Tag Archives: eurosceptic

On the EU’s “democratic deficit”

Posted on by

I’ve been planning a long piece on this for months, ever since that whole openDemocracy thing I did back in the autumn (which is, it turns out, what got me shortlisted for that Reuters award thing, rather than this place), but haven’t quite found the time.

The short version (guaranteed to rile the eurosceptics): nope, the EU’s not democratic – and nor should it be if Britain’s interests are going to be maintained. (I’ll try and explain in more detail at some point, but it’s unlikely to be overly soon…)

Anyway, back to the original starting point for this post. Amongst the usual stuck record of eurosceptic complaints under Timothy Garton-Ash’s latest offering about the EU over at the Guardian’s Comment is Free yesterday (I sometimes read these things just to remind myself why I’m not slipping back into full-on eurosceptic mode, despite the repeated disappointments, annoyances and embarrassments that come with being pro-EU*), this little beauty leapt out, by poster “tooter”. It’s one of the best succinct rejoinders to the perennial “the EU’s not democratic” complaint I’ve seen in quite a while, and echoes many of my own views:

I think this “democratic deficit” thing is overdone. The appointees you are on about are put there by people we elect. Great chunks of our government is run in the same way – the House of Lords being the most glaring example, but there are others, Quangos, the Judiciary (!), the PM (!) to name but a few.

Take one example, the European Central Bank. I read over and over again, as an argument against the Euro, about sinister “faceless bureaucrats” who will run our economy for us from Frankfurt. Well the ECB is accountable to no less than FOUR of the European institutions.

Who is the Bank of England accountable to? Can anybody name even two members of the MPC without googling? Are they not, therefore, “faceless bureaucrats” running our economy from London?

What do the europhobes think we are living in now?

He/she later came back with a quick, even snappier follow-up, reiterating the point:

“We British have something called a “Parliamentary Democracy”, as do most of Europe. We never elect our Prime Minister, we elect Members of Parliament. It is these Members who choose the PM. The PM is an appointee. As are the entire House of Lords. As are the Judiciary. As are the Generals, senior civil servants, heads of Agencies and othe Quangos, the Cabinet, Chief Constables, Bishops etc etc

So, europhobes, how “undemocratic” is the EU again?

I too am intrigued by the answer to this. Because the arguments against the EU employed by eurosceptics who have moved beyond petty patriotism (which, to be fair, is an increasingly large proportion these days – and to be clear I mean patriotism in the strict sense, with no nasty connotations) increasingly revolve around criticisms of inefficiencies and failures that are also invariably present at a national – even local – level of government. Because, after all, no system of government ever devised is perfect.

Yet when it comes to the EU, for the eurosceptics it seems that nothing less than perfection will do.

Or am I being incredibly unfair and/or missing the point?

—-

* By the way, I really, really need a better term than “pro-EU” to describe my attitude to the whole thing. Because as should be clear to regular readers I’m not a loyal cheerleader for the EU by any means, and advocate fairly radical reform. I remain a supporter of a European Union of some kind, and of close cross-border political and economic co-operation – and in some case integration – of the kind the EU helps facilitate, but not necessarily this European Union.

In the good old days, this would have labelled me a eurosceptic in the true sense (inasmuch as I am sceptical of the benefits of a number of things the EU is doing) – but now that that term has become synonymous with “anti-EU”, what’s left for those of us who are neither europhiles nor eurosceptics, but occupy that vague middle-ground of being largely in favour of EU membership while wishing the whole thing was just a bit, y’know, better? Because that does, after all, account for the attitude of the vast majority of the British population – it seems very odd that there’s not a term for us all…

EU reform: Impossible, a superstate, or multi-tier?

Posted on by

Richard North at eurosceptic blog par excellence EU Referendum draws my attention to this piece in the Times by William Rees-Mogg, which contains the line:

Most Eurosceptics want Europe to be reformed, not destroyed

This is something of which I remain firmly convinced – but not our man North:

Oh dear! After all these years, and all the failed attempts at seeking “reform”, has it not yet dawned on the man that the EU is incapable of reform[?]

Ignoring the fact that this ignores Rees-Mogg’s actual contention (he doesn’t profess to be in favour of reform himself, merely that a majority favour reform over withdrawal – an unfortunate reality for the withdrawalists of EU Referendum), a question:

How can hardcore anti-EU types maintain that reform is impossible yet simultaneously believe that the EU is heading towards a superstate – which would, in itself, be an immense reform?

North points to an old article in which he explains his logic for rejecting the possibility of EU reform. Yet his “proof” is to refer to an old Milton Friedman article looking at the United States’ Food and Drug Administration, in which Friedman claimed the institution’s very set-up prevented change. Even were this not itself a somewhat dubious contention, backed up more by assertion than by evidence, a monolithic US government agency being compared to a multi-part, multi-country international organisation hardly strikes me as overly fair.

You see the way I reckon it, yes, with current attitudes from the various member states, radical reform is unlikely – just have a gander at the failed compromises that are the Treaty of Nice and Lisbon Treaty, both unsatisfactory to all parties but the best they could manage.

There are several different trains of thought among EU member states as to what the EU should actually be – and whenever efforts to reform come up, as they do on average once a decade, reconciling all these different desires has indeed proved impossible.

But as all major reforms – even after the expansion of qualified majority voting that the Lisbon Treaty brings – still require unanimity, this makes the appearance of an EU superstate all but impossible as long as less integrationist countries remain members (and it’s not just Britain that isn’t keen on ever-closer union).

“OK”, you might think. “So you admit EU reform’s impossible?”

No. Because I reckon the current situation is going to change. How much longer are the likes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg – the core of the original EEC, and still more or less the most enthusiastic member states – going to put up with the frustration of their plans being thwarted? How much longer are those countries who aren’t keen on merging their economies much further going to put up with the perennial drives for greater integration from euroenthusiasts?

We’ve already had countless rhetoric-heavy spats over various aspects of EU reform – not just between Britain and Brussels (as with Thatcher’s battle for the rebate), but between numerous other less fervently federalist member states and the expansionists.

Sooner or later, these clashes are bound to result in an official suggestion of a two-speed or multi-speed Europe – maintaining the union while allowing everyone more or less to go their separate ways.

The idea of a multi-speed Europe is not a new one, and is increasingly gaining ground. Over the last few years, it is a concept that I’ve seen crop up time and again, from House of Lords debates to The Economist, former French president Jaques Chirac to former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former Commission president Romano Prodi to the EU’s own website.

As Prodi said in an interview last year:

it is good if you can go forward together, but you cannot go at the speed of the last wagon.

We already have a two-speed Europe. Euro and Schengen are examples of this and they are very important projects. Moreover, a two-speed Europe does not mean that countries that are in the second group cannot move to the first. Two-speed Europe sometimes means more choices.

So, while anti-EU claims that the EU is heading towards a superstate seem to be backed up purely by decades-old (mis)quotes from the likes of Jean Monet (and the occasional modern superstatist aberration like Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker), my hopes that genuine EU reform may be on the cards seem to have rather more to support them.

So then, how can this whole “the EU can’t be reformed” thing – the mantra of all withdrawalists – be justified? The Lisbon Treaty itself is an acknowledgement that the current system is not up to scratch – and an acknowledgement that getting a satisfactory compromise is increasingly difficult (being as it is an unsatisfactory attempt to rectify the previous unsatisfactory compromise that was the Treaty of Nice).

Especially since the failure of the constitution there is an increasing consensus throughout the EU – both among the populations of the member states and increasingly among the EU machine itself – that some serious, radical changes are needed, beyond the mere stop-gap measures that the constitution (and Lisbon Treaty) aimed for.

Introducing a new, multi-tier, multi-speed system (on top of the existing two-tier Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries) is the most obvious – and, most importantly, easiest – way to give everyone what they want. I see no reason why it won’t eventually happen – the only question is how long is it going to take?

On free speech in the European Parliament

Posted on by

Quick question: why is there so little condemnation from the pro-EU camp of the European Parliament’s recent actions in trying to stifle eurosceptic proponents of referenda on the Lisbon Treaty?

To redress the balance: I’m pro-EU and I’m anti-referendum – and I think this is an absolute disgrace.

The evidence of double-standards is palpable – people and MEPs protesting against things the EU machine wants to do are stifled and harassed; those who protest about other issues are allowed to continue on their way.

Yes, a bunch of eurosceptics dressed up in chicken costumes to highlight calls for referenda because they mistakenly think that the Lisbon Treaty is in some way more significant than Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht, etc. etc. is ridiculous and stupid. Eurosceptic MEPs launching long speeches and using the regulations of the European Parliament to try and get their point across may be frustrating. But both of these are perfectly within the rules.

And, of course, most importantly it’s why they were elected. You don’t vote for a eurosceptic MEP for them to faithfully go along with everything the EU wants. You vote for them because you want them to oppose things you disagree with – even if that does include the entire EU project.

Yes, they may be irritating. Yes, many of them may be tits (Kilroy, I’m looking at you). But they are elected representatives who are doing what they were elected to do. Preventing them from doing this is not only to breach the rules of the European Parliament – it is effectively to disenfranchise their voters.

What happened to Friends of Europe Secretary-General Giles Meritt’s eminently sensible advice for the EU to start engaging with eurosceptics to help identify areas for reform? What happened to the European Commission’s supposed plan to the promise to listen that came with the “New Commission approach to dialogue and communication with European citizens”?

If the EU is ever going to get widespread and active popular support, it needs to show that it is democratic and that it listens. This is something I kept returning to in my dLiberation coverage for openDemocracy last year. It’s something that various EU bodies have said themselves countless times over the last decade or so. Yet time and time again, the EU gives the impression that it will only ever listen to those who agree with it.

Stifling dissent is not the way to win support – it’s the way to harden opposition and drive more people into your opponents’ camp. Shame on you, European Parliament.

Update: Oh, and this. If you want people to support the political system you’re trying to build up, you need openness and transparency – not secrecy and corruption – from your elected representatives.

The European Parliament is meant to be the jewel in the EU’s crown – constantly referred to as the proof that the organisation is democratic and accountable.

It needs to get its act in gear, if you ask me…

On a common EU foreign policy

Posted on by

“Oh noes!” Say the eurosceptics. “Teh Lisbon tweety dat am weely teh constitootion am gonna make teh EU a state and stuff! Got foreign minister! Oh noes! Dat mean common foreign policy! Our sovereignty gone bye-byes! Waaah!”

I really can’t ever hope to summarise the likelihood of this particular bogeyman coming into being any time soon better than Nanne at DJ Nozem, so instead I’ll just reproduce it in full. :

EU Foreign Ministers fail to agree on the most basic issues about the status of a small breakaway Yugoslav province (population: 2 million est.) that declared its independence over the weekend.

An issue that had been on the horizon for about, oh, nine years.

How’s that common foreign policy coming along?

He he he!

I do like how many intriguing questions the Kosovo situation is helping to raise. And how many answers it’s providing to boot…

Better off out?

Posted on by

After the news that non-EU European country Iceland has been looking in to the possibility of joining the Eurozone, another example of how just because you’re not a member of the EU it’s still likely to have a major impact, courtesy of Liechtenstein.

This particular example, however, is somewhat more timely, following Kosovo’s independence. Because Liechtenstein is one of Europe’s smallest countries, with a population of just 35,000 (compared to Kosovo’s 2 million) – yet has a very healthy economy indeed. For why? Well, like any sensible mini-state (see, for example, Monaco, Andorra and semi-states the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands), it’s become a tax haven – one of the best possible ways for a tiny country to lure in vast amounts of cash. (Supposedly Liechtenstein has more registered companies than people.)

But wait – hold up Kosovo! Before you get all excited about the possibility of becoming the Liechtenstein of the Balkans, be warned…

Because tax havens occasionally end up having problems – such as the current German financial scandal. Here, Germany has gained access – through some well-placed payments to known criminals, it would seem – to Liechtenstein’s records in order to hunt down a bunch of German citizens it wants to prosecute for tax evasion.

Liechtenstein is, naturally, not best pleased that the German state has deliberately accessed its confidential commercial and financial files. It’s hard, really, not to sympathise with Crown Prince Alois when he berates Germany for acting illegally (even if he does slip into hyperbole from time to time). Their country, their rules – and their sovereignty should be respected, right?

Well, not if you’re the EU, it would seem – because the European Union is not only backing Germany’s actions, but is now joining in the anti-Liechtenstein rhetoric:

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said in Berlin Tuesday that Germany’s controversial tax dragnet is likely to put tax evasion on the agenda of the next meeting of the European Union finance ministers.

Juncker, head of the Eurogroup of 15 countries sharing the euro currency, called on Liechtenstein to “plug its existing tax loop holes.”

…German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck says Germany will now push for a pan-European solution to tax evasion…

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, a policy forum for industrialized countries, weighed in to identify European tax havens Leichtenstein, Andorra and Monaco as effectively providing a basis for illegal tax evasion.

And so the pressure mounts. Are we about to see a concerted EU-backed effort to force even more sovereign states to abide by EU rules? It rather looks like it – and it’s really nothing new.

Because if you want to trade with the EU, you pretty much have to abide by the EU’s rules and regulations – something to which both Switzerland and Norway can attest, in case you’re thinking that this could only happen to smaller countries. For European countries, with external trade fairly naturally dominated by their near neighbours, doing what the EU says is pretty much the only option – unless you follow the Belarus route and suck up to Russia instead.

Is the EU using its dominance of the European market to bully its non-member neighbours into doing what it wants? Yep – of course it is. It’s acting as would any sensible economic power – it’s trying to ensure that everything runs to its own best advantage. And it will continue to do so, it it’s got any sense.

Which is precisely why the UK is far better off in.

Why I’m (largely) pro-EU

Posted on by

Nutty eurosceptics are always good for a giggle, but can be deeply frustrating for the more sensible anti-EU types, as Tory MEP Daniel Hannan has recently discovered following his (rather silly) expulsion from the EPP – and as those who attended the Pro-Referendum Rally a few months back also found out when they found themselves associating with BNP thugs, middle-aged women dressed as Britannia, and shouty conspiracy theorists.

After all, who wants to be associated with the kinds of historically, constitutionally and legally ignorant, utterly deluded (and highly hilarious) ravings of Telegraph comments section regular “Magna Carta” and his ilk, with their propensity for spewing out gems like this (from the comments to that Hannan piece):

Now that the Queen has abdicated and become a citizen of the EU republic what happens to all the lands the Crown owns…

These lands will become part of the assets of the EU republic.

45,000.000.000 dollars worth.

This will be used for the benifit of the EU and not of the British Commonwealth.

What most people do not know about is that the EU will then have a claim to New York and Washington DC USA.

Washington DC is in the Countie of Stafford and i come from Stafford shire England. Us to be known as Stafford countie. from the Earls of Essex and Ewe Duke of Buckingham,s lands.

Our family gave the first White House to the American people which is still standing in New York to day.

For similar insanity, check out the message boards of leading (and intermittently rather good) anti-EU blog EU Referendum pretty much any day of the week.

Raving EU conspiracy theories abound (I’ve even come up with a few myself), and are usually good for a giggle. But it can be exasperating for the more rational anti-EU types – of whom I know many. Indeed, it was largely the more maniacal anti-EU lunatics that first set me on the path to supporting British membership after a lifetime being fairly hardcore anti-EU. (The specific initial reason for my defecting to the pro-EU camp was, if I recall, a particularly smug and stupid article about something to do with the EU by Peter Oborne that appeared in the Spectator.)

But every now and then, it works the other way. Such as when you find out that Patricia Hewitt is likely to be Britain’s next European Commissioner (via), or whenever former Europe Minister Dennis MacShane opens his mouth.

I’ve never subscribed to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I do, however, reckon that if my friends all turn out to be morons, it’s worth thinking about joining the enemy. This is why I keep voting for different parties at pretty much every election. (Though I used to claim I was voting FOR specific policies or candidates, I’ve realised that I’ve actually always been voting AGAINST something.)

The way the EU’s been going recently, I’m getting increasingly tempted to switch back to being anti-EU again. I mean, just imagine if the British Commissioner was Patricia Hewitt and the President of the EU was Tony Blair… How could I, without massive hypocrisy, support such an organisation?

But then I remember the nutters in the other camp, and turn back. Currently, I find myself huddled in a shell hole in No Man’s Land, bayonet fixed. Nonetheless, I remain significantly closer to the pro-EU lines than the anti – with my gun trained sometimes forwards, sometimes back, firing off shots at anyone stupid enough to put their head above the trenches on either side.

Because, let’s face it, no one political party or ideology has all the answers. To think otherwise is to go in for a form of secular religion that’s just as dogmatic and stupid as anything the bishops, rabbis and mullahs have ever come up with. A series of loose alliances with groups that reflect aspects of your belief is by far the better course – and never commit all-out.

Sitting in No Man’s Land may mean you get shot by both sides (and yes, I have been attacked by both europhiles and europhobes in my time), but at least you’re free to follow your own orders, rather than feeling obliged to charge over the top with the rest of the herd as soon as your chosen leader blows his whistle. Times change, opinions change, – it’s the height of naive arrogance to assume that you’ll always think the same way, and (as far as I’m concerned) simply pathetic to follow the party line rather than your conscience.

Farrage – balanced?

Posted on by
If you want a balanced analysis of the proceedings of an economic summit, who better to get in to do it than a man who wants to end the very institution holding said summit. Yep, EUPolitix have got in Nigel “we’ve got to get back to running our own country” Farrage, the man behind most of the UK Independence Party’s (frankly rather silly) policies, to “analyse” the EU’s spring summit. Interestingly, however, they refer to him only as “co-leader of the IND/DEM group in the European parliament” – which makes him sound rather less like a barking loon than my description.

However, after his mind-numbingly tedious and over-extended cricketing metaphor (cricket – it’s British, see?) I somewhat doubt he’ll be asked back again. Some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a long while (and I was looking through some of the tedious attempts at short stories I wrote while an undergrad the other day… Even worse than that…)

Oh yes – this was funny too. Chirac walking out because of people not speaking French. Heh… France once again acting like the spoilt toddler of Europe.

The benefits of European integration, part 4,578

Posted on by

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the EU-wide arrest warrant, extremely helpful in fighting terrorism and organised crime – which, I think we can all agree, is largely cross-border these days.

And – please note – on this occasion a suspected terrorist mastermind has been let free thanks to the wishy-washy weaknesses of a mere national government – not through want of EU efforts. You can’t pin this one on the European Union (though I have no doubt that the usual suspects at the usual blogs will try).

More discussions of the problems of the arrest warrant at the International Herald Tribune are also worth a look. This affects you too, you know – Slovenia could extradite you tomorrow under this agreement. Probably.

The fact that this arrest warrant has been deemed to go against the German and Polish constitutions and to violate suspects’ basic rights is neither here nor there – after all, if they’ve got nothing to hide they’ve got nothing to fear, right?

(I really can’t tell if I’m being sarcastic any more – this is a good thing for proving the effectiveness of closer integration, but it’s a bad thing for civil liberties, but it could make us all safer, but it could be used to lock us all up, but… My brain hurts again.)

Update: Just noticed – this story gives a prime opportunity to compare and contrast news coverage to check for bias. Let’s see…

EU Observer (run by a sceptic) – Terror suspect freed on European warrant glitch – taking “European” as a synonym for “The European Union”, as many headline writers do, this would tend to suggest it’s the EU’s fault.

Compare to the pro-EU Guardian – Germany blocks extradition of al-Qaida suspect – factual, no confusing reference to “Europe”.

That Scotsman article linked above, from a traditionally strongly Eurosceptic paper, opts for the sensible, factual Setback as German court bars al-Qaeda suspect’s extradition. Unusual, as they’re normally only too happy to have a dig.

The Financial Times, meanwhile – seemingly unable to make up its mind about the EU these days – plays it safe and goes for both headlines: first (possibly via Reuters) German court rules EU arrest warrant invalid, again bringing the EU up in the context of a failure in an apparent attempt to sully it by association, then Germany sets free suspected al-Qaeda financier – a more honest approach, as the EU actually has precious little to do with this story, other than as a possible way to prevent such a thing happening again.

Finally, the sceptic Telegraph has a not so subtle dig: Al-Qa’eda suspect freed as Germany rules EU extradition warrant illegal – note the cunning implication, by the use of the stronger “illegal” in place of the FT’s “invalid” that this is somehow the EU’s fault for proposing a dodgy law, rather than Germany’s fault for bollocking up the implementation?

If anyone spots any more interesting coverage of this story, let me know.

Update 2: Yesterday’s headspack means I’m behind. The usual suspects have already latched onto it.

First up Ken at EU Realist seeing this ruling as the herald of the collapse of all international treaties and the the beginning of the end for EU Law. Wishful thinking there, old chap – that’d only be the case if every member state had the same legal situation of Germany. If they did, there’d be no need for legal rulings at an EU level as we’d already all be in perfect harmony.

Next, the increasingly barking Helen Szamuely at EU Referendum. Interesting how here the al Quaeda suspect of everyone else’s coverage becomes “a half-Syrian, half-German businessman whose Import-Export Company is suspected of being a front for a money-laundering operation to provide funds for terrorists” – with little mention of how high up the wanted list he is or how important his financial dealings as thought to be. Because, hey, if the EU’s trying to screw him over, he must be OK, right? Oh, and look – Ken “filthy communist” Livingstone’s said he’s dodgy, so he must be OK (for some reason).

In other words, smoke and mirrors to detract from the central point which is that, had the German government implemented the legislation correctly, EU legislation would have enabled the detention and trial of a man strongly suspected of funding terrorism. As it is, the sovereign courts old Helen praises so much have let a suspected terrorist fundraiser continue unimpeded, and she offers no practical suggestions for preventing this from occurring again.

But as she then starts drooling with conspiracy theories about the secret service aiding terrorists (whereby somehow because terrorists exist – erm… the EU’s bad, m’kay?), I think it’s probably best to back away slowly, smiling gently, and try not to make any sudden movements…

Tackling the euro popularity deficit

Posted on by

Another one to get the sceptics all upset – a call for a propaganda campaign to convince people that the euro is great and stuff. From the report (.doc download) it looks like some of our more economically-minded anti-EU brethren could have some fun with this:

“the benefits of a single currency and its accompanying instruments – a single monetary policy and enhanced co-ordination of economic policies – cannot be seriously questioned at this stage”

I mean, I’ll freely admit to having little knowledge of economics and even I know that’s a silly claim to make.

There’s also the assertion that “polls in new Member States also reflect some scepticism to the adoption of the euro caused primarily by a lack of relevant information” (my emphasis).

Lack of information is not the issue – it’s lack of a detailed knowledge, understanding and ability to interpret the relationship between macroeconomics and individual prosperity.

I’d say that the dodgy situations of Italy and Germany, both Eurozone members, is probably in itself reason enough to be a tad sceptical about the benefits. And it’s entirely reasonable for the average punter to look at the apparent short-term impact of the new currency on those states which have adopted it, even if the hopeful assertion is that, long-term, it will be beneficial to all – and even if the short-term impact may only be a perceived one.

What else, after all, can they base their judgement on? They certainly aren’t going to trust “information campaigns” funded by an organisation with a vested interest to see the thing work. Bias in economic analysis is among the worst sort, for economics is basically a science. You wouldn’t trust the findings of a creationist study of evolution which concluded that evolution is a load of bollocks, so why would you trust an EU-funded study which concluded that the euro is great?

In any case, a propaganda campaign is not the way forwards, as it assumes a popular hostility which flies in the face of the facts. I seriously reckon that, when you get down to it, the issue of euro resistance is not one of nationalism. Naturally there is a strong traditionalist attachment to national currencies – especially one as strong and successful as the pound. But what the majority of people want is not so much the coins they’re used to jangling in their pockets, but simply a comfortable standard of living.

The issue of the Queen’s head on our currency has long since been sidestepped by – erm – each member of the Eurozone being able to have national symbols on their money. And the experience of switching from L.s.d. in the seventies shows that everyone can cope with a far more complex currency changeover than a simple shift from one metric system to another would be. (The issue of metric weighting is somewhat different, what with money being an arbitrary construct dependant on many variables and weight actually relating to something tangible and constant and all, but that doesn’t really bear on this issue, thankfully.)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the largely abstract notions of national identity are not as strong or as binding as the desire to get food on the table as cheaply as possible. If the euro could be demonstrated to cut our bills and make life in general cheaper, we would – bar a few “patriotic” extremists – be up for it.

This is why, of Gordon Brown’s famous (yet never sufficiently remembered) five economic tests, the only one that really matters to the average man on the street is the last – “Would joining the euro promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?” That test cannot be passed with a propaganda campaign – and until it is any propaganda campaign will fail.

The real question, of course, is whether the euro can ever achieve all that has been claimed for it. As of yet, there is little in the way of overwhelming evidence to support claims that the euro – and, importantly, the euro alone – has been responsible for “price stability, low mortgage rates, easier travel, protection against exchange rate fluctuations and external shocks” as that report asserts. There is also little overwhelming evidence of the opposite. But when it comes to this sort of thing, better the devil you know is a fair enough line to take until the evidence becomes overwhelming. The evidence isn’t yet overwhelming – hence Gordon still saying his tests aren’t passed – so no one but the most fervently ideological is going to be convinced. That simple.

A few bizarre Europhobe rumours

Posted on by

A few bizarre Europhobe rumours from that pamphlet. The great thing is how most of them are so damn petty and patently ridiculous, and would hardly make any difference to the so-called British way of life even if they were implemented:

20) Brussels bureaucrats are going to introduce a standard Euro-condom of insufficient size to house British assets

25) Brussels tried to torpedo “lethal” PVC bathtime ducks

31) Brussels plans to harmonise size of coffins

32) Brussels has banned English Oaks

34) British seesaws are banned by EU bureaucrats for breaching European Union safety regulations

38) MEPs discriminate against ferrets

62) Local sweet shops will be forced to close due to Brussels regulations banning them from selling unwrapped sweets

64) Eurocrats to ban English apples over 55mm across

65) Curved bananas are to be banned – the infamous one, and a load of bollocks

67) Brandy butter is to be renamed “brandy spreadable fat”

73) Information about nuts must now be put in Latin instead of English

74) Cucumbers will be banned by Brussels unless they are straight and must not arch more than 10mm for every 10mm of their length

76) Square gin bottles are to be compulsorily replaced by round bottles to ensure a level playing field under the single market

79) Traditional pizza sizes in inches are to be outlawed

83) Brussels plans banning mushy peas

88) Brussels bureaucrats want to ban British milk bottles

97) The European Court of Justice has ruled that it is illegal to criticise the European Union

99) EU plans to criminalise journalists

132) British lollipop ladies are having to bow to Brussels’ relentless drive for harmonisation by getting new harmonised sign designs

173) Britain never chose to be in Europe, it was imposed on us – utter nonsense – excellent!

181) America is worried that the European Rapid Reaction Force will undermine NATO – America worried about undermining NATO? Ha!

It’s interesting stuff, this Europe business. There’s a hell of a lot of information out there – it’s going to take a fair while to wade through it all. I’ll try and stick it out for the long-haul, if only so I’ve got loads of facts and figures to chuck at people who make stupid claims like those above…

201 Eurosceptic myths

Posted on by

This is interesting. (Note: if you download it it might be necessary to change the filetype to .pdf to open it, and you’ll need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it).

Its impressive claim is to debunk 201 Eurosceptic myths. They’re not always very effectively disproved as it’s trying to do it too rapidly and the footnotes are often fairly vague, but worth a flick through nonetheless.

However, a few here bother me, as my old Euroscepticism surfaces again. For example, number 16 is the myth that decimalisation was forced on Britain by Europe. The response is that the Decimal Currency Act was passed in 1969, before we joined the EEC, and before the Heath government that took us in came to power. But what about the 1961 application to sign the Treaty of Rome by the Macmillan government? This initiated a decade of attempts to get closer to Europe as the realisation slowly dawned that, post-Suez, Britain was no longer the power she once was. I’m pretty certain it could be argued quite effectively that decimalisation was at least partially an attempt to curry favour with Europe in preparation for future applications for membership. Similar arguments appear for numer 18, about metric measures, which were introduced with the 1963 Weights and Measures Act – again after Britain’s first application for membership.

If we’re going to argue against anti-European myths we really ought to do it without leaving any openings for counter-arguments. I may add more about things from this document later – have a flick through though, it’s quite funny to see some of the things that have been claimed about the EU’s meddling ways…