Here is a great infographic of the “Ordinary legislative procedure” (formerly known as “co-decision procedure”) – the basic policy-making mode in the EU. And another one for the budgetary procedure – only used for the EU budget (and quite different from the OLP).
Kosmopolito
The Blog with the European perspective
Tag Archives: EU
Back
Ok, I am back. Not sure for how long, let’s see… expect some short stuff – maybe I should get into mobile blogging (to use the daily commute in London a bit more efficiently).
Just to reiterate my general problem with EU blogging this year: I work for a think tank in London on European affairs so I get a fair share of geeky EU stuff on a daily basis. And writing blog posts on EU affairs is somehow not my preferred evening activity. So what has changed? Nothing really. Just thought I should give it another try.
Anyway, I am in Zagreb this week at the EFB community conference – if anyone wants to go for a drink – drop me an email.
3loggingportal.eu
Three years of bloggingportal. And what a journey it has been. I remember sitting around a huge table in a flat in Brussels – with a certain Jon Worth and the (back then) mysterious Brusselsblogger – dreaming up something that is now known as bloggingportal. Well, resources were scarce and it took us only another year to launch the actual website in January 2009. As I said at a conference a few years ago: “Three people, one idea, no money” (hey – I always wanted to quote myself in a blog post!)
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)
Dear Neelie Kroes…
… let me begin like this. I generally appreciate your work on the Digital Agenda. (although there are still a lot of obstacles in Europe that need to be tackled!) Your team is doing a great job in developing this important policy. You seem to take interactions with citizens seriously and you have shown that Commissioners can indeed be innovative. The Digital Agenda is one of these rare EU policies that could really make a difference across Europe – and even worldwide.
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.
The new European Parliament website: a journey of discovery
Who would have thought that if you want to learn some useful tips about website (re)design you have to search no further than the new European Parliament website? And who would have thought that, in the age where, thankfully, the various EU websites are becoming more user friendly, there is one website that, well, has a slightly “out of the box” design? But the EU (and its web universe) is full of surprises, so here we are, being offered a brand new European Parliament website. And since it seems to be quite different (in look and logic) than the new websites of the other EU institutions (European Commission, Council of the EU and European Council), maybe we can learn a few lessons in website design:
1. Place a large banner on the homepage; the bigger the better. You have to make sure that people who have netbooks *only* see the banner when they land there and those with a normal/big laptop screen have at least half of the screen covered by your banner. They are on your website –> they are interested –> they are eager to scroll down to actually see content. Bullet-proof logic, can’t fault it really.
2. You have a website with a lot of information. You also have a mandate to ensure “transparency”. Now, what is your main concern when designing the website? Form or function? For those of you who answer function, I suggest you think again. Or try to learn something from this guide. Form is, of course, the key. The page has to look cool. Full stop. So try to make it as similar to the magazines and social network pages people are used to. If that means making some compromises on its actual use, be bald and go for it.
3. You’ve decided to go for the *cool look*. Good. This makes things easier. You don’t actually need to care about navigation. Why try to design menus that actually help people go through your page? Menus are there to look cool, who said they actually need to also have a function? Gather some random words (thinking of categories is really a waste of precious effort and time), add sleek icons to them and there you go: you have your main menu. Does it capture the essence of your activity? This should really be the least of your concerns. It is the main (and sometimes the only) thing people see when coming to your page and you made it look cool. Ah, and if you feel it’s not sleek enough, add a slow-moving (but cool looking) arrow that is, by chance, the only means of navigation through the menu. Now you’re all set.
4. You have one main menu, on top. Really, no matter how cool that looks, you simply cannot rely on only one menu. This would be really careless of you. The more menus, the better. It shows the complexity of your activities. You think that’s difficult to achieve? Think twice. Who said the menus should look the same or be linked in any way? In fact, it’s just the opposite: the more diverse, the better. It won’t confuse people, it will simply make them stay longer on your site, searching for the information they need. After all, isn’t that what you actually want?
5. When designing your various menus, be creative and come up with new ideas. Drop-down menus are out of fashion. So is the left side menu. Place all your menus and sub-menus on top. The viewers will be confronted with a sea of words and ever-foldable menus that will push the actual information even lower on the page. Same as in lesson 1: if they are really interested, they’ll find their way. And don’t give them any help, by streamlining the categories or putting them in an order that makes sense. This would make it far too easy and not challenging.
6. Since we’ve established already in lesson 2 that navigation and usability are rather low on your agenda, you only have to make sure of one basic thing: the viewers should *never* be able to come back to the exact point of their search where they were before. This is, after all, a journey of discovery and you wouldn’t want to spoil the fun, would you?
7. Let’s go now a step further, to the actual content. I know, this is drifting a bit away from the coolness factor, but believe me, there are a few things you can do with the content to keep the viewers’ excitement alive. Firstly, you can put the same information in various places, therefore allowing for various paths of discovery (don’t worry, you don’t have to think of any logic behind it). Alternatively, you can split the information on one topic in different parts of the website (obviously each one with a different look). It would be too boring if everything was grouped and the readers could actually find what they need immediately. A good example here is the information on EP committees. You can find the list of committees here, under the item “Policies” on the main menu; general information about committees can be found here, under “Organisation”, some 3 clicks later, through the labyrinth of menus; and the latest news about Committee activities are here, on the top right menu of the main page, under “Committees”. There you go. This type of structure (!) opens many opportunities: you can, for instance, create quizzes asking people to find all the information on a certain topic. And no worries, this is just for fun. No one will actually find every single item, you can always hide something so well that it might even take you a couple of hours to locate it. The fun of searching! Ah, I almost forgot, it might seem like a detail but it’s quite important: if you link on your page to a very specific item (like a treaty article, for example), do not create a new page dealing specifically with that, but have the readers download hundreds of pages of PDF documents. It will certainly enrich their knowledge of the topic and give them the context to understand the specific item. Remember, it’s all about the readers and offering them the best online learning experience.
8. What is a website nowadays without a matching social media presence? In fact, sometimes, social media presence is even more important. Therefore, why not pay more attention to the Facebook page than to website itself? After all, that’s where your fans are. Compared to that, coolness-wise, your website will anyway be just a boring repository where die heart geeks go to find more information. Or try. Oops…that’s a small lapse of logic there, but never mind….
9.Designing a new website, or redesigning the old one, can be a daunting task. That’s why the best thing is to try to involve all departments; share the fun, give them ownership of their section. Why not even create a competition and thus encourage them to keep their work secret from the others. Coherence is overrated. Who (apart from few geeks) will have an overview of the entire website anyway? If in the end some pieces really don’t fit together, blame complexity. It always works.
10. Your page is almost ready. You’ve worked so hard on it and are eager to show it to the world. Just go ahead! Really, don’t bother with testing its usability (or if you’ve done that already, don’t bother with incorporating the changes suggested). This will only delay your launch and you really don’t want that. And if, on the very first day, your page crashes and it’s not accessible for most of the day, well, bad luck for whoever needed it then, for you it’s simply a sign of popularity. Be happy that so many people (much more than you could ever anticipate!) are checking the new look.
Euro-Rettung: quid pro quo?
Exklusiv auf Kosmopolito: Unregelmäßige politische Karikaturen vom Blöd-Ei 
A geeks’ guide to the Secretariat General of the European Commission
Did you ever find yourself desperately looking for a small piece of information of the EU, usually a geeky procedural detail, and were unable to find it on any of the EU institutions website? Are you sometimes wondering who deals with rather specific (technical and legal) EU matters that have an inter-institutional dimension? Where do you search for information on cross-cutting issues like transparency & access to documents, impact assessments, implementation of EU law or the evaluation of EU policies?
Search no more. The Secretariat General of the European Commission could be just what you’re looking for. Of course you’ve heard of it. It’s that boring support service, lacking the high profile of a specific policy field, mainly functioning “behind the scenes”, with very low (if any) visibility in the mainstream media. But what exactly is the Secretariat General and what is it’s role in the functioning of the EU? Here are just a few key facts, who knows, they might come in handy for one of our next EU geek quizzes.
The Secretariat General is one of the departments of the European Commission, having a staff of around 600 people and reporting directly to the President of the Commission. Its main role is to ensure the overall coherence of the Commission’s work at every stage of policy-making, from initiating legislation, through coordinating with the other institutions throughout the decision-making process, to the implementation of EU law. The Secretariat plays a key role in the internal decision-making process of the European Commission, being the nodal point for both the internal, inter-departmental consultation and the consultation of the external stakeholders. It is the Secretariat General that ensures the smooth running of the Commission’s work, including the detailed planning, impact assessments and final evaluation.
Moreover, it’s also important to note that the Sec Gen is also the Commission’s interface with the other European institutions, as well as national parliaments and civil society actors. In other words, it is the Sec Gen that, through its strategic position, is coordinating the spider-web of inter-institutional interactions that take place throughout the EU decision-making process. And that, you might imagine, is not the easiest of tasks. It requires a thorough understanding of the procedural intricacies of EU policy-making as well as a global overview of the various actors and their respective roles. In other words, it might seem boring, but that’s where it’s all happening, even though this is far from being the message we get from politicians, MEPs or the media.
Beside its key procedural role- and actually because of it- the Secretariat General is worth some attention also from the perspective of finding information on EU issues. And this time, it’s really getting geeky. We’re no longer talking about the nice general information on the EU, it’s impact on our lives and general activities reports. On the website of the Sec Gen is all about details, it’s all about the things you could not find (or hardly find) on any of the other EU websites. And, no, I would not even pretend this is in any way helpful or enlightening to the normal EU citizen. If anything, it could be rather puzzling. This information is targeted to “insiders”, “EU geeks”, “specialists” or however they may be called.
Just to tease your appetite for discovery, here are 7 interesting things you can find on the Sec Gen website:
- Better regulation and impact assessments. You can read here about the Commission’s “better regulation” approach, learn how are impact assessments conducted and by whom, find out what simplification, codification and recasting mean and what the Commission plans to do with all the “red tape”;
- Inter-institutional relations. Here you can find information about the framework agreements on the interactions between the Commission and the other EU institutions. There are quite interesting to look at, as they outline in detail whatever procedural issues the Treaties have left (on purpose or not) ambiguous.
- Registers of expert groups offers an overview of the consultative entities that help the Commission in relation to the preparation of legislative proposals, policy initiatives and delegated acts as well as the implementation of existing EU legislation. This might come in handy in case you are wondering who does the Commission consult at the early stages of policy preparation and how are the formal and informal expert groups operating.
- Consultation standards. You can read here the main principles and guidelines on which the consultation of external stakeholders by the Commission is based. For a list of open consultations, that can also be filtered by policy area, go here.
- Application of EU law. Are you looking for a quick guide through the labyrinth of EU law implementation? You are in the right place. Read here about the various types of EU legislation, how to implement EU law into national legislation (with a link to N-lex, the portal that gives you access (in so far as your language abilities can take you) to national legislation) and infringements of EU legislation. Don’t expect an in-depth EU law course, but it can be a good starting point for your search, as you have links to all relevant legislative monitoring portals.
- Transparency and access to documents (including transparency register). A recurring topic throughout the EU institutions. Here you get links to all the relevant legislation on the topic, as well as links to the various registers of documents. You can also find out how you can ask for access to Commission documents and that can prove to be quite useful as you might come across references to documents you cannot find online but you could obtain by asking for access.
- Evaluation of EU policies. Here you can take a peek in the Commission’ “kitchen” and read about how the various past initiatives were evaluated (ex-post, as opposed to the impact assessments which are an ex-ante form of evaluation), in terms of their results and impact. You can find here the evaluation results from the previous year. The evaluation is carried out by each DG but it’s centrally coordinated by the Secretariat General, similarly to the impact assessments.
This is by no mean an exhaustive overview of what you can find on the Sec Gen’s website (for example a list of gifts received by Commissioners is also available). It’s just a brief collection of what I consider interesting and useful links (despite the pretty old design and low quality of some of the sites, which, I hope, are currently being redesigned so that they become more than mere repositories of information). Next time you have a geeky question about EU procedures, it’s worth paying a visit to the Secretariat General’s website, or even trying to contact someone working there. They might turn out to be a richer and more precise information source on the overall functioning of the EU than you imagine.
Beyond the “pilot era”: the impact of EU funding
There is one phenomenon that anyone more or less connected with the EU bubble (even loosely, based at local or national level) is quite familiar with: EU-funded projects. They have been around for the last decades and it seems like they are here to stay.
There’s nothing wrong with that, one may say and indeed, there is generally nothing wrong with funding schemes, whether they are coming from the EU, foundations or other generous actors. But, all too busy with monitoring calls, applying, feverishly awaiting the response, managing, reporting and organising countless events, we seldom question the real impact of all these projects. And by impact I don’t mean in the immediate impact on the organisation(s) involved, but the long-term impact on general policy orientations.
It doesn’t take more than bit of hands-on experience and a slight change of perspective- i.e. leaving your personal office space and pile of forms to fill and looking at the broader context- to realise that in all this funding process there is little or no focus on effective implementation and further follow-up. The proliferation of pilot projects, while not a bad thing in itself, does not automatically translate into policy change. This would not necessarily be a problem, if it were not for the very ambitious aims mentioned in the Calls for Proposals, talking about such elusive things like: “modernisation of Higher Education”, “establishment of sustainable transnational networks” or “reinforcing excellence, dynamism and creativity in European research”. These are, you must agree, very precise, achievable and especially measurable goals.
On the positive side, EU funded projects do achieve something rather important: bringing together organisations from various countries and regions, active in various sectors (academia, non-profit sector, private sector, etc). The requirement to find partners abroad and work together is in itself, I think, one of the greatest achievements of the EU funding schemes. And sometimes, on the odd occasion, the partnerships do last longer than the duration of the project or are revived in the context of other projects, which is by all means a good thing and a proof of long(er) lasting impact.
Nevertheless, when making the effort to look beyond that, all we see is an almost never-ending chain of projects, arguably keeping busy a large number of people, regardless of the sector they work in, but that unfortunately have no long-term, sustainable impact. It’s a vicious circle of “projects for projects’ sake”, each one reinforcing the need for the next, but always missing a clear link with the overall goals. One could even say the actually are missing a “reality check”.
So what are the main problems? And why do we even talk about “problems” when at first sight the process is running smoothly, deadlines are met, money is being spent, reports are being written and event-hopping has almost become a new sport? Here are three structural issues that make us question the overall efficiency of the EU funding process and its impact on policy-making:
1. The whole approach is somewhat faulted: the funding guidelines are encouraging applications from various grassroots organisations, in an attempt to outline what is often labeled as “best practices”. The outcome is a variety of projects, focusing on a variety of issues, from a variety of perspectives. Yes, the key word is “variety”. However, in order to have any noticeable impact, there needs to be consistency, both in the way projects are selected and in the way they are/ should be followed-up. There is nothing wrong per se with a rich collection of projects, but their value would be infinitely increased if they belonged to a “grand design”, or, to put it bluntly, if anyone (ranging from the EC to the project partners) could explain in plain language (and not in the project management meaningless jargon) what’s the main point of a certain project, why it was selected, how it fits in the larger funding scheme and, most of all, how it will be followed-up. Maybe then one would avoid useless duplications and, even more importantly, countless ephemeral “success stories”.
2. Project management has become a new industry. The whole project management cycle, from application to management and dissemination, is becoming an occupation in itself, instead of being the means to reaching goals. Moreover, the system seems to play to the advantage of the same organisations that are successful in their applications, for the simple reason that they already know what the EC wants to read in the application forms. New jobs are created and are being financed by EU funds (nothing bad as such) but unfortunately they are not sustainable jobs: you are useful as long as you can bring more money to finance your salary. This is a weird logic, but who has time to think of that when caught in the spider-web of project coordination, reporting, organising countless events and, obviously, always being alert to new funding opportunities? Indeed, who has time, in this ever so dynamic work environment, to think what, if any, role the project plays, in the greater scheme of things? Or if there is a greater scheme of things. There is only one moment when this thought briefly, but painfully occurs: as the end of the funding period looms, one question becomes more and more present: “What next?”. But before any more meaningful answers comes up, the obvious one is: “Next project”.
3. The requirements of the calls for proposals are quite specific, but they do tend to repeat over several calls. The result: a list of projects that reproduce the same features, as every project manager tries hard to reinvent the wheel, while totally aware there are many “wheels” already out there, most likely also the result of EU funded projects. A good example here are online collaborative platforms. There is a still ongoing trend to require that part of the project should be dedicated to establishing such platforms, with the (again, very achievable) aim of linking various target groups, be it researchers and policy makers, industry and academia and so on. Not only is an overview of all the platforms not publicly available for those interested, but the potential applicants are strongly advised to come up with a new one, more innovative (!?) than the ones before. Never mind that there are several social networks out there that could be used. Never mind that this takes up a big chunk of the grant itself, that could be used for better purposes. Never mind that the whole collaborative platform approach has had mixed results and actually requires a huge amount of resources (especially human resources) to be successful. It is trendy, so it’s a catchword to be used in the application. The rest will be dealt with at a later stage.
It is interesting to see that, beyond the hundreds of small successful projects, there is a lack of long-term vision that prevents the different projects to fulfil their full potential. It is like a table full of puzzle pieces, with various colours and designs. The only thing the puzzle designer left out is the instruction sheet. And soon it becomes clear that it will take quite a bit of shuffling to make the pieces fit and complement each other in what is to be a meaningful, recognisable picture. Or, in other words, an effective EU funding policy.
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