New episode in television’s lengthy saga

Date: 07/12/1995

By Fiona McHugh

WHEN the EU's 15 culture ministers reached agreement last month on the future of Europe's controversial broadcasting regime, after almost a year of wrangling, most Television Without Frontiers viewers heaved a sigh of relief.

The denouement had been something of a let down - ministers had simply agreed to leave quota laws unchanged - but at least, or at last, the curtains had dropped on a saga which, like the OJ Simpson trial, seemed to have dragged on for ever.

But those sighs may now turn to groans, as yet another twist to the tale is revealed.

In reaching political agreement on the directive three months before the European Parliament delivered its verdict, ministers have triggered a furious inter-institutional row.

Under Maastricht Treaty co-decision rules, the Council of Ministers should come to an agreement only after the Parliament has had its say.

By jumping the gun, MEPs feel that the Council has sidelined them, presenting them with a fait accompli rather than engaging in genuine legislative discussions.

Adding insult to injury, Spanish Culture Commissioner Marcelino Oreja pledged allegiance to the deal after it won ministerial support, turning his back on the Commission's proposed revisions which would have tightened Europe's quota regime by removing a legal loophole.

The latter is believed to be the Parliament's preferred option and it is expected to call for the Council's decision to be reversed when it votes on some 250 amendments to the directive during its January plenary session.

With Rome's commitment to quotas less than certain, most observers believe the Council wanted to push the directive through before Italy took over the EU presidency. In so doing, however, it has trampled on too many MEPs' toes.

“They usurp the Parliament's position at their peril,” warned the Socialist culture spokeswoman Carole Tongue. “They do not have a monopoly on wisdom in this affair. We are taking this extremely seriously.”

Parliament is expected to reinstate the Commission's proposed revisions and go to the barricades, forcing conciliation meetings if ministers do not agree to take at least some of them on board.

Meanwhile, on a nearby stage, another drama is unfolding, this time pitting parliamentarians against parliamentarians.

Ironically, it is the EU-US round table, founded to defuse post-GATT tension between film industries from the two trading blocs, which has sparked the dispute.

That round table brings together film makers from both sides of the Atlantic to work out non-legislative ways of breathing life into the EU's flagging film industry, among other things.

The idea is to replace the shouting matches which characterised debates on the status of cultural goods at the 1989 GATT negotiations, with a new mutually-beneficial spirit of cooperation.

On that front, it can be deemed a success so far, with frosty transatlantic cinematic relations clearly thawing in recent months.

The most dramatic sign of that warmth was the decision by Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association, to abandon confrontational tactics at a recent industry meeting where he passionately defended European films and culture.

But, despite its success, the venture has provoked heated reactions from a number of MEPs, who feel they have been side-stepped once again, this time by industry professionals hoping to hammer out deals among themselves.

Euro MPs Alan Donnelly and Mary Banotti, who were members of the EU-US parliamentary delegation at the GATT talks and now chair the round table, have come under fire from colleagues who accuse them of shrouding the round table in secrecy and kowtowing to Hollywood in return for its dollars. Those accusations have been vehemently denied by both.

“This is not a buy-off. It is, quite simply, the beginning of a relationship between industry people in the EU and the US. I do not know why they are getting so excited. It has nothing to do with the culture committee or the Parliament for that matter. We are simply there to chair the meeting. It makes more sense for both sides to address their fears head on,” said Banotti.