The European Community: Facts and Fairytales is published by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, which presumably needs no introduction, and is prepared by the Central Office of Information, a body which in less progressive if more honest regimes would be called the Ministry of Propaganda. With this pedigree it is not surprising that The European Community: Facts and Fairytales (or TECFAF as we shall henceforth christen it) is more an exercise in disinformation than a serious contribution to the European debate. Indeed, at a mere 16 pages, its best role might be to describe a parabolic arc between desk and bin. However, since it is a direct, if feeble, attack on those who promote British interests over those of the EU, it is possibly worthy of inspection in more detail than its contents actually deserve.
A certain gravitas is given to this unconvincing publication by an introduction by Douglas Hurd, who hopes "this booklet will be a help" in producing an "informed" public. It is unlikely that TECFAF will succeed in this aim, since it includes a mere forty of the countless examples of Euro-lunacy and does not provide any analysis of the workings of the Brussels machine, although in fairness this may be because the FCO doesn't understand Brussels itself. The `fairytales' (despite the booklet's title there are precious few `facts') are divided, somewhat arbitrarily, into `Euromyths', `Euroscares', and `Eurolunacies', and are apparently selected on the basis of being those stories to which the FCO has a glib answer. All are dealt with in a dismissive, patronizing fashion and give every indication of having been knocked up by the unnamed Foreign Office authors over brandy and cigars after a very good lunch at the Club. One can readily imagine them chortling over the vellum, quills flying, as they document the naivete and gullibility of a British public which apparently spends the long winter nights before the fire frightening small children with tales of the Mad Man of Brussels.
Euromyths, for example, are "no more than entertaining stories". Several instances in this category turn out, in fact, to be true; but they are the result of UK domestic legislation rather than EU directives, as if this somehow makes them alright. In others the reality turns out to be almost as barmy as the myth.
`Euroscares', on the other hand, arise from what the Foreign Office, in the polite language of diplomacy, calls "misunderstandings." Many of these originate in draft Euro-legislation and not, as the FCO is hinting, from the fevered imagination of the British public. If the Commissars have nothing better to do than vie with each other to see who can come up with the most absurd proposals they can hardly be surprised when people take them at face value and "misunderstand" them. Other draft directives, such as the list of permitted flavourings in food, contained "mistakes" which were rectified. Well, it's nice to know the Commissars are human after all! Pity we have to pay them so much to make their "mistakes."
TECFAF cites the British banger furore and the threat to prawn crisps as a "misunderstanding" and a "mistake" respectively. As everyone knows, there were proposals that would have led to the banning of these products. They would have become law had not objections been raised. That they were defeated does not turn them into myths. It is disingenuous of the Foreign Office to imply that because consumer campaigns, such as that led by the Body Shop over animal testing or by the Campaign for an Independent Britain over the putative `Euro-plug,' are successful, the original fears had no basis in reality. The price of our freedom is indeed eternal vigilance and it is disturbing that the FCO and some of our representatives apparently regard their role as being to explain and justify the EU to the British electors rather than fighting for our interests in Brussels. TECFAF's whole point - and this is made explicit in the letter sent to our correspondent - is that the British people shouldn't worry and rock the boat; they should stay calm and relaxed and let the good guys at the FCO sort things out. Like hell we will!
Several examples in both the `myths' and the `scares' category are clearly Aunt Sallys; flimsy targets deliberately put up to be shot down with a couple of erudite lines from the Foreign Office. It is unlikely, for example, that any credible opponent of the EU has ever seriously suggested that "Delors' head will appear on British notes and coins." This is an example of a diversion tactic which crops up regularly in TECFAF. The real question, deflected with a lofty "there are pros and cons to a single European currency," is whether Britain retains financial sovereignty, not whose head goes on the Euro-note. For while it is probably true that if we did join a single currency, "the Queen's Head could (our emphasis) still appear on notes and coins," this would be a meaningless gesture once our independent currency disappears.
Finally, we come to a handful of Eurolunacies, examples of Euro-dogma so blatant and extreme that even the Foreign Office finds them difficult to excuse. Nevertheless, they do try. Here is how they deal with Sir Teddy Taylor's old favourite, the harmonization of lawn mower noise emissions:
"An old chestnut, but true. There are rules on lawn-mower maximum noise levels. These are an example of older harmonising legislation. Although they seem ridiculous and would be handled differently today, their purpose is sensible. The rules provide minimum common standards for all member states. They are helpful to the British lawn-mower industry, which previously found it difficult and expensive to export to Germany in particular; German models were quieter and British lawn-mowers were banned as too noisy - a barrier to trade."
This is a bizarre argument. If the Germans want to place limits on the noise emissions of lawn mowers, so that the good Burgers are not disturbed on a Sunday morning, that is their right. If Britain or any other country then wants to sell lawn mowers to Germany, they should abide by German law and modify their product accordingly. The suggestion that British lawn mower manufacturers will only try to compete in Germany if forced to do so by law says something damning either about the British lawn mower industry or the Foreign Office's understanding of the workings of the free market.
The only real lunacy in Britain's relationship with the EU is that we still have anything to do with the whole sorry mess. TECFAF doesn't quite put it in those terms, of course, but it comes close in the admission on the penultimate page that the Common Agricultural Policy costs the average householder £ 1,000 each year. Since this figure comes from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it is difficult for TECFAF to get round this one, but, wails the FCO, this "is one of the main reasons why the British Government has argued so strongly and consistently for reform."
And why has it been necessary for the British Government to argue `consistently' for reform? Because in over twenty years there has been no substantial revision to the CAP! If this is the net outcome of the Government arguing `strongly' for something in Europe then it is clear that the EU simply doesn't listen to the British Government. So much for being at the heart of things. By blowing its own case out of the water TECFAF finally does us a service.
If you really want a copy of TECFAF you will have to search for it as there is no address or ISBN number. (Try writing to your local representative of the Brussels Occupation Government.) Nor is there a price tag on it, but presumably it is free, inasmuch as anything paid for out of our taxes can be. Its rather cheap and not particularly cheerful style is in noticeable contrast to the full-colour extravaganzas produced by the European Commission itself. It is clear who, after Britain's £ 2.5 billion annual gift to the EU, has the dosh to fork out on propaganda, and it is not the British Foreign Office!