You are in:
- Contents » Latest News
Media War Begins
Most commentators agree that securing a deal on the EU constitution was the easy part: Selling it to an increasingly sceptical British public will be much tougher.
Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted as much in a television interview yesterday, but the true scale of opposition to the treaty is only beginning to become clear. Today his campaign begins in Britain's parliament, where he will give a statement to the Commons at 3.30. Blair is certain to dismiss demands from opposition leader Michael Howard, who claims a referendum on the treaty be called as soon as possible.
This is another opportunistic error from Howard, of the kind that is becoming all too familiar. There is no good reason why Blair should call a referendum so soon: Few members of the public - never mind the press, or Britain's politicians - will have fully digested the implications of the treaty yet. Calling for an early vote supports Eurofanatic claims that the public's hostility to the constitution is based on ignorance and media distortion, and that once a full debate is allowed to take place, British Eurorealism will give way to acceptance, if not enthusiasm for the EU.
EURSOC believes that the more that voters learn about the treaty and its implications, the less likely they will be to support it. So should Howard, if he is truly convinced of its faults.
The Guardian reports that Blair faces opposition in his own party, with perhaps 100 MPs supporting the newly-launched anti-treaty group Labour Against a Superstate. However, as the Guardian adds, rather fewer of this 100 are likely to poke their heads above the parapet on the issue.
He will have more difficulty bringing the public into line.
The swivel-eyed Eurofantasists at the Independent try to do their bit by taking on some myths perpetuated by feverishly Eurosceptic newspapers like the Sun, the Daily Mail and, er, the Economist.
Unfortunately as the Indie's Brussels correspondents seem to be happy to act as the propaganda wing of the European Commission (see this month's Sprout for details) we can safely take their claims with a pinch of CAP-funded salt.
In any case, the Telegraph pops most of the Indie's balloons, mainly by going to the text of the treaty itself for evidence. Where the treaty is vague or obscured by one of Blair's much-touted "emergency brakes" the newspaper asks one of the people who will interpret the text, president of the European Court Vassilios Skouris. Skouris says that under the terms of the constitution, the contentious Charter of Fundamental Rights could not be "ring-fenced" to protect British law. So much for an emergency brake.
One of Blair's first acts is likely to be to order his ministers to start sounding more positive about the constitution. It has already been depicted as a victory for Britain over the Franco-German alliance - and on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo at that. This is sure to play well with the public, but since then, as the Guardian's Patrick Wintour notes, ministers "could not escape the defensive language of safeguarding and protecting Britain's rights from an invasive EU."
Expect a more upbeat message from ministers soon.
The Guardian's leader column urges Blair to come out fighting, if only to combat what it calls the "malice and lies" of Eurorealists.
It continues,
"The problem is that far too many voters think the constitution is something altogether more threatening and invasive than it actually is. That this is the case is a triumph for the propaganda of the tabloid sceptics. But it is also a chilling vision of the kind of society we are in danger of becoming. When press lies about Europe can play such a decisive role in forming our national political debates, it is difficult to see how we can ever have a fair and informed vote."
And this brings us to a different story with a tragic note. The Guardian's call for truth to inform public debate sits uneasily with its record as an apologist for Palestinian terror in Israel. Only today, the Guardian carries an article praising a new book which claims that the British press is biased in favour of Israel.
Melanie Phillips is right to describe this as "surely the media equivalent to saying that the sun revolves around the earth."
But the fact that a book making claims like this can get a sympathetic hearing in the British media tells you all you need to know about the Guardian's reliability. This in a week when Tom Gross published a comprehensive analysis of some of the BBC's most outrageous acts of biased reporting.
Both sides will doubtless tell lies and distort facts when reporting on the EU consitution. Whether Britain votes yes or no to the treaty will dictate the political and economic success of the nation for decades to come.
Bias against Israel in newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC, however, has much worse impact: Their bias has a body count.
