Much ado about nothing

Date: 10/10/1996

EUROPEAN leaders proved in Dublin last weekend that summits don't have to be controversial, ground-breaking, earth-moving and shattering to be considered a success.

The 15 heads of state and government simply pushed the process of European integration quietly forward. They came, they saw, they concurred.

Or did they? Forget all you've read in other newspapers. Only European Voice takes you behind the scenes to find out what really goes on when our leaders take a Euro-package weekend break together. A Voicebox researcher put one summit veteran in the witness box:

What really happened at the Dublin summit?

Nothing.

So why did all those journalists attend the meeting?

In case something happened.

But didn't the presidency say before it happened that nothing would happen?

Yes, but you can't believe everything politicians say.

If nothing was going to happen, why did they lay on special facilities for the media?

Good point. Because although they didn't want something to happen, they would have been mortified if the media had taken them at their word and had not turned up.

But I thought Ireland's Prime Minister John Bruton was crystal clear about the fact that nothing was going to happen?

You must mean his address to Euro MPs last month when he said that it would be wrong to expect government leaders to make dramatic decisions all the time, and that they needed a pause to reflect on things, to chat informally, without all the attendant pressure to produce results.

Yes, that's the one. Surely that was a clear, unequivocal signal to the relentless ratpack to stay away for once and let our elected representatives get on with their work out of the glare of the media spotlight?

No, no, no! You don't understand. Bruton was laying the groundwork for a trouble-free knees-up with his Euro-chums. He would be horrified if we didn't turn up. So would the others. This way they get the best of both worlds.

What do you mean?

Well, they bask in the media spotlight, key players on the world stage, et cetera, and yet they have a cast-iron alibi for not producing any results. This is what we mean by power without responsibility.

Is that why all the usual facilities were laid on for the press?

Of course. These days the press arrangements are the first to be organised. Remember Cannes last year? Who had the use of changing huts on the beach? Who had the hot and cold running wine vats? The press, not the politicians.

But the politicians got to stay at the million-dollar-a-night Carlton Hotel, while the hacks were lodged in more modest accommodation away from the Croisette.

Yes, that was a bit of an oversight. It won't happen again.

But this is all a bit of a farce isn't it? The presidency says nothing will happen, but the press turn up anyway and make something out of nothing.

Depends on your definition of nothing. There is some truth in the maxim that where two or three scribes and cameramen are gathered together, there shall be a story. But it's equally true that you can't have 15 heads of state and government assembled in one place at one time without anything happening at all.

Why not?

Just because.

Because what?

Because it didn't work in the past. There was a time when these so-called informal meetings were deemed to be press-free zones and so there were no facilities at all.

So nobody went?

No. Everybody went.The hacks camped on the roadside outside the meetings until someone was delegated to come out and say “no comment”. There were terrible scenes. Ministers trying to get away without speaking or being spoken to.

And what was the result?

Speculative and damaging stories appeared about crucial talks being conducted behind closed doors.

So now they let you in?

Sort of. The idea is that they can keep more control and get a better press if the hacks are organised, monitored and fed and watered than if they turn up at random and are left to guess what is happening.

But we've just agreed that often nothing happens.

Yes, but that's not really good enough.

Why not?

Because we've made a lot of effort to get to these summits. We've queued for hours at airport check-in desks, we've suffered undue panic when our accreditation badges went missing, we've run out of money paying taxis to take us to hotels 3 million kilometres away from the press centre. We don't get chauffeur-driven limousines and police escorts with wailing sirens, you know. We've had to make all our own arrangements.

All right, all right. It's a tough life. But let's get this straight. The presidency says nothing will happen. The press turns up anyway in case something does happen. When nothing happens, they get restless and decide that something has happened anyway. This is a vicious circle isn't it?

Not at all. It's a social circle.

Very well. What was the purpose of this meeting last weekend at which nothing happened?

To review progress at the Intergovernmental Conference.

And?

And have a couple of decent meals and some very fine vino.

No. I mean, and what else?

Oh. And not much else. Over dinner there was some chat about what government leaders and foreign ministers did on their holidays and what tricky people the Middle East lot are and that kind of thing.

And why did our leaders reach no decisions on the IGC? And what about the single currency?

You haven't been listening. This was just an IGC review, a summit to chat things over before the second summit in December.

Second summit?

Yes. Dublin Two.

Pardon?

Dublin Two. What we've just had was Dublin One where nothing happened. Dublin One discussed Maastricht Two, but not Stage Three. That's not what it was for.

Dublin Two, in December, is intended to make things happen. It will try and make progress on Maastricht Two, but by then there will be strong pressure to consider a Maastricht Three. Meanwhile there will be increasing concern about transforming Stage Two into Stage Three. The point is, Dublin Two is where progress will be made. Possibly.

So what does it all mean?

What do you mean, what does it all mean?

Well, what did the summit achieve? Was it worth all the cost?

Of course it was worth the cost. Some of the hacks had never been to Dublin before and they got to see a very fine European city on company expenses.

Yes but what did the summit itself achieve?

Nothing. It wasn't meant to. That was the whole point. I don't think you've understood this at all.

Nor do I.