Anyway, the video is a nice reminder what the POTEC  (that sounds quite cool – is there also an official short form?) actually does – arguably not that much. So no need to get overexicted by this new position. A video that should definitely be watched by journalists and governmental website editors:

and while we’re at it:

To mark this anniversary the European Journalism Centre (EJC) published a nice article about the project. In a way we reached the aim there:  Bloggingportal.eu as a “featured resource” for journalists all over Europe

Don’t forget to stay updated with bloggingportal.eu issues:  You can become a fan of bloggingportal on facebook and you can follow us on twitter! If you are a twitter addict you might want to check out our editors choice on twitter!

We are also looking for new editors and volunteers that would like to get involved. Just write us an email and we will get back to you!

If you are a regular reader of this blog you are probably aware of the fact that I am quite interested in this topic, see for example my posts about the Sainsbury ID issue and my UK bank account story.

Anyway, what are your experiences when moving from one EU country to another? Share your views in the comments here:  Moving on up « Talking about the EU.

(In case you do not know this blog:  It is the blog of the head of media at the European Commission in London – so a comment about your issues there might make it into the EU machinery… you never know!

Im Tagesanzeiger schreibt Tobias Moorstedt über die europäische politische Netzdebatte, mit vielen alten Bekannten wie zum Beispiel: Linkfluence, Bloggingportal.eu, Jon Worth, Cafe Babel, Eurotopics, Perlentaucher, La Quadrature du Net Aber auch inhaltlich auf den Punkt gebracht und sehr lesenswert:

Im Netz findet Europa noch nicht statt

But is it too much to ask that the government gets it right? After all it is  often the member states that are keen to make sure that certain EU terms should not sound too similar to national terms…

So, today Number10.gov.uk – the official site of the Prime Minister’s Office in the UK had this top story:

The only positive thing about this story is that the Prime Minister got it right…

But coming back to the editors at Number10.gov.uk – Not only do they seem to borrow journalists from the mainstream media they also don’ t seem to care about feedback unlike the Foreign Office.

The UK Foreign Office (FCO) was quick to change its twitter status update after an intervention by the Commission Representation in London on twitter! (check the FCO twitter updates before and after this tweet)

But the website of Downing Street is still the same despite their presence on twitter. So, I wrote a DM to Downing Street – let’s see whether they change the website…and whether they react to DM on twitter!

I think it is a very good initiative. There are a lot of opportunities for EU institutions by engaging with web tools. Unfortunately there is still a rather widespread skepticism among politicians and officials despite a few good examples how to use web 2.0 tools successfully. Hopefully this letter will contribute to a rethink in the institutions. Moreover, this would also be a good topic to bring up during the Commission-designate hearings in the European Parliament this week…

Hat tip:  Dick Nieuwenhuis Blog: Please, use web 2.0 for Europe!

Stephen M. Walt (Foreign Policy):

I wonder what Americans would think if every single one of them could travel to Paris or London, go through the airport and ride the public transportation system, and spend a week seeing how well some public institutions (though of course not all) actually work. I somehow suspect a lot of them would come home and ask themselves why Americans don’t have the same thing. This effect would be compounded if they all re-entered the United States at Logan Airport or La Guardia.

Paul Krugman (New York Times):

Europe is often held up as a cautionary tale, a demonstration that if you try to make the economy less brutal, to take better care of your fellow citizens when they’re down on their luck, you end up killing economic progress. But what European experience actually demonstrates is the opposite: social justice and progress can go hand in hand.

Peter Voß fragt die Schriftstellerin Juli Zeh from Netwatcher24 on Vimeo.

Imagine you are a Belgian citizen and you just turned 27. You move to the UK to do research at one of the leading universities. So far so good. Thanks to EU legislation, there are no problems getting your previous qualifications recognised. Although the UK is not member of Schengen it is enough to present a ID card at the border to enter the country. Obviously you do not need a visa or a passport. Anyway most of EU citizens just carry their ID cards with them, some do not even have passports and, anyway, we tend to store our passports at home in the cupboard in case we travel to weird destinations next summer. So what can possibly go wrong with living in the UK you might ask?

Well, although you are 27 you might look younger than 25 which can be a problem (although this is hard to imagine!) So on any given Wednesday you pop into your local Sainsbury’s to buy a bottle of wine. (For those of you who have been in the UK you might be aware of a small alcohol problem regarding under-age drinking…) Since the shop assistant thinks you look under 25 (in normal circumstances this is a compliment!) she asks for a proof of identity as the shop policy requires her to check everyone who looks under 25 whether he or she is over 18.

First, you might be a bit surprised as you did not expect this question. But, thanks to old habits you carry your Belgian ID card with you and present it to the shop assistant. After all it is one of the most advanced ID cards in Europe and does not look like a library card.

“Sorry we do not accept ID cards – only passports and British driving licenses” the shop assistant informs you. Your reply: “But in the alcohol department I saw a poster with all means of identification – including ID cards” (which is of course rather funny as there are no UK ID cards yet…) – “Sorry, no exceptions.” she answers. “I can show you the poster if you want?” But she clarifies ”We do not accept ID cards!” – “But this is my national ID card issued by the Belgian state and you can see here that I am 27 years old” – “Sorry, I cannot accept it!”

So, why do we have ID cards (ID is short for identity document!!) if this is still happening in the EU? Why is the ID accepted to enter the country, to open a UK bank account, to vote in local UK and European elections. Probably you can even open your own supermarket – but it is really not accepted to proof your age in a supermarket? Is it discrimination? Well, as the branch manager of Sainsbury’s explained later: “Discriminatory behavior would include different prizes for UK citizens and foreign citizens…but the supermarket can decide what kind of ID it accepts”

I am not convinced! And I would feel discriminated against. I think this is ridiculous and I wonder whether there is any EU/national legislation which could be used in this case…I still hope this was a decision of a couple of stubborn employees and not the official company policy….

And just to make it clear: This really happened (!), however, luckily there are other supermarkets and the evening eventually included a bottle of wine!

This is mainly an experimentation with soft bodies using toxi’s verlet springs. The data refers to the evolution of the top 4 maritime empires of the XIX and XX centuries by extent. The visual emphasis is on their decline.

More on that project can be found here.

1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. [...]
3. (…) The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

Article 17, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union

Let’s start with the good news: The appointment of two nobodies to the EU top jobs is a good argument if you want to discuss with ‘Euroskeptics’ about the existence of a “EU superstate” – even they might agree that Van Rompuy and Ashton are weak politicians that are not likely not raise the EU profile. To all the journalists out there: It is also a good time to get your facts straight on the “real” powers of the European Council President. It is not the “President of the EU” and if you look up a few basic facts you might discover the explanation why Von Rompuy makes perfect sense (from the perspective of the European Council!).

Moreover, one could argue that issues will be more important than people. I don’t think the media will take any interest in the work of Baroness Ashton or Van Rompuy over the next couple of years which might help to define the job profiles properly and focus on issues. Both, Ashton and van Rompuy are not the most qualified or experienced people which can also be an advantage. Expectations are not very high so they can only surprise us …

Philosophically it is an expression of the soft power approach as both candidates appear as consensus builders that are able to organise majorities and get the deals done. Catherine Ashton already stressed her approach of “quiet diplomacy” which can be interpreted as a notion of  ’structural foreign policy’. It’s clearly a continuation of the traditional EU approach which, after all, proved to be quite successful in the last decades (generally speaking – obviously not in foreign policy…). And hey, it could have been even worse…

Ok, so much for the “good” news (if you are a hardcore optimist…). The bad aspects of the choice are somewhat more convincing. There will be no inspired leadership, no innovative approaches, no inspiration, which is  not a surprise given the lack of any relevant experience of both politicians. The European Union Law blog digged out an interesting quote by Herman Van Rompuy who thinks that “every country should emerge victorious from negotiations”. and that the institutional debate in the EU “is closed for a long period”. Plus, Van Rompuy is not a fan of Turkish EU accession.

Another interesting question is how did we end up with these two uninspiring candidates? Baroness Ashton is a real surprise, nobody thought of her as the new High Rep. Van Rompuy has been mentioned by the press for quite a while now. If you include Buzek, the president of the European parliament, into the equation it makes perfect sense as it shows an almost perfect representation with most formal boxes being ticked: East/West, North/South, small/large, a woman, left/right, … It strikes me that this kind of thinking does not produce the best results.

Especially the Socialists are to blame again. After failing to propose a own candidate for European Commission president earlier this year they now managed to get the High Rep position which was initially a smart political move. But then again Ashton seems to represents the lowest common denominator of the Socialists. They could have proposed a more qualified candidate – maybe even from another party! But it is fair to say that many potential candidates still prefer national instead of European careers.

Baroness Ashton is a solid and decent Commissioner but she does not have any foreign policy experience. It will be interesting to see whether she will actually be comfortable to interpret the new “double hatted” role which will be a quite demanding job! And Von Rompoy will keep a low profile:

As has been my custom in Belgian politics, I will remain discreet in the media, certainly during the forthcoming weeks.

So, do not expect anything spectacular from him! (Anyway, the ‘president’ post has always been hyped by the media – it is a chairman, nothing more nothing less! Frankly I don’t care too much about this president. Actually I think a strong personality would have caused more problems given the lack of proper ‘presidential’ powers!)

There won’t be a personalisation of EU politics which means that intergovernmental bargaining will become even more central to decision making. It seems that the French-German alliance is running the show again. At the moment, national governments think that it is not in their interest to have strong personalities at the EU level. Just think about Barroso, Ashton, Buzek, Van Rompuy…

Oh yes, and it is quite likely that nobody outside the Eurobubble will notice that the Lisbon treaty is in place…

Richard Whitman at Monnet musings highlights the external dimension of the decision:

What will outsiders make of these choices? In Beijing, Moscow and Washington policy-makers and analysts will be hard pressed to discern anything from these appointments. Neither seems to signal any clear intent for a new direction and character for the EU or the future direction of its foreign policy.

But will the Commission benefit from all that? I am not sure. Barroso is rather weak and uninspired. Much will depend on the new College of Commissioners. One thing is clear: The Commission president will remain the most known EU politician. Van Rompuy or Ashton are not likely to challenge this because they seem to be even weaker than Barroso.

We got the people that we deserve. It is the perfect recipe for uninspired continuity, boredom and status quo. Exactly what the EU needs!

Map & Analysis of the European political web