EU Communication Policy[fr][de] 

The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 had something of a rough ride. It was not ratified by all the member states at the first time of asking with Denmark, for example, accepting it only at a later date. France approved it only by a tiny margin. This started a debate on the democratic deficit of the EU project. 
The EU institutions took a series of measures to make their work more transparent and to bring themselves closer to the public. These were confirmed in the inter-institutional declaration of October 1993 on democracy, transparency and subsidiarity . 

The Commission adopted a communication in June 2001 on a new framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the EU. This called on the other institutions and on the member states to join in its efforts to overhaul the Union's information and communication policy. For the first time, the importance of the role of the member states in the dissemination of information on EU issues was recognised.

In March 2002, the European Parliament adopted a report calling for improved EU information policies and the development of a comprehensive communications strategy. In July 2002, the Commission produced a communication on a new strategy for its information and communication policy , but this did not change the tide of decreasing public support. Other initiatives on access to documents, transparency and the opening up of the Council of Ministers' meetings followed.

The European Parliament elections of 2004 underlined the citizens' growing lack of interest in EU politics. The new Barroso Commission reacted by creating a new commissioner for communication and nominated former environment commissioner Margot Wallström for this job.

Mrs Wallström started with a long phase of consultation internally as well as externally. She called it "putting ears on the Commission". In July 2005, she presented her first action plan to modernise the communication practices of the institution (EurActiv 22/07/05).

In the meantime, EU leaders had been shocked by the double rejection of the draft Constitution - in referenda in France and the Netherlands. The ratification process came to a standstill and EU leaders decided in June to enter a " period of reflection" before deciding where to go after this crisis.

On October 2005, Commissioner Wallström launched a "Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate ", urging member states to start a debate with citizens on the future of the EU (EurActiv 14/10/05).

The Commission put in place the third and last piece of its new communication puzzle by adopting its White Paper on a European Communication Policy on 1 February 2006.

The document states five areas for action in partnership with other institutions, governments and civil society:

• To anchor the right of information in the EU and national institutions, it proposes developing a European Charter or Code of Conduct on Communication.  A special website on Europa will invite reactions from citizens on this document;
• to "empower citizens", it proposes to provide tools and instruments to improve civic education (e.g. a network of teachers, digitally connected European libraries), connect people to each other (e.g. physical and virtual meeting places) and strengthen the relationship between citizens and institutions (e.g. minimum standards for consultation);
• the White Paper wants to work better with the media and focus more on new technologies such as the internet, but does not manage to define exactly how. The idea of a special EU news agency (which was in previous versions of the White Paper) has disappeared in the final version but it still talks about "upgrading Europe by Satellite" and "to explore the desirability of having an inter-institutional service operating on the basis of professional standards";
• understanding European public opinion better:  a network of national experts in public opinion research and an independent Observatory for European Public Opinion are two of the ideas mentioned;
• last but not least, the White Paper underlines the need to "do the job together"  in partnership between EU institutions, member states, regional and local levels, political parties and civil society organisations. The White Paper is particularly weak in this chapter, not going further than some general, non-controversial recommendations. 

There are many reasons for the EU's communication challenge:

• there is a general decrease of trust in politicians and governments in all modern western democracies (EurActiv 27/01/06)
• the EU has a unique and complex system of decision-making which is hard to understand and there is a lack of attention for it in national education systems 
• linguistic barriers add to the complexity of EU policies 
• national decision makers have a tendency to blame the EU when unpopular measures need to be introduced and to take the sole credit for popular EU decisions
• there are no genuine EU-wide political parties and therefore any referenda or election with a European dimension will always be seen through a national filter
• there are no big EU-wide media and national media will look at EU policies only within the context of their national political system
• the EU's information and communication strategy has always had more of an institutional and centralised PR dimension (with ‘streamlined’ information) than a real citizen-centred ‘public sphere’ dimension
• the role of member states in communicating Europe at national level has always been underestimated

Following the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by referendum in June, Commission Vice President responsible for communication Margot Wallström once again stressed the necessity for national governments to pursue a strategy of "listening, explaining, going local" and prioritising certain topics for communication. "I will use the little crisis atmosphere we have to the full," she said, claiming that the momentum created by the negative vote "give us another push". 

Stressing the role of new technologies in communicating EU issues, Wallström referred to the situation in France after the failed referendum in 2005, when "people suddenly realised the importance of the internet". "I'll keep talking about using the internet more, but traditional leaders are used to traditional channels." 

But she warned that there is "no quick fix", stressing that long-term investment will be required which "considers new methods like citizen consultations and the creation of media networks". 

European Parliament Vice President Alejo Vidal-Quadras (EPP-ED, ES) believes the EU institutions are suffering from a "serious and endless communication problem". "Europe, as a communication issue, is not very exciting. How can we make Europe exciting? That's the problem." 

Claiming that "there is a kind of curse on communications in Europe," he says EU communication projects "look very attractive" but encounter "practical issues" in their implementation which require the involvement of member states, civil society and the media if they are to be addressed. 

Stressing the importance of national governments in communicating on EU affairs, Vidal-Quadras said "the European institutions have very modest means in human resources and budget to do communication compared to member countries". "Until national governments show a clear will to get involved in the European communication effort, there is nothing to do," he added. 

Regarding the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by Irish voters, Sylvie Goulard, president of the French section of the federalist group European Movement International, placed the blame squarely at the feet of the Irish Government and political class, which "failed in its mission to explain [the treaty]". 

"We are […] witnessing an amalgam where critics say Brussels irritates, that people do not want Europe, when in fact the people responsible for this slip are rather to be found in the national capitals," she observed.