Answers to common Euromyths

Richard Corbett MEP

Knocking the EU is second nature to many people, raising a smile or causing apoplexy with the
latest plan of the barmy Brussels bureaucrats. And some of the “Euromyths” that appear in our
press are benign or even funny: the yarn that the European Commission intended to harmonise
the size of condoms across Europe, and that the size in question was not suitable for British
assets, no doubt produced many a chuckle. But the bulk of “Euromyths” are pure inventions or
gross exaggerations, deliberately spread to denigrate the EU by making it appear silly or sinister,
or both.

Rebutting them is, of course, an uphill struggle at times. The balance is not the same as in
debates in national politics where, if a government is accused of misbehaviour or ridicule, there
will be a government spokesman accorded equal media time making the case for the defence.
There is no such balance in media coverage of the EU.

On the contrary, there is a permanent anti-EU bias in our press, two-thirds of which is owned by
virulent anti-Europeans. This in turn ensures that anyone who dislikes an EU proposal knows that
they will get supportive press coverage, not by engaging with the issues (as in national politics)
but by attacking it as “EU interference”, “Brussels bureaucracy” or “burdensome red tape”.
On top of that, Europhobia is one of the main outlets for the extreme right now that legislation
prevents them from printing overtly racist material. Snide comments about the European
institutions can serve as a shorthand for xenophobia, and to raise the spectre of ‘foreigners taking
over the nooks and crannies of British life’. And it was, of course, Hitler who said that people “will
more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”. The lesson has not been lost on modern
day nationalists and xenophobes.

It is therefore incumbent upon us to counter Euromyths vigorously whenever they appear. We
must not succumb to the temptation to play along with a Euro myth for short term gain. Too often,
the response to a story such as the one that the EU requires all bananas to be straight is not to
knock it on the head as a piece of media mythology, but to play along and say “yes, indeed, I’ll
fight this nonsense, I’ll raise this in Parliament, I’ll be at the forefront of having it repealed”.
This is all the more tempting when it comes to the really big European lies. These are the myths
that the European Union is on its way to becoming a centralised super-state, or that it is
fundamentally undemocratic, or that joining the single currency would remove all economic
sovereignty, or that the new EU constitution represents the end of a thousand years of British
history. But it is precisely these myths that are the most dangerous.

On the EU in general

“The EU is becoming a centralised super-state”

The EU can only deal with the subjects laid down in the Treaties. These can only be extended
with the unanimous consent of each and every national parliament, including our own.

Even within these limited areas, any EU legislation must be approved by the Council of Ministers.
This is composed of members of all national governments, accountable to national parliaments.
As an additional safeguard, EU legislation is also scrutinised and amended by the European
Parliament, whose members are directly elected.

The system is not centralised, nor is there any danger of that happening. The key gut issues of
politics (the health service, education, social security, pensions, housing, income tax, local
government, most aspects of crime and punishment, devolution, and so on) will remain national
issues, settled in national elections and subject to legislation by our national parliament.
The facts prove it. The EU budget is a mere 2% of public expenditure – the remaining 98% is
national or local. The central administration – the EU Commission – is tiny, with fewer employees
than Leeds City Council. Some superstate!

“But continental politicians sometimes talk of federalism”

If “federalism” means what many British newspapers say, i.e. a centralised system, then no-one
supports it. But, to many continentals, federalism simply means having different levels of
governance to deal with problems of varying scale (local government to deal with housing, the
international level to deal with global warming), with the whole system as decentralised as
possible and with each level democratically accountable.

“The EU always telling us what to do”

It doesn’t – unless it’s something we agreed to do in the first place! The EU is simply a place
where we meet with our neighbouring countries to thrash out common solutions to common
problems. This includes jointly managing – and setting the rules for – the single European market.
It also includes trying to agree to speak with one voice towards the rest of the world to maximise
our influence. But nothing the EU ‘tells us to do’ is anything other than what we’ve already agreed.

“The EU is run by bureaucrats”

No, the European Commission only has the power to propose, and to carry out what has been
agreed. All decisions on policy and European legislation are taken by the Council – composed of
the elected governments of the Member States – and the European Parliament – composed of
directly elected MEPs.

And as we said above, the European Commission is small – despite dealing with the whole of
Europe, it has fewer employees than Leeds City Council!

“The EU is a new Soviet Union forcing countries together”

The European Union is based on voluntary participation. No country is forced to join. All have
chosen to do so freely. The Soviet Union was an oppressive dictatorship whereas the EU brings
together democracies – the comparison is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

The EU (originally the European Community) was set up after the war to create a structure which
would enable the countries of Europe to work together for peace and prosperity. Every generation
from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Second World War fought each other on the battle fields
of Europe: the time had come to find a better way. In the words of Nobel Peace Prize winner John
Hume, “the European Union is the world’s most successful peace process.”

Besides this idealistic reason, there is the sheer necessity of working together to deal with a
growing economic, environmental and political interdependence of European countries.

“The EU is drowning us in red tape by adopting too much legislation”

Common legislation for the common market can be an exercise in simplification, cutting red tape.
In the words of Tony Blair, “replacing 15 sets of disparate and often conflicting national rules with
one common European-wide approach has been a huge exercise not in complication but in
simplification”.

The rules for the single market give us – the customers and consumers – power. They increase
competition, lowering prices, and they protect us from abuse. They do not stifle business but
strengthen commerce.

And remember that when, for instance, new laws make a company clean up its pollution and they
don’t like it, they are unlikely to say that it’s because they don’t want to clean up their act. Rather,
they will say “red tape from Brussels is costing us a fortune”. Sadly, gullible journalists and others
often fall for this version.

“We don’t need to be part of Europe”

Half a century of building the European Union has been vital for peace and prosperity in Europe.
In bringing together former enemies into a common co-operative structure, it has brought an end
to bloody conflict. In eliminating obstacles to trade and commerce it has brought unprecedented
economic development to our continent.

An integrated economy needs common management. A market that is a simple free-for-all is
neither fair nor efficient. To work well, it needs to be given fair rules and high standards. With a
common market we need common rules and standards in areas such as:

The EU is also a means for us to contribute to a more stable and peaceful world. Whether through
economic aid, trade, contributing militarily to peacekeeping operations, or fighting terrorism and
transnational crime, it is by acting jointly that our countries can be more effective.

And we should never lose sight of what it means in overall terms in creating an area of peace and
stability in Europe. Almost every generation from the fall of the Roman Empire until 1945 fought
each other on the battlefields of Europe. Replacing that with arguments around the negotiating
table is no mean feat. We take it for granted at our peril.

“We were told we were only joining a free trade zone”

Not true. British governments never hid the significance of joining the EU. The Wilson
government, in setting out its reasons for applying in 1967, stressed that “the Government’s
purpose derives above all from our conviction that Europe is now faced with the opportunity of a
great move forward in political unity and that we can - and indeed we must - play our full part in
it...”

The Wilson Government White Paper pointed out that membership involved “Community law
having direct internal effect is designed to take precedence over the domestic law of the Member
States”.

The Heath Government’s 1971 White Paper on joining spoke of the aims of “an ever closer union
among European peoples” and not just of trade but “social progress”, “approximating the
economic policies of member states”, “stability”, and “closer relations of the member states” - all
“objectives to which this country can wholeheartedly subscribe”.

The White Paper went on to say: “ If the political implications of joining Europe are at present
clearest in the economic field, it is because the Community is primarily concerned with economic
policy. But it is inevitable that the scope of the Community’s external policies should broaden as
member countries interests become harmonised. That is the Community’s clear intention. As
regards the co-ordination of foreign policy, the practical obligations which the UK will assume if we
join now will involve no more than we have already assumed in WEU. But we shall be joining at a
moment when we will be able to influence the process of development. This will also be true of
progress towards economic and monetary union”.

It underlined that “what is proposed is a sharing and an enlargement of individual national
sovereignties in the general interest,” and “a Europe united would have the means of recovering
the position in the world which Europe divided has lost”.

More specifically on EMU, this was fixed as a target for “completion not later than December 31st
1980” at the Hague Summit in 1972 - before we joined, but with the then UK Government
participating in the summit and agreeing to it. Of course, it took somewhat longer than anticipated,
which shows that moves to monetary union were not a headlong rush but gradual, careful and
considered.

Finally, it is worth looking at the statements sent to every household prior to the referendum on
membership in 1975. The Government’s statement explained that this was “probably the most
important choice that the British people have ever been asked to make”. No small trading matter,
then! The main thrust of the “No” campaign statement was that this was about “the right to rule
ourselves”.