New research shows EU spending 2.4 billion euros a year on propaganda
26 December 2008
Open Europe has published new research which shows that the European Union is spending billions of euros a year promoting itself and its central aim of 'ever closer union'. In 2008 alone, it spent more than 2.4 billion euros. That is more than Coca Cola spends on advertising each year, worldwide.
As well as a sophisticated information and communication strategy designed to 'sell' the EU and its political message, the EU also spends billions of euros a year on efforts to engender a common European culture and citizenship, with the explicit aim of increasing people's attachment to the EU project.
The EU pours hundreds of millions of euros a year into think-tanks and lobby groups which promote its policies and campaign for further EU integration, and many of its efforts are directed very deliberately at young people.
In the book, "The hard sell: EU communication policy and the campaign for hearts and minds", Open Europe shows how EU information policy is geared not towards providing neutral, balanced information, but towards trying to convince people to support EU integration.
It reveals how even the most innocuous-sounding cultural projects funded by the EU are designed to promote European integration, and argues that, at best, all this is an enormous waste of time and money.
Please click here to read "The hard sell: EU communication policy and the campaign for hearts and minds":
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/hardsell.pdf
Please see below for the Executive Summary only.
Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally said:
"Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for vain PR exercises to make us love the European Union. This senseless spending on dubious and silly projects has got to stop."
"In Britain, the EU is the most unpopular it has been in 25 years, and yet the Commission is doing nothing serious to address this. Instead of throwing taxpayers' money at propaganda exercises, EU leaders need to take a long, hard look at what is going wrong. The EU needs urgent and radical reform, not expensive campaigns to improve its image."
"If the EU were actually doing less and doing it better - to borrow its own catchphrase - then none of this spin and propaganda would be necessary. EU leaders believe that all they need to do to make people love the EU is to explain it better."
"People certainly need to know more about the EU, but the EU itself has proved unable and unwilling to provide neutral, factual information."
"EU leaders talk about wanting to 'listen' to and 'communicate' with citizens, but have shown nothing but contempt for the most recent referendums on the EU Treaty. If the EU really wants to improve its image, it could start by showing some respect for voters."
Notes for Editors:
1) For more information, please contact Lorraine Mullally on 07817 027 911.
2) Open Europe is an independent think-tank calling for reform of the European Union. Its supporters include: Sir Stuart Rose, Executive Chairman, Marks and Spencer plc; Sir Crispin Davis, Chief Executive, Reed Elsevier Group plc; Sir David Lees, Chairman, Tate and Lyle plc; Sir John Egan, Chairman, Severn Trent plc; Lord Kalms of Edgware, President, DSG International plc; Alun Cathcart, Non-Executive Chairman, Avis Europe; and Bobby Hashemi, founder, Coffee Republic.
A full list can be found at http://www.openeurope.org.uk/
Executive Summary
The European Union spends billions of euros a year promoting itself and its central aim of 'ever closer union'. In 2008 alone it spent 2.4bn euros at the very least - more than Coca Cola spends each year on advertising, worldwide.[1]
By promoting its policies, actions and principles, the EU serves to justify its own existence and, crucially, to cement the European Commission's view that continued European integration is the best, or even the only, future path for progress.
It does this in a number of different but interrelated ways, all of which received a boost following the French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution in 2005.
1) "Communicating Europe": The EU's biased information campaign
Firstly and most obviously, the EU publishes classic promotional material, such as booklets, adverts and films, all under the guise of providing 'information'. Examples include the publication "How the European Union works", which describes why the EU is "a remarkable success story," [2] or the pamphlet "Better off in Europe" which says the EU "is delivering a better life for everyone" and describes the single market as "a winning formula." [3] Another is the 'EUtube' film and website: "Europe and You in 2007 - a snapshot of EU achievements".[4]
The openly stated aim of the EU's "Information and Communication Strategy" is to "boost awareness of the Union's existence and legitimacy, polishing its image and highlighting its role."[5]
The Commission actually admits that its information about the EU has a slant. It believes that "Neutral factual information is needed of course, but it is not enough on its own... Genuine communication by the European Union cannot be reduced to the mere
provision of information."[6] Indeed sometimes the message is subliminal, found in, for example, sentences such as "If you are lucky enough to be a citizen of the EU".[7]
The EU has a sophisticated network of information outlets to distribute its literature and branded merchandise, and also spends money organising tours and open days for visitors to the EU institutions. It also makes the most of its capacity as a grant-giver, obliging recipients to adorn project communications with the EU flag or even commemorative plaques.
It has its own polling arm - Eurobarometer - which it uses to manipulate public opinion, and even its own broadcast channels, and means for influencing the internet and the wider media, such as training and prizes for journalists.
The Commission has even used its various 'information' tools to help support pro-integration campaigns in national referendums on EU issues, as was seen in the recent Lisbon Treaty campaign in Ireland. As well as the Commission President visiting Ireland to urge a 'yes' vote ahead of the vote[8], after the referendum, the Commission leaked briefings to the press on two occasions - firstly to wrongly suggest that 40 percent of people had voted 'no' out of ignorance,[9] and subsequently to argue that the Irish press had been overly influenced by British 'eurosceptic' newspapers - both clear attempts to delegitmise the result. [10]
The European Commission has in the past insisted: "It has been the long standing policy of the European Commission not to interfere in internal elections or referenda in Members States... The provision of such information is not intended to influence political decisions or electoral contests."[11] But this is clearly not the case.
2) Funding the cheerleaders: Paying NGOs, think-tanks and lobby groups to promote the EU
Secondly, the EU provides huge amounts of funding to outside organisations which support and promote its objectives.
On the one hand, it funds organisations which openly admit to a central aim of promoting the EU and its core objective of 'ever closer union', such as the European Movement, the Union of European Federalists or the Youth of the European People's Party. The European Movement, for instance, which says it seeks to "transform the relations between the European States and its citizens into a Federal European Union,"[12] received 2.5 million euros in EU funding between January 2005 and October 2007 alone. [13]
On the other, under cover of the otherwise laudable aim of consulting 'experts' and reaching out to 'civil society', it pours money - often indirectly - into NGOs, think-tanks and lobby groups which can be relied on to support the EU's existing or potential role or approach in policy areas as diverse as energy, education, and foreign policy. They might do this by organising events, attending meetings at the EU institutions, publishing research and reports or lobbying decision-makers for an increased EU role in a certain area.
It is not always clear which organisations receive EU funding, or how much, and this makes it doubly concerning. For instance, when Foreign Secretary David Miliband announced in Parliament that a number of influential NGOs and charities supported the EU Lisbon Treaty in an effort to convince MPs to also do so[14], it was only after the vote in Parliament that it emerged that the organisations he cited receive EU funding.[15]
Because of opaque funding streams and a lack of easy to access information, it is extremely difficult to put a figure on exactly how much money the EU spends funding outside organisations which promote the idea of European integration. It is certainly tens of millions a year. Christopher Heaton-Harris MEP has estimated that it is "well over £1bn".[16]
3) Buying loyalty: Promoting European citizenship and a common European culture to engender support for the EU
Thirdly, and underpinning the initiatives detailed above, the EU has a robustly funded policy of promoting a common European citizenship and culture, particularly among young people. Specific lines in the EU budget show that more than 34m euros was dedicated to "Fostering European Citizenship" in 2008 alone, and a further 62m euros was spent on "Developing cultural cooperation in Europe."[17]
The very candidly stated aim of this is to generate justification and support for European integration. As the 2006 decision on the "Europe for Citizens" policy notes: "The Treaty establishes citizenship of the Union... It is an important element in strengthening and safeguarding the process of European integration."[18]
Likewise, the EU's 400 million euro Culture Programme states that: "For citizens to give their full support to, and participate fully in, European integration, greater emphasis should be placed on their common cultural values and roots as a key element of their identity and their membership of a society founded on freedom, equity, democracy, respect for human dignity and integrity, tolerance and solidarity."[19]
The EU's efforts to promote EU citizenship include funding for everything from 'town twinning', to 'active European remembrance' to "high visibility events such as commemorations, awards and Europe-wide conferences etc."[20]
The policy involves emphasising the EU's 'symbols', such as the flag, the anthem, the motto and the euro, as well as lavish celebrations of 'Europe Day' and occasions such as the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome - which cost millions of euros.
All of this is seen as crucial to engendering a feeling of 'belonging' in EU citizens, which in turn is designed to make them more supportive of the EU. As the French Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet said recently: "Symbols are necessary for Europe... they are the way to reach full European consciousness for the people. There is no identity without symbols." [21]
Some of the things the EU funds under the Culture and Citizenship banner sound innocuous enough, but research into the objectives behind them shows that the main aim of the projects is specifically to promote the EU.
The EU-funded practice of town-twinning, for example, is seen by the Commission as an opportunity to hold public meetings to "reinforce the participants' commitment to European integration", by "sharing the experience of concrete benefits of European integration at the local or individual level."[22]
Promoting a common European culture involves yet more funding for outside organisations, such as the European Union Choir, or the Union des théâtres de l'Europe, for example, whose "objective is to contribute to the construction of the European Union through culture and theatre".
It also involves funding for the 'Capital of Culture' programme, celebrations and pro-EU events marking the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and funding for European film producers and networks. In 2008, it even involved sponsoring a "Marathon for a United Europe" for young people. [23]
4) Investing in the long-term: Targeting young people
Indeed young people are the prime target for many, if not even most, of the EU's campaign for heart and minds. In a document called "Building our common future", which argued that "The European Union must continue down the path of integration, and avoid the trap of unwieldy inter-governmentalism," the Commission stated that "It is above all through the involvement of young people that Europe will assure its future." [24]
The plethora of initiatives aimed specifically at children and young people are highly dubious, and provide some of the most blatant examples of EU propaganda.
The Commission believes that "Particular attention should be given to young people and the education sector as a channel for helping people to learn about the European Union."[25] This wouldn't be a problem if the EU's 'information' did not read like one-sided campaign material.
Cartoon and animated publications such as 'Captain euro', and booklets like "Let's explore Europe" [26] give an over-simplified and one-sided account of the EU's actions in a given area, and engender the view (in some cases more subtly than others) that the future can only be safeguarded by a strong EU and by moving away from a focus on the nation state.
There is a specific and deliberate emphasis on education. The EU targets schoolchildren with initiatives such as 'Spring Day in Europe', celebrations of 'Europe Day', funded visits to the EU institutions, and posters advertising school milk subsidies.
There is the 885 million euro Youth in Action programme, for example, which "funds projects which are designed to encourage a sense of active European citizenship in young people"[27] and initiatives such as "Schools celebrating Europe", described by the Commission as "an opportunity to communicate about what the EU has achieved so far."[28]
The EU also invests heavily in higher education courses that specialise in 'European integration' studies through the Jean Monnet programme, as well as funding institutions that essentially train students for jobs in the EU civil service, such as the College of Europe. There is even a European Youth Parliament, described by its organisers as "bringing the European dream to the hearts and minds of young Europeans."[29]
5) EU propaganda: Why does it matter? What's the alternative?
The EU spends billions of euros every year promoting the EU and the concept of European integration because its leaders recognise that creating support for the project is the only way to ensure it can continue.
The series of recent 'no' votes to the EU Constitutional Treaty, and falling support for the EU across Europe have shown that there is a significant and growing gap between the EU institutions and its citizens.
But instead of confronting the EU's enormous and very real problems - such as the waste, corruption, lack of accountability and transparency, over-regulation, and poorly designed trade, aid, regional and environment policies - the EU chooses to throw huge amounts of money into what are essentially propaganda exercises.
There is a clear consensus within the EU institutions that if only people knew more about the "benefits" of the EU, then they would be more supportive of it. As the former President of the European Parliament and MEP Nicole Fontaine said in the aftermath of the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty, "We have a communications problem... We haven't explained enough the benefits of European construction... We have been too modest." [30]
It is true that people generally know very little about the EU, and the impact it has on citizens - and this has got to change. After all, the EU is now said to be at the root of an estimated 50% of our national legislation - at least - and affects almost every area of our daily lives.[31]
In an ideal world we all need to know what the EU is doing, and how it works. But so far, the European institutions have on the whole proved an unsuitable vehicle for providing that information.
Over the years, the EU's 'Communication Policy' has become less and less about giving people the facts, and more and more about selling the EU's policies and promoting the concept of EU integration. Not only that, but the vast resources poured into the EU's culture and citizenship activities are also used as a propaganda tool, as are some of the grants available to outside organisations through other areas of the EU budget.
There are several, important reasons why all of this matters and should be of concern to the public.
Why does it matter?
A) Much of it is subtle enough to pass under the public radar and not be considered advertising
One of the most worrying things about EU propaganda is that so much of it has been dressed up as something altogether more worthwhile - and therefore unidentifiable as advertising and promotion.
While the EU's communications and information budget is relatively simple to isolate, because most of it operates from DG Communications, the funds spent promoting the EU through culture and citizenship initiatives are not only less easy to identify as bias, but they are also less easy to quantify.
In this sense, the EU's huge yearly budget for promoting European citizenship and culture is arguably the worst kind of propaganda. Some might call it 'soft' propaganda, since it operates on a subconscious level. But this makes it all the more insidious as a taxpayer-funded public project.
B) The Commission pretends to be listening, but is selective about who it listens to
Particularly since the series of 'no' votes to the EU Constitution, the Commission has talked continuously about "giving the EU ears", listening to citizens and getting them involved in the process - which is clearly to be welcomed.
And yet the few times when citizens in their millions have genuinely been involved in having a say on the EU - the referendums in Ireland, Denmark, France and the Netherlands - EU leaders have sensationally ignored the wish of citizens to reject further EU integration.
The problem with the types of "listening" initiatives that the Commission advocates is that these are not realistically going to be taken up by most people - simply because they are not open to, nor targeted at, the mass of citizens. Instead, they target a minority of interested specialists and supporters - often the kinds of "civil society" organisations which, as well as receiving EU funding, usually also have an agenda to promote it.
C) Funding for outside organisations skews the debate
The EU's propaganda - and in particular the outsourced propaganda that results from the EU funding outside think-tanks and NGOs which share its vision - matters because it artificially skews the debate on the EU. Interest groups should be able and free to promote the EU if that is what they believe in, but there is no justification for giving them taxpayers' money to do so.
This gives them an unfair advantage over those trying to put forward a different argument. It is not in the public good for groups on one side of the argument only to be heavily supported by public funds, because it ends up stifling debate, and prevents citizens from seeing both sides of the argument fairly.
This is essentially a constraint on democracy - a huge and concerted campaign to stifle real debate about the future of the EU. The Commission is only interested in debating one side of the argument - it is willing to accept an 'exchange of views' only to the extent that this takes place solely within the parameters of an acceptance that EU integration is to be broadly supported.
D) The EU and its advocates deride opponents
It also matters because the EU and its strongest advocates are so vociferous in their attack on critics of the EU. Instead of being viewed as a legitimate element of a democratic debate, criticism of the EU is invariably derided as 'anti-European propaganda'. Meanwhile the EU enjoys a substantial yearly budget to promote itself in often subtle ways which go unnoticed as propaganda, yet which cost taxpayers billions of euros a year.
E) EU advertising falls short of UK Government standards
The EU and its strongest supporters show a fundamental failure to understand the difference between providing information about the EU, and promoting its 'benefits'. They simply refuse to separate the two concepts.
As EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom says: "The issue is not just one of redressing ignorance and indifference per se: it is about serving the needs of healthy democratic debate, and ensuring that people have the facts they require - and are entitled to... a sustained effort must be made to explain the benefits that the European Union brings to each Member State in a much more effective way."[32]
While it is true that people do not know enough about the EU, it is wrong to claim that telling people more about the benefits of the EU is a sufficient solution to this knowledge gap.
The EU's biased information campaigns should be of grave concern to taxpayers in member states, particularly in the UK where there are clear rules on government public information campaigns in order to ensure that taxpayers get value for money and that their money is not used for propaganda purposes.
In the UK, the Government is often criticised for spending taxpayers' money on what is billed as 'information', but which looks more like the government selling its political message. For example, the Labour Government was strongly criticised for its 2001 election campaign, which was accused of using taxpayers' money to explain how the party had brought certain people benefits while in government. If the public find this unacceptable, then they should also be concerned about the Commission's free reign to promote itself and its political message of 'ever closer union'.
F) In times of economic down-turn the EU can ill-afford to be wasting money on expensive advertising
The EU's total propaganda spend amounts to more than 2.4 billion euros a year - at the very least. This means that UK taxpayers are losing around 240 million euros a year to EU propaganda, given that average UK contributions to the EU budget make up roughly 10% of the total yearly budget.[33]
By comparison, in 2007/2008, the UK Government spent around £190 million on advertising in press, TV, radio and digital media advertising, out of the Central Office of Information's £392 million budget.[34]
Because of the nature of EU advertising, most people will be unaware that on top of this UK Government advertising, there is a parallel level of propaganda simultaneously operating at the European level, which they are also paying for through their taxes.
Even in the good times, all this is a waste of money. But at a time of recession, EU governments can ill-afford to be wasting money on biased publications and campaigns and propping up hundreds of think-tanks which exist to campaign for more EU integration.
G) A distraction from the EU's real problems
Depending on how one views it, at best, all of this is an enormous waste of time and money - an ineffective and vain attempt to engender support for something about which people on the whole care very little. At worst, it is a deeply sinister EU propaganda campaign which will in the long run eliminate naysayers, undermining democracy and stopping people from having a truly independent view about the EU.
Somewhere in between, is probably where the main point lies. The wider problem is that this 'information' and 'citizenship' drive is a dangerous distraction. EU leaders misguidedly think that all they need to do to solve Europe's problems is to "explain it better", to close the "perceived" gap between citizens and the EU, rather than the real gap that is often caused not by public "misperceptions" of the EU, but by a genuine realisation that it is fundamentally undemocratic and unsuccessful in so many of its key policies.
Regardless of whether any of these efforts actually achieve their aim of convincing people that the EU is successful and positive, spending time and money on spin leaves fewer resources available for the reform of its policies and processes that the EU so badly needs.
H) Storing up problems for the future
The other, illogical thing about the EU's propaganda drive is that it threatens to backfire in the long term and alienate people all the more.
The falling popularity of the EU across Europe, not to mention the rejections of the Constitutional Treaty in France, the Netherlands and Ireland, point to deep dissatisfaction with the EU and the direction it is taking. Ignoring this sentiment in favour of a contention that people simply do not know enough about the EU to be grateful for it, is a mistake, which will serve to further discredit the EU in the long run.
What's the alternative?
Taxpayers' money should not continue to be spent on biased EU information campaigns and efforts to engender EU culture and citizenship for the purpose of promoting European integration.
There is clearly a strong case to be made for improving citizens' knowledge of the EU, but this can be done without resorting to propaganda. There are also several key ways in which the EU could improve its image with the public, to an extent that expensive propaganda never can.
A) Stop propaganda spending by cutting back the EU budget
Future EU budget agreements should concentrate on scaling back spending on these initiatives.
Because of its clear mandate to promote the EU, the European Commission's DG Communications department should be scrapped, saving more than 200m euros a year. Other Commission departments responsible for policy areas could continue to have modest budgets to publish literature and information for journalists, while a budget should also be kept for broadcasting 'raw' events such as meetings of the European Parliament, and press conferences etc for public channels. A separate department dedicated purely to communications as currently exists, is superfluous.
Likewise, the EU's 1.5 billion euro yearly budget for 'Education and Culture'[35] should be dramatically scaled back, scrapping expensive campaigns to "foster European citizenship" and other initiatives which exist for the purpose of promoting the EU.
The EU's various budgets for outside organisations must be reviewed and dramatically cut back. All funding for think-tanks and groups which actively promote EU integration should be ceased. If their views represent public opinion then they will find private funders who share their views and are willing to make up lost Commission funds.
All the remaining EU-funded organisations should be listed online on a clear and easy to access website, with details of the funds they receive and how the funds were spent. The granting of taxpayers' money to outside organisations must be made more transparent.
B) Improve citizens' interest and understanding of the EU by promoting transparency and genuine debate
In terms of improving the flow and quality of information to citizens, this could be achieved by on the one hand, improving EU transparency - allowing journalists, MPs and the general public better access to documents and meetings during the legislative process - and on the other, improving national parliamentary scrutiny of EU decision-making, which would also serve to improve media coverage and therefore citizens' understanding of the issues.
There should also be a clear set of binding guidelines for EU literature and campaigns, upheld by a small, independent body seeking to ensure that EU taxpayers' money is not used to 'sell' EU policies or ideas, but to publish neutral information which genuinely seeks to keep citizens informed of the facts.
Likewise, national governments must do more to ensure that teaching about the EU in schools is more neutral and balanced. There is a clear argument to be made for improving children's understanding of the EU, but this must not be allowed to become a one-sided propaganda exercise that focuses only on the "benefits" of European integration, as it clearly has.
Finally, the EU must be more open to the idea of directly consulting national populations about the issues that affect them. EU politicians talk endlessly about wanting to "listen to citizens", but are increasingly hostile to the idea of giving people a say on EU issues through national referendums. This is because they fear a growing tendency to reject further EU integration, as seen in the recent French, Dutch and Irish 'no' votes.
But in fact, if EU leaders are serious about wanting to engage citizens more in the EU process and improve their knowledge and understanding of the EU, as they claim they are, then they should make far more use of referendums, not less. Research shows that voters' lack of information about the EU is a result of too little, rather than too much democracy.
According to polls taken in countries that have held referendums on European integration, such as Ireland, France and Denmark, respondents could answer twice as many questions correctly about EU institutions as could respondents from Germany, Italy and Belgium - countries that had not held referendums on the EU. In fact, a representative sample of Danish voters during the 1992 referendum campaign on the Maastricht Treaty showed they actually knew more about the treaty than the average backbench MP. [36]
There also needs to be more respect for the results that referendums deliver. The EU could dramatically improve its reputation with the public by genuinely listening and respecting 'no' votes as well as the 'yes' votes. It is simply hypocritical if, on the one hand, the Commission talks continuously about wanting to listen to citizens, and on the other, EU leaders simultaneously ignore votes they dislike in order to press ahead with their agenda for 'ever closer union', in which they so passionately believe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Coca Cola 2007 Annual Report http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/investors/pdfs/10-K_2007/Coca-Cola_10-K_Item_07.pdf [2] http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/68/en.pdf [3] http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/56/en.pdf [4] http://ec.europa.eu/snapshot2007/index_en.htm [5] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0350en02.pdf [6] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0350en02.pdf [7] http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/others/65/en.doc [8] See http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/barroso-courts-irish-ahead-eu-treaty-referendum/article-171741 [9] See http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_300_full_en.pdf and http://www.openeurope.org.uk/commissionpoll.pdf [10] http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2008/lisbondocument/index.pdf [11] http://www.bcc.ie/decisions_details/Mar%202007/288.06%20289.06%20290.06%20Mr.%20A%20Coughlan%20Summary%20Complaint.doc [12] http://www.europeanmovement.org/history.cfm [13] The exact sum is 2,552,005 euros. European Parliamentary Question 4449/07 to 4455/07: Summary of Payments by Legal Entity 2005-2006-2007 [14] 21 January 2008, Hansard, Column 1241 [15] Combination of two answers: http://www.ireland.com/focus/2008/eu-payments/agora.pdf and Written Answer from the Commission 21/02/2008, following Written Question P-0389/08 by Dan Hanan [16] http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2008/08/chris-heaton-ha.html [17] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/P2009_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN16E0D/index.html [18] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:378:0032:0040:EN:PDF [19] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006D1855:EN:HTML [20] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2008_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN16E0D/index.html [21] Speech at the European Commission conference "35th anniversary of the Eurobarometer", Paris, 21 November 2008 [22] http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/action1/measure11_en.html [23] http://www.britishcouncil.org/greece-sport-marathon-for-a-united-europe.htm [24] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2004:0101:FIN:EN:DOC [25] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0350en02.pdf [26] http://ec.europa.eu/publications/young/letsexplore2008/en.pdf [27] http://ec.europa.eu/youth/youth-policies/doc28_en.htm [28] http://www.europeanschoolnet.org/ww/en/pub/eun/portals/spring_day.htm [29] http://www.eypej.org/docs/2007_EYP_Annual_Report.pdf [30] Speech at the European Commission conference "35th anniversary of the Eurobarometer", Paris, 21 November 2008 [31] Government Written Answer, January 2006 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snia-02888.pdf Other estimates suggest the proportion is higher, such as that of the German Ministry of Justice which suggested it was closer to 84%: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/analysis/herzog.pdf [32] Speech, 24 May 2005 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/296&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en [33] The EU's Financial Framework for 2007 to 2013 is 864.169bn euros: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0152:FIN:EN:PDF The UK's contribution over the seven-year period is 89.95bn euros (£71bn. gross, after abatement): http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/budget07.pdf (Source: Written Answer, 9 Jan 2006. Past figures from Pink Book 2005 table 9.9) [34] COI annual report http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/coi-annualreport2007-8.pdf See also Telegraph, 10 November 2008 [35] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2008_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN16E0D/index.html [36] "Can we trust the people? Voter competence and European integration" by Professor Matt Qvortrup http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/qvortrup.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: mats@openeurope.org.uk To unsubscribe, go to: http://openeu.bluestatedigital.com/unsubscribe