Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

WARNING: The European Union and Political Correctness

John Midgley 



The Problem
European Union Contribution – So Far
The European Contribution - The Next Stage
The Solution


Political correctness is like a poisonous gas seeping through the air, creeping inside our national institutions and taking over our great country.

Like many invisible poisonous gases, it came from behind and attacked when we least expected it. Initially we were compliant, quiet and accepting – almost in a state of shock. Despite it not sitting comfortably with our way of life, most of us just ignored it and hoped it would go away. Only now are most people waking up to the real danger that political correctness poses.

Political correctness is one of the biggest peacetime threats to freedom this country has ever seen.

It is also the reason for the foundation of the Campaign Against Political Correctness.

The Campaign aims to make the case against political correctness at every opportunity and to act as a one-stop ideas shop and information point on the subject. It is also trying to bring like-minded people together to start the fight back against this ever-growing monster.

Many people cannot understand how something so hated and controlling has managed to grow into such a beast. There are many reasons for this – our education system, politicians at all different levels, the media and our own self-censorship.

However, another reason for the increase in political correctness is the politically correct interference and diktats that are foisted upon us from the European Union.

This is why one of the stated ambitions of the Campaign is “to see an end to the acceptance of directives from the European Union which undermine our British way of life.”

The Problem

Political correctness is so widespread now that everybody has heard examples of it even if they have not directly experienced it a number of times themselves.

There are many ways of defining political correctness:

    Political correctness is when people say or do something which they know to be untrue or unnecessary; or when they do not say or do something (which they know to be true or necessary) as they are too afraid or embarrassed to be honest or commonsensical.
    Political correctness is about trying to make up for past perceived inequalities by replacing meritocracy and equality of opportunity with equality of outcome through discrimination against people with the same physical qualities as those perceived to have been beneficiaries of other systems in the past.
    Political correctness encourages offence to be taken where none is intended and is a serious threat to free speech. Despite being portrayed to be in the name of tolerance, political correctness is completely intolerant of anyone who does not act in a politically correct fashion.

There is the banning of local Punch and Judy shows in case they encourage domestic violence; insulting committee chairmen by labeling them “chair” - a piece of furniture; changing words like “man” or “black” in case they cause offence; banning competitive sports days so that there are no winners or losers and stopping parents taking photographs of their children in case they are thought to be paedophiles.

Then there are also the politically correct measures which are being put in place now that will have huge ramifications for the future of our country.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, many of the more damaging aspects of political correctness are floating across the water from Europe.

The European Union Contribution – So Far

You need look no further at the contribution the European Union has made to the increase in political correctness than by examining the fury over the nomination of the Italian, Rocco Buttiglione, in October 2004 to be the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner.

Setting aside, for now, the issue of whether or not there should even be such a job, what had this former Italian Cabinet Minister said or done that led to him being considered “unfit” to be a Commissioner?

As a committed Roman Catholic, he apparently thought that homosexuality was a sin. Many Christians both here and on the continent would agree with him.

Yet this genuinely held religious belief led to the withdrawal of Mr Buttiglione’s nomination.

This incident shows just how much of a supreme “thought police” the European Union is for the 25 member states.

The existing institutions of the European Union have contributed to the rise of political correctness in this country. It should really come as no surprise when European bureaucrats or even European judges try to impose some more of these alien concepts upon us using their existing powers under the present Treaties.

As Daniel Hannan MEP pointed out in his Daily Telegraph article on 8th March 2005, supporters of the the EU have a “four-stage strategy to reduce Britons to servitude”:

‘Stage One is mock-incredulity: "No one is proposing any such thing. It just shows what loons these sceptics are that they could even imagine it."

’Stage Two is bravado: "Well all right, it's being proposed, but don't worry: we have a veto and we'll use it."

Stage Three is denial: "Look, we may have signed this, but it doesn't really mean what the critics are claiming."

Stage Four is resignation: "No point complaining now, old man: it's all been agreed."’

This is the exact same sequence of events which could be used to describe the rise of political correctness - only in the case of political correctness the enemy is far less visible.

There are too many examples of the way the European Union has contributed to political correctness in Britain to detail them all in this piece but, to illustrate this point, I have set out a few below:

- European Institute for Gender Equality

The constitution says “Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.”

On this basis, it will not be long before the Commission proposes job quotas and other forms of positive discrimination on an EU wide basis. Meritocracy and true equality of opportunity are the virtues which we should be extolling; not positive discrimination which is, after all, only discrimination with the word positive in front of it.

Indeed, in March 2005, the European Commission was reported to be establishing the European Institute for Gender Equality. It is supposed to collect, analyse and circulate data to provide a basis for future European Union policies on gender equality and will operate with a budget of about 53 million euros for the period 2007 – 2013.

- Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

Back in 1997, the European Union established a Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This body will cost the taxpayer over 8 million euros in 2005. Notwithstanding that this is an issue which should be determined at nation state level, it has interfered with and contributed to the changes in our national law on race discrimination.

Its website – - says:

‘The primary task of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is to provide the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information and data on racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the European level in order to help the EU and its Member States to establish measures or formulate courses of actions against racism and xenophobia.’

"A vision for Europe can only be a multicultural one based on the respect for diversity and equal rights", said Ms Winkler, the Director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia on 21st March 2005.

Following a European Council meeting in December 2003, there are plans for a Human Rights or Fundamental Rights Agency. It has an extensive work programme for the year ahead – aiming to spread its politically correct ideals into the recently liberated countries of Eastern Europe. Further details can be found on:

- European Arrest Warrant

Whilst the European Arrest Warrant mainly demonstrates the diminishing control we have over our own country, it is also a further worrying weapon for the European Union to extend its politically correct ideas.

Under the European Arrest Warrant, you could potentially be extradited from Britain for offences which are crimes in another European Union country but not in this country.

For example, denial of the holocaust is a crime in Germany but not here.

Although you should only be arrested for committing a crime in the country in which it is an offence, the internet and the easy distribution of material make this fact less than reassuring.

In addition, the European Arrest Warrant covers “Racism and Xenophobia” which is such a grey area and is being monitored by a “thought police” that would do Orwell’s 1984 proud!

The next stage in these advancing plans could well mean that the European Arrest Warrant will cover opinions which are considered offensive and not just those that are deemed likely to incite violence which would really be opening up a huge can of politically correct worms and not something the UK would resist – or have much chance of resisting – in the present climate.

- Education

Not content with undermining fair play in the employment market, the European Parliament recently attempted to alter the course of history – surely a blatant example of political correctness.

It had published a history of Europe for schoolchildren which, in the UK section, failed to refer to the two world wars. Luckily, the booklet was withdrawn but the incident serves to provide a telling insight into the European centralisers’ mindset.

Schoolchildren are already being indoctrinated about the value of the European Union – via special grants and Europe Day celebrations – and the very fact that this booklet about the history of Europe was to be distributed to schools by the European Union shows the potential for future interference and misrepresentation.

- Funding of Politically Correct Groups and Projects

The politically correct tentacles of the European Union also stretch even further into our national life through the subsidy culture that it operates.

For example, one organisation funded by the European Social Fund is the 1990 Trust which runs the Black Information Link, a website aimed at the black community. The money given to this group – which is politically motivated and biased – enables them to perpetuate political correctness via their website ( Some examples of their actions are noted below:

    On 10 November 2003, it challenged Shadow Home Secretary David Davis to prove that “he is no longer soft on racism”.
    On 17 February 2005, it condemned Conservative Party plans to introduce health checks for immigrants as “racist”.
    On 21 February 2005, it suggested that there should be a black caucus and an all-black shortlist after the West Ham Constituency Labour Party failed to select a black candidate to succeed Tony Banks MP.
    On 22 February 2005, however, it unashamedly urged its readers to lobby the Standards Board for England in support of Ken Livingstone following his verbal attack on a Jewish Evening Standard journalist.

Black Information Link is just one group being funded with money collected by the European Union and spent on a multitude of politically correct projects in Britain.

The European Contribution - The Next Stage

So, the European Union has and continues to contribute to the rise of political correctness in Britain but what is in store for us in the future?

For all the drama of October 2004 in the corridors of power in Brussels, I’d bet my bottom euro that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg given that political correctness will be institutionalised in the European Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Charter itself will take full effect in the UK if we ratify (in conjunction with the other member states) the new Constitution. Although the French and Dutch people have voted against the Constitution, we should not be surprised if the European political elites work night and day to introduce both the Charter and the Constitution. History shows that they treat unfavourable referenda results as little more than an inconvenient delay.

Despite the EU Constitution and the Charter it supports being voted down its politically correct provisions are being brought in by stealth. The Commission has said that it will implement it across all EU legislation without waiting for it to come into force. What is more, a Fundamental Rights Agency is being established to monitor the implementation of the Charter and make sure that its provisions will be enforced throughout the EU. This is quite clearly the illegal implementation of political correctness.

The Charter is a ticking time-bomb of political correctness waiting to explode in the UK. Far from having the legal status of “the Beano” as former Europe Minister, Keith Vaz, once said, it is being granted full legal force. Perhaps in time the Charter’s provisions will be enforced by the European Gendarmerie which is also being established despite the EU Constitution being rejected.

We do not even need to wait for European Court of Justice judges to interpret the law in their usual touchy-feely and highly regulatory way. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the Charter represents institutionalised political correctness.

Just take the preamble which, so far as European judges are concerned, is the meaty bit in the law and the starting point for their interpretation of the other articles within the Charter:

“Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity…”

The preamble continues:

“The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the member states….”

The imposition of the human rights doctrine in British law does not sit well alongside our common law tradition – so how can it “respect” our national identity – our British way of doing things? This will have an impact on very important matters like the way our courts interpret our laws.

Time and again, the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act (1998) have conflicted with other statute laws and they are a recipe for politically correct chaos.

One only need look at the recent case involving Leeds City Council and a group of travelers. Despite the fact that Leeds City Council succeeded, the Court of Appeal referred the Leeds eviction case to the House of Lords so that the Law Lords could decide whether the “right to a home” (European human rights law) was more important than a “council's right to evict” (British law).

The Charter will compound these problems especially as it states that it “reaffirms” amongst other issues the case law emanating from both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

The Charter and the Constitution would fetter the discretion of national Parliaments still further, extend political correctness and undermine common sense.

Even if you look beyond the preamble to specific Articles within the Charter – some which eerily mirror the European Convention of Human Rights – you will find a not so favourable tapestry of political correctness being woven. Taking at random, a few examples:

    Article 1:
    Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.
    Article 12.2:
    Freedom of assembly and of association. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
    Article 21.2:
    Any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
    Article 22:
    The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

It doesn’t take a genius to predict that our courts are going to be log-jammed with cases based on the Charter. For example, I can easily see how the travelers’ cases – often supported with taxpayers’ money through the Commission for Racial Equality – could rely on at least 2, if not 3, of the above Articles.

As European Union law is superior to our own domestic law (and planning regulations), an amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 or even withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights with 6 month’s notice may not be sufficient to deal with one of the most hotly debated topics of today and allow a return to common sense.

Political correctness is often about a small group of people trying to foist their views on a majority, relying on the silence and decency of the majority to allow even the most bizarre of ideas to become the norm.

Given this, is it not worrying that the Charter states that political parties should express the will of the people? How is the will of the people to be defined? What would happen if the will of the people was that they were in favour of free market economics or that they wanted to end or curtail Britain’s involvement with the European Union? The Charter would not allow this, given its commitment to red tape, equal rights and socialist economics as well as its clear determination for political union not political separation.

One can only assume that the will of the people really means the will of the constitutional draftsmen, bureaucrats and European Court of Justice judges who will implement or develop case law based on it.

Further politically correct measures from the Charter that will be enforced include:

    Article 23
    Equality between men and women
    This is interfering, but honorable, it includes Euro-speak for the ECJ to push for positive discrimination
    Article 27
    Workers' rights to information and consultation within the undertaking
    This will lead to time consuming negotiations and undermine the ability of managers to run their organisations as they see best
    Article 28
    Right of collective bargaining and action
    This enshrines the right to strike. And will reverse our industrial relations legislation to mid-1980s levels
    Article 30
    Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
    This may allow the ECJ to project the European concept of the 'job for life' into Britain. Sounds good, but undermining an organisations ability to higher and fire will in the long term restrict growth and push up unemployment to Continental levels
    Articles 31 & 34
    Fair and just working conditions and Social security and assistance
    This will allow the EU to further limit working hours, extend holidays and provide more maternity and illness leave. Sounds good, if you do not work for one of those small businesses or charities that goes under

    It also forces governments, at the expense of the taxpayer, to continue to provide a welfare state. So no hope of reform then for that 1940's monster that has grown out of control

The spirit of the Charter not only lives and breathes through the activities of the EU but is also likely to find its way into British law through the Government’s proposed new vehicle for institutionalised political correctness (the Equalities and Human Rights Commission) with estimates putting the annual cost for this body at around £200 million.

The Solution

It goes without saying that we need to tackle political correctness at all levels including the European Union level. There is no doubt that the European Union has helped to increase political correctness in this country and, as history and common sense tells us, this is not about to change.

In fact, to paraphrase a famous election slogan, things can (most definitely) only get worse. To stop the rot we need first of all to stop the advance of political correctness. Under no circumstances should anyone who wants to end political correctness give greater power to a body with a track record of institutionalised political correctness and with big plans for the future.

This, quite simply, means that those who want to see an end to political correctness need to encourage our politicians to stop the implementation of the EU Constitution and not resurrect it after the death sentence ordered by the French and Dutch electorates. If this does not happen, and the Eurocrats continue on their merry way, then we, in the United Kingdom, will have little choice but to demand a referendum and vote against the EU’s political correctness.

For further information about the Campaign Against Political Correctness see the details below:

Website: e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Address: Trevose House Orsett Street Kennington London SE11 5PN

Contact us

Director : Robert Oulds
Tel: 020 7287 4414
Chairman: Barry Legg
The Bruges Group
246 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street
London W1B 5TB
United Kingdom
Founder President :
The Rt Hon. the Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven LG, OM, FRS 
Vice-President : The Rt Hon. the Lord Lamont of Lerwick,
Chairman: Barry Legg
Director : Robert Oulds MA, FRSA
Washington D.C. Representative : John O'Sullivan CBE
Founder Chairman : Lord Harris of High Cross
Head of Media: Jack Soames