As a product, Europe can tout some impressive achievements. First and foremost on the long list is peace and security in Europe—something the most ruthless rulers or peaceful-mind saints and philosophers have been unable to achieve in the whole history of the continent. Another major plus point for Europe is bringing wealth and prosperity to its citizens. Think of all those war-torn gray cities with starving children back in 1945 or poor Irish, Portuguese and Greek farmers in 1973? And what about East Berliners scrambling over the wall?

But this mist of apathy, ignorance, anti-European sentiment, and intentional misreporting in the Member States runs deep. Top officials in the European Union, and its myriad institutions, in addition to European-minded national politicians, have long been making noise about a “communication strategy.”

Back in June 2004, turnout in European Parliament elections—under 30 percent in many EU countries—dipped lower still. New members like Slovakia, with just 16.7 percent of voters bothering to vote, effectively slapped the “European dream” in the face. And in longtime-member Great Britain, the United Kingdom Independence Party, campaigning on a ticket calling for withdrawal from the European Union, quadrupled its tally of Members of Parliament, from three to 12, grabbing 17 percent of the vote.

What can be done? Would more money help sell Europe? “I do not think it is a matter of money. Too much already is spent on vapid information and irrelevant press trips. The message needs to be connected to the real needs of people,” said Andrew Gowers, editor of the Financial Times at a roundtable discussion by Friends of Europe titled “What ‘big idea’ for the Barroso Commission” (Brussels, 15 October 2004). “It is important to establish a clear message, cut down the vague, scattergun priorities and adopt a more orderly approach to communication.”

Elaine Cruikshanks, CEO of Hill & Knowlton's Western Europe division, also spoke in support of a simple clear message at the roundtable: “When advising spokespeople we are often told that their content is too complex to be attractive. However, when looking at their issues more closely, it often is a matter of tailoring the contents in a relevant way, and releasing it at the right moment.”

But what can this clear message be? Perhaps one way for European Union institutions to communicate Europe is to focus less on technical information and more on the cost of “no Europe.” Europe has a huge effect on citizens due to the opportunities to work and study in different member states, as well as the advantages of the euro and single European market. Taking away those benefits—or merely making clear how positive they are—is not an option for most of the European Union's 375 million citizens.

According to the former prime minister of Belgium, now a Member of the European Parliament, Jean-Luc Dehaene, such a strategy must be implemented carefully. Last year, Dehaene had endless meetings with European organizations claiming to represent “citizens” as he helped to prepare the new European Constitution. “You can explain at a meeting that Europe is good for stability and peace but when they arrive at their homes they don’t see the link anymore. People know, but don’t experience it anymore,” he said at a debate in Brussels in October.

Another important element in a new communication strategy should be speaking with one voice. At present the European Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers are only beginning to work out common strategies with core goals like raising voter turnout in European Parliament elections and promoting the general benefits of Union.

An example of success—with all major European institutions working together—was the introduction of the euro. The institutions banded together to finance audiovisual productions on the euro intended for the main pan-European and international TV and radio broadcasters. The media campaigns to gain acceptance of the new proposed Constitution in referendums, now scheduled for 2005, should be another chance to cooperate. Unfortunately, the various institutions still do not work systematically on a single continual communication strategy.

And last, but not least, is the language in which the message is conveyed. Currently an elite of pro-European politicians and citizens preach to the converted in English about the virtues of Europe. Average citizens are either uninterested, as in the United Kingdom, or cannot understand because they don't speak English. Language and pro-European sentiment has become tied up with the new European elite equally at home in Barcelona, Brussels or Bratislava. But, until now, the lingo in which Europe communicates is not on the discussion table.

For its part the European Commission is fighting back with a section of its site dedicated to journalists and wonks, titled “Get Your Facts Straight.” Here the commission attempts to dispute all manner of press reports (“Male EU officials get 6 free Viagra tablets per month”; “EU says pigs must be given toys”) with patience and an attempt at humor.

The counteroffensive has gained traction in the press (“We're not banning corgis—check your facts, sighs EU,” headlines the London Times on 18 January), but it’s a small part of the task to win the hearts and minds of the man on the street.     

[24-Jan-2005]