Europe and the
Citizen – In the aftermath of the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes,
the seminar aimed to focus on the apparent failure of EU leaders to enlist the support of
their citizens. What role do our parliamentary institutions, in Europe and at Westminster,
play in this? or is it the media that have been the villains in the piece?
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Martyn Bond started by suggesting
that Europe is a mix of ‘tribes’. Some ancient languages or dialects have been
dying out, but still there were a number of strongly held minority languages (such as
Latvian). The effect of this was that more abstract pan-European concepts were not easy to
translate into a common experience. Local media were therefore at a significant
disadvantage in explaining ideas. English language now has a predominant effect on
informing the European demos. The once universal language of diplomacy, French, had lost
its pre-eminence, even though it did remain a core language. There are a large number of
other officially recognised languages, but the focus had to remain on
‘practical’ languages. There were some 1100 journalists accredited in Brussels. Any media pack produced by the European Commission was far larger than a corresponding pack produced in Washington, with the advantage of a single language. The clarity of EC briefings varied, and then each EU nation would probably brief from its own perspective. The messages could be carried by a variety of media outlets – an each would be used by different sorts of people. The majority audience expected entertainment, and for their income most media must also satisfy the interests of advertisers. Mass communication theory suggested a sequence of filters: the raw source (an event, issue or decision) à the reporter (perception or impression) à editor (a gate-keeper imposing implicit or explicit values) à the medium used (style of language, sometimes the priority of visuals, sound/vision ‘bites’) à the consumer (level of attention, lack of interactivity, attention span has become shorter and shorter, say 10-30 words) à impact (the receiver’s values, balance of information or emotion, function in changing opinions or values) à social outcome (eg. voting for/against issues, empowering further involvement or action).
|
(continued from column 1) Referring to articles in the Metro and Daily Mail, he pointed out that journalists know well that actual reading declines rapidly after the headline. As expected, the Financial Times gave wider coverage and balanced views – one article that day emphasised a “sharp rise in British support for EU” – 25% six years ago, 42% this year according to a Eurobarometer survey. Not only had Europe been changing, but so too had media ownership and significance. The press was concerned about loss of media dominance over the years to TV, and more recently to internet. To most Britons Europe was now the ‘near abroad’, with greater familiarity perceiving the issues more as ‘domestic’ news. The internet in particular had provided a wider number of sources and more immediacy. Questions from the audience brought out a number of points:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
| To start with, Brendan Donnelly
emphasised, the European Union is a highly democratic organisation. All states joining the
EU had a democratic mandate from their own citizens. The European Commission has a
constitutional role – to make proposals, which can then be endorsed by the Council of
Ministers. If the Constitutional Treaty had gone ahead greater democratic powers would
have been given to the European Parliament. But it should be remembered that already more
people have voted for the Treaty than have yet had the opportunity to vote for or against,
let alone the two countries voting against. The real issue was legitimacy. The ministers for each country make decisions, and often compromises. These can be misrepresented as “Brussels diktats”. It is then the duty of national ministers and parliaments to explain to their own people the decisions they have agreed to. It has been easy for national ministers to claim responsibility for successful decisions, and allude to “Brussels” when the decision is less popular. National parliaments, after an election, have a new government or coalition. But after the European Parliament elections it is difficult to see what differences in policy might emerge. Political parties do not spread across Europe, so there is no focused political image.
|
(continued from column 1) Questions
raised a number of issues for discussion between participants and Brendan Donnelly:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
| Nick Herbert had launched a strong
campaign for a ‘no’ vote on joining the euro, and against the Constitutional
Treaty, but he said he was not obsessed by European issues. He is currently shadow
spokesman on police reform. The European Commission, he said, is a powerful civil service, not democratically elected. Past problems with corruption had led to the resignation of the whole Commission. The Council of Ministers is the only legislature outside North Korea that meets ‘in secret’. Voting for MEPs was by party list. Retirement or death of an MEP does not precipitate a by-election, just moves the post to the next on the party list. Only about half of the European Commission documentation is available to the public. All controversial documents remain ‘hidden’. We should expect public disillusionment if decision-making does not become more transparent. Accountability was a key problem in the gap between the EU and its voters. Sharon Bowles confessed that she was an MEP ‘next on the party list’, replacing Chris Huhne after his election to Westminster. She said that personally she disliked the party list system, but was not against proportional representation by other methods. Realistically most Westminster MPs were indirectly determined by a party list. As an MEP she felt she had not yet had time to ‘go native’. She had seen the European Parliament voting down a bill and it was an ‘eye-opening experience’. She had observed professional lobbyists in the EP, and learned to respect their work – they would not be credible if ever found to mislead. The timescale for complex decision-making was a matter for concern. To make any progress there had to be co-ordination between the parliamentary parties. An illustration was the process of ‘signing off’ on the EU budget. Really this depended on each country being prepared to vouch for its local EU spending. In other words, George Brown needed to set up a mechanism to monitor the UK part of the budget, and put the Chancellor’s name to it. |
Gary Shipton briskly steered the audience through a number of
questions:
|
||||||||||||||
| top of this page | |||||||||||||||
