EU: a plea for elitism

Why do the British media - specifically the London-based editors of the British media - ignore Europe when 80 percent of legislation originates from there?
John Palmer, a kind of eminence grise of foreign correspondents, ex Guardian, now European policy centre, spoke to a group of British political journalists a few weeks ago about this issue which bothers a lot of people in the EU institutions and obsesses British journalists in Brussels, who see their stuff not published or distorted when it reaches its editorial destination.
Palmer blames three things: a issued confused, and therefore not debated, in people's as well as editors' minds, as to whether Britain is in Europe or not. He blames an attachment to the heroic past - the victorious Good wars, the Empire.
Second, the increasingly aggressive commercial environment which prioritises entertainment over news in the Anglo-Saxon media.
The Express used to have 15 correspondents on the continent of Europe. Now it has none. When they do - increasingly rarely - attack the affairs of the continent's political capital, it's not based on events on the ground, but is a London imagined music hall routine. Third, the EU is hugely important but its growth in powers has not been matched by an equivalent growth in democratic culture. What goes on in Brussels is really diffuse, complex and difficult to fit into a headline. There is no political play of conflicting democratic forces through which issues can be brought out into the open and voters given a clear choice.
These factors, acting partly in conscious, partly in a preconscious, manner, all contribute to the failure of editors to commission reports from Brussels.

So how can the British media report Europe more? Well, a first solution would be the break-up of Britain, the state that represents “victory in the second world war”, “empire” and all the rest of it. Scotland has an election on May 3 and the Scottish nationalists may win and put the country down the road to independence - and if that happens, Palmer predicts, rump-UK will also shed its imperial identity and attendant froideur towards the continent and instead embrace it. Palmer secondly proposes making Europe itself more democratic, so the voters will require of the newspapers more information as to what is actually going on. There ought to be elections for a European president, and party programmes across Europe of trans national parties.

My opinion is that there's too much of an automatic assumption about the importance of mass journalism, and in the sense I include broadsheets also for reasons that will become clear, in a contribution to good governance, which is surely the desired endpoint. (Only the journalist cares about the byline count.)
The EU has always been a relatively little written about oligarchy (posh name for smoke filled rooms politics), since its early days of incredibly complex lawmaking. And it's worked: peace, free trade, labour, movement of capital. Its set the structure in place to do so for years to come, in areas such as environment where sovereignty must be pooled and free trade where standards must be common, in such a way that common prosperity and competitiveness is promoted while leaving the fundamental rights of each nation unharmed.
Palmer doesnt think so; I do.
Now, suppose you told people tomorrow that we have to have elections for pan European parties. Its cloud cuckooland to believe the British people would put with it. Or even, with respect, the English after Scottish secession. It's not going to happen.
Even if it were - it's not but if it were - it would not produce the end point of better governance.
In its areas of remit, the European parliament engages in unusually complex, expert issues. MEPs have been heard to complain that it is impossible to ascertain whether .15% of nickel is more dangerous than a concentration of 0.20% in rechargeable batteries; or whether the open skies agreement is actually any good. And they spend all their time on these issues. But they have many advisers (and lobbyists, and interest and expert organisations) There is also a system of checks and balances, with informed and highly qualified European civil servants, as well as members of national governments, examining and debating the issues in the Brussels political forums. It is a system which has evolved over fifty years, and works: There are plenty of checks and balances involved, for those concerned about the lessons of authoritarian government.
The Palmer plan for better Europe, better governance (let us charitably assume his interest in greater media coverage is incidental) presupposes several unlikely or untested eventualities. Set against this we have a Europe that is run by an expanding oligarchy if you like.
Most people's lives are centred on a few basic facts - hobbies, families, work, all the usual things, and are happy to leave a lot to trust, via a network of civil society - watchdogs, journalists, civil associations. politicians, industry to look after them; it's a network that expands outwards, like tendrils of trust that connect, in turn, from these professional, to the a network of likes, sometimes formally, sometimes not, based inside Brussels, So while it is an oligarchy, very few things happen there truly against the wishes of people.
At the moment, British satisfaction ratings with the EU are at their highest in a long time: probably because its advantages are making themselves felt – the skilled immigration, the cheap flights. And this despite coverage of EU affairs is at an all time low in the British media. How so? Because while people are happy with the EU doing these things, it doesn’t want to know how it goes about it. Most people are similarly uninterested in the mechanics of their cars as long as it conveys them from A to B. Pace John Palmer, newspapers that have to sell hundreds of thousands of copies a day have to reflect that lack of curiosity.
Becauyse most people are more interested in results than in process, for that reason the EU will continue to best run on their behalfs by the elite.

That said, some people - elite people of all types, politically highly interested people - would want an ongoing wonks' account to Brussels, understand the structure of the political process, understand the personalities at play and work, in order to exercise influence, all written in an investigative, satirical, witty, insightful and authoritative way. It will involve the best writers understand the most essential issues. That magazine is Machiavelli.