MISUNDERSTANDING EUROPE

One of the saddest aspects of our time has been the complete and utter ignorance of European political, legal, military and economic institutions. This was perhaps most blatantly demonstrated in a New York Times Article of 3^rd April 2026 that  was headlined “A North American Treaty Organization Without America”. Obviously, at least I thought it was obvious, it should say, “North Atlantic Treaty Organization”. However, such ignorance is clearly endemic in American politics. However, it is NOT just Americans that are so ignorant as we frequently see British politicians, commentators and especially social media in the United Kingdom show similar ignorance. Indeed this has prevailed on BOTH sides in the Brexit arguments. That British politicians display such ignorance is either a mark of their lack of quality or that they choose to play upon ignorance for their own political gain. Here I will look at several commonly misunderstood facts about Europe . Some of these misunderstandings relate to the European Union, but many do not. I also explain some instances  how howpoliticians have sought to change the European relationship without public explanation or any accountability being held by the media to inform us.

The European Union is a customs union NOT a free trade area: Article 9 of the Treaty of Rome states, “The Community shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover all trade in good.” Too often I hear people refer to it as a free trade area, so here I explain the difference.

Both a customs union and a free trade area seek to eliminate tariffs between member states as well as non-tariff barriers BUT, in a free trade area a member country is free to trade with outside countries as it wishes. Also, a customs union makes it necessary for a member country to agree a common commercial policy in a way which a free trade area does not.

NATO was the first post WW2 European defence organisation – UNTRUE: In 1948 the Western European Union was formed between France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom for collective defence of these countries. This pre-dated NATO by a year and remained in place until it was totally dissolved in 2011. This is important to note because it meant that all these countries did not have “all their eggs in one basket” when it came to mutual defence, an issue that was particularly pertinent to both France and the United Kingdom feeling their historic colonial interests squeezed between America and Russia. An issue that came to the fore in the Suez crisis. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent end of the Cold War changed the environment, albeit, as we now know, temporarily.

In 1998 Tony Blair signed the Saint-Malo Declaration ending UK opposition to the European Union having its own security and defence policy. Whilst this was deemed a response to the Kosova War it can be seen as a deception that deepened the European Union’s political ambitions over and above its economic origins. The then Secretary of State of the USA, Madeleine Albright warned against this as it could undermine NATO. This warning was ignored and the European Union steamed ahead with the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, The Berlin Agreement of 2002, and the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 with unifying defence policies whilst relying upon the command structures and hardware of NATO with the largest part of the bill picked up by the “arsenal of democracy” that is the good old USA.

At no time was any of this explained to the complacent British electorate as it fundamentally changed the function and power of the European Union. Ireland was the only signatory to have a referendum, held twice after the first vote was against it – understandable for a supposedly neutral country.

Bizarrely, those promoting the vote to remain in the European Union in 2016 never highlighted this aspect that may have attracted more votes. The sad fact is that those in favour of the European Union are often woefully ignorant of its detail whilst those against the European Union often ridiculously exaggerate some of its details. A UK referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon could have explained the changing face of the European Union and, in my opinion, may have prevented the referendum of 2016. This omission I view as an act of political negligence and cowardice by those in power at the time.

The Council of Europe is separate to the European Union: - In my view this confusion by people is actually caused by fools in the European Union adopting the original European Flag that was designed for the Council of Europe as well as Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” as a shared anthem. Thus we see the two institutions confused in the eyes of the European populace.

The great thing about the Council of Europe is that it has the capacity to bring together the whole of Europe. It predates the European Union founded by the Treaty of London in May 1949 and represents 46 European member states aiming to uphold human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe. It was designed intentionally to be  non-threatening to sovereignty as in itself it cannot create any binding laws, but rather a set of three simple values: democracy, human rights and rule of law. It is largely a positive organisation  developing over 200 agreements in the form of conventions or treaties that benefit us all. However, in the 21^st century it has come under criticism for increased political and economic activity veering it away from its human rights purpose. Its peak effectiveness was possibly when Russia joined the organisation, but this was short-lived as both Russia and Belarus have been excluded.

The European Court of Human Rights is totally separate from the European Union – The key Council of Europe institution that the Council of Europe is responsible for is the European Court of Human Rights. It is a frequent mistake that this Court is seen as part of the European Union – it is not. However, its interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights does come into conflict with individual states and its decisions are deemed as binding on all member states except a small handful that have opted out.

The European Court of Human Rights has no enforcement powers – Thus you have some members that are less compliant than others with the UK being the most compliant as at the 4^th April 2024 it complied with 97.8% of judgements. Although we do have a UK judge on the panel the very nature of UK law to European law can create potential conflict. The big difference is that in most of Europe, except Scandinavia, law tends to be top down and written statutes can be interpreted by the “spirit of the law”. In England this is different in that common law, a law of torts and precedents, tends to be bottom up and written law is not subject to “spirit of the law” interpretations, but rather its common meaning in the English language.

There is also one other significant feature of the European Court of Human Rights – it looks at the rights of the individual in each individual case. It is unconcerned with the balance of rights of the needs of the nation or the national interest of the many. This conflict is common to all member countries and they chose to comply. In the case of the UK we comply most of the time.

The Economic Commission for Europe is NOT the European Union – the 56  member states (as at 7th April 2026) includes most of Europe, USA, Canada and some parts of Central Asia. This was formed in 1947 and its purpose is to promote cross-border economic well being throughout its members by gathering information and gaining agreements to such things as harmonizing vehicle regulations, encouraging environmental protection, promoting the better development of cities, to name but a few. It comes under the United Nations and has a long, but quiet, history of successes over nearly eighty years.

Britain’s membership of the World Trade Organisation can be questioned – this is because of it never signing up in its own name only as a member of the European Union in 1995. Britain played no part in negotiating its formation, neither did it sign in its own right as this was done by the European Union.

Now this takes some explaining as if you “Google” it you will see Britain quoted as a founder member of the World Trade Organisation. To understand this you need to consider what the World Trade Organisation replaced – GATT.

GATT was the original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade established in 1947. The purpose of the World Trade Organisation forming to replace GATT was primarily to recognise the independent states that were no longer in the old Soviet Union or Soviet Bloc – the new world order. Over the eight rounds of this change Britain took no direct part in this – indeed it did not need to as the European Union was able to negotiate and sign  agreements on behalf of its member states. This saw an expansion of World Trade Organisation powers compared to the old GATT ones in that far more than trade and tariffs was covered in the new organisation expanding to cover subsidies, intellectual property, food safety – all that were once solely the subject of national governments.

There is an incongruity in that as new countries gained independence they had to sign up fresh to the World Trade Organisation whereas when Britain left the European Union it took no such action. The Bar Council Brexit Working Committee took the view “The UK is already a WTO member in its own right and does not need to accede (again) to the WTO.” There was no desire to challenge this, but the difference in treatment cannot be denied.

Britain NEVER had a referendum to join the EEC/EU. – Rather it has only ever had two referendums to leave in 1975 and 2016. Britain joined the EEC in 1973. Considering how things have changed it is little wonder in the 21^st Century that this resulted in childish polarised labelling of Europhile and Europhobic camps as politicians on all sides descend to populist rhetoric. The reality that has been lost are more subtle arguments such as “What kind of European Union” or “What kind of Europe”. The European Economic Community is certainly a different beast to the European Union and democratic engagement in this change throughout Europe has largely been very very poor.

In this polarisation you have seen people trying to re-write the past without proper knowledge, or if they have knowledge, not using it truthfully.  For example, you have often seem the late MP’s  Tony Benn and Richard Body misrepresented as Europhobes. This is incorrect. Richard Body documented that he was one of a small band of MPs in 1956 that urged Sir Anthony Eden as Prime Minister to attend the Messina conference and was an advocate for joining the EEC. He changed his mind after a confidential briefing that the real objective was the creation of a superstate that would strip national Parliaments of their powers to tax and legislate. Thus he believed the British people were being deceived and lead “Get Britain Out” in 1975.

If you look at newspaper articles, and especially at t that time, the equivalent of modern social media, letters and opinion in the popular press at that time it is easy to see that the EEC was “sold” to the British people as being a purely “economic” union that would help forge peace in Europe. That is what people voted to remain in.

Lies going in and lies leaving – the 2016 EU referendum was promoted by the leave side as being a cash positive exercise with gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow and a reduction in net migration. This is clearly untrue. It is impossible to deny that entering and leaving the EU have been promoted by a crock of lies. However, I believe in the interim period of our membership there has been a larger failing:

It is a repeated and successive failing of the governments of the UK to not fully and honestly explain in clear plain English to the people at each stage of the EEC’s transformation into the EU a transformation from an economic to a political and military union. Rather politicians hid behind party loyalty on what should have been a cross-party issue. In such a way the British people were not trusted  and treated with contempt on each of the following occasions:

1992 – The Maastricht Treaty was signed forming the European Union setting up the foundations for common foreign policy, common justice and home affairs, common voting rights in other EU countries, common taxation, common currency. John Major mad a vote on the Maastricht Treaty one of confidence in the Government despite a promise that instead of a referendum the House of Commons would decide in a free vote.

2001 – The Treaty of Nice was signed preparing the EU’s largest expansion of membership which saw ten more states. This expansion was to have the largest impact on net migration in the UK. In May 2002 Stephen Byers told a press lunch at the House of Commons that there might be legislation to enable a UK referendum on the EU constitution. However, although it was felt that this could be won by prudent explanation to the UK public, the victory of the right in Netherlands, Denmark and parts of Germany, Heider in Austria and the increasing success of Le Pen in France was feared to stimulate the worst kind of nationalism. With Tony Blair in the middle of an unpopular War in Iraq Tony Blair chose, possibly heavily influenced by Gordon Brown, not to hold a referendum at this stage.

2007 – Treaty of Lisbon. This again strengthened the legislative power of the EU and by definition reducing the powers of member states. The EU had full power to sign treaties on behalf of all member states. It unified much EU foreign and security policy and established a representative to do this. It also sought to harmonise legal systems. This increased the largeness of the EU in its authority and reach. Out of this the Charter of Fundamental Rights may be deemed a positive aspect of this largeness. However, the fact that this was established by a convention rather than by elected representation laid it open to the nationalist criticism of fools. The simple fact is that these rights are all reasonable – but Article 45, freedom of movement and residence in an expanded Europe had by this time become  an issue in the UK. A window for reasonable discussion was being lost by arrogant avoidance.

The Treaty of Lisbon was not completely explained by Tony Blair and his successor in plain English. An opportunity for referendum was not taken. Indeed, even the Parliamentary website at the time showed a bias to pros rather than cons  in its explanation. Opportunity for reasoned argument was being lost. Government hid behind party loyalty to ensure no opposition – but this was growing across all parties as migration was becoming an issue in many constituencies.

Bizarrely in 2013 David Cameron promised if the Conservatives got in to hold a referendum on in or out of the EU – this was possibly a cynical approach to maintain or improve his power in the 2015 election by preventing further friction within his own party or losses to UKIP. The reasons for a referendum were possibly more about party than country.

It is a great failing that even today we now have politicians in this country and abroad that fail to understand the structures of Europe. Added to this we have had largely a class of professional politicians that have followed idealistic expansion of the European project with ensuring the people understand or consent to such a move. Throughout Europe and especially in the UK we have repeatedly seen politicians act in the interest of their own party or worse still the interests of their own personal views and ambitions over and above the interests of the country and its people. I am not convinced that the newer emerging parties are any better, and fear they may be worse.

Finally, if we are to truly improve the knowledge of people including politicians themselves; improve the quality of politicians; improve the quality of political discussion and get away from the fear that ignorance creates there is an excellent example set by Alastair Campbell in his book for young people about politics. This needs to become a series that expands and explains European and World politics as well as local politics within the UK. This should be taught in schools and in this way we will have a better informed and better questioning electorate that is more likely to vote and be involved in democracy from a wider circle than the present intellectual class.