Paper No. 45
Dr Lee Rotherham
Supporting the fight against EU Propaganda
"Only recently the European Commission has appointed the Czech PR Agency "Via Perfecta" to be in charge of the EU information and communication strategy in the Czech Republic (and funded it). However, this agency is led by a wife of one prominent and most pro-european politician in the CR. This implies possible misuse of the EU funds for self-promotion of certain politicians or political opinions that are familiar to the EU bureaucracy."
Jan Zahradil, MP - Foreign Affairs Spokesman for the ODS Party in the Czech Republic
"It is now clear that not only the European Commission but the British Council, under the direction of the Foreign Office, is funding a European Resource Centre, which is cover for an EU propaganda unit."
The Rt Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP - Convention on the Future of Europe
"In a referendum people should have the right to hear both sides of the argument in a balanced and fair manner. I took the Irish government to court because they not only restricted the voters access to balanced information, but they used the voter's own money to persuade them to vote in a particular way. In a referendum the people are being asked for their opinion. This process is made pointless if having asked for their opinion you then tell them there is only one answer they can give and you use their money to convince them that this is true."
Patricia McKenna, MEP - Green Party Member of the European Parliament representing Dublin
"European propaganda is organised according to a methodical plan. One of its principal victims in France is the University. The purpose of the Jean Monnet Chairs, to which Brussels devotes each year four million euros, is to teach European integration, imposing federalist contents on the lessons in all the fields of social sciences: history, law, political science, economy, etc..."
Control by the European Commission takes the form of a scientific committee carefully selected by the Commission, which validates the attribution of the "Jean Monnet" labels and grants subsidies only to the teachers who present sufficient political guarantees on the matter."
Georges Berthu, MEP - French MEP and Minister for Administrative Reform (1986-1987), Senior Administrator at the Ministry of Finance (1991-1994)
"There is no doubt a lot of money is being poured out from Europe through our Universities, through the media and many other channels to persuade the British people to accept a European identity that they instinctively reject. Most of the spending is a scandalous waste of money."
The Rt Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick - Chancellor of the Exchequer (1990-1993)
"It is absurd and abuse of taxpayers' money, yet each year more and more is spent by the European Commission in its bid to con the European public into thinking that a deeper federal Europe is the only way forward."
Chris Heaton-Harris, MEP - Conservative Spokesman on Budgetary Control in the European Parliament
"The European Commission office in Copenhagen works entirely for the Yes side and we even experienced in the 1980's that the Office sent insulting letters about the No side to editors and political opponents without informing us."
Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP - Danish "No" Campaigner
"A group of deputies from various parliamentary groups proposed in January a motion for an urgent EU referendum. However, it was voted down by the Chamber. This debate on the motion has so far been the fairest discussion of EU pros and cons. We are now collecting a half a million signatures for a motion to hold an EU referendum. Meanwhile the government started last month its 1 m Euro promotional campaign to convince Poles that the terms of EU membership, still under negotiation, are advantageous for Poland."
Jan Lopuszanski, MP - Member of the Sejm Committee for Foreign Affairs (Parliamentary Group of the League of Polish Families (LPR) and Chairman of the Polish Alliance (PP))
About the Authors
Martin Ball works as the public affairs officer of a national charity. He is the author of The Conservative Conference and Euro-sceptic Motions 1992-95, and co-authored Conservative MEPs and the European People's Party: Time for Divorce, both published by the Bruges Group.
He has a degree in Politics from the University of Nottingham and a Master's degree in Political Economy from the University of Sheffield. His articles, book reviews and letters appear regularly in a wide range of publications.
Robert Oulds is the Director of the Bruges Group. He has done much research and analysis in the field of Political Communications and Marketing and has researched the communication strategy of the europhile Britain in Europe organisation. He has a degree in Politics, from the University of Portsmouth, and a Master's degree in Communications Management, which he studied at London Guildhall University.
In May 2002 he became a Conservative Councillor in Chiswick for the Chiswick Homefields ward.
Robert Oulds has also worked for an interior design magazine, as a freelance broadcast football journalist and has been actively involved in the hospital radio movement, volunteering for charity hospital radio services to entertain patients.
Dr Lee Rotherham was special adviser to three Shadow Foreign Secretaries and a Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate in the 2001 general election, where he fought the butler-strewn seat of St. Helens, South. He is currently working for the Rt. Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP - UK Parliamentary delegate to the Convention on the Future of Europe.
He is Secretary of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe and regularly writes for the European Journal.
He has widely written on European issues. He is the author of EMU Understood and All At Sea; he has co-authored the Bluffers Guide to the EU, and the Centre for Policy Studies booklet Bloc Tory. He edited Who Represents Rural Britain and Professor Patrick Minford's cost/benefit analysis of EU membership, Britain and Europe: The Balance Sheet.
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Helen Szamuely and Chris Heaton-Harris MEP.
by Theresa Villiers MEP
In 1835, analysing the success of the US federal state in his seminal Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that democracy on a continental scale requires more than just elections. Among the features he noted as crucial to the success of the American federal system was the existence of a single, cohesive and identifiable political class.
It remains as true nearly 200 years later that democracy is not simply a matter of elections. For an institution to be genuinely democratic, it must command the interest, loyalty and scrutiny of the people it seeks to represent. Democracy requires a demos-a group of people who have enough in common to accept government at one another's hands. There can never be a pan-European democracy unless there is a European people-a European public consciousness, a European public opinion and a European political discourse.
This paper documents some of the ways in which attempts are being made, artificially and deliberately, to create both a European political class and a European demos, by generating the sense of European identity and 'Europeanness' which both of these goals require.
There are many across Europe (and I would count myself as one of them) who believe that these twin goals are neither possible nor desirable. Yet they are central to any claim the EU may make to genuine popular consent and to democratic legitimacy. They are therefore an integral part of the attempt to create a country called Europe.
They are two of the last pieces in the jigsaw which federalists have being putting together for nearly half a century and thus should attract the scrutiny of all those of us who value the continued existence of the nations of Europe.
The authors document the long-term project to convince people of the merits of ever closer EU integration and to shift people's loyalties from national to EU institutions. They reveal that large sums of public money are being deployed to this end, documenting both the sheer scale of the project and its deliberate orchestration.
This very timely paper has the worthy aim of bringing to light and exposing to public scrutiny the propaganda exercise which is being carried out. It examines the use of taxpayers' money to shape and manipulate public opinion on the merits of European integration.
The authors analyse the EU budget, including the €7 million devoted to moulding today's resolutely fractured and diverse pan-European political groupings into a single political class of the type to which de Tocqueville referred. They analyse some of the vast range of material sent directly to the public, before going on to document the less visible, but even more influential means of shaping public opinion: the taxpayer-funded network of organisations taking forward an integrationist agenda. A recurrent feature revealed by the authors' research is the targeting of opinion formers, with the aim of shaping opinions in the organisations with which they are involved.
The focus on the vulnerable and the young is of particular concern. As the authors point out, projects designed expressly to mould the political outlook of school children-useful "information multipliers" for the EU propagandist-are not only undemocratic, they are unlawful under the Education Act 1996.
The EU's recurring concentration on the young is demonstrated as the authors document just a few of the thousands of education projects designed to promote European integration. As well as direct inculcation of the merits of ever closer integration, such funding helps build up an EU client support base in universities. The authors go on to examine the parallel work to cultivate a base of supporters amongst journalists.
Of course, not all of the cultural and educational projects funded by the EU have a sinister undertone or motivation. Many of its educational and youth projects, such as its orchestras, do provide laudable opportunities for young people to learn more about other cultures and languages, whether or not these projects are badged with the imprimatur of EU integration. Nor would I accuse those who run such projects of sinister intent. If anything, they, too, are victims of the subtle manipulation which is being undertaken at the expense of the taxpayer. The political undertone discredits and undermines the valuable work that such projects can achieve.
Lastly, the authors put forward their suggestions on how to deal with the problems their paper reveals, including new rules requiring a commitment to impartiality and objectivity, supervised by an independent watchdog.
Most Member States have some form of check on politicised and propagandist spending yet no such safeguard is applied to the EU.
In some ways the problem extends well beyond the remit of this paper to a whole range of EU spending areas. For example, those who devised the EU's various regional development projects, such as the European Social Fund, had an explicit political purpose in mind. They deliberately sought to create a client base of opinion formers who would see Brussels as a source of funds and assistance; or as the authors put it, as "the origin of a specific benevolence".
In conclusion, while I would hesitate to go as far as the authors as to draw a parallel between the EU's communication techniques and those of totalitarian regimes of the last century, I firmly agree with them that spending public funds on promoting closer EU integration threatens the proper functioning of democracy.
There is an increasingly wide gulf between ordinary people in Europe and its political elite. While a substantial proportion-probably a majority-of ordinary people across Europe are sceptical about further EU integration, the political elite are almost universally committed to this goal. On the three most recent occasions when people have been allowed to express their views in a referendum, they have voted no to further integration: in Switzerland on EU membership; in Denmark on the euro; and in Ireland on the Nice Treaty.
In such circumstances it becomes ever more crucial to ensure that people are allowed a fair and informed choice on the decisions they make on further integration. It is vitally important that taxpayers' money is not abused in a referendum campaign on the euro to give an unfair advantage to the "Yes campaign". The well known imbalance of funding in previous referendums is deservedly highlighted by the authors.
Whether or not the members of the European Union should integrate more closely is an intensely political subject. Regardless of their views on this issue, any democrat should condemn the deployment of public money on one side of such a highly charged political debate. Those who espouse federalist and integrationist ideals are entitled to express their views but they should not receive millions from the taxpayer to assist them in doing so.
This pamphlet is not intended to stand as the definitive, all-encompassing bible on EU propaganda. There is a very good reason for this. To undertake the task would require the long-term services of a forensic accountant and more pages than a soft cover book can hold. Instead, the authors intend to set out here an overview, to provide a general assessment of where the main thrust of EU policy lies, and demonstrate a number of key specific examples in illustration. Crucially, the pamphlet will also try to put an accurate figure on the enormous financial resources the European Union is putting into promoting itself as a separate and superior identity that will 'rightly replace' the national identity of the Member States.
What do we mean by propaganda? Suffice it to say for now that we are talking about an essential engagement in policy presentation, a battle for the hearts and minds of the 376 million citizens of the European Union. This, naturally, takes place at a variety of practical levels. There is, in its plainest form, simple brand management, of projecting the 12 star flag, the anthem, and the burgundy passport. More deeply, there are advertising initiatives demonstrating to passive audiences that actions are sourced from the Communities budget, and that by extension the EU is a boon to society as a whole-deliberately overlooking the fact that ultimately it is the nation states that provide the funds and the legitimacy. These actions permit the EU to be viewed as the origin of a specific benevolence, be it an idea-a law, say, on working hours or clean beaches-or physical construction work with placards bearing signs indicating that the EU has paid for it. Finally, there is the "information" campaign itself, targeting social or economic groups with selective material designed to make the audience accept the EU as a legitimate body politic. The most perfidious and blatant form of propaganda, and on which we shall concentrate, varies from the wining and dining of politicians and opinion-formers, especially those in the media, to the provision of public funds to organisations that support integration and the Euro. Sinisterly, the EU has even gone as far as to spread its propaganda into the classroom by providing games, videos and cartoon books to "explain" Europe to school children.
These actions are orchestrated and not random. There is a deliberate and ongoing campaign to target in particular those perceived to be vulnerable groups in society. Children we have already noted, but the elderly and disabled have also been listed. At its most ghastly, some texts openly justify educating children as information multipliers, able to explain, for instance, the benefits of the Euro to more conservative older people in the family.
Of course, national governments can be said to use information campaigns in their own right, and by no means every document that issues from Brussels can be called propaganda. However, the sheer volume of propagandist material that does is staggering. Moreover, in the case of national governments, domestic parliaments provide some form of notional checks and balances. Yet such a safeguard does not exist at the European level and thus the propaganda keeps flooding out.
This is not only a blatant misuse of taxpayers' money; democracy and the future of Europe are at stake. A referendum in the UK on the Euro is imminent. The Convention on the Future of Europe is under way, and while packed with a huge majority of integrationists, this will be sold over the coming months as the democratic popular talking shop behind the federal drive. On its conclusion, an IGC in the mould of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice will be held. This time it shall determine a written constitution for the European federal construct, and all this will be happening as a dozen possible aspirants to the EU ratify their accession in their national parliaments, and in some cases by referendum. There are also other important plebiscites where EU propaganda may swing the popular vote in favour of further integration and determine the fate of an entire continent for a generation. The Irish face Nice II, the Danes may have a rerun of their Euro referendum. The Swedes also could face a referendum on joining the Euro and the key vote of them all, on saving the Pound, will take place in the UK.
We have already seen the effect of integrationist propaganda in action. In 1975 in the UK, the pro-EEC side outspent the No campaign by over ten to one, swinging public opinion for long enough to win the vote. We can see the same happening again. Thanks to the Labour Government's legislation on the funding of a Euro referendum, inspired by its experience-and difficulties-in the devolution referenda, there will not be parity between each side because funding will be decided by party affiliation. So with both Labour and the Liberal Democrats wedded to EMU, there is an in-built bias to any funding arrangement over the Euro. And under this undemocratic backdrop we are faced with European Union propaganda further subverting a free and fair debate.
Our objective in sifting through the thousands of pages of propaganda examples and writing this pamphlet-not to mention dissecting the thousand-plus pages of each year's EU budget-is threefold. Firstly, we aim to demonstrate some of the mechanisms that are coming into play as the referendum draws closer. This will allow journalists and politicians to object to the more flagrant cases, and ordinary people can write in to ensure a modicum of impartiality in the state media, government-funded publications, and also in state schools. Secondly, on a practical level, to establish an archive at the Bruges Group offices collating what has been the result of several years of monitoring and investigation, and which interested parties can consult as required. And finally, we aim not only to denounce these propagandist activities, but also hamper the Brussels propaganda machine that instigates them. However, if EU propaganda is not stopped as a consequence we hope, at least, that the public will become alert to the nature of the threat, and to the volume of material out there.
* * *
Propaganda and the European Union?
Some, particularly in Britain where the final goal of European integration has traditionally been hidden from the public, may question whether this propaganda is taking place and would dispute our assertion that these information campaigns are intended to undermine political opposition to integration and foster a European public consciousness. However, there can be little doubt as to what is taking place in the name of building Europe.
You don't have to take our word for it. The EU itself believes that it has a mission to educate the public. Helpfully, senior representatives of the European Commission have not been shy in claiming a role in a campaign to 'educate' the public as to the advantages of EU membership. In an interview on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost the former EC President Jacques Santer said: "We have as politicians to inform the population and train them in this direction".1 More importantly, those who would doubt our claim that the EU is engaged in a long term project to shift the public's loyalties from the nation-state to the EU's institutions and underpin the newly emerging European State should consider the following details from the many treaties, reports and plans to foster 'European consciousness':
The Adonnino Report 1985, where Pietro Adonnino MEP proposed numerous methods to promote the integration of Europe.
The ambitions of the EU culturalists were also set out in the Maastricht Treaty 1992, which enshrined such goals as "the dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples". Funding was made available for such activities so long as the recipients could demonstrate the activity had a European dimension.
The EU's de Clercq Report 1993 devised initiatives to ensure that:
"...European identity must be 'ingrained in people's minds' as a 'good product' using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly 'women and youth', should become 'priority target groups'. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union...so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause." 2
This ties in with a parallel report by the Commission's Media and Culture Directorate, which showed that money has been made available for the media to promote "a more positive line towards Europe".
The Pex Report 1998 called for measures to "increase awareness of the achievements and advantages of the Union and foster public support for the forthcoming stages of the integration process". In particular it proposed targeting of the "least favoured" elements of society to persuade them of the glory of the EU. Later that year, a report on the Commission's Euro communication and information strategy stated that acceptance of the Euro will be decisive for pursuing European construction. It demanded extra funding, some of which was directed to campaigns in the UK. It established 'Euro mediators' for disadvantaged sections of society, while the role of children as information multipliers was acknowledged. Women were to be targeted because "they manage the finances of the family, go shopping, etc."
The inclusion in The Amsterdam Treaty 1998 of provisions relating to cultural matters demonstrated the determination of the EU to "deepen the solidarity between their peoples" by establishing "a citizenship common to nationals" of all member states. Cultural integration lies at the heart of the drive towards "ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe". Key to this process is the provision that the EU must take cultural aspects into account in all other policies.
Agenda 2000 observed that "the consent and support of European public opinion to enlargement is a clear pre-requisite for the realisation of the project. This will require, during the pre-accession period, a substantial public information effort in both the present and the acceding member states".
So there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth: the EU is deeply committed to waging a propagandist war on those who oppose its integrationist ambitions. However, before examining in detail the practical application of this philosophy, it is useful to have some measure of what is technically definable as propaganda and what rules the UK Government has about spending public money on promotion of its own policies.
What is propaganda?
The term propaganda has religious origins and originates from the creation in 1597 by the Roman Catholic Church of the 'Congregation for the propagation of faith' - Congregatio de propaganda fidei. However, it wasn't until the second quarter of the twentieth century that the word entered common usage "to describe attempts by totalitarian regimes to achieve comprehensive subordination of knowledge to state policy . . . by overcoming the broadly based cultural hegemony of antecedent regimes".3
In modern political debate it is commonplace for people to call any political message that they disagree with 'propaganda'. This pamphlet, however, examines the advertising and information campaigns that can be technically identifiable as propaganda. So what do we mean when we say propaganda? For the purposes of this study we are using three different definitions of propaganda as benchmarks by which we can define whether any of the EU's activities are such.
Smith, Laswell, and Casey (1946) suggested that the difference between education and propaganda is that the former involves the teaching of uncontroversial information whereas propaganda relates to issues that are controversial.
Pritkanis & Aronson (1992) have put forward the definition that, "The word propaganda has since evolved to mean mass suggestion or influence through the manipulation of symbols and the psychology of the individual".
O'Shaughnessy (1999) proposed that propaganda
"...Simplifies and exaggerates; it often is propelled by a clear, purposive, and coherent ideology. Idealism, even utopianism, may motivate its sponsors and often may characterise its imagery. Propaganda eschews argumentative interchange; seldom is there any element of give-and-take."4
If these definitions apply to a particular EU information campaign then it will be included in this study. If not it will be discounted as a form of legitimate communication.
When analysing the propaganda activities of the EU it is useful to judge them by the UK government's own rules on public information campaigns conducted by the Civil Service. This Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service can be found on the website www.gics.gov.uk, and provides ground rules for the proper use of taxpayer money. They are as follows:
"These resources may not, however, be used to support publicity for party political purposes: this rule governs not only decisions about what may or may not be published but also the content, style and distribution of what is published."
"Subject matter should be relevant to government responsibilities. The specific matters dealt with should be ones in which government has direct and substantial responsibilities."
"[They] should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical. The treatment of information should be as objective as possible."
"[Resources] should not be, or be liable to misrepresentation as being, party political."
"[And they] should be conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds."
When the literature provided by the EU for educational establishments, chiefly schools, is considered later in the pamphlet another yardstick will be introduced for assessing whether these activities constitute propaganda. At that time the question will be asked whether such activities are permissible under the provisions of the Education Act 1996, since this legislation is intended to prevent political indoctrination.
The historical context
Propaganda is not a new feature for the EU and has been a part of its development from the earliest days. MEPs today have regular visitor allowances for them to impress their local power base with their activities. Moreover, it is well known that there was a great deal of wining and dining of key decision makers-politicians, academics, trade unionists, the media etc. - in the period prior to British accession. This winning over of opinion formers has always been a political priority towards applicant countries.
When Britain's continuing participation in the EEC was called into question in 1975, therefore, the propaganda machine went into overdrive-as glossy pamphlets from the 'Yes' campaign testify. The immense funding imbalance between the two sides is well recorded.
Such activities are less obvious than the clear role the Commission has itself played in referenda. Veterans of the Danish campaigns have long complained at the manner in which EU money has funded one side of the debate at the expense of the other, not least through the actions of the Danish European Movement, ever the focus of the 'Ja' campaign. Thanks to the tireless actions of Green MEP Patricia McKenna this support has been curtailed in the Irish Republic. The Irish courts have ruled that funding has to be equal for both sides, and attempts by the Commission and Irish Government to circumvent this in the context of the Nice Referendum have been challenged effectively in the courts.
The European Union's propaganda budget
Tracking the amount of money spent by the European Union on its propagandist activities is not so easy. Alas, there is no entry in the EU budget called Propaganda. Expenditure is spread around many departments and then within many sections. Even DG X (the EU institution responsible for Information and Communication) is unlikely to have a complete idea of how much is being spent. However, we can catalogue and detail many of the various lines in the EU Budget that are being used for propaganda expenditure in 2002 and show how much money is spent on supporting such work.
The main section of the EU budget to be tapped on propaganda is B3-3, which is concerned with information and communication, and in 2002 it had a total budget commitment of €105,205,600. €44.7 million of this was available to Prince (B3-306), the section dealing in part with the single currency. Other key lines include B3-301 (Information outlets) and B3-304 (European Integration in Universities).
A-3020 (429)* Our Europe Association
* Bracketed figure corresponds to the page number of the Community's budget.
The 'Our Europe' Association is a study and research group which sponsors and organises seminars on European issues.
* Figures are in euros. One euro has the approximate value of £0.62p at the time of writing.
A-3021 (430) Grants to think tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe
This covers grants to non-profit-making European organisations involved in advancing and raising awareness of the European ideal, particularly those seeking to establish transnational networks in order to increase their impact at the European level.
A-3023 (430) European Union Youth Forum
The Forum is a non-profit international association that acts as a political platform for European national youth organisations in order to facilitate and stimulate their participation in the European decision-making process. It lobbies the EU on issues affecting young people by organising conferences and other activities.
A-3024 (431) Associations and federations of European interest
This is intended to support activities connected with reflection at the European level on the ethnical and spiritual foundations of European integration.
A-3025 (431) Journalists in Europe
This organisation runs an annual training programme for young journalists from around the world, focussing on the EU and on political, economic and social developments in Europe.
A-3029 (432) Support for international non-governmental youth organisation
This budget line consists of subsidies to more than 100 international youth non-governmental organisations.
A-3037 (434) European Women's Lobby
An organisation which lobbies the EU on issues of concern to women in Europe and is considered an essential adjunct to EU measures in support of women.
A-3410 (439) General publications
Money for the printing of EU pamphlets.
A-3411 (440) Priority publications program
Distinct from the money for general publications, this is used to produce pamphlets on major topical interests for opinion-formers.
B3-1000 (789) Preparatory measures for reinforcing co-operation in the field of education.
Financing of specific measures advancing European co-operation on education matters. This historically includes funding for parliaments representing the Youth of Europe, as well as studies and conferences.
B3-1001 (791) Socrates
Of concern through its support for educational projects from nursery school to higher education that promote the development of European citizenship. Includes funding for the Youth European Parliament and Model European Parliament Foundation, together with the measure Parliaments Representing the Youth of Europe.
B3-1007 (797) Promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages and cultures
This covers pilot teaching projects, cultural events, conferences, and media products. Also requires that EU funding be acknowledged.
B3-1010 (798) and B3-1010A (799) Formerly: Youth for Europe, Now: Youth
The Youth programme is concerned with developing a sense of European citizenship and the subsidy of projects featuring a European dimension. It has been reported that once Youth even sent a troubled British juvenile to a Balkan Bear Sanctuary.
Funding €69,120,000 + €2,880,000
B3-2000 (780) Raphael
Covers funding for Europe Day, held on the 9th May each year. Projects supported must involve two member states and are selected by the Commission after consultations with a panel of internationally renowned experts.
B3-2001 (781) Kaleidoscope
Covers the support of artistic and cultural activities having a European dimension.
B3-300 (823) and B3-300A (825) General information and communication work concerning the EU
These cover a range of activities including opinion polling, impact assessments, sponsored visits, publications, television productions and internet sites, which are intended to foster a better understanding of the objectives and reality of European integration and the methods used to achieve it, in a context of dialogue between the institutions, firms and citizens.
Funding €18,020,000 + €144,000
B3-301 (826) and B3-301A (827) Information Outlets
This provides funding for information centres throughout the EU. It also covers the International Federation of European Houses, which encourage debate about the issue of integration, and the European Movement.
Funding €11,120,000 + €300,000
B3-302 (828) and B3-302A (829) Information programmes for non-member countries
Promotes the work of the EU, in particular as a provider of aid and as a trading partner, to target audiences in non-member countries. Specifically targets journalists as visitor groups to sell EU external policy as "consistent and dynamic."
Funding €5,455,000 + €45,000
B3-303 (830) and B3-303A (832) Communication Work
Joint European Parliament and Commission information work, including contacts with the press, and national information bodies.
Funding €12,430,000 + €1,170,000
B3-304 (833) and B3-304A (834) European Integration in Universities
Money for the Jean Monnet programme of higher education academic chairs.
Funding €3,604,000 + €405,000
B3-306 (837) and B3-306A (838) The PRINCE Priority Information Program for European Citizens
Money for communication and dialogue on specific policies between EU citizens and EU institutions. Mainly used to promote the Euro outside of the UK. Priority is presently being given to creating a "constructive" political debate among young people across Europe.
Funding €44,700,000 + €1,020,000
B3-4002 (843) Information and training measures for worker organisations
Training measures and information for worker organisations in connection with the implementation of EU action on the social dimension of the internal market. It also funds the European Trade Union Academy and the European Workers' Centre.
B5-3001 (956) and B5-3001A (959) Strategic Programme on the Internal Market
Includes grants in support of projects of EU interest undertaken by outside bodies, publications on these projects, and raising awareness of EU legislation.
Funding €10,599,000 + €1,791,000
Funding for European political parties
Budget line B3-500 allocates €7 million of taxpayers' money to trans-European political parties. According to the explanatory guidelines, "this appropriation is intended to finance, at European level, political parties which contribute to forming a European awareness."
To qualify for European Union funds parties must put up candidates across the European Union for the European Parliament. This will by definition preclude Eurosceptic parties-which are nationally based-from an important source of funds and will thus create a distinct imbalance in the democratic process by handing a financial advantage to those parties which accept the Brussels writ.
Additionally, from the track record of the European Parliament to-date, the parties that qualify for the allocated €7 million will be pressurised into espousing the more politically correct and leftist agenda, which EU institutions are attempting to codify across the Europe Union. This will reinforce and spread current ideology throughout the EU and prejudice the democratic process against those who happen to share an alternative vision of Europe.
An unending process?
Can this massive spending on propaganda be stopped? Yes. The following budget line has since been suspended after critical questions were raised in the House of Commons. This is an example of how Eurosceptics can successfully challenge the EU propaganda machine.
B2-5122 (742) Enhancing public awareness of the Common Agricultural Policy
This covered the financing of information, communication and training in rural areas and measures to increase mutual awareness of different expectations of and demands on the CAP, as put forward by consumer organisations, environmental associations and agricultural organisations.
Funding €5,500,000 in 1999, now extinct.
Propaganda as free information for the public
A staggering number of publications that provide information about the EU are produced and made available to the public. Communication materials include question and answer texts, technical reports, and videos.
Prominent is the PRINCE programme, which has provided informational activities on citizens' rights under the Single Market, on the single currency, and on the future shape of the European Union. Under Building Europe Together it has been responsible for fact sheets on successive European treaties, as well as the publications The Citizen's Guide to the Treaty of Amsterdam and The Treaty of Amsterdam: Questions and Answers. The Prince money was used to produce the 1997 questions and answers booklet Talking About the Euro, which included all 15 members states in a map subliminally referring to EMU. It has also paid for seminars on the Euro "to train people to provide information and shape opinions in their respective organisations".
Let's have a look at some other publications and their content:
In The Budget of the European Union: How is your money spent? the cost of the CAP is said to be "very modest" and the equivalent of two cigarettes per day. Building the Social Dimension applauded the "advanced" ways of some states when it comes to worker protection. The European Union's Cohesion Fund stresses that a single currency will help those countries "still suffering from handicaps". The When Will the 'Euro' Be in Our Pockets? claims that governments who "resist" membership of the Euro are denying themselves the right to shape the future Europe. The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy states that "Member States' national interests often stood in the way of a common approach". The Did You Know That series of leaflets claimed that the CAP was "too successful" and led to waste, and that the UK left the ERM "because of too many fluctuations in the financial markets".
The European Commission's representation in the United Kingdom also produces a series of Do You Know? leaflets rebutting policy attacks through presenting facts in policy areas. They contain quotes such as "a centralized European super-state is not on anyone's agenda", "Eurosceptics base their propaganda on a false premise-that Commissioners in Brussels decide. They do not. Ministers take the decisions and national leaders set the agenda". This, of course, overlooks the role of the Commission in proposing legislation.
EU has also produced magazines, including one called Le Magazine published by DG XXII (Education and Youth). Its September 1998 issue contained an article covering education on the Euro in schools. It claimed that the classroom approach has the "advantage of being removed from the commercial considerations of information transmitted by certain private operators" and presents an ideal opportunity for pupils to take "a step towards acquiring a sense of European citizenship".
From time to time the EU publishes historical overviews of its development. One such publication, European Integration: The Origins and Growth of the European Union, claimed about CAP that "it would be hasty to condemn the entire policy simply because of these aberrations and short-comings and from there, as sometimes happens, to call into question the utility and purpose of European integration in general". Another, Europe in 10 Points, informs the public that, "A people's Europe is merely a foretaste of political union" and that, "the time has come for cultural integration to make further headway and contribute to the emergence of a shared consciousness".
DG XVI (Regional Policy and Cohesion) produces material selling integration of the regions such as the map chart Europe Invests in its Regions, which states that creating wealth will lead to a "dynamic and integrated Europe of the future".
It would be no good having all these materials if there were no means of distributing them. The EU has developed a network of libraries and information centres to ensure distribution of its publications. In the UK the EU funds and manages twenty-four Euro-Info Centres (EICs) to provide "local access to a range of specialist and advisory services to help companies develop their business in Europe". There are close institutional and personnel links between the EICs and UK governmental business agencies such as Enterprise Councils. In addition to the EICs there are also six Carrefours, which are smaller versions of EICs in rural areas. Some are housed in local government facilities and a number receive funding from the National Lottery.
If you cannot get to EU information it will come to you, courtesy of the high-profile exhibition wagon operated by Relay Europe Ltd. This travels to schools, colleges, universities and teaching development centres and invites visitors to play with interactive videos extolling the benefits of EU membership. Relay Europe also runs a free video loan service offering extensive viewing on all EU topics. *
* The reader may recall the Soviet propaganda train carriage exhibited at MOMI (Museum of the Moving Image).
On top of all this Relay Europe can get you what appears to be any item under the sun so long as you don't mind a Euro symbol on it. So roll up for your Euro tie, your Euro T-shirt, your Euro scarf, your Euro hat, your Euro watch, your Euro clock, your Euro ruler, your Euro pencil, your Euro umbrella, your Euro greeting card, your Euro sticker, your Euro mouse pad, your Euro magnet, your Euro calculator, your Euro purse, your Euro pack of cards, your Euro board game, and, of course, your Euro flag. Even your Euro chocolate to spend your actual Euros on and your Euro champagne to celebrate having your actual Euros. For these at least you would have to pay.
If after reading the publications and watching the videos you still want more information about the EU then why not get a speaker from Groupeuro, a collection of EU approved speakers who can be approached to address seminars. The EU asks these independent experts to sign a statement whereby they agree that "they may speak in a personal capacity for a part of their lecture, provided they state explicitly that they are going to do so and do not express any views contrary to those of the Commission". A large number of Groupeuro members are also involved with Team Europe, a body more distant from the Commission and speaking on its own terms.
Propaganda through Trojan Horse organisations
The European Union provides funding, either directly or indirectly, for a range of pro-EU and pro-Euro organisations both here in the UK and across Europe.
The Brussels-based International Secretariat of the European Movement admits that: "From time to time, it receives small grants from the European Commission for specific information projects..." A portion of this money is passed on to the UK section of the European Movement, which is "leading the campaign for a 'yes' vote in the forthcoming referendum on joining the European single currency". *
* What has come under less scrutiny (for obvious reasons) is the documented role the CIA historically played in supporting the activities of the European Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Archived at George Town University Washington, D.C.
The UK's Young European Movement (YEM) produced Join - the campaign to join the Euro-a leaflet with the support of the Commission's Far From Brussels programme. YEM, which describes itself as being part of the historic coalition who "believe Britain cannot afford to go it alone outside the Euro" takes the pro-Euro message to youth events, such as festivals and conferences. They are part of the Europe-wide Young European Federalists, which proposes "to transform the Commission into a Government, responsible to a Parliament endowed with full legislative powers in all Union matters".
A relative newcomer is the Britain in Europe organisation, which was initially formed to "campaign in favour of UK membership of the single currency". Former European Movement Director Stephen Woodard has admitted that his organisation "heavily subsidises Britain in Europe", with whom it shares both offices and personnel. In fact, Britain in Europe (BiE) documents reveal that it was set-up in order to accept funds from the European Movement.5
Other organisation such as the Federal Trust and the Local Government Group for Europe also get funding. The Federal Trust, which wants a 'widening and deepening of the European Union', uses money from the Commission to provide materials on European citizenship to educational establishments. Such information encourages "teachers and students to explore the European and International dimension to their lives". It's Practising Citizenship urges schools and colleges to run courses on European Citizenship and to organise mock elections. One paper on the Euro claimed it was necessary because "it is no longer possible for any nation state on its own to find solutions to the economic, social and ecological problems of our time".
The Local Government Group for Europe aims to "help local government people engage in the ongoing European debate and thus play their part in creating a European Union that is democratic, inclusive and respectful of diversity". The LGE shares the same office as the European Movement and Britain in Europe, and admits to working "closely and constantly alongside the official organisations building the united Europe, including the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Committee of the Regions, the Council of Europe, and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions".
Funding has been provided for the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe, an organisation founded in 1987 by European industrialists to support the single currency, and PromEuro, an organisation with just 77 members across the EU, which has run campaigns such as No Fear for the Euro aimed at the elderly. According to the European Commission, PromEuro has been "very committed in promoting the new currency". Another organisation in receipt of funds is the International Federation of Europe Houses, which aims to encourage debate among the peoples of Europe about the nature of European integration.
The Commission has also provided funds for the British trade union, the AEEU, who in their publication The European Union: A Guide for AEEU Members admitted to receiving EU funding for their regular bulletin on European matters. The bulletins consistently publicise the activities of Britain in Europe and carry pro-Euro articles.
Support for networking amongst the next generation of pro-European opinion-formers in the UK led to the Europe 2010 dining club receiving a grant of £25,000.6 The group was established by Derek Draper, who has been a member of the steering committee of the European Movement's campaign for a single currency.
It is fair to say that such is the level of EU funding for pro-Euro groups such as; BiE, the European Movement, the Federal Trust, the Local Government Group for Europe and the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe that they are artificial front organisations for the interests of the European Commission. Let us not forget that the subsidies these organisations receive come originally from the taxpayer-a blatant misuse of public funds, a Danegeld gone wrong.
Propaganda in the class room
Europe's youth is in the eyes of Brussels a legitimate target for indoctrination and are given special treatment. This is because school children are said to be a "very receptive" section of the population and can "perform a messenger function in conveying the message to the home environment, among family and friends. It is the active population of tomorrow's Europe". The scandalous attitude of the EU is best illustrated by a document endorsed by DG XXII, which noted that the introduction of the Euro represented:
"...a wonderful opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the Euro in its historical perspective, by bringing out the symbolic nature of the Euro as a symbol of peace and economic prosperity, and by giving the Euro a civic dimension."7
Crucially, the paper states that,
"...[the] education system-and teachers in particular-will have a major role to play in forming and communicating with young people. Young people will often in practice act as go-betweens with the older generations, helping them to familiarise themselves with and embrace the Euro".
To achieve this the EU has developed teaching aids and educational modules to spread the message. It is worth recalling some of them and their content.
One pamphlet, entitled Resources and Contacts, provides a list of contact points for further information that is one-sided. The Commission offices and European Movement are listed as sources to contact, with no health warning. Once again, no critical balances are included.
A far more perfidious booklet is Let's Draw Europe Together, a fancy fun book. It was first published in 1997 by DG X and printed in the UK for older pupils in primary schools. The opening section is entitled "My country: Europe", which speaks for itself. It contains colouring-in pages, crosswords, maps, an EU history date game, children's tales. The Euro is talked about in glowing terms.
Then there is Exploring Europe, a glossy booklet in which the genius and diversity of the member states is used to sell the idea of 'Europe', i.e. that in learning more about other countries the EU is the ultimate message-European Union and Europe are the same thing. This is underlined by the concluding few pages, on The Path of European Integration. An underlying theme is that nationalism has been a darned nuisance for the development of a united continent.
The most notorious of the publications aimed at children is The Raspberry Ice Cream War, a 32-page full colour cartoon book for young people with the subtitle A comic for young people on a peaceful Europe without frontiers. The story involves some schoolchildren who fall into a mediaeval universe. They have to bribe their way past a border guard and explain to the king why the EU is such a wonderful place. One of the characters says: "Frontiers and barriers everywhere and people fighting wars for the stupidest reasons. That's exactly what it looks like here. Kind of weird." Young readers are also told: "We're even going to have the same currency soon as well. It's called the Euro and we won't have to change our money all the time."
Only a handful of the 75,000 copies provided to the London Office of the European Commission were ever distributed in the UK. Public outrage led to the British Government agreeing that, "This undoubtedly was an ill-judged and, in part, factually inaccurate publication". An unrepentant Commission replied;
"[It] is directed at young people and is therefore of necessity written in simple terms; [...] The Commission does not believe that it is overstepping the mark and indulging in political indoctrination by addressing itself to young people to remind them of the Union's very raison d'ệtre."8
This was an example of successful propaganda monitoring.
Or we could turn to Euroquest - A trail of questions and answers about the European Union, which has a happy centipede on its cover waving flags. It invited children to "hum the European anthem" and introduced them to a typical EU passport which "makes it easier for you to go on holiday".
Then there is a video of a project in a Belgian school to trace the development of a classroom system of barter where it was decided to look for "a system which allowed us to use their money in their shops because we couldn't stay on our own all the time". Again, "to simplify things, they should make a Single Currency," so that, "Everyone is happy. See - it's better this way."
This compares with a booklet for more advanced study, The European Union: A Guide for Students and Teachers, which talks of retaining national cultures while building a common European one. In the section "Governing the EU" we can find yet again the oft-repeated canard that EU rules are not made by bureaucrats but by ministers. Then the reader is encouraged to demonstrate what he has learned by means of a test (answers naturally are those of the Commission's interpretation of history).
The conclusion of the teachers' TV programme Inside Europe carries a comment on the need for pupils to grow up thinking more in terms of Europe and less as an island race. The credits of the video European Awareness Secondary Schools and Schools Across Europe roll with schoolchildren on stage waving mixed national and EU flags to "Our school is broadening our horizons, taking us beyond national borders".
The UK government was hardly any better when its Partners in Europe education package (a small plastic suitcase of glossy brochures), distributed to highlight the UK Presidency of Europe, hinted that schools refusing to acquiesce in the teaching of European identity could face trouble. It stated:
"A European dimension in education is not an explicit part of the inspection framework. However, an inspector will make judgements on a school's work in promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of its pupils and preparing them for adult life. To the extent that the school's European dimension policy and plans contribute to these aspects of school life, they will be reported on both directly and indirectly in an inspection. Schools, which have invested in including a European dimension in the education of all pupils, will wish to draw this to the attention of the schools inspector."
There is also training for teachers and other educators to promote EU citizenship. Under the Socrates programme teachers receive funding to improve foreign language skills, make study visits, make project planning, or receive in-service teacher training.
School educational projects, whose principal aim is "to promote the development of European citizenship", are also funded by Socrates. These are administered in the UK by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. Study exchanges are arranged through the Erasmus scheme for higher education students and through Comenius for schools. Lingua promotes language learning and Eurydice, the educational information network. The Central Bureau is responsible for running ten regional European Resource Centres in England and Wales, which offer "guidance on developing the European dimension in the curriculum" for schools and colleges.
All the schemes outlined in the last few paragraphs have merit. However, these very admirable undertakings carry political associations because of their funding by the EU.
Competitions such as the DfEE's Celebrating Europe dangled in front of schools and colleges the opportunity to win £5,000. Other competitions offering computer equipment have sought class projects submitted on the Internet or computer "on a theme of interest to the whole of Europe".
A pertinent question to ask is whether UK rules on political lessons in the classroom would rule out such blatant indoctrination. The Education Act 1996 is clear on how political issues should be dealt with if so applied. It stipulates that the education system has a number of important duties and responsibilities.
"The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school". Section 406 of the Education Act 1996
And that all points of view get an airing so that,
"they [the pupils] are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views" Section 407 of the Education Act 1996
Despite an Act of Parliament forbidding political indoctrination and setting out a "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" it is clear that these important principles and laws are being blatantly breached. Teachers that rely solely on EU materials to discuss the topic of Europe are failing to present the issues in a balanced and impartial manner and so breach the sections of the Education Act 1996 and are thus breaking the law.
What distinguishes educational writing from propagandist communication is that arguments are honestly addressed, and counter evidence is openly admitted and examined. Yet you would be hard pressed to find the contrary vision of the EU anywhere in the Brussels catalogue. The publication output of the EU not infrequently resembles the communication techniques of both Fascist and Communist totalitarian regimes.*
* For an analysis of the EU's approach to cultural management see, Shore, Dr C. 'European Union and the Politics of Culture'. Bruges Group Occasional Paper No. 43. ISBN 0-9541909-0-4. First Published December 2001.
Also, Nigel Farage in 'Democracy in Crisis: The White Paper on European Governance, discusses the attempts to superimpose a 'European' identity on the EU's constituent member states through a dictatorial system of government. A process that has striking similarities to measures in the Soviet Union. Bruges Group Occasional Paper No. 44. ISBN 0-95411909-2-0. First Published March 2002.
Propaganda in the lecture hall
In the name of the battle for the minds of tomorrow money is made available to universities for the establishment of academic chairs, named after the Father of Europe Jean Monnet, for projects which "must deal specifically and entirely with the issue of European integration".
Between 1990-97 almost 1500 projects received support in over 800 European universities and by May 1998 there were 409 Jean Monnet chairs across the EU. These were split between 40% in Community Law, 23% in European Political Science, 28% in European Economics, and 9% in the History of the European Construction Process. In the 1990-98 Directory of the Jean Monnet Projects the list of UK courses ran to 38, yes thirty eight, pages, and 23% of the projects were UK-led. With five establishments being classified as European Centres of Excellence the UK had the most of any member state. The Centres of Excellence require a higher level of European consciousness within the university and a determination to carry on with the scheme after the funding runs out.
The journalist Christopher Booker believes that there are three reasons for the funding of higher education. Firstly, it establishes the notion of a single European research area. Secondly, it builds up a client support base where participants are more likely to realise what Europe has to offer them as members. Thirdly, academics are effectively co-opted into the EU's policy-making process and since they are involved in the building of the project they will be more supportive.9
It's not just academics who can rely on EU backing. There is funding for British students to write research papers about the positive aspects of the EU and promote knowledge and awareness of European integration.10
Propaganda as a youth service
Money has been provided for a European Voluntary Service for Young People, which aims to enable young people between the ages of 18 and 25 to "gain a formative experience" in "activities that benefit the community within the European Union or non-member countries". The EVS offers "the possibility of actively contributing to European integration (especially to a European identity and citizenship) and solidarity between the Union and non-member countries". €15 million was given to the project in 1996, with a further €9.4 million in 1997 for the second year of the pilot. At the end of the pilot in July 1998 a budget of €47.5 million was approved, with a special advisor to the European Commission being appointed to ensure it all works.
Other attempts to win over young people have included offering entrants for competitions, such as the Ambassador for a Day, the opportunity to win a day with sporting clubs and fashion houses, as well as with EU politicians.
Propaganda through European symbols
The EU has developed the symbols of statehood, with its own flag and anthem, to parade its identity on public occasions. Thus, the visible emblems of national identity are replaced by those of the supranational. To ensure that its presence wouldn't go unnoticed the EU invested in two hot air balloons, decorated with the 12 stars, to make appearances at major events. The EU even has its own 'official birthday', Europe Day on 9th May, to mark the anniversary of Robert Schuman's 1950 call for France, Germany and other nations to combine their iron and steel manufacturing.
Propaganda as a town twinning exercise
The EU has corrupted what was once a reciprocal exchange of greetings, going back to the wartime alliance forged by the cities of Coventry and Stalingrad, by offering money if the towns concerned were prepared to stage debates on topics such as the introduction of the Euro. The twinning process has become a device of the drive to promote integration and mayors are supplied with a recommended oath to swear at the official twinning ceremony. Even if the approved wording isn't followed, the mayor's speech must make it "clear that European unification is the primary aim of, and reason for, the twinning". The provided version climaxes with a promise that the two towns will "join forces to help secure, to the utmost of our abilities, a successful outcome to this vital venture of peace and prosperity - the European Union."
Propaganda as a freebie
Any journalist will be able to tell you about the lavish entertainment provided at EU Summits for Europe's elite, but ordinary folk also get freebies. During the Cardiff European Summit events were laid on for selected guests and the public. These included, a Youth Summit Day on environmental issues, a European Adventure Project involving decorating a building's rooms in the style of member states, free music concerts, a drinks reception, and a fireworks display. Children could participate in the Euro Fun Day, including giant puppets, banners, murals, flag making, story telling, street cafes, and a European treasure hunt.
There is also money for gatherings such as People's Europe 1998, which brought together representatives from a wide range of organisations to "promote and widen public debate on the challenges facing Europe". The stated aim of the organisers to ensure a variety of viewpoints was not achieved and despite the presence of a tiny number of sceptical voices, Robin Cook remarked that he counted himself as being in a friendly audience. Neil Kinnock used his session to attack William Hague's Fontainebleau speech as "chauvinistic cement to hold a political party together".
re are also foreign trips for politicians, businessmen and journalists, while EU 'citizens' are enticed to visit 'their' European Parliament. In addition, as stated, all MEPs have regular visitor allowances for them to impress their local power base with their activities.
Propaganda to win over the media
The European Journalism Centre, located in Maastricht, plays a key role in the subversion of the media. Its stated aim is to promote closer European ties and integrate a European dimension into all fields of information, and it works alongside not only trans-European but also international organisations for this purpose. One of its functions is to operate as the locus for training journalists about European integration, whether they come from within the EU or beyond. It boasts of having welcomed over 7,000 journalists from around the world, from Albania to Zimbabwe, according to them with considerable effect: "For journalists from the EU Member States and candidate countries, in the few years of its existence, the EJC has also become a symbol of progress".
It appears that the efforts to woo journalists pay off. In his speech at a debate on a supposed anti-Europe bias in the media, subsequently printed as an article, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore referred to a EU spokesman telling one of his newspaper's journalists that "about half of all European journalists who write stories about his area show him the full text of the proposed article for his approval before publication". This is concerning since, as Moore revealed: "There are 1,200 accredited journalists in Brussels and most of them get their material from the Commission's daily briefing at noon."11
Stories that do get out are countered. The 'Presswatch' publication of the Commission's man in the UK, Geoffrey Martin, catalogues what he calls the 'Euromyths' perpetrated by journalists. This he circulates to politicians, public libraries and pro-EU journalists. *
* See also the research conducted by Global Britain on BBC coverage.
Propaganda as promotion of a European culture
The EU has been a long-standing promoter of co-operation between creative artists, cultural players and cultural institutions. Some of these ongoing projects are familiar and include: The European City of Culture (since 1985), The European Cultural Month (since 1990), the European Union Youth Orchestra (since 1976), and the European Community Baroque Orchestra (since 1985).
Government Euro Propaganda: Her Majesty's Government breaks its Own Guidelines
It is often said that the issue of European integration and the Euro transcends party politics. If only life, and European issues, were that simple. The question as to whether Britain should accept the Euro and continue down the path of 'ever-closer union' is an issue of supreme party political importance. It contrasts Britain's two major Parties as much as red is distinct from blue. Support for the single currency and a positive engagement with our European partners is an integral part of the New Labour philosophy.
The Treasury Department and its Euro Preparations Unit, which has the responsibility of being employed as single currency propagandists, have become involved in the highly contentious party political issue of the Euro. This may be a serious breach of civil service impartiality and their own strict guidelines. As we know, the Government's own guidelines make it clear that whereas they have the right to promote the government's policies, they must not stray, or be perceived as straying, into party political issues. Yet, the evidence suggests that the Government is using the civil service to manipulate the public debate on the Euro.
The UK Government produces EU literature that blurs the line between spending on a technical investigation of possible UK entry into the single currency and plans to scrap the Pound and replace it with the Euro. According to the Treasury's Fifth Report on Euro Preparations the "total investment in changeover planning" so far is £23.5m. Yet during the past two years the Government has admitted to spending £60m. While a sizeable portion of this figure will have been spent on practical computer applications and programmes, much of this expenditure has gone on what is termed "raising business awareness" of the Euro's introduction. The views of business on this subject are an important battleground in the debate. Thus, the Government's 'raising of business awareness' is an infringement on a fair and honest debate that further breaches civil service guidelines. The Treasury's Fifth Report confirms that the Government wrote to 1.5m SMEs in the UK and has produce a booklet Using the Euro-Competing in Europe for distribution. To support this, the Euro Preparations Unit has established twelve regional Euro-forums.
Given the Government's reticence in coming clean over the level of spending on 'preparations' it may well be that it is more than the £60m admitted to. However, future enquiries are unlikely to discover the total because in March 2000 Melanie Johnston MP, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, declared that the release of information "would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion".12
There are no legal limits on what the UK Government could spend before any referendum. While those campaigning for a 'No' vote would be limited to expenditure of £5m before a poll, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 permits the Government to spend as much as it likes. Indeed, the Government believes that it has not only a "right and a duty" to publicise its views in the lead-up to a referendum but also during the referendum itself.13 Controversially, it rejected an amendment to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act that aimed to ensure that any Government information before a referendum remained factual and impartial. The Home Affairs spokesman in the House of Lords dismissed the notion that the Government only produce neutral material by saying that 'This would not work".14
This is a Government that doesn't count the pennies in promoting its policies. It is now the highest spender on advertising in the UK at £142.6m in 2001, significantly more than the £114.2m spent by the UK's next biggest advertiser, soap maker Procter & Gamble, and the £91.8m spent by BT, the telecommunications group. Whereas the Government's figure represented a 39% rise on the previous year, both private sector advertisers cut their budgets from the year before. The Government's spending is also considerably higher than the £69.3m spent in the last year of the previous Conservative government.
The Government is less shy in admitting its activities in promotion of Britain's membership of the European Union. In a letter to The Independent (19th May 2000) Keith Vaz MP, then Minister for Europe, boasted of how the Foreign Office's Your Britain, Your Europe campaign had taken him to eleven English cities in five months. Furthermore, he proudly revealed that the Government were "sponsoring various competitions to encourage debate about Europe in schools". In a House of Commons answer Vaz revealed that the Your Britain, Your Europe tour cost the British taxpayer more than £60,000. Nearly £36,000 was spent on various publications during the lifetime of the initiative. While this is a comparatively small sum, it proved a useful peg for regional media coverage.*
* The total cost of the FCO EU information campaign over the financial year 2001-2002 ran to £236,038 (PQ 43610). This marks a noted increase.
Despite the razzmatazz brought by the presence of comedian Eddie Izzard, the Vaz tour was a failure and had to be discontinued. Yet its adverse publicity didn't stop his successor Peter Hain from embarking on another 'warm-up' campaign to talk up the Euro and the UK's membership of the EU.15 Others are not so shy about the existence and acceptance of funds from the European Commission. The Guardian's Hugo Young urges supporters of the Euro not to be blackmailed "into refusing such money as Brussels will make available".16
The EU wants to establish in people's minds that the integration of Europe is the only option for the future. It spends millions on suggesting that the integrationist model is the only way forward for the nations of Europe.
The sums involved are staggering. Research by French MEP, Hervé Fabre-Aubrespy, conservatively put it at around €250 million per annum. Whatever the final amount is, it dwarfs the money allowed to those countering the EU information machine.
We do not take issue with the studying of other cultures, societies, peoples and languages. On the contrary such links are culturally valuable and indispensable to the formation of a broader mind. We take issue when the EU flag is hoisted upon these studies, and Europe treated as being synonymous with the EU. There is no room for programming primary school pupils that they the are Euro-citizens of tomorrow and any authorised schools project must be balanced.
It is going to be difficult to rein in the EU when the misuse of taxpayers' money is common throughout the European Union. Tales of corruption from Bernard Connolly and Paul van Buitenen show that the EU cannot be trusted to provide impartial information, especially when the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has been found guilty of using taxpayer funds for party-political activities. The EU's own funding watchdog the Court of Auditors noted that: "The distinction between political activities and information activities seems very theoretical since the information activities of the groups are of a political nature."17
We have already been victims of pro-European integration propaganda. Back in the early 1970s the British public was constantly reassured that the UK was only joining a trading zone and that there wouldn't be any erosion of sovereignty, and even Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to his credit, reportedly expressed grave concerns at the closeness of the BBC to the 'Yes' campaign. Let's not fall for such misinformation again.
For democracy to flourish, Europe's citizens must be allowed to make an informed choice. But a choice based on facts and not the tide of the EU's 'information' campaigns that, if unchecked, will wash away free debate in Europe.
Action to stop EU propaganda
We propose the following:
a. The EC must adopt guidelines similar to those of the UK Government on what constitutes legitimate advertising and information campaigns. The key principles to be entrenched in such rules include a commitment to impartiality and objectivity. MEPs sitting on the budget and budgetary control committees supervising such expenditure should conduct an annual review.
Public funding to organisations campaigning for the UK's entry into the Euro must be stopped and such overtly political organisations should have to attract private funding for their activities. The fact that many pro-euro/EU organisations use taxpayers' money subverts the debate on the future of Europe. Those organisations should have their accounts thoroughly audited by the European Court of Auditors to uncover the full extent of this misuse of public funds. The final figure should be made public and such monies handed back to the European Union.
b. Here in the UK, we recommend that an independent watchdog be established to monitor such activities, ideally in conjunction with the ITC/Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen in Westminster and Brussels. This post should be accountable to Parliament and based upon, or incorporated into, the Electoral Commission. It will have the following remit:
ii) To report publicly upon such misuses of taxpayers' money.
iv) To have the power to instruct the withdrawal of material publicised by the Communities or the Government which is in breach of the above.
c. The UK Government should wind up its National Change Over Plan. In future the Civil Service must ensure any information is balanced and does not fail to inform businesses of the costs that they will incur if the single currency is adopted and the damage the Euro could do to the economy and their business.
d. UK Secretary of State for Education Estelle Morris should write to schools, colleges and Higher Education establishments to remind them of the requirement that teaching on European issues be balanced. In particular she should remind them that Section 409 of the Education Act 1996 allows for a legal process to redress any breaches of the Act. The Education department should make available a list of organisations that can be approached for speakers and information on European issues, and make it clear that eurosceptic sources should be provided if EU-produced teaching guides are being used.
e. The use by the European Union of ambient marketing and subliminal advertising to create a sense of European citizenship should be ended. By this, we mean the EU's emblem and sycophantic statements that are so often plastered over projects that the EU supposedly funds, town twinning exercises, or the appearance of the EU flag on driving licences and car number-plates. A Ten Minute Rule Bill would suffice, requiring, for instance, that reference to EU budget lines paying for public works be accompanied by a caveat spelling out the UK net contribution to the EU budget for that year; that EU logos be accompanied by the Union Flag; and that planning permission is reinstated for flying the EU flag (this has been removed under the Blair Government).
f. Public vigilance must be maintained for evidence of EU propaganda. Materials should be forwarded to the Bruges Group EU propaganda archive, so that such resources can be made available to journalists and scholars. To make an appointment please contact Robert Oulds on telephone +44 (0) 20 7287 4414.
How bad can it get
Saving the most striking piece of Europe propaganda to last, say hello to Captain Euro, a cartoon hero whose mission is to "help combat public scepticism and enlighten the public of the merits of a united Europe". The Aryan super-hero and his blond female assistant Europa don blue and yellow (the EU's colours) jump suits to battle with Eurosceptic terrorists led by the sinister Dr. D. Vider. The Captain's website, www.captain-euro.com, details his adventures and the presentation pack offers stickers promoting the man who proclaims, "Now the bomb has been defused, Europe is a safer place". There was an intention to turn it into a television series, with accompanying comic and toy merchandise.18 However, the anti-Nazi magazine Searchlight denounced the cartoon as "an amazingly racist and xenophobic piece of trash". The organisation that created Captain Euro previously appears to have had contracts with both the European Parliament and the Commission. Strange coincidence!
There follows a list of organisations identified as having received money in the 2000 budget. While inclusion in the list does not automatically indicate propaganda activity, the nature of the budget line invites investigation.
Report on beneficiaries of grants under chapter A-30: 200019 *
* It is not a complete list of all Commission grants as it does not include grants awarded for EU programmes and actions in specific policy areas.
|European University Institute (research)||€4,090,000|
|European University Institute (archives)||€1,000,000|
|European Institute of Public Administration||€800,000|
|CENTRE FOR H,R - Univ, PRETORIA||€137,000|
|WORLD FEDERALIST MOV,||€258,414|
|University College of Wales (Mercator)||€67,500|
|Fryske Akademy (Mercator)||€67,500|
|European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages||€797,500|
|Informal European Theatre Meeting||€50,000|
|European Writers' Congress||€50,000|
|European Union Net Art||€50,000|
|European Council of Artists||€100,000|
|Istituto di Studi A,Spinelli||€7,885|
|Forum Alternatives EuropŽennes||€12,000|
|Internationale Pan-Europa Union||€12,000|
|Arbeitskreis EuropŠische Integration||€12,000|
|Instituut voor Publiek en Politik||€12,000|
|Fondation J, Monnet||€15,000|
|Institut fŸr EuropŠische Politik||€20,000|
|Church & Society Commission||€44,000|
|Union des FŽdŽralistes EuropŽens||€100,000|
|Conseil des Communes et RŽgions d'Europe||€100,000|
|Centre des Etudes EuropŽennes de Strasbourg||€100,000|
|Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment||€175,000|
|European Citizens' Action Service (ECAS)||€200,000|
|European Movement* * This money funds the European Movement head office. It is not known how much percolates down to national organisations.||€300,000|
|Centro de Documentacion Europea, Universidad de||€4,000|
|University of Gallati-Roumanie||€4,261|
|Fac, De Derecho, Universidad de Girona-Espagne||€5,000|
|Sociedad de Estudios Vascos, San Sebestian-Espagne||€5,000|
|Universitˆ "La Sapienza" di Roma (Fac, Di Economia), Roma-Italie||€5,000|
|Instituto de Estudios Europeos, Universidad de Valladolid - Espagne||€5,000|
|EuropŠisches Zentrum fŸr Fšderalismus, UniversitŠt TŸbingen-Allemagne||€5,000|
|Inst, FŸr …sterreichisches und Internationales Steuerrecht, Wien-Autriche||€7,000|
|Zentrum fŸr EuropŠische Integrationsforschun g - Rheinsche Friedrich-Willhelm-UniversitŠt Bonn - Allemagne||€8,000|
|Association europŽenne des Etudiants en droit (ELSA) Lyon-France||€8,000|
|Universitˆ degli studi di Trento-Italie||€8,000|
|Universitˆ degli studi di Milano-Italie||€8,000|
|St Stephen's University, Gšdšllš-Hungary||€10,000|
|Institut europŽen de l'UniversitŽ de Gen?ve-Suisse||€10,000|
|Academia Istropolitana Nova, Svaty Jur-Slovac Rep.||€10,000|
|Instituto de Educacion Continua del Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona-Espagne||€10,000|
|Universidad del Pais Vasco, Leioa-Espagne||€10,000|
|Fundacion Mediterranea-Universidad de Almeria-Espagne||€10,000|
|CIREM, Barcelona- Espagne||€10,000|
|Hellenic University Association of European Studies, Ath?nes-Gr?ce||€10,000|
|Association des Etats gŽnŽraux des Etudiants de l'Europe (AEGEE), Bruxelles- Belgique||€10,000|
|Assoziazione "Allessandro Bartola", Universitˆ degli Studi di Ancona- Italie||€10,000|
|Seconda Universitˆ degli studi di Napoli- Italie||€10,000|
|Scuola di Ateneo Jean Monnet, Universitˆ di Napoli -Italie||€10,000|
|Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Inst, Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, Madrid-Espagne||€10,000|
|Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign policy, Ath?nes-Gr?ce||€10,000|
|UniversitŽ Catholique de Louvain, Fac, De Droit, Louvain La Neuve-Belgique||€10,000|
|Universitˆ degli studi di Messina-Italie||€10,000|
|Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, Milano-Italie||€11,250|
|UniversitŽ Jean Monnet St Etienne - France||€12,000|
|Universidad de Murcia-Espagne||€13,350|
|Invisible College, Chisinau-Moldavia||€14,984|
|AcadŽmie des Etudes Economiques - Moldavia||€15,000|
|European Institute of Cyprus, Nicosia - Cyprus||€15,000|
|Universidad de Cordoba - Espagne||€15,000|
|Libera Universitˆ degli Studi di Urbino - Italie||€15,000|
|Fondazione CEUR, Bologne - Italie||€15,000|
|Universitˆ degli Studi Roma Tor Vergata (Dipt, Storia), Rome-Italie||€15,000|
|Universitˆ degli Studi Milano (Dipt, Di Studi Internazionali), Milano-Italie||€15,000|
|Centro de Estudios Europeos, Universidad de Alacala de Henares-Espagne||€15,000|
|Univ, V Ljubljani Ekonomska Fakulteta, Ljubljana - SlovŽnie||€15,000|
|UniversitŽ libre de Bruxelles - Belgique||€15,000|
|Universitˆ degli studi del Sannio, Fac, Di Economia, Benevento-Italie||€15,000|
|Fundacion general de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid - Espagne||€15,000|
|European Humanities University, Minsk - Belarussie||€15,000|
|Universitˆ della Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende-Italie||€19,440|
|Belgrade Open School - Yougoslavia||€20,000|
|Fachhochschule Fulda - Allemagne||€20,000|
|Universidad Nacional de Educacion a distencia, Madrid- Espagne||€20,000|
|Centro Universitario Studi Aziendali, Palermo-Italie||€20,000|
|Inst, Of European Studies, The Queen's University of Belfast-UK||€20,000|
|Instituto Europeu da Faculdade de Dereito de Lisboa - Portugal||€20,000|
|Universitˆ Commerciale Luigi Bocconni, Milano - Italia||€20,000|
|European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow-UK||€25,000|
|Copernicus E,V,, Dortmund - Allemagne||€30,000|
|Arbeitskreis EuropŠische Integration, Bonn - Allemagne||€30,000|
|Stichting TMC, Asser Instituut, Den Haag-Pays Bas||€30,000|
|Forum Jeunesse de l'Union europŽenne||€2,000,000|
|K,Brunner EuroHaus Neu||€1,651|
|Acad, Eur, Friuli Venezia||€2,402|
|Salzburger Bild, Inst,Europa||€3,907|
|Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst||€4,500|
|Stift, f, Rechte zukunf,Gener||€5,915|
|E. I. I. R.||€6,082|
|Comm, Vie ChrŽtienne||€7,357|
|Inst, Droit & Hist,Canonique||€7,976|
|Rat Gemeind, & Reg, Europ||€8,034|
|Univ, Eur, Form,Ouv,-E/C/O||€8,188|
|Evang, Akademie Tutzing||€9,022|
|Europa Forum WACHAU||€10,000|
|Eur, Staatsb, Akad,ThŸringen||€10,380|
|Evang, Kirche Rheinland||€11,925|
|Mov, Fed, Europeo - Roma||€12,370|
|FONDA p, vie associative||€14,500|
|Int'l Council Jewish Women||€16,000|
|FŽd,Fran?, Maisons Europe||€16,054|
|Kath,Akad, Die Wolfsburg||€17,895|
|Europass, Alliance ThŽ‰tre||€18,483|
|Fšrderverein Pro Asyl||€19,500|
|Berliner Inst Vergl, Sozialfor||€19,850|
|Comm, Sant'Egidio - ACAP||€19,992|
|Eurit Centrol Italia Europa||€20,000|
|UCPA-Centres Plein Air||€20,809|
|Food First Info Act, Network||€21,802|
|Int'Eur,Com,Church & School||€22,000|
|Info Point Europe||€22,000|
|Assoc, Soutien Travailleurs||€22,196|
|Fund,Inst,Intl Teatro Medit,||€22,418|
|Euro, Akademie Berlin||€23,102|
|Fond, Alexander Langer||€24,200|
|FŽd, Centres d'Insertion||€24,963|
|Cent,Italiano Solidar, Roma||€24,976|
|Dones per Europa||€24,990|
|Int'l Delphic Council||€25,000|
|Euro,Akademie des Sports||€25,000|
|Jeunesse Ouvri?re ChrŽt,||€25,000|
|Cent,Studies Reggio Emilia||€25,000|
|FIM CISL Emilia Romagna||€25,000|
|Chris, Acad, Euro, Dialogue||€25,000|
|Inst, V, Publiek & Politiek||€25,000|
|Fritz Brauer Institut||€25,000|
|Orthodox Academy Crete||€29,750|
|Forum Kulturen Stuttgart||€30,000|
|FONDATION DES JOURNALISTES||€250,000|
|Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA)||€100,000|
|Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)||€125,000|
|European Policy Centre (EPC)||€125,000|
|CIFE: Centre International de Formation EuropŽenne||€1,500,000|
|STIFT, WISSENSCHAFT UND POLITIK||€798,500|
|Euro Jeunesse 2000||€2,500|
|Ecumenical Youth Council in Europe||€5,000|
|ERUZIONE Intramediterranean Network||€5,000|
|Red Europea de los Jovenes Gitanos||€5,000|
|Youth and Environment Europe||€5,500|
|International Federation of Catholic Parochial Youth||€7,500|
|International Association of Civil Engineering Students||€8,650|
|Youth of European Nationalities||€8,680|
|Erasmus Student Network International||€9,140|
|European Rotaract Information Centre||€9,240|
|European Students of Industrial Engineering||€9,500|
|Stichting World Student Christian Federation Europe||€9,500|
|Association of Voluntary Service Organisations||€9,980|
|Associazione Italiana Costruttori||€10,000|
|European Bureau for Conscientious Objection||€10,000|
|FŽdŽration Internationale des CommunautŽs Educatives||€10,000|
|Peace Child Charitable Trust||€10,000|
|Asociacion Internacional de Juventudes Marianas||€10,000|
|Asociaci—n Juvenil Madreselva||€10,000|
|European Social Action Network||€10,000|
|FŽdŽr, Intern, pour les Echanges Educ, d'Enfants||€10,000|
|Mouvement International de la Jeunesse Rurale Agricole||€10,000|
|Mouvement International des JournŽes Arc-en-Ciel||€10,000|
|European Union of Music Competitions for Youth||€10,070|
|Eur, Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education||€11,000|
|International Forum of Decision Makers on Youth||€11,000|
|International Pharmaceutical Students' Federation||€11,000|
|Yourope - The European Festival Organisation||€11,000|
|Forum EuropŽen des Associations pour le Patrimoine||€11,000|
|Alliance of European Voluntary Service Organisations||€12,000|
|European Democrat Students||€12,000|
|European Extension in musical and artistic expression||€12,000|
|International Falcon Movement - Socialist Educational||€12,395|
|Coordinating Committee for International Voluntary Service||€12,550|
|European Youth Forest Action||€13,000|
|Democrat Youth Community of Europe||€14,000|
|European Confederation of Youth Club Organisations||€14,000|
|European Good Templar Youth Federation||€14,000|
|European Law Students' Association||€14,000|
|Experiment in Europe Association||€14,000|
|International Sonnenberg Association||€14,000|
|International Young Naturefriends||€14,000|
|Jeunesse Etudiante Catholique Internationale/MIEC||€14,000|
|Syndesmos - The World Fellowship of Orthodox Youth||€14,000|
|World Federation of Democratic Youth||€14,000|
|Youth for Development and Cooperation||€14,000|
|Youth of the European People's Party||€14,000|
|Mouvement International ATD Quart Monde Jeunesse||€14,000|
|Mouvement International pour le Loisir Scientifique et||€14,000|
|Office Commun de Formation EuropŽenne||€15,000|
|Union des Jeunesses Musicales d'Europe||€15,000|
|FŽdŽration des Jeunes Ecologistes EuropŽens||€15,000|
|International Association of Agricultural Students||€18,000|
|Trans Europe Halles||€18,000|
|European Committee for Young Farmers' and 4H Clubs||€18,500|
|Volontariato Internazionale Donna Educazione Sviluppo||€18,500|
|A Seed Europe||€18,500|
|Association of the International Cultural Youth Exchange||€18,500|
|European Confederation of Junior Entreprises||€18,500|
|European Federation for Intercultural Learning||€18,500|
|European Playwork Association||€18,500|
|European Union Federation of Youth Hostel Associations||€18,500|
|European Youth Card Association||€18,500|
|Internacional Cooperaci—n Net||€18,500|
|International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth||€18,500|
|International Sport and Culture Association||€18,500|
|Organizing Bureau of European School Student Unions||€18,500|
|Pax Christi International Youth Forum||€18,500|
|Youth Action For Peace||€18,500|
|Youth for Exchange and Understanding||€18,500|
|Conseil EuropŽen des Jeunes Agriculteurs||€19,000|
|LŽo Lagrange SolidaritŽ Internationale||€20,000|
|Service Civil International||€20,000|
|European Educational Exchanges||€22,000|
|World Organization of the Scout Movement - European||€23,000|
|European Alliance of YMCA's||€23,000|
|European Federation of Youth Service Organisations||€23,000|
|International Union of Socialist Youth||€23,000|
|Jeunes EuropŽens FŽdŽralistes||€23,000|
|United for Intercultural Action||€24,000|
|Jeunesse Ouvri?re ChrŽtienne Internationale||€24,420|
|World Association of Girl Guides and Girls Scouts||€25,000|
|Association des Etats GŽnŽraux des Etudiants de l'Europe||€25,000|
|Stichting AIESEC International||€43,000|
|EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN STUDIES||€300,000|
|CENTRE NORD - SUD LISBONNE||€500,000|
|CENT,LATINO AMER, RELAC,EUR (CELARE)||€250,000|
|Jugend fŸr Dora e,V,||€4,000|
|Fšrderverein Dokumentations- u, BegegnungsstŠtte e, KZ Hinzert||€5,000|
|Fšrderverein Projekt Osthofen e,V,||€5,000|
|Vereiningung der Verfolgten des Naziregimes - Bund der Antifaschistinnen und Antifaschisten e,V,||€5,000|
|Istituto Piemontese per la Storia della Resistenza e della Societa' Contemporanea||€6,000|
|Muzeum Pojezierza Leczynsko - Wlodawskiego||€7,000|
|Witte Brigade (Fidelio) v,z,w,||€7,000|
|Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Zeitgeschichte in Ahrensbšk e,V, - Gruppe 33||€8,000|
|Amicale de Mauthausen||€10,000|
|Fondation pour la MŽmoire de la DŽportation||€10,000|
|Katholisches Kreisbildungswerk MŸhldorf am Inn e,V,||€10,000|
|Stowarzyszenie "Jeden Swiat"/ One World Association||€10,000|
|Verein KZ-GedenkstŠtte Sandhofen e,V,||€10,000|
|Service Civil International e,V, - Deutscher Zweig - SCI-D||€12,000|
|DokumentationsstŠtt e KZ Hersbruck e,V,||€14,000|
|Landesverband Deutscher Sinti und Roma - Bayern e,V,||€14,000|
|ComitŽ International de Sachsenhausen et ses Kommandos||€15,000|
|Aktion SŸhnezeichen Friedensdienste e,V,||€19,000|
|Arbeitsgemeinschaft ehemaliges KZ FlossenbŸrg e,V,||€20,000|
|ComitŽ EuropŽen de Dora-Mittelbau||€20,000|
|ComitŽ International Buchenwald-Dora et Kommandos||€20,000|
|ComitŽ International de Dachau||€20,000|
|ComitŽ International de Mauthausen||€50,000|
|Association Jean Monnet||€250,000|
|Lobby EuropŽen des femmes||€600,000|
|A.I.A.C.E. (Association des Anciens des CommunitŽs EuropŽennes)||€21,000|
|International Press Centre Brussels||€50,000|
|EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON||€50,000|
|FORUM DES MIGRANTS DE L'UNION EUROPEENNE||€800,000|
|European Union Chamber Orch||€150,000|
|European Union Baroque Orch||€300,000|
|Yehudi Menuhin Foundation||€325,000|
|European Jazz Youth Orch||€338,000|
|European Centre Trust Opera||€400,000|
|European Union Youth Orch||€550,000|
1.The Daily Telegraph, 5th June 1995
2.Shore, Dr Cris. European Union and the Politics of Culture, Occasional Paper 43, Bruges Group, London, 2001. Pages 17-18
3.McLean, I. (ed.) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford University Press, 1996. Page 408
4.O'Shaughnessy, N. in Handbook of Political Marketing by Newman, B.I. (ed.) "Political Marketing and Political Propaganda." Sage Publications Ltd. London 1999. Pages 726-727
6.The Daily Telegraph, 26th March 1998
7.Report of the Expert Working Group "Euro-Education", 29th January 1998
8.EPQ E-1991/98; 1999/C 50/177
9.The Sunday Telegraph, 23rd July 2000
10.The Times, 17th April 2001
11.The Daily Telegraph, 2nd November 2000
12.Mail on Sunday, 8th July 2000
13.The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom, 1999
14.Hansard, 22nd November 2000
15.News of the World, 9th November 2001
16.The Guardian, 3rd March 1998
17.The Express, 31st March 2000
18.The European, 27th August 1998
19.Parliamentary questions WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/00 (16 June 2000) by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission, Subject: Budget Item A-3021 Secretariat-General of the Commission Update : 27/09/2001