Tag Archives: Brussels

Short guide to lazy EU journalism

The unofficial rulebook for lazy EU journalism. 20 invaluable tips for your career in EU journalism.

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!

IS:  Stutti leiðarvísirinn fyrir lata Evrópublaðamanninn – Takk, Hilmar!

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 

PL: Jak pisać o UE | Kadmos

Tagged , , , , , ,

Eurocrats

Hilarious!

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”

Tagged , , ,

BrusselsLeaks is back

In December 2010, the mysterious Brusselsleaks website appeared.  The idea was simple: Think of wikileaks in a EU/Brussels context.

Now BrusselsLeaks is back with a new website and a new logo!  Well, the logo is rather basic and it looks like the Ukrainian flag turned upside down. ;-)

A couple of weeks ago we wrote a lenghty post about brusselsleaks in which we critisised some of its  features. As far as I can see it the most crucial problems have not (yet) been addressed. (https is nice, but not using tor remains a security flaw!)

The new website  is based on the wikileaks theme (not sure whether that is such a good idea as it looks like a copy cat now) and the first item is a mirrored cable – originally published by wikileaks (not sure why it is there). Let’s hope this is just a test and the real stuff is coming soon…

More problematic for a website dedicated to leaking documents is the usage of google analytics. Google analytics   can be used to trace back visitors and it generates very  detailed (some might say too detailed!) user reports. The problem with Google Analytics can be practical (if someone hacks into your GA account or gets hold of the google account password) or indeed legal (you might be required to hand over the logs, or google might help some investigators without telling you …you never know!) – both scenarios are certainly no good news  for any potential whistle-blower.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The #web2eu bubble and ‘islands of excellence’

Last week there was another #web2eu (and on twitter) event, formerly known as openbeer 2.0 (if I remember correctly!).  If you have not heard of it: it’s a nice little series of events focusing on social media and the European Union in Brussels. It is informal and it is a great place to meet people that are interested in both worlds. This week there was an interesting panel debate featuring @eurogoblin, @antusheng and @steffenmoller. Personally I found that the panel presentations took too long – maybe it would be better to just have one ‘keynote’ with a debate and with more time allocated for informal discussions.

Generally I had the feeling that everything had been said before and that the EU-social media debate did not really move forward in the last years. Nothing new, always the same topics… It seems like a little bubble that keeps talking to itself. However, there were several interesting bits and pieces that are worth mentioning here (if you followed my twitter stream some of the points might seem familiar though). Unfortunately I did not write down who said what so I am sorry if some quotes are not attributed to the right person – or I could just claim the meeting took place under Chatham House rules…;-)

I think everyone agreed that social media/Web 2.0 can neither save the EU nor any EU policies  (which was the rhetorical question at the beginning of the debate).  It might however be a useful tool to  bring citizens together in new and innovative forms. Nice examples like schools exchanges, interpreter recruitment and civil society projects were mentioned (one  “island of excellence” if you want). Citizen-to-citizen contacts across borders and across language barriers could work very well – obviously one could ask the question whether the EU is actually needed for that.

The problem of EU institutions is the focus on control and what I would call “hierarchical communication structures”.  Social media needs to be seen as a conversation but EU institutions don’t seem to be  engaging (except some “islands of excellence”). The European Commission actually likes social media – but mainly for dissemination, not for conversation. There is a lack of innovative communication in the institutions or as one participant commented “The EU Commission has a facebook page because the White House has one…”. At the same time it is worth mentioning that certain individuals in the EU institutions  and several units are “islands of excellence” – and doing a great job!

However, there seems to be a fear to engage with criticism directly. The debate often highlighted the issue of trust – be it trust in officials or trust in social media. Especially trusting officials seems to be a major issue.  A culture of hierarchical communication seems to exist that prevents innovative and creative PR on behalf of the institutions carried out by “normal” officials and not necessarily by the official spokespersons. There were some interesting remarks that actually contradicted a lot of scientific research on ‘group think’ and ‘common identity of EU officials’. It is often assumed that people working for EU institutions share a set of European principles and that there is a certain “EU identity” among officials which would lead to mutual trust when it comes to ‘defending’ or ‘promoting’ EU policies. Apparently in practice hierarchies are more important, it is a top down process – also in communications.  There seems to be a fear of making a mistake which then can seriously harm you career. This does not sound like an environment I would like to work in!

Recruitment and career development are in fact important issues, but often forgotten in these sort of debates. There was broad agreement that something is wrong in the recruitment procedures and career development processes within the EU  institutions. A tweet by @MariaDantz summarized the issue:  “In the EU commission the bright people are not recruited to the right positions. Problem in EC  is also structural imo”

The problem is complex but at the same time quite obvious. The EU institutions have a generalist perspective on career development which is also reflected in the recruitment strategy. Every official moves from DG to DG every couple of years which involves changing jobs.  The idea is that rotating between jobs regularly is a good thing to do. Although I think this can be a good policy, it can results in the strange situation that an EU official with a degree in chemistry who first analysed  regional statistics in DG Regio gets a new job in  DG environment to work on climate change issues. After that he or she  gets a job in communications and media relations – but without a degree and without experience in communication whatsoever. That is happening on a large scale, which is part of the problem. Now, the production of a lot of PR products and strategies is outsourced to PR companies. But the problem remains: if you have no idea about target groups and how PR works, you ask your PR companies for the wrong products which they need to deliver. So it is not always the fault of the PR companies to produce weird games, uninspired leaflets or useless websites  – it is often structural and can be traced back to officials that are not necessarily up for a job in communications.

More generally,  working in communication/media (alongside HR!) is seen as  a profession everyone is able to do. The old idea that both areas are not rocket science seems to be widespread which explains a lot of communication failures.

And there was one  question (asked by an EU official) that really needs to be addressed here.

Question: How should EU institutions engage with bloggers?

1. Read blogs. Yes. that is a basic point but reading blogs can give EU officials a good feeling about what is being discussed outside Brussels.

2. Leave comments. Bloggers love to debate and discuss issues. They usually appreciate if an EU official corrects certain details or simply engages in a debate. Blogging is also about learning!

3. Provide more creative commons content (photos, videos etc.) as you want your content to be used on the internet and in blogs. And since we are at it:  please  use open source software and video streams and formats that can be used by every citizen!

4. It would be great to get some sort of blogger press accreditation. And don’t worry, most bloggers would not show up on a regular basis (daytime job commitments!) and a minority is actually based in Brussels. But it would be a innovative symbol of openness towards citizens and citizen journalism!

5. EU officials should blog. Maybe under a pseudonym. Maybe not regularly. Maybe try twitter instead? Blogging is not for everyone, you need to enjoy it – but you need to give it a try to find out. And it would help the blogosphere if more people from inside the institutions would blog and provide an internal perspective on things.

6. Meet the bloggers. At conferences, in Brussels, in member states. Do invite them from time to time to events. They are surprisingly social human beings and nice to talk to!

7. Just use common sense. Bloggers are normal people that have one strange hobby: writing about EU politics in their free time…

Tagged , , , , ,

Brussels and the EU institutions. How it all began.

Fact: Brussels is the centre of EU activities, the main seat of its institutions. It is enshrined in the Treaties as such. But was it like this from the very beginning? And why was it chosen to play this role?

Going down history lane, we find Belgium, one of the founding members of the European Communities, holding the first ever Council presidency, in January 1958, when the Rome Treaties entered into force. It was, of course, by alphabetical order that this was decided. But since that was the very beginning and no precedent existed, the seat of the EC institutions was also not set. Luxembourg declined to get the seats of all EU institutions. However, the Council had to start meeting somewhere, and with Belgium at it helm, Brussels was the obvious choice. For practical reasons, the Commission came along. This was thought of as a temporary solution but in reality the provisional situation became the permanent location of the two EU institutions (formally confirmed by the Amsterdam Treaty, “only” 40 years later). The European Parliament, initially based in Strasbourg,  got its Brussels seat a bit later, when it became closely associated in the decision-making process by the introduction of the codecison procedure.

So if you thought that the choice of Brussels was somehow based on logical, historic, economic, common sense or whatever other types of reasons you can come up with, think again. It was indeed, by chance, and later by inertia that Brussels hosts the EU institutions. One can also look at it as a “legacy” of the first ever Belgian presidency. An interesting thought, now when we are approaching the start of Belgium’s 12th edition of EU Council Presidency. Back then the EC institutions had just been created and lots of nitty-gritty details of their working were to be decided in the first months. Now, the EU structure, redefined by the Lisbon Treaty, needs to be implemented in practice. Coincidentally, both times Belgium gets to play a leading role (baring in mind of course the very different historical context and the evolution of EU integration). As we saw, Belgium left quite a strong mark back then, putting Brussels at the centre of the EU. Will something similarly relevant be said about the 2010 presidency, 50 years from now?

Tagged , , , , ,

Why Wolfgang Schäuble should not become EU Commissioner!

It seems as if my predictions about who will become the new German EU Commissioner were wrong. Spiegel Online reports today that Chancellor Merkel wants to nominate Wolfgang Schäuble, the current German Interior Minister, for the post in Brussels. This is quite a bad choice especially if he aims to get the Justice and Home affairs portfolio, or something connected to telecommunication/Internet regulation… And since he is a very experienced politician (he was tipped to become Chancellor Kohl’s successor at some point…) and one of the heavyweights of Angela Merkel’s government, he will surely get an influential portfolio.

But he is , together with Ursuala von der Leyen (also known as “Zensursula”), the hate figure of the German blogosphere and known for his law and order approach. So what is the problem?

541px-stasi_20svgHe is quite fond of  “preventive security” and critics accuse him of undermining the rule of law. He initiated several controversial counter terrorism laws in Germany. He once declared that the presumption of innocence should not be applied to terrorist suspects and that preventive assassinations should be made legal. Controversially, he also suggested that it should be possible for the German army to operate inside Germany.  Schäuble also proposed that people that sympathize with terrorists should not be allowed to use internet and mobile phones. He also proposed to use statements that were made using torture in courts. In that context he also proposed that terrorists should not have the protection of the German Basic Law. Nor surprisingly, he defended the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism.

I don’t want someone with that kind of thinking in the College of Commissioners.

Schäuble is known to support everything that involves the use of biometric data including fingerprints, eye scanners, DNA tests – you name it!

As German Minister of the Interior he initiated a couple of very controversial data retention laws that allow the German government to store personal  data for six months (everything from telephone and mobile calls to text messages and online behavior). Hence the civil rights campaign called Stasi 2.0. There is already too much support for these kind of measures in different member states, no need to “europeanise” that approach..

And a couple of things that I personally find quite worrying: (1) He actively supported a campaign against double citizenship in Germany in the late 1990s. (2) During the Iraq war he was one of the few German politicians that supported the US approach. (3) And he was heavily involved in the CDU party funding scandal a couple of years ago… A neo-con with a preference for backroom deals, the opposite of what we need in the European Commission.

So, I am rather skeptical about Wolgang Schäuble as the new German EU Commissioner especially if he wants to continue with his security policy, a policy field that is becoming more and more important at a EU level.   The EU debate could turn rather nasty as he is likely to propose (but not necessarily implement!) controversial EU policies…

Of course he perfectly fits the traditional job description of a typical EU Commissioner:  experienced national male politician (= old), end of the career posting to Brussels (= Merkel wants to get rid of him).  Wolfgang Schäuble is unfortunately not a candidate to get excited about…

Tagged , , , , , ,

The "Festival of Europe": efficient communication or just a colourful marketplace?

Today it’s the 9th of May, Europe day. Like every year, celebrations are organised, with various intensities, throughout Europe. Of course, the main festivities are held in Brussels, where the European institutions open their doors to the public. Having attended the event for the last three years as a visitor (and enthusiastic collector of pens and posters), I found myself this year, for the whole day, “trapped” in the European Parliament, this time on the side of the “exhibitors”. The experience left me with quite a different impression of the celebration than in the previous years, although I could easily recognise the very same ritual I was familiar with: same stalls, almost in the same places, presenting the same (maybe slightly updated) materials and, of course, the same crowd of people, of all ages and nationalities, patiently waiting in the huge entrance queues and gathering kilograms of brochures, pens, key-rings and other free goodies.

festival-of-europe

And still, looking at the crowds passing by, catching glimpses of their conversations (in all languages you can imagine), made me wonder what is the real purpose of all this, and if that purpose is achieved. In my naivety, I would imagine that the aim of putting up such a “show” should be trying to get closer to the citizen and trying to get the citizen interested in what the EU and its various institutions are doing. Well, while the first issue (getting closer to the citizen) might be achieved, at least at a physical level (i.e. people do step in the premises of the institutions), the second one is much more tricky and, in any case, much more unlikely to be achieved in one day, be it even Europe Day.

Nevertheless, as part of the larger aim of communicating Europe and as part of the campaign for the European Parliament elections that has just started, I was expecting the event to be a bit more meaningful from the point of view of content. Taking advantage of the varied crowd that was present, the MEPs could have used the Open Day for campaigning, for showing their face to the public and inviting them to debates. Instead, the only MEPs present at the debate were Belgian, while all the others are probably already campaigning in their home constituencies, which is, truth be said, more effective in term of vote- gathering than speaking  to a (packed) Hemicycle to an audience that is unlikely and/ or unable to vote for them. That much for a European public sphere, European idea and European citizenship…

Outside the Hemicycle, however, people were getting what they came for: colourful balloons from all political groups, that seemed to have arrived to the (correct) conclusion that giving out goodies is far more attractive to the public than trying to explain political programmes. Another fashionable feature this year were quizzes. Wherever you turned to, everyone (and I mean it almost literally: everyone) was taking a quiz. That is how some people ended up with 5 colorful umbrellas…and that’s about it. Why, one would say? Aren’t quizzes an intellectual thing to do? Well, not in this case, they aren’t. The winners only needed a light version of common sense, patience to queue and a few spare smiles to offer to the organisers when asking for help. EU? What EU? A…we’re in a European institution…right…Well, then Long Live the EU, as long as it puts on this show yearly and we all leave with our colourful goodies.

So why am I so negative about it? Everyone seemed to be enjoying, a festive feeling was in the air…It’s probably a mixture of disappointment in the way the event was treated by both sides: on the one hand, the way people (who were arguably on a trip to discover the EU institutions) dismissed any informative material, as nothing but papers they would never read anyway; on the other hand, the way the institutions themselves designed the Open Day: it is, undoubtedly, far easier to “get closer to the citizens” by not mentioning much about the EU but offering a bit of circus for one day a year; the question that comes to my mind now, and should definitely appear in the self-assessment of the event, is: after they all happily leave the “marketplace”, having gathered all the items they came for, will anyone feel more enlightened on EU issues or would they even remember what the blue, red or green on their new (free!) bottle opener stands for?

And still, I am looking forward to next year’s celebrations, which will probably end up organsied after exactly the same blueprint. It is, after all, a successful event, people say. Good example of institutional inertia…

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Quotes of the week

Although the title suggests a weekly feature I doubt that I would find something every week. To be honest I just could not come up with a better title … so here we go with some remarkable statements:

via Times Online

I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?”

Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

Certain ideas of Europe:

Foreign visitors arriving via Eurostar at London’s St Pancras station on Thursday might have wondered just how badly Britain has been hit by the credit crunch: more than 100 people turned up at St Pancras wearing only their underpants.

Jochen Bittner’s blog “planet in progress”:

Neenee! Lassen Sie mal. Sie wurden gelobbyt!

Meiden Sie zuviel Champagner, er ruiniert Ihre Magenschleimhaut.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The problems of EU debates

After reading recent posts by Martin Westlake and Julien Frisch I actually remembered a post on “EU debates” that I wrote a couple of months ago but somehow forgot to publish. It is rather an exploratory post, very general and patchy and open to new ideas. I want to look at the nature of EU debates without getting into any ideological debate. And after writing this blog for almost 2 years, I think there are numerous problems of debating EU issues online as well as in the “real world”. Here some reasons and possible solutions:

However, to put it into context of the debate, let’s look at the main argument of Julien Frisch who thinks rightly that “The problem of European political communication is that it is not filling our attention on a daily basis because it focuses on the wrong notion of “importance”. Of course it is debatable whether importance as such exists or whether it is a construct of the media/society. So if we accept the latter we should ask ourselves why EU debates are generally constructed as not being inportant?

1. facts vs. myths

Every EU debate at some point touches the issue of EU myths. What does this tell us about the quality of the debate? The fact-myth problem in debating the EU is a time consuming one with two implications: (1) it only reinforces the ideological standpoint of the reader and the commentator; and (2) people tend to forget about the real issues at stake. This shows that something is missing. I would suggest it has something to do with education. Interestingly, not many “national” legislative myths do exist (at least I tend to believe that, but I could be wrong about that…)

2. facts vs. oversimplification

Closely connected to myths is the tendency to oversimplify EU issues. One example is the notoriously used “Brussels wants…” phrase. But also the battle motive is very popular: Head of state 1 vs. Head of state 2. It is very handy to forget that different actors (Commission, Parliament, national ministers, lobbyists, NGOs,…) are involved in the decision making procedure. The European Parliament has a similar problem, citizens do not link their MEPs (in case they know them!) with any EU policies.

Another tendency is a kind of ‘conspiracy component’. Lots of people conveniently buy into some sort of conspiracy theory when it comes to EU institutions. I want to emphasize two points: (1) In every political structure there needs to be a certain degree of secrecy in order for the system to function. (2) The institutional setting of the EU is quite complicated and, yes, the EU is a huge bureaucracy.

The result of overlooking both aspect leads to the perception that the EU is a huge “anti- democratic conspiracy” and lots of people also tend to believe that there is some sort of masterplan somewhere behind closed doors. I do not want to deny that there are indeed problems regarding democratic accountability in the EU but people tend to forget where they actually come from… Paradoxically, both points are also interconnected: If the EU acts not coherently (because of its institutional setting) it rightly gets criticized. But if the EU tries to coordinate policies and approaches (similar to the coordination between national ministries) it gets accused of too much secrecy and not enough transparency. I do not want to defend deals behind closed doors but it is rather difficult to streamline positions of 27 member states (including internal disagreements between ministries!), several European Commission DGs as well as the necessity to deal with lobbyists and other organizations that all want to have a say in EU policy making!

3.institutions vs. policy

Every EU debate at some point turns to the legitimacy question of EU institutions. Of course this is important for any future development of the EU and it also shows that EU institutions are far from being perfect. At the same time, the debate about policy content is missing. Public debates never discuss policy options at an early stage.

4. General popular apathy.

Ok, this is a topic on its own. However, the majority of European citizens seem neither very enthusiastic nor concerned about the EU. They simply do not care about the EU because it is not something one can easily relate to, it is too far away from every day life and it is really boring (that is how it is perceived). Even the European success stories (generally related to the “four freedoms”) are usually taken for granted. I am not very optimistic here, probably this is not gonna change any time soon…

Conclusions

I my opinion EU debates take place too late. Especially national media only reports about EU initiatives after their adoption in the Council, or more accurately, in that moment the national parliament debates it. The debate needs to start earlier in order to have any impact on proposals. I think two major reforms should take place:

1. It is still cumbersome for non-experts to monitor the EU decision making process. Especially the internet and new online tools have the potential to make it easier to monitor and control EU decision making processes. Even though the europa.eu portal contains most of the information, it needs a serious relaunch. A new EU portal needs to be transparent, with a focus on policy processes that makes it easy to follow documents, combined with some interactive elements.

2. Education seems to be the key. Topics such as EU institutions and decision-making procedures need to be integrated in all school curricula as a core element at an early stage. Also national newspapers and TV stations should find ways to integrate EU news in their daily news coverage.

3. The European Parliament or better MEPs individually need to strengthen their relations with national parliaments/MPs. At the same time, national parliaments should be encouraged to engage more with ‘Brussels’ in order not to be surprised in the end… Needless to say that a lot of MEPs should step up their efforts to communicate with their constituency.

4. Further institutional reform (even though that is neither on the agenda nor very popular these days…) that addresses legitimacy, accountability and efficiency issues.

5. Better politicians for Europe! Although some improvements have been made in the last couple of years, there is still a tendency that Brussels/Strassbourg is seen as a retirement posting. However, it is a good sign that lately MEP and Commissioners were appointed national ministers!

Tagged , , , , ,