No, no, we must not press for reform

Thursday, May 07, 2009

No, no, we must not press for reform

Yesterday afternoon there was an interesting exchange in the House of Lords about the EU budget. Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is a semi-sceptic asked

Her Majesty’s Government what is the justification for the projected increase in the United Kingdom’s net contribution to the European Community Budget to £6.5 billion in 2010-11.

Not an unreasonable question at a time of financial difficulties (not that the government has noticed that, spending money, as it does, in resemblance of the proverbial drunken sailor).

The response by Lord Davies of Oldham was the usual one - we really do not like the system and we really would like to rectify matters but as we can't we shall just have to keep handing the money over. I wonder if all those people who promise such reforms ever bother to read these replies and ever ask themselves why the situation is as it is. (Yes, Open Europe, Libertas and Taxpayers' Alliance, I am referring to you.)

When he was pressed by Lord Campbell, Lord Davies became so snappy and rude that their lordships expressed their displeasure, as they do without needing a Speaker. He then proceeded to snarl:

My Lords, the House will appreciate that, if such a solution were available, all—or the majority of—European states would follow the strategy. However, the issues are more complex because the problems with accounting in the European budget are largely the fault of expenditure that is partly controlled by the member states; so it will not do to say that the issue relates directly to the European Commission or any other institution. Member states, too, must improve their standards of accountancy and effectiveness, which is exactly what the United Kingdom has been doing.

That last sentence is questionable in view of the fact that statistics have become meaningless under this government, what with all the shifting of goalposts and chaning of parameters.

The question of enlargement was ignored and the subject of the surrendered part of the rebate, raised by Lord Waddington, pooh-poohed. Then Lord Lea of Crondall got to what his side see as the crux of the matter:

My Lords, is it not the case that the thesis, “We want our money back”, is demeaning for a country in our position in the world after the G20 and all the commitments that we have entered into? The Conservative Party policy, “We want our money back”, would mean that there would be no EU, which is what the Conservatives are driving at.

Well, actually, there is nothing demeaning in a country's representatives taking good care of its money, however rich that country might be. Bribing your way to respect, as Lord Lea seems to think we should be doing is far more demeaning as well as counterproductive. Which politician was respected more, Margaret Thatcher who got the rebate or Tony Blair who gave it away?

Please note, however, the bogeyman produced there. We must not push too hard for any kind of reform or proper accounting because the net result of that will be that there would be no EU. Oh the horror of it!

Hard copy

There is something a real live, hard-copy newspaper can tell you which a website or Google News cannot. That is the relative importance editors and designers (both are involved) attribute to different news items.

Thus, in The Daily Telegraph print edition today, there are three overtly EU-related stories. One, which we picked up overnight is the £60 million fraud story. The second is the EU ban on sealskin which is threatening the production of traditional sporrans. A third is a story on how "The European Union will provoke fury in Moscow when it begins an unprecedented drive to forge a new pact with former Soviet states." 

In our terms, there is no question as to which story is more important. But the newspaper's view is signalled by the positioning of each in the "book". Lead story, on page 17 is the EU/Moscow story. Down page, is the EU fraud. Most prominent visually on that page is a story about how "donkey basketball" in the United States has been banned. On the other hand, the sporran story is given front-page treatment, complete with stock photograph of a sporran.

In strictly editorial terms, the newspaper is not wrong. The fate of the sporran will interest far more people than esoteric stories about EU-Kremlin relations and EU fraud is so passé as to amount to little more than an idle curiosity.

And therein lies one of the bigger problems with the print media. The order and prominence given to stories (and the amount of repetition) sends a signal over and above that conveyed by the print and pictures. It is almost a subliminal message, whereby the media is telling you what it thinks you should consider important.

The problem is even greater with the broadcast media, and again there is a powerful subliminal message being sent every time you listen to or watch a news broadcast. Unconsciously, by receiving them, you are not only imbibing information but also a "world view" – and it is almost impossible not to be influenced by it. Add to that, the equally significant problem of what they leave out, on top of the inherent distortions, inaccuracies, and you have a recipe for misinformation and ignorance.

One of the most effective antidotes is to stop reading newspapers and, most emphatically, to stop watching TV news and listening to radio news, selecting instead one's own information from as wide a range of sources as is practical. Failing that, where one – for convenience's sake, or necessity – relies on the media, the crucial thing to recognise is that these are not sources of information but misinformation.

When picking one's own news, at least we can have the luxury of being misinformed in our own individual ways.

COMMENT THREAD