What is civil society? Some people think it’s a set of self-organising networks that are relatively free of state interference. It’s your local pigeon-fancying club, your church, your trade union, or the healthcare charity you sometimes send a cheque to.

Free and self-organising are the key words.

The vile interfering socialists in the EU think differently. Civil society is a tool for political and social engineering. Here’s the intro to a press release announcing one of their dreary conferences:

Non-governmental organisations, employers and trade unions, industry associations, charities, consumer bodies, faith groups, the media – civil society organisations are an essential part of European public life. They serve as a channel of communication with EU institutions and provide a forum for active involvement in preparing and implementing EU policy.

To sum up, civil society is a way of communicating with the EU and a forum for implementing EU policy. In case there’s any doubt about this naked social engineering, here’s what Commissioner Janez Potocnik said in a speech at the conference.

 Civil society organisations play a fundamental role during this process of change. They help developing a general understanding of how the EU works;… they enable citizens to feel part of the project.

Part of the project, indeed! The arrogance is incredible.

Bruno Waterfield notes the growing movement to depict alcohol as a social and health nuisance.  This poisonous idea was given new impetus at a meeting of EU health ministers in Slovakia yesterday.

Back in 2006, Bruno got his hands on a leaked EU policy paper which is key to this campaign, and it was brandished again yesterday. The paper analyses the social costs of alcohol consumption, and appears to advocate restrictions:

If the Anderson report is anything to go by, the EU looks set to propose shorter bar opening hours, days when shops cannot sell alcohol, health warnings, and higher taxes to put off drinkers across Europe.

The paper doesn’t seem to take into account the benefits of alcohol in the form of its positive effects on health. And I’d be surprised if it mentions the possibility that drinking is enjoyable, that it fosters the bonds of companionship, or that the overwhelming majority of people drink alcohol without harming other people or causing them inconvenience.

Finally, what of the notion that if I want to drink I damn well have the right to drink, without some absurd little social engineer with a degree in socialist jargon suggesting I’m a threat to anybody?

You may have supported a ban on smoking, on the grounds of the passive health risks. You may support restrictions on drinking because of the noise, inconvenience and damage caused by drinkers. That’s fine, and it’s your right.

But be under no illusions that the social engineers will eventually land on a topic that’s close to your heart. When they do, you will find that the removal of your freedoms is unpleasant and irritating. If you have a university education, you may even describe the issue as “an attack on your personal autonomy and fundamental freedoms” or something nice like that. You’ll wonder how the steamroller became so powerful and so able to ignore your little voice of protest, and you may even realise that it gained its strength precisely because nobody objected last time. That’s the way humanity works.

And what about today’s anti-alcohol steamroller? One’s taught to think that social change is inevitable, crushing, pitiless. The march of history cannot be challenged.

But Bruno points out that back in the nineteenth century Mill argued against restrictions on the grounds of liberty. He scored a partial victory. History, it turns out, isn’t unstoppable.

200 years after his birth, we can take heart from the works and legacy of Mill. He stood against the tide in his day and won. We owe him a debt and we owe the future of freedom a duty to make our own stand against the new public health alliance of the twenty-first century.