The EU and the British way of life - a constant war of words (Feature)

By Anna Tomforde Aug 5, 2010, 6:06 GMT

London - When it comes to knocking the perceived over- reaching powers of the European Union, the fertile imagination of the British media goes into overdrive.

Whether it's the English cricket bat, the proverbial curved banana, or traditional funeral arrangements - everything is under threat from the EU if sections of the British media are to be believed.

In big banner headlines, newspapers will proclaim that EU pesticide bans will 'spark a massive rat plague,' that plans are afoot to 'liquidize corpses' and that the cricket bat industry will die out due to a ban on chemicals used to treat the wood.

At the offices of the European Commission in London, the more outrageous examples of coverage are registered under the 'Euromyth' category.

Needless to say, the stories, however ridiculous, do not make the Commission's work in London any easier.

'It continues unabated. They are willing to jump at anything,' spokesman David D'Arcy said. 'When the news from the EU is good, it's due to the government, if it's bad, it's Brussels,' he told German Press Agency dpa.

But while D'Arcy is prepared - to an extent - to see the 'funny' side of the more absurd examples, he says greater damage is done by 'scaremongering' stories on 'serious issues,' such as immigration.

Among recent 'crackers' in the Euromyth category, according to D'Arcy, was a story that Belgian undertakers had proposed a novel, environmentally friendly method of disposing of corpses by dissolving them in chemicals.

Tabloids in Britain immediately linked the move to the EU. 'EU plans to liquify corpses and pour them down the drain,' reported the Daily Express.

'Another Euromyth liquidated,' responded the Commission Office website.

'Whatever Belgian undertakers decide regarding funeral arrangements is a matter for the Belgian authorities. The EU has no competence in this matter, and to suggest otherwise is wide of the mark!'

On the similarly-emotive topic of the cricket bat, the EU has come under tabloid fire for banning the use of an insecticide used to treat the willow wood before it is exported to be turned into bats.

'Cricket bats hit for six,' headlined the Daily Mirror. 'Knocked for six,' echoed the Mail and Express.

According to the reports, the wood cannot leave Britain without a fumigation certificate. But the industry's main markets in India, Pakistan and Australia are currently not accepting any alternative treatment for the wood apart from methyl bromide.

'The current rules of cricket demand bats are made of willow - there is an inferior Kashmiri willow that can be used but without the ultimate superior quality,' explained Geoff Watling of Anglian Willow Services.

The ban would strike at the heart of the small band of English willow suppliers, based in Essex and East Anglia, which could close down within months, experts predicted.

'The ban is a double threat to an export industry and to our own county of Essex, not to say a body blow to the heart of every Englishman if they can't hear the crack of leather on willow in the future,' said John Clayton, chief executive of Essex Chambers of Commerce.

The Commission fought back. 'Scratch below the surface and one discovers that the ban on methyl bromide stems from a United Nations agreement to protect the environment from damaging ozone depleting substances,' it commented, adding that adherence to the UN rule had nothing to do with Britain's EU membership.

Last, but not least, fury has been raging over a proposed EU ban on rat poison under the EU's Biocides Directive.

The 'crazy' EU proposal would lead to an 'infestation of rodents not seen since the bubonic plague hundreds of years ago,' wrote the Farmers Guardian.

'EU to spark massive rat plague,' screamed the tabloid headlines, a conclusion dismissed as 'irrational' by the Commission.

But readers, it appeared, remained convinced, calling the proposals 'crazy, mad and idiotic.'

'Do we have to obey everything the EU demands?' asked reader Charles Gilmour in the Farmers Guardian. 'What would happen if we simply didn't do it? Is this another example of inappropriate laws that don't suit the English, or even British way of life? Another opportunity to question the benefit of membership?'