THE EUROPEAN UNION 'MYTHS'

INTRODUCTION

Ironically most of the disputes about the alleged European Union 'myths' can resolved very quickly using an Internet search engine. Like all bureaucracies the EU is fond of its paperwork and in the age of the Internet this information is just a 'click' away.

This document has been put together to provide access to the reference material that spells out the realities behind some of the most common EU 'myths' .

1. Bent Bananas

2. The EU uses blasphemy laws to suppress free speech

3. The British people have been lied to.

4. EU Law is behind the breakup of the UK into Regions

1. Bent Bananas.

Statements to the affect that bureaucratic overkill makes the EU so intrusive that it even legislates to control the curvature of fruit are often held up as a Eurosceptic 'myth'. This 'myth' is easy to prove as the documents are available direct from the EU's own web site.

Regulation 2257/94 (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1994/en_1994R2257_do_001.pdf) deals with bananas. Section IV (b) 'Size Tollerences ' states

'satisfying the sizing characteristics, up to a limit of 1cm for the minimum length of 14cm.'

Similarly with the 'bent' cucumber regulation (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1988/en_1988R1677_do_001.pdf ). Section II, B, (I), 'Classification' states

'.. must be well shaped and practically straight (maximum height of the arc 10mm per 10cm of length)..'

The standard response (after the initial denial) is that these are labelling and quality standards that don't stop anybody selling anything (the curvature definitions define the 'Class' of the fruit). For a start this ignores the fact that retailers are not going to want to label their produce 'second class' but it also ignores the fact that laws of this gob-smacking detail:

(a) are environmentally unsound - perfectly good food will be wasted due to its shape.

(b) make taxes go up to pay for civil servants to administer this level of detail

2. The EU suppresses free speech using blasphemy laws

RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice gave a legal opinion (in case C-274/99) in 19 October 2000 that criticism of the EU, its institutions or its leading figures was akin to blasphemy. Further, that, because laws against blasphemy were acceptable both under the common law of England and the existing European Human Rights Convention, it then followed that punishing someone for allegedly criticizing the EU was not an infringement of free speech

This opinion was given as a result of a case against a British European Commission official Bernard Connolly, who had written 'The Rotten Heart Of Europe', a book critical of the EU.

The European Court of First Instance found against him, ruling that the EU may restrict political speech to protect its interests.

Initially Mr. Connolly had argued that a landmark British case, Wingrove VS. United Kingdom, had established that political speech could not be limited except in extreme circumstances of blasphemy. The Wingrove case concerned a pornographic video showing St. Teresa of Avila engaged in various sexual acts. The advocate general turned that argument upside down and argued that the blasphemy ruling implied a broader protection for the 'rights of others'. It was the cornerstone of his argument that the EU can legitimately punish dissent.

The meat of the issue is in sections 15 to 20 where the advocate general referes to the Wingrove case in the UK

Section 15 gives some of the Wingrove case background basically saying that “It appears from the judgment that English law defined the offence of blasphemy in the following terms: 'Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. ... the Court of Human Rights .... acknowledged that the national authorities needed sufficient flexibility to enable them to assess whether certain facts fell within the definition of the offence.”

Section 17 states affirms that censorship is fine in the case of 'the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, which, without any doubt, encompasses a Community institution's rights in relation to the reputation of its members'

20 concludes “To put it in positive terms, the decision dismissing Mr Connolly for having contravened that provision satisfies the requirement of proportionality in that it finds that the work which was published caused serious prejudice to the Communities' interests”

The full text can be obtained from theCourt of Justice of the European Communities website (http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=C-274%2F99&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100 ) but it is very hard to find using the site search engine (perhaps they are not proud of this one?) the EU Observer site has a direct link from this article http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=1640)

3. The British people have been systematically lied to.

In May 1970 the Labour government under Harold Wilson declared that it intended to begin negotiations for the UK to join the EU. One month later the Conservatives under Ted Heath took over and the process of negotiation got underway. This culminated in a White Paper which the government shortened into a booklet to persuade a sceptical public. The following quotes about a Britain inside the European Community are taken from that booklet:-

1. “There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty”

2. “When a government considers that vital national interests are involved, decisions are only made if all members agree”

3. “The English Welsh and Scottish legal systems will continue as before ...”

4. “The (existing members) have not lost any of their national identities, national institutions and points of view. Nor will Britain.”

Similarly in 1975 the pamphlet, produced by Harold Wilson’s government, to support the ‘yes’ vote in the 1975 referendum contained the following:

1 “There was a threat to employment from the movement in the Common Market towards Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound (Sterling), restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.”

2 “The minister representing Britain can veto any proposal … if he considers it to be against British interest.”

In retrospect it is easy to see that these statements are untrue but in reality the politicians of the time must have also known that they were untrue. Take, for example, the 1971 Foreign and Commonwealth Office memo FCO 30/1048. This was put under a 30 year secrecy law and was released to the public in 2002. The mere fact that the government of the time felt the need to suppress this document speaks volumes.

'Loss of sovereignty' is mentioned throughout this document (if played down in many cases) and a couple of the points are quite remarkable.

Point 18. warns that 'essential aspects of sovereignty' would 'increasingly be transferred to the Community itself' and that majority voting would be used (i.e. We would lose the veto).

Point 24 (i) also states 'After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.' - need we say more

The full text of this document is available from http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/ then put "FCO 30/1048" in "go to reference".

4. EU Law is behind the breakup of the UK into Regions

Although they have been presented as 'home-grown' initiatives (e.g. John Prescott's 30 year dream), the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the London assembly and now the English regional assemblies have all come about as a result of EU law.

The government's White Paper on the regions of England, "Your Region, Your Choice - Revitalising the English Regions", is simply carrying out EU requirements and is one of the biggest attempts yet to push EU policy anonymously so as not to risk the pubic anger that would undoubtedly result if its EU origins were known.

Article 198 of the Maastricht treaty (http://europa.eu.int/en/record/mt/title2.html) provided the basis of the EU's regionalisation policy. It introduced the Committee of the Regions and specified how representatives from each region across the EU would sit on that committee.

The geographical layout of the regions was defined by Eurostat maps often referred to as 'NUTS' (“Nomenclature Des Unités Territoriales Statistiques" ). http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/overview_maps_en.cfm?list=nuts. The individual member countries are NUTS 0 regions and the next subdivision describes the NUTS 1 regions. (which are the UK regions). These maps were produced in March 1999.

The EU already exerts indirect control of the UK regions via funding ('he who pays the piper calls the tune' – it was by making funding region based that the EU forced John Major to set up the first regional bodies). Regulation 1260/1999 'Structural Funds' (http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31999R1260&model=guichett ) details this process.

Direct control will come through Regulations aimed directly at the Regions. The EU parliamentary report http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/afco/20020326/443686en.pdf illustrates how the EU will exercise direct control of the regions.

"the basic treaty can recognise the existence and role of the 'partner regions of the Union'. In each country, the list of regions concerned would be determined by the national government, which would notify Brussels: the list would probably cover regions with legislative powers but it would be up to each government to designate those regions that it regarded as 'partners of the Union'. Regions so designated would enjoy certain rights, linked to their involvement in Community policies: representation in the Committee of the Regions (where not all regions with legislative powers sit at the moment); right to be consulted by the Commission when it is preparing legislation falling within their jurisdiction; possibility of bringing actions directly in the Court of Justice on competence disputes concerning them."

The voters in England will be given the illusion of having choice in this process by being asked whether they want their region to have an elected assembly. They won't be asked whether they want the EU Regions in the first place as the EU gives our government no choice in that. The word 'England', by the way, does not appear on the NUTS maps. It is a geographical unit that is of no use to the EU – that is why you do not hear talk of an English Parliament.