Media Standards Trust

Prevented from attending key EU meetings, fed a single consistent message by the UK government from the summit, blinded by belligerent Euro-scepticism, and battling with an unenthusiastic public, have the media been able to examine the new EU Treaty properly?

1 Comments

Starved of information: ‘The action takes place behind closed doors,’ Stephen Mulvey of the BBC writes, ‘as hordes of journalists are surrounded by mountains of croissants but starved of information’. Discussions taking place in smoke filled rooms, journalists relying on rumours from other journalists, and occasional Delphic comments from European diplomats. ‘There is no news’ Angela Merkel told a press conference.

With such a lack of information, has it been possible for the UK media to scrutinize either the negotiations or the treaty?

An unadulterated success? The UK delegation reported that the negotiations had been a great success for Britain. “The four essential things that we in the UK required in order to protect our position have all been obtained”, the outgoing Prime Minister told journalists on Saturday morning. Blair said he was confident he had ‘secured the UK’s “red line” demands’ (James Blitz, FT).

Was it? This consistent message of success appeared to jar with some of the news seeping out. Nicholas Sarkozy removed the EU’s commitment to an internal market with “free and undistorted competition”; against the wishes of Gordon Brown. Different European governments communicated separate, and often contradictory, messages. Where the UK said the new treaty was certainly not a rekindling of the 2005 EU Constitution, the Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, said it was 90% the same.

Some journalists suggested the whole process felt orchestrated to square the media. ‘To listen to the British government before the talks’ writes Paul Reynolds on BBC News, ‘was to hear cries of alarm that British independence was threatened and afterwards that such a threat had been triumphantly averted’.

Is this confusion deliberate? Were the media bounced?

Eurosceptic Press to blame? Preparations for the negotiations were made, Mark Mardell writes in his BBC blog, to counter Eurosceptic calls for a referendum. ‘It’s quite clear that there has been detailed political work,’ Mardell reports, ‘scouring the newspapers and websites arguing for a referendum, and answering them’.

Are the positions of the British media so entrenched that the government has to put forward a single message or it will be drowned out by Euroscepticism?

‘Impartiality? Forget it’, newspapers have outbid one another in the ‘Euro-bloodcurdle stakes’, writes Peter Preston in the Observer.

There has certainly been no lack of editorials calling for a referendum: ‘Our new prime minister must call a referendum' (Sunday Telegraph), ‘Now a vote on Europe' (Sunday Times), ‘EU must give Brits referendum’ (The Sun) … and a couple arguing against (Guardian, Independent).

Yet criticisms of the treaty and the process come from different ends of the spectrum. Writing in the Daily Mail Melanie Phillips denounces a treaty which ‘plumbs new depths of mendacity’. ‘The whole thing…’ she argues, is ‘in effect an EU coup d'etat.’ Over at the Financial Times Martin Wolf, usually quite reserved, argues that ‘This is a cynical plan for an unnecessary European treaty’.

And there have also been attempts within the media to explain the treaty and its implications, and to compare it to the 2005 constitution – for example; Q&A in The Times, and At-a-glance on the BBC.

Has the shrill tone of comment and reporting been unhelpful and counterproductive, or is it a natural reaction to the caginess of the government and apathy of the public?

What has the impact of media coverage been?

Are the press’ calls for a referendum going to be listened to? Or do the public, like Tony Blair, think such calls are “completely and utterly absurd”?

Have we had a reasonable democratic debate about this treaty such that there is now no need for a referendum?

Are we now more, or less, informed about the implications of the treaty?

As the influence of Europe on UK politics increases, is an opaque and unaccountable EU preventing the Fourth Estate from doing its job?

Recommended

Niall Fergusson, 'Europe must stop fighting itself', Sunday Telegraph, 24-6-07

Andreas Whittam Smith, 'France has been allowed to outwit us', Independent, 25-6-07

Peter Preston, 'Don't blame the papers over Europe', The Observer, 24-6-07

Mark Mardell, the BBC's Europe Editor, comments on this debate on his Euroblog - link below (since BBC editorial policy makes posting to external sites awkward).
The EU, he writes there 'is about as transparent as governments and the European Commission want it to be'. There are different voices - both within and outside the UK government - indeed there may be too many voices. Of course he would like the meetings to be more open but that is not realistic.
There were, however, at least two deals which were entirely hidden - Baroness Amos' appointment as EU envoy to Africa, and Tony Blair's appointment as Quartet envoy to the Middle East. Were there any others, he asks?