The Eurosceptic prophecy fulfils itself

Cameron has traded influence in the European Union for a brief respite from rebellion in his party,

David Cameron really didn't have much of a choice in the end. As it became clear that he simply wasn't going to get the concessions he needed – "safeguarding" Britain's interests in the single market; blocking aspects of European financial services reform – he couldn't sign up to a new EU deal. Trying to force such a treaty through parliament would be immensely painful and damaging to the Prime Minister. Besides, Ireland and the Netherlands have constitutional obligations to hold referendums on new EU treaties. It would be very difficult for Cameron to refuse to consult his citizens if the Dutch and Irish were being asked.

So he said "no". What does this mean? The eurozone members and six others – a eurozone-plus – aim to proceed with their own pact to stabilise the single currency and pursue fiscal integration. Technically, it is very difficult for them to use EU institutions to enforce their deal (which is why Germany, in particular, would have preferred a full 27-member EU treaty, and why markets will question whether the euro has in fact been saved).

There will now be a lot of wrangling over what competences this new inner European core has to enact economic reforms that affect the outer tier. Britain's problem is that the outer tier is tiny: the UK and Hungary, possibly Sweden and the Czech Republic. Legally they have a strong case to prevent the eurozone-plus group from building a new institutional architecture from existing EU bodies – the Commission, the Court, the Parliament etc.

But in practice the inner core is big enough to form a majority in the Council – the assembly of heads of government where real EU decisions are made – to the near-permanent exclusion of Britain. This is the "caucusing" effect that the Foreign Office has been worried about – a situation in which the eurozone gang arrives at summits with a pre-agreed position and presents it to the outer tier as a fait accompli. When the reality of that new balance of power becomes clear, Hungary and the other naysayers might well decide their long-term interests are better served by eventually joining the inner circle, leaving the UK completely isolated.*

In other words, Cameron has blocked a treaty that he judges might have damaged UK interests, thereby creating a new settlement in the EU that could permanently tilt future negotiations against Britain. That in turn means hardline Tory sceptics will have good grounds to say that our relationship with the EU has been fundamentally altered and, inevitably, that there should be a referendum.

As I wrote yesterday, the Tories bank concessions on Europe and then come back for more. Last night Cameron made a very big concession indeed – he removed Britain from the next phase of the European project.

Sceptics should be pleased and, as my colleague Samira Shackle has noted this morning, some of them are. Then they will find, as they always do, that pushing for separation leads to diplomatic isolation, which reinforces their suspicion that the whole thing is a conspiracy against Britain. The prophecy fulfils itself. So they will insist that Cameron now set about the business of "repatriating" powers from Brussels, which, of course, he is much less able to do, having isolated the UK and antagonised fellow EU leaders. And when Cameron cannot then secure adequate "repatriation" – and nothing short of divorce is adequate for some Tory backbenchers – the calls for a referendum will sound out louder than ever.

The Prime Minister's non-deal in Brussels last night has bought him just a brief a moment of respite from rebellion in his own party. For that, he has accepted a downgrading of UK diplomatic relations with our major trading partners, leading us to the outermost margin of the EU and ever closer to the exit.

*Update: Indeed, Hungary sensed which way the wind was blowing pretty quickly and has now lined up with the non-UK consensus. It is still possible, of course, that Cameron is gambling that this emergency alliance of the rest of Europe will not last. National parliaments will have to be brought on side, some countries will expect referendums on a new euro pact and, crucially, since last night's deal doesn't appear to have actually resolved the structural flaws in the design of the single currency it might well fail to ease the market pressure driving the euro members apart. If it becomes clear that smaller states have signed up for something that gives Germany and France all of the power with no economic security in return there is bound to be a significant nationalist backlash in many countries. The whole thing could unravel, in which case the hardline British eurosceptics' ambition of getting out altogether would be realised even sooner.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA