EU IDIOCIES

THE EU’S TRUE COLOURS

It has long been clear that the European Union is so far from being a force for good that it is more likely to precipitate a third world war than to prevent one. Why this should be is a matter which will no doubt puzzle historians for decades, maybe centuries, to come.

One reason, perhaps, is simply that it is far too big. Twenty-seven countries with different identities and customs – in some cases dating back for hundreds of years – aren’t going to agree to very much. Even if it were composed of only three, unanimity would still be a struggle.

But a more important factor lies in the character of the two countries which between them effectively rule the EU: Germany and France. Both these nations, in their very different ways, are essentially authoritarian. Their ruling elites believe that the man in the ministry really does know best and expect the populace to rubber-stamp their decisions in elections and referendums.

Even before the Euro was accepted by 11 states as a common currency in 1999, this coercive attitude began to emerge. When individual nations voted against new EU treaties, the Brussels bureaucrats reacted in two ways. The first and most common was to say ‘wrong answer, try again’. The terms of the treaty involved were changed slightly, a second referendum was called, and with the help of massive pro-EU publicity the decision was reversed.

This happened in Denmark with the Maastricht Treaty which was rejected in 1992 and then accepted in 1993. It occurred twice in Ireland with both the Nice Treaty of 2001 and Lisbon Treaty of 2008 which were rejected at first and then accepted.

In other cases the EU reaction was to fudge through the rejection or simply ignore it. When France, in a referendum, rejected the draft EU constitution in 2005, it was not put to the people again but forced through by France’s MPs and senators. When a 61% majority of the Greek people voted in 2015 against a package of draconian EU financial strictures, a puppet government ignored the result and forced through a bailout.

These acts of coercion rather than persuasion, of displaying contempt for democracy, are deeply disturbing to anyone who values civil liberties. And any hopes that Brexit and the Covid 19 pandemic would instil a little flexibility and humility in the EU’s officials were quickly dashed. Instead, these crises have strengthened the EU’s arrogance, leading to a dictatorial siege-mentality which may eventually bring down the whole edifice of European Union. With every week that passes the EU is showing itself to be high-handed, petty and spiteful.

Take the Astrazenca vaccine furore. By a miracle of well-judged government support and co-operation between the regulatory authorities, Oxford University and AstraZeneca itself, a viable vaccine was created in months rather than years. But the EU dithered and interfered in the negotiations that followed so that a contract with them was not agreed until three months after supply in Britain had begun. Three months in which AstraZeneca were able to sort out production teething problems in the UK.

But then things began to go wrong. The company had agreed to supply 80 million doses to the EU, but in January this year said it would have to cut its initial deliveries to 30 million doses due to production problems in its European plants.

What was the EU response? Not to offer the company help in what was, at least in part, a humanitarian endeavour. Instead they reacted with typical paranoid petulance, claiming that AstraZeneca was short-changing the EU by prioritising supplies to the UK, which was enjoying a successful vaccine roll-out. Enraged, they threatened to cut off supplies to Britain, saying it must ‘suffer’. They also sent officials to ‘spot check’ a Belgian plant. The embargo threat was withdrawn, but the EU is still planning to sue AstraZeneca for vast amounts of money. All along AstraZeneca has said it never guaranteed supplies – rather that it would exert its ‘best efforts’ to honour them – knowing that vaccine production is a complex and tricky business.

Next we come to the Northern Ireland Protocol, a system devised to prevent a hard border between that country and the Republic of Ireland – which is part of the EU. To avoid this it was agreed that goods arriving from mainland Britain should be subjected to a range of EU checks and inspections. But whereas the UK government was expecting these requirements to be streamlined using trusted trader schemes and equivalence mechanisms, the EU behaved, as petty officials have for hundreds of years, with an insistence on enforcing every detail of their regulations, creating extensive paperwork and introducing delays. For example, EU food safety rules don’t allow chilled meat products to enter its market from non-members, leading to the possibility that supplies of sausages to Northern Ireland might be banned. There are signs that the EU is prepared to grant some leeway on this, but meanwhile a lot of damage has been done.

Unfortunately this concession doesn’t mean that the EU is changing its ways. It has, for instance, turned its attention towards Switzerland which until now has enjoyed free access to the EU market, while remaining independent, through a complex array of treaties. To the EU mind such an arrangement is an anomaly which must be corrected, so they are proposing a new system which involves significant interference in Swiss internal affairs. The Swiss, who have an ancient tradition of independence and democracy, have unilaterally pulled out of the talks and no-on knows what is going to happen next.

But, undaunted, the Brussels bureaucrats continue to meddle and interfere, often driven by the same envy of success as they displayed during the AstraZeneca fiasco.

The success they have turned their attention to now is that of Britain’s film and TV industry, whose products such as Downton Abbey and The Crown are hugely popular on the Continent. Claiming that such programmes have taken a ‘disproportionate’ role and represent a threat to Europe’s ‘cultural diversity’ they are threatening to ban some of them.

Can an organization governed by moral and intellectual pygmies have a long-term future?