163 - Europe Wipes Britain off the Map!
The Daily Mail is one of the UK’s more euroskeptic newspapers, so it must have been with much delight that they were able to present this map to their readers on September 4th, 2006. For it falls straight into the category of the “what the heck are those loony Eurocrats in Brussels cooking up now” category of stories. The Daily Mail wastes no efforts to underline this angle:
“For centuries the people of Kent have called their county the Garden of England. So they might find it quite a surprise that - according to the European Union at least - they are actually part of France. Along with next-door Sussex, Kent has been rolled in with the Calais area on a map drawn up for Brussels. The counties now belong to the ‘Trans-Manche region’.”
Kent, le jardin de la France? Good heavens! It was the Brits who defeated Napoleon, and not the other way round, wasn’t it? But it gets worse:
“Under the plans from German cartographers, the East of England has also been shoehorned into a new region, which includes (coastal areas of Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway)”
Yes, you’ve noticed that word jumping out of the text: not European, but German mapmakers. No wonder cartography rhymes with Kartoffelbraten. Sneaky Gerry bastards! Did the British Empire kick your arse twice in the previous century for this? Oh, and nevermind that Norway isn’t even in the EU. The Mail goes on:
“The Western side of Britain has been lumped together with Ireland and the Atlantic coasts of France, Spain and Portugal.”
What happens to the extreme north of Scotland, apperently ‘lumped together’ with Iceland and the northern part of Scandinavia, is of less concern to the Daily Mail.
Naturally, the Conservative Party (or at least its euroskeptic wing) jumped on the story, accusing the EU of plotting to ‘wipe Britain off the map’. Tory local government spokesman Eric Pickles suspected a grand conspiracy: “I fear that there is an agenda to undermine national identities and impose a United States of Europe by stealth. Conservatives will fight these attempts to Balkanise Britain (…) Concervatives believe this is just the unwarranted interference that gives Brussels a bad name.”
I propose that rather it’s the unwarranted implication of anti-British conspiracies behind so many EU measures in papers such as the Daily Mail, which is only too happy to massage the latent continentophobia in the UK, that give Brussels a worse reputation than necessary.
For the real extent of these intranational regions’ powers is buried between two scare-mongering paragraphs: “The new regions have been drawn up for a project called Interreg, which wants to foster cross-border co-operation on issues such as tourism, trade, health and the environment.”
Key words: wants to. As similar regions across the rest of the EU prove, these ‘euregions’ have very little impact and even smaller authority, as they decide only by consensus of locally elected officials on ‘soft’ issues such as tourism. If their existence needs to be questioned, it is because they lack relevance, not because they would be too powerful. See post #85 on this blog for a view of cross-border euregions of Germany.
Sorry for editorialising about the thinly-veiled anti-European subtext in this article rather than just describing the map, but this kind of insinuation muddles the real discussion. The bureaucratic juggernaut that is the European Union is deserving of some harsh criticism – and the British voice in this debate would be a very welcome addition, if only it didn’t sound so shrill.
The original article and the accompanying map can be found here.
Well, like the Brits did to the Kurds and Baluchis, they are carved up.
But without the rest of Europe on the map, it is hard to see if most other national identities in Europe are similarly sliced and diced.
Comment by Josh SN — August 5, 2007 @
I personally think that the Daily Mail approach is entirely planned out to muddle that real discussion, if not prevent it altogether.
And, like Josh, I’d like to see the rest of that EU map in question.
Comment by Dwight Williams — August 5, 2007 @
@ Josh SN, Dwight Williams:
As I wrote in the post about the German Euroregions, if there is such a map, it’s hidden very well. Sounds suspicious, doesn’t it? :)
Comment by strangemaps — August 5, 2007 @
I was curious, and had a quick search around the internet.
It seems euroregions are only defined as and when required. No-one has sat down and divided the map of Europe into transnational regions; rather, some local/regional authorities in Sussex, Kent and Nord-Pas-de-Calais have requested help in setting up a transnational body to manage common interests.
I can’t find an EU-wide map (or indeed, any map, though lists of all the Euroregions do exist) with all the regions quoted by the Daily Mail, but Interreg have kindly (and, I suspect, somewhat arbitrarily) divided the EU into four zones within which Euroregions should be formed. The UK (except for Gibraltar) is not dissected by these zones, although many countries are. It also seems that the idea of euroregions comes not from the EU but from the Council of Europe, a looser collection of states streteching, I think, from Canada right the way to Kazakhstan.
My own objections to the EU project are along class lines - blurring national boundaries is all well and good, but if it’s done by and for the business elite then it will obviously pretty nightmarish for the rest of us - and the sometimes scarily rightwing Daily Mail definitely has an interest in drowning out that sort of discussion! But I liked the guy in the comments section who turned the article on its head: “I thought it made North France a part of Kent!”
Comment by Dave On Fire — August 5, 2007 @
It sounds like you believe that the EU is “fixable” in some way, rather than the unalloyed disaster that it seems to be, at least from the British perspective. “Shrillness” is quite appropriate when ones only choice is to leave the organization. Dave on Fire - the “business elites” you fear are nothing compared to the bureaucratic elites who actually control the EU: A bureaucracy oppresses you for your own good, having convinced themselves of where that lies. A poorly behaved corporation quickly dies or is reformed, but a poorly behaved bureacracy goes on and on and gets worse and worse until overthrown by war or revolution.
Comment by Steve M — August 5, 2007 @
To dismiss these Euroregions as simply yet more overweening EU “bureaucracy” betrays a lack of understanding of the whole EU project.
As with all things EU, there’s an agenda.. and this one is to further blur national cultures and identities.
And the EU doesn’t think in terms of a few years.. they make their plans over decades, little by little undermining the nation state and grabbing power as and when it is able.. never to hand it back. And it is a multi-pronged strategy.
Expensive and useless bureaucratic nonsense it may be now.. but in 20 or 30 years from now, these will be fully fledged EU regions, with semi autonomous regional “administrations” all bypassing national governments and accountable only to an unelected, anti-democratic clique of powerful corporatists in Brussels.
The Sovereign States of Europe will be no more.
UNLESS, that is, the people of Europe start to wake up!
JO
Comment by JO — August 5, 2007 @
The brouhaha around this map ignores the fact that local Kent farmers have been part of marketting a “trans-Manche” food & produce region for years.
Comment by John — August 5, 2007 @
Please don’t apologize for the editorializing. Because of it, you made the terms of the scuffle accessible to this cloistered American. Thank you.
Comment by Leif — August 5, 2007 @
I’m guessing most of the Daily Mail’s readers live in southern England (as indeed does a large part of the UK), which is why they’re not complaining about the “loss” of northern Scotland. Indeed, I suspect some of the more jingoistic English might regard its loss (as well as Wales and North Ireland) as a “bloody improvement”.
Comment by Darrel Jones — August 5, 2007 @
There’s always a tendency among people of a particular view to insist that those who don’t share it need to “WAKE UP”. If you think that Euregions are a threat to national sovreignty then your concept of national sovreignty is exceptionally weak and feeble.
Comment by ben — August 5, 2007 @
@ Dave On Fire:
Thanks for that excellent bit of additional research.
@ Steve M, Jo:
One can be for or against the EU, and rational arguments can be used to defend both sides of the debate. My point is that the Daily Mail is scaring their readers, using half-truths, exaggerations and a suggestive choice of words, into believing the only way forward with respect to Europe is the way out.
@ Leif:
Happy to oblige!
Comment by strangemaps — August 5, 2007 @
As I understand it, the Daily Mail is scarcely better than the Sun or other British tabloids. Their Euroskeptical alarmism is pretty much par for the course. And what exactly are those heavy dotted lines supposed to represent? They correspond only vaguely to the colored regions.
Still, the general lack of transparency on the part of Brussels does tend to lend itself to this kind of thing.As I commented on the German euroregions, few people have any idea that they even exist or what they do, if anything. If they openly discussed this sort of thing and involved the people who actually live in the regions in question, they would not be such handy tools for the anti-Europe crowd. Not to mention the fact that some of these regions don’t look terribly well thought-out. Marketing Northern Ireland, Normandy, and Portugal under one brand/banner? I really don’t see it.
What this reminds me of is a map published in the Los Angeles Times 10 or 20 years ago, that suggested a future reorganization of the world along more regional concerns. So there was a circumpolar nation comprised of northern Canada and Russia, the Maghreb, and so on. Sorry I don’t have more information on that.
Comment by DemetriosX — August 5, 2007 @
I would like to point out that The Interreg project is in fact nothing more than a large pot of money. People then apply for it like any arts council or charity. These lines (I assure you, they go across the whole of Europe) is part of a criteria for funding, and nothing else. I suspect that these are researched economic boundaries to group together similar people so that not too much money ends up in the same place without putting country-limits.
And who applies for Interreg? Well, normally local councils, culture groups, etc.
For an actual decided map, go to http://www.interreg3c.net/sixcms/list.php?page=home_en
where they ended up in a simple north-south-east-west divide.
Again, this is to make sure money is evenly spread and to promote partnerships further afield (I’m reminded about projects that had Polish partners making successful bids because they had just joined the EU)
This is my job, you know…
Comment by Pete Martin — August 6, 2007 @
ps. They also “wiped” every other country off the map
pps. No one should read the Daily Mail. Ever.
Comment by Pete Martin — August 6, 2007 @
Strangemaps…
I agree, the Daily Mail can sometimes be the Eurorealist’s worst enemy. But isn’t it a bit too easy (and a bit pompous too) to dismiss whole swathes of anti-EU arguments JUST because some are contained within the dubious pages of a red top?
Perhaps The Daily Telegraphs Chris Booker is more to your taste http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/nbook105.xml
And for those who seriously wish to understand the overwhelming arguments against a burgeoning European Superstate I would recommend regular visits to the very excellent EU Referendum at http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
You wrote “One can be for or against the EU, and rational arguments can be used to defend both sides of the debate. ”
I think you’re wrong. Can you (or indeed anyone on this forum) name one single benefit which membership of the European has brought Britain, which could not have been achieved - at far less cost and suffocating bureaucracy ( and much more democratic legitimacy) - by our own democratically elected national parliament?
You’ll struggle!
JO
Comment by JO — August 6, 2007 @
Mind you, it is a completely stupid concept and a waste of time, money, and effort, and a bureaucratic quagmire — it’s all of those things and worse — but it’s not a black-helicopter seizure-of-sovreignty conspiracy.
Comment by ben — August 6, 2007 @
The Daily Mail is known in our household as ‘The Daily Bigot’. They take the pessimist’s view on everything - immigration, race, employment, crime, education, everything. Nothing works in the Daily Mail world.
Comment by saturn5 — August 6, 2007 @
JO - here’s one for starters: free healthcare across Europe (the E111 system).
We need to be careful not to polarise into Euroskeptic/Euroenthusiast. Both have their points, but neither is completely right. Membership of the EU has both costs and benefits, as does the membership of any organisation, say like the UK.
I’d say the lasting European peace since the ’40s is worth the price.
Comment by saturn5 — August 6, 2007 @
to Pete Martin
As a Southern froggy, this map looks good to me.
I have way more in common with the Spaniards and the Italians than with people of Northern France, economically and even culturally speaking.
And Jo, relax, you got Paris back! Hundred Years War, least we forget!
Comment by Yul — August 6, 2007 @
I think this map shows which parts of Europe should be ceded to the UK. This is probably a sensible idea, the different areas of interest being controlled by the corresponding areas of the UK. From this viewpoint there should probably be more of France under transmanche control; all of Normandy for a start!
Mickey taking over…
Comment by rob — August 6, 2007 @
“You’re so wise. You’re like a miniature Buddha, covered in hair.” - Anchorman
http://www.coaks.wordpress.com
Comment by coaks — August 6, 2007 @
I’m always delighted to read your blog - my field of endeavour as a vapid unpolitically-minded artist is totally different from yours, but I do love maps. And I’m interested in the tennis volleys of opinion that arise in this discussion.
From an artist’s point of view, I rather miss the traditional pastel colours of blue (the sea) and pink (the British Empire) in this map. Perhaps it is the harsh reality of modern day living that requires primary saturated pure hued colours to define what is going on politically.
Kay
Comment by lookingforbeauty — August 6, 2007 @
That’s so laughable. Obviously they missed the point of this map, it’s for cross-border cooperation! It’d be pretty hard to have cross border cooperation inside the same country.
Comment by andrew — August 6, 2007 @
@ coaks:
“Baxter, is that you? Bark twice if you’re in Milwaukee!”
Comment by strangemaps — August 6, 2007 @
The map may be amusingly tabloid-level, but there’s a great deal about the EU which is deadly serious. Most important is its elite’s uncontrollable envy of the USA, and their machinations to distribute nuclear power for “peaceful use” throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East, essentially as an emotional act of revenge against the USA’s thermonuclear dominance through NATO.
Every American I’ve met thinks of the EU as a sort of USA in the making, built from the same peoples, who are laughably struggling to attain the “innate” American “genius” for “integrating” them with “liberty” so utterly brilliantly, as in “E pluribus unum”. And, having enjoyed speaking a sentence with the desired level of vanity, further thought on it visibly becomes impossible for them. John Bolton’s recent warning about the EU’s destructive direction was a marvellous exception to the dull standard - the guy’s a national treasure sometimes.
But, what if the EU project is wholly owned by Europe’s elites (which is easily shown), would they create a second America? What if they despise America’s democracy as the voice of the odious peasants and instead construct … something more to their liking, would it be as unpretentious and peace-loving as Washington’s Beltway elite? And what if they stealthily disintegrate those European populations who look on the US as their natural ally (and they are), would the North Atlantic remain so safe for the Anglosphere?
Remember that politicking, like selling cosmetics, involves seeking out the emotional weaknesses of others and exploiting them without mercy for profit or high office. It pays to be alert with these snakes in the business.
Comment by alan — August 6, 2007 @
So much paranoia! Sit at a map of Europe. Try to envisage certain regional cultural and economic commonalities. You get this map. I have heard people talk of this as if Hastings was being transferred to France. egad! Imagine different commonalities,eg language, you get a different map.
As for the Daily Hell….*spit
Comment by lordhutton — August 6, 2007 @
Many great comments here, especially the one about needing primary colors in maps nowadays–very insightful. Also, only one person mentioned the huge dashed lines, presumably overlayed by the tabloid publishers to really emphasize a division that isn’t apparent in the original–nice propaganda. So maps are deeply political, and therefore one should be suspicious of them.
Maybe the Europhobic Brits should watch out for other insidious invasions, such at the Tour de France:
http://maps.live.com/?v=2&cid=EE8A32C733F8E28D!836&encType=1
Comment by Andy K — August 6, 2007 @
hey what so wrong with linking the east of england with Holland and the Flemish, the good stranglers that helped built up my fine city and built the wealth of the county and a little bit to the country.
Hell I got more in common with the dutch then I ave with a Yorkshire man, who for some reason can’t be ased to listen to me and so moan that they can’t understand me.
I from Norwich and I proud of it
Comment by mellonmarshall — August 6, 2007 @
[...] 163 - Europe Wipes Britain off the Map! [image] The Daily Mail is one of the UK’s more euroskeptic newspapers, so it must have been with much delight that […] [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — August 7, 2007 @
I see Jerry is at it again. Sounds like time for another a$$ kicking.
Comment by Cappy — August 7, 2007 @
What’s the point of these regions anyway?
Comment by rek — August 7, 2007 @
This is just another typically Daily Moan “Reds under the bed” style story. The DM spends its days looking for analytic work that it can froth up into another jingoistic nonsense story. In this case, it is day-to-day practical reality that the border regions of nations have a great deal of common interest in how that area is managed, whether it is sea, mountain or river. On the ground (or the water), national borders are an irritation. Only an inlander could fail to see that: most of the UK has no experience of a land frontier and the tabloids like to play to that ignorance.
Comment by Observer — August 7, 2007 @
Am I correct in assuming that the Daily Mail’s readership is largely Tory, and especially that it was the paper of choice of the loyal Thatcherite in the 1980’s?
Comment by Darrel Jones — August 7, 2007 @
163 - Europe Wipes Britain off the Map « strange maps
Les intrépides cartographes de strange maps rapportent une carte du Daily Mail supposé montrer que l’UE « découpe la Grande-Bretagne ». Censé être un écho du travail de INTERREG IIIC, « un programme financé par l’Union européenne…
Trackback by eumhh — August 8, 2007 @
i’m confused
Comment by Adi Nugroho — August 10, 2007 @
@alan — I’m an American and I don’t think of the EU as a nascent USA. It’s a peace treaty. Really, I’m perfectly happy not having to find land wars in Europe… now, if only we could avoid them in Asia…
Comment by Bill — August 11, 2007 @
i prefer reading daily prophet over daily mail. :-/
Comment by nishugoyal — August 11, 2007 @
to Bill - “…It’s a peace treaty.”
Thanks for responding and I’ll accept your correction: not all Americans think the EU is a nascent USA - some will even imagine it’s a “peace treaty”, and happily think that it’s why Europe hasn’t had a big war lately. What should I do now - scream in despair or just sob?
Luckily there are some who see the UK vs. EU problem for what it is, like this guy: Irwin Stelzer, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute. I know he’s neocon but perhaps he explains the problem in a more believable way than me:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/77746/now-we-know-brown-is-a-european-not-an-atlanticist.thtml
In case this article is subscription-only I’ll copy a relevant section:
“Henry Kissinger once famously wished for a single telephone number he could dial to find out Europe’s position on various issues, and the State Department has always favoured just such an arrangement. They might be wrong to wish to lose an independent Britain as an ally, but they are close to having their way.
So it comes to this. British voters are angry because they believe that Tony Blair subordinated their nation’s interest to that of the United States, especially since US foreign policy was in the hands of the hated neocons and their president, George W. Bush. So Mr Brown went to Camp David to distance himself both from American foreign policy and the American President. Which he succeeded in doing — more than even he imagines.
Almost immediately, as if a free hand in foreign affairs is a burden too heavy to bear — aside from pressing for aid programmes for Africa — Brown is setting about surrendering his new-found freedom from America to the EU. And permanently. “
Comment by alan — August 13, 2007 @
Brown’s “distancing” himself from America is… well, I can’t even dignify it with the expression “smoke and mirrors”, it’s just the imagination of pundits obsessing with style. Militarily and economically, Britain is so closely tied to America that it would take a lot of political will to break away, far more than Brown can be said to possess.
Thanks for reminding us, Alan, where the real threat to British self-determination comes from.
Comment by Dave On Fire — August 13, 2007 @
Hi this isn’t really a map in the sense of paper and ink but I’ve just come across a website on del.icio.us that claims it will produce a map of any website you care to name. They’re rather abstract… and look to have more to do with code than the links between information but you might like to look at this trifle and then disregard it…
http://www.aharef.info/static/htmlgraph/
Comment by Biofuelsimon — August 13, 2007 @
@Dave On Fire - “thanks for reminding us … the real threat to British self-determination.”
Glad to oblige mate. Yup, it’s Gordon Brown, or any of that crowd:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/mythbusters.html
No, it isn’t really G. Bush Jr. - nuts he may be, but he’s in charge of totally screwing up a different country. We just get collateral damage. No, we’ve got a real job on catching the UK’s own psycho bastards at it, and giving them hell every time. They aren’t a lot better really, I mean look at this sample:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/07/browns-spin-small-print.html
Who could you stick with a friend who became a habitual liar like that? Or stand for it in, say, a shopkeeper? Not me - I’d say that all their schemes are made doubtful. They’ve got a self-destructive compulsion and it certainly includes their handiwork.
Comment by alan — August 13, 2007 @
Where are the new maps?! Has this site died or something??!!!
Comment by Dude — August 14, 2007 @
maybe he hasn`t got the time to search for and blog new maps. it is prob. mush work behind finding all this maps. be patient, he will come up with new maps soon I think.
You alan talks about Buch. Well he isn`t the worst,
greetings sofia
http://sofiawinterborn.wordpress.com
Comment by Just a Woman — August 15, 2007 @
I do not think the subject matter of that map is what we are being led to believe it is.
Consider, first: the regions shown on the map are centered on particular bodies of water: the North sea, Atlantic, English Channel, etc.
and second: The map, while supposedly carving up the UK, is completely Anglo-Centric: Only bodies of water bearing on the UK are shown, only land areas touching bodies of water bearing on the UK are included here. From Gotland to Madrid, on the other hand, plain white.
So the map is strictly related to the UK’s access to ocean.
I think this map depicts zones around the UK for some maritime purpose, not political at all. Maybe to determine some shipping regulations, or rescue and patrol responsibility, or research, or something like that. Maybe something like “if you are operating a ferry in the RED region, you must file paperwork here…”
Ben
Comment by Ben — August 15, 2007 @
The map involving Germany I seem to recall was even more controversial, because of how it handled Schleswig-Holstein. The Danes weren’t too chuffed.
The politics of it is controversial when you put it into the context of supplanting the nation state with “ever closer union”, the federal superstate, and the growth of regionalism. But enough of all that and back to the maps, please!
Comment by Lee — August 30, 2007 @
It’s a bit late, but a lot of commenters - as well as the original article - is over interpreting this map to a degree where I don’t know if I should laugh or cry…
As has been mentioned these regions are simply made to further cooperation and share know how between areas with some degree of similarity and/or historical bonds. Call this “blurring borders” if you want.
This cooperation happens fx. in the field of urban planning where planners and politicians in the north sea region share a bag of money from the EU to share experiences in dealing with issues - fx. the EU supported project/concept shared space - a potential revolutionizing way of dealing with traffic and urban space.
I’m no euro freak - just an urban planner who prefer to keep the snot out of the beard.
And thanks for the fantastic blog, maps and everything. I will try not to take long brakes from it again so I can be more up to date with the rather exciting discussion that has begun to erupt here :)
Adam
Comment by adam p adam — September 8, 2007 @
“The reshaped view of Europe”.. More like “the reshaped view of 1/5 of Europe conveniently-for-us including Glorious England”.
Oh, and..
DEATH TO THE NATION STATE! I WANT A F-ING EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE!
Comment by Captain Eurotrash — October 16, 2007 @
[...] déjà vu all over again. Post #163 of this blog (d.d. Aug 5, 2007) dealt with a secretive plan by the European Union to carve up the [...]
Pingback by 267 - EU Plots to Destroy Britain - Again « Strange Maps — April 24, 2008 @
For God’s Sake - it MUST be stopped. Otherwise we’ve got new (E)USSR.
Comment by Someone — April 25, 2008 @
Or a US of Europe instead?
Comment by Dwight Williams — April 30, 2008 @
with such desinformation it seems what we have yet some kind of UK-SSR…
On the other hand, all pro-state hysterics in Europe have a common sense of stupidity.
Something in common ?
Oh my god, it seems they are also Yuropeans, after all.
Comment by Maitresinh — May 14, 2008 @