Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine
Martin Ball
Robert Oulds
Dr Lee Rotherham
Contents
"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))
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.
Foreword
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.
* * *
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funding €600,000*
* 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.
Funding €1,830,000
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.
Funding €2,000,000
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.
Funding €1,260,000
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.
Funding €250,000
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.
Funding €1,500,000
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.
Funding €650,000
A-3410 (439) General publications
Money for the printing of EU pamphlets.
Funding €2,000,000
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.
Funding €2,500,000
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.
Funding €17,000,000
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.
Funding €248,150,000
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.
Funding €1,000,000
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.
Funding €9,400,000
B3-2001 (781) Kaleidoscope
Covers the support of artistic and cultural activities having a European
dimension.
Funding €8,900,000
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.
Funding €8,860,000
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
| Grant Awarded |
|---|
| A-3010 |
|---|
| Collège d'Europe | €2,400,000 |
| A-3011 |
|---|
| European University Institute (research) | €4,090,000 |
| European University Institute (archives) | €1,000,000 |
| A-3012 |
|---|
| EuropŠische Rechtsakademie | €1,200,000 |
| A-3013 |
|---|
| European Institute of Public Administration | €800,000 |
| A-3014 |
|---|
| CENTRE FOR H,R - Univ, PRETORIA | €137,000 |
| WORLD FEDERALIST MOV, | €258,414 |
| UNIVERSITE SARAJEVO | €363,000 |
| A-3015 |
|---|
| CIEMEN (Mercator) | €67,500 |
| University College of Wales (Mercator) | €67,500 |
| Fryske Akademy (Mercator) | €67,500 |
| European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages | €797,500 |
| A-3020 |
|---|
| Notre Europe | €600,000 |
| A-3021 |
|---|
| Informal European Theatre Meeting | €50,000 |
| European Writers' Congress | €50,000 |
| European Union Net Art | €50,000 |
| Europa Nostra | €80,000 |
| European Council of Artists | €100,000 |
| EFAH/FEAP | €100,000 |
| Fondation PŽgase | €150,000 |
| Istituto di Studi A,Spinelli | €7,885 |
| Stichting Ryckevelde | €11,000 |
| 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 |
| Stiftung Mitarbeit | €15,000 |
| Federal Trust | €18,000 |
| Heinz-Schwarzkopf- Stiftung | €18,000 |
| 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 |
| Europa Kolleg | €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 |
| A-3022 |
|---|
| 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 |
| A-3023 |
|---|
| Forum Jeunesse de l'Union europŽenne | €2,000,000 |
| A-3024 |
|---|
| K,Brunner EuroHaus Neu | €1,651 |
| Acad, Eur, Friuli Venezia | €2,402 |
| Salzburger Bild, Inst,Europa | €3,907 |
| Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst | €4,500 |
| Die Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe | €5,844 |
| Stift, f, Rechte zukunf,Gener | €5,915 |
| E. I. I. R. | €6,082 |
| Comm, Vie ChrŽtienne | €7,357 |
| Progetto Continenti | €7,884 |
| 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 |
| Europe 99 | €10,671 |
| Evang, Kirche Rheinland | €11,925 |
| Evang-Luther, Marahens | €12,343 |
| Mov, Fed, Europeo - Roma | €12,370 |
| Pfadfinderb, Weltenbunmm | €12,500 |
| Europahaus Aurich | €13,505 |
| FONDA p, vie associative | €14,500 |
| Carref,Rur,Eur, Liguria | €14,830 |
| 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 |
| Evang,Akademie Wien | €20,000 |
| 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 |
| Hojskolen Ostersoen | €23,077 |
| 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 |
| Int'les Kolpingwerk | €25,000 |
| FIM CISL Emilia Romagna | €25,000 |
| Europahaus Klagenfurt | €25,000 |
| Chris, Acad, Euro, Dialogue | €25,000 |
| Inst, V, Publiek & Politiek | €25,000 |
| ANIMA'FAC | €25,000 |
| RuralitŽ-Environ- DŽvel'ment | €25,000 |
| Info Eurogente | €25,000 |
| Fritz Brauer Institut | €25,000 |
| Euro,Staatsburger Akad, | €25,000 |
| Kultur …sterreich | €25,000 |
| Kulturnetzwerk Neukšln | €25,000 |
| L'Isthme | €26,286 |
| Orthodox Academy Crete | €29,750 |
| Forum Kulturen Stuttgart | €30,000 |
| A-3025 |
|---|
| FONDATION DES JOURNALISTES | €250,000 |
| A-3026 |
|---|
| Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA) | €100,000 |
| Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) | €125,000 |
| European Policy Centre (EPC) | €125,000 |
| A-3027 |
|---|
| CIFE: Centre International de Formation EuropŽenne | €1,500,000 |
| A-3028 |
|---|
| STIFT, WISSENSCHAFT UND POLITIK | €798,500 |
| A-3029 |
|---|
| Euro Jeunesse 2000 | €2,500 |
| Ecumenical Youth Council in Europe | €5,000 |
| ERUZIONE Intramediterranean Network | €5,000 |
| Euromet | €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 |
| ETUC Youth | €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 |
| Contact-2103 | €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 |
| Europa Cantat | €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 |
| A-3030 |
|---|
| ECRE | €350,000 |
| A-3031 |
|---|
| EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN STUDIES | €300,000 |
| A-3032 |
|---|
| IREL | €0 |
| A-3033 |
|---|
| CENTRE NORD - SUD LISBONNE | €500,000 |
| A-3034 |
|---|
| CENT,LATINO AMER, RELAC,EUR (CELARE) | €250,000 |
| A-3035 |
|---|
| 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 |
| Cooperativa Arke | €7,000 |
| Fondazione CDEC | €7,000 |
| 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 |
| Fondation Auschwitz | €20,000 |
| ComitŽ International de Mauthausen | €50,000 |
| A-3036 |
|---|
| Association Jean Monnet | €250,000 |
| A-3037 |
|---|
| Lobby EuropŽen des femmes | €600,000 |
| A-3038 |
|---|
| 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 |
| A-3039 |
|---|
| INSTITUT MEDEA | €200,000 |
| A-3040 |
|---|
| FORUM DES MIGRANTS DE L'UNION EUROPEENNE | €800,000 |
| A-3041 |
|---|
| CERA | €0 |
| A-3042 |
|---|
| European Union Chamber Orch | €150,000 |
| EuropaChorAkademi e | €250,000 |
| Fondation YUSTE | €250,000 |
| 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 |
- The Daily Telegraph, 5th June 1995
- Shore, Dr Cris. European Union and the Politics of
Culture, Occasional Paper 43, Bruges Group, London, 2001. Pages
17-18
- McLean, I. (ed.) Oxford Concise Dictionary of
Politics, Oxford University Press, 1996. Page 408
- 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
- www.no-euro.com
- The Daily Telegraph, 26th March 1998
- Report of the Expert Working Group
"Euro-Education", 29th January 1998
- EPQ E-1991/98; 1999/C 50/177
- The Sunday Telegraph, 23rd July 2000
- The Times, 17th April 2001
- The Daily Telegraph, 2nd November
2000
- Mail on Sunday, 8th July 2000
- The Funding of Political Parties in the United
Kingdom, 1999
- Hansard, 22nd November 2000
- News of the World, 9th November
2001
- The Guardian, 3rd March 1998
- The Express, 31st March 2000
- The European, 27th August 1998
- 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
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/beneficiaries_en.htm
|
