How could the EU communicate better?

Scofflaw

I am (as you probably know) pro-EU. Something that struck me very forcefully during the Lisbon debate was just how little most of us know about the EU - what it does, how it works, how it really relates to Ireland and the other member states.

This information is certainly available - I can safely state that because up until the beginning of the Lisbon debate I knew very little about the EU, and what I now know has been read online.

So, how could the EU better communicate what it does, and what it is? Also, what would you wish to communicate to the EU?


cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am (as you probably know) pro-EU. Something that struck me very forcefully during the Lisbon debate was just how little most of us know about the EU - what it does, how it works, how it really relates to Ireland and the other member states.

This information is certainly available - I can safely state that because up until the beginning of the Lisbon debate I knew very little about the EU, and what I now know has been read online.

So, how could the EU better communicate what it does, and what it is?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Are you sure it needs to? After all as you said yourself you were able to find out handy enough. All this talk of communication reminds me of staff attitude surveys I've done in a few companies. The feedback always said that communication was weak and that people didn't know what went on in other areas. However when these places tried to address the issues with booklets or newsletters or whatever people would throw their eyes up to heaven and say they had no interest in reading them.

I would wager the same is true for the EU. We could get very nicely laid out and presented leaflets in the door with effective summaries of the various elements of the EU, but if people don't read them what use is it? The same with some form of TV show, if people just flick over to Friends or Corrie or the soccer whats the point?

I think we'd be better off having this as part of the curiculum in schools. I know we all had civics in secondary, but how many of us actually did it? I know where I was it was a free class with the chance to catch up on homework, and there was never exams in it. If kids are taught early on about it then maybe they'll develop a bit more of an interest later in life and be in a better position to understand it all.

Kama

The question for me, apoligies if OffTopic, is rather than How the EU can communicate to us, often tagged as the 'information deficit' of citizens is the converse, how we can communicate with the EU, the oft-mentioned 'democratic deficit'. I agree with molloyjh, that the last thing people probably want is more 'information' on their doorstep. Information overload doesn't make decisions easier.

As you have demonstrated, the info is there if you want to look for it, have the time and inclination. Many don't, no fault of theirs imo; Lisbon was rightly criticized for not being reader-friendly, and provided easy ammunition for those who wanted to imply it was a stitch-up. Comprehensibility is a must.

Earlier education would definitely help, even if it just provided more familiarity and a better standard of criticism.

Engaging people with symbols of meaning I suspect produce more positive affect; EuroNews and laughing at the Eurovision make this provincial oik feel more 'European' than European elections oddly enough. If only they hadn't voted Dustin down, maybe we wouldn't have taken such vicious revenge on them?

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Are you sure it needs to? After all as you said yourself you were able to find out handy enough. All this talk of communication reminds me of staff attitude surveys I've done in a few companies. The feedback always said that communication was weak and that people didn't know what went on in other areas. However when these places tried to address the issues with booklets or newsletters or whatever people would throw their eyes up to heaven and say they had no interest in reading them.

I would wager the same is true for the EU. We could get very nicely laid out and presented leaflets in the door with effective summaries of the various elements of the EU, but if people don't read them what use is it? The same with some form of TV show, if people just flick over to Friends or Corrie or the soccer whats the point?

Yet there are things they do choose to take the time to understand. I appreciate, therefore, that the answer is unlikely to be more information - clearly there is no dearth if you have the time and inclination to look - but information that is relevant to people.

I think we'd be better off having this as part of the curiculum in schools. I know we all had civics in secondary, but how many of us actually did it? I know where I was it was a free class with the chance to catch up on homework, and there was never exams in it. If kids are taught early on about it then maybe they'll develop a bit more of an interest later in life and be in a better position to understand it all.

I agree with you there. The problem is that we've had a brief spike of interest as the EU briefly became relevant, and now that interest will die away again.

Does Ireland even have a dedicated EU news outlet?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kama

So, how could the EU better communicate what it does, and what it is?
Also, what would you wish to communicate to the EU?

Taking these recommendations from a policy pamphlet from EUDemocrats. I'd be with Habermas that communication requires some degree of equality to not be distorted, which I would argue requires a degree of institutional transparency.

Transparency in the disclosure of information must be the rule, not the exception.

Transparency should also be extended to the EU budget and spending

Secret working groups must be limited or even forbidden

Transparency must go hand-in-hand with clarity and simplification of information.

Information by the EU must be impartial to avoid propaganda.

Increases in transparency would be helpful in bettering communication; its lack is a key component in EU-critical thought (as opposed to a dogmatic 'Euroscepticism').

I'm in favour of a 'Little Brother' society rather than the opposite BigBro tendency; secrecy creates (rightly or wrongly) the perception of an elite clique with sometime to hide, greater transparency could dispel that.

Irish and Proud

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am (as you probably know) pro-EU. Something that struck me very forcefully during the Lisbon debate was just how little most of us know about the EU - what it does, how it works, how it really relates to Ireland and the other member states.

This information is certainly available - I can safely state that because up until the beginning of the Lisbon debate I knew very little about the EU, and what I now know has been read online.

So, how could the EU better communicate what it does, and what it is? Also, what would you wish to communicate to the EU?

cordially,
Scofflaw

For a start, if we (along with our fellow Europeans) voted on a proper EU Constitution (with a lot more public input) instead of the vague paper that we call the Lisbon Treaty, the future direction that Europe would be taking might then be a little more comprehensible. Also, if discussions concerning future arrangements for the EU were held in full public view, then we as ordinary people might have a better chance of making a proper judgement. What I suspect is that the so called "big 4" are bullying their counterparts - if not, why are key EU meetings being held behind closed doors.

So in short, the question is:

Is the Lisbon Treaty about the EU, or is it about the "Big 4"???

Me thinks it's the latter!

Regards!

Kama

A frequent counter-argument to Irish and Proud is that we did, it was the EU Constitution, it has widespread consultation, it was shot down, hence Lisbon/Reform/Etc.

This position to my mind just justifies the complaint that there is a Cabal-like plan on Commission level, and peoples wishes don't come into it, they are an obstacle to be got around: vide Sarkozys talk of 'containing' the Irish No.

If the food was sent back from the table, don't serve it again with a different name. Perhaps consider a new chef?

Pride Fighter

I think the MEP's should be prominent in this role. Although I would never vote for him Gay Mitchell at least sends Literature to his constituents about stuff. If him and others did that as well as the occasional EU workshops like they do for constituency clinics it would better inform the electorate of the workings of Brussels and what good it can do for us and us for them.

Scofflaw

Irish and Proud wrote: »

For a start, if we (along with our fellow Europeans) voted on a proper EU Constitution (with a lot more public input) instead of the vague paper that we call the Lisbon Treaty, the future direction that Europe would be taking might then be a little more comprehensible. Also, if discussions concerning future arrangements for the EU were held in full public view, then we as ordinary people might have a better chance of making a proper judgement. What I suspect is that the so called "big 4" are bullying their counterparts - if not, why are key EU meetings being held behind closed doors.

So in short, the question is:

Is the Lisbon Treaty about the EU, or is it about the "Big 4"???

Me thinks it's the latter!

Hmm. This thread is not really about the Lisbon Treaty, which it was up to our politicians to "sell".

However, one point in there is relevant - there isn't really a "direction that Europe would be taking" as such, because it's a process of discussion. At the moment, the EU has taken a more market-oriented direction, because the majority of governments in Europe are centre-right rather than socialist (as they would have been twenty years ago).

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does Ireland even have a dedicated EU news outlet?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does RTE still have a programme on the EU Parliament?

Used to be one on late at night, AFAIK on a monthly basis.

It was a ratings winner!

brianthebard

Imo the fact that the EU president is usually from a different nation has an impact on how people view the EU. It is very easy to see it as the French and Germans looking after themselves and telling the smaller countries what to do. It becomes all too easy to dismiss the EU without looking any further than the figurehead leader. I'm not sure if there was any added goodwill towards the EU when Ahern was president, but I feel at the time there was a lot more coverage and media interest. However how one goes about changing this perception is another issue.