Interesting talk by Wolfgang Blau.
Interesting talk by Wolfgang Blau.
Well, it finally happened: Today, Brexit has become a real possibility – maybe not in the next couple of years but possibly in the long term. Under a Labour government and in the unlikely event of a new EU treaty Ed Miliband promised an in/out referendum in the UK – if “new powers are transferred to the EU”. There are few problems with this:
1) I don’t think any Labour government can ever win an in/out referendum in the UK. It will be impossible for Labour to win against the Tories in opposition and the anti-EU media in the UK.
2) One can only hope that Miliband will never have to implement his “in/out referendum policy”. It’s a recipe for disaster. What does it mean to ‘transfer new powers to the EU’? Even if it’s a treaty for the eurozone only, public opinion in the UK will perceive it as another “broken promise” if he decides not to go for the referendum.
3) Ed Miliband’s referendum lock is a new level of how to blackmail the rest of the EU. Under a Labour government any new EU treaty negotiation will always be linked to “Brexit” – not the best starting point for any negotiation over a new EU treaty.
4) It is one thing to promise a referendum over a new EU treaty. Indeed, this can be perceived as a good thing (although I disagree with the idea of having referendums on these things) but linking an in/out referendum to a new treaty that transfers ‘new powers’ is utter bollocks. There are bad treaties but the in/out question will always overshadow specific treaty issues. This is neither democratic nor strategically clever. Basically you blackmail your own population: “Accept this treaty or we leave the EU” – hardly a democratic approach! (or are we talking about 2 referendums in the case of a new treaty?)
Of course this policy can pay off in the short term (= until the next general election that is) but is it a viable strategy? Yes, it keeps Britain in the EU as long as there is no new EU treaty (and chances of it happening are minimal, except for a eurozone treaty). Miliband may manage to keep the ‘Europe question’ off the agenda in the years ahead (which is a good thing!) The “EU question” is also not one of the main concerns of the British public so everything that makes Europe a boring topic is a positive development. Plus the British and international media seem to buy the line that “Miliband rejects EU referendum in 2017″. Fair enough, but what will happen in the unlikely event of a new treaty? If this becomes part of the British approach to the EU it is likely that we will never see another EU-wide treaty again. Expect more agreements that legally resemble Schengen, the Euro and the Fiscal compact. It is clear that Miliband does not want to have a in/out referendum – but why did he not say it like this? Opposing an in/out referendum and defending EU membership – this would have been a clear policy. (And, remember: there is still the ‘normal’ referendum lock on power transfers/new treaties that has been passed by the present government a few years ago)
So, what is the lesson here? Politicians always think they can ‘match’ a policy with something that sounds similar to the policy of their main rival . But this race to the bottom never works. You can’t beat the original. On the EU, the Conservatives can’t beat UKIP and Labour can’t beat the Conservatives.
[PS: I thought I'd never say this but I think I prefer the 'in/out referendum policy' of the Tories. Hmm...]
I am still confused about what David Cameron’s ‘fresh consent’ idea will involve. But I think he is going for a minimal risk strategy – and instead of an active negotaition strategy to repatriate powers he is hoping for a ‘default’ opt-out from eurozone governance mechanisms which will ensure and consolidate British second class membership of the EU.
We bloggers tend to criticise EU media coverage (and with good reasons!). But we should not forget to “honor excellence in reporting on the European Union” and show the rest of the media how to do it properly! You can now nominate outstanding pieces of journalistic work (print, radio, TV, online, blogs,…) to be considered for the 4th Reporting Europe Prize:
If you’ve seen, heard or read an outstanding report on the European Union that deserves wider recognition, then we’d like to hear from you.
The Reporting Europe Prize honours outstanding critical or supportive journalism on any aspect of the European Union.
Previous winners include Allan Little (BBC) James Kanter(International Herald Tribune) and David Rennie, (The Economist). It is worth noting that David Rennie got the award for his Charlemagne blog/column. A couple of years ago Nosemonkey was also nominated for an award. It seems that the jury considers blogs – so if you remember any outstanding blog post/blogs do not hesitate to nominate a blog!PS: The author of this post is affiliated with UACES.
Here it is…[drumroll]… Brussels Leaks – the website we’ve all been waiting for. Finally a place where all the dodgy EU dealings will be exposed. The wikileaks for Brussels! (I wonder whether anyone had noticed the BrusselsLeaks launch without the whole wikileaks saga…)
Ok, there might be constant leaking in EU institutions anyway – but who knows, maybe there is a potential for more scoops. And it is also no secret that even the most “top secret” EU facilities are not really secure. I am generally a big fan of wikileaks and similar projects. I think Brussels is the perfect place for such an endeavour as the city is full with potential stories based on leaks – not only EU institutions – also consultancies, embassies, lobbies and advocacy groups! The point is that there is not enough transparency in general, the media doesn’t care about it – so ultimately every effort to change this should be welcomed! And a website that encourages leaks is something desperately needed! (The problem how to motivate EU officials and other people in Brussels to actually use the website remains a challenge!)
In a true wikileaks spirit everything is still mysterious. For the time being, the website is only a wordpress.com site with a few Q&As – which I don’t think is a problem. Let’s give them some more time to develop. Not surprisingly the identities of the people involved have not been revealed. The first interview can be found here – curtsey of the European Journalism Centre. There is a twitter account where questions are answered. Looks good so far. However, if I had a document I wanted to leak I might go for the original or to the (soon to be launched) openleaks.org. Brussels is quite a small city; especially the EU community is well connected so I am no sure whether I would leak a document to a group of “unknown” Brussels based experts (presumably made up of journalists, consultants, NGO people). I think it is just too risky that somebody of that group knows somebody that knows somebody … I am sure you get the point! And another question needs to be asked: Wouldn’t it be much more efficient if the people behind BrusselsLeaks would cooperate with something like openleaks.org?
Ok, they claim they are not connected to political group or a specific lobby. But can we trust them? The answer:
We are trustworthy, reliable professionals with excellent Brussels contacts.
Most of us have been in Brussels for a long while working in various capacities for media outlets. Nobody here is affiliated with an industry or other lobby group.
Somehow I have the feeling that Brusselsleaks is mirror of how the EU and how Brussels in particular works. I think this sums it up:
We merely want to disseminate information to responsible people – be it in media, NGOs, trade unions and other groups. Therefore we will mainly look at act as an intermediary, passing information to responsible parties.
We or others won’t publish it straight away (or perhaps at all), but you can be sure we will do the right thing.
And how are they going to evaluate leaks?
First, we need to be sure that the information we receive is true. This means research, and that takes time. Especially as this isn’t a full time job. If we are confident it is true, then we start to activate our network to find ways of getting the information out there, and out there in the right way to ensure it is for the public good.
Ok, so you “activate” your network. And you want to do the “right thing”? You will contact “responsible people”? Thank you!
So basically you don’t trust the public and the ordinary citizen! (a similar point made by the FT Brusselsblog) How do I know who is in your network? You might not publish anything – the only time we might hear something of BrusselsLeaks is if I happen to be in your network (unlikely after this blog post - or if you contact a journalist because you (and not the source) think the story might be useful for a media outlet. Most of the time things will just be emailed around Brussels from one “responsible person” to another? But isn’t that exactly how it works at the moment? With one exception: You make sure that you are the first person to see the document…
This is not what modern leaking is about! Leaking is about political impact, and political impact is generally achieved with the media. Ideas about crowdjournalism or indeed the whole wiki approach is missing from Brusselsleaks. Why should I leak a document to a website that only distributes among an anonymous network in Brussels? I can do that myself – and probably every EU official or consultant could do the same. Leaking is about making things public not keeping them secret and passing them around! You just create another secret network of people. This is not the kind of transparency we need.
[I am critisiszing BrusselsLeaks for one reason: I want them to be successful and trustworthy. But as long as the points above are not adequately addressed I don't think that the platform will work. BrusslsLeaks need to learn from the mistakes wikileaks did and not take a "wait and see approach". I know it is incredibly difficult to launch a project like that and get everything right from the start - but BrusselsLeaks looks like an alpha version, not even like a beta!]
And now it is getting a bit geeky. From a technical/IT perspective Brusselsleaks as a platform is not finished - so I hope there will be some improvements. However, encouraging people to leak sensitive documents to an unfinished platform is irresponsible. Let me explain:
Is hushmail suitable for anonymous leaks?
Short answer: NO! Don’t get me wrong. Hushmail is a great service for encrypted emailing! However, hushmail as a stand-alone tool is not suitable for the complete process of leaking. Only in combination with other tools it should be used. Brusselsleaks recommends to use tor – but only if you are “worried about your browsing security”, sounds like an option but in fact it is a necessity. If you don’t use Tor, freenet or some other darknet, your IP is always visible to the server. It doesn’t matter if your emails are encrypted or not, the sender can still be identified.
What is going to happen if you leak a document using an email encryption system?
So remember: The IP in the log-files combined with a valid court order and you can be tracked down quite easily. One phone call to your internet service provider (ISP) will reveal, at least from where you have logged in. So, using encrypted emails is a very good idea, but you actually don’t need a special email provider, tools like GPG might also do the trick. In that context it is also interesting to read emails from Brian Smith, the CTO of hushmail (following an incident a couple of years ago- read details here and here). The email conversation can be found in this pdf file:
There are situations where Hushmail is an appropriate tool and situations where is not.
It is useful for avoiding general Carnivore-type government surveillance, and protecting your data from hackers, but definitely not suitable for protecting your data if you are engaging in illegal activity that could result in a Canadian court order.
That’s also backed up by the fact that all Hushmail users agree to our terms of service, which state that Hushmail is not to be used for illegal activity. However, when using Hushmail, users can be assured that no access to data, including server logs, etc., will be granted without a specific court order.
So, if Brusselsleaks really wants to get into the leaking business it needs to use some sort of darknet. The crucial part in leaking is not the encryption but the secure and anonymous transmission of the information.
The other important questions remain:
Update 15/12: Brusselsleaks relpied to this post on twitter.
This is mainly an experimentation with soft bodies using toxi’s verlet springs. The data refers to the evolution of the top 4 maritime empires of the XIX and XX centuries by extent. The visual emphasis is on their decline.
More on that project can be found here.
A lecture by William Wallace at the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) in Dublin on “Britain’s complicated relationships with its European neighbours and with the EU“:
If academic endeavour had always been vetted in advance for practicality, we wouldn’t have the aeroplane or the iPhone, just a better mammoth trap.
It is ironic that the people who complain most about the complexity of the treaty are the very same people who would complain if it was simple,…
The train carrying the treaty is going so fast and it’s so far that it can’t be stopped or returned, no matter how much some of us would want that.
“I’m doing what I do with a sense of sacrifice. I don’t really like it. Not at all,” (…) “Very often there is a lot of dirty dealing; there is really the gutter press, worse than that, the shameless and sickly. It’s a difficult life to be responsible for leading the government in a country like Italy.”
“I never made any gaffes, not even one, every gaffe is invented by the newspapers.”
American official (asked about Cameron’s ECR group in the EP)
I do not see any upsides in the new grouping. I can only see downsides. In life it is normally best to do things when they have an upside.
… ok, “week” as in “last 12 weeks”… and as you can see a rather short and subjective list…
We may be living post-historically. Russia is not.
Opposition candidates will get the right to lose elections.
If Everybody Knew, Who’s To Blame?
Europe is nice, boring and irrelevant. In many ways this is a great achievement. (…) The whole of Europe today is Greater Switzerland.
HSP is conservative, liberal, left-wing and a bit ecological.
Just a reminder: there were actually European Parliament elections last week…
Global Vote, local mindset.
The EU elections are like a European soccer championship played in each national league with aggregated results.
Send in the Clowns.
To the 57% of Europeans: Not voting and at the same time speaking about a democratic deficit in the EU is pure hypocrisy
Nick Griffin is now a migrant worker. I wonder if he appreciates the irony…
…the EU integration process is a qualifying process not a negotiation
It is not a pretty sight to have prime ministers drafting texts
Could it be that it was impossible to negotiate such a document between such a diverse bunch of reformers, religious conservatives, and people who are, shall we say, a little too fond of the stiff right arm?
Finde ein Problem, das nicht existiert. Mache einen Riesenwirbel darum. Gib vor, es gelöst zu haben. Lass Dich dafür feiern.
Es gibt sehr, sehr wenig, sehr qualifizierte Berichterstattung über Europa.
All das ist nicht nur banal und inhaltsleer – das ist praktizierte Europaverachtung (…) es bleibt es im Wahlkampf bei pro-europäischen Lippenbekenntnissen, populistischer EU-Kritik oder nationalen Themen
Zu komplex, zu schwierig, nicht in zwei Sätzen zu erklären. (…) So lange die Relevanz von Europa nicht täglich deutlich wird, so lange nur die nationale Karte gespielt wird, so lange werden die Bürger sich auch nicht an die Urne bemühen.
One of my favorite European websites/online news services – eurotopics – is nominated for a Grimme Online Award - the most prestigious online award in Germany! You can vote here for eurotopics (just click on “Stimme abgeben”) until 21.6.2009. The award is rather symbolic but the ceremony always generates quite some media attention – and to have media attention for a unique online service with a European approach is worthwhile. The list of the previous winners of the Grimme Online Award can be found here.
So what is eurotopics? (for those of you that have not come across the service…) - eurotopics is a multi lingual daily press review of translated newspaper clippings from around Europe with ambitious aims:
The daily press review allows Europe-wide access to debates and opinions, which media have so far carried out at a national level. In this way, euro|topics promotes transeuropean discussions and the development of new networks for media, cultural and political exchanges.
I have been a regular reader for several years and eurotopics has been an incredibly useful took to stay on top of European debates and discover new interesting topics. Indeed it is one of the few email newsletters I actually read on a daily basis!
PS: As you have 3 votes for the Grimme Online Awards check out the online radio byte.fm (vote here) It is a nice alternative radio station far away from any format radio approach with lots ot thematic shows and great music. In a way, byte.fm is radio how it should be!
… And I did not get paid to write this post nor did anyone ask me for a favour…
Today it’s the 9th of May, Europe day. Like every year, celebrations are organised, with various intensities, throughout Europe. Of course, the main festivities are held in Brussels, where the European institutions open their doors to the public. Having attended the event for the last three years as a visitor (and enthusiastic collector of pens and posters), I found myself this year, for the whole day, “trapped” in the European Parliament, this time on the side of the “exhibitors”. The experience left me with quite a different impression of the celebration than in the previous years, although I could easily recognise the very same ritual I was familiar with: same stalls, almost in the same places, presenting the same (maybe slightly updated) materials and, of course, the same crowd of people, of all ages and nationalities, patiently waiting in the huge entrance queues and gathering kilograms of brochures, pens, key-rings and other free goodies.
And still, looking at the crowds passing by, catching glimpses of their conversations (in all languages you can imagine), made me wonder what is the real purpose of all this, and if that purpose is achieved. In my naivety, I would imagine that the aim of putting up such a “show” should be trying to get closer to the citizen and trying to get the citizen interested in what the EU and its various institutions are doing. Well, while the first issue (getting closer to the citizen) might be achieved, at least at a physical level (i.e. people do step in the premises of the institutions), the second one is much more tricky and, in any case, much more unlikely to be achieved in one day, be it even Europe Day.
Nevertheless, as part of the larger aim of communicating Europe and as part of the campaign for the European Parliament elections that has just started, I was expecting the event to be a bit more meaningful from the point of view of content. Taking advantage of the varied crowd that was present, the MEPs could have used the Open Day for campaigning, for showing their face to the public and inviting them to debates. Instead, the only MEPs present at the debate were Belgian, while all the others are probably already campaigning in their home constituencies, which is, truth be said, more effective in term of vote- gathering than speaking to a (packed) Hemicycle to an audience that is unlikely and/ or unable to vote for them. That much for a European public sphere, European idea and European citizenship…
Outside the Hemicycle, however, people were getting what they came for: colourful balloons from all political groups, that seemed to have arrived to the (correct) conclusion that giving out goodies is far more attractive to the public than trying to explain political programmes. Another fashionable feature this year were quizzes. Wherever you turned to, everyone (and I mean it almost literally: everyone) was taking a quiz. That is how some people ended up with 5 colorful umbrellas…and that’s about it. Why, one would say? Aren’t quizzes an intellectual thing to do? Well, not in this case, they aren’t. The winners only needed a light version of common sense, patience to queue and a few spare smiles to offer to the organisers when asking for help. EU? What EU? A…we’re in a European institution…right…Well, then Long Live the EU, as long as it puts on this show yearly and we all leave with our colourful goodies.
So why am I so negative about it? Everyone seemed to be enjoying, a festive feeling was in the air…It’s probably a mixture of disappointment in the way the event was treated by both sides: on the one hand, the way people (who were arguably on a trip to discover the EU institutions) dismissed any informative material, as nothing but papers they would never read anyway; on the other hand, the way the institutions themselves designed the Open Day: it is, undoubtedly, far easier to “get closer to the citizens” by not mentioning much about the EU but offering a bit of circus for one day a year; the question that comes to my mind now, and should definitely appear in the self-assessment of the event, is: after they all happily leave the “marketplace”, having gathered all the items they came for, will anyone feel more enlightened on EU issues or would they even remember what the blue, red or green on their new (free!) bottle opener stands for?
And still, I am looking forward to next year’s celebrations, which will probably end up organsied after exactly the same blueprint. It is, after all, a successful event, people say. Good example of institutional inertia…