CARROTS AS FRUIT AND THE 'BRUSSELS DIKTAT' – MYTHS ABOUT THE EUROPEAN UNION

On 30 June 2025, Poland ended its second presidency (leadership) of the Council of the European Union. There will be time to assess how it utilised the opportunities offered by this role over the last six months (also in connection with the handover of some of Poland’s priorities to Denmark, which is next in line). However, this period was undoubtedly beneficial for our country, as most of the key political and expert events related to issues of pressing importance for the whole of Europe were organised on ‘our turf’. The presence of ministers, EU officials, MEPs and social activists in the fields of security, digitalisation and climate change gave Polish government, business and scientific circles much better access to leaders and stakeholders from other EU Member States.

However, during the six months of the Polish Presidency, the sense of Poland’s presence in the EU structures was questioned, and the EU was accused of a democratic deficit, bureaucratic inventions and going beyond the framework of EU treaties. While the EU has certainly had better periods in its history, and its complex functioning mechanisms and pressure to compromise between parties and countries discourage supporters of decisive action, some opinions about the Union are based on misinformation or manipulation of facts, as discussed below.

One of the most famous myths used to criticise EU structures is that it recognises carrots as fruit. This myth arose from a distortion of the actual legal procedure followed by the EU institutions when drafting Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 on, among other things, jams and jellies. Due to the fact that traditional jams are produced from carrots in Portugal, among other countries, this vegetable was ‘included’ in the list of fruits for the sake of convenience, so that it would not be necessary to list each marmalade base separately in this legal act.

Very often, allegations appear in the media that ‘Brussels’ is imposing certain solutions on national governments, by which, depending on the context, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice or the European Central Bank are meant. Apart from the fact that the latter two institutions operate in Luxembourg and Frankfurt am Main, and not in the Belgian capital, it would be difficult to consider the activities of either of them as an unlimited ‘dictate’.

Firstly, it is up to the Member States and their societies to decide whether to remain in or leave the European Union, so compliance with EU law is entirely voluntary. Secondly, none of the institutions mentioned has independent power within the Union.

The European Commission initiates new legislation (often suggested by Member States), so its functioning requires the work of thousands of officials (although the entire Commission has fewer officials than Paris) and specialists who take care of the technical details of each proposal. The European Parliament is composed of MEPs elected in general elections, so treating it as a body detached from the citizens of the Member States is unfounded.

The Council of the European Union, which together with the Parliament decides on the adoption of legal acts, consists of ministers from the governments of the Member States, so citizens influence its functioning during every parliamentary election in their country.

All Member States are also represented in the Court of Justice (although its judges do not represent the interests of their countries), which ensures the uniform application and interpretation of EU law throughout the EU, without which it would be meaningless – Polish citizens would not, for example, be able to enjoy the same EU rights in Germany as they do in Poland.

Finally, the European Central Bank, in whose Governing Council Poland is not represented, has no direct influence on the situation in our country – it is up to Polish society to decide whether to replace the zloty with the euro and thus join the Eurozone and co-decide on its policy through the European bank.

As can be seen, the accusations against the European Union that are popular in public debate often lose their value when confronted with the facts. This does not mean that the EU does not require constant international cooperation, reform or constructive criticism. It simply means that in order to better understand what the EU is and how it affects our lives and the functioning of our company, we must be prepared to make an effort to independently verify information and continuously educate ourselves about the progress of ‘Brussels’ and, therefore, of our country in Europe.