Give transparency a chance!
David Rennie is arguing on his blog that the attempt to introduce transparency in EU proceedings is a failure. This is because letting the cameras into meetings prevents deals and compromises from being made, resulting in all the “productive” discussions being taken during the unfilmed lunch.
Rennie goes on to explain that journalists know what goes on in these lunches anyway so there are no secrets. He compares the filming of meetings to the attendance of the CEO to a regular meeting, and asks “just how much really useful work would you get done?”
But the failure is not transparency. As Rennie rightly alludes to, the failure is the leaders themselves - they are unwilling to discuss things openly for political reasons. Because of this, transparency will not help to improve relations with citizens nor change the public’s view towards the EU.
So does this mean that we should get rid of the cameras?
Although the journalists might know what goes on, they often fail (I admit it’s often the fault of the editor/owner of the paper rather than the journalist) to pass this on to the rest of us. If it was passed on then clearly there would be no point in discussing things off camera because we would know what those discussions consisted of.
Also let us not forget that this is a “big” step for EU leaders who are used to late night back room deals. It takes time to adjust. If the CEO turned up to one meeting, that would clearly put you off. If the CEO was a regular attendee, then you would get used to their presence, interact with them and frankly the company would probably benefit.
But for transparency to succeed our leaders must stop assuming that people are not able to comprehend EU proceedings or understand that compromise is necessary and not a sign of weakness. They must accept that the EU should not continue as an elite and secretive project. So let’s give transparency a chance.