EU communications derided as 'biased propaganda' 

"By promoting its policies, actions and principles, the EU serves to justify its own existence and […] cement the European Commission's view that continued European integration is the best, or even the only, future path for progress," according to the report. 

Presenting the study , entitled 'The hard sell: EU communication policy and the campaign for hearts and minds', at the Brussels offices of Libertas , a European political party, on 27 January, Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally said "much of what the Commission does is laudable, but is very specifically aimed at promoting EU integration". 

Examples cited in the report include funding the production and distribution of literature throughout the continent via a "sophisticated network of information outlets," and the "tens of millions" of Commission funding set aside for outside organisations, such as NGOs and think tanks, which promote EU objectives. 

Commission questions report's findings 

Joe Hennon, spokesperson for EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallström, questioned the amount cited in the study, saying that his department's budget "is €100m a year". "Half of the Open Europe figure is reserved for education and culture, so I presume that Open Europe doesn't think the EU should be spending money on this," Hennon opined. 

The study indeed argues that Commission funding allocated under its education and culture programmes, including for initiatives such as the Erasmus student mobility scheme and town-twinning, aim to "buy loyalty" by "promoting European citizenship and a common European culture," in an effort "to engender support for the EU". 

But the EU executive "makes no apologies" for spending money on such programmes, Hennon said, because national governments have been asking it to do so since the Treaty of Rome. 

Funding outside organisations 'skews the debate' 

"The EU's propaganda – and in particular the outsourced propaganda that results from the EU funding outside think tanks and NGOs which share its vision – matters because it artificially skews the debate on the EU" in favour of Commission-funded, pro-EU bodies argues the report. 

Hennon admitted that the EU funding tended to support organisations supportive of EU integration over others. But this is because "we fund NGOs through calls for tender, and it is usually the pro-EU ones that respond," he said. 

"I also want to get out of this cosy club," the Commission spokesman insisted, encouraging more Eurosceptic bodies to apply for financial support. Refuting claims that organisations part-financed by the EU executive are biased, Hennon said "we've never stopped a Commission-funded NGO from criticising us". 

Commissioner Wallström's spokesman was not the only one to reject Open Europe's assessment. "Opposition is there if needed," insisted Hendrik Kröner, secretary-general of the European Movement , citing EU consumers' organisation BEUC , part-financed by the EU executive, as an example. "BEUC is not an organisation that always listens to the Commission. I know that from experience," he said. 

'More controversy required' 

The problem with the EU's communication efforts so far is that there is not enough quality debate to generate interest in European affairs, according to Hans-Martin Tillack, a journalist at Germany's Stern magazine. "If you want to teach people about Europe, you need controversy. Pure PR doesn't fill knowledge gaps," he argued. 

The next elections to the European Parliament are set to take place in June, meaning debate around the EU's role in European politics is likely to intensify in the coming months. 

"The EU spends billions of euros every year promoting the Union and the concept of European integration because its leaders recognise that creating support for the project is the only way to ensure it can continue," states the Open Europe  study. 

"Over the years, the EU's communication policy has become less and less about giving people the facts, and more and more about selling the EU's policies and promoting the concept of EU integration," it continues. 

Addressing Tuesday's conference, Joe Hennon, spokesperson for EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallström, insisted he was "happy" to be speaking at such an event. "The EU is a very diverse organisation. Don't lump it together […] The Commission should be more transparent and communicative, and we welcome Eurosceptic debate," he said. 

"Joe [Hennon] is not doing a lousy job […] but maybe the Commission doesn't understand the message it is trying to hit," suggested UK Conservative MEP Chris Heaton-Harris. "People don't believe what it's putting out any more." 

European Movement Secretary-General Hendrik Kröner suggested that the "complex" nature of many European issues means they are best addressed at the level of EU institutions. "The subjects we discuss at EU level are very complicated, which is why we have participatory democracy. Let the best argument win." 

"Participatory democracy allows citizens to take part in debates. Civil society organisations are not getting money to push a particular agenda, but to allow debate to take place. Every national government informs its citizens about policy. That is normal. Of course the EU should do so too, and member states should help with this," Kröner continued. 

There is a lack of media pressure on the European Commission, which means that it lacks accountability, argued Hans-Martin Tillack, a journalist at Germany's Stern magazine. Tillack complained that the Commission press service maintains a "silence" to journalists who try to follow stories that are not on the EU executive's official agenda. 

"Most Brussels journalism is based on press releases from the EU institutions. When you try to write your own stories, the reaction is hostile. I was witch-hunted for pushing my own agenda. Journalists jobs are difficult [in Brussels]," Tillack continued. 

But the Commission's Joe Hennon refuted Tillack's claims. "The Commission sets the agenda because it has been asked to do so by the member states […] The EU doesn't have an influence on the press." 

Citing the UK as an example, a colleague of Hennon's at the EU executive added: "UK media coverage of the EU borders on the hysterical, so the argument that the EU is feeding journalists what to write doesn't add up". 

Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally said there is a difference between describing oneself as "anti-EU" and being "anti-European".