For many years, several of Britain’s national newspapers have been critical of the European Union and all its works.

“Brussels” and its “meddling unelected eurocrats” have been blamed for every possible ill to occur in Britain.



The hostility goes back at least as far as the early 1980s, to the EU’s previous incarnations as, simply, the Common Market or, more formally, the European Economic Community (EEC) or European Community.

But this antagonism represented a change of mind from the previous decade when the national press exhibited hysterical enthusiasm for European integration during the run-up to the June 1975 referendum.



People were to be asked a single, simple question: “Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?”

They were under no illusion which answer was favoured by their newspapers. Yes, yes, yes said the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, the Sun, the Times, the Financial Times, the Guardian, Daily Mirror and Daily Record. Their combined daily circulation at the time was just shy of 15m (giving them a readership of some 45m).

By contrast, the no camp was represented by the Communist Party’s Morning Star, the short-lived workers’ co-operative title, the Scottish Daily News, and the Dundee Courier. Together, they sold fewer than 150,000.

So Harold Wilson’s Labour government was able to rely on the country’s main propaganda vehicles to back his call for a yes vote.

Although his party was split, with the then voluble and strong leftwing, plus most trade unions, calling for a break with the EEC, the pro-European Tories were largely united. Edward Heath, the former prime minister who had led Britain into the Market, received strong support from his successor as Tory leader, Margaret Thatcher.

What was fascinating, however, was the united view of the newspapers of the left, right and centre. Broadly, their arguments on behalf of maintaining EEC membership took two distinct lines: the economic benefits of staying and the political dangers of leaving.

The newspaper owners of that era, who included one still with us, Rupert Murdoch, were firmly supportive of membership and their editors pulled out all the stops prior to the vote.

An analysis of daily national press coverage in the month before polling day revealed that 54% of the content was pro-EEC and 21% anti with the rest broadly neutral.

The Mirror was so partisan that 69% of its content - including news and features coverage, leaders, pictures, cartoons and adverts - was pro-EEC and only 15% anti. Few papers allowed the antis to breathe the oxygen of publicity.

Many news stories told of British industrialists’ concern about Britain leaving the Market and about threats from foreign companies should it happen.

For example, the Times reported that “at least five American-based multi-national corporations are believed to have informed the government that they are holding up investment plans in the United Kingdom until the result of the referendum is known”. (I like that “are believed”!)

Scare stories about Britain’s likely decline in the event of no vote were common. The classic instance was the Mail’s voting-day feature headlined: “A day in the life of Siege Britain: NO COFFEE, WINE, BEANS OR BANANAS, TILL FURTHER NOTICE”.

The Mirror sent reporters off to enjoy the lifestyle in European capitals. Over a four-day period, the paper carried articles extolling the virtues of fashion, food and music in continental Europe. It was entirely fatuous, having nothing to do with the reasons for staying in or leaving the Market.

But the Mail’s fear-mongering about Britain’s food supplies being in danger from exit and the Mirror’s soft-sell propaganda about the joys of French cuisine and German beer was not the dominant theme of the coverage.

The papers’ major aim throughout their pro-EEC campaign was political, seeking to exploit the divisions in Wilson’s government by concentrating fire on leftwingers who were urging a no vote.

And their central demon figure was Tony Benn, who had long been a target for press venom because of his enthusiasm for nationalisation and workers’ co-operatives, not to mention his scathing attacks on newspaper owners.

“The Benn factor,” as the Daily Telegraph called it, was crucial to the press argument for a yes vote. He was attacked from the right, with the Sun referring to him as “Citizen Benn”, and the left. The Mirror scorned Benn’s claim that 700,000 jobs had vanished since Britain had entered the Market, calling him “the minister of fear” in a piece headlined “Lies, more lies and those damned statistics.”

Papers were delighted to quote rightwing Labour ministers, such as Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins, who turned on their cabinet colleague. Columnists and cartoonists had a field day poking fun at Benn.

The Daily Telegraph’s John O’Sullivan wrote: “Mr Benn often complains that the press and television are biased against the anti-marketeers. And he is absolutely right. They keep on reporting him.”

Similarly, the Guardian’s Peter Jenkins wrote: “The pros console themselves with the thought that every time the big Benn mouth opens it makes more yesses than noes.”

It didn’t help the ‘no’ cause that the other major political figure campaigning against the Market was the ultra rightist, and hate figure for the left, Enoch Powell. Largely seen as a maverick and marginalised figure, papers largely ignored him.



He did represent a significant group of intellectual opponents to the EEC who were championed by the Spectator magazine. They included C Gordon Tether, a Financial Times columnist, Patrick Cosgrave, who was to become an adviser to Thatcher, and the cantankerous Express columnist George Gale.

The Spectator carried no popular weight, however, especially in the face of the national press unanimity. Look what they said on the day of the referendum.

The FT’s leader quoted John Donne (“no man is an island”) and contended that to pull out “would be a gratuitous act of irresponsible folly”. The Guardian’s leader was headlined: “A vote for the next century” while the Times stressed the peace and goodwill dimension.

The Mail advocated: “Vote YES for Britain”. The Express told readers it was “for the market”. The Sun’s centre page headline was unequivocal: “Yes for a future together, No for a future alone”.

The Mirror pulled out all the stops. On polling day, the front page shouted: “A vote for the future” and “The most important day since the war”.

The result: 17.3 million voted yes (67.2%) while 8.4 million voted no (32.8%). And here’s a sobering thought. An authoritative Harris poll in taken in May 1971, while Heath was negotiating Britain’s Common Market entry, recorded a 62%-20% majority against joining.

So, in four years, more than three to one against became two to one in favour. Why did people change their minds? Was it, one is bound to ask, because the national press told them to do so?