Introducing Captain Euro, Dr D. Vider – and Miss Information

Civitas, 29 July 2009

By Nicola Di Luzio

EU Tube and ‘Captain Euro’ may sound like satire, but unfortunately they take themselves very seriously. Having spent the past half hour gazing at my computer screen in a half-way house between horror and incredulous hilarity, I have no doubt that you too might benefit from the procrastination opportunities that Captain Euro has to offer at www.captaineuro.com.

Please, indulge yourself by reading about this “diplomatic hero – the symbol of European unity and values,” and his arch-nemesis Dr D. Vider, former financier and “ruthless speculator.”

It’s true that these cartoons were produced around a decade ago, and it may also be true – though I’ve yet to find on any figures on it – that they represent a relatively insignificant amount of EU spending. But the tone and style of the website, stories and characters demonstrate well the EU’s communication strategy: target the young, and brainwash, brainwash, brainwash.

Why is a cartoon character who barely registered on the radar ten years ago suddenly relevant today? (though we did mention him at a seminar here at CIVITAS in 2007) Because Timbro, a Swedish think tank, released a report on Monday which claimed that the communication activities of the EU “extend beyond the normal realm of factual information, treading dangerously close to propaganda.”

Today’s Euractiv blog rightly states that they are not the first think tank to do so. Open Europe released a report in January entitled, “The Hard Sell” which highlighted not only the fact that in 2008 the EU spent more promoting itself than Coca Cola spends each year on advertising worldwide, but also their strategy of targeting young people. Is this because they are the voters of the future, or more worryingly, because they are more impressionable?

Yesterday, Margot Wallstrom (EU Commission Vice President and Commissioner for Communications Strategy) published a rebuttal, in which she states that no-one would deny the importance of informing EU citizens about what is happening in the EU and the decisions that affect them. I am certainly not here to argue against this statement, and personally would not defend Mary Synon’s disdain in The Mail Online for EU billboards which tell people that a project has received EU funding; credit should be given where credit is due. Granting this, however, is the Timbro report right that there is a not-so-fine line between public information and public propaganda, and that the EU has crossed it?

Certainly those among us who already begrudge what amount of our taxes goes to the EU may be angered to hear that €213m of this is going toward persuading others to part with more of their cash, under the Communication Directorate General’s budget, while each DG has earmarked part of its budget for advocacy efforts.

The EU – and the Commission in particular – is a supposedly neutral body. Yes, they are supposed to act in the interests of Europe, but whether or not promoting further European integration is consistent with this depends firmly on which side of the euro phile/sceptic debate you land. Unfortunately, communication emanating from the EU does not seem to recognise this. The 2006 White Paper on European Communication Policy’s entirely neutral(!) aim was “to tackle the increasing lack of trust by citizens in the EU project.”  Furthermore, not only are several pro-Europe but allegedly independent groups and think tanks getting millions from the EU, but other publications, such as ‘Investing in our common future – the budget of the European Union’ are highly selective in the information they choose to convey.

This effort to explain how wonderfully the EU monitors its budget makes no mention of the fact that in 2008 the European Court of auditors refused to sign off the EU budget – for the fourteenth time in a row.
Some might compare the campaign by analogy to Britain’s right to teach citizenship and Britishness – both of questionable success and therefore questionable financial validity – but this would ignore that Britain is a sovereign state and the EU is not. Furthermore, UK law does not give the government free reign on public information; indeed, according to Timbro, “the EU’s propaganda apparatus … acts in a way that would not be tolerated in any member state.”

Here at CIVITAS we do not wish to deny that keeping people informed is important.  Increased voter awareness can lead to higher turnouts and thus greater legitimacy for elections and referenda. A more EU-savvy electorate would also remove the we-know-best rebuttal of EU politicians who blame euro scepticism (including Ireland’s no-vote to the Lisbon Treaty) on lack of public knowledge and understanding.

But there is a difference between keeping people informed and brainwashing. Not to blow our own trumpet, but maybe the Commission should leave the information provision up to truly independent organisations. Coincidentally, we’ve got a whole section on EU institutions and policy right here. They’re tailored at A-level students, but there’s no reason the odd EU-confused adult might not find them useful too.