Secrets and spokespersons
Was the summit a secret stitch-up?
The has asked me to add to their website on this. The 91Èȱ¬ has a problem with journalists writing for outside publications, and while I don't know if this applies to outside blogs, I do know it will take about 10 months to get an answer. So here's a compromise. I'll write about it here and they can link to it if they want. "Is an opaque and unaccountable EU preventing the Fourth Estate from doing its job?" they ask, suggesting only the British government line is available.
The short answer is that the EU is about as transparent as governments and the European Commission want it to be. It's probably a little bit more transparent than the UK government. But if the politicians want to keep something secret, they will. And I'm pretty sure this time they made two big decisions they told us nothing about.
I don't really understand the suggestion by the MST that only the British government's view is reflected. For a start "The British Government" isn't a single voice. Or it wasn't at the summit. My colleague James Landale got quite a different account of Gordon Brown's interest in the proceedings than we were getting from Downing Street. Then there is the opposition and pressure groups and business organisations, all of which have their own contacts, who may know what is going on. There are 26 other countries, all of which have (embassies and ambassadors by another name) and they all have spokespeople, who are usually quite happy to speak to us. The commission has numerous as well - the commission president has a spokesperson's service, and so do all the different departments. And there are other journalists, from other countries.
So, in a sense, the problem is not that there is just one source, but that there are too many to contact on one given day. When I'm engaged in the time-consuming business of making TV packages, I have to strip the phone calls down to the most essential ones. I rely a great deal on the teamwork and helpfulness of my colleagues on such occasions. The MST quote Stephen Mulvey as saying that , but he kept coming back to the office with juicy titbits and wrote about most of them. There are periods of the night when the doors are locked and no-one really gets a hint. But that's not the overall picture.
Would I like the meetings to be open? Well, of course. I would love to be under the table with a microphone. But it's not realistic to expect politicians to carry on sensitive negotiations in public. I have a lot of sympathy with the MPs who demanded Tony Blair should set out his position in the Commons before he went to the summit. But I also have a lot of sympathy for a poker player who's asked to make a public speech about his hand and who he thinks is bluffing. In fact, , and can be very interesting. But they don't often get reported. As John Major said, if you really want to keep something secret, say it in Parliament.
But what about the two secret deals? On the day of Gordon Brown's reshuffle it emerged that Baroness Amos had been made, as the headline on the put it, the "UK's envoy to Africa." On reading the story, this is expanded to, "The UK's nomination to the new job of EU envoy to the African Union, based in Brussels and Addis Ababa". I don't remember any mention of this new post in Brussels, though it may have been announced months back. But it was never announced that Baroness Amos had got the job. And you can take that "UK nomination" with a pinch of salt. They would never say it in public unless it was in the bag. So where was the decision taken? The foreign ministers' meeting the previous Monday? At the summit? I just don't know.
That is not the end of it. is representing the US, Russia, UN and EU. I understand the deal was worked out at the G8. The big EU countries, UK, France and Germany were there. But not the other 24 states.
I understand Mr Blair was lobbying other prime ministers at the European summit, so I guess the deal was done there. But I am only guessing. Was there a vote? Or a discussion? I haven't got a clue. But there surely must have been a formal decision some time, somewhere?
What else have they decided and will tell us later? Or not tell us at all?
I’m Mark Mardell, the 91Èȱ¬'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
We have the same problem in the USA.
Politicians love secrecy, and love to hide behind spokesmen.
Dear Mark,
I think you are just asking for trouble by writing:
... the EU is about as transparent as governments and the European Commission want it to be. It's probably a little bit more transparent than the UK government
That sure goes against what all those paranoid Eurosceptics believe.
Be ready with the flood of accusations you're going to receive that you're an (gasp) Europhile...
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Mark Mardell forgot the intelligence service that installed these tapping gadgets in the Commision building. They are probably the ones that have the best information.
And they are probably one of the Echeloon guys
There may be accusations of him being Europhile but I think he is just honestly expressing his perception of things. This is what a good blogger should do! And if others come with different perceptions - so much better, at least we get a good discussion.
By writing: "I don't really understand the suggestion by the MST that only the British government's view is reflected" -I believe you have touched upon an important and fascinating phenomenon.
When living in Holland, I once visited the UK during the elections for the europarliament. Although clearly, one could not claim that the contesting parties spoke with a single voice -I remember feeling that the arguments from virtually all the English political parties and the media to be rather trivial, disgusting, and somewhat beside the point. In the run up to the war on Iraq, the 91Èȱ¬ was presumably also faced with a plethora of government viewpoints -and yet somehow the neo-con, pro-invasion arguments seemed to get the majority of the coverage. I even remember a "discussion programme" with the (now apparently reasonable) arguments of Bianca Jagger and Tariq Ali being pushed aside for more "serious" multi-media presentations by a 91Èȱ¬ pundit as to why the invasion was such a good idea and why there were no ulterior motives. In the same period, I saw on CNN an interview with a (foreign) opponent of the invasion who was also introduced with an air of incredulity: Here was a person who opposed the invasion (which was clearly an untenable position) -but nevertheless, in the name of journalistic integrity this absurd viewpoint (not supported by this company) will now be allowed to be heard.
In summary -there may not be a single UK government "line" being pushed -but somehow the discourse is "shaped" such that alternative worldviews seem to be excluded. So that certain alternative conclusions can never be reached -and the debate remains within closely defined limits.
I'm personally very curious about this phenomenon: Is it the result of "cultural" conditioning, intellectual short-sightedness, or deliberate manipulation? Or is it simply "selective perception"? Why do some people accuse the 91Èȱ¬ of rampant "anti-Americanism" -while to my eyes, it would seem the 91Èȱ¬ has a distinct fear of questioning the basic US-UK (socio-economic) worldview?
Why does the greatest anti-EU hysteria still seem to be coming from Poland and the UK -two ancient "new-European" allies of Bush? Culture -or conditioning? Or is "culture" simply a form of conditioning?
L.S.,
In fact, in many ways there is a uniquely EU approach to transparency. Pretty much anything anyone would ever want to know is available somewhere on the website. Recently, I encountered a page where it still said there were 25 member states, because even several months after the most recent enlargement, they still hadn't finished changing all the 25s into 27s. Particularly the website of the Commission's Secretary-General, the Irish Catherine Day, is a veritable goldmine.
Then there is the Council itself, which has its own database of documents.
The Council's online TV channel is here:
The Parliament's sessions are also available online, here:
My idea is that, because the Community get so much criticism for its alleged lack of transparency, they're overcompensating...
Thomas Patricio seems to have a major fascination with Britain's arguments over the EU. Although I for one find his position somewhat unclear, he seems to be a "Europhile" supporter. Having many relatives in Canada, I am well aware of the internal tensions that exist in that country between the English and French speaking communities, and the constant pressure in Quebec for seperation. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for forcing peoples with different cultures together and expecting things to go swimmingly. Perhaps he hasn't noticed the irony!
I think you are wrong to say politicians should be able to negotiate in secret - the poker analogy is also an insult to the electorate - this is not a game.
All meetings should be in public - all agreements should be negotiated in the full glare of the cameras - let us see what they really think and say - anything less is no more defensible than insider trading on the stock market. (The same goes for cabinet meetings here - there should be no secrecy - period.)
We should know the who, why and when about the decision to appoint Tony Blair as Middle East envoy - Was anyone else considered, what is his remit, how will we judge him and what powers does he have to bind us to agreements?
Trevor,
One thing I have noticed is that all my conservative friends think that the US media is completely controlled by liberals while my liberal friends see the media as dominated by conservatives. I can only assume that issue pops up in Europe as well. Even so, you are right at least about the American media when it came to the begining of the Iraq war. Every major station seemed to be saying that war against Iraq was neccessary. The message to get out of the run up to Iraq is to get as many news sources as possible including foreign services. Hysteria, manipulation, or just plain stupidity can make a network or an entire nation's media biased towards one perspective.
As to Malcolm's comment about Canada, yes many in Quebec want Quebec to become its own nation, but they have never resorted to violence. Furthermore, every referendum to make Quebec a sovereign nation has failed. Overall Canada is a prosperous nation and any dissent that exists in that nation is peaceful, natural, and even healthy in any true democracy. Canada shows different cultures can be in one nation, maintain their own culture and lanuage, and avoid civil strife. Canada doesn't disprove the concept of the EU, Canada proves it.
For those who are interested this is a link to an excellent article by Jonas Tallberg based on interviews with high profile actors in the European Council which gives a helpful impression of how decisions are made:
"I think you are wrong to say politicians should be able to negotiate in secret - the poker analogy is also an insult to the electorate - this is not a game."
Well Huw until the day that international affairs is a fun game where we all gather round and help each other make daisy chains this is just a dream! Interests have to be defended and relationships maintained (even if you disagree in private). Even if they were all in public - which I agree would help in terms of accountability - many of the real deals will be done in the corridors and the cafes and other matters would have to be discussed secretly for security reasons.
As the EU is a poltical institution then, given that laa politicians like secrecy as it gives a sense of greater control over the plebs who elect them, it's no doubt as secretive as any state, regional or even parish body.
Chris, on the matter of Quebecois separatists...never been violent? I'm sure I can recall terrorist incidents in the late 60's/early 70's with some pundits claiming that Quebec would become the Ulster of the America's.