EC in UK challenges Mail article on Europol - but paper removes key points from letter

On 19 April, the Daily Mail reported:

The article by Ian Drury began:

British police forces will be forced to hand sensitive details of criminal investigations to Brussels or risk a massive fine.

In a controversial move, the European Union’s crime intelligence agency would be allowed to demand access to private police files.

The EC in the UK rejected the Mail's claims, stating:

The Commission recently proposed limited changes to the way the EU’s law enforcement agency Europol works. The aim is to tackle cross-border crime – for example drug dealing and human trafficking – better.

Many would no doubt conclude that better police cooperation against such major criminal activities would be of major benefit to the UK. But if it does not agree, the UK can decide not to opt-in to the proposals given its general option under the Lisbon Treaty to remain outside EU justice measures.

Despite this, the Daily Mail turned the proposals into an article headlined “EU demands access to British police files”, suggesting that Europol was to be given extensive new powers over Member States and their police forces – not the case – and that it would be able to demand additional data on victims and witnesses. In fact the proposal would significantly increase protection for this kind of data.

The Mail added that police would need to “divert resources from tackling crime to information-gathering for Brussels” and that if police did not comply the UK could face massive fines – simply wrong.

The EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström explains here what Europol is – and what it is not.

In an attempt to correct the claims made, the Head of the Commission’s London Representation, Jacqueline Minor, wrote a letter to the paper which said:

The EU is not seeking new powers over Member States for its law enforcement agency Europol (‘EU demands access to British police files’, 19 April).

Member States set up Europol in 1993, to pool resources against major cross-border crime.

There is an existing agreement to supply data to Europol. The European Commission is proposing measures to clarify that and to strengthen democratic oversight and data protection. The aim is to tackle crime better.

The proposal only takes effect if Member States agree. It would not expand access to data on witnesses and victims.

It would not give Europol direct access to national databases – let alone “private police files”. Member States share data they already have, so resources will not be diverted to collecting data for Europol.

Finally, there is nothing in the proposal about fines.

Europol will remain an agency supporting – not usurping – national police forces.

The Mail published a version of the letter but:

in editing the letter – without consultation – the Mail alters its meaning and reduces its force.

This is what the Mail published:

Member States set up Europol in 1993, to pool resources against major cross-border crime. There’s an existing agreement to supply data to Europol.

The European Commission is proposing to clarify that and to strengthen democratic oversight and data protection. This would take effect only if a Member State agrees, and it wouldn’t expand access to data on witnesses and victims. It wouldn’t give Europol direct access to national databases – let alone “private police files”.

There is nothing in the proposal about fines for not supplying data.

The EC notes:

the Mail’s version below omits any mention of the original article and thus deprives the reader of any point of reference. It also omits the important point that resources will not be diverted from police work to collecting data for Europol.

In changing “if Member States agree” to “if a Member State agrees” it also changes the meaning. Member States need to agree collectively on the changes but if they did so then they would take effect everywhere, helping police to prevent crime and catch criminals everywhere – except if the UK (and/or Ireland) decided to invoke its opt out.”

The EC in the UK has complained about the Mail editing letters before, while one MEP couldn't even get her letter, debunking a false Mail story about the EU banning Famous Five books from schools, printed at all.

'We do not normally find it worthwhile challenging Daily Express euromyths but...'

An article in today's Express claims:

Journalist Alison Little writes:

Euro MPs want to brainwash children with “sinister” Soviet-style propaganda on a new website, it was claimed yesterday.

European Parliament chiefs are considering setting up a site to target young children with a “playful” presentation of their working methods and democratic principles.

There are two sentences from the European Parliament’s 2011-14 communication strategy included in the story:

“Research has shown the social and political perception of young people starts at a very early age. In a playful manner which is tailored to the needs of young internet users, a special Europarl website could bring democratic principles and the working of the methods of the European Parliament closer to children.”

The only other quotes in the article come from UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall, who says:

"Political propaganda on vulnerable kids is a form of child abuse."

The Express's stance is reinforced by an editorial comment.

The response from the European Parliament's Information Office in the UK is worth repeating in full:

Welcome to the brave new world of EU reporting at the Daily Express, where information is bad, transparency is dictatorship, civic rights are forms of oppression and checking facts makes you blind.

We do not normally find it worthwhile challenging Daily Express euromyths. It would be like trying to engage UFO Magazine in scientific debate: a waste of time and dangerous for one's mental health. Moreover, we are used and resigned to the peculiar phenomenon of its journalists switching off all critical faculties when it comes to taking politically motivated anti-EU tirades as fact, then working backwards to try to fit the circumstances to the 'crime'. 

But today's 'story' really does deserves a short comment.  The paper, prompted by a complaint by a eurosceptic politician, published a piece arguing, entirely un-ironically, that creating a website informing young citizens and future voters of their rights is now to be considered propaganda.

You heard right. The modern, Express-sanctioned meaning of propaganda - made worse by that one-size-fits-all criticism of "paid for by tax payers' money" - is not raging against a minority, say, or distorting the truth about which side is winning in a war, or inciting the populace to violence. Modern day propaganda is for a democratically elected Parliament to make people (including young people) aware of its existence and their rights within it. And to have the audacity to do so with the aid of that sinister, new-fangled technological wizardry: a website!!!!

In fairness, an Express reporter had contacted this office and asked for a quote about how 'The Parliament' would justify its deeds.

Never mind that an eloquent explanation of the purpose of the initiative (which is still only just that, a proposal being looked at) already appears in the document she herself had raised as 'proof' of this conspiracy to inform.

Never mind that it had been written by a body of senior MEPs including a British vice president of the Parliament, whom she was at liberty to interview were she able to spare the time. (She could not, or did not see fit to publish their comments).

We also happened to mention that, with one simple Google search, we had been able to come up with the UK Parliament's equivalent of this outrageous practice. Shocking, I know. Is there to be no end to the horror?

The reporter, to be perfectly fair, displayed immense fortitude at this juncture. She absorbed the ground-shifting discovery that propaganda was indeed alive and well at the heart of the Mother of Parliaments - never mind the barbarous EU - and then delivered this killer line: we should feel free to use this example in our own comment to her.

Let me write this again. It was to be somehow our job to put the 'propaganda' slur in context by mentioning the existence of similar initiatives in most national parliaments including Britain's own. Providing context and balance in a story is no longer the job of the Daily Express reporter, you see. If you want balance and context you have to knit it yourself.

You'd be searching in vain for this context in today's story, reader. You will not find it. What's worse, your ignorance of the existence of sinister educational websites set up by the Houses of Parliament leaves your children vulnerable to the horror of 'Soviet-style' British propaganda right here right now, under your very nose and, needless to say, with your taxes.

The Express did not include any response from the European Parliament in its article.

Mail corrects Littlejohn column

The 'Clarifications and corrections' column in today's Mail includes this:

A recent column said that EU regulations prevent the Women’s Institute from selling jam in re-used jars. In fact the rules apply only to commercial food businesses.

The 'recent column' was written by Richard Littlejohn and was mentioned on this blog on Tuesday.

This correction was published (at time of writing) ten hours ago on the Mail's website. But they haven't bothered to edit the original column - the incorrect claim remains there, and this correction hasn't been added to article. It doesn't appear anywhere on today's Littlejohn column either, so his regular readers may not even realise this has been corrected.

Moreover, the original news article, which made the same false claims back in October, remains live on their website and has never been removed or edited or corrected.

In the circumstances, it might make sense if they acted in some way over the original and then apologised for giving their readers the same, untrue information twice.

Littlejohn reheats 're-using jam jars' story

Richard Littlejohn devotes much of his column in today's Mail to the horsemeat scandal. In it, he says:

Funny how the EU can enforce strict food hygiene regulations which prevent the Women’s Institute selling jam in second-hand jars but can’t stop Eastern European horsemeat being passed off as beef.

Regular readers may remember this 'story' from October, when the EC Commission Representative in the UK dismissed tabloid stories on a 'ban' on re-using jam jars at fetes as:

completely untrue. There are no EU laws, new or old, which ban re-using old jam jars for fetes.

A question was asked in the European Parliament on this issue following the media coverage. The answer, from Tonio Borg for the European Commission, was published on 14 December. It made clear:

In the Guidance document on the implementation of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (SANCO/1731/2008 Rev. 6), the Commission indeed specified that "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"...

Therefore, the Commission can confirm that, as long as the preparation, handling and selling of jams at local events to raise money for worthy causes is an occasional activity, it is not covered by Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. Rules governing such activities are established by Member States under national law.

A WI press release from 4 January 2013 confirmed:

Legislation is predominantly aimed at food businesses and excludes occasional activity with respect to charities; therefore the recent interest does not apply to infrequent charitable activities. 

Despite all this, Littlejohn claims not only that there are 'strict' regulations banning the WI selling jam in re-used jars, but that the EU are 'enforcing' them.

(Hat-tip to James)

Defra says Express article on 'EU plot to seize Britain's seabed' is 'not true'

Yesterday, the Daily Express 'revealed' what it claimed was the latest 'EU plot':

John Ingham's story claimed:

Brussels was...proposing to take control of Britain’s seabed.

The European Commission in the UK issued a statement in response which said:

In reality, the EU is no more seizing power over the UK’s seabed than measures to protect birds, would mean seizure of UK airspace...

It is not about the transfer of powers to the EU, or seizure of sovereignty over the UK’s seabed, or the rights to minerals, such as oil or gas. Nor is it about controlling the fish above the seabed.

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also responded - mentioning the story in their 'Myth Busters' section:

The Myth: The Daily Express has reported that one of the amendments being debated by the European Parliament on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy would allow the EU to seize control of Britain’s seabed. The piece claimed that critics have said that if passed the amendment could lead to the EU claiming rights to minerals such as oil and gas.

The Truth: This is not true. Even if agreed by the European Parliament, this amendment would not change the sovereignty of our sea bed or give the EU new powers. The proposed amendment would have no practical effect, nor would it have any bearing on mineral extraction. The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is intended to stop overfishing, boost fish stocks and improve the health of our seas. The UK does not support this amendment as it will not help to tackle the fundamental failings of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Leveson on the 'clear evidence of misreporting on European issues'

Last month, the Mail claimed the EU was planning to ban Famous Five books from schools. The story was fiction and described as 'nonsense' by the EC in the UK. But when an MEP sent a letter to the readers' editor at the paper, he refused to publish it on the grounds that the original report:

may not have suggested in so many words banning books (that might make it look very unpopular) but it has criticised them

In fact, it didn't suggest banning books in any words - the report didn't include the word 'book' at all.

This is the latest thing the EU has been accused - wrongly - of wanting to ban. See also jam jars, selling a dozen eggs, cars from town centres, milk jugs, classic cars, shopping bags, Britain, kids from blowing up balloons and so on. It's not just non-existent bans - it's also half-truths about flying flags and pouring dead bodies down the drain.

When Express editor Hugh Whittow gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry, he stated firmly:

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

When asked about a front page story '75% say: 'Quit the EU now'', Whittow accepted they did twist things. Robert Jay QC asked if the headline was misleading given that the 75% who apparently say 'Quit the EU now' included 47% saying renegotiate membership. Whittow replied:

I accept that from what you say.

Almost exactly one year before Leveson's report was published, Patrick O'Flynn, the Express' chief political commentator, claimed:

Over the course of the past year every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified.

Lord Justice Leveson says in his report (p.687):

Articles relating to the European Union, and Britain’s role within it, accounted for a further category of story where parts of the press appeared to prioritise the title’s agenda over factual accuracy.

He concluded:

there is certainly clear evidence of misreporting on European issues...

The factual errors in the examples above are, in certain respects, trivial. But the cumulative impact can have serious consequences...

there can be no objection to agenda journalism (which necessarily involves the fusion of fact and comment), but that cannot trump a requirement to report stories accurately. Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code explicitly, and in my view rightly, recognises the right of a free press to be partisan; strong, even very strong, opinions can legitimately influence the choice of story, placement of story and angle from which a story is reported. But that must not lead to fabrication, or deliberate or careless misrepresentation of facts. Particularly in the context of reporting on issues of political interest, the press have a responsibility to ensure that the public are accurately informed so that they can engage in the democratic process. The evidence of inaccurate and misleading reporting on political issues is therefore of concern. The previous approach of the PCC to entertaining complaints only where they came from an affected individual may have allowed a degree of impunity in this area.

(Hat-tip to Gareth)

Mail refuses to publish letter denying 'EU wants to ban Famous Five books from schools' story

On 7 November, the Mail claimed that the EU was planning to ban Famous Five books from schools. As the report referred to in James Chapman's story made no mention of books, banning books, Enid Blyton or anything similar, this was standard anti-EU scaremongering. A spokesman from the EC in the UK - quoted at the end of the story - said it was 'nonsense'.

MEP Mary Honeyball decided to write to the Mail:

Sir,

RE: Now Brussels takes aim at the Famous Five! Books portraying ‘traditional’ families could be barred

The article by James Chapman (Mail 7/11/2012) claiming that the EU could be planning to ban books portraying stereo typical family values is misleading in the extreme. It was incorrect to suggest that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels does not have legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools; it is a matter for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee report to which your article refers does not suggest banning books- and in any case this is certainly not something which would be legally binding.

Even in areas where the report does call for EU level action and where such action would be legislatively possible, it could only be done if the European Commission makes a formal proposal. In addition, the European Parliament as a whole and also a large majority of Member States must then adopt it.

I hope this important point clarifies the inaccuracies I refer to in your report.

Yours Sincerely

Mary Honeyball MEP
Labour spokesperson in Europe on culture media and sport and gender and equality

The reaction of the Mail's Readers' Letters Editor was this (Sarah is Mary's press officer):

Dear Sarah,

I’m guessing James Chapman knows a bit more about the byzantine workings of the European Parliament and its committees than Mary Honeyball does.

Regards,

readers’ letters editor

This unhelpful, rather snotty reply is not particularly unusual from the Mail - see their reaction when challenged over the use of Winterval last year.

Mary was then given a longer explanation as to why they would not publish her letter:

I eventually decided against it on the grounds that it is by no means incorrect that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels may not have direct legal power to intervene on which books are available in UK schools – but you would have to be very naïve not to appreciate the way in which such a thing might become a matter of no choice for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee looking at this subject definitely exists and has published a report. It may not have suggested in so many words banning books (that might make it look very unpopular) but it has criticised them – and we’re not unfamiliar with the way in which such things begin as criticism and move on towards calls for a ban. After all, to these MEPs, what else are their criticisms for?

It may, of course, be something which isn’t legally binding today – but tomorrow? And that’s all our story warns about.

We’re well aware that this discussion may be at an early stage and ‘EU level action’ would require ‘a European Commission formal proposal’ etc, etc, but we like to warn people well in advance just what those underemployed ‘representatives’ are getting up to in Brussels: forewarned is forearmed.

It seems that although he accepts there is no recommendation to ban books (despite Chapman's original article referring to 'proposals') he thinks it might possibly happen one day at some point in the future and therefore he can't publish a letter challenging the story on the basis of what has actually been said in the report. It's not as if this is a response to a complaint, and the Mail is being asked to publish a retraction in their corrections column. This is just a letter from an MEP - and one that they are scared of letting their readers see.

Mail article on EU banning books dismissed as 'nonsense'

The Mail claims the EU is now looking to ban...the Famous Five:

James Chapman explains:

Books which portray ‘traditional’ images of mothers caring for their children or fathers going out to work could be barred from schools under proposals from Brussels.

An EU report claims that ‘gender stereotyping’ in schools influences the perception of the way boys and girls should behave and damages women’s career opportunities in the future.

Skip straight to the end and the 'spokesman for the London office of the European Commission' is quoted saying:

'This is nonsense. "Brussels" has no legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools, it is a matter for the UK and for schools.

'The European Parliament committee report - which anyway represents just the committee's view - does not suggest banning books.

'And even in areas where it does call for EU level action and where that is legally possible, that can only be done if the Commission makes a proposal - it hasn't - and if the European Parliament as a whole and a large majority of member states then adopt it.'

So eventhough the paper has a quote saying the story is 'nonsense' they run it as 'Brussels wants to ban some books' anyway.

In fact, the report says nothing at all about banning books from schools or anywhere else - the word 'book' isn't used at all. It suggests 'study materials' could be introduced to counter 'gender stereotypes' and suggests there is a need to:

raise awareness in Advertising Standard Committees and self-regulatory bodies about the negative influences of gender discrimination and stereotypes in the media.

Enid Blyton isn't mentioned, either.

The report also looks at the labour market and says:

disproportionate representation of women in part-time jobs and the gender pay gap clearly show that gender stereotypes result in gender discrimination on the labour market.

It makes some suggestions which it believes may remedy this. But Chapman doesn't mention any of this, which seems curious, given the Mail's front page story today, which focuses on another report on the gender pay gap:

That article doesn't mention the report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality either.

EC labels 'ban on re-using jam jars' stories 'completely untrue'

Following on from the 'ban on milk jugs' that wasn't, the EU has now been accused of banning people at village fetes from selling jam in re-used jars. 

On 6 October, the Mail reported:

They are the backbone of church fetes, village fairs and jumble sales all around the country.

But the thousands who regularly sell their home-made jam, marmalade or chutney in re-used jars may have to abandon their traditions after a warning that they are breaching European health and safety regulations.

Two days later, the Express, under the headline 'Home-made jam? EU bosses want to ban it', repeated the story:

The great British tradition of selling home-made jams and chutneys at fetes could be a thing of the past – thanks to meddling Brussels bureaucrats.

It seems the recycled jars generally used by jam-making enthusiasts are in breach of European health and safety regulations.

'It seems'.

The EC Commission in the UK has now responded to these claims - and called them 'completely untrue':

Recent media coverage on reusing jars for homemade jams for sale at charity events certainly fired up the imagination of the headline writers: “EU elf ‘n safety tsars ban jam sales at fetes” and “anger spreads over EU fines threat for reusing old jam jars”, “EU fine for homemade jam makers”. This is all completely untrue. There are no EU laws, new or old, which ban re-using old jam jars for fetes. The EU also has no powers to fine people.

There is indeed a body of EU food safety and hygiene legislation – notably so that the UK and other countries can be confident that food imported from or bought elsewhere in the EU is safe and of high quality. But these rules apply only to business operators and not to those preparing food for charity events such as church fetes or school bazaars.

What is more, the rules do not anyway ban re-using clean jam jars:  the European Commission is not aware of any risk from chemicals related to this re-use.

The Daily Telegraph to its credit reported this properly on 7 October, saying that the Church of England had issued guidance and quoting the UK Food Safety Authority explaining that the interpretation of the regulations was the responsibility of local authorities, who would decide what constituted a “food business” and adding that “an occasional event, like a fund-raiser… would probably not be considered to be a food business.”

The Express then span this into a ridiculous story about “meddling Brussels bureaucrats”. The Mail did at least mention that the FSA had said enforcement was down to individual local authorities…but left this until paragraph 7 of a story misleadingly headlined “Anger spreads over EU fines threat for reusing old jam jars.” The Telegraph then had another piece – at least it was an intentionally funny one – blaming EU Directives after all.

While BBC Radio 4 You and Yours covered the story sensibly, BBC Breakfast ran an item that assumed wrongly that the EU has banned jam jars.

None of the media who produced these seriously misleading stories contacted the European Commission first.

No contact with the EC, but both the Mail and the Express did find room for a quote from The Great British Bake Off's Mary Berry. 

'None of the newspapers checked the facts with us before publication'

At the end of last week, several newspapers claimed the EU wanted to 'ban' classic cars.

The Mail said:

And the Express:

The Mail's Anna Edwards wrote:

Meddling Brussels bureaucrats want to make modified and most classic cars illegal under radical reforms which would affect millions of British drivers.

But the EC Representative in the UK has denied these reports:

Reports in the press that the European Commission has proposed to make modifications to cars illegal, or to ban classic cars unless they are unchanged since manufacture are entirely wrong.

The Commission’s proposals would not, if agreed by the Member States and the European Parliament, make any difference to the current situation regarding MOT testing in the UK except to make most classic cars more than 30 years old exempt from testing if they are not used day-to-day on the roads.

All other cars would remain subject to roadworthiness testing, just as they are now. Whether or not they have been modified is not of itself relevant: what counts is whether they are safe and that is what is assessed by MOT tests in the UK and by the equivalent tests elsewhere.

What the proposals will do is require all Member States to bring their road worthiness tests up to a certain level of rigour, already applied in the UK : for example, motorbikes will need to be tested regularly everywhere, as they are already in the UK. This will make driving safer for UK drivers at home and abroad.

The Commission is writing separately to all the newspapers concerned, none of which checked the facts with us before publication.

Spot the difference

Mark English, Head of Media and the European Commission in the UK explains what happened when he wrote a letter of complaint to the Mail:

In The Daily Mail of July 24th, 2012, journalist Christopher Booker wrote an article titled “The real migrant scandal”, in which we found some serious inaccuracies. We wrote to The Daily Mail with a letter outlining the inaccuracies and providing clarifications with regard to Mr. Booker’s piece. Below is the letter we sent to The Daily Mail and below that is the version published. Notice any difference? The Daily Mail has decided to drop the crucial opening to the letter that addresses the specific article and journalist. The question here is how can The Daily Mail reader be truly informed of the inaccuracies or find relevance in clarifications when they are not given the context of the original article?

(Our letter)
“Christopher Booker’s piece on immigration (24 July) requires multiple clarifications. First, the UK was not forced to allow migrants from new EU Member States to work here in 2004. EU rules allowed for a seven-year transition period without access to labour markets, but the UK and two other Member States chose not to apply it. Second, the UK itself decides which non-EU migrants it lets in and how long they stay. Third, even for EU migrants there is no automatic right of residence. They must prove they can support themselves. Fourth, protection of genuine refugees is established by the Geneva Convention. But the European Commission has put forward to national Ministers and MEPs proposals to reinforce procedures, to avoid asylum shopping and ensure asylum requests are more fairly distributed among Member States.”

(The Daily Mail’s version)
Migrant rules

The UK wasn’t forced to allow migrants from new EU member states to work here in 2004. EU rules allowed for a seven-year transition period without access to labour markets, but the UK and two other states chose not to apply it.

The UK itself decides which non-EU migrants it lets in and how long they stay, Even EU migrants have no automatic right of residence; they must prove they can support themselves.

For genuine refugees, protection is established by the Geneva Convention, but the European Commission has put forward to national ministers and MEPs proposals to reinforce procedures to avoid ‘asylum shopping’ and make sure asylum requests are more fairly distributed among member states.

'Forced' to fly the EU flag

On 29 April, the Mail on Sunday reported: Brussels orders EU flag must fly over Whitehall every day... and we could be fined if we fail to comply.

Two months later, on 25 June, the Mail on Sunday returned to the story:

The article - which was reheated by the Express the next day - explained:

A row over the Government being forced to fly the European Union flag took a farcical turn last night after Brussels offered to pay for a new flagpole if it complied with the demand.

The Mail on Sunday revealed earlier this year that Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles was furious after being told that he faced being fined under new European Commission rules if he did not fly the EU flag continuously outside his office.

Forcing Pickles to 'continuously' 'fly' the EU flag?

That's not quite how the European Commission Representation in the UK sees it:

Contrary to the Mail on Sunday story (25 June) repeated by the Daily Express on 26 June, Brussels has not “demanded” that the Department for Communities and Local Government flies the EU flag on one of its two flagpoles all year round.

As was made very clear to the Mail on Sunday before it published the story, and as Mr Hahn wrote in a letter to Minister Eric Pickles, the proposal would “not require the EU flag to be flown on a flagpole in front of the premises…”. 

The EC is proposing only that Member States’ managing authorities for EU regional funding display an EU flag in a place visible to the public – inside or outside the relevant building – as a symbol of partnership in investing EU structural funds, which aim primarily to create jobs.

It is now up to Member States, including the UK, in the Council to decide whether to agree to that proposal. As Mr Hahn pointed out in the letter, no other national Minister has so far registered any objection. Most managing authorities already fly the EU flag alongside their national and sometimes regional ones.

As for the Mail on Sunday’s claim that Brussels has “offered to buy Britain a flagpole” this was a handwritten comment by Mr Hahn at the end of his personal letter to Mr Pickles, suggesting lightheartedly that Mr Hahn would fund a third flagpole from his own pocket if Mr Pickles wanted to fly the EU flag from it.

The Express did not seek comment from the Commission before repeating the Mail on Sunday story.

Express front page headline on scrapping Britain dismissed as 'total fantasy'

The front page of today's Express claims there is a 'EU plot to scrap Britain' and that Eurocrats want to 'wipe us off the map'.

Yes, really:

Critical comment seems almost pointless...

However, this 'exclusive' story from Macer Hall 'reveals':

Senior Eurocrats are secretly plotting to create a super-powerful EU president to realise their dream of abolishing Britain, we can reveal.

A covert group of EU foreign ministers has drawn up plans for merging the jobs currently done by Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

Hall doesn't really explain how this merger - if it happens - would actually lead to Britain being 'scrapped'. He doesn't name the 'senior Eurocrats' who want to 'abolish Britain'. Precise details of this 'plot' are hard to find within the article.

But it does mention that this new post will be:

a modern-day equivalent of the European emperor envisaged by Napoleon Bonaparte or a return to the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne that dominated Europe in the Dark Ages.

The article includes quotes from three anti-EU politicians, but nothing from any official EU spokesperson. Reader comments on the Express website include: 'Hitler would be proud', 'The rise of the anti-Christ and few recognize it' and 'Quite simply this is an act of war'.

There's also one from the European Commission Representative in London, who says:

Quite simply, this article is nonsense.

As other posters point out, the EU has no power or desire to "scrap Britain"...or Germany, or France, or Lithuania. Merging the Barroso and Van Rompuy posts would require UK agreement. And it is total fantasy to leap from speculation on this to ludicrous claims about scrapping nation states. EU treaties are decided by national leaders, with each having a veto, and EU law is decided by national Ministers and MEPs, not by mythical bogeyman Brussels bureaucrats.

In January, Express editor Hugh Whittow told the Leveson Inquiry (under oath):

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

The Express, Europe and pensions

Two of the subjects that frequently appear on the front page of the Express are Europe and pensions. Today, they both appear in one headline:

Regular readers of the Express may feel they've heard this before. For example, on 15 March 2012:

Today's article, echoing the March one, claims:

Meddling European bureaucrats are threatening to kill off Britain’s final salary pension schemes.

They want to impose tough financial rules on them that would cost up to £600billion.

But few employers would be able to afford the terms and most would be forced to close the schemes, according to experts.

The so-called Solvency II rules, which would affect about 6,400 workplace schemes in Britain, are designed to bring them into line with other European countries.

Then, as now, there are no firm proposals on the table. The Express claims the rules will be 'Solvency II'.

But following the 15 March article, the EC Representative in the UK said:

“Europe” is not considering extending the Solvency II rules for the insurance industry to pension funds in a way that would force the closure of final salary pension schemes.

Articles (14 Feb) in the Daily Express, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent paint an incomplete and sometimes misleading picture.

There is a current review of the rules applying to pension funds. But the Commission will not put forward proposals for some months yet.

Those proposals will definitely not “cut and paste” Solvency II provisions into pension rules. They will be based on detailed impact assessments and will be designed to make pensions safer – so that people do not contribute for many years and then lose out – without undermining the supply of occupational pension provision.

Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier has made a comprehensive public statement (10 Feb) on these issues, regrettably not referred to in any of the articles. It is available on his website.

The proposals will of course only take effect if agreed by a majority of MEPs and a “qualified” (i.e very large) majority of Member States. The UK has never in EU history been outvoted on an item of financial regulation.

Today's article doesn't quote any of this. It does include this:

Speaking at a public hearing last month Michel Barnier, the European commissioner responsible for internal market and services, acknowledged the “concern” over possible regulatory changes, but he also said there was a need for “robust rules” to protect pensioners”.

But the Express ignores Barnier's more explicit comments on this issue. In February he said (pdf):

To be clear: I have never said or suggested that pension funds should be subject to exactly the same rules as Solvency II. If that had been the Commission's intention, we would have proposed this back in 2007 when we presented the Solvency II Directive. The Commission did not do so for very good reasons...

The proposals I will make before the end of the year will be based on in depth impact assessments. In no way do I want to take actions which could undermine the supply of occupational pension provision. We need pension funds to continue playing their role as long-term investors, as this is essential for long-term jobs and growth.

I am well aware we cannot ask companies in the EU, notably SMEs, to lock up capital in their pension funds. Companies need access to finance to grow and compete in global markets. And I am also well aware that pension funds in different Member States have different features, and I don’t want to penalise well functioning systems...

We will inspire ourselves from the Solvency II approach when appropriate but that does not mean we will "copy and paste" Solvency II. I repeat: I want to maintain a level playing field within the Single Market. This means it is important that the same products and activities are subject to the same requirements, regardless of the structure of the provider. But it does not mean I will propose the extension of Solvency II as such to pension funds.

As with the issue of plastic bags, it seems the Express prefers scaremongering and rhetoric rather than waiting to see what is actually proposed by the EU.

EC challenges Mail over English tests for health workers

On 31 March, the Mail published an article by John Naish under the headline: 'The doctor and nurses putting lives at risk because they can't speak English'.

It included this passage:

Yet, far from tackling this dangerous situation, the European Union is set to reinforce rules which ban English tests for doctors and nurses from the EU before they are allowed to work here, branding it a ‘restraint of free movement’ of workers.

The European directive, currently being debated in Brussels, insists that British employers can only test medics from Europe after their poor English has endangered patient care, flagging ‘serious and concrete doubt about the professional’s sufficient language knowledge’.

It concluded:

Sadly, if the EU gets its way, it’s clear we cannot be sure that hospital staff will speak decent conversational English, let alone the sort of complex technical terminology that can save lives, or at the very least, not put them in danger.

This led the EC Representative in the UK to write a letter to the Mail:

Contrary to Paul Naish’s article in the Mail on 31 March, there is nothing in EU law that prevents the UK from checking the language skills of doctors and nurses from elsewhere in the EU. There is no “new Brussels Directive against language checks”. Instead, proposed revisions to EU rules will make even clearer that all EU-qualified health professionals can be subject to checks before they take up a post. Far from EU law “taking precedence” over the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans to reinforce such checks, the European Commission has welcomed those plans.

Mark English, Head of Media

The Mail did publish this letter, in slightly edited form - but only on page 83. It has not been added to the end of the online article.

The EC in the UK adds:

The newspaper did not contact the European Commission before publication.

The Express, the EU and plastic bags - part 3

On 20 May 2011, the Express claimed:

The EU hadn't actually said 'ban shopping bags' or even 'ban' plastic bags.

In fact, the EU had simply launched a public consultation on what action, if any, should be taken on plastic bags.

Undeterred, the Express said this on 19 January 2012:

The EU hadn't actually said it wanted 'all plastic bags' to be made 'illegal'.

In fact, it had been reported that the results of the public consultation were that 70% of the 15,500 responses favoured a ban. But there was no evidence in the story that the EU was to adopt this stance.

Undeterred, today's Express said:

'Now EU bans plastic bags'. 'Now'! So 'now' it is actually happening?

Well, the subhead seems to contradict the main headline as it says: 'Shoppers will be forced to pay new Brussels tax'.

So there will be a 'new tax' for something that's going to be banned?

The actual article, by Martyn Brown, does not clear up this confusion:

Brussels commissars want to outlaw shops from stocking them or impose a wallet-busting tax on shoppers to dramatically reduce their use.

The use of 'commissars' is not, of course, accidental.

So there might be a 'ban' or shoppers may have to pay for them (something some shops do already). Either way, the Express knows the charge will be 'wallet-busting'. It just doesn't say what the charge will be.

The paper says:

One of the key proposals will be a recommendation for mandatory charging for plastic shopping bags.

'Mandatory charges'? Won't one of the 'key proposals' be a 'ban'?

The paper says that the Commission's report will be published next month. Two sentences later, it says:

The proposals were met with fury last night by retailers and politicians and added to the growing support for our crusade to get Britain out of the EU.

Fury always erupts 'last night' for the Express. But how can 'fury' erupt at a set of proposals that haven't been published when it's not clear - especially from the Express' article - what those the proposals are.

Indeed, a week before the Express' article, the BBC website published an article weighing up different options for plastic bags. It said:

The European Commission is to publish proposals in the spring designed to reduce the number of plastic bags used in Europe each year.

Moreover, Speigel reported on 21 March that an internal Commission report has ruled out a complete ban:

At least one of those options -- the complete ban -- has already been taken off the table. According to the Commission study, a ban would have positive environmental impacts, but it would also "raise difficult legal questions." The report calls a complete ban: "a blunt instrument that gives little flexibility to producers, retailers, or consumers." The report also says that a ban would conflict with international trade law and EU internal market rules.

So we wait to see what the Commission actually says when its report is published. Maybe it will propose banning plastic bags, although the Spiegal report suggests that is unlikely. But at this stage it simply isn't clear.

Importantly, nothing in the Express' article justifies the claim in that front page headline.

(Hat-tip to Tim Fenton, for noting the constant eruptions of fury at the Express)

The Express, the EU and plastic bags (cont.)

In May 2011, an Express front page headline claimed the EU had said 'ban shopping bags':

The sub-head clarified that this was plastic bags, not all shopping bags. But either way the EU hadn't actually 'said' this. They had, however, launched a public consultation 'asking the public how best to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags.'

The front page of today's Express carries a similar headline, albeit not as the main story:

'Daft EU want all plastic shopping bags made illegal'.

The article, by Dana Gloger, begins:

Plastic bags could be banned in Britain and across Europe in a move by the EU to cut pollution.

Ah: 'could'. How strange they didn't include that caveat in the front page headline.

According to European Voice, there were 15,500 responses to the two-month public consultation (500 from 'public authorities, industry associations, NGOs and academic organisations', the rest from citizens) and 70% of these favoured a ban on plastic bags.

So does the EU want all plastic bags to be 'made illegal', reflecting the results of its consultation? Well, it hasn't said - as the Express' article admits mid-way through when it quotes the EU's environment spokeswoman Monica Westeren saying:

“We are still discussing it internally and seeing what our next steps will be.”

The European Voice article echoes this:

A Commission official said the consultation will feed into an impact assessment planned for this year. But no decision has been taken on the way forward, and no new action is likely to be proposed in the forthcoming green paper.

So it appears that, not for the first time, the Express has, in a front page headline, attributed a point of view to the EU which it hasn't expressed, simply because it fits the paper's agenda to do so.

Yet it was only last week that editor Hugh Whittow told the Leveson Inquiry:

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

The Express, the EU and...fridges

Following the bogus claim from the Express' Chief Political Commentator that 'every criticism' his paper has levelled at the EU has been 'justified', the Head of Media at the European Commission Representation in the UK has been forced to write to the paper again to challenge a story.

On Monday, the Express ran the headline 'Barmy EU 'colder fridges' order will cost us £100m'. The story, by Cyril Dixon, began:

Britain faces a £100million bill because a bizarre new EU regulation will order supermarkets to turn down the temperature on their refrigerators.

Eurocrats are demanding that stores’ cold storage areas are chilled by a further three degrees to “improve” food safety.

An 'order'. A 'new regulation'. A 'demand'.

Or maybe not, says Mark English:

Contrary to claims in your article, “Barmy EU ‘colder fridges’ order will cost us £100m”, 12 December 2011, there are no new EU regulations ordering supermarkets to turn down fridge temperatures. The facts are less chilling.

EU member states have asked the Commission to look into the fact that supermarkets’ own meat cutting plants are not covered by the same hygiene regulations as independent plants, even though they often process more meat.

So the Commission is carrying out a fact finding exercise, to make sure consumers are properly protected.

No changes have been proposed and none could enter into force without full scrutiny by MEPs and national ministers.

Express: 'every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified'

On Wednesday 23 November, Patrick O'Flynn of the Daily Express penned an article that ran under the optimistic headline 'A year in and our EU crusade is on course for victory'.

Flynn told his readers how wonderful the Express' campaign to withdraw from the EU has been so far and he said:

Over the course of the past year every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified...

Every criticism justified.

Five days before, the Express front page carried the lead headline 'EU says water is not healthy'.

In fact, the ruling by the European Food Standards Agency was about water and dehydration and not about whether water is 'healthy' or not. Indeed, the word 'healthy' doesn't appear anywhere in the EFSA's 7-page ruling. But the Express knew that because at the end they included this:

EU spokesman David D’Arcy said last night: “Of course drinking water is essential for health and the commission is not stopping anyone from saying so."

(More on this story from Richard Laming, Martin Robbins and Tim Fenton)

Also at the end of Giles Sheldrick's article on water was this 'criticism':

The EU has a long history of passing bizarre regulations...last year attempts to regulate the use of root vegetables in Cornish pasties sparked chaos.

But this claim isn't 'justified' either. It was the Cornish Pasty Association that had applied for:

Protected Geographical Indication to request that only Cornish pasties made in Cornwall and to the traditional recipe and manner are called Cornish pasties.

As the Association pointed out in response to inaccurate media reports at the time:

the European Commission (EC) does not dictate ingredients or names of ingredients

It's also not clear what 'chaos' was sparked by this.

In October, the Express joined other newspapers in claiming 'Now Euro killjoys ban children's party toys' which forced the EC Representative in the UK to explain the story was 'nonsense':

"Brussels" has not banned balloons or any of the other things mentioned.

Was the Express 'justified' in claiming the University of Northampton had been fined £56,000 for not flying the EU flag?

No. The response from EC regional spokesman Tom van Lierop:

"you don't have to wave a big flag above a project: that's nonsense...We're not fining anyone...We don't want to be flying the EU flag above any kind of project...these stories are total lunacy."

This wasn't the only 'EU flag' story that the paper got wrong. In May the Express front page said 'Now we must fly EU flag on our public buildings'. The article added that there was:

a swingeing fine from Brussels threatened for those that disobey

Jonathan Scheele, Head of European Commission Representation in the UK and Michael Shackleton, Head of European Parliament Information Office in the UK wrote to the Express:

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...No other public building has to fly the flag on 9 May.

The Express' decided not to publish this letter but chose instead to publish three readers' letters that repeated the original claims, despite the paper being aware they were false.

But remember:

every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified.

A few days before that one, another front page headline claimed: 'EU wants to merge UK with France'. The Arc Manche network was set up in 1995 for co-operation between southern British and northern French regions. But this is clearly not the same as 'merging the UK with France'. 'Absurd' and 'untrue' said the EC in the UK.

Also in May, an Express front page stated: 'Ban shopping bags says EU'. As with the healthy water headline, the Express used 'says' when they meant 'haven't said'.

The European Commission had launched a public consultation:

asking the public how best to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags

There was a question about whether a ban was needed, as there were questions about charging for bags and other possible options. The EU has not said 'ban plastic bags'.

Is the EU 'employing 33 people to help boost the EU’s profile in Fiji'? No. Although based in Fiji, the delegation:

covers the entire South Pacific region. It carries out countless development projects on behalf of the EU as well as foreign relations and political work.

Do 'Cars face ban from all cities' as part of 'another plan forced on us by crazy EU'? No:

the European Commission is not considering an EU level ban on cars in city centres by 2050. Cities are of course best placed to decide their own transport mix.

As O'Flynn specified 'the past year' it would, of course, be unfair to mention earlier stories such as 'EU says: hammer British drivers' (once again, they hadn't said this) or 'EU’s plan to liquify corpses and pour them down the drain' ("The EU has no competence in this matter and to suggest otherwise is wide of the mark").

It would be wrong to mention their July 2010 front page headline 'France votes to ban burkha' which came a month after their front page headline 'You can't ban burkha, says Eurocrats' (again, they hadn't said this).

It would not be 'justified' to mention the Sunday Express' claim that the EU was spending '£670million on making explicit films' was overblown. But it was, perhaps, understandable - after all, Richard 'pornographer' Desmond doesn't want too many rivals in the 'explicit film' business, does he?

And it would be best to forget the Express story 'Euro meddlers rule we can't have milk jugs'/'EU spouts off...about our milk jugs'. This took research from a Spanish university and claimed it was evidence that the EU wanted to ban 'our milk jugs'.

Similarly, in October 2011, the Express labelled 'scientists from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM)' as 'Eurocrats'.

These are just some of the Express' anti-EU stories covered by this blog and others over the last couple of years and which have been inaccurate, misleading and wrong.

With the Express newspapers being outside any form of regulation, there is no way to challenge these stories. As shown on the flag issue, when the EU tries to deal with the paper, the Express ignores them and carries on repeating untruths.

Yet to O'Flynn, the paper's Chief Political Commentator:

every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified...

Express misleads on EU poll results

The front page of Saturday's Daily Express claims:

'75% say: 'Quit the EU now''. That's the way the Express has summarised a poll conducted by YouGov.

But the article by Alison Little makes clear this isn't what the poll really shows. Indeed, her first sentence says:

An overwhelming 75 per cent of Britons would vote in a referendum to quit the EU or renegotiate the terms.

The 'or renegotiate the terms' bit is important because, as the Express reveals five paragraphs from the end, if a referendum included three options about the UK's relationship with Europe:

15 per cent would vote for the status quo, 28 per cent would vote to leave the EU and 47 per cent would vote to renegotiate membership terms. 

So the '75%' saying 'quit now' actually includes 47% who don't actually want to quit if renegotiation is an option.  

The poll was conducted by YouGov for the campaign group Vote UK out of EU and their press release on these results makes clear that:

75% of those surveyed would vote to change the current relationship between the UK and the EU.

'Change the current relationship'. Not 'quit now'.

What if the referendum gave a more straightforward 'in or out' choice? The Express states:

Given a choice to stay in or get out – without the option to renegotiate – 52 per cent would quit, 31 per cent would stay in, while the rest are “don’t knows”.

According to this poll, if it's in or out, 52% say quit. If it's in, out or renegotiate, 28% say quit.

So why has the Express claimed '75% say quit now' in the headline?