Conclusions

Abstract

The so-called “EU communications gap” theory holds that the lack of popular political engagement with European-level politics (understanding engagement as information and participation in elections) can be attributed to the senders and the mediators of EU politics — that is, on the one hand, to the EU and national leaders and institutions and, on the other, to the journalists and the (national or regional) news media. If the EU communications operations were organised more professionally and were sufficiently resourced in terms of staff and expertise; if national leaders explained to their respective public that their governments are coresponsible for EU decisions; if journalists were better trained and paid enough attention to European politics, connecting local issues with European-level debates; if national news media devoted more coverage to EU institutions and Eurosceptic bias were removed from their lenses… if all of these mediation gaps were fixed, the communications deficit theory holds, Europeans would have a more balanced view of EU politics and would be more aware of the interconnection between all of the levels of the multilayered European polity. As a consequence, their level of political information and electoral participation would be greater. There might be some truth in all of these theoretical tenets, but in this book I have attempted to show that the main problem with popular engagement regarding EU politics has less to do with communications than with systemic and cultural features.