Ironically I am blogging this while sitting at exactly the same (and now truly) legendary table in a flat in London… Well, in many ways I would not be here without bloggingportal and all the people I met through the project. So thanks a lot for all your help and support!

We have learnt a lot over the last three years – especially how not to do things. But I guess this is how it has to be. The problem is still the same: We are a bunch of enthusiastic people without a real structure, without money and without much time on our hands. It is a bit like herding anarchist and hungry cats…

So what does the future hold for bloggingportal? I  blogged about our problems in the past and called for a bigger EU blogosphere. As you can imagine not much has been solved – although EU blogging has arguably grown somehwat. To get an idea about the debate on the future of bloggingportal head over to Brusselsblogger,  Ronny Patz  and Mathew Lowry’s Tagsmanian Devil who all have written more substantial blog posts on the issue.

If you are reading this and you are thinking “well this blogginportal stuff may be a fun thing to do…” – why not get in touch ?  I think we do need people with fresh ideas who are motivated to invest some time in developing the website as well as the bloggingportal concept (whatever that is…). Because it is simple: The media landscape has changed, blogging has changed – even the EU has changed (well, ok this is  debatable!). So maybe bloggingportal needs to change too!

PS. I am not dead – honest. Pseudo-regular blogging resumes as soon as possible… (Reason: new job in London & flat-hunting)

So why ruin everything  by appointing Karl Theodor Maria Georg Achaz Eberhardt Josef Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg as your special/personal advisor?

Technology can support human rights, but we must also ensure it is not used against those struggling for freedom. I want Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg to champion this cause with governments and NGOs and ensure it gets the attention, focus and support it deserves. - Neelie Kroes

During your press conference you said you wanted “talent and not saints”. Fair enough, but are you sure that he has the necessary talent? His political achievements in Germany are mediocre at best. His rethoric has always trumped his policies. He is a master of blaming others for his failures. He is unable to admit mistakes. Very frankly, he is an aristocratic snob who could not care less about the problems of online activists and the rights of bloggers. I  have never heard of any achievement that would qualify him to work on these issues. Mr zu Guttenberg has never been an advocate for the freedom of the internet. In fact he has been in favour of net censorhip and supported the German government in introducing a more restrictive net surveillance policy. He has no track record whatsover.

The question is why did you not appoint someone with a more substantive track record in online human rights policy? And more importantely, since this advisory role is about the international impact of the digital agenda, why did you not involve the EEAS in your decision? (Update: The EEAS was involved. – see comments)

Moreover, online activists were responsible for his resignation when they revealed  hat Mr zu Guttenberg plagiarised his PhD thesis.  He is not a credible choice for the job in question. You say that  ‘if anyone understands the power of the internet, and its power to hold authorities to account, it is Karl-Theodor.‘  This may be true. However, the problem is that Mr zu Guttenberg never gave the impression that he shares this assessment. He never said anything positive about the ‘power of the internet’. Until this day he argues that this whole PhD affair has been some sort of misunderstanding and can be explained by some bad referencing. If you look at the GuttePlag wiki you will be surprised to learn how much of his thesis was plagiarised!  He claims that he lost the overview and could not distinguish between his own ideas and the ideas of others.  Is that the sort of intellectual property or ‘open data’ policy you want to advocate with the Digital Agenda?

You have created a very interesting online community which is generally supportive of the Digital Agenda. You have an excellent social media strategy and there have been great debates online – and offline. Why did you not ask people for their opinion or listen what they have to say about Mr zu Guttenberg? Who advised you to give Mr zu Guttenberg the opportunity for another political comeback?

Well, you see, Mr zu Guttenberg is a rather controversial politican as you may have noticed if you followed the recent debates in Germany. Unfortunately, these controversies will overshadow your policy.  Not all publicity is also good publicity! I am wondering whether you considered that this decision might have an affect on your own reputation – especially among your key online  stakeholders?

And this brings me to my last point. His appointment  is exactly the sort of EU behaviour that people hate. The EU as the  exile  for failed politicians that are not wanted on the national level anymore – but are desperate for some sort of important sounding job. Jobs for the boys. It is indeed sad that the Digital Agenda has become the latest example in this category.

Yours Sincerely,

Kosmopolit

Update 14/12/12:  A response by Neelie Kroes can be found here.

First, his demands had nothing to do with the discussions at the summit. Second, nobody knew about his demands in advance.

What sort of diplomacy is this?

Moreover, Cameron  had no allies whatsoever. Another grave diplomatic failure.  During the last couple of weeks it became clear that this summit would be an important one. But Cameron did not care about allies abroad – no,  it was more important to discuss repatriation and referendums at home. Did he talk to PMs in Poland or Romania?  Maybe he should have read Sikorski’s speech to grasp the mood in the region?  Did he travel to the Baltics, Denmark or Sweden? And what was the diplomatic strategy regarding Germany and France?

At the same time, the idea of speaking for the 10 non-euro countries was flawed from the beginning. Most other countries are legally obliged to introduce the euro so they have an interest in being close to Merkel and Sarkozy in order to shape the rules they will have to obey at some point. As soon as Merkel and Sarkozy came up with a  ‘euro plus’ framework the argument was lost for Britain.

When Cameron met Angela Merkel in Berlin a couple of weeks ago he only mentioned his problems with the Working Time Directive (EWTD) and said nothing about the specific City interests. Interestingly, during the summit Merkel was prepared to discuss a EJC ruling of the EWTD (according to German media reports – can’t find the link at the moment).

Cameron’s misjudgment

Both, Die Welt and The Economist have similar stories about what exactly happened during the summit. It turns out that Cameron misjudged the mood among fellow leaders during the summit.  Cameron thought that the ‘Protocol 12′ solution was the preferred method for the eurozone – giving him leverage through a unanimous decision-making procedure. Bagehot thinks Cameron overplayed his hand, others said he lost his gamble (or verzockt as Udo van Kampen called it on German TV)   However, if he had listened to what politicians, diplomats and media commentators  in Germany or France said during the last weeks he should have known better. Plus  he had no allies, hence his isolation was not a surprise. Simply put, Cameron is not in the loop, maybe because he pulled out of the EPP… In any case,  his advisors should be sacked.

Cameron is not a diplomat and I am not sure he actually enjoys summits. Deep in his heart he is a eurosceptic (although the UK government has followed a pragmatic EU policy) but he comes across as arrogant and bossy. Especially during the eurozone crisis a sense of schadenfreude dominated the UK’s rhethoric.  The UK’s bilateral relations with EU member states have not been sufficiently developed. Cameron is like a robot in this respect. Whatever the issue somewhere in Europe he starts his monologue about British interests and why the EU is such a bad idea. This is hardly a good starting point for a constructive debate. Moreover, it seems difficult for him to build personal relationships with other European leaders – a necessity to win an argument at a summit.

The veto myth

After a good spin by Cameron we are now faced with a ‘veto myth’ which is going through the British and European media. Especially the so-called Eurosceptics in the UK love the idea of David ‘the Eurosceptic’ Cameron.  The problem as pointed out by more eloquent writers is that this was not a veto. A veto stops something. Cameron did not manage to stop anything. It is a bluff. The question is how long will Cameron benefit from calling it a veto?

The main line of Cameron was to ‘defend the national interest’ which translates into ‘defending the interests of the City’.  Now I don’t want to discuss why that is necessary or why he is doing it but I want to point out something else:

Defending a certain interest can be a good strategy. But the diplomatic failure described above led to a situation in which nothing of which Cameron wanted to defend was actually on the agenda. So basically he did not defend his ‘national interest’ – he was isolated and ignored. How can he claim to actually used a ‘veto’? How can he claim it was a victory for Britain? (also considering the British record in the field of EU wide financial regulation, see for example here and here)

The ‘veto myth’ also creates another problem for Cameron. The UK position is weakened after this summit. The euro plus group may create rules that are not in the interest of the UK (and the City is not happy about isolation either). Moreover, this may backfire in the ‘normal’ EU policy making processes as this episode did not help to improve the  reputation of the UK government.

It seems to me that Cameron is a bad negotiator. He does not seem to get the nature of EU negotiations. Merkel and Sarkozy (and others) often propose things before a summit just to use it as a bargaining chip. Cameron never does it – and never understands it when others do it. He also seems to have no interest in developing a compromise. Cameron goes to Brussels to defend Britain – not to negotiate a compromise that Britain can support and is in the interest of Britain. A crucial difference.

I am also a bit surprised that he actually picked ‘the City’ as the national interest worth defending. Of course it makes sense for a Conservative PM but defending the interest of bankers  is not necessarily a topic to win public opinion and new voters? It is more crowd pleaser for the Tories and for the tabloids that think that the EU is more evil than the City.

Domestic debate and backbenchers

Cameron must have been afraid of his eurosceptic backbenchers and a possible referendum (although I still fail to see the justification as it was a proposed treaty change that does not affect the UK ). Was the threat that great that Cameron was afraid to lose the argument?  He must have felt that the government could collapse if he signed up to anything. Maybe he was thinking about the  need to involve Labour to get it through parliament? Cameron placed the importance of the domestic debate over the common good – which should not surprise anyone who is familiar with Cameron’s take on the EU. He is not only afraid of any EU debate in his party – ultimately he is afraid to lose power.

But when will the media and the Conservative party realise that this whole story was a diplomatic failure and a personal misjudgment of David Cameron? It might indeed backfire…

(Another interpretation is that Cameron really had an interest in helping the EU26. A separate treaty might indeed be more efficient. And by pushing the EU26  into a separate treaty Cameron is able to get some sort of  single-market-only-EU the Tories dream of (at least he can sell it that way!). It may not appease the anti-EU fraction but it may win over the moderate eurosceptics. By inventing a ‘protocol to defend the national interest’ Cameron was able to withdraw from the negotiations with a certain dignity. Plus he was able to score some useful anti-EU points in the national debate. Moreover, he  achieved some sort of separation between the EU and the UK which he can use in the future to avoid referendums and EU related debates in his party.)

Read the transcript of the speech here or watch the video here (in German only):

Some good quotes:

“Alles Gerede und Geschreibe über eine angebliche „Krise des Euro“ ist leichtfertiges Geschwätz von Medien, von Journalisten und von Politikern.”

“Wenn aber jemand zu verstehen gibt, heute und künftig werde in Europa Deutsch gesprochen; wenn ein deutscher Außenminister meint, fernseh-geeignete Auftritte in Tripolis, in Kairo oder in Kabul seien wichtiger als politische Kontakte mit Lissabon, mit Madrid, mit Warschau oder Prag, mit Dublin, Den Haag, Kopenhagen oder Helsinki; wenn ein anderer meint, eine europäische „Transfer-Union“ verhüten zu müssen –  dann ist das alles bloß schädliche deutsch nationale Kraftmeierei.”

“Aber schon seit 2010 spielt diese Herde von hochintelligenten, zugleich psychose-anfälligen Finanzmanagern abermals ihr altes Spiel um Profit und Bonifikation. Ein Hazardspiel zu Lasten aller Nicht-Spieler, das Marion Dönhoff und ich schon in den 1990er Jahren als lebensgefährlich kritisiert haben.”

“Deshalb möchte ich an Martin Schulz appellieren: Es wird höchste Zeit, dass Sie und Ihre christdemokratischen, Ihre sozialistischen, liberalen und grünen Kollegen, sich gemeinsam, aber drastisch zu öffentlichem Gehör bringen. Wahrscheinlich eignet sich das Feld der seit der G20 im Jahre 2008 abermals völlig unzureichend gebliebenen Aufsicht über Banken, Börsen und deren Finanzinstrumente am besten für einen solchen Aufstand des Europäischen Parlaments.”

The title “Poland and the Future of the European Union” might not sound very exciting, but don’t be fooled.  Just read it!  I wish more politicians had the courage to give speeches like that. A clever structure, historical references,  plain language and some radical proposals that go beyond the current debate that is dominated by economics.  It is a pro-Europe speech but he comes across as  polite and honest – you get the feeling there is someone who really is trying to develop constructive proposals for the future of the EU.  Or as Charles Crawford noted: “That speech (…) was not by a Polish Foreign Minister. It was by a new European leader” (Update 30/11: hmm, so it turns out that Crawford was consulted by Sikorski before the speech)

The line “I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity” has obviously been making the rounds in Germany and elsewhere. I think he could have avoided the alarmist word ”apocalyptic’ when describing the current crisis but overall this is a speech worth reading. Hopefully other Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers/Chancellors take note!

Last week, Oettinger participated in  a debate about the controversial rail project “Stuttgart 21″ – a multi-billion euro project that he supported while being PM in Baden-Württemberg. The latest revelations even showed that  Oettinger  made sure that the public and the parliament were not informed about significant price increases of  “Stuttgart 21″! (If you live in Baden-Württemberg make sure you vote in the referendum today to stop the project!)

Anyway during the aforementioned debate Oettinger said the following in German (while keeping a straight face!):

“Sie sagen, alle(s) seien Kopfbahnhöfe. Stimmt doch gar nicht! Strasbourg – Durchgangsbahnhof. Karlsruhe – Durchgangsbahnhof. Es stimmt, Paris ist ein Kopfbahnhof. Gare de l’Est. Warum? Weil es westlich von Paris keine Menschen mehr gibt, sondern (nur) Kühe und Atlantik. – Stuttgart, aber Stuttgart ist  mittendrin.”

In English:

“You say there are terminus stations everywhere. That is not correct! Strasbourg – through station, Karlsruhe – through station. It is true, there is terminus station in Paris. Gare de l’Est. Why?  Because west of Paris there are no people, only cows and the atlantic. Stuttgart however, is  right in the middle.”

His remarks not only inspired a car rental company to advertise trips to Bretagne and comedians teaching geography lessons, it also calls into question Oettinger’s professional values and diplomatic abilities.  As a EU Commissioner it is not acceptable to ridicule certain EU regions (Bretagne, Normandy) or even countries (Great Britain, Ireland are also west of Paris). And his limited understanding of French geography  is also not acceptable for a German Commissioner.

1. Not sure how the EU works or what institutions are involved? –> Just write “Brussels”.

2. Germany is generally seen as important in EU politics and journalists know how to frame it: If Germany is active in a certain policy domain just write something about  “German dominance” and if you work for British newspaper add  some subtle references to the war. If  Germany is passive in a given policy area just write that Germany abandons the EU and it clearly adopted a unilateral strategy, if you work for a British newspaper you could add something about the war.

3. Found a short reference in a paper which talks about your country? –> Is is an evil plan to undermine democracy

4. General rule: No need to distinguish between different European institutions and organisations. Who cares whether it is the Council of Europe, the European Council, the Council of the EU, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union or the European Court of Human Rights . –> Just write something about eurocrats and unelected foreign European judges interfering with your beloved country. [thanks Andrew!]

5. You are in Brussels and there are several events happening at the same time?  –> Well, this is a clear sign that the EU does not address the important issues! (Important issue = event you attend)

6. Unsure what is happening in the EU? –> Don’t bother ringing someone in Brussels. Just make something up about bananas or recycle a story you read half a year ago. If you are ambitious call the press department of one of the parties in your capital or use a recent party pamphlet.

7. Did you come across a controversial statement or an opinion of an MEP or any national MP? –> Start your article with “EU plans to…” or “Country X wants to…” Any MEP or committee must be prefaced by “senior,” “influential” or “key” as long as he/she/it says something confrontational. [thanks Tim Jones]

8. Facts are overrated. Don’t bother checking the original EU policy documents. There is no need to understand differences between white or green papers, a report or a regulation or a directive. It is much easier to write about ‘crazy ideas of EU bureaucrats’.  If you have an idea for a good EU story don’t let facts ruin it. Plus, nobody will check if a EU story is true. Everyone knows that the EU is boring and evil. Moreover, the single aim of the EU is to produce unnessary regulation (generally known as ‘red tape”).

9. Use “EU bureaucrats” or “Brussels bureaucrats” as often as possible. A more experienced lazy journalist would simply refer to ‘Eurocrats‘. (Thanks Gawain) Useful adjectives in this context include “unelected”, “unaccountable”, “corrupt”, “highly-paid”, “highly-pensioned”, “lazy”. This list is not exhaustive and can be adapted to your journalistic needs. You may also use “EU official” or “EU representative” especially if you follow rule 4.

10. Don’t mention that ministers might have a veto over EU policy –> Just write about how the EU destroys national sovereignty.

11. You think that the EU is a bit too complex and everything takes a bit too long? –> Well just focus on zero sum games especially during summits.  One country wins, one country looses. That is life. That’s the EU. Simples.

12. A good headline is key. So always go for the pun or the the odd ‘eurocrats’, ‘empire’ reference. And the fight is always between europhiles and eurosceptics. Keep that in mind.

13. Symbols are more important than substance. Stories about what people had for breakfast or dinner, something about flags or anthems are great examples. Always mix personal stories about EU leaders with national stereotypes and prejudices. You will be surprised: it always works.

14. EU funding is always a great story. There is corruption, waste and funny projects. However, do not mention that projects need co-financing. Also do not try to look at the positive examples, it would just spoil the story. Anyway, EU money is by definition a bad thing. So, don’t try to explain why EU funding exists in the first place.

15. The EU budget as well as the budget negotiations provide many interesting options for lazy journalists. You could write that the EU books have not been signed off for years – without mentioning the auditing rules. Or you could write something about how much money your country pays to be in the EU -  without mentioning that it may get something back. Don’t make the mistake to link to any official cost-benefit calculation. Because if they exist they are must be wrong, if they don’t exist it is generally a conspiracy.  Rather use a statement from another newspaper or dodgy think tank. Just don’t ask any questions. Never think about what the EU could do with the money, just assume that “Brussels wastes all the money it gets”.  Budget negotiations are zero sum games, so rule 11 applies. There is no such thing as the “European interest”.

16. The single market means competition which might include foreign companies winning tenders in your country. If that happens just focus on the foreign element of that company. Make some claims about corruption.  Write about how many jobs will be lost. No need to mention that new jobs will be created. If you are an ambitious lazy journalist write about how EU competition laws are made to destroy your local economy.

17. Don’t bother learning a foreign language. It is not useful in EU journalism. You can always rely on international news agencies.

18. Subscribe to all ‘think tanks’ and ‘business associations’ which are highly regarded among your collegues. From time to time, just ‘write’ (copy/paste) short articles. Don’t include links to your sources.

19. Context is overrated. Headlines are more important. Just go for the best quotes – no context needed. If you have a great quote from last week, you can still use it. No need to check whether current events have moved on.

20. A beginners mistake is to engage with the opposite side or with critics of your work. So, just don’t do it.

The second part of the ‘short guide to lazy EU journalism’ will be published in the coming weeks on this blog and might focus on the recent “Eurocrisis”. Use the comments below to share your tips how to become a lazy EU journalist or how to cover the eurocrisis as lazy journalist.  This would give me the opportunity to plagiarise your ideas in the next blog post.

Update 20/11/2011 – 25/11/2011: Well, it seems that ‘#lazyEUjournalism’ is indeed a pan-European issue.  Consequently the ‘short guide’ was translated into several European languages! Thanks to all bloggers and translators!

DE: Ein kurzer Leitfaden zu faulem EU-Journalismus – Vielen Dank, opalkatze!

FR: Comment faire du journalisme européen paresseux, en 20 points – Merci beaucoup, Fabrize! 

IT: Short guide to lazy EU journalism ovvero come fare del giornalismo europeo di pessima qualita – Grazie, Francesca!

RO: Cum să scrii despre UE când ai o maximă lene …   - Mulțumesc, Roxana!

ES: Kosmopolito denuncia el periodismo basura europe |europa451.es

NL: Korte handleiding voor luie EU-journalisten | Presseurop

HR: Kratki vodič za komotno novinarstvo o EU - Hvala, Srdjan!

Inspired by this post there are several adaptations which discuss in how far the guide applies to different national public spheres:

NO: EU for late journalister | europabloggen

CZ: Příručka pro líné EU novináře | respekt.cz 

1. Most people do not understand economics, monetary politics or EU politics – including journalists.

2. A lot of investors and market participants  don’t understand politics – let alone EU decision-making. (hint: it is a long process…)

3. The media system has a tendency to simplify and sensationalize – both: economics and EU politics. Plus there is a 24h news cycle which increases the need for new and exclusive stories. And social media does also not contribute to a more thoughtful debate. In fact the more sensationalist a story is the more relevant it becomes for twitter etc. And nobody seems to care whether it is an outdated story or not!

4. Journalists read English-speaking newspapers because it is the language of the ‘markets’.

5. Many UK journalists have a problem understanding the EU. Some of them do not want to understand it. But most of them work in  ‘market -relevant’ media outlets.

6. Markets operate in English: Investors tend to read English papers and analysis. They don’t understand EU politics and read stuff from people who don’t understand it either.

7. The evil cycle begins: Something happens – uninformed journalist report about it, be it EU or Euro or both  – the media system sensationalizes  it – analysts and ‘markets’ read it and act upon it – crisis deepens – politicians have no chance to influence the cycle because whatever they say – they tend to meet uninformed and ignorant journalists who willfully sensationalize the story in order to please the 24h news cycle…

* Please note: Text includes sarcasm, exaggerations, untrue statements and general insults.  However, over consumption can cause severe depression and the desire to emigrate. Just to clarify: there are many good journalists out there.

The following text is a collection of unorganised and incoherent thoughts. Probably I should have written two proper essays or 5 blog posts. But I was too lazy and put everthing in one long blog post. It is also the result of living in the UK for the last several years and includes a mix of commentary about recent events but also more general points that I find interesting in the UK’s approach to the EU. Everything, as usual, unfinished and exaggerated and ‘thought’ in progress.  Sorry for the lack of links – might include some in the coming days.

What are the underlying problems of the UK-EU relationship?

First of all, there are several underlying problems worth mentioning.

It seems to me that generally there is limited  trust among UK decision makers in the politics and implementation efforts of other EU member states as well as EU institutions.  Take for example the Schengen opt-out which basically tells the rest of the EU: We don’t trust you to secure the external border efficiently.  Another example is the recent obsession with supranational court decisions (albeit mainly the Council of Europe) but it follows the same line of thought. Foreign judges can’t possibly be as good as our judges. Another example is the European Parliament: The idea that  foreign MEPs (that are also elected!) are involved in shaping legislation is seen as a strange concept. Everything should be done in Westminster. Other democratically elected bodies are not good enough – because they are not British (an implicit assumption behind a lot of arguments). It is the focus on theses issues instead of looking at how the UK is involved in certain international bodies which makes public debates so hideous.

Furthermore the political culture of the UK seems to have a problem with the concept of ‘compromise’ and ‘negotiations’ which is vital for European institutions. The media also loves zero sum games – which does not help to frame the issue.  This may have to do with the two party system and the missing tradition to form coalitions but it may well be laziness to understand complex issues. And even the governing coalition does not seem be able to communicate the nature and the necessity of ‘compromises’ in a convincing way.

The UK suffers from a political superiority complex. Especially politicians and commentators do not seem to understand that (1) the empire is gone – and will not come back, that (2) you can learn something from other countries (3) the war is over. All those tendencies create the impression of the “little Englanders” with a funny “island mentality”. Interestingly, the life in the UK is more cosmopolitan than in other parts of the EU and the majority of the population is very liberal and open-mindend. I think this is the real disconnect between the elite and the citizens in the UK.

At the same time, UK citizens are disconnected from the EU not only because Brussels is 2 hours away from London.  No – the UK government secured opt-outs in virtually all areas which could  benefit citizens directly and make the EU  more visible in everyday life: no Euro, no Schengen, no social rights, no fundamental rights…  It is not a surprise that citizens will not be interested, let alone develop trust in EU cooperation. The EU is reduced to a theoretical concept of a trade bloc. This mixed with a hostile media and attention seeking politicians will give you what is commonly described as “‘euroscepticism’.

There is obviously a huge problem with the way how UK media report about the EU. One the one hand side there is the tradition of  tabloid campaign journalism which actively lobbies against anything European.  The Murdoch press has bee opposed to the EU as soon as it realised that competition policy might also have an impact on the Murdochs. However, I don’t think the Murdoch press is the problem. The main problem in the UK  is actually the Daily Mail – and this goes beyond the  EU stories, it has an impact on democratic culture. The Daily Mail is read by a large middle class who tends to think of it as a ‘normal’ newspaper – which I think is an essential problem in the UK. (but this is a topic for another blogpost) One the other hand you can find  inaccuate EU reporting also in broadsheets. However, tabloid ‘EU stories’ have created an atmosphere which can be characterised by suspicion and fear of the ‘other’ and a general feeling that foreigners and immigrats are bad and everything foreign (especially ”Brussels’) cannot be trusted. Let’s not forget that the  media concsiously misreports EU issues and actively develops  euromyths. I don’t believe that this is because of lazy journalists  – it is far too frequent, it only happens in the UK so this must be actively pursued by certain interests! However, the power of the hostile media landscape defined to a large extent what is acceptable for politicians to say ‘on Europe’.

The public debate “on Europe” is stuck in a frame that only knows “europhiles” and “eurosceptics”. As long as both words are seen as insults there is not much hope to move the debate forward. It is not helpful to address the real problems of the EU or the UK-EU relationship.  Especially political parties need to develop new discoursive frames to create a useful debate “on Europe”.  New frames are desperately needed. Examples could be a “social Europe”, a “liberal Europe” or a “stable Europe”. However, in order to do that you need to accept that the EU is here to stay and that different policies should be decided on the different levels with the appropriate democratic control.

We need better EU politicians. The UK as well as most other Menber states must start sending better politicians to Brussels and Strassbourg. The European Parliament can only work better if citizens send their best and brightest MEPs to Strassbourg and Brussels. The European Commission can only work with Commissiners that are multilingual and  competent in their respective policy area.  Parties and the media must stop seeing ‘Brussels’ as the end of a career but rather as a political choice that is as important as being an MP in Westminster.

Languages are a huge problem in the UK. There will be problems as long as the value of language teaching is contested. One benefit of the EU is to look for jobs and opportunities in other EU countries. However, this only works if pupils learn as many languages as possible. Learning a language needs to become compulsary again in UK education – from the first year to the last year!

There is an  obsession of the current UK government to frame everything in the ‘national interests’ using an outdated concept of ‘power’ and ‘sovereinty’. This may well be a problem of the Conservative party but the real problem is the narrow definition of ‘national interests’.  If everything is framed within zero sum games it is very difficult to win anything. At the moment, the government seems to have a very simplisitic view on power and influence which is also at the heart of its problems with the EU.

And one final thing: The UK is a European country. So, please Brits, stop saying “If you go to Europe…” or “In Europe things are different…” As long as you define everything according to a “them and us” pattern, nothing will change.

What is the way forward for the UK?

A general point which needs to be addressed is that compromise is often painful but necessary. This may not be an integral part of the UK’s political culture but it is important in an interdependent world and even more so in the EU.  Knowledge about the value of cooperation is another broader concept that is often forgotten in the UK debate. The focus on “national interests”, “souvereignty” etc will not help the UK in long term.

The UK needs to realise that you can only change the EU if it is an integral part of it. If you decide to leave the EU you will end up implementing EU policy without the ability to change EU policy (as outlined by David Cameron). A more complex point however is the following.  You can only change a certain EU policy  if you are an equal part of this specific EU policy. If you have an opt-out nobody will consult you, nobody will listen to you and you will not be able to change anything.<
If a two-speed Europe  is not in the interest of the UK there is only one way forward for the UK:  The UK needs to increase its EU bargaining power!

For example: If the UK is serious about changing the budget in the future it will  need to  give up the budget rebate.  The budget is important as it provides strategic opportunities to reform the EU. But if one country pays less because of some dodgy deal 30 years ago it will not be taken seriously. The world has changed since Thatcher. At the same time the UK could win some friends in Eastern Europe by doing this.  This however can only be addressed if the UK government is ready to accept that it could indeed be in the “national interest” to pay more in exchange of ‘influence’. But this is a difficult sell especially if your ‘red lines’ are rigid and your ‘national interest’ is static.

Another example:  Despite the current crisis, the eurozone is the most important market for the UK. Recently, David  Cameron and George Osborne called for more fiscal coordination within the eurozone because the UK wants a stable currency zone to trade with. Now, the problem is that the UK is not a eurozone member, so one can understand Nicolas Sarkozy’s ager regarding the UK’s attempt to lecture how the eurozone should be run. Using the current eurozone crisis to start a debate on repatriating some mysterious powers (which are never properly defined!) is exactly the wrong way to secure a stable eurozone. It will not give you more leverage but only make you sound ridiculous in the ears of French or German politicians. And remember: In the worst case scenario the eurozone will establish parallel institutions and negotiating new treaties outside the present EU framework – and the UK would have no say whatsoever. The bargaining chip is unfortunately (at least for the political elite) full eurozone membership. The UK government should announce to join  (important is the word ‘announce’!) in a reformed eurozone at some undefined point in the future. This may give the prime minister a seat at the table of the eurozone summits and in every other future political/fiscal cooperation mechanism. The bargaining power is quite sophisticated. No direct obligation to join the euro but an influence in shaping the governance of the eurozone based on a vague promise to join one day if reforms have been implemented successfully.

Just two points that are often neglected by UK politicians and commentators: (1) Germany will do everything to save the Euro. And I mean everything.  It may be hard to believe for some UK commentators, but a break- up of the Euro is not on the agenda. Only British newspapers speculate about it. (2) All Eastern European EU member states are legally obliged to join the Euro in the future including states such as Poland. Denmark has an opt-out but its currency is linked to the eurzone which makes the opt out purely symbolical. That leaves the UK and Sweden – the latter is thinking about holding a new referendum after the crisis. The danger is not a two-speed Europe -  but a core-EU of up to 26 member states.

Another example. You can’t advocate for a better EU foreign policy and saying at the same time that nothing needs to change. It is a failure of the British diplomacy not to use the EU in more strategic way. After all, British diplomats are among the best out there and are highly respected within the international system. But why is Britain opposed to making the EEAS work, why not develop joint consular services or coordinate foreign policy on the ground, why not save money and increase efficiency with a military coordination unit in Brussels? It is pure hypocrisy to criticise on the EU’s lack of power without trying to change things. Again, this has to do with an outdated concept of sovereignty which places more importance on symbols and traditions than addressing the real problems.

I think the UK elite consistently failed to build strong EU alliances. Especially a strong British-German alliance within the EU would be desirable.  There is a lot of common ground between the two countries – provided you are prepared to learn from another country. There is a substantial part within the German elite which can identify with the  UK’s philosophy on trade and markets.  In contrast, the French state centric economic model does not really correspond to German realities.  However, the German-French axis mainly exists because of historical reasons – and the lack of alternatives. I think the Germans would rather run the EU with the Brits than with the French if the Brits were a bit more involved in everything and would not always look for the opt-out. The truth is that Germany and Britain are both large countries that are obviously linked through history (and the British obsession with the wars might not have helped in the past), languages are not that different and even the Queen has German ancestors. People in Germany are fond of the English language and British culture. So wouldn’t it make sense for British politicians to develop closer links to Germany?

You want to change the CAP,  liberalise services in the EU, reform the EU budget, clearly define what policy is decided on which level, creating a better EU foreign policy? Well,  I think Berlin might be interested. But from a Berlin perspective, the UK is already seen as semi-detached from the EU – if not fully detached. Basically nobody in Berlin cares what British politicians say on ‘Europe’ or what they want during the next round of treaty negotiations.

Well, this is something David Cameron should change. But he can only change it if he offers something in return.

Ok, but let’s think about the content. I don’t know why I should ask the President of the European Council anything. Well, apart from the question whether we actually need a permanent president at all, as I have the impression that it only created another layer of bureaucracy and increased inter-institutional rivalry. But ok, maybe other people may find it useful. And who knows, maybe Van Rompuy himself (or his team) can learn something from the exercise…

After watching this video, I have some basic communication advice:

- So, Herman Van Rompuy, or as I like to call him now “the communicator”, prefers video. But why? Is text not good enough? Why does he mention it in the video? Just because video is the latest online and PR trend? The point I am trying to make is the following: If you ask people to contact you, give as many options as possible and don’t talk down on people! Make it sound positive. Instead of saying “video – that’s what I would prefer” just say “you can also submit a video” or “I will reply by video”.

- In a 28 second video do you really need to emphasize that “maybe not all questions ” will be answered? This is not very encouraging and it sounds quite negative. At least say “I will do my best to answer all questions” or “My team and I will work hard to answer all relevant questions that you may have”.

- And what about languages? The website is currently only in English, probably a sign that it is an experiment (but don’t tell it to the French!). But more seriously, it is the EU and languages are important. I understand that it is a lot of work to provide translations but if you launch a page such as askthepresident.eu make sure that people can at least submit questions in all EU languages.

- Voting without a google account. I understand it is easier to use google or facebook plugins to achieve a meaningful social media integration but at the same time these tools excluding many European citizens. Not everyone has a google account and I certainly would not like to open a google account just to be able to play around with voting on a EU website. Moreover, I don’t want to be forced to use a certain company to get in touch with politicians. I am also suspicious about revealing my political interests to any company…

via The Belgium Free Press: EU Hot Air

A man in a hot air balloon over the Belgian countryside realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. Descending a bit more he shouted, “Excuse me, can you help? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don’t know where I am”. The woman replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above the ground, between 40/41 degrees latitude, north, and 59/60 degrees west, longitude”.

“You must be a middle-grade Commission Official!”, said the balloonist. “I am”, replied the woman, “I’m a Grade A*8. How did you know?” “Well”, answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct but I have no idea what to make of your information and the fact is, I am still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you have delayed my trip.”

The woman below responded, “You must be a Senior Commission Official!”. “I am,” replied the balloonist, “But how did you know?” “Well,” replied the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault”

We are going to Hay Festival / How the light gets in which will take place in the beautiful village of Y Gelli Gandryll (also known as Hay-on-Wye)! No – we are not going speak at one of the events as we are not famous enough and, to be honest, we do not have enough interesting things to say. But we will certainly enjoy the festival and the Welsh countryside. Plus a healthy dose of  listening, learning, reading, partying… (And don’t expect any live blogging or tweeting!)

Well, if you are around say hay (sorry about this!) We are always happy to meet readers and have a pint. Contact us here!

In case you have not seen it, a couple of days ago my post on German UN diplomacy on Libya was featured here. Actually a funny thing because it is one of those posts that took me 10 minutes to write – which does explain the amount of  typos and the general incoherence of the piece. But well, SPON thought it was good enough for their press review. And to put it into perspective: Spiegel Online is the biggest and most influential news website in Germany.

And being featured as the only blog among the likes of Le Monde, The Guardian, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Der Standard and dw-world is a nice achievement for your humble blogger.

Thanks a lot SPON for these 15 minutes of fame.

Germany was the only NATO/EU member to abstain together Russia, China, Brasil, India. Result: no common EU foreign policy (Ashton being absent from the wider debate anyway) despite the good opportunity for an interesting ESDP mission. The US seems to support the resolution but does not want to use own military capabilities. At the same time there is an agreement between France, the UK and Italy. It is a missed opportunity for ESDP and EU foreign policy in general. And the reason, strangely enough, is Germany. Moreover, Germany is partly to blame why the it took so long to agree on a UN resolution.

(Sorry for the lack of links and background info and the lack of any sophisticated writing, just think of it as a draft blog post – bit in a hurry at the moment…)

So what is the problem with German diplomacy? A quick explanation:

1. There are a couple of important regional elections in the coming weeks. Hugely important for Merkel’s CDU and it does not look very good. Merkel seems to be inspired by Schröder who won elections with swift decisions and a “no war” attitude. So, Merkel’s decision perform a u-turn on nuclear energy (albeit only for 3 months!) and the the “no” to war in Libya seem to follow that idea. However, I think Merkel completely misjudges the situation. The u-turn on nuclear energy lacks any credibility and does not seem to help the CDU (and first opinion polls do support this view). Libya is not Iraq. Libya is quite an easy narrative, and not as controversial as Iraq so you can’t win popular opinion with it. Afghanistan is unpopular, so the idea to do more in Afghanistan and not support the intervention is Libya is counterproductive.

I think the German population would rather support an intervention in Libya than to abstain as the only Western country. Moreover, supporting a UN resolution would not necessarily involve a commitment to military engagement. Germany could have supported the resolution without contributing (citing the real(!) lack of military capabilities). Support: yes, military involvement: no – that would have been a more successful strategy…

Maybe Merkel/Westerwelle were not sure how people would react to an involvement of the Bundeswehr – or even to a formal endorsement of the intervention in Libya. However, judging on trends in popular opinion at the moment it is easy to come to the conclusion that any controversial decision (i.e intervention) could become a hot issue in German politics.  The prospect of defending a war in the three upcoming election campaigns might have been a contributing factor that explains the German position.

2. Foreign Minister Westerwelle is not up to the job. He lacks the political feeling for situations, foreign policy is not really his field of expertise. He often seems uncomfortable with foreign policy. After the elections he should have taken over the ministry of finance and/or economics. And he is the most unpopular foreign minister ever. In Germany, Foreign ministers are always among the most trusted and popular politicians – with the exception of Westerwelle. Is Libya an attempt to become popular again? Oh, and it seems that the Chancellery is the main foreign policy player at the moment. So, the abstention could be a sign of the internal problems of German foreign policy, a disagreement between Merkel and Westerwelle is quite likely.

3. “No war” as a foreign policy principle. Not very convincing after Kosovo & Afghanistan but it might have some influence in the thinking on foreign policy among German diplomats. Especially the rather bad experiences in Afghanistan might have shaped the “no intervention” stance of the German government. A more serious point is that German decision makers are convinced that this “no fly zone” will basically result in a war which might last for quite some time. And nobody in Germany wants to send soldiers on Libyan soil. Not only is it unpopular, there are quite some risks attached to it.  Especially after  Afghanistan and  Iraq the danger of a getting into a conflict that last for several years should not be underestimated. Moreover, there has been very little talk about what constitutes a “success” of the intervention. German decision makers are naturally reluctant without having a clear exit strategy and general strategy what to do after the air strikes! I think these ideas are crucial in understanding the German position.

A last chance for German diplomacy?

The Libyan government just announced a ceasefire (a real chance or Gaddafi trying to buy time?). If implemented (which is doubtful anyway) there might be some negotiations about the future of Libya. Maybe a mediation to discuss an acceptable exit strategy for Gaddafi or some power sharing mechanisms; there might be a UN backed peacekeeping force – everything in flux as Gaddafi seems to be determined to stay in power as long as possible. So, any diplomatic negotiations will mostly happen in the background. Germany could be seen as the only ‘credible western country’ to negotiate between the Libyan government and the opposition/international community. If the German government wants to restore trust and credibility it might a good idea to get involved now. However, it is probably not very likely to happen…not with Westerwelle and Merkel.

Update: Germany rejects Libya ceasefire monitoring role