January 29, 2019


Euroscepticism is usually criticism of the European Union (EU) and European integration. It ranges from those who oppose some EU institutions and policies and seek reform (“soft Euroscepticism”), to those who oppose EU membership outright and see the EU as unreformable (“hard Euroscepticism” or “anti-European Unionism”/”anti-EUism”). The opposite of Euroscepticism is known as pro-Europeanism (or European Unionism).

Being Eurosceptic or being critic with what the EU does is not necessarily bad if the criticism is fair, objective and balanced. The problem comes when Euroscepticism is based on fake news, biased information, and data misuse. It is, therefore, crucial to be sceptic and critical of the news and information we read every day from our media.



Two thirds of Europeans believe their country has benefited from being a member of the EU, the highest percentage since 1983 and an increase of three percentage points since the autumn.
The study, which is published exactly one year before the European elections take place in 2019, also reveals that:

  • Half of Europeans are interested in the EU elections and almost one third know the date of the elections next year (23-26 May 2019)
  • The lead candidate process – who are also known as spitzenkandidaten – is seen as a positive step: 63% say it creates more transparency, but nearly three quarters of respondents want this process to be accompanied by a real debate about European issues and the future of the EU


  • Fake News:

Fake news” was not a term many people used prior to 2015, but it is now seen as one of the greatest threats to democracy.

Please see the link showing an example of how fake news tactics of UK MEP Nigel Farage during the Brexit Leave campaign, can have a major impact. Time of writing this text 8th Feb 2019.


  • Biased Reporting:

Some media organisations make their political position very clear and therefore the public can choose whose opinions to listen to.

However, National broadcasters have the obligation to report the news in an unbiased and objective manner.

If this obligation is not followed then then there is a risk that biased reporting will be misunderstood by members of the public of being objective.

The BBC’s Political Eeditor Laura Kuenssberg has received considerable critism for her biased reporting for the BBC Here is a headline from the Daily Express website PUBLISHED: Thu, Jul 19, 2018.

“THE BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg delivered a hilarious analogy that left one leading Brexiteer MP in stitches after she mocked Remainers with a scathing comparison to an iconic screen character”.

As a experiment we ‘Googled’ the question, ‘What are Euromyths?’

And here are two examples from Google’s first page

1). The BBC Website Published the following article on Friday, 23 March 2007, 13:43 GMT


“Guide to the best euromyths:

The British public loves a euro-furore – a story about changes to our traditional way of doing things, usually dreamt up by “barmy Brussels bureaucrats” or “meddling eurocrats”.

The stories do not have to be true to get wide circulation, though usually there is at least a grain of truth.

2). Wikipedia: “The term euromyth is used to refer to exaggerated or invented stories about the European Union and the activities of its institutions, such as purportedly nonsensical EU legislation.[1]

Conversely, the same term has been applied by Eurosceptics to purportedly misleading or exaggerated claims by the European Commission, and some assert that the term (in the former sense) is falsely applied to true stories”.

We would ask which of the two websites give an unbiased, objective explanation to the question asked?