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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely,

Kosmopolit

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

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.

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:

1. 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”;
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

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.

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the way forward for the UK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

via bbc If you are unable to watch the BBC clip here is a youtube video (min 3.44)

25/02/2011

Parliamentary election day. Ireland has gone through a dramatic period of time. The Fianna Fail government negotiated (or accepted, depends who you talk to) an EU/IMF bailout which is generally considered as a bad deal among the Irish. Fianna Fail, one of the two major political parties, has held power for the last 14 years, historically opposed to the signature of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The main counterpart to Fianna Fail is Fine Gael, the party which was in favour of the agreement with the UK. This historical distinction is deeply rooted into voting patterns of the Irish people which from the first glance decide upon the two choices. However, this time it seems to be different. Labour might be an important factor in the formation of the future government with Fine Gael. The public opinion polls predict a major victory for Fine Gael, but there are two possible scenarios; Either Fine Gael can govern on its own or in a coalition with Labour. Having in mind that Fine Gael policies can be simplistically labelled as ‘rightist’, the single government might even be more conservative than the Fianna Fail one. On the other hand, a coalition with Labour could provide a certain balance as opposed to the rigorous policies of Fine Gael. At this point, it is hard to predict the result…

One of the most interesting players of this elections is Sinn Fein which leans more towards the left, but carries the baggage of political association with the IRA. The party leader, Gerry Adams, for the first time tries to get a seat in the Irish Dail. Adams, originally from the North, in this way tries to enter to the republican political arena. However, during the campaign it became pretty obvious that he is not familiar with the political reality in the Republic.

I count on a good success of the United Left Alliance which is a newly emerged political platform constituted of several left wing parties. The Socialist Party of Joe Higgins is one of them and Joe (who btw, stays in my memory as one of the politicians who was very visible opposing the Lisbon Treaty) hopes for a comeback in national politics after his experience as an MEP in the European Parliament.

Tomorrow is a counting day. Votes are distributed according to single transferable vote system which seems to be great fun. The voters give a preference to their candidates by numbering them. In this regard, the number 1 candidate is their first preference, but if he reaches the quota the remaining votes go to the candidate number 2. The same happens if a candidate is eliminated from the game; his votes go to the next candidate which was preferred by the voters. It basically looks a bit like a more complicated Eurovision song contest.

I’ll try to catch “the counting spirit” tomorrow in the Galway’s base: Leisure land. So far 70% of the people voted. What a great result, my compliments to the Irish voters!

26/02.2011

Leisure land, Galway City

It is amazing, but people can actually participate in the whole counting process. Even better, people do participate and there is a certain excitement in the air. I stroll around the tables and check how people make their decisions. Interesting, it seems some of them have no political orientation. Fianna Fail supporters in general do not seem to like to support the candidates who are not associated with the party, so after my observation: no votes for “the others” J. It seems that the major battle will be for the 5th seat. I count on Catherine Connolly, non compromised Galway city councillor. However, there is a long night ahead before having the final results.

The candidates, their canvassers and family members are waiting and talking to people. The media is like a big brother: tracing every little detail. In some corners it is possible to notice some disappointment, the Greens seem to be one of the major losers of this year’s game. Going into bed with Fianna Fail did not particularly help them, but I hope for their comeback. There is need for green policies, not only in the Irish context but also in a global context…

28/02/2011

The Galway West constituency still has not finished with the counting. Several candidates on different occasions requested a total recount. That means that approximately 57.000 votes have to be re-examined again and again. However, the main two names are known: Nolan Derek, the Labour candidate, 28 years old and the grandson of famous de Valera Eamon O’cuiv, a very experienced politician of Fianna Fail are elected. As predicted, the main problems are with the 5th post. This can be see as the main battle of this elections in Galway West. It is very hard to predict about the transfer of the remaining votes. I still count on Catherine. As mentioned before, she is a very uncompromising politician. In the past she was associated with Labour but decided to be independent after a dispute with the party leaders. I do see both Labour and Catherine in the Dail. This is a moment when different opinions can only positively contribute to the future of the country.

At this point, it is also known that there is most probably a coalition between Fine Gael and Labour.

6/03/2011

The Irish Times has just published the news that Fine Gael and Labour reached the agreement to form a coalition. In the next days we will know what this de facto means. Catherine, in the Galway West constituency, lost the 5th seat because of 17 votes. In any case, the election were kind of historical. People did not choose their candidates according to Fianna Fail – Fine Gael lines but instead gave other opinions and political visions a fair chance.

I also have a positive take on the political campaigns. There was no presence of xenophobic voices even though the country faces a very difficult economic situation. Furthermore, the candidates were mostly very respectful to each other and there were no major populist elements in their campaigns or statements. That’s a part I definitely miss in other European countries. The future developments are a mystery, but that was definitely a good start for Irish politics.

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…

Second impression: Why is there no buzz, neither online nor offline? No comments, nothing! (to be fair: this is difficult after 1 day) But more importantly: Why have all essays been published on the same day? Why not play a bit more with the opportunities of social media?  From a PR perspective this is a wasted opportunity. There are quire a few possibilities to create a buzz around your new publication on EU affairs. So what would I do if I was in charge of “What the EU did next” or something similar?

1. I would probably use ideasoneurope.eu or blogactiv.eu to host the blog as it will only have 12 blog posts – maybe with a bit of follow-up activity.  It is quite difficult to make a new blog popular and if it is a project with a limited life span (and you don’t have an established think tank blog!), it makes more sense to use an established blogging platform to spread the word! Use the existing readership for maximum exposure.

2. Post one blog post every couple of days.  That gives readers more time to read – and the debate usually focuses on one essay for a few days. Moreover, people look forward to the next piece and the project has the possibility to grow as readers tend to build up trust and recommend the content to others. Obviously you should only publish the pdf at the end of the blogging exercise!

3. Make sure that the authors will react to comments. And you should also try to motivate your think tank colleagues to post comments. Especially if you have a pamphlet with several authors!  Commenting is an important part of blogging and think tanks should embrace this opportunity to start a debate online.  After all, this is how you make your work known and increase your public profile as a “dynamic and modern” think tank.

4. Create a twitter account and ‘advertise’ your blog, start discussing your themes with others. I think twitter is much more useful than facebook to target the classic think tank audience. Journalists and decision makers are more likely to be on twitter than anwhere else. Especially if your project is a pamphlet with 12-essays, no need to create a facebook profile. But you could use the existing profiles of the respective think tanks to circulate your new publication!

5. Pitch some of the essays to media outlets. National media, European media, whoever is interested! Do some radio and TV interviews.  (OK, to be fair, they might have done it, I just haven’t seen it! And the pamphlet was only published this week!)

6. Do all the classic think tank PR work but do mention your “innovative website” where “everyone can join the debate”. This is a no-brainer really: Conferences, events,  mailing lists, cocktail parties etc.  Maybe not only in your home town but also in Brussels, London, New York, Davos…depending on what you want to achieve and what kind of budget you have. If you don’t have a budget, why not organise a online conference or an online chat? This could also lead to some youtube videos that can easily be posted on the blog. Some people rather want to watch a debate or a lecture or listen to a podcast. The production of such content does not cost a lot of money.

I think think tanks can still learn a lot when it comes to social media/blogging and how to integrate it with the work they are doing. It can be useful to strengthen the public profile of a think tank and to increase your visibility. Very few European think tanks blog or tweet in strategic way. On bloggingportal there is a (incomplete) list of European think tanks that run a blog. On twitter it is a bit difficult to get an overview. An attempt to map think tanks has been made here but I have not found a list of  EU think tanks or think tank staff.

But now I need to read the pamphlet. Let’s hope the content as interesting and engaging as the first impression of the blog!

—————————————————————————

EU-Russia relations are a thorny and controversial issue.And mostly debated in terms of energy and pipeline politics and/or within the human rights and democracy domain . However, having spent the last couple of years  debating EU-Russia relations with a number of academics/think tankers/policy makers I decided to post a couple of observations. For the sake of the argument I will have to use generalisations although I know perfectly well that there are exceptions on both sides. Moreover, I think, the argument does not only affect Europeans or Russians but also decision makers in the USA and in countries of the EU neighborhood/ Russia’s near abroad.  I should also mention that this mainly applies to policy-makers/ think tankers/ academics/intellectuals.

1) The “knowledge gap”

Surprisingly, there is quite a knowledge gap – on both sides.

Russian intellectuals and policy makers  do not know enough about the EU and how it works. They usually treat it as a something “state-like” but criticize it at the same time for not being a state. And something that is not a state cannot be efficient. Hence nothing to be taken too seriously. But I think the underlying problem is that many are not aware of how certain EU policies come into being. And that does not only include CFSP or ESDP issues but also the broader EU policy agenda.  It is actually striking how little decision makers in Russia as well as in the “EU neighborhood” seem to know about how the EU works in terms of agenda setting and lobbying. Questions about how to get something out of the EU machinery are not discussed. The only thing everyone seems to be thinking is: If the EU does not act we can ask member states. As if they were  not part of the EU. (Well, that member states are sometimes more receptive than the EU institutions is not helping either…) The problem here is that there is no understanding of how long decision-making in the EU actually takes and what needs to be done to influence it. It is not enough to only lobby for when there is a military conflict or when it is about energy and pipelines. Other policy issues also have an external dimension and can be shaped (at least to a certain extent) by outsiders! Moreover, by engaging permanently on a variety of substantial issues does increase trust!

The  creation of the EEAS  is a similar issue: Russians complain about the EU being ineffective without acknowledging the inter-institutional struggles within the EU. Nobody seems to understand the nature of the EEAS: why it is there and what it is supposed to do and especially what it is supposed to replace!  One example are the numerous complaints about the future of some the EU special representatives (Moldova, Caucasus) – in the past they have often been criticized of being not efficient enough because they have no links to the local EU delegation…

Europeans do not know enough about Russia’s political system and how it really works. Do we actually know who is influential? Do Europeans understand how the Russian elite ticks? What about the relation between business and politics? And how do they interpret (and teach!) the history since the end of the cold war. Can we actually grasp the idea of a country that spans 9 time zones and includes numerous internal conflicts? How do Russians perceive the USSR? And what does that mean for the “EU neighborhood”?

2) The “discourse gap”

Russians and Europeans work with different discursive models.

Russians think in terms of zero sum games. Realism is the only paradigm that seems to be acceptable for most commentators and policy makers. It is all about interests, power and geopolitics. Politics is about winners and loosers. The philosophical basis for any alternative approaches seems to be absent. Every theoretical idea outside realism (which is ironically an American model) is perceived as weak and is somehow denounced as being “western”. However, as long as Russian academics are not aware (or don’t want to be aware) of other philosophical traditions and methods of analysing politics, we will not see a change of politicians mindsets as they will be limited to the ‘realist’ options. The nature of realism is also not helping as it is quite easy to analyse everything as a zero sum game.

Europeans, generally speaking, are not that fond of thinking only in realist terms. Europeans think that realism is a lazy form of thinking. Russian commentators and policy makers are therefore perceived as being outdated and stuck in the cold war. Europeans think of “new forms of governance” that are embedded in “liberal norms” of democracy. But the underlying problem is how to deal with others that do not embrace this “governance” and “liberal” discourse  or do not not use it as a form of analysis? The clash of different methods of how to analyse politics seems to create problems how to deal with each other.

So what can be done about the “knowledge” and “discourse” gap?

Unfortunately Romania proves to be one of the slow learners and the way it is handling the Schengen accession issue is a very good illustration. After France and Germany made it clear that they would rather see Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession postponed to a later date when the two countries will be better prepared, bringing as the strongest argument their still very corrupt justice system, Romania decided to take a strong position. That would be all perfectly justifiable, especially given the fact that technically, it is ready to join the Schengen area, if only Romanian politicians had benefited from the socialisation process in the last four years and had learned how to properly use the rules of the game in their favour. Instead, the messages Romania has been sending in the last days come across as desperate childish attempts to threaten the EU with blocking ongoing processes such as Croatia’s accession (on the pretext that any future Member States should also have a Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), like Romania and Bulgaria do) and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty amendment allowing for the new 18 MEPs to take their seats in the European Parliament. What Romania is naively trying to achieve with this is to “hurt” France and Germany (although it is Spain that benefits the most from the additional MEPs), but such statements and, even worse, actions fit much better in a kindergarten than in the EU arena.

What Romania is proving in the last days is that:

1. it has not learned anything in the last four years about how the EU really functions, what are the main institutional players, what is the balance of power and how can one best influence the decision-making process; and here I mostly refer to the informal mechanisms, the things one learns by doing, the product of the so called “socialisation process”, although I still have doubts about how clear the formal mechanisms are to Romanian politicians, and the latest developments are only reinforcing these doubts;
2. it lacks a coherent strategy to reach the goal of Schengen accession; after the EU accession process was completed, the various political forces in Romania have not been able to work together to create a constructive position for Romania to assume at the EU level; instead, contradictory messages from Romanian officials kept reaching Brussels, each one defending its domestic political position, without even realising the harm they do to Romania’s image and interest. In a sense, one can say that all these inconsistencies and the lack of a clear official stance fueled the arguments against the March 2011 accession. Romania has thus shot itself in the foot, thanks to the messy internal political scene but also to the ignorance (and lack of interest) regarding the functioning of the EU and the role Romania can and should be playing in it;
3. its officials lack tact and diplomatic skills; not that this is any news, but this situations proves once more the inability of Romanian politicians and diplomats to, first of all, prevent such incidents from occurring and, secondly, once they’ve occurred, to try to suggest reasonable solutions or at the very least (and I am really lowering my expectations here!) refrain from making ridiculous statements. Not only was it bad enough that the Foreign Minister said that Romania can, and probably should, unilaterally withdraw from the CVM, President Basescu suggested yesterday, while assuming his responsibility for the possible postponing of Schengen accession, that in case Romania is not offered a clear and definite deadline to join Schengen, the funds that were meant to be used for securing the borders should be used for other purposes, such as helping SMEs. No comment.

While, on the one hand, it does not seem fair that new conditions are added while the process is ongoing (the criteria are, after all, just of a technical nature, although, in principle, one can easily link corruption with border security), Romania should have been prepared for such a situation and should have come up with a lobbying strategy for the major EU capitals instead of the lame attempts to blackmail the big Member States with issues that can, at best, only backfire and hurt the country’s image in the EU. Unfortunately, this is just an example of Romania’s negotiation “skills” (or lack thereof) in the EU arena; if this trend continues, Romania can forget about ever exerting any influence (despite its size) in the decision-making process. The first lesson it needs to learn is how to use the power of informal mechanisms in its favour instead of falling victim to it, like in the Schengen accession story.

Update 7/1/2011:  According to EUobserver, Romania’s president Basescu announced that Romania would not take any of the proposed retaliatory measures (see above) because they could “backfire against Romania”. But Basescu  also complained about the lack of solidarity: “It was overnight and without a warning. I would have expected that one of my colleagues in the Council – either Mr Sarkozy or Ms Merkel – to say ‘look, Mr President, we will be against it.’ But they didn’t and you know that normally in the Council there is talk about solidarity.” Be that as it may, early warning  is also the task of the Romanian diplomats in Brussels…

Bloggingportal.eu launched a European Blog Action against Censorship in Hungary and also provides a good round-up of reactions and some background documents (just go through the comment thread!)

I don’t want to repeat the points that were made elsewhere. It is never a good idea to pass a law that can be used (even if nobody wants to use it in a specific way) to increase political control over the press. Even the slightest possibility of a a problematic legal clause needs to be addressed. Press and media freedom are too important for democracy in Europe. Simple as that.

As you know Hungary will take over the Council Presidency of the EU in January 2011. And there is even a new blog by the HU presidency.  So feel free to voice your concern about the new law. Obviously they are not amused about the critical reactions and claim that the Council Presidency has nothing to do with Hungarian politics. But the new media law seems  such a major problem that I think it is a legitimate thing to do.  And anyway, the Council Presidency is organised by the Hungarian government… It would be a major embarrassment if the Council presidency was overshadowed by the media law…

So let’s take a picture of Viktor Orbán and transform him into Viktor #Censorbán  (yes it is inspired by  schäublone, #zensursula & #censilia). Basically it is a wordplay of Viktor Orban and Censorship. In other languages one could use Zensorban or Cenzorbana… the idea is quite flexible. Feel free to use, remix and share the picture (cc by-nc-sa).  As you will notice, I am not a professional photoshop/gimp user and I did not have a good picture of Orban in the first place. So any quality improvements are much appreciated. Not sure whether this also makes sense in Hungarian as I do not speak the language. (so if you speak Hungarian leave a comment with improvements!) I know that it should rather read “Censorban Viktor” but well, let’s say it is designed for an international audience.

But there are a couple of things that we should think about in more detail:

First of all: It seems to me that media freedom and internet freedom are increasingly attacked by democratic governments around the world and Europe is following the trend. There are two principal strategies:

Option No 1:  A government wants more control over the press or the internet. It is interesting to think about why this happens more frequently ( – and not understanding the internet is a big part of it)  Usually it is framed as a security problem: “We need to know more about terrorist networks” or it is about the children: “We have to protect our children” .  It can also be the  result of intense industry lobbying to “protect customers and offer a better product” or it is connected to copyright issues.  All these claims are very difficult to challenge in any campaign. (but it is not impossible!) Just think about the French internet blocking law, a couple of German internet laws (from “zensursula” to “JMStV”) or even international negotiations that include internet related articles such as ACTA. The debate on net neutrality can also be cited in this context. But the Hungarian law seems to go one step further as it us  includes all types of media plus a governmental media watch dog…

Option No 2:  A toxic combination of private and public interests mixed with strange business models, corruption and media monopolies. For example Murdoch in the UK, Berlusconi in Italy or the general level of corruption in Bulgaria that also affects the media. This is usually a gradual but equally dangerous process. (but also a topic for another blog post…)

The main question for the EU:  What to do with those countries? The accession process is a straight forward process: Copenhagen criteria and conditionality prevent countries to adopt certain laws.  However, once a country joined the EU there are not many possibilities to interfere with laws that might not be in the “spirit of the EU”. Italy or France can get away with laws that would not be allowed under a strict accession regime. And it is similar in the case of Hungary.  So what could be done? Ignoring certain people  in Council meetings (it did not work with Austria), reduce or stop payments of the cohesion funds/CAP or a suspension of voting rights in the Council? To impose a supervisory mechanism (mixed results in Romania and Bulgaria)?  I am not convinced any of this would have an effect. But  do we really need a new legal tool regarding fundamental freedoms?

The main question for the blogosphere: How to campaign against the various laws and legal practices that restrict press freedom  (not only Hungary)? Media freedom in other (European) countries  should be of concern for the (European) blogoshphere(s).  So the question is whether this topic could potentially become a pan-European topic?  There have been great blogging campaigns in Germany and France relating to press and internet freedom. We need to learn from successful campaigns in other EU countries and replicate the most efficient tools. And especially for  smaller countries  support from the rest of the EU might be crucial to run effective campaigns. In fact, it is one of the few topics that resonate with all national (political) blogospheres in Europe -  which is not a surprise as every blogger can identify with the potential problems of a proposed law.

So what should be done with the Hungarian media law? Let’s  keep the topic on the agenda, use the Council presidency to get  EU wide media coverage – and embarrass the Hungarian government.

Update 27/12: Now you  can also follow @censorban on twitter…

Update 30/12: SME Dennik, one of the biggest daily newspapers in Slovakia, mentions the bloggingportal campaign alongside the Censorban pic (although attributed to bloggingportal.eu which is not a problem – but a factual mistake) Anyway, the article can be found in the print (e-paper) and online version of the paper!