organization.We are fed the propaganda that the EU built our roads ,Schools etc.Why? There's no free lunch folks.The EU destroyed our fishing industry,Beet industry.We wouldn't be facing bankruptcy now only for our membership of the EU.

PanchoVilla

When you look at the history of the EU, you have to question the motives behind it's formation. Europhiles will argue that the union was created to prevent war in Europe. Well, who was fighting these wars? Who formed the EEC? One could argue that the great powers of Europe - France, Germany, and the UK - made a deal to take over all of Europe and share the wealth. It's fairly obvious that was the case when you consider our government bailed out our banks to support the major bondholder - France, Germany, and the UK.

Of course the EU will fund infrastructure in this country, it belongs to them now. They are investing in their own country. What they failed to achieve through war they have succeeded through treachery and deceit. Does anyone find it strange that the referendum for the Amsterdam Treaty was held on the exact same day as the referendum for the Good Friday Agreement? Does anyone remember the thousands of posters everywhere saying "Vote Yes"? We were forced to hold a second referendum after we rejected the Lisbon Treaty, a treaty which forced us to accept a European constitution.

The formation of the EU is simply one more step towards a single global government. We already see what the most powerful nations do to it's own people. A single global government will have no enemy to wage war on so it will inevitably turn on it's own people to keep them submissive. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

gizmo

todolist wrote: »

The EU is a rotten corrupt organization.We are fed the propaganda that the EU built our roads ,Schools etc.Why? There's no free lunch folks.The EU destroyed our fishing industry,Beet industry.We wouldn't be facing bankruptcy now only for our membership of the EU.

I've seen this line rolled out several times and was quite happy to see the issue was dealt with using realistic figures here. Have a read of that and see if it changes your mind.

I have no information regarding the beet industry so would be grateful if you had some links with solid figures attached.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

When you look at the history of the EU, you have to question the motives behind it's formation. Europhiles will argue that the union was created to prevent war in Europe. Well, who was fighting these wars? Who formed the EEC? One could argue that the great powers of Europe - France, Germany, and the UK - made a deal to take over all of Europe and share the wealth. It's fairly obvious that was the case when you consider our government bailed out our banks to support the major bondholder - France, Germany, and the UK.

How would one argue that? You seem to forget that Britain and France opposed the Germans during the war. You're also linking a situation which occurred over 50 years later which is completely irrelevant to the foundation of the EU.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Of course the EU will fund infrastructure in this country, it belongs to them now. They are investing in their own country. What they failed to achieve through war they have succeeded through treachery and deceit. Does anyone find it strange that the referendum for the Amsterdam Treaty was held on the exact same day as the referendum for the Good Friday Agreement? Does anyone remember the thousands of posters everywhere saying "Vote Yes"? We were forced to hold a second referendum after we rejected the Lisbon Treaty, a treaty which forced us to accept a European constitution.

No it doesn't and no they're not, respectively.

We were forced to hold a second referendum, not forced to accept it. The only difference this time is that the scare tactics of the No side didn't work. To pre-empt the "what about all those jobs?" line that is also a favourite around here, first answer this, where are the forced abortions, the conscription to the EU army and forced vaccinations that the other side swore would happen?

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The formation of the EU is simply one more step towards a single global government. We already see what the most powerful nations do to it's own people. A single global government will have no enemy to wage war on so it will inevitably turn on it's own people to keep them submissive. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nonsense.

Johnny Utah

PanchoVilla wrote: »

We were forced to hold a second referendum after we rejected the Lisbon Treaty, a treaty which forced us to accept a European constitution.

The Yes campaign for Lisbon II was particularly sinister. They did absolutely everything within their power to get the vote through. The sad thing is the three main political parties in this country all bowed to their overlords in Brussels at the time..... Treason of the highest order.

humanji

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The Yes campaign for Lisbon II was particularly sinister. They did absolutely everything within their power to get the vote through. The sad thing is the three main political parties in this country all bowed to their overlords in Brussels at the time..... Treason of the highest order.

The decision of the first referendom was upheld. Lisbon was not passed.

The goverenment decided to hold a second referendom, as is their right to hold as many as they wanted, and the people of Ireland decided to pass Lisbon, and so it was passed.

That's not treason. That's democracy in action.

PanchoVilla

humanji wrote: »

The decision of the first referendom was upheld. Lisbon was not passed.

The goverenment decided to hold a second referendom, as is their right to hold as many as they wanted, and the people of Ireland decided to pass Lisbon, and so it was passed.

That's not treason. That's democracy in action.

Isn't the government prohibited from campaigning for or against a referendum? I mean, the people of this country should be allowed to make a decision without the full weight of the government propaganda machine influencing their decision. Wasn't the "Yes" campaign actually funded with taxpayer's money?

namloc1980

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The Yes campaign for Lisbon II was particularly sinister. They did absolutely everything within their power to get the vote through. The sad thing is the three main political parties in this country all bowed to their overlords in Brussels at the time..... Treason of the highest order.

And the No campaign was full of scare-mongering BS such as €1.84 minimum wage, euthanasia and abortions for all, mandatory conscription to the EU army etc. etc. etc.

BTW you might kindly explain how a democratic referendum held in accordance with the Bunreacht is Treason??

senordingdong

Foxhound38 wrote: »

So this is an issue of taxation? We already pay tax to the EU, as does everyone else in Europe. That's what paid for our lovely roads and schools etc over the years

I don't know...is it? You'd have to ask to op.

I think you and I were making similar points.

humanji

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Isn't the government prohibited from campaigning for or against a referendum? I mean, the people of this country should be allowed to make a decision without the full weight of the government propaganda machine influencing their decision. Wasn't the "Yes" campaign actually funded with taxpayer's money?

I'm fairly sure the government can campaign for any side they want. But both sides have to have equal coverage.

And I didn't see much of a propaganda machine for the Yes side, just a load of posters on lamposts. People seemed to have to go and find out what it meant themselves or risk listening to the more fanatical no campaigners lke Coir.

And the yes campaignes were paid for by party funds. The Lisbon information (explaining waht it was but not siding with either opinion) was funded by taxpayers.

PanchoVilla

gizmo wrote: »

How would one argue that? You seem to forget that Britain and France opposed the Germans during the war. You're also linking a situation which occurred over 50 years later which is completely irrelevant to the foundation of the EU.

You seem to have no understanding of the basic concepts behind the formation of the EU. Read the following wiki article for a basic education on post-war European politics. It's better to debate when you have some understanding of what's being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union

We were forced to hold a second referendum, not forced to accept it.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. We were forced to hold a second referendum, we were forced to accept the outcome of the referendum. It's not so difficult to understand.

The only difference this time is that the scare tactics of the No side didn't work. To pre-empt the "what about all those jobs?" line that is also a favourite around here, first answer this, where are the forced abortions, the conscription to the EU army and forced vaccinations that the other side swore would happen?

What are you on about? Please link where these assertions were made, as I've never actually seen them coming from the "No" campaign. One of the major objectors to the treaty in this country was Sinn Féin. The following is their 5 reasons not to accept the treaty. Please tell me which of the five have not already happened.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/alternative-guide-to-lisbon-2

Torakx

Well its possible to give information on the lisbon treaty while convieniently leaving out what does not seem important to those forming said information into a leaflet/poster.
Coir did get out of hand and i think its also ridiculous we had a vote for no and then decded we should do it again like the last one was meaningless.
Wouldnt it be fair for a best out of three since we have a no and a yes?

Also iirc the amended treaty is not what was actually voted on the second time.Im open to being convinced that it will be implemented instead of the one we voted no to.

PanchoVilla

humanji wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the government can campaign for any side they want. But both sides have to have equal coverage.

And I didn't see much of a propaganda machine for the Yes side, just a load of posters on lamposts. People seemed to have to go and find out what it meant themselves or risk listening to the more fanatical no campaigners lke Coir.

And the yes campaignes were paid for by party funds. The Lisbon information (explaining waht it was but not siding with either opinion) was funded by taxpayers.

The following link is a pretty good read from Indymedia regarding the failures of the Irish government and the Referendum Commission to provide the information necessary to make an informed decision.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88919

Edit: It's important to remember that the Lisbon Treaty was essentially creating a new European constitution which supersedes our own constitution as explained in the amendment which was passed by the yes vote. The following is an excerpt from our constitution, an amendment "we" voted yes to when we accepted the Lisbon Treaty.

"11: No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

In English, this says that there is nothing in our constitution which will prevent the European Union from enforcing their laws in this country. Our constitution is worthless in that regard. I don't remember that being said by the "Yes" campaign.

meglome

todolist wrote: »

The EU is a rotten corrupt organization.We are fed the propaganda that the EU built our roads ,Schools etc.Why? There's no free lunch folks.The EU destroyed our fishing industry,Beet industry.We wouldn't be facing bankruptcy now only for our membership of the EU.

I'd strongly argue that it isn't a rotten and corrupt organisation. But let's for a moment assume it is. Do you honestly think our own politicians are less rotten or less corrupt. Our country is almost bankrupt and that wasn't the EU's doing it was ours.

The whole fishing industry thing is rubbish, the real figures don't show it. Sure there have been quota cutbacks but since fish stocks are dwindling that is a good thing for the country. Obviously not good for some fishermen but that's life.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The Yes campaign for Lisbon II was particularly sinister. They did absolutely everything within their power to get the vote through. The sad thing is the three main political parties in this country all bowed to their overlords in Brussels at the time..... Treason of the highest order.

The Yes campaign was sinister hahahahaha. You can argue about yes of jobs all you want. But it was a probable outcome from voting yes to Lisbon. However basically the entire No campaigns claims were provably false.

It really amazes me, the EU have given us 40 billion euro for free. This is a fact and people complain about it. It funny too because people complained that the EU had too much power and were taking our sovereignty. But the EU didn't have the power to stop us from fukking ourselves up. Sure they warned us but we laughed at them. Now they want to make sure we can't do it again since they are bailing us out. I mean the cheek of them for wanting us to do the right thing.

humanji

PanchoVilla wrote: »

What are you on about? Please link where these assertions were made, as I've never actually seen them coming from the "No" campaign. One of the major objectors to the treaty in this country was Sinn Féin. The following is their 5 reasons not to accept the treaty. Please tell me which of the five have not already happened.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/alternative-guide-to-lisbon-2

Just on those 5 points:

Sinn F&#233 wrote: »

It is a bad deal for Ireland and has already been rejected by the Irish people.

Well, the first part is just opinion. And with regards the second part, Fianna Fáil were voted into government. Should they stay in government for all eternity because the Irish aren't allowed to change their minds?

Nobody put a gun to peoples heads to vote "Yes" or "No". The government were perfectly entitled to hold a second referendum. It's not exactly good sportsmanship, but it's not illegal thanks to the constitution.

Sinn F&#233 wrote: »

It reduces Ireland’s power in the EU – we will lose our permanent commissioner and our voting strength on the Council will be cut by half while the bigger states double their strength.

Cherry picked and misleading information. Firstly, "our" commisioner isn't "ours". Their nationality means nothing as they don't work on any countries behalf. To do so would go against their purpose.

Secondly, they were to be dismissed already. In fact, they were to be dismissed 5 years earlier if there was a no vote.

Thirdly, Ireland gained more power in the EU thanks to the QMV which gave smaller countries a chance to push through bills without being bullied by large countries.

Sinn F&#233 wrote: »

It will make the economic crisis even worse by forcing through policies that caused the recession, reducing the Irish government’s ability to take essential decisions, driving down pay and conditions and further undermining our public services.

I'm curious to know how Lisbon affected the recession at all. Sounds like they were building themselves up for an "I told you so" moment, for when the recession caused things to go badly and they could come out of it pretending they're champions.

Sinn F&#233 wrote: »

It erodes neutrality by drawing us into a common defence and obliging us to increase military spending.

Ireland had troops all over the world before Lisbon. Does that sound like something a neutral country would do? And we're not obliged to do anything of the sort. We can be asked and we can offer.

Sinn F&#233 wrote: »

It removes our automatic right to a referendum on future changes to existing treaties.

If it affects our constitution, we have a referendum. That has never changed.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

You seem to have no understanding of the basic concepts behind the formation of the EU. Read the following wiki article for a basic education on post-war European politics. It's better to debate when you have some understanding of what's being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union

I asked you this already. Do you think the old ways of doing things i.e. slaughtering each other, was better?
A peaceful and prosperous Europe damn those bastards.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I don't even know what you're trying to say. We were forced to hold a second referendum, we were forced to accept the outcome of the referendum. It's not so difficult to understand.

The government, as was there legal right, called a second referendum. We voted on that second referendum with a massive yes vote. How were we forced to do anything exactly?

PanchoVilla wrote: »

What are you on about? Please link where these assertions were made, as I've never actually seen them coming from the "No" campaign. One of the major objectors to the treaty in this country was Sinn Féin. The following is their 5 reasons not to accept the treaty. Please tell me which of the five have not already happened.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/alternative-guide-to-lisbon-2

Pretty much entirely untrue. And remember Sinn Fein the supposedly pro-EU party has campaigned against every single EU treaty, including when we joined. Personally I thank jebus for the EU.

Torakx wrote: »

Well its possible to give information on the lisbon treaty while convieniently leaving out what does not seem important to those forming said information into a leaflet/poster.
Coir did get out of hand and i think its also ridiculous we had a vote for no and then decded we should do it again like the last one was meaningless.
Wouldnt it be fair for a best out of three since we have a no and a yes?

Also iirc the amended treaty is not what was actually voted on the second time.Im open to being convinced that it will be implemented instead of the one we voted no to.

To be very clear about this. People claimed the independent referendum commission didn't put things certain anti-treaty options in the leaflet. The problem is they can't/won't put certain things into a leaflet if they don't believe them to be true or factual. Any of us can hold a view and assume that others should too, but maybe we're just wrong.

Yeah Coir got our of hand. Look at the reasons people gave for voting no the first time and look at what Coir were claiming. Notice the similarity? And all of it bull.

The treaty wasn't amended, we were given legally binding guarantees on the treaty. And amusingly many of them guaranteed that stuff that wasn't in the treaty wasn't in the treaty.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The following link is a pretty good read from Indymedia regarding the failures of the Irish government and the Referendum Commission to provide the information necessary to make an informed decision.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88919

Yeah Indymedia, a bastion of truth.

So from my reading of this, as long as we assume everyone was in on it then we should be worried. I dunno maybe a simpler answer is the people who accuse the Independent referendum commission of bias are simply just wrong. I don't seem to recall anyone complaining about who was appointed to it until it didn't go along with their bull..

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Edit: It's important to remember that the Lisbon Treaty was essentially creating a new European constitution which supersedes our own constitution as explained in the amendment which was passed by the yes vote. The following is an excerpt from our constitution, an amendment "we" voted yes to when we accepted the Lisbon Treaty.

Strangely the German constitutional court ruled there was nothing whatsoever in the Lisbon treaty that created a superstate or federal state. But I'm sure untrained, non-expert strangers on the internet know better. Give me a fukking break.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

In English, this says that there is nothing in our constitution which will prevent the European Union from enforcing their laws in this country. Our constitution is worthless in that regard. I don't remember that being said by the "Yes" campaign.

Anything we needed a referendum on before Lisbon we still need one now. No matter how many times people say otherwise won't make that less true. The law is the law.

namloc1980

PanchoVilla wrote: »

You seem to have no understanding of the basic concepts behind the formation of the EU. Read the following wiki article for a basic education on post-war European politics. It's better to debate when you have some understanding of what's being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union




I don't even know what you're trying to say. We were forced to hold a second referendum, we were forced to accept the outcome of the referendum. It's not so difficult to understand.



What are you on about? Please link where these assertions were made, as I've never actually seen them coming from the "No" campaign. One of the major objectors to the treaty in this country was Sinn Féin. The following is their 5 reasons not to accept the treaty. Please tell me which of the five have not already happened.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/alternative-guide-to-lisbon-2

5 reasons:
1. Blanket statements like "it's a bad deal for Ireland" are all well and good but specifics please. And we know it was voted on twice.
2. Permanent commissioner was retained so they are wrong there anyway. As for QMV, it doesn't change until 2014 and will be more fairly based on population size rather than the current system or "weighting". Ireland only has 0.9% of the EU population - do you think we should have more votes than our population?? Remember important issues like tax, defence etc will continue to be unanimous.
3. Blaming the EU for the recession and for making it worse is pathetic. Most of Ireland's problems are home grown and trying to blame others is just "passing the buck".
4. Everything under defense is unanimous and Ireland has made declarartions that it will only co-operate in limited areas.
5. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Very limited parts can be changed without a referendum on a UNANIMOUS basis. No changes can be made that increase EU competences.

So Sinn Fein are wrong on most of their point (no surprise there then).

gizmo

PanchoVilla wrote: »

You seem to have no understanding of the basic concepts behind the formation of the EU. Read the following wiki article for a basic education on post-war European politics. It's better to debate when you have some understanding of what's being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union

Nowhere in my reply did I make any point regarding the formation of the EU, I only refuted your point based on the fact that it made no sense. I'm perfectly aware of the background to the formation of the EU, which is another reason why I found your point even more ridiculous.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I don't even know what you're trying to say. We were forced to hold a second referendum, we were forced to accept the outcome of the referendum. It's not so difficult to understand.

Forced wasn't actually the correct word there but humanji clarified it in a follow-up post.

As for what I was attempting to say, the point was that the people could have voted no again but this time, when the nonsense being spouted by the No was thoroughly refuted, the people voted yes.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

What are you on about? Please link where these assertions were made, as I've never actually seen them coming from the "No" campaign. One of the major objectors to the treaty in this country was Sinn Féin. The following is their 5 reasons not to accept the treaty. Please tell me which of the five have not already happened.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/alternative-guide-to-lisbon-2

I'll try and track down some images of the posters, hopefully some of them are still online. In the meantime though we had Ganley being caught rotten on-air and then this.

Here is an archive of some of the Lisbon leaflets, most of the points made above are featured in them.

As for the SF points:
Point 1 is just generic rabbling combined with the fact that they fail to remember we're a tiny state who have already benefited greatly from EU membership.
Point 2 is just badly worded. We lost our permanent commissioner but it was replaced by the rotating commissioner system which the other states are subjected to also. As for the rest, it again ignores the fact that we are a tiny state within Europe.
Point 3 is simply incorrect.
Point 4 is incorrect, the common defence policy does not affect our neutrality.
Point 5 is incorrect. As has been stressed repeatedly, everything that required a referendum before the vote still requires a referendum now.

They also had this poster. Has the minimum wage fallen since Lisbon passed?

Johnny Utah

“Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU in a letter to a friend 30th April 1952).

humanji

Johnny Utah wrote: »

“Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU in a letter to a friend 30th April 1952).

Thank God Monnet never said that, otherwise it would seem very ominous.

meglome

Johnny Utah wrote: »

“Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU in a letter to a friend 30th April 1952).

Jean Monnet didn't actually say this. It's seems to have come from a book by Adrian Hilton.

However the highlighted text above is very similar to the attributed Monnet quote, In reply to a request for clarification Adrian Hilton said; "I do not believe that Monnet ever articulated these precise words, but I certainly never said that he did. Looking at the similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, it appears that some over-enthusiast has redacted my words into a Monnet quotation, and this may have become the source of confusion. Yet even then they have paraphrased my words, which shows a peculiar propensity to literary creativity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the past month (and, no, I am no longer the Conservative candidate for Slough), it is that standing for Parliament causes people to twist, warp and misrepresent all manner of things that one has written, no matter how academic the thesis, or how credible and cogent the argument."

Di0genes

Beaucoupfish

Absolute Nonsense.
Have you read the history of WW II and the evolution of the EU?

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

Libertas crap

If you're going to draw attention to the idiocy shown in the campaigns, do it for both sides

meglome

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/materials-documents/posters

My name is URL wrote: »

If you're going to draw attention to the idiocy shown in the campaigns, do it for both sides

The yes for jobs was probable, these on the other hand are not. Also the yes for jobs is continually brought up in here by people who ignore all this kind of no side rubbish.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/materials-documents/posters


The yes for jobs was probable, these on the other hand are not.

Of course they weren't probable, but that doesn't excuse the opposing side from preying on peoples fears too, surely? The entire campaign from both sides was ludicrous. And throwing up the outrageous claims made by COIR & Libertas whenever someone mentions the empty promises made by the Yes side doesn't mean anything really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE