SPEECH/05/387 Viviane Reding Member of the European Commission responsible for Information Society and Media The current status of the European Union, the role of the media and the responsibility of politicians Annual Meeting, Verlagsgruppe Hotzbrinck Trier Eitelsback, 12 June 2005
29 May 2005 will certainly go down as a paradoxical date in the history of Europe. In France almost 55% voted against the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. At the same time, surveys indicate that more than 70% of the French are in favour of strengthening the European process of unification. These two figures demonstrate with painful clarity the core of the dilemma in which Europe currently finds itself. There is no doubting that European unification has brought our continent peace, freedom and prosperity. However, we are succeeding less and less in getting these benefits across to the individual citizen. Let us examine the problem in detail together. Let us ask why it actually is so difficult to put Europe across. First: what is the state of European unification itself? In the second part of my address, I will look at the role of the media and the policy in that matter. The way Europe and its institutions function is complex, in many parts extremely complicated and above all very technical. Decisions on technical standardisation and agricultural regulations on the one hand, co-decision procedures and qualified majorities on the other little of this appeals to the citizen or is so directly relevant that it can easily be communicated. There are historical reasons for this state of affairs in Europe. In the 1950s, with consideration for the independence of the nation States of Europe, we consciously did not found a United States of Europe, as outlined by Winston Churchill in the visionary speech he gave in Zurich immediately after the Second World War. For the sake of Maritime States, the founding fathers of Europe consciously decided not to create a European Federal State, which could have served as a reference point for a new European identity. Instead, Europe was born as a Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market, held together solely by the cross-border interest in economic progress and jointly agreed legal rules. The hope of the founding fathers of Europe was that progress in these technical and economic fields would gradually create the desire for more intensive political unification. This method brought us peace, economic stability, growth. It brought us the abolition of border controls, a common currency, solidarity, investments for poor regions, programmes for the mobility of students and films just to mention some advantages. But it did not bring us the feeling that a real "Europe of citizens" had emerged. In fact, Europe is a victim of its own success. Too much is taken for granted. Is it not incredible that farmers in France rejected the new Treaty by 70%, although they are the most heavily subsidized part of the population, 45% of the total European budget going to agriculture! Europe is also a reaction of the way national politicians treat it. When a road is built with the help of European money, when a music festival exists only because the European budget contributes, when food-safety is a success because of European directives, national politicians take the benefit for themselves, without even mentioning the European contribution. But if something goes wrong, somewhere, somehow, it is the fault of far away "Brussels" How can citizens be fond of Europe if it is repeatedly presented to them in negative terms? Turnouts of well under 50% at European elections are the sad proof of this and must be taken seriously. 2
That is why the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is intended to make up for what has been lacking so far. For the first time, this new Treaty was negotiated, not by diplomats and technocrats behind closed doors, but by a Convention two-thirds made up of members of national parliaments and the European Parliament which held discussions for 16 months in the public gaze. The new EU Constitution is therefore not a treaty like any other. Rather, the Constitution makes the Union an association of States and citizens which is given legitimacy not only by the States and their diplomats, but also by the citizens themselves via their Parliamentarians. The European Parliament (together with the Council of Ministers) becomes a genuine legislator. The national parliaments are given the right to cooperate directly in the European decision-making process and to take action if their competencies are called into question. Citizens are given a right of initiative in the European legislative process. A Charter of fundamental rights is included in the Treaty for the first time. But in the referenda this seemed not to count for a great deal. The arguments advanced against Europe in the national referendums concern the very problems which the Constitution is intended to eliminate. The new Treaty is not the problem, but the solution to the problems. Unfortunately, this important message has not been understood in the referenda, people voting on the basis of problems they fear, rather than in favour of the solutions which could solve their problems. Isn't it incredible, for instance, that most no-voters in France rejected the Constitution for fear of its liberal tendencies based on the criticisms of the famous Bolkestein Directive, which was elaborated on the basis of the current Treaties. The fact is, that the new Treaties give a clear answer to the fears of unlimited liberalism, by strengthening considerably the social objectives of the European Union and the fundamental rights of our citizens! So much about the contradiction between fears and feelings on one hand, and the reality of the Treaties on the other. What more about the media, which has an essential note to play in communicating political and social facts? I am speaking to you as a former journalist. From my own experience, I can well image how easy it is in the present situation to attack Europe verbally. How easy it is now to write inflammatory articles, like the one I read some days ago in a leading German weekly entitled The euro is making Germans poor. Although this has been proven economically wrong, it directly appeals to all the prejudices and prejudices sell. At the present time, journalists also have the power to downgrade even good news. Example: in reaction to the referendum in Switzerland, where a 55% majority of people voted in favour of joining the Schengen Agreement, a leading English daily newspaper reported: "Narrow majority for closer ties with EU". Just a few days before, the French No to the European Constitution also a figure of just under 55% had the same newspaper printing the following headline: Overwhelming majority of French against EU Charter. Two very different ways of looking at the same percentage in the same newspaper! I admit journalists do not have an easy time of it reporting on Europe. Though more than 900 journalists are accredited to Brussels which has the second biggest press core in the world after Washington most Brussels correspondents are under enormous pressure from their national head offices. 3
Because at the editorial office back home, news from Brussels is considered secondary, any statement given by a national politician from an opposition party is more newsworthy than a Commission decision setting out a principle which will influence the lives of 450 million citizens. As you very well know, it is not "good news" which is attractive but real or invented scandals around the "Brussels Eurocracy". If I, as a Commissioner, help German films to be shown in international Film Festivals and be sold outside of Germany (the major export success generating millions of Euros and many jobs - of German film were all helped by the European Media Programme), this is not worth one single line in a German paper. If, on grounds of agreed European rules, the Commissioner asks the German public TV to comply with the law, this generates hundreds of articles about a supposed intervention of "Brussels" in German affairs. The temptation will always be to report primarily from the national angle. As such, there is nothing really wrong with this. It is actually extremely important to have a critical analysis of the EU from the national perspective too. However, the European dimension must not be forgotten in doing so. Media can reveal the truth behind the procedures and policy games. They should not shy away from asking who are the real initiators of new initiatives, which supposedly come out of Brussels. And then they should underline the real responsibilities. To do all this, the media need, of course, first of all clear policy decisions by the EU institutions in Brussels as well as comprehensible explanations about how EU proposals influence citizens. In the end, transparency and better governance are a must for us politicians if we fail here, it will be our fault if the media and, even more so our citizens, get lost in what sometimes may appear to be the EU s institutional jungle. The more transparent decision-making there is, the easier it will be to clearly attribute responsibilities. I would like to remind you that the new EU Constitution would lead to considerable progress in this field, in particular by strengthening the European Parliament and requiring the Council to deliberate and take decisions in public. I would also like to inform you, that the new information policy of the Commission (under the responsibility of Commissioner Margot Walström) moves to a more decentralized system. Of course, the case of legislative decisions is and will be done in the European institutions. But the implementation of those decisions is not in Brussels, but in Trier, the Mezzogiorno and in Göteborg. That is why the Commission recently opened 393 information points (Europe-Direct) in the regions of Europe, in order to bring the information directly to the citizens. That is why I hope also that the regional press will take its responsibility and report about European actions directly affecting the people of a given area. 4
Because the media have a direct responsibility for our society at large and for the perception of Europe in particular. Let me recall what the German Constitutional Court said in 1993 with regard to the building up of a European dimension of citizenship : Such a development depends last but not least on the objectives of the Community bodies and their decision-making processes being transmitted to the nations concerned. Political parties, associations, the press and radio and television are both a medium for and a factor in this transmission process, out of which European public opinion may emerge. I can but underline this quotation from the guardians of the German Constitution, which in the present situation is of the utmost importance. But even if the work of the press is essential, responsibility for getting public opinion back on the side of Europe rests primarily with the political leaders who define European policy, preserving the European social model and guaranteeing the security of the citizens. In the coming months, we must first and foremost prove that Europe will act only where it can offer citizens genuine added value. In my view, we will best be able to achieve this by strengthening Europe s competitiveness through decisive reforms, thus contributing to growth and jobs in Europe. Furthermore, we must clearly build up skills in communicating with the media and the public. European policy is still not a matter of course; it must be explained anew day after day in clear, understandable language. Displays of arrogance towards citizens would be the biggest mistake we could make. We need to improve our communication tools and target them better at the diverse national audiences. We must especially do more to address younger generation since they will determine the shape of tomorrow's Europe. Let us also remember that teenagers today use the media in different ways and use different media to those to which older people are accustomed. Let me come back to the referendum in France on 29 May. Analyses show that the traditional media in particular newspapers and magazines came out clearly in favour of the Constitution, but the overwhelming opinion on the Internet was for a No vote. Young people get their information more from the Internet than from the classical written press. Young people in France (those under the age of 25) voted massively against the Constitution. In the debate on Europe, we therefore cannot afford to disregard the new information and communications technologies. As is stated in the new Constitution, the media are an important factor of pluralism and diversity. That is why European policies have to reinforce the pluralism of the press and not endanger it by political decisions which could harm the economic health of your industry. Considering this important principle, the Commission (for the first time in its history) has given the responsibility for the economic development of the media (including the written press) to one Commissioner. On basis of this, I have created a media task-force in my Directorate General, a kind of "one-stop shop" for economical media affairs. 5
This department your department coordinates the actions of all other Commissioners and analyzes the effect of their initiatives on the media. In that respect I need from you all the input you can provide, so that the media-task-force can be efficient and solve problems before they become real. At the same time I will also widely consult the profession. For this year, I have in particular scheduled a summit of Editors in Chief in September and a meeting of publishers in December to discuss about the situation of the print media in Europe. I consider the interplay between Europe and the media to be a win-win relationship. That is why we have to improve collaboration, each of us assuming their part of a shared responsibility. This will be I am sure for the benefit of a healthy, strong and pluralistic press playing an essential role in a Europe and there I am sure also which will be able to transform today s crisis in tomorrow s success. 6