With just over a year to go until the European elections, on Monday 3 June in London, Business for New Europe and the European Parliament Information Office brought together senior policy makers, journalists and economists to look ahead to next year’s European elections, the potential results, as well as the impact on the future of the EU from 2014.

Kicking off the panel discussion, Guy Verhofstadt, Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe, said a “new fundamental law for the EU” would be necessary to secure the bloc’s future stability. The former Belgian Prime Minister called for “a more integrated Europe” to address the inherent failure in how it is governed. He warned that in 20-25 years, not one EU country will be a member of the G8. The future of the EU, he argued, must therefore entail a reinvention of sovereignty at a European level if it is to prosper in an increasingly globalised world.

Professor Anand Menon of King’s College London, cautioned against a rushed push towards further integration. The EU, he said, is changing, and members need to change their relationship with it, not least because of the different regulatory requirements of those inside and outside the eurozone. Menon noted that the current political climate presented a golden opportunity for David Cameron and other European leaders to secure valuable reforms such as the repatriation of more powers to national parliaments. However, the PM’s strategy of distancing himself from the forums where decisions are made, while still saying he wants reform, was “barking mad.” He went on to say that though a referendum on UK membership of the EU is “unavoidable,” treaty change will remain unlikely due to the reluctance of EU leaders to go to the polls.

Emma Reynolds MP, the Shadow Europe Minister, agreed with Professor Menon that it was important the UK remains engaged with the EU, describing the constant talk of a referendum as a “distraction.” She argued that both economically and politically, it was in the UK and EU’s interests that the former did not leave the fold, touting Justice and Home Affairs as an example of an issue area the UK could lead to the benefit of all parties. Ms. Reynolds dismissed the most likely alternatives to full membership, describing the Norwegian model as a “fax democracy,” and the Swiss model as being entirely unworkable due to the number of bilateral agreements that would have to be signed. The shadow minister said that what the public really cared about were jobs, welfare, and the economy, and that an in/out referendum should only be held in the event of a significant treaty change.

However, for Conservative MEP Martin Callanan, the crucial issue facing the EU was the lack of a common identity, what he called a “demos.” He went on to say that “democracy means an affinity with institutions, a common space, but that doesn’t exist.” Despite this, Professor Simon Hix, Head of the Department of Government at the London School of Economics, suggested that next year’s European elections could help remedy this. While the election of MEPs usually serves as a sort of mid-term poll for the government, factors such as the eurocrisis, the rise of euroscepticism, and that there will be rival candidates for the European Commission presidency, should increase the salience of the EU in voters’ minds. He went on to say that the elections were an opportunity to change the debate on Europe and give people the opportunity to decide what kind of EU they really want.

David Cameron and Donald Tusk (Photo: Gazeta.pl)

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk took a big political gamble when he conceded the principle of holding a referendum on Polish euro membership on March 26.

Pressure from the opposition pushed him into it and the repercussions could be far reaching.

When Poland joined the EU in 2004, it did so without any opt-out from the euro.

Poland – like other new joiners – is legally bound to join the euro when it meets the economic criteria. Strictly speaking, they have no choice in the matter, just flexibility as to when.

The latter flexibility effectively gives Poland a veto, but no new joiner has explicitly said it will resile from its treaty obligations and not join the euro, so this is new.

This will be watched very closely by David Cameron because he is similarly pushing the terms of the UK’s EU membership to the limits. He will welcome any other member state that shakes up the existing order in the EU.

Donald Tusk made the concession as he sought to gain sufficient parliamentary support to alter an element of the Polish constitution, requiring national currency to be issued by the Polish National Bank.

Public opinion in Poland has traditionally been very much in favour of the euro; it had been seen as a means to guarantee Polish economic security, but, recent polls suggest that the euro crisis has turned Poles from enthusiasts – with 60% backing Euro membership in recent years, into pessimists – with only 25% now in favour of joining and 68% against.

Polish pessimism is in line with the current surge in scepticism in mainstream politics and populist movements across Europe. Many have come to associate the EU and the euro with crisis. The subsequent rush to integrate as remedy to these crises has been seen at worst as anti-democratic and lacking in popular legitimacy.  Brussels and the single currency have come to many to represent the cause, rather than the solution, to their problems.

Euro-scepticism, was traditionally a preserve of politics on the margins, but has gained political traction throughout the EU. In the UK, hard-line euro-sceptics ‘UKIP’ have never been stronger, consistently polling at 17%. Scepticism, however, is no longer confined to fringe movements; the issue is now core for centrist parties in the UK who fear losing votes to parties like UKIP that are striking a chord with voters.

Developments in countries like the Netherlands (where two-thirds now believe the EU to be anti-democratic) or Germany, which has produced its first explicit anti-EU party ‘Alternative for Germany’, have shown a desire to challenge orthodoxy. In Southern Europe populist movements like Beppe Grillo’s 5 Star Movement in Italy and Syriza in Greece have gained popular support.

In Poland, Donald Tusk intends to fight his 2015 election campaign from a pro-EU stance and on entry into the single currency, confident that a strong public relations campaign can sway public opinion as it did pre accession (78% in favour). But what if people vote no? It will cause a de-facto constitutional crisis in the EU.

With a Polish exit from the EU unlikely, a no vote would probably require a renegotiation or redefinition or Poland’s place within the EU.

For now, Polish membership is very much linked to entry into the single currency, as Tusk states, by the end of the decade “being in the euro, will mean being in the European Union,” but the consequences of promising a referendum will be watched very closely in Downing Street.

As we – and many others – wrote last week, Mark 1 of the Cyprus deal was a complete shambles. The fact that the Troika and the Cypriot government arrived at the right conclusion in deal Mark 2 was a relief for the markets, but we should not move on from this without looking at the lessons that need to be learned.

The departure of the crisis-hardened Jean-Claude Juncker as head of the eurogroup left a gap in experience which probably contributed to the remarkable oversight that raiding savers under €100,000 for 10% would send  shockwaves through the eurozone.

It will now take even more explicit and clear assurances that eurozone depositors of less than €100,000 will have their savings guaranteed to stop depositors in Spain, Italy and Greece from cleaning out their bank accounts at the next sign of trouble. This is the lesson that the new head of the eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, should ponder over the coming weeks as he continues to settle into one of the most market sensitive jobs in the eurozone.

Cypriots woke up on Saturday to the news that deposit holders would bear a significant amount of the burden in a deal aimed at rescuing the banking sector. Those with savings of less than €100,000 will face a ‘tax’ of 6.75 per cent, while those with holdings in excess of this figure will face a hit of up to 9.99 per cent.

The logic, if you want to call it that, behind the deposit ‘tax’ is clear, but it was an ill-advised move which sets a dangerous precedent.

There were very few other options for Cyprus to choose, faced with the scale of the problem. However, forcing savers of modest sums to hand over a significant portion of their savings will not only give the EU a bad name, but risk the faith of thousands across Europe, who have so far lived through bailout and austerity programmes with relatively good grace.

The Eurozone countries could never have agreed to pay out the full required bailout (€17 billion). Relative to the size of the small island nation’s GDP, this is an enormous figure, and it would have almost certainly defaulted. On top of that, the sorry state of Cypriot banks’ finances meant that some deposit holders were always going to be targeted.

There were also other forces at play in the background, not least election-year politicking in Germany. The Social Democrats have used the Cypriot bailout to put pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel. At issue is that the island is a known tax haven for Russian deposit holders, and not a small portion of these holdings are seen as having been generated from illegal activities. That Germans would be ‘bailing-out’ Russian deposit holders is politically toxic, and Merkel could never have signed off on it.

The assertion by President Nicos Anastasiades that there was no option but to hit smaller savers and business owners (those with deposits of under €100,000) is hard to believe. The President himself had alluded to applying a higher ‘tax’ of up to 60 per cent on those holding more than the €100,000 threshold. Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, has also advocated the imposition of similarly high rates. The deal as it currently stands is regressive, making the poor suffer while the rich get away relatively lightly.

The Cypriot government will extend Monday’s bank holiday for an extra day so as to ensure there is no run on the banks before it meets tomorrow to debate the deal at 4pm (GMT). Yet, even if parliament ratifies the package, it will have done irreparable damage to recovery efforts in the Eurozone. The principle of deposit insurance has been disregarded and the security of holdings in other troubled Eurozone countries (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy) has been cast into doubt. There is no reason to assume that these measures can’t be implemented elsewhere.

In an environment of universal austerity, that large deposit holders are once again getting off the hook is not likely to sit well with European voters. The Cypriot government has until 4pm (GMT) tomorrow, when parliament meets, to negotiate a more progressive solution to its financial troubles.

Mr Anastasiades faces a difficult task to get the rescue package as it currently stands through parliament after four members of Diko, the junior partner in the coalition government, threatened to vote against it. He would do well to heed the advice of Panicos Demetriades, the central bank governor, who has said that small savers should be excluded from the levy to respect the EU guarantee on bank deposits up to €100,000. There is still time.

David Cameron’s EU negotiating strategy is “putting a gun to our own heads” warned Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband, while Conservative MP Liam Fox would support Britain leaving the EU if the Prime Minister did not get a “good deal”.

Speaking at an event hosted by Business for New Europe and the City of London Corporation on Monday 11 February, Miliband argued that membership of the EU was good for Britain as we have done well out of the Single Market and have “never lost a vote on financial services.”

Photograph: Jeff Gilbert

Debating the future of Britain in Europe before an audience of 250 business leaders, academics, British and foreign journalists and members of the diplomatic community, Miliband said that the current strategy by the government was “putting a gun to our own heads” and he stressed the importance of local associations in the future of global competiveness.

Former Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox stated that he did not want to remain in the EU “at any price”.  He claimed that currently the EU project was “unsustainable” because it is seven per cent of global population and 25 per cent of GDP but spends 50 per cent of social welfare spending.“Europe needs to change” claimed Dr Fox, citing barriers to competiveness and the democratic deficit as areas in need of reform. He supported David Cameron’s pledge for an in/out referendum, adding that it is not an excuse to deny the people a say in Europe’s destiny because you may be scared of the outcome.

Editor-at-Large of Reuters News Hugo Dixon said the UK needs to be “an active member of a reformed union”. Highlighting three ways to pursue this agenda, Dixon stated that Britain needed to build alliances and “play the diplomatic game”; stop talk of unilateral repatriation of powers and instead seek to develop multilateral agreements;and finally understand the differences that still exist within the EU and how this is impeding a closer fiscal union.

Andrew Lilico, director and principal of Europe Economics, argued that the EU is foremost a political project and its “internal logic” is driving it towards a unified federation of states. He added that this will leave Britain outside the core of possibly 23 member states with little influence over decisions and rules that it is affected by. Lilico dismissed the idea that a federation of States is “just hearsay” and compared this to before the formation of the Euro currency – people did not think it would come to fruition.

Addressing this point David Miliband argued that the Treaty of Rome proposed an “ever closer union of the peoples of Europe” and in this regard the EU has successfully offered free movement of people and improved tolerance of different cultures in Europe. Hugo Dixon disagreed Europe “was on the brink of greater integration”, claiming that even the banking union has rolled back on many fiscal union integration policies.

Concluding the debate chaired by Roland Rudd chairman of BNE, Dr Liam Fox criticised the Euro as a “flawed concept” by allowing the wrong countries to join. He also stated that people were told “the sky would fall in” if Britain did not join the Euro or the Schengen agreement, when clearly neither has happened, which should be borne in mind. Lilico added that Britain “had lost influence by not joining the Euro” and this was exactly problem that it will have in the future.

David Cameron and Angela Merkel worked together to cut the EU's 2014-2020 budget

It was not “standing up to the EU” that delivered the Prime Minister’s objective of a slimmer EU budget, it was pragmatism and alliance building.

We have been calling for radical reform of the EU budget since we were founded in 2006 and last year published a fully costed Alternative EU Budget which would have saved the UK over €10 billion.

David Cameron and Angela Merkel managed to deliver a 3.3 per cent cut in the 2014-2020 budget compared to 2007-2013. We are still spending too much on agriculture and the wasteful practice of recycling cohesion funds from rich members to rich members’ regions still continues. Spending on growth enhancing measures will go up by 37 per cent by €34 billion though. A budget that reflects economic hardships faced by voters across Europe and spends more on growth finally sends the right message.

The PM achieved this through strong arguments and building partnerships with Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. He was particularly succesful in getting the support of Sweden and the Netherlands which in turn made it far more likely that Germany would strongly back northern calls for a slimmer budget.

He ignored the theological Eurosceptics who would start with threatening a veto over demands in the full knowledge they could never be met. The outcome also provides a powerful argument for why the Tories should re-join the mainstream centre-right European People’s Party grouping in the European Parliament given that there is a good chance it may veto the deal in March. Outside it, they have less influence.

It was not just the European Council that made headlines this week. Ireland announced the liquidation of the failed Anglo Irish bank, easing the state’s debt burden and taking it a step closer to emerging from the 2010 bailout program by the end of this year.

Even the European Parliament, unloved even by EU standards, managed to get into the news for the right reasons by voting for an end to Common Fisheries Policy ‘discards’ – the practice of throwing unwanted fish back into the sea. Finally, fisheries quotas will be dictated by evidence of sustainable fish stocks designed to allow them to recover by 2020. The reform was passed by 502 against 127 votes.

Europe woke up to 2013 not with 15 or 16 eurozone members, but the full complement of 17. I won bets made at the height of the crisis with people who just couldn’t see the euro surviving. Now, money is flowing back to the periphery and Spain, Ireland and Portugal are seeing increased exports and competitiveness through albeit painfully lowered labour costs.

Amongst all of this, the importance of being practical and building alliances is a lesson which will not be lost on David Cameron when he tries to persuade our partners to allow some core competences to be repatriated back to Britain. He will be lauded next week by the eurosceptics of his party for bringing back a cut to the EU budget. The uncomfortable truth they have to face is that they would abolish the European budget and walk away from the EU tomorrow if they could, but their leader prefers to be in the thick of it.

This is a primarily administrative support role. It will involve helping with office administration, such as dealing with telephone enquiries, diary management and document and contacts management. The successful candidate will also be expected to assist with research.

The successful candidate will have very good written and verbal communication skills, as well as the ability to take the initiative, multitask and work independently and as part of a team. Responsibilities will include, but may not be limited to:

- Office administration: updating diaries, booking meetings, arranging travel and assisting with event management.
- Dealing with telephone and e-mail enquiries.
- Supporting the maintenance of BNE’s website an internet presence (twitter, facebook, flickr, etc.)
- Sending out correspondence and press releases.
- Helping to manage contacts databases.
- Assisting with research, policy papers and blogging.
- Assisting in any other activities as required.

The successful candidate should be positive, willing to go the extra mile and have a hands-on approach. An interest in European Union politics and sympathy with BNE’s principles and aims would be beneficial. Please note that we may contact candidates before the closing date and only successful candidates will be contacted.

- The successful candidate will be paid in line with the London living wage for a period of up to six months.
- Application is by way of CV and a one-page cover letter (both in a single MS Word or PDF document) by way of email to BNE Head of Media & Public Affairs, Lucy Thomas at lucy.thomas@bnegroup.org
- The application should be sent with ‘BNE Intern Application’ written in the subject line of the email.
- Applications close on Monday 28th January at 5pm and interviews will take place from Tuesday 29th January.
- The candidate must be available to start w/c 4 February 2013.

On Thursday 6 December 2012, Business for New Europe and the Italian Chamber Commerce and Industry to the UK held a panel discussion entitled “Can Italy Bridge the Gap between North and South Europe?”

With the Italian Prime Minster Mario Monti standing down after elections in March 2013 and low expectations of economic growth, next year is destined to be challenging and significant one for Italian relations with Europe.

Chairing the debate, director of Business for New Europe, Phillip Souta introduced the four panellists: Tony Barber, European Editor of the Financial Times, Lucrezia Reichlin, Professor of Economics at London Business School and former head of Research of the ECB, Holger Schmieding, Chief Economist at Berenberg Bank and Domenico Siniscalco, Vice Chairman at Morgan Stanley and former Italian Minister of Finance.

Opening the discussion Domenico Siniscalco commented that recent relations with Europe and particularly with Germany had been a “tale of the two Marios”. While Mario Monti was reassuring Germany, Mario Draghi was able to “dig a deeper” and “form a consensus with Merkel”, he said.

Although exports and business overall were doing well, Siniscalco said, the domestic sector in Italy was “doing very badly”. He gave the reasons for this as a lack of confidence over taxation, suffering from foreign exchange rates, the existence of red-tape, corruption and problems within Italian politics.

Holger Schmieding reiterated Germany’s commitment to Italy and other struggling Eurozone members. Reminding the audience that the most recent bailout fund for Greece passed a Bundestag vote by a majority of 85 per cent, he said “count on Germany to support Europe, if Europe wants that support”.

The European Central Bank (ECB) was now the lender of last resort, said Schmieding, and it had the ability to say no; this meant the ECB was the “most independent central bank”. Saying that the ECB could have acted sooner and as profoundly as the Bank of England, said Schmieding, there was now a mechanism in place thanks to cooperation between Merkel and Draghi.

Highlighting a report by the Lisbon Council and Berenburg Bank, Schmieding believes that the crisis has forced a “dramatic convergence” between North and South Europe. “The process is working”, he claimed.

Less optimistic, Lucrezia Reichlin highlighted that Italy experienced two decades of no growth before the crisis began. According to Reichlin, for Monti to restore credibility and growth he should continue with adjustment because “Italy is not out of the tunnel”.

Reichlin believes Italy should ask for help in the form of the new support mechanism and the “sooner the better”. This is unlikely but would be more feasible in the government than the next, she said.

The gap between North and South Europe does need to be bridged, maintains Tony Barber. Deeper economic integration is blocked by disagreements between states and cultural attitude also plays a part, he said. Barber dismissed the comparisons between the EU and US, stating “Germany provides de facto support for many funds to these States” and Europe does not have the same identity as the US.

Moving on to the challenges of demography in Southern Europe, Barber commented on Spain as an example of the reverse in flows of labour into a country since the financial crisis. From 2002 to 2009 Spain’s working age labour force increased 12.5% mainly due to immigration, while now it is in “sharp reverse”. This, he added, would make it harder for Spain “to return to fiscal sustainability”. Italy would need to address this also if they are to bridge the gap, he concluded.

During the questions and answers section, Domenico Siniscalco claimed closer controls and a more federal European Union would help Italy from diverging away from Northern Europe. Taking a question on private actors playing a role in Italian politics, Siniscalco said there are different cases and in principle he did not have a problem with it.

Lucrezia Reichlin did not agreed that the banking sector in Italy was in a healthy position and forecast a growth projection that may become unsustainable. She claimed that she was “much more optimistic about Spain” and reiterated that Italy should ask for help, stating “it needs to be used”.

Answering a question about the democratic deficit of the current Italian situation, Tony Barber believes that there is a “problem trying to convince the public” and “there are definitely democratic issues”. Holger Schmieding however, said “if you borrow you depend on your creditors” and Italy has made a democratic choice on the matter. Addressing the same question, Domenico Siniscalco expressed reservations, saying when Troika are called in “it is suicide for parliament”.

Concluding Holger Schmieding urged the new Italian administration “not to back-track after Monti”, while Lucrezia Reichlin stated that a future government should not be afraid to “be radical” when it comes to structural reforms.

This is a hybrid role involving office administration, supporting the BNE team and research. Administration will involve day-to-day admin and office-management, such as dealing with telephone enquiries, diary management and document and contacts management. Research, working under the guidance of the Director and Head of Media and Public Affairs, will involve policy analysis of European and business issues.

The role will suit someone with strong graduate qualifications in European policy studies, international politics and/or economics. The successful candidate will possess very good written and verbal communication skills, as well as the ability to take the initiative, multitask and work independently and as part of a team. You would be expected to get involved in a wide range of projects, and assist with office administration for BNE. Responsibilities will include, but may not be limited to:

• General support and office management: diaries, booking meetings, arranging travel and assisting with event management.
• Dealing with telephone and e-mail enquiries.

• Supporting the maintenance of BNE’s website an internet presence (twitter, facebook, etc.)

• Sending out letters, correspondence and press releases.

• Assisting with the maintenance of the BNE contacts database.

• Assisting with research, writing policy papers, position papers, analysis and blogging.

• Assisting in any other activities as required.

The successful candidate should be positive, willing to go the extra mile and have a hands-on approach. An interest in European Union politics and sympathy with BNE’s principles and aims would be beneficial. Salary £20,000. Pension, Health and travel insurance provided.

Applicants should send a CV and cover letter (no more than one page) to lucy.thomas@bnegroup.org with BNE RESEARCHER POSITION in the subject line.

Applications close at 6pm on 21 December 2012. Please note that only successful candidates will be contacted.

Those wishing to discuss the role further should call 0207 374 6792.

For those interested in the European debate, Volume 2, pages 687 and 688 of the Leveson Report make for interesting reading. Lord Justice Leveson said, “there is certainly clear evidence of misreporting on European issues.” On a story in the Daily Mail reporting an apparent EU ban on plastic bags, he commented that it “was based on a deliberate or careless misinterpretation of EU proposals…” (9.54 below)

On misreporting of EU issues in the press he said, “the cumulative impact can have serious consequences. Mr Blair explained that the misinformation published about Europe by some parts of the press made it difficult for him to adopt particular policies or achieve certain political ends in Europe that he might otherwise have done.” (9.55 below)

Extracts

Lord Justice Leveson. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty

9.53 Articles relating to the European Union, and Britain’s role within it, accounted for a further category of story where parts of the press appeared to prioritise the title’s agenda over factual accuracy. On Europe, Mr Campbell said:

“Several of our national daily titIes – The Sun, The Express, The Star, The Mail, The Telegraph in particular- are broadly anti-European. At various times, readers of these and other newspapers may have read that ’Europe’ or ’Brussels” or ’the EU superstate’ has banned, or is intending to ban kilts, curries, mushy peas, paper rounds, Caerphilly cheese, charity shops, bulldogs, bent sausages and cucumbers, the British Army, lollipop ladies, British loaves, British made lavatories, the passport crest, lorry drivers who wear glasses, and many more. In addition, if the Eurosceptic press is to be believed, Britain is going to-be, forced to unite as a single country with France, Church schools are being forced to hire atheist teachers, Scotch whisky is being-classified as an inflammable liquid, British soldiers must take orders in French, the price of chips is being raised by Brussels, Europe is insisting on one size fits all condoms, new laws are being proposed on how to climb, a ladder, it will be a criminal offence to criticise Europe, Number 10 must fly the European flag, and finally, Europe is brainwashing our children with pro-European propaganda! Of the UK press and the European institutions – I speak as something of a Eurosceptic by Blairite standards – it is clear who does more brainwashing. Some of the examples, may appear trivial, comic even. But there is a serious point: that once some of our newspapers decide to campaign on a certain issue, they do so with scant regard for fact. These stories are written by reporters, rewritten by subs, and edited by editors who frankly must know them to be untrue. This goes beyond the fusion of news and comment, to the area of invention.”

9.54 Although Mr Campbell’s evidence may have been exaggerated for effect, there is certainly clear evidence of misreporting on European issues. Mr Campbell drew attention to a Daily Mail story claiming that “the EU” was going to ban grocers from selling eggs by the dozen, followed by a story that there had been a U-turn and the ban would no longer take place. The reality is that there had never been a ban proposed and the original story was based on a deliberate or careless misinterpretation of EU proposals.

Full Fact drew attention to a number of further ‘anti-EU’ stories which misrepresented facts, including a Daily Express  report on EU plans to ‘ban’ plastic shopping bags, when the reality was that a consultation had been launched to explore a variety of options, including a potential ban, for reducing waste from plastic bags.

9.55 The factual errors in the examples above are, in certain respects, trivial. But the cumulative impact can have serious consequences. Mr Blair explained that the misinformation published about Europe by some parts of the press made it difficult for him to adopt particular policies or achieve certain political ends in Europe that he might otherwise have done. He said:

“My distinction is between that and how you actually report the story as a piece of journalism. So if you take the issue to do with Europe, what I would say is that those papers who are Eurosceptic are perfectly entitled to be Eurosceptic. They’re perfectly entitled to highlight things in Europe that are wrong. What they shouldn’t do is, frankly, make up a whole lot of nonsense about Europe and dish that up to the readers, because that’s – I mean, how does the reader know that’s not correct?”

9.56 That, ultimately, is the foundation of the criticism made in this section: there can be no objection to agenda journalism (which necessarily involves the fusion of fact and comment), but that cannot trump a requirement to report stories accurately. Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code explicitly, and in my view rightly, recognises the right of a free press to be partisan; strong, even very strong, opinions can legitimately influence the choice of story, placement of story and angle from which a story is reported. But that must not lead to fabrication, or deliberate or careless misrepresentation of facts. Particularly in the context of reporting on issues of political interest, the press have a responsibility to ensure that the public are accurately informed so that they can engage in the democratic process. The evidence of inaccurate and misleading reporting on political issues is therefore of concern. The previous approach of the PCC to entertaining complaints only where they came from an affected individual may have allowed a degree of impunity in this area: in the context of misleading reporting on political issues, representative bodies are likely to be far better placed to monitor, and complain about, inaccuracies.

Link to The Leveson Inquiry Vol. 2