A Lot of nonsense...

gets in the way of a grown up debate about Britain and Europe. Much of it involves either "euromyths" - made up stories or half truths which make the EU look ridiculous; or assertions about what Britain thought she was letting herself into when she joined in 1973.

In recent days I've heard people argue that all Britain wanted was a free trade area - but these "Europeans" have "subverted" that and "forced us" into accepting free movement of Labour, Goods and Capital. We were invited to join originally - but rejected that, to pursue a Free Trade area (which was known as EFTA). That didn't work for us - so we applied - and were rebuffed twice by De Gaulle - to join the "Common Market" (which always had at its core the Free Movement of Persons, Goods & Capital - any economist will distinguish levels of integration  - and such Free Movement distinguishes a mere Free Trade Area from a Common Market).

The other bit of nonsense is that a new political agenda has been forced upon what was originally a purely economic idea. Again this claim has no basis in fact. The objective of an ever closer union - with political objectives was there in the Treaty of Rome back in the 1950s. That's what we signed up for. If we were 'hoodwinked' it is because some people thought that the Europeans didn't mean what they put in their founding treaties.

This week the House of Commons Library published a paper about the "Ever Closer Union" in the EU Treaties and Court of Justice case law. It is available here. As the library paper says (and it is a politically impartial research service) - "The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of laying the foundations of an “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

Shutdown

I should have slept last night, instead (albeit with my eyes closed), I listened to the radio feed of C-SPAN on my iPad. The speeches in the Senate and the House of Representatives were broadcast as the clocks moved towards midnight in Washington. Then at 5am, I heard Louise Slaughter state that the time had come - and the government was now shutting down. After months of argument - the new financial year had begun, and Congress had failed to provide money for it. Congress has proved that it has become a non-functioning body.

How has it come to this?

The roots go back many years. I am not a believer in a mythical "Golden Age" - when politicians were impeccably civil towards each other; when decisions were reached by consensus, without the intrusion of party politics. Politics has always been hard fought. Even the most well mannered gentlemen knew how to push and shove, and play hardball when necessary. Reading Congressional and Parliamentary history is a great antidote to the rose-tinted view of earlier days.

But something has gone badly wrong. We are getting used to seeing political "suicide-bombing". A small group of dedicated ideologues holding a country hostage - and threatening to - (and last night in Congress, actually) - inflicting harm on fellow citizens. There are public servants who will not get paid. They will cut back on their spending threatening others' livelihoods. Holiday makers (sorry Sis, your trip to New York to visit the Statute of Liberty today will be thwarted - as will be your planned visits to the Gettysburg Battlefield Visitor Center and the historic buildings of Philadelphia on the rest of your holiday) - will be disappointed - and foreign visitors like my Sister won't be transferring money earned in Britain into the US economy.

In the UK we have the Eurosceptic fanatics - I don't mean those who have their concerns about the direction and policies of the EU (I respect that and will happily engage in dialogue with them) - I mean the fanatics who are prepared to invent any story to discredit Europe; who are determined to have Britain out "of Europe", whatever the cost in jobs and British influence.

How has this suicidal tendency got itself into our legislatures? I think its worth remembering the words of President Kennedy at his inauguration -

"So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us." It has been forgotten. "No surrender" is the battle cry of the Congressional warriors - but let's remember that that slogan lay behind, and continued for years, the conflict in Northern Ireland. Politicians have got elected on a promise to "take on Washington"; they've portrayed deliberation and negotiation as weakness or selling out. Cross-party working has been shunned. Partisanship has increased. There are many academic explanations of it - and I would thoroughly recommend Sean Theriault's excellent "Party Polarization in Congress". We need to go beyond this - we need to start working on making politics function properly again. That doesn't mean cozy stitch-ups; or an unrealistic denial of the very real differences in opinions about how to solve our common problems - it does mean a greater emphasis on deliberation; on honourable negotiation - a rejection of the view that 'compromise' is weak. It means that politicians should stop listening to un-elected gurus who urge slash and burn tactics - Malcolm Tucker is a fictional character - Lynton Crosby; Damian McBride; Dick Morris; and their ilk are not. Voters should tell the parties that they will punish them if their behaviour continues to deteriorate.

The Power of Misinformation

I thoroughly recommend reading Dana Milbank's piece in today's 'Washington Post' - "It's Obama vs Misinformation". (Accessible here). He has some truly terrifying results from some opinion poll research. "Opinions" being the appropriate word. It captures the astonishing beliefs that some people hold.

Why do 29% of Louisiana Republicans believe that President Obama was responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina in August 2005? [he became President in January 2009].

I'm not aware that Fox News, or any right-wing 'shock-jocks' have been peddling this particular myth - and this was not an event that happened in some "far off country...of whom we know nothing". Katrina hit Louisiana, only eight years ago. So how has it arisen?

Milbank's article says -

“Obama derangement syndrome is running pretty high right now among a certain segment of the Republican base,” Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, told me. “There’s a certain segment of people who say, ‘If you’re going to give me the opportunity to stick it to Obama, I’m going to take it.’ ”

In other words, a large number of that 29 percent who said Obama was responsible for the Katrina response knew that he wasn’t but saw it as a chance to register their displeasure with the president.

It's not the direct result of misinformation peddled by Opponents of Obama - or by crafty Republican operatives - but the result of a climate of hate and distrust.

Could it happen this side of the pond?

Well....yes

Joseph Goebbels knew the value of spreading lies to build an atmosphere of distrust, leading to hatred. In fact it's a technique as old as the hills. It is also seen in the effectiveness of "Euromyths" - stories peddled in the Eurosceptic media - and those ready to fire off an anti-EU opinion, be it in the pub or on late night radio.

Perhaps it is time we started to call out those who are so ready to pollute and poison political debate. To refuse to let their false claims go unchallenged. We are not just fighting the particular lie they tell at that moment - but begin to tackle the atmosphere these multitude of little lies are designed to generate.

Deliberation not deliberate lying is needed.

[You might find the following websites useful -
Euromyths
Immigration myths
Benefit myths]

Europe

Last night I enjoyed watching the "Party Games" episode of "Yes Minister" (the Christmas Special of 1984 - in which the climax is the phonecall that confirms that he is to be the new Prime Minister.)Well worth buying the complete set of 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister' (a much better guide to how British politics and government works than many textbooks on the subject!)



In this episode in order to gain popularity he misrepresents a European Directive - and promises to stand against it. It's a tool that 'Yes Minister' was satirising 27 years ago - and is still a staple part of the British political scene. (Just look at the media & parliament in the last few days as we approach the European Summit.)



It is an effective technique (and I'm sorry to say even some pro-Europe politicians have used it for short term gain) - but has unfortunate consequences. Euroscepticism has flourished - and misunderstandings about the EU (the classic is the confusion between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights - which as a law lecturer I have to deal with frequently.)

I recently made a complaint to the BBC about a short item on the Steve Wright Show in which Dr Hilary Jones had attacked the an "EU directive" (and Steve Wright had joined in)

My complaint read:

Complaint Summary: Dr Hilary Jones' comments on EU (1 hr 39 mins)



Full Complaint: Yet another euromyth is being repeated by an "expert" on the BBC. In responding to a tabloid story about water Dr Jones stated "The EU directive is complete nonsense, it is absolute madness" The listening public might assume that this was a considered opinion based on reading the report. This would not appear to be the case. It is no wonder that people have a poor view of the EU. My concern is that inaccurate descriptions and glib uninformed remarks have political consequences. Our national dialogue about the EU ang government in general is being corrupted by this sort of nonsense which you have broadcast. The Regulation in question can be accessed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:299:0001:0003:EN:PDF Further background can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1?newsfeed=true

I received this response yesterday

Dear Mr Morgan



Reference CAS-1118986-L5VWYF


I have listened to the Steve Wright Show and the comments you have raised.


The item was slightly tongue-in-cheek but was based on an EU report designed to prevent commercial bottlers from profiting from claims. The BBC did not report the story although the Daily Telegraph did:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html


The Telegraph has its own standpoint on Europe of course, but the angle they took is interesting. Clearly story headline is designed as an attention grabber.


In listening back I think the light-hearted tone was appropriate (this is an entertainment programme) and was not misleading as they did mention the commercial angle which the report and ruling were designed to address. However, taken at face value it does seem to be a report that would naturally attract ridicule. Although there is no anti-EU bias that I am aware of, I will pass your comments to the producer so that he is reminded that we do need to maintain balance, especially at the moment.
Lord Reith's aim was that the BBC should to "educate, inform and entertain" - do they have the balance right today? In "Yes Minister" they exposed the deliberate misrepresentation of European affairs as a political strategy, today are they pandering to it?

The EU Flag dispute

Tomorrow is "Europe Day" - the anniversary of the Schuman Declaration - which is seen as the genesis of the developments which have taken us to the European Union. I'm saddened to report that Europe is again being used as a distraction device to move the spotlight off the deeper problems of the current government. (This is NOT a party political point - governments of all colours have turned to Europe to provide distraction since - well since the Schuman declaration was made!).

Patrick Hennessy reports -

"While No 10 Downing Street and the Foreign Office will not fly the European Union flag on Europe Day tomorrow, the Department for Business, headed by Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat, will do so.

No 10 flew the blue and gold EU banner on May 9 during Gordon Brown’s time as Prime Minister.

However, a spokesman said last night: “We are keeping it simple. We are flying the Union flag.”

The Foreign Office, where William Hague, the Cabinet’s leading Eurosceptic, is in charge, will not fly the EU flag in Whitehall or any of its official buildings in Britain.

The Treasury also said it will not fly it. Embassies and other diplomatic outposts abroad will “make their own decisions” on the issue.

However, a spokesman for Mr Cable’s department said that its senior civil servant, Martin Donnelly, had decided to continue with its recent tradition of raising the 12-star flag.

The split over the flag mirrors tensions between the coalition partners that surfaced when Tory and Lib Dem negotiators were drawing up the agreement last year that joined them in government.
 Lib Dems, who have backed closer ties with the EU, are suspicious of what they see as anti-EU stance among many Tories.


Europe Day marks the anniversary of French foreign minister Robert Schuman’s call in 1950 for a coal and steel community, which became the forerunner of the European Union."

When the Soviet Union and its empire existed, "Comminism" or "Russia" was the bogeyman. Since the loss of that convenient distraction, the Right in Britain has adopted the European Union for that role. Like many such tactics - it relies on playing on prejudice and fuels that prejudice by disinformation.

See this example from the Daily Express on May 4th - headlined "EU FLAG RULE: BIG FINES IF OUR PUBLIC BUILDNGS FAIL TO MARK EUROPE DAY" - full "story" (in both senses of the word) is available here.

The British Office of the European Commission tried to put the record straight (the Editor of the Daily Express declined to print this!)

"Regarding your front page of today, only 2 buildings in the UK are expected to fly the European flag for Europe Day and the Commission would not fine countries that did not do so. The rules that make this provision were passed in 2006 by all EU countries, including the UK. No other public building has to fly the flag on 9 May though some may choose to do so. Some schools want to do something to mark the day and ask us for ideas. We send these purely on demand and they in no way constitute “instructions”.


Such is the volume of disinformation that a website has been set up to deal with Euromyths. It can be accessed here. The only antidote to lies is the truth - and informing people of what is reality. Had we adequate education about the EU in this country - then most of these myths would fail to take hold.

Euro Myths

I attended a tutors' staff development day at the Open University today. One of the courses I teach on for the OU is W200 - Understanding Law. We had the opportunity to share useful resources. One of my colleagues drew my attention to the following very very funny video about "Euromyths" which comes from an episode of QI presented by Stephen Fry -