Just 22 per cent of Britons intend to vote in the upcoming European Parliamentary elections. Thirty per cent say they are already certain that they won’t cast their vote - and that is according to a survey conducted by the European Commission itself.
The perception of many Europhiles is that the reason for this opposition (or utter ambivalence) is the British media; generally branded as irredeemably hostile to the European Union - and castigated for warping the nation’s attitudes towards it.
And with notorious front pages like ‘Up Yours Delors’; a keen preoccupation with stories of the ‘bendy bananas’ ilk; and an attitude towards our continental neighbours that Roy Greenslade summarises (presumably using the words of the Queen Mother) as “huns, wops and dagos”, it is little wonder that the British press is apportioned the bulk of the blame.
Nevertheless, Robert Oulds, director of Euro-sceptic think tank the Bruges Group, is unequivocal that the media should shoulder no culpability for Britain’s Euroscepticism.
“The British public are far more Eurosceptic than the press and the BBC has been found to be Europhile,” he tells me. “Therefore, British opinion is ahead of the media, not following it.”
“Furthermore, in many other European countries such as Ireland, France and the Netherlands - where the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution was rejected - the media was overwhelmingly in favour of more EU centralisation; yet the public said no.”
However, the best evidence to show that the media is not the main culprit comes not from polls surrounding the current controversy over the Lisbon Treaty, but from the months and years that ran up to Britain’s 1973 entry and subsequent referendum. Despite much of the press being wholly supportive of European integration, the public’s ambivalence can be seen to have gone right back to the advent of the European project.
“it was clear by 1971 that most newspapers … were enthusiastic about Britain becoming a member of the European Economic Community.” In spite of this, “throughout 1971, opinion polls showed the public was hostile. One Harris poll in May showed a 62-20 majority against entry.”
Bruno Waterfield, the Daily Telegraph’s Brussels correspondent cites this historical evidence in his argument that “it is not sufficiently honest” to simply blame the press for what he argues is a more endemic British mistrust of European political and economic union. “I don’t think the messenger should be shot,” he tells me in an interview.
“There has long been a mistrust of established political state forms in Britain and that is particularly deep when it comes to the EU” which he describes as “not particularly open”, “secretive”, and “bureaucratic in the true sense of the word in that it deals with technical regulations like the shape of cucumbers … which means that there is often a gap between what it is doing and public opinion, to put it mildly.”
“I don’t actually think British newspapers are really as Eurosceptic as they’re made out to be,” he says. “For example, British newspapers are very hostile to the activities of MPs, particularly when it comes to their expenses, but you wouldn’t then go and say they’re anti-Parliament.”
He does, however, feel that more newspapers should have full-time Brussels correspondents. It is a point on which he is in complete harmony with the BBC’s Europe editor, Mark Mardell.
Interestingly, Mardell’s current job was only created as a result of some characteristic BBC soul-searching.
A review conducted by Lord Wilson identified five main problems with the BBC’s EU coverage: “institutional mindset”, “over-simplified polarisation of the issues and stereotyping”, “[coverage seen too much through a] Westminster prism”, “ignorance” and “omission”.
Curiously, despite a general opinion that the BBC is too pro-Europe and “Guardianista” in its coverage, the review found that in some areas it could be seen as too Euro-sceptic.
However, as Mardell tells me, although “it is certainly true that in Britain we have the most hostile press towards the European Union within the EU” it is also the case that “on most measures [we have] the most hostile population towards the EU. But our job at the BBC is to remain rigorously and strictly neutral.”
He cites a major problem as the expectation by some that the BBC should thrash out the “in/out” debate in every EU story.
“You know, I find when I write an article explaining foreign affairs policy in I hope fairly neutral terms - reporting it like you’d report any other story - people think that is dodging the issue, because to them, the main issue is it shouldn’t exist or we shouldn’t be in it. Now you can’t do that with every story.
I agree that ’should we be in it/ should it exist?’ is a big part of the overall EU story and I absolutely think we shouldn’t ignore that. I’m more criticised by people in Brussels for paying too much attention to UKIP than I ever am for ignoring them, which I don’t do. But, you can’t do every single story from the angle of in or out. It would be like doing every story from Westminster and saying ‘And the SNP don’t think there should be a British Parliament.’”
When the press is dismissed as the major factor behind British hostility to the EU, there is no shortage of other possible explanations to fill the breach. Even communication staff within the European Parliament point to numerous reasons why apathy abounds.
One explains that “the EU does not deal with the major issues in national politics” such as the distribution of income, taxes, benefits, healthcare etc. adding that:
“National politicians can be somewhat parochial by concentrating solely on what is happening in the square kilometre or so that is their capital. To them - and the media - it is more important if a minister has literally stumbled on some steps than if a decision has been taken to hold illegal immigrants for a maximum of six months in a detention centre.
“While governments are quite happy to take the credit for European policy measures that find favour with the public [they] point the finger at Brussels when a measure is unpopular.”
Former Europe minister, Denis MacShane, also partly exonerates the press. In a speech, he lamented the public’s disinterest in utilising “the huge amounts of information available in libraries and on the internet, telling you about what Europe can do for you. The ‘no-one tells me the facts’ argument doesn’t wash anymore.”
The problem for both politicians and journalists - trying to “sell” the EU in their respective ways - is that they can try to take the British public to water - but they can’t make them drink.
Because the EU’s trouble is not the press, but its remoteness, opaqueness and slow-burn policy procedures, all combined with a distinctly British mentality and natural cynicism towards external political power-bases. It is clear that while you can shoot the messenger, it won’t resolve those root problems.
All of these factors - regardless of the press - conspire to create the conditions that mean that (as Mardell asserts) “more than anything else, most people [in Britain] simply see the EU as an irrelevance.”
(4 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ...
A general problem of democratic governance is the effect of uninterested and uninformed electorates.
By the way, what is Eurosceptic about the Bruges Group (and many others), who do not seem to have even a lingering doubt about the profound evilness of the EU?
Great post Etan - one of the best I have read, and I do not disagree with your central points. The more interesting question for me, however, is why the British public is so ant-EU, and for me the answer is perhaps a less than flattering one: Britain has never quite gotten over losing it’s empire, and resents the EU because there it is treated as only one member amongst many - not the natural leader of Europe and much of the free world.
If Britain is to defer to anyone, it is only to the USA which took over Britain’s pre-eminent place in the world, and which it saved it from defeat in WW2. For Britons, the EU is essential a loser’s club of peoples who, in themselves, are unfit to lead Europe, and who claim the leadership of Europe only by virtue of their superior numbers and ganging up against Britain.
If Britain had lost or been taken over during WW2, it might have welcomed the EU as a welcome safeguard against a similar experience in the future. Instead it owes that debt, and that loyalty to a USA which scarcely notices that Britain is still around. Sadly Britons will never appreciate the EU, unless, some day they find themselves outside it. In the meantime the rest of us just have to put up with their superior attitude.
[...] Originally posted on Th!nk About It. Vote for me in the European Blogging Competition here. [...]
Etan, this is one of the best posts I’ve read on TH!NK so far.
I can tell a lot of work went into this article.
As you’ve discovered, your position as a TH!NK blogger is a fantastic opportunity to interview established journalists, academics, politicians, etc.
For the benefit of other bloggers: how did you go about getting your interviews? By e-mail? Did most people you e-mailed respond? Did you have to explain what TH!NK was?
Please, please, please - post more like this! It would be fantastic if this was the model for future posts. Use the fact that you’re blogging on TH!NK to get access to more interviews. Many MEPs/candidates/researchers/academics would relish the chance to talk to you!
@Frank
“Britain has never quite gotten over losing it’s empire, and resents the EU because there it is treated as only one member amongst many - not the natural leader of Europe and much of the free world.”
I don’t agree that this is the whole truth, Frank. Certainly, imperial arrogance might account for part of the UK’s euroscepticism. But I’ve been reading a lot of the literature surrounding nationalism, identity, etc. We have to be fair to the British: it’s more complicated than you make out.
Britain is in a unique place compared to much of Europe. During WWII, it needed its sense of history and nationalism in order to survive.
For many countries in Europe, nationalism is something to be regarded with suspicion. Popular nationalism (in one’s own population or in one’s neighbours) gives rise to extremism, to fascism and to war. A sense of “supernational” collective identity (a “European” identity) is seen as helping to mitigate the problems of individual nationalisms.
In Britain, the opposite is true. Popular nationalism is seen to have been historically vital for the defence of democracy. Yes, we cannot ignore imperial arrogance - but it’s not the whole picture.
In addition, there are (as you point out) also perhaps stronger stronger cultural ties to America than to Europe.
Lastly, Britain has always traditionally favoured a “balance of power” on the continent. It is suspicious of any attempt to unify Europe for historical reasons.
@Frank
Reading your post more carefully - I see my points are (more or less) things you had already considered.
“If Britain had lost or been taken over during WW2, it might have welcomed the EU as a welcome safeguard against a similar experience in the future.”
But you phrase it almost as a negative.
If Britain had been lost or taken over during WW2, it is unlikely the world would be a better place. British euroscepticism is the negative consequence of that history (or the positive consequence, depending on your view of the EU) - but the fact is that British identity helped it through the war.
That same identity, of course, also allowed British colonial crimes.
Nationalism and identity are nothing if not complicated.
Hold on Josef, We`ve been into a lot of detail why this particular EUrosceptic doesn`t want to be part of the project and it`s nothing to do with history or any of that.
It just is unsuited to Britian BECAUSE of the details that happen, which are more than details to us.
Hi, Robin
Glad to see you posting on TH!NK ABOUT IT. Of course, one of the best ways to find out the opinions of British Eurosceptics is (drumroll)… to ask British Eurosceptics.
We did indeed talk a lot about this (here: http://is.gd/wGtN for anybody interested).
What’s your take on Etan’s article? Do you think the British press has a Eurosceptic bias? I’ve heard some Eurosceptics complain of a Europhile bias (especially in the BBC).
About the historical reasons for Euroscepticism in Britain - my argument was an attempt to complicate Frank’s portrayal of British Euroscepticism somewhat, and you’ve added some extra complications. You’re absolutely correct, not all (possibly not even the majority) of British Eurosceptics are influenced by history. But I’m sure that some are.
As for the rest - I’ve no doubt that many share your reasons.
Thanks for all the nice comments - glad you liked it.
I’ll try and get round to writing a response on the more general issue of euroscepticism, particularly in the UK, but in response to your questions, I contacted a number of people by email. I then interviewed a couple over the phone, and corresponded with a few by email. It would have been nice to get a response from at least one MEP, but none of the MEPs that I approached got back to me. I’ll try again for the next one!
My advice would be pretty similar to my approach to journalism generally - aim high, and keep nagging.
But Mark Mardell and Bruno Waterfield particularly, were extremely helpful and it was fascinating to hear what they had to say, both on and off the record. I’d just say that it’s always worth asking.
For me it’s quite ironic looking at eurosceptic or apathy sentiment, not only in England, but many times found all across Europe. We as human beings tend to fear the unknown, so I understand many people feelings. However, I think we should remember the big picture. We’re in Europe! It was not long ago when we were in the worst and most evil possible scenario. Now, yeah, we might disagree on how the labels in the food should be put, but that’s heaven compared with before. I believe we should keep in mind the history. We should make an effort to try to cooperate and live together. Specially in the world where we live today.
Hello Joe,
(I inputted your blog down as favourite, but it sent me here, whats happened to that Nosemonkey`s blog, has he shut down the EUrosceptics ?)
Ther`s a lot of talk about historical reasons from EUrophiles, and some even are saying the EU was set up because of France/ German emnity - a historical reason for setting up a project if ever there was one.
If we are to talk about the effects of history on British (and EU ) attitudes to this scheme, lets remember historically there is no reason for Britain to be in this.
On the historical note again, I think the feeling of COMMUNITY within Britain was the biggest helper, not nationalism.
I sense a frisson of contempt from EUrophiles for Britians attitude to the EU as “bacwood looking” because of our history. Yet why was this project set up ? - history.
Frank,
British people have got over losing the empire. It`s the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other bureaucrats who couldn`t let the world go by without sticking their nose in it.That`s why they`ve always been strong advocates of Britains membership of this project - as a substitute for their role in the Empire.
Robin, well said. It seems absurd for UK eurosceptics to be accused of “not getting over losing an empire” when they suggest they want to leave the EU; a global power block, apparently with superpower aspirations. Surely those pining for an empire would be urging ever closer union, a joint military etc?
Frankschnittger, your argument has the attraction of internal logic but I think that it is wrong. The EU appears to many Brits as socialistic, communitarian and corporatist. These are not necessarily criticisms but aren’t really part of the British tradition (or that of Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand or many other countries).
I think i like this article, i think its educational to our members. so many things to learn and i hope you continually write very impressive stuff on this post. thanks