Clearing the air of EU gobbledegook

Date: 22/01/1998

Rory Watson reports on efforts to blow away the mists of Euro-jargon THERE was a time when fog used to be what separated the UK from the rest of Europe

Now it is what is generated by the opaque language of Euro-jargon which isolates the Union's leaders, and in particular its institutions, from its citizens. Instead of encouraging understanding, this particular linguistic form can actually cause bewilderment, confusion and even alienation.

In a bid to 'fight the fog', the European Commission's translation service is organising a series of meetings during the UK's six-month presidency of the Union to draw attention to the problems - and dangers - of Eurospeak.

The UK government is adopting a similar approach. It is hosting a seminar involving member states and the Commission in March on "Better government, more effective regulation", at which one of the major themes will be the need to make legislation simpler.

This is not the first time that attention has been drawn to the dangers of a small group of Brussels-oriented movers and shakers speaking a language which is readily understandable to themselves, but which prompts blank stares and yawns when used among a wider audience.

"The troika system needs an overhaul and there must be more QMV if CFSP is to operate effectively, particularly when the PECOs join," or "More JHA issues should be moved from the third pillar to the first," is easily understood by someone steeped in the EU world who can use jargon as a form of convenient shorthand. But it is gobbledegook to the rest of the world.

The realisation that the EU was losing contact with its public first came to the fore in 1992 as the Union digested and analysed the unpalatable decision of Danish voters to reject the Maastricht Treaty.

Gradually, policy-makers realised that they had failed to explain in understandable terms why the Union was going in certain directions and they could no longer take it for granted that a compliant electorate would passively walk down the path marked out for it.

That took concrete shape in the declaration which emerged from the Birmingham European summit in October 1992. It deliberately used clear, understandable language and acknowledged: "As a community of democracies, we can only move forward with the support of our citizens. We are determined to respond to the concerns raised in the recent public debate."

EU leaders also agreed that they wanted Union legislation to become "simpler and clearer". Almost five years later, they echoed similar sentiments at their Amsterdam summit last June. Had nothing changed?

In one sense, EU language has moved in the direction which Union leaders indicated in Birmingham.

"There has been some improvement. Over the last two to three years, the Commission has been putting out material which is more accessible and easier to read," says Dr Ben Tonra, a lecturer in the department of international politics at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth.

This change is evident in the formal Commission press releases put out by its spokesman's group. For the first time, authors of the texts were last year given an official style guide, designed to ensure consistency and clarity of presentation in the information handed out to EU journalists.

It contains much sensible advice, including the direction to use clear, simple, accessible non-bureaucratic language; to keep sentences short, use everyday words and the active voice wherever possible; to avoid administrative jargon and terms specific to one sector or field; never to refer to documents or treaty articles without providing an explanation; and to avoid unusual expressions and words which are ambiguous or untranslatable. It ends with a tip from a major newspaper's own style guide: "Clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought. So think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible."

The view that improvements have been made is shared by the director of the UK's Consumers in Europe Group, Stephen Crampton, who has taken a special interest over the years in denouncing particularly glaring examples of EU jargon. "The quality of general communications has become better, but you are still getting legislation which is not clear. The comprehensibility and clarity of draft legislation is an important element in the way the Union consults with outside bodies and acts and relates towards its citizens," he says.

As a result, there is now a growing distinction between the language used by the EU institutions in information aimed at a wider audience and the terminology used in legislative texts, although the Commission has also made attempts to make the latter more digestible.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Amsterdam Treaty. Despite repeated pledges to make the text more user-friendly, EU governments finally agreed a document which, if anything, is even more difficult to penetrate than its Maastricht predecessor.

Article K 13, which specifies "Articles 137, 138, 138e, 139 to 142, 148 (3), 150 to 153, 157 to 163, 191a and 217 of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply to the provisions relating to the areas referred to in this Title", is just one example which should convince any normal readers that their sanity would be sorely tested if they devoted any further attention to the treaty.

The only improvements introduced into drafts of the Amsterdam Treaty - which no longer feature in the final, official version - were a forward written in day-to-day language setting out the main objectives of the exercise, and a useful index to guide users to the relevant treaty articles.

On the other hand, the popularised details highlighting the salient points of the treaty which the Commission's own information department put out in brochures and on the Internet within hours of the Amsterdam agreement were highly readable and accessible.

In one sense, the problem may be insoluble, given that the final texts are a compromise largely between officials and lawyers. "EU legal texts are written by lower diplomats for lower diplomats and in a way they have to be. Part of the problem is the process. You have a constitution, but it is written as if it were secondary legislation. The nature of diplomacy forces this kind of abuse of language," says Tonra.

In the Union, that legislative process is even more complex than at national level. A Commission proposal may initially emerge in a relatively coherent form (although even that is by no means guaranteed), but by the time it has been picked over by EU governments and MEPs, its final contents may be deliberately open to different interpretations, particularly if its approval depends on a last-minute compromise between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

To some, this is a fact of EU life. But Crampton disagrees. "By hiding behind obscure language, you are only moving the problem down the line. You may get agreement, but you have not met your objective and have not solved the problem," he insists.

"Any argument over interpretation may be referred to the European Court of Justice and the judges may issue a decision which might not be in line with what the legislators originally intended."

Others have suggested that EU jargon is a useful device to disguise the vacuity or shallowness of certain policies, and as such is an inevitable weapon in any official or politician's armoury.

Crampton agrees, but goes even further. "Sometimes, you can use jargon to hide a large degree of substance, especially on agricultural proposals where a text refers back to different earlier items of legislation and prevents people from realising what exactly is at stake," he says.

Another unavoidable factor working against the cause of clear EU terminology is language. With a dozen official Union languages, and possibly more in the offing, there is wide scope for simply adopting a term from another culture, if the concept does not readily exist in ones own language.

In the early days of the Union, French was the principal well from which others pulled out new words such as subsidiarity, obligatory expenditure and infractions. Now English or, more precisely, American is proving a source.

There is little doubt that the tide is flowing in the general direction of greater clarity, but the process still faces the inevitable obstacles of laziness and the inherent structure of the EU.

"Complex language is part of the diplomatic process of seeking compromise and coming up with 'weasel' words. The EU process is still a diplomatic one and only when it becomes a political system will the language fundamentally change. Then people will be dealing with ideas, and greater clarity will be needed as the public will have to be engaged in the process," predicts Tonra.

Major feature on efforts to blow away the mists of Euro-jargon.