Stories today based on a Greenpeace report about EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies to large landowners cover a matter which has been widely debated over many years and are mostly accurate, as far as they go. But not all of them give quite the full picture.

EU rules allow Member States to cut substantially so-called “basic payments” under the CAP to large landowners, such as most of those cited in the Greenpeace report, by applying an upper limit (ceiling). Nine Member States do so.

In the UK, such a ceiling is applied in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – with the resulting funds generated remaining in those regions for rural development projects.

The UK chooses not to apply a ceiling in England.

The European Commission’s repeated proposals for more radical reform have been watered down by national Ministers.

Only active farms are eligible for CAP funding as long as the farmer keeps his land in a state suitable for agricultural production. The business of breeding racehorses is not supported, though the land on which horses graze might qualify if it meets the criteria.

Basic payments account for in the UK and most Member States for around 70% of all CAP payments made to farmers.

Further info

In 2010, the European Commission proposed extensive reforms to the CAP, including to place a compulsory ceiling on payments to large landowners under the CAP’s basic payment scheme, thus putting an end to payments at the levels referred to in today’s reports.

A number of Member States combined to oppose these proposals.

As no EU law can be adopted without approval from both Member States and MEPs, this meant the extensive reform package implemented from 2014 did not include any compulsory ceilings, only a reduction of 5% on all amounts over €150 000.

However, an option was left open for individual Member States to apply a ceiling at national level.

Similar proposals to limit the amount of payment per individual farm were made by the Commission in successive CAP reform exercises since 1992 – but were always blocked by Member States.

In the UK, ceilings are now applied in Northern Ireland (€150 000), Wales (€300 000) and Scotland (€600 000). Read the full entry

It is out of the question that EU rules would require the UK to let linguistically or medically incompetent doctors practise. In fact, the rules – recently further reinforced in agreement with the UK – expressly require Member States to prevent such people from being employed.

Yet, the Daily Mail runs yet another misleading front page article on 24 September headlined “Patients at risk from EU doctors” and alleging that “thousands of EU doctors can work in the UK without basic safety checks.” Online, the headline becomes an even greater insult to about 30 000 “EU doctors” – 10% of the total – working in the NHS: “Patients ARE at risk from thousands of EU medics.”

The consensus in the profession – as has been reported by several other newspapers, including the Times here – is that the threat to patients comes from “EU doctors” deciding to leave the UK rather than staying here to save lives and cure illness. So, while clearly patient safety should always be the top priority for healthcare organisations, it is hard to see how national newspaper front pages and online pieces impugning European doctors’ professionalism will help patients.

This is a point made in no uncertain terms in response to the Mail article by some stakeholders and medical professionals on social media.

Again, the Mail chose not to contact us for comment before its latest splash.

We have provided details of how EU rules work, here and here. We will not repeat those in this piece.

There are, however, some important elements to add.

Read the full entry

The Sun runs an article on 31 August by Bill Cash MP claiming the EU has banned the use of pounds and ounces. The paper follows up by suggesting ten ways to “say up yours to the EU.” This may be intended as humour. But it repeats inaccuracies and misleading statements which seem to be widely believed and therefore are worth correcting yet again.

First, the EU has never banned pounds and ounces or other imperial measures. EU law does require metric measurements to be used – though already in 1965, eight years before joining the EEC, the Wilson Government decided to initiate the UK’s metrication programme, in response to global moves in this direction. However, EU law has always allowed imperial measures to be used alongside metric ones – as the Sun itself acknowledged at the bottom of this earlier article. Visiting any supermarket or market stall is enough to confirm this. This issue has been addressed on this blog several times, for example here, back in 2001.

The Sun proposes “having cleaner carpets by swapping weak, EU regulated vacuums for powerful ones”.   In fact, consumer magazine “Which” has found that new EU rules – backed by Member States, industry and consumer groups – on the specifications for vacuum cleaners (the facts here) have led to better performance and cheaper running costs. In any case it is uncertain that vacuum cleaner manufacturers, who operate globally, would want to produce models generally considered obsolete just for UK markets.

There are no proposals on the table to introduce similar rules for hair dryers, toasters or other appliances not already covered, as referred to in two of the Sun’s helpful suggestions for saying “up yours” to the EU and as we explain here. Only if there is cast-iron scientific evidence will the Commission put forward such proposals, and in any case they would need to be agreed by Member States and the European Parliament. If such evidence were clearly established, it would remain to be seen whether the UK parliament or public – inside or outside the EU – would wish to create unnecessary pollution, environmental damage and higher electricity bills by insisting on energy guzzling appliances, even in the event that manufacturers did want to keep producing them.

Another suggestion the Sun puts forward is bringing back old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs that require changing more often and thus cost consumers more. The Sun is correct that incandescent light bulbs have been phased out in the EU, not on the basis of a high-handed bureaucratic decision but as a result of a clear mandate from elected ministers and MEPs. They have been, or are being, phased out also in the US, Canada, Switzerland, China, Australia, Brazil, Russia and many other jurisdictions. Again, we have covered this issue in earlier entries and again there does not so far seem to be any evidence that the UK – which supported the EU measures – would now want to go against this global trend.

The Sun also calls for the UK to “reclaim jam” from EU rules that stipulate it should have 60% sugar content. But the rules already allow flexibility on this. What is more, the British media – including the Sun – have previously complained about this very flexibility, saying it would “ruin British jam”! This saga is explained here.

There are no EU rules preventing the recycling of tea bags. Again this is a very old – and wrong – story. Read the full entry