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.