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 

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”

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.

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…

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?

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?

He 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…

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…

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.

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!

“Shape the future of European journalism”

“New media. Open minds. From 15 to 17 October 2008, the next generation of European journalists meets at the European Parliament in Brussels for the second edition of the European Youth Media Days. The gathering of 200 emerging journalists, hosted by the European Parliament and organised with the support of the European Youth Press, promotes a broad discussion and networking on European issues, confronting and provoking with diverse perspectives and realities. Apply until 24 September on youthmediadays.eu.”

Check the programme here.

1. The main ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award: it is to be given to the lobbyist, company or lobby group that in 2008 has employed the most deceptive, misleading, or otherwise problematic lobbying tactics in their attempts to influence EU decision-making.
2. This year’s event also includes a special ‘Worst Conflict of Interest’ Award for the MEP, Commissioner or Commission official whose background, side-jobs or other liaisons with special interests raise the most serious concerns about their ability to act in public interest. This category has been introduced to highlight the need for the Institutions to act to clean up their own house – the past years have seen many cases of conflicts of interests and not much action by the institutions to prevent them.

Winners of last years awards include German car manufacturers BMW, Daimler and Porsche for the ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award and “The German Atomic Forum” was awarded the special prize for ‘Worst EU Greenwash’.

I think this is quite an important initiative that is worth supporting! Go here to nominate your “favourite” lobbyist, company, MEP, Commissioner…  Nominations close 12th September, the internet voting will start on 13th October!

It should be rather easy to find someone for the second category (I am sure a MEP will make it to the final…)! I am still thinking about an appropriate campaign/ company for the first category… if you have good ideas, just post it in the comments!

This is the first round of enlargement (to use some EU speak) for the Kosmopolit blog. So stay tuned and witness some more accessions in the near future. But now let’s welcome Tanchi with her first post (ever!) on a piece of Balkans in Brussels.

——————————————————————–

The hall of queuing people, an echo of the music coming from different directions, the smell of the spices that dive my memories into the long forgotten nostalgia, and of course women skilled in belly dancing remind me of my own belonging and are a promise for an amusing night. I cannot decide which direction to take and what to do first. Should I try the wine which reminds me of home or should I go straight to the movie? But wait a minute, the concert just started…The cacophony that appeared in my head brought a smile on my face: “Welcome to the Balkans!”

Balkan Trafik, the festival that took place at the Bozar in Brussels between the 27th and 29th of March 2008, was the reason for writing my first blog post. The meaningful name gave the impression that the place is a perfect spot for the traffic of music and culture which reminds me that there is not only one, but rather many Balkans. This post combines only a few of the impressions and leaves an open space for the parts which are not intentionally forgotten, but rather left for future writing…

The difficulties of coexistence in the former Yugoslavia seems to be a well-known fact. However, the struggle for a more positive image of the split territory turns many times only into a nice try. But everyone who has lived, even for a short time, in any of the former republics, can guarantee that, despite the problems (which are mostly politically created), people easily find a way to connect with each other. Sometimes I get the impression that humor, parties and of course songs were born in this part of Europe. In this sense, the traffic of music was for me a promise for traveling to some parts of the no longer existent state. I opened the door of the first hall and started my journey with:

Sevdah. A music genre that originally comes from Bosnia and Herzegovina was a bridge that survived. The almost 450 years old bridge of Mostar which was destroyed in 1993 by the side of the Croatian Council of Defense (HVO) was a symbol of the remarkable history, as well as a reminder of the attempt to erase everything which might be considered as a part of the Ottoman legacy and today connected with Muslims. However, the ones who demolished it, forgot that the heritage carried also their own memories, pieces of their own identity and they did not think that the traces of the past cannot be forgotten by simply destroying the material…This is one side of understanding Mostar Sevdah. The bottle of people’s most hidden feelings which can express all the bitterness and joy in melancholic melodies which touch the listener’s ear regardless his/her origin and even if he/she never put a foot into Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Even though the musical genres from the South-Eastern part of Europe seem to be clear and distinguished, I would claim that they totally mirror the variety of cultures and ethnicities that have always been coexisting there. Only this combination is a guarantee that average turns into the extraordinary. The example can be seen in the combination of the above mentioned Sevdalinke in the performance of Mostar Sevdah Reunion and deep voice of one of “the gypsy queens” Ljiljana Buttler. The woman, who cleans for living, turns to the singing diva as soon as the music begins. The analogy is more than obvious: even though the Roma rights are often not properly recognized nor highly violated, everyone has a big respect regarding their music. And again, even though there might be no declarative equality among different ethnic/national groups, the music makes us forget about borders and shows us how great the difference is. We connect, like puzzles do…

And yes, for all of you who thought that trumpets are not popular anymore and that Guča beats inspire only bored tourists looking for exoticism: Dejan Lazarević proved the opposite. People almost in an ecstatic mood made temporary friendships by holding their hands and imitating a kind of a kolo style. The selection of songs, which were during the 1990s successfully exported by Kusturica’s movies and the performance which awakes every single cell in people’s body was a guarantee that the night was even shorter than usual.

I decided to leave. There was still so much to explore and to enjoy, but I left when the party was at its best. I did not want to lose the feeling of differences I went through – I felt too rich to stay …

Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner for enlargement emphasized recently in a speech at the European Parliament that the phrase: “Don’t expect that something will change; that’s how it is in the Balkans” should finally disappear from people’s common vocabulary. The Commissioner referred to the political path(s) which will affect the future of the region. As he put it in a rather witty way, “the Balkans might become as boring as Western or Northern Europe is.” I do agree it is necessary to overcome the cheesy phrase, which in many cases contributes to the unchanging discourses in many of the former republics. But I want to emphasize that Europe sometimes forgets that its richness lies in the variety it offers. People in the region just have to respect each other, and they will realize that the Balkans can be beautiful and boring.

Written by: Tanchi

Read the story here.

Apparently Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for information society and media, has quite an impressive self-promotional strategy. Of course she is a very important Commissioner who has a very busy schedule; no doubt she is in charge of a very important portfolio and has achieved quite a lot! She has been a member of the European Commission since 1999 (!) … yes .. indeed she is a VIP! (And I don’t know whether she is considering a third term…)

But being a VIP is difficult and to work with them is even more problematic! So how to deal with VIPs? If you are organizing a conference, seminar or something similar and you want her to speak at this event, make sure that you invite other VIPs preferably ministers, other (also former!) Commissioners, well known MEPs, and CEOs that run global enterprises …. oh yeah and don’t make the mistake to invite anyone who might oppose Reding’s policies! It is obvious that Ms Reding does not want to sit on a panel with people that are “only” important but lack the “V”(incl. specialized staff, mangers, scientists, advisers…let alone citizens)! If you have doubts whether somebody is acceptable as a panelist I am sure her cabinet can help you! By following these rules it is very likely that Ms Reding will eventually speak at your event!

Somehow not a very convincing communication approach! But rumours are not facts.