via European Parliament

2. Don’t waste your time to check the facts, they often ruin the argument. Nobody ever asks follow-up questions. The EU is boring – use it to your advantage. And there is no need to know anything about the EU.

3. Demand an EU referendum at every possible moment – because you know that this will annoy the establishment, your party leader, prime minster, twitter followers, etc. If you are a politician you know this will easily translate into press coverage. You don’t really need to know why you want a referendum (Basically you want one because you know this is the only possibility to get Britain out of the EU). It is enough to demand one – after all it is democratic.

3. The Daily Mail has excellent coverage of EU affairs – everything you need to know can be found in this quality newspaper.  If you are a hardcore eurosceptic you may also find pleasing articles in the Daily Express. Tabloids can be used to back up your “common sense” approach to politics – if it is in a popular paper it must be common sense! But also other British media outlets can be used. And remember: If you can’t find a certain article just give them a call and tell them an outrageous story – it might appear in the paper in a few days. Don’t forget: the media is your friend.

4. Useful phrase: “I love Europe – but I hate the EU”

5. Complain about “red tape”. Don’t bother checking what sort of “red tape” you are talking about or why it actually exists. Any regulation is bad. Use the word “regulation” instead of “rule”. And  “Brussels imposed regulations” are always a bad thing.

6. It is essential that you have a contempt for compromise.

7. Immigration is a problem and that is the truth and nothing but the truth.

8. You may want to check with your own political party what is acceptable behaviour. UKIP seems to have a liberal approach to it – you can get away with all sorts of statements.  If you are a Conservative or a Labour member you may want to hide your anti-EU feelings in  some incoherent claims about the need to have a referendum – or some mysterious new membership deal. Say that Britain needs a “new deal” without specifying why the current deal is bad – and what needs to be included in the “new deal”. Don’t worry, nobody will ask this question.

9. If you are not a politician you can still become a eurosceptic comment troll. All major newspapers have a place for reader comments. Use it! Don’t make the mistake to actually read the article. Prepare a selection of eurosceptic phrases and post your comment below any article. (Be creative: use the war and Churchill, evil Germans, something about the common market in 1970, mention undemocratic judges, red tape and the Brussels super-state, or the Strassbourg human rights courts. The possibilities are endless)

10. You can broaden your political appeal by being anti-climate change, anti-gay, pro-life, anti-politics, anti-trade union, anti- whatever. Takes a bit of practice though.

11. Pretend to be a libertarian. Sounds good, doesn’t it?

12. Complain about how the EU is holding Britain back. Don’t make the beginner’s mistake to look at other countries in Europe and how they are doing – again, this may ruin the argument. If under pressure you can always refer to Greece to make the case that Europe is not working.

13. You are the savior of the “City”. You are protecting Britain’s financial interests. There was no financial crisis. Repeat it a few times. You will be surprised how easy it is to convince people that the EU is more evil than – let’s say – bankers and politicians…

14. Numbers are important in the public discourse – but you have to be consistent. Come up with a few easy numbers: % of laws dictated by Brussels – and something that summarises the costs, preferably by day. Fellow eurosceptics need to be able to refer to your number so make sure it is easy to remember. Or check your favorite newspaper/think tank, they may have done the research for you  – just don’t look into the methodology. This often ruins the argument.

15. 19th century sovereignty is your religion. Shared sovereignty does not exist. But remember: only the EU threatens Britain’s sovereignty.

16. You have to adapt your language. “European super state” or “Brussels” instead of EU, try to use “unelected bureaucrats/judges” as often as possible. A few basic arguments include: The British pound is good, the Euro is bad. The EU cannot be reformed. Brussels is a corrupt bureaucratic gravy train. Use those “arguments” as often as possible.

17. Say that “the people” demand a referendum. Never mind that the biggest concern of “the people” is the economy and jobs.

18. You need to develop a superiority complex. You are British so you understand the world just a bit better than other Europeans. Most EU rules are unnecessary/bad so without those EU rules everything would be better. Referring to the “good old times” is also important. It’s the perception, stupid!

19. You need to learn the skill to use the phrase “It is Europe’s fault”: The economy, bad-tasting sausages, car accidents, trains – the topic does not really matter. People just need to remember that everything is Europe’s fault.

20. The fear is with you. Fear of immigrants, fear of foreigners, fear of loosing sovereignty, fear of Europe, fear of the coming super-state.

Thanks @alphadesigner!

via @alphadesigner

FAQs (that are not covered on the official website):

Why only in English?

It is simply an issue of resources. UACES is financially and organizationally not in a position to do pan-European selection process. If you are a sponsor or an organisation that would like to change this get in touch and we see what can be done.

Why is the award ceremony in London?

UACES is based in London. Although it is a European association its roots are in British academia which explains the UK focus of its work.

Does UACES have a political agenda regarding the EU?

No – it is academic membership association providing services to academics that work in the field of European Studies.

Disclaimer: Yours truly is a member of the UACES committee and  will serve on the jury this year.

(thanks to Mary Honeyball for publishing the letter!)

“I am all for reducing frivolous and expensive European rules. At the weekend we heard stories about proposals to regulate the shoes and jewellery British hairdressers wear. That kind of thing is clearly too much. Having worked at the heart of the EU, I can certainly give you some more examples. And, more profoundly, we need to refocus the EU, so it does more where it adds value, and less where it doesn’t.”

But this story about hairdressers is another euromyth brought to you by The Sun.  In fact, these  proposals were put forward by hairdressers and salon owners from across Europe – so nothing to do with any EU proposal. Well, this is what happens when you believe EU stories in The Sun. Nick Clegg should know better.

(1) First of all we should not fool ourselves: People that call for a referendum want to leave the EU.

I know there are people who argue differently and basically want to have ‘fresh consent’ for continued membership. But would they call for a referendum without the pressure from the ‘anti-EU’ camp? Why not call for a referendum on continued membership in NATO (it surely affects sovereignty)?

(2) Renegotiation will not please the Eurosceptics – precisely because it will be a compromise. If (1) is correct this is a non starter for many on the right. Plus the other 26 EU members do not want a renegotiation and the concessions that could be negotiated may not be enough to make the case for a “new settlement”   – so promising a referendum on something you can’t deliver? Hardly a smart strategy.

(3) There is TEU Article 50 – so if you want to leave the EU why not initiate a vote in parliament. If parliamentary sovereignty is such an important constitutional feature of the country why not use it? Why a referendum?

(4) If you want to renegotiate your membership terms why don’t you just do it?  Again, what about parliamentary sovereignty, why a referendum? Just because someone 10 years ago promised a referendum on a similar topic?

(5) British media and public debate will not allow a sensible debate on the EU – and that is a fact. No need to think otherwise. There is a constant anti-EU bias in most of the British media – and that also includes BBC. Nobody is interested in facts and in explaining how things work. And 2-3 decades of this sort of  ‘debate’ has  left the country in a state where a real debate is not possible anymore. And when even the government is too scared to publish a short note of congratulations on the EU’s Nobel Peace Prize – something is seriously wrong.

(6) There will only be losers: The outcome will be narrow whoever wins it. Imagine a  52% to 48% victory for the yes side – but what then? The debate will just continue. the “Eurosceptics” will work on another referendum or more opt-outs as it was a “considerable minority” and demand more special “safeguards”  – and like any referendum in countries that don’t do referendums regularly there will be accusations about misleading campaigns, low turnout, campaign finances, media bias etc. Of course the same will be true if the no side wins it.

(7) What will happen to the EU referendum with an independent Scotland. Surely, a EU referendum cannot be held before Scotland votes on independence at the end of 2014. So why do we have this debate right now?

(8) So having established (7), there is a distinct possibility that it will be Labour’s call. And they seem to be utterly confused about the issue.

(9) I also agree with Nick (Clegg) here: Every step towards repatriation, renegotiation is a step towards the exit. But the key difference is that Nick is in government and I am not.

(10) to be continued…

Excellent piece by Simon Nixon on David Cameron, the Tories and Europe. The lack of any coherent EU strategy and the focus on short term gains has left David Cameron at the mercy of events – and in the hand of his eurosceptic backbenchers.

Don’t Blame the Euro Mess for Britain’s Plight

Please note the disclaimer at the end of the article. But the point remains valid: “U.K. policy makers should stop blaming the economy’s plight on the crisis in the euro zone and engage in deeper soul-searching about the country’s enduring economic weakness. Britain’s economy has actually shrunk fractionally more over the past year than the euro zone’s has. Over the past two years, the euro zone’s economy has grown by a total of 1.1%, Britain’s by only 0.2%.”

(PS: Two excellent pieces on Britain and the EU in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal. Interesting)

Europe at a crossroads: what kind of Europe do we want?.

William Hague makes the case that we need ‘flexible European integration’ to embrace ‘diversity’. He also thinks that “less is more” and that the European Parliament is useless – oh – and that the UK is interested in EU Foreign Policy (he did not mention the Canada embassy sharing story and the constant undermining of the EEAS)  But nevertheless,  it is his first substantial speech on Europe in quite a while and he is surprisingly pragmatic and polite (quite an achievement!).  Read it – it is a good summary of what the British government is trying to do.

Media coverage of the European Union is key to understanding eurosceptic attitudes within the UK

Interesting research project by Benjamin Hawkins on the British media debate on the EU:  “There are two principal frames evident within eurosceptic discourse: the EU as a foreign power and the EU as a bargaining forum.”

Chris Davies:

You take a handful of distortion, add in political bias, stir in doses of UKIP’s vilification, sprinkle with gullible journalists who don’t check their facts. And what do you get? A poisonous concoction. An ill-informed British public ever-more distrustful of Europe, after being deceived by those who hate Europe. A United Kingdom betrayed by those who lay pretense to patriotism, but in practice leave our country weak, and with diminished influence.

h/t to Dave Keating

Do we now need an extraordinary European Council to decide who is going to pick up the prize? (My bet is on van Rompuy – I hope for a speech made up entirely of haikus) but also a joint speech by the three president (mayhe based on QMV could also be a possibility.

Next question is what to do with the money? Not enough for any bailout so it might be added to some EU democracy fund, the peace institute – or will it simply be added to the budget to save Erasmus? (Or they just could give it to bloggingportal

At the moment I am in Zagreb at a conference organised by the European Fund for the Balkans – interesting environment in this contex. After all the Balkans were a major foreign policy failure of Europe in the 1990s – and now EU enlargement seems to be transforming the region…

Lisbon has shifted the emphasis of EU criminal justice policy away from ‘co-operation’ towards more ‘integration’. Over time – the thinking in Whitehall goes – EU judges might undermine Britain’s common law in favour of the continental civil model by handing down harmonising rulings. This, along a domestic political backlash against the influence of European courts, makes it likely that Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, will use the block opt-out.

That would be a mistake. First, UK officials think that Britain’s size and importance mean that it can automatically opt back in to around 50 EU anti-crime measures, including the arrest warrant, once the block opt-out is triggered. That way the government could secure access to co-operation and data valued by Britain’s police while limiting the country’s exposure to future ECJ rulings. This is wrongheaded. The European Commission is likely to attach tough conditions to allow this and Britain’s negotiating stock in Brussels is low due to its perceived unhelpfulness during the eurozone crisis.

Furthermore, countries in the EU’s Schengen area of passport-free travel have previously blocked Britain from joining Frontex, the EU’s border agency, and the so-called VIS, a common database of visa records. (The UK maintains its own separate border regime.) Why should they now acquiesce to British cherry-picking in policing and justice?

Britain has shaped much of the EU’s internal security agenda to date. The current head of Europol (the EU’s police office) Rob Wainwright, is British; as have been the last two presidents of Eurojust (its prosecution office), and the last two director-generals of the Commission’s justice and home affairs directorate. For a country that is not in Schengen, possesses a minority legal system and selectively opts-out of common rules, this is a remarkable diplomatic success.

Read the policy brief.

There is already a “Political” arena called the European “Union” – so what’s the point of this “Political Union”?

It is a complex debate but the ‘political union’ meme is confusing and ill-suited to explain/describe how to reform the EU. (in case you are wondering: no, it does not make more sense in German)

However, there are a couple of problems: There is no functioning campaign capacity on the yes side (the fundamental opposition to anything ‘European’ is well organised) – and I am wondering how the media  factor (which has changed considerably in the last 30 years) should  be taken into account. There is no way to have a sensible public debate on ‘Europe’ in this country. Would the Daily Mail or the Sun support a Conservative Prime Minister who claims to have renegotiated Britain’s EU membership?

‘Renegotiation’ is also one of those myths. There is absolutely no appetite among EU member states to actually renegotiate anything – and for most of the stuff you need unanimity among member states. Plus the present political dynamics in European politics may as well tear apart the Conservative Party. So it is not surprising that the first statements are being made that suggest to postpone the referendum question – either by promising an in/out referendum after the next election (and they need to win the election!) or by declaring the next election as a referendum of some sorts. All of these options will annoy the eurosceptics…

But then again, the strategy of Cameron seems quite straightforwards: Pleasing the anti-EU grassroots with mild eurosceptic rhetoric (immigration), the occasional opt-out – maybe using the JHA ‘nuclear opt-out’ – trying to get around the referendum somehow.

But the lack of any positive engagement with ‘Europe’, the alienation of classic UK allies and Cameron’s tendency to lecture the  rest of the EU what to do (obviously without taking part) will not help Cameron to ‘deliver’ on his grand renegotiation ideas.

And the irony of the story? While David Cameron may loose his job/ party support because of ‘Europe’; the UK is sleepwalking into 2nd class EU membership. And at that point, the referendum will be meaningless. (ok I should explain this in more detail – but not today, maybe another time)

Just to reiterate my general problem with EU blogging this year: I work for a think tank in London on European affairs so I get a fair share of geeky EU stuff on a daily basis. And writing blog posts on EU affairs is somehow not my preferred evening activity. So what has changed? Nothing really. Just thought I should give it another try.

Anyway, I am in Zagreb this week at the EFB community conference – if anyone wants to go for a drink – drop me an email.

If an important decision is to be made [the Persians] discuss the question when they are drunk and the following day the master of the house…submits their decision for reconsideration when they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober is reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk.

- Herodotus (450 B.C.): The Histories

In 2006:  “…the public are usually in the dark as to how [the EP] works and what legislation actually means to their lives. [Brussels], the world of politics and [the EP], remain a closed book to many. The result is a lack of interest, a lack of engagement in [the] politics [...] and low turnout at elections.”

In 2011:  “The majority of respondents know little or nothing about [EP] but over half would like to know more. Of those who do wish to know more, the primary reason is because they are interested in an issue.”

Sounds about right, doesn’t it? Only that these quotes  are not about the EU or the EP at all -  in fact they summarise the public’s attitudes to another Parliament – fo find out which one click here for the 2006 report and here for the 2011 report.