EU flag at sports events: Flying the flag for terrible agenda-driven journalism

A story that has been doing the rounds in some of the lazier parts of Britain's proud national press is the assertion that "Brussels" is or has been trying to force national sports' teams and sporting arenas to fly the European flag.  The story is, of course, utter drivel; it completely ignores the way in which the EU works and in what areas it legislates.

• Daily Express: British teams forced to wear EU flag (Deputy "Political" Editor Alison Little, 14 July 2011)
• Daily Mail: After Fifa poppy fiasco, the latest bright idea from Brussels? EU flag on England shirts ("Political" Correspondent Kirsty Walker, 11 November 2011)

The reporting on it, funnily enough, followed the steps of the European Parliament's "own-initiative report" procedure. It centers on a Report by Spanish MEP Santiago Fisas Ayxela, entitled "The European Dimension in Sport". The document, which was originally submitted in June 2011 and subsequently adopted by the Parliament's Culture and Education Committee in November that year. It will probably adopted by the European Parliament in full during its plenary session in December.

It includes a paragraph proposing 

"that the European flag should be flown at major sports events held on EU territory and suggests that it should be displayed on the clothing of athletes from Member States"

However, European Parliament own-initiative reports such as this one are not legally binding. They do not and cannot lead to legislation that could force anyone to do anything. It is what is commonly referred to in the English language as a "suggestion", not some EU "diktat" (the tabloids love that word, it conveniently allows them to cover up the fact that they haven't the faintest idea how the EU works).


The Parliament does not have the right of initiative, so any legislation needs to be formally proposed by the European Commission, a separate institution altogether (which naturally has not tabled any proposals that would make EU flag flying at Wembley mandatory).

In addition, the Commission won't propose to introduce a legal obligation for sports teams to wear the EU flag. In the field of sport, the Lisbon Treaty created a so-called "supporting competence" for the EU; article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU says:

"The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States [in the field of sport]"

Even if the Commission wanted to force teams to fly the EU flag, it would need a legal basis in the Treaty to table such a proposal. Clearly, that legal basis does not exist; fans of St. George's cross can sleep safely in the knowledge that "Brussels" won't superimpose twelve golden stars on the red stripes.

The Commission has a handy library of documents relating to EU sports policy, which focuses on doping, social inclusion and health.

Behind the Times: Mail discovers 3-year old court ruling on satellite dishes

The Daily Mail's Ian Drury bleats that having a satellite dish is a human right, according to "unelected European judges". (How many judges do you elect in Britain, Ian Drury?)

In an extraordinary ruling, lawmakers in Strasbourg have warned that banning dishes on listed buildings, social housing and even private homes could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practice religion.

The case they are referring to is KHURSHID MUSTAFA AND TARZIBACHI v. SWEDEN, which was concluded with a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in December 2008. Yes, nearly three years ago. (Mr. Drury refers to it as a "recent case").


The reason the Daily Mail has only just found out about it is a guidance document issued by the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission on human rights in social housing.


In the ECHR case, the Court in Strasbourg held that Sweden had violated article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and the right to receive information "as necessary in a democratic society".


In this particular case, a couple in Sweden of Iraqi origin had been evicted by their landlord after refusing to remove a satellite dish from their rented flat in Stockholm. The ECHR judged that Sweden had failed to guarantee the couple's rights under article 10 because:

1. The satellite dish provided the couple and their children with an important link to their country of origin;
2. There were no other means available in the flat enabling them to receive the information (internet or cable television);
3. The landlord had failed to demonstrate that the satellite dish posed a safety risk in any way;
4. The property in question was located in a suburb and had "no particular aesthetic aspirations" (i.e., it was not a listed property or a building of historical or cultural significance)

In other words, there is no question whatsoever that this judgment is "driving a cart and horses" through British planning laws. The judgment specifically mentions that the Swedish case did not apply to listed buildings; that satellite dishes may still be banned if there is a genuine safety risk; and that it would not be in breach of the Convention to refuse permission to mount a dish if the tenants were able to receive the information through alternative ways such as the internet.

Note that the judgment itself is not necessarily concerned with freedom of religion - that angle the Daily Mail has taken from the UK guidance document, which has a hypothetical example about a disabled woman only able to receive information on her religion through the use of a satellite dish.

The article is topped off by a quote from Frits Bolkestein, former European Commissioner for the Single Market and Services, saying that the use of satellite dishes should not be impeded by "unjustified obstacles". This, in the Daily Mail's reading, presumably means that any restriction on the installation of satellite dishes would violate human rights legislation.

Interesting detail: Bolkestein has not been an EU Commissioner since 2004, and the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate entities.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has put out a statement after the publication of the article saying that 

“There is no human right to satellite TV. The human right in this example is the right to practise your religion. It is only an illustration of how the law might apply in exceptional circumstances, nor should it be taken out of context. Only the courts can decide if someone’s human rights have in fact been breached.”

Pathetic, low-quality scaremongering.  A three-year old court case, a selective reading of the facts and a 7-year old quote by an official from an unrelated institution.

In which Bruno Waterfield adds 1 to 1 and gets 4.7 million

The Daily Telegraph has strived for yet higher standards of investigative journalism, publishing its well-researched allegations into the EU's attempts to force the UK to put EU flags on war cemeteries and memorials.

• The Daily Telegraph: EU accused of 'hijacking' Remembrance Sunday

The story was so clearly nonsensical that even The Daily Express didn't bother copying it for its edition the next day. The Telegraph claimed that:

"The EU has been accused of trying to "hijack" Remembrance Sunday with a £4.7 million plan to put euro-branded commemorative plaques marking "European integration" on war cemeteries and memorials."

This refers to proposed piece of European legislation (full text available here) which provides for an EU-wide heritage label that could be used to

"Enhance the value and profile of sites which have played a key role in the history and the building of the European Union."

The scheme builds on a previous purely intergovernmental project of a similar nature, launched in 2006, in which 17 EU member states plus Switzerland participate. A total of 64 sites have been awarded the label so far, including the Acropolis in Athens, the shipyards of Gdansk and Cluny Abbey. The European Commission was explicitly invited by the Council of Ministers in November 2008 to come up with a proposal for an EU-wide version of the label.

The claim that the latest proposed legislation will lead to EU flags being foisted upon British war cemeteries and memorials seems to have originated with a quote by a European Commission official, which mentioned that

"Places of remembrance clearly have their place in European history, not only as memorials to those who lost their lives but also as places where visitors can reflect on how and why Europe has successfully avoided major conflicts for more than 65 years."

The fact that war memorials could qualify for the European heritage label clearly does not mean that the EU will unilaterally decide to plaster them over war graves. In fact, the voluntary nature of the scheme is emphasised throughout the proposal. Article 4 explicitly states:

"The action shall be open to the participation of the Member States of the European Union. This participation shall be on a voluntary basis."

The proposed procedure for granting a European heritage label to a site of interest also involves an application to an independent EU-wide panel of twelve cultural experts, with pre-selection of the proposals being carried out by each individual Member State. Naturally, that means that only sites the host country thinks should have the European heritage label applied will be eligible for inclusion.

The European Commission sent a letter to The Telegraph pointing out this fairly obvious fact: 

"If the panel receives no nominations from the UK, no sites in the UK would display the European Heritage Label. The EU cannot unilaterally impose the heritage label on anyone."

To summarise - participation is voluntary, sites have to be proposed and are not chosen by the EU and each Member State retains a veto over the label being awarded to a site within its national territory. To suggest the EU has already drawn up a list of UK 'targets' is plainly ridiculous, and only serves to emphasise the point that UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall, who is quoted in the article as saying that the EU wants to "impose its views on war sites such as the Menin Gate", clearly did not bother to read the proposal before voting against it.

The article's author, Bruno Waterfield, also references the cost of the project - arriving at the figure of £4.7 million for a period of six years, although the proposal itself earmarks some €2 million (£1.7 million) for a period of three years. Perhaps he called Open Europe or The Taxpayers' Alliance for a calculation?

---------------

Update: When the Member States formally adopted the proposal in July 2011, the UK was the only EU country to abstain from voting. The other 26 Member States voted to approve of the Heritage Label scheme.

Crazier by the Dozen

Recently, a number of British media outlets have picked up on a rumour that the EU is set to ban selling eggs by the dozen:

• The Mail on Sunday: EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen
• The Daily Telegraph: EU to ban selling eggs by dozen
• BBC: UK scrambles to to keep 'dozen eggs' in EU battle

The story, as far as I can tell, broke in the trade magazine The Grocer (the original report is here). The general thrust of all these articles is that new EU food labelling legislation supposedly prevents retailers from selling eggs by number, and instead have to sell them by weight alone. The Mail on Sunday even claimed:

"Until now, Britain has been exempt from EU regulations that forbid the selling of goods by number."

This story even at first glance seems so ridiculous it is surprising it was picked up at all. Clearly, the European Union has never banned the selling of eggs by the number. Any visit across the Channel would have provided living proof of eggs being sold by the dozen across Europe. Moreover, the new legislation that has drawn the ire of the Righteous Forces of British Measures does not mean the end of any non-existent UK opt-out and it won't ban selling eggs by the dozen in the future.

The directive in question (which has not yet entered into force, but the proposed text can be read here), does not in fact deal with the quantity in which foods are sold but applies to information that should be displayed on food labelling. It specifically states that the objective of the regulation is that:

"It should be ensured that consumers are appropriately informed as regards food they consume."

In response to the media uproar, the European Parliament itself also issued a press release stating unequivocally that:

"Selling eggs by the dozen will not be illegal under the terms of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament to EU food labelling proposals.  Labels will still be able to indicate the number of food items in a pack, whether of eggs, bread rolls or fish fingers."

Faced with the sheer lunacy of what they were accusing the EU of, various media outlets quickly backtracked. The Daily Mail on July 6th published a piece by the editor of The Grocer, Adam Leyland, in which he claimed that

"We do not believe the European Parliament set out to ban such measurements. European legislation can be complex, vague, byzantine and open to different interpretation by different member states."

Firstly, that exposes the Mail's own headline the previous Sunday as a complete sham. Secondly, laws are always open to interpretation - that's why there is a judiciary; UK national legislation hardly reads like Harry Potter. Thirdly, the proposed regulation did not even purport to ban anything other than misleading food labels, and did not concern itself with the quantity in which food is sold. Lastly, it is clearly impossible to sell eggs other than by a fixed number without breaking their shells and siphoning off the egg white to make for clearly rounded quantities.

All the proposed regulation did was state that food packaging should display the net weight. It doesn't ban selling food stuffs by the number, nor displaying the number on the label. Legislation is open to interpretation but how any national government would have read into the directive that eggs cannot be sold by the number is beyond me. Since eggs are already weighed before being sold - and then sorted into a category based on their size - the whole thing really was a storm in a teacup.

---------
The topic was also covered by Tabloid Watch, EUTopia, Angry Mob and Liberal Conspiracy.

A quick Google search in French and Dutch seems to suggest mainstream media in at least some other parts of Europe either did not pick up on the story at all or did so in response to the Daily Mail's inane allegations.

You can have your cake and eat it too

A supposedly respectable newspaper has come out with the disturbing message that new food safety regulations from Brussels have banned home-made baked goods entered into cake competitions to be eaten because they "may cause food poisoning":

• The Sunday Times: EU bans eating of competition cake (paywall)

The article draws a direct link between Regulation 852/2004 on the hygiene of food stuffs, which was adopted in 2004, the 2006 Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and a decision by the Scottish Women's Rural Institute (SWRI) to recommend to its members that uneaten cakes are destroyed after the conclusion of any competition or village fair.

"New EU regulations have banned the consumption of cakes and scones entered at country fairs, preventing contestants from enjoying their winning entries. The Scottish Women’s Rural Institutes (SWRI) — the Scottish equivalent of the Women’s Institute — has ordered contestants at shows to destroy all cakes submitted immediately following competitions."

I should firstly note that the relevant EU legislation is a Regulation, which is directly applicable in all Member States. Had the law really banned competition cakes from being eaten for reasons of food safety, this would have been the case since its entry into force in 2006 - which begs the question why The Times reported on in 2008. A law in force for over two years hardly constitutes "new regulations".

Secondly, as you may have guessed, the story is nonsense. Neither the EU nor the SWRI have banned competition cakes from being eaten; if roving reporter Julia Belgutay had bothered to check with the Women's Institute - as the European Commission did - she would have discovered that

"The SWRI wishes to make it clear that in no way has the EU banned the consumption of competition cakes entered into baking contests at Country Shows. (...) They have not ordered their members to destroy all cakes submitted immediately after the prize giving ceremony, however realising the importance of health and safety they do enforce that any cake containing fresh cream, eggs or butter is disposed of at the end of the show, to avoid any outbreak of food poisoning. To avoid food waste the Institute has recommend that their members to bake smaller-sized cakes, but again this is not under any instructions from the EU."

Moreover, the European legislation itself stipulates in the article 1, paragraph 2:

 This Regulation shall not apply to:   

(a) primary production for private domestic use;   

(b) the domestic preparation, handling or storage of food for private domestic consumption;   

(c) the direct supply, by the producer, of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplying the final consumer

The European Commission also published a handy guide to the implications of Regulation 2004/852, which on page 10 states:

"Operations such as the occasional handling, preparation, storage and serving of food by private persons at events such as church, school or village fairs are not covered by the scope of the Regulation."


Bon appetit!