Eurosceptics' public enemy No1:
José Manuel Barroso
Photograph: David Sandion/PA
</small If you dare to suggest that the European Union is not a devilish plot to destroy 1,000 years of British history watch out: a pair of obsessives will be on your case, writes Nicholas Watt.
Journalists in Brussels have recently found themselves in the sights of the Private Eye founder Christopher Booker and fellow EU hater, Richard North, after we laughed off a poll that named the European commission president as Britain's most powerful man.
The Today programme poll marked a hilarious start to the new year because José Manuel Barroso can barely enforce his writ within the commission's Brussels headquarters, let alone in Britain.
To Booker and North, the poll was no laughing matter but a deadly serious example of how the EU is slowly taking over Britain. "The Today programme voters chose Barroso as the symbol, the office holder who represents the whole construct that is the European Union," North wrote in his blog after the Guardian and the Telegraph ridiculed the poll findings.
Booker, who occasionally does the nation a service by exposing harmful and nonsensical Brussels initiatives, went one step better in his Sunday Telegraph notebook a few days later. Under the heading: "At least Today programme listeners know who really runs Britain", Booker turned his fire on me and the BBC political editor, Nick Robinson.
"Sage commentators, led by the BBC's political correspondent [sic], Nick Robinson couldn't wait to pour scorn on their [Today listeners'] naivety for believing that this lacklustre little Brussels apparatchik has more power than Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair or Gordon Brown," he wrote.
The column was a classic illustration of where fanatical Eurosceptics undermine what can often be a strong case. In his excitement, Booker failed to mention the crucial fact that Eurosceptics - though not him - had rigged the poll, as the Guardian revealed on the day before his column was published.
The likes of Booker become so blinded by their hatred of the EU that they ignore unhelpful facts and then lose all sense of perspective.
My greatest crime, in the eyes of North and Booker, was to commit a "schoolboy howler" of confusing the EU's council of ministers with the European council.
In an attempt to show how Mr Barroso is often sidelined I wrote that real power in Brussels lies with "the council of ministers where elected ministers and heads of sovereign governments thrash out EU deals".
An ecstatic Booker wrote: "This schoolboy howler only showed yet again how ignorant most commentators are about how our EU system of government works."
Sadly Booker is only partly right. Rather than lumping the two councils together I should have said that real power lies in the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels, which plays host to both councils.
Any journalist who has spent more than a few months in Brussels cannot help but notice the distinction between the two councils.
When national ministers meet (the council of ministers) journalists can wander into the miserable Justus Lipsius building with their normal badge.
When heads of state and government hold a summit (the European council) the place is closed off for security reasons and journalists are only allowed in if they have a special badge which says: European council.
Booker then gives a wholly misleading account of how the councils work and fails to acknowledge that they are linked. Using language which would make his fellow Eurosceptic - and thriller writer Frederick Forsyth - proud, Booker wrote that the council of ministers is "represented by officials of the hugely powerful committee of permanent representatives (Coreper) [which] has been a key part of the Brussels structure since the treaty of Rome in 1957".
For good measure, he adds: "The part played by elected politicians in this process is marginal."
Anyone reading that would think Coreper is a sinister satanic sect. In fact, Coreper is made up of ambassadors, deputy ambassadors and diplomats from 25 sovereign democratic governments who report back to elected politicians.
Booker rightly says that they "negotiate and approve laws" proposed by the European commission but he fails to point out that the ever more powerful European parliament, which is democratically elected, has "co-decision" powers in an increasing number of areas.
Readers might be confused because Booker commits a "schoolboy howler" of failing to explain that there are two Corepers, known as I and II, with distinctive roles which link his two hated councils.
Deputy ambassadors sit on Coreper I, which deals with legislation, on the environment for example, which is designed to ensure there is a level playing field in the EU's internal market.
Ambassadors sit on Coreper II, which prepares the ground for meetings of the council of ministers in finance and foreign affairs.
The latter, known by the quaint term of the general affairs and external relations council, prepares the way for meetings of the European council, proving that there is a definitive link between the two councils.
This may all sound pedantic but it shows how Booker and North distort the work of the EU to try and prove their conspiracy theories.
They are right to say that the European council is different, and makes decisions on areas outside the remit of the commission. But they fail to point out that the European council plays a crucial role in setting - or failing to agree on - the overall political direction of the EU.
Booker might have mentioned that Sir John Grant, Britain's ambassador to the EU (OK, he is technically the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Union), found out that politicians run the show when he chaired Coreper II during Britain's recent EU presidency.
In the run-up to the negotiations on the EU budget (sorry, the Financial Perspectives 2007-13. The budget covers annual EU spending), Sir John thought he had won agreement among his fellow 25 ambassadors on a framework for the negotiations.
He was forced back to the drawing board after a number of foreign ministers read the riot act to their ambassadors.
Perhaps Booker should spend a bit more time with his boss, Matthew d'Ancona, the deputy editor of the Sunday Telegraph, who is one of Britain's most thoughtful Eurosceptics.
In a column for the latest edition of E!Sharp, a Brussels magazine, D'Ancona launches a highly effective attack on the EU because it is expressed in sensible terms and doesn't make conspiratorial claims which exist solely in the minds of the obsessed.
"I have always been glad that Britain joined the EEC, stand by the idea of a common market and have never advocated withdrawal," D'Ancona writes.
"But I have never liked the political aspirations of the EU, regard the CAP as a moral outrage, deplore attempts by some members to undermine Nato, and find laughable the idea that Brussels 'kept the peace' during the Cold War."
Pro-Europeans would struggle to quibble with that.
