by:  Geoff Martin

“The term “Communicating Europe” is open to much misunderstanding in many countries, especially here in the U.K.”

The term “Communicating Europe” is open to much misunderstanding in many countries, especially here in the U.K.

What does it mean? The answer is probably that it means different things to different people. To some it means regurgitating European Union propaganda. To others, providing neutral information about the European Union and its policies and explaining the meaning and purpose of European level decisions.

The European Commission is the principal actor mainly through its Directorates General and by the activities of its Representative offices and the recipients of its funds and programmes.

The leading figure is usually the Commissioner responsible for Communication.

The other European Institutions are also involved but at a less ambitious level of engagement than the Commission; the Commissioners speak for Europe more authoritatively than the MEP’s or the Ministers who attend the Councils.

Unfortunately, national governments are almost never engaged in communicating with their publics about Europe except when matters of political significance arise as national challenges, such as the ratification of European Treaties. And even then, many are ill equipped to do so, regarding Europe as someone else’s business.

Perhaps rather surprisingly, regional and local authorities are more engaged with communicating Europe particularly when programmes funded by the European Union require appropriate public exposure as in the regional funds, special projects etc.

Those usually NOT involved in communicating Europe, when perhaps they should be, include national government departments, national parliaments, regional assemblies and regional development agencies. They tend to rely on the national regional and local media to provide a service or rely on the Commission rather than themselves.

However in contrast to the paucity of active providers of information there is a burgeoning mass of interests who are actively involved in communicating misleading and anti European Union material for a variety of reasons; profit, prejudice and even apprehension. Among them are the tabloid press, national newspapers whose ownership benefits from feeding on anti European prejudice, radio and television which is not required to provide a public service and much of which IS supposed to provide such a service and many antagonistic or manipulative politicians in most political parties nationally, regionally and locally.

Geoff Martin with ICS postgraduate students studying “Communicating Europe"

Badly informed business and union leaders who exercise influence in major national organisations are also a source of misleading commentary.

What constitutes misleading information?

It is not information or argument used in an effort to defeat a proposal being discussed by governments before their Ministers exercise their government’s vote in favour or against. Nor is it information or argument used in a given country, provided it is factual, in order to defeat a major European decision such as the ratification of a Treaty, or in a referendum.
Misleading information is information used as fact, which is not reflective of decisions taken by the Council of Ministers in its various forms.

In these times of general disregard in the U.K. of the central importance of the E.U. in the country’s future prospects, what are the major changes necessary in order to help the general public as well as specialised groupings know about Europe if they wish to do so?

An important underlying principle is acceptance of the public’s right to know. And an equally important principle should be an acceptance by all involved bodies that individuals have a right NOT to want to know about Europe.

It seems no longer the case that the Commission is best placed to engage the general public interest at any level except the intra European level. This requires some rethinking by governments. But at the intra European level, the Commission is paramount and should maximise that unique advantage. Only the Commission and to some extent the Parliament, are best placed to provide a useful flow of facts and other descriptive material about how Europe is developing in the various member states.

The question arises, are there other effective means to Communicate Europe within member states than the present arrangements which do not seem to work effectively?

A withdrawal by the Commission from the front line of providing European information would give national and regional organisations in both the private and public sectors, the opportunity to inform their members in their own way but also relying in doing so on the Commission now occupying a supportive rather than a leading role – a far cry from the situation today where it is always under attack as propagandist.

The main responsibility would then fall on all Member States to carry information on the European content in all programmes and policies.

Each government department would be involved. This would mean that those policies and programmes lying outside the ambit of EU responsibility would become more easily identified, thus making the important distinction between which areas are governed by EU level policy and which remain national.

This could have the advantage of removing misinformation about the interfering E.U. “at a stroke.”

The organisations wanting to campaign in favour of more Europe would be as able to do so as much as those wishing to withdraw. And everyone wishing to know the facts would be able to rely on national sources.

How can this Utopia come about?

The Commission should discontinue spending any of its resources on proselytising “A peoples Europe” and replace this counter productive effort with a flow of factual material electronically, to all public bodies and private bodies who wish to receive it, in every Member State on an intra European basis.

Information to the public about European policy would then become primarily but not exclusively, a government responsibility. Information about the E.U. would be the responsibility of government departments.

This switch of responsibility would also have the affect of alerting Ministers to an almost forgotten duty on their shoulders; to support the evolution of the European Union as such, whilst defending their national interest in specific policy negotiations at the same time.

The tabloids, the sceptic proprietors and the destructive anti European nationalists would become shadow boxers as a result.