Stop lying about the European Union

The Financial Times

If national governments habitually blame interference from Brussels for their economic ills, then it should come as no surprise that electorates eventually believe them. This happened in the UK some time ago and it is happening on the European continent now. The kind of Europe that political leaders such as Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac regularly portray a conspiracy of free-market zealots out to destroy social justice is a Europe that holds few attractions to continental European electorates.

The No votes in France and the Netherlands last week were partially the result of a long history of political misinformation and ritual abuse of European institutions by governments. The cause of many of the EU's present difficulties is persistent dishonesty and misinformation about Europe.

Governments have failed to explain the full implications of large-scale European projects, such as the single market and monetary union. They oversold it, underplayed the risks and hardly talked about the political and economic consequences in any depth. Persistent claims that the single market and the euro would raise economic growth are evidently at odds with the economic reality as perceived, for example, by Dutch voters. Rightly or wrongly, they hold the introduction of the euro responsible for price rises and for the country's poor economic performance. Governments also failed to warn their peoples of the need for domestic reforms. They committed themselves to the stability and growth pact and the Lisbon agenda of economic reforms, and later ignored both.

Governments also misled their electorates about the political and economic consequences of EU enlargement. The political rationale for past and future enlargement - the need to stabilise democracy in eastern Europe - barely surfaced in many national political debates. Governments have also avoided a detailed debate about the economic consequences, while several opposition leaders found EU enlargement an ideal pretext to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment.

Most governments have failed to explain to their electorates what Europe is for, what it should do and what it should not. Few politicians admit publicly that they need the EU to solve problems common to all member states, such as dealing with economic shocks or improving the operations of the single market. And they hate to admit that some of these policies cost money.

Governments need to explain to their electorates what the EU does, in a factual way. There is far too little public information available through the media and national institutions about the EU's day-to-day operations. It is an irony that of all recent EU projects, electorates chose to turn against the constitution, the result of one of the most transparent processes ever undertaken at EU level. It was drafted by a convention that included members of national parliaments and governments and the European parliament. All this suggests that we are witnessing the climax of a process that went wrong some while ago.

It is a further irony that at a time when more and more policies are conducted at EU level, the political debate has remained as national as ever. This is a great pity. There are many political and ideological conflicts that divide Europeans, among them the conflict between supporters of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and their opponents. A greater degree of honesty is not sufficient to overcome these divisions. But it is necessary.