Rt Hon Dr Denis MacShane

Labour Party | Rotherham

Europe and the Public

Speech by FCO Minister Denis MacShane MP. Newcastle, Nov 21st, 2002.

Regional Governance

I am pleased I made it to Newcastle so soon after the announcement, in the Queen's speech, of the Government's plans for regional devolution. I know this issue has been close to your hearts for over a decade. And now you have the green light, to decide whether you want an elected assembly for the North East.

The significance of all this can't be stressed enough. A directly elected assembly could take on managing EU funds for your region. And it would be a powerful voice in influencing Europe's policy agenda. I look forward to the debate.

Public opinion

I'm passionate about Europe. And my own varied European background means I feel at ease with it. But many British people don't. They aren't interested. They aren't engaged.

It is, in fact, an unhappy paradox that the British public is both the best informed and the worst informed in Europe.

Best informed, because of all the member states of the European Union, the UK has the widest set of networks providing impartial information about the EU and its policies - from public libraries, to business centres, to information points for universities and rural communities.

But worst informed, because polls consistently show the British public knows less that anyone else in Europe about what the EU actually does.

When you ask people what kind of information they want to read about the EU, nearly half say 'none at all, thank you', or just 'don't know'. And our levels of trust in and attachment to the EU are just as low.

Unfortunately, statistics like these may not come as too much of a surprise.

Responsibility

Brussels doesn't always do itself many favours. It can appear remote and bureaucratic. An organisation that spends ten years negotiating the fat content of chocolate invites some criticism.

But British politicians take a share of the blame, too. Some have had a pretty ambivalent attitude towards the EU for years.

Britain didn't join in right at the start, in 1957, because we thought it wouldn't even get off the ground. And by the time we became members in 1973, politicians from all sides had already started talking about pulling out.

For the best part of a generation, we have failed to take a lead on Europe. We were in the forefront of building a single market. But we baulked at changing the voting rules to make it work smoothly. The last Government signed up to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. But at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons, and had to leave in humiliation.

And in the mid-nineties, it pursued a hopeless and self-defeating policy of 'non-cooperation'. The idea was that we could persuade others to lift their ban on British beef if we sulked in the corner and refused to vote in favour of anything the EU did - even if we had proposed it! The only result was to lower our standing in Europe.

With leadership like that, is it any wonder Britain's public has its doubts about the whole European venture?

There's also an information gap in the media. I should stress the excellent and responsible coverage of this visit by your local journalists. But in general, the British press devote fewer inches to EU issues than their European counterparts. And they are rated - by their own readership - as less objective when they report about European affairs. Only 20% of British readers say they have confidence in our press. The European average is more than double that.

Of course, arguments should be held in public and people should have the chance to make up their own minds. But the recipe which combines an uninterested public, an ambivalent political legacy and an unfavourable media is a recipe for the kind of broad misconceptions about Europe that do real damage to this debate.

Some common complaints

The Foreign Office recently did some research into people's most common concerns about the European Union. There were many of them. But people also admitted that they didn't really know the facts. Let's take four of the most common worries.

One. Many people fear that we pour British taxpayers' money into a bottomless pit, and don't get a penny back from Europe.

We do pay quite a lot in: about £3.5 billion a year. But we should keep it in perspective: this is less than 1% of government spending.

And what do we get for our £3.5 billion?

We get £10 billion of EU funding back, between 2000 and 2006. £600 million for the North East, to regenerate inner city and rural areas and create jobs.

We get the benefits of the Single Market. The chance to export over £100 billion of goods to Europe with no tariffs or trade barriers. Three quarters of North East exports go to the EU, bringing in over £5 billion a year, and supporting 140,000 jobs.

We get European flights at half the price they were ten years ago. European phone calls down by the same amount in just four years.

We get tough European standards to improve our environment.

We get cooperation on asylum, to strengthen Europe's external borders and make sure Member States don't just shovel their immigration problems onto their neighbours.

And we get cooperation to tackle international crime, drugs and terrorism.

Worry number two: many British people complain about having laws imposed on them by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. That we are being ruled by the European Commission, an un-elected, undemocratic elite, who are taking over the powers of Westminster.

But the Commission passes no laws at all. The principal decision-making tool is the Council of Ministers, consisting of politicians who have been democratically elected in each of their own countries. So elected British Ministers representing an elected Government exercise a direct control over every European law that is passed.

Worry number three: Britain is isolated and outvoted, in the margins of Europe. But in the last four years, we've only been outvoted seven times, compared to Italy's 19 and Germany's 20.

When we vote by majority vote, we form alliances with like-minded partners. The truth is that it is no more the UK-versus-the-rest on every issue than it is for any other Member State. We work closely with the French on defence; with the Dutch on pension reform; with the Spanish on employment policy; with the Swedes on economic reform.

And we keep the veto in vital areas of national interest: border controls, taxation, defence and foreign policy.

We work closely at the regional level, too. I know the North East Assembly plays a full part on the Committee of the Regions, through Councillors Michael Davey and Olive Brown.

And finally, people worry we are losing our national identity by being in Europe. We've been pooling sovereignty for more than 50 years in the UN and NATO, to give greater weight to international law and to strengthen our defences. Why do we suddenly lose all sense of self-confidence when it comes to doing the same thing in Europe, to increase our clout in international trade, or to tackle European problems like the environment and cross-border crime?

EU membership is not a threat to national identity. We can be proud to be British and European at the same time. The French have not become less French since they joined the EU or the Germans less German. The Scottish Parliament now has its own office in Brussels - it makes them no less Scottish. And Newcastle Gateshead's bid for European Capital of Culture 2008 celebrates and benefits your local culture, it doesn't undermine it.

The threat, if there is one, is not the loss of sovereignty. It is the threat of isolation. Retaining sovereignty, but becoming the sole master of a shrinking sphere of influence.

Openness and transparency

Misconceptions about Europe prevent people from making an intelligent judgement. Our challenge is to close the gap between Europe the institution and Europe the people. Europe is delivering on jobs, trade, a cleaner environment and lower crime. But this isn't enough. Only when it adds interpersonal skills to delivery skills can we say that we live in a truly mature Europe.

Those of us who believe passionately about Britain's place in Europe, as I do, need to stand up and make the case. Those of us who believe profoundly, as I do, that our peace and prosperity depend heavily on our role in the EU, need to take our share of responsibility for winning over the doubters.

Plenty has been done already. The push for greater transparency is an area where the British Government has traditionally taken the lead, for more than a decade. In Brussels, we've managed to get more public debates, systematic press conferences ahead of meetings of EU leaders, and much greater rights of access to EU documents. And European leaders have agreed to our proposal to broadcast their Council meetings to the public when legislating. About time too. North Korea was the only other legislature in the world not to televise its proceedings.

We've worked to bring Europe home to the British public, too. The Foreign Office produces short, straightforward publications on a range of EU issues, from recognising and using the euro, to working, studying and retiring abroad. We run information campaigns specifically targeting the groups who, polling suggests, know the least about Europe. And I'll be making regular regional visits around the UK, like this one, explaining to people what the EU does and how it can benefit them.

Since September, the Government has also included citizenship on the national curriculum. This includes helping our school-children grow up understanding about the history of the EU, the UN and other multilateral organisations, not isolated in ignorance.

And local government has played its part, too. The excellent cooperation between the Government Office for the North East, the North East Assembly and 'One NorthEast', working together as the 'European Management Board', has raised the profile of European work across local authorities and businesses. It is an example to all.

The much-maligned European Commission has also done plenty of good work. Its 'Fight the Fog' campaign encourages people in Brussels to write in the kind of language real people understand, not eurowaffle.

And it recently launched two free advice and problem-solving services. The Citizen's Support Service gives advice on, for example, how to get your qualifications recognised, or social security cover in another EU country. Or your rights if you haven't been able to travel because your flight was overbooked. And SOLVIT, another free telephone support service, helps businesses understand EU law. This is real, two-way communication, making 'Europe' available when and where people need it.

How might we do more?

Politicians could state more clearly what UK legislation has an EU source, instead of always taking sole credit for the good things, and blaming Brussels for the things that aren't so popular.

The media could show more interest. The UK parliament channel already covers proceedings from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, as well as from Westminster. They should provide live coverage of important events in the European Parliament, too. And I want to see a deal made with TV companies to get European meetings broadcast in the UK, so the British public can see Ministers standing up for them and getting a good deal for Britain.

The public could make a lot more use of the huge amounts of information available in local 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.

And in Brussels, our big chance of improving Europe's democracy, transparency and efficiency is through the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Convention is our chance to think through what kind of Europe we want. Right from the start, we've been consulting as wide an audience as possible.

Too many people believe the process of taking decisions in the EU is impenetrable and distant; that there are no clear means by which they can influence these decisions; and that the bureaucracy in place to implement them is bloated, inward-looking and more at home with political theorising than project delivery.

The reality is not as bad as this suggests. But there is serious room for improvement. The Convention is our chance to define more clearly what the EU is for, where we want it to act, and how. But also what its limits are.

That is why the UK Government supports the idea of a constitutional treaty. To confirm that the Union acts only where it can achieve more than the Member States can, acting individually. To set out clearly the role and purpose of the institutions. And so to make an important step towards giving Europe's citizens greater confidence in the Union's work.

The North East has been playing a full part in the Future of Europe debate, through its Committee of the Regions representatives and MEPs, and by producing regional positions on a range of issues, from transport to regional funding, agriculture to European governance. I welcome this constructive input. And I look forward to discussing it more at a special conference for local government on the future of Europe, taking place in the Foreign Office on 28 November.

Conclusion

Next year marks thirty years of British membership of the EU. In that time, we have broken down the barriers to the movement of goods across the continent, bringing huge benefits to businesses. We have broken down the barriers between people across the continent, bringing a huge increase in our quality of life.

Now we need to bring down the barriers to understanding what the EU does.

Europe's greatest achievement has been to create harmony between its peoples. Its greatest challenge for the future is to create harmony with its peoples.

This is the choice: Apathy or engagement.

I want a British public that sees what the EU does and understands what it is trying to achieve. A public confident enough in its own identity not to fear its European identity. A public which can get enough information about Europe from newspapers or politicians to know the truth.

In short, I want a British public which is the best informed in Europe.