While the interinstitutional decision-making process is making headlines (of course, depending on the topic), the internal decision-making mechanism within each EU institution is somewhat more obscure to the general public. Nevertheless, the internal workings of the institutions do influence a lot the overall EU policy making. The European Commission, with its right of initiative, is placed at the very beginning (and thus also at the core) of this process. This is where all the policy proposals originate, making it interesting to look into how they are drafted and decided upon.

First of all, we have to be clear: a policy proposal is not a mere document; it is a file that contains, beside the legislative act, a memorandum explaining the context of the decision, the results of the impact assessments and ex-ante evaluations that need to conducted, financial information, the results of the inter-service consultation, a draft press release as well as, yes, you are reading correctly, a “citizen summary” (an explanation of the decision in more accessible terms than the usual jargon). This file has to be prepared, involving formal and informal internal coordination procedures as well as the consultation of external stakeholders. All this needs to be done at this very early preparatory stage. And then there is the translation. Only after the file is complete can it go further, to the level of Heads of Cabinet. They prepare the agenda of the College meeting, by thoroughly analysing all the files at hand and trying to reach consensus in order to pave the way towards a swift adoption.

The type of procedure used for adopting a file is determined by the degree of consensus already reached at the inter-service consultation level and at the level of Heads of Cabinet.

• the oral procedure is used for the files that require a debate of the College of Commissioners; the documents concerned are usually of a more political and controversial nature and there might have been disagreements among the services concerned. The College meeting takes place every Wednesday and is prepared by the meeting of the Heads of Cabinet (the so called “Hebdo”) taking place on Mondays. The files adopted through oral procedure are the ones that stand out and attract media coverage. However, it is interesting to note, that they represent a very small percentage of the total number of Commission decisions. For example, in 2009 alone, only 215 files went through oral procedure, compared to 3129 adopted by written procedure.  Most of the oral procedure decisions are in the fields of Economic and Financial Affairs and Competition.
• the written procedure is used when all the services concerned agree and a College debate is not necessary; the file is submitted to all the Commissioners and is deemed to be adopted if none of them has any reservations before the deadline. The idea behind using this procedure is to take away some of the burden of debating files without major political interest. The number of files going through this procedure has been around 3000 each year, in the last 10 years. The written procedure is mainly used in fields like Health and Consumer Protection, Agriculture, External aid and Enterprise.
• the  empowerment procedure consists of a mandate given by the College in its meeting to one or several of its members to take measures in its name and under its responsibility, within strict limits and conditions; it is used for clearly defined management and administrative acts. After being by far the most used procedure before 2003, in the years thereafter the number of files going though this procedure ranged between 2000 and 3000 per year, with 2247 having adopted in 2009. The fields where empowerment is mostly used are Competition, Regional policy and Agriculture.
• the delegation procedure was introduced in 2003 and took away part of the file load previously decided by empowerment. The interesting thing about it is that the decisions are no longer adopted by the College as a whole or even by an empowered Commissioner; in the case of the delegation procedure, the Commission gives a mandate to a Director General or Head of Service to act in its name. This procedure is usually used for technical matters, very well regulated and where the margin of discretion is strictly limited. However, when we look at the numbers, something is quite striking: since 2003, there were on average 4000 files adopted every year through delegation (with around 4500 in 2009), making it the most used internal decision-making method of the Commission.

The policy preparation process within the Commission is a rather complex process, most of the time taking place outside the limelight. A thorough coordination amongst all services is required, which takes place both informally (e.g.meetings of thematic inter-service groups, written inter-departmental consultation, etc) and formally (the Inter-service consultation procedure, where all services must give their opinion on a certain file within a set deadline- usually 10 days and 15 days if the file has more than 20 pages). This process has an impact on the method used for adopting the decision. Something that should not be ignored is the fact that the Commission also has to consult externally, which it does through Green Papers, White Papers, expert groups meetings, etc. An impact assessment on the economic, social and environmental consequences of a proposal needs to be conducted for all major policy initiatives and legislative proposals. There is, thus, scope for the various stakeholders to interact with the Commission at this very early stage and action during the preparation stage is usually the most successful in terms of influence over policy-making.

An interesting observation can be made by looking into the various internal decision-making methods: what we usually read in the media as Commission proposals is just the tip of the iceberg- the few files that go through oral procedure every year- accounting for about 2,5% of the approximately 10000 acts adopted yearly by the Commission. The core of Commission activity rests with adopting mainly technical and administrative acts, without much political weight and thus being delegated to the bureaucratic levels of the Commission. It is a clear proof of its technocratic character that does, by no means, undermine its image as policy initiator, but puts its activity in a more balanced light.

Now, of course, no one would blame you for not knowing this. You might even pass a concours and start working for the EU institutions, completely ignoring its existence. But just in case you come across it and want to show off with your EU knowledge, here are a few facts about the finalisation written procedure. You may be aware that the Commission takes decisions either by oral procedure, written procedure, empowerment or delegation. But what if a file starts as an oral procedure and ends up in a written procedure? And in what circumstances does this happen?

The Commission’s most visible activity consists of the decisions coming out of the weekly College meeting. These are the issues that are decided using the oral procedure and are usually the ones with a big political weight or/ and that have stirred controversy already at the stage of inter-service consultation (the earliest step in policy preparation). But there is always a limit to the  issues that can actually be discussed at the College meeting and that can thus make top headlines at the press conference thereafter.

This is the main reason behind the more and more frequent use of the finalisation written procedure. According to this procedure, the Heads of Cabinets (at their weekly meeting on Mondays) or the Commissioners, at their Wednesday meeting, can decide to switch some items initially assigned to the oral procedure to being decided through the written procedure. Thus, the decisions can be taken after the College meeting (usually Thursdays), allowing the Commissioners to focus on the most important and controversial issues and, at the same time, being likely to attract media attention that they might have missed by being just a part of a busy Wednesday agenda. Smart move…

The video is based on a German zensursula video. The producer of the video made several videos that became famous in the German debate on internet freedom etc. Do check out  http://alexanderlehmann.net/ for more videos!

I think it is a very good initiative. There are a lot of opportunities for EU institutions by engaging with web tools. Unfortunately there is still a rather widespread skepticism among politicians and officials despite a few good examples how to use web 2.0 tools successfully. Hopefully this letter will contribute to a rethink in the institutions. Moreover, this would also be a good topic to bring up during the Commission-designate hearings in the European Parliament this week…

Hat tip:  Dick Nieuwenhuis Blog: Please, use web 2.0 for Europe!

1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. [...]
3. (…) The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

Article 17, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union

So who is Günther Oettinger? He is Ministerpräsident (CDU) of Baden-Württemberg and a somewhat diffult ally of Angela Merkel (he often criticized her as he wanted to “sharpen his profile in Berlin”, there are also rumours of him being part of the Anti-Merkel Andenpakt).

Officially he was chosen because of his expertise in economic affairs which is a clear signal of Merkel that he should get a prominent single market related portfolio in the next Commission. One could also come to the conclusion that Merkel wanted to get rid of him… Although I do not think he would have been a serious problem for Merkel… he has become quite unpopular in BW and is perceived as a pretty weak  Ministerpräsident! – so it is rather a good exit strategy for him!

I think Chancellor Merkel could have picked a better candidate! Oettinger is a local politician – he  has never had a position on the national level. His career is focused on Baden-Württemberg only – admittedly one of the best performers among the German Länder. However, the economic crisis has had a huge impact and Oettinger was heavily criticized about his abilities to manage the crisis.  And he totally lacks any European or international experience and I don’t know anything about his language skills. Actually he is much more a bureaucrat than a politician which again might be helpful in the Commission.

If you are interested in Günther Oettingers EU credentials you might want to check the Baden Württemberg – EU website here. Unfortunately he is not the best public speaker, so he won’t be a Commissioner that will engage actively with the public and make the case for EU policy. However, chancellor Merkel will make sure that  the EU commission will not act against the German government and she also underlines her role in EU politics – and ultimately that of the European Council and her direct connection to Barosso – without the interference of a German commissioner.

Günther Oettinger stands for the status quo – ‘no experiments’ plus solid bureaucratic work. Unfortunately that might also be an indicator for the EU attitude of the new German government. So I doubt whether we will see important German EU initiatives in the next years.

A notable scandal included Günther Oettinger defending Hans Filbinger Nazi past. The “eulogy controversy” sparked quite a debate within Germany. Some in Brussels might remember this photo which was taken during a party (in Brussels) in which Oettinger obviously had a good time:

Afterwards he said he was behaving normally and he does not intend to change. He actually had a couple of scandals involving a lot of beer and right wing songs… so watch out Brussels!

I actually come from the same region (even same city!) as Oettinger  so I have followed his career in the last years…so I might write some more about him in the future. Generally, I think people in the region will be quite happy to get rid of him. He is known to be a fast talker which often makes it very hard to understand him (even if you are a German native speaker – and even if you speak a dialect called Swabian!) One example:

Obviously, there is no real debate about the question who should replace Verheugen since German elections will take place at the end of September. A couple of months ago, there were rumors (some more here) that Wolfgang Schäuble could be one of the potential candidates. I argued here why this is a pretty bad idea. The German government already indicated that it would like to have either the internal market, the competition or the industry portfolio.

Anyway a few days ago, Spiegel Online reported that Peer Steinbrück (check his wikipedia profile here – and his website here), currently finance minster, is a potential candidate. Merkel apparently wants to reward him for “his handling of the financial crisis”. According to this article the scenario is more likely if the SPD (that is part of a grand coalition with the CDU at the moment) looses the general elections and Merkel can form a CDU-FDP government – and Steinbrück, a SPD politician, would loose his job. So why would Merkel nominate somebody from the opposition? Apparently Barroso is active in the background:

Merkel has said in the past that the post should be filled by a member of her Christian Democrats. But Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has been urging European governments nominating their national candidates for the Commission to make sure that it isn’t staffed by too many conservatives.

It is pretty sure that nothing will be decided before the elections on 27 Sep. So we have to wait and see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the institutional framework governing the next Commission not clearly defined and dependent on rather uncontrollable factors (i.e. the second Irish referendum scheduled for the autumn), the various names and portofolios are rather speculations. However, they tend to indicate the “mood” in different countries and offer a preview of the negotiation process that will start after the Commisssion President will probably be nominated later today at the European Council.

The debate regarding the next Romanian Commissioners, though not yet very visible in the media, has been taken up by the researchers at the Romanian Centre for European Policies (CRPE), who issued a report entitled: “Romania at the European Council on 18-19 June. Grades for the Romanian “Commissioners” “ The first part of the document is a very good overview of the most important institutional aspects linked to the the new Commission (including the current debates on how many Commissioners there will be and how is the Commission President elected). I find it a very commendable effort to explain all these rather complex issues to the greater public, an initiative that should perhaps be replicated in the media and by other actors.

The second part of the report makes some recommendations as to what position Romania should adopt at the European Council on 18-19 June and, more important, evaluates some of the possible candidates for the Romanian Commissioner position and the likeliness to get some portofolios of interest. The nine possible candidates (including names such as Monica Macovei, former Justice Minister and newly elected MEP, MEPs such as Adrian Severin and Theodor Stolojan, former Romanian Permanent Representative to the EU Lazar Comanescu and current commissioner Leonard Orban) are assessed according to five criteria: experience with EU affairs, CV (competence), political support, integrity and professional authority. The portofolios that Romania might be aiming at are agriculture, energy, transport, regional policy and enlargement, each assessed with medium or small chances of success. Makes me wonder what portofolio does Romania have real chances of getting, as all the ones mentioned above seems to come straight from a wish-list.

While offering a very straight-forward and well-argumented overview of all possibilities, the report fails to come up with a final conclusion and an over-all assessment, linking the possible candidates with likely (matching) portofolios. The task would, indeed, be rather speculative, since there is still a heated debate inside the governing coallition (PDL-PSD) as to which party should nominate the future Commissioner.

Nevertheless, if Romania (still) wants to have a chance in getting a decent portofolio (as oposed to an invented one, like it is currently the case), it should come up as soon as possible with a credible personality with strong expertise in a specific policy field. This will be hard, since political support is, clearly, the vital criterion among the five mentioen above. The more likeley outcome is (like in many other cases, isn’t it?) a compromise candidate, and my guess is that Lazar Comanescu, former Permanent Representative of Romania to the EU might just pass that test. It will be interesting to watch the power play in the run-up to the nomination.

Although I fully support the campaign and the idea behind it I partly agree with Tony Barber who argues (among other things that are more debatable…)  that all these things come a bit late and indeed should have been done before the European elections as part of the campaigns:

Each (political party) should have rallied behind a candidate of their choice.  But they did not.  The socialists were too divided even to come up with a candidate of their own.  The opportunity was lost.  It was their own fault.

So, we are interested in two things:

1) Who are the likely candidates that are tipped to become European Commissioner? What are the rumours in your country?

2) Who would YOU like to nominate if you had a say? Who would you support as a candidate?

Use the comments on this blog or head over to Jon’s post that already attracted several comments!

Here is my contribution

Answer to 1) In the case of Germany we have seen rumours that Peter Hintze or Peter Altmeier might be the nominee. But also political figures like Wolfgang Schäuble , Roland Koch and Friedrich Merz were mentioned in the press. I think the race will be between Hintze and Almeier who both belong to the inner circle around chancellor Angela Merkel.

Answer to 2) Germany should nominate  Joschka Fischer to become External Relations  Commissioner and eventually the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy . (I am aware that this scenario is very unlikely!) The position will be created after the  successful ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty and will replace both, the High Rep for CFSP and the Commissioner for External Relations (another uncertain scenario..).

What exactly is included?

‘Preparatory documents’ means all documents corresponding to the various stages of the legislative or budgetary process. They include Commission legislative proposals, Council common positions, legislative and budgetary resolutions and initiatives of the European Parliament, and opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee and of the Committee of the Regions, etc.

Directory of Community legislation in preparation

There is nothing in European politics that stinks more than the apparent inevitability of another five-year term for José Manuel Barroso, the Portuguese president of the Commission. He spent most of the last few years on his bid for re-election rather than doing his job. If the centre-right wins the elections to the European parliament, as everybody seems to expect, nothing can stop Mr Barroso’s bandwagon.

This state of affairs sends out a disastrous message – that job performance is irrelevant and that Europe has already reverted to business as usual. Mr Barroso is a conservative from a small country, who followed a socialist from a large country. Europe’s top jobs are not awarded on the basis of electoral success, but on whether you fit into an opaque political matrix.

(…)

In my view, Mr Barroso is among the weakest Commission presidents ever, a vain man who lacks political courage.

The “Anyone but Barroso” – Campaign calls for a new Commission President in 2009:

We don’t care who but the Commission needs a new President in 2009

1) 3 countries have voted No in recent referendums about European matters.

2) The EU has a crisis of confidence, a crisis of identity

3) Under these circumstances, the head of the EU’s executive, Commission president Barroso, must NOT be reappointed.

And since it is a typical online campaign, you can get involved! You can sign the petition and join and invite others on facebook. And make sure to read the campaign blog. Although not much content is provided at the moment, this will surely change soon!

It is an interesting idea especially because there is a real possibility of a second term for José Manuel Barroso. He has been rather active to lobby member states about the necessity for his second term. And member states so far have been reluctant to actually make the case for another candidate. The danger is that there will be another four years “muddling through”… Obviously the campaign has to be seen as a first step towards a debate on who actually should become Commission President as pure negative campaigning is not always the way to go.

I think it is also important to get people to think about the performance of the present Commission as an act of politicizing EU affairs! Actually it is quite a good example for what’s wrong with the EU at the moment: Basically the most powerful position in EU politics is decided on the “Justus Lipsius carpet market” as Graham Watson (MEP) once said.  There is another campaign out there that calls for a democratic election of the Commission President: Who’s your candidate? wants to get the main European parties to nominate  their candidate for Commission President before the 2009 EP elections in order to give the position a greater democratic mandate!

One should not forget that this discussion takes place only few days after the Commission harshly criticized Romania precisely for the politicization of the justice system and fight against corruption. So, as could be imagined, all this political maneuvering is not at all well seen in Brussels. The Commission is probably remembering the case of Monica Macovei, former Minister of Justice, who was also becoming “uncomfortable” for some parts of the political arena, and therefore had to leave her position, notwithstanding the great appreciation and support she had in Brussels.

A clear sign that the Commission has had enough is the declaration made by the EC spokesman Mark Gray on the topic:

We have seen the comments published by the Romanian media, quoting so-called sources in Brussels, referring to the reconfirmation of Morar as head of DNA. Our position is very clear. We expect the reform process to go forwards, not backwards. We constantly emphasized the good DNA results and the importance of institutional stability in investigating files and in initiating investigations in high-level corruption cases. Reconfirming the chief prosecutor will be a test for the renewed commitments of Romanian authorities

Usually the European Commission does not interfere in questions regarding the staffing policy of Romanian institutions. But they do it in cases where they see that there is a real danger of a deterioration. The intervention will, surely, be criticized by the Social- Democrats and Liberals, as biased and outside the scope of the Commission’s mandate. But the Commission probably realised that its neutral approach leaves too much room for interpretation to Romanian politicians.  By putting aside the diplomacy for a moment and calling the facts by their name, the Commission is increasing the pressure on Romania. Controversial as it may seem, this attitude might prove to be the only “mild” weapon the Commission has left before it starts deploying its artillery of sanctions and safeguard clauses.

Written by Anda

On the whole, not many surprises: the rough tone that was expected, telling off the two countries for the very small (if existing) progress regarding judicial reform and fight against corruption. This time, Bulgaria is more severely punished, with part of its funds being suspended. Romania receives yet another warning but still no decisive measure such as the activation of the safeguard clause or retention of European funds.

What is the Commission’s assessment of Romania? In the usual diplomatic slang, the report notes that Romania presents a “mixed picture”. However, it does not take great further reading to realize which are the predominant shades in this “mixed picture”: although Romania seems to have re-established its commitment to judicial reform and the fight against corruption, the “legal and institutional framework is still fragile” and decisions on (especially high level) corruption are highly politicized. Some progress is acknowledged, but so is the lack of political consensus regarding justice reforms.

In conclusion, Romania still has a (rather long) way to go in fulfilling all the benchmarks set at the time of accession and will continue to be closely monitored by the Commission. A crucial element is the political will to fully implement all the commitments made by Romania when joining the EU; and looking at the Romanian political arena at the moment, this does not seem to be a safe bet.

One can almost hear the sigh of relief in the high governmental offices in Bucharest, at the confirmation of the fact that (1) no safeguard clause will be activated, (2) no funds will be suspended, (3) Bulgaria is considered to do worse and is more harshly sanctioned. ‘Schadenfreude’ and relief, that’s all.

Unfortunately. Now they can happily continue their holidays. They “escaped” this time again. This makes me doubt the effects of such a neutral report. Maybe next time the Commission can act more severely. It is sad, but only a “shock therapy” might make the Romanian political class aware of the importance of fulfilling its commitments and not just indulging in the mere satisfaction of doing slightly better than the neighboring country.

Written by Anda

Anyway, the aims of the campaign are worth supporting: Linking the EP elections to the most powerful position in the EU could turn the European Parliament elections into a truly European event with European issues and European debates. This would stop the current situation where voters use EP elections to vote on national issues. At the same time, it might help EP elections to get into the spotlight and thus result in higher turnouts.

Here is the short campaign description:

1. The President of the European Commission should no longer be chosen behind closed doors in the European Council.

2.Instead, the President of the European Commission should be chosen by the European Parliament, and, by implication, us the voters, as hinted in articles 9A and 9D of the Lisbon Treaty.

3.Therefore, the political parties in the European Parliament should, in good time before the June 2009 parliament elections, answer the question: Who’s Your Candidate?

You can sign the petition here!

Although I am not completely convinced about this idea, I signed the petition because I think that this new position of a European Council president is somewhat unnecessary. It will only create more confusion among citizens that already today are not too familiar with EU institutions. I am also not too convinced that EU policy making becomes more coherent with a permanent European Council president as well as rotating presidencies in the Council of Ministers. It just makes things more complicated!

But one critical remark regarding Kissinger’s quote. He was Secretary of State so his “natural” EU counterpart is actually the High Representative of Foreign Affairs. So he should call Mr Solana and none of the presidents! So, instead of talking about the presidents, one should rather give the High Representative more power (or introduce more QMV in EU foreign policy) to ‘please’ Mr Kissinger.

(I don’t know if I want to please Mr Kissinger though, and anyway I doubt that Kissinger would ever refrain from negotiating with national counterparts…but that is a different story…)

I have been looking at some EU news services lately and as a result I created a EU universe (www.netvibes.com/eu) which brings together most of the available official EU – RSS feeds. So please tell me what you think about it! Although there are numerous (but quite hidden!) feeds on the europa.eu page, I still wonder whether the Commission has realised its potential here. Most of the times, traditional press releases are put into the feeds. But RSS could be used to track policy proposals within the Commission (green paper- consultation-white paper). Anyway, I will cover this topic more extensively in another post later this week!

Now there is also a social bookmarking service for EU related news and blogs: Eurovalley, give it a try, of course everything is still in beta! eufeeds has a collection of over 300 newspapers and it is updated every 20 minutes: interesting idea but unfortunately there seems to be no easy option to export an individual feed or a selection of feeds. Have you ever heard of the Europe Media Monitor? It seems to be one of these hidden Commission projects but I must say it looks quite promising especially when you need to monitor EU news.

So lets turn to our “favourite” treaty….Nicolas Whyte writes about the Lisbon Treaty here and the ISN wonders whether the Lisbon treaty makes the ESDP more Coherent and Capable? Stanley’s blog asks: EU Foreign Ministers: an endangered species?

Two interesting articles regarding EU funds and budget: Fraud and responsibility for EU funds on Jan’s EUblog and EuropesWorld: Why the EU may never get its accounts straight

What is a “Societas Europaea (SE)” ? It took the EU 30 years to decide on it…and now, there are only around 150 SE in total (EU-wide). But things might improve as local businesses becoming more ‘European’, well at least in the Czech Republic.

Richard Lewis blogs about Frattini’s proposals regarding tougher EU immigration rules. America plays divide and rule is a fascinating article on a diplomatic fight. And the “quote of the month” award goes to Jonathan Faull, a European Commission director general:

“We don’t negotiate matters that are dealt with in Washington with the state of California. That would be disrespectful and we expect the United States to be similarly respectful of our law and system.”

One could assume that at least in Ireland, the only country that will hold a referendum on the Treaty, things are slightly different. But apparently this is not true! This article (What exactly are we reforming in this treaty?) shows us all the problems of the Treaty /EU in a nutshell: Lack of a professional communication strategy, arrogance of EU officials, no consolidated version of the rather complicated Treaty and journalists that are not doing their job properly!

- Problem No.1:The European Commission Representation in Dublin clearly fails in explaining the Treaty. Not only were they not able to answer some of the questions, but they also showed a degree of arrogance that makes it hard to become a supporter of the Treaty (and eventually the EU)! It is another proof that the Commission does not have the slightest idea how to communicate professionally. Commission Representations in the member states are seen as ‘official embassies’ of the EU! Therefore, it should be in the interest of the European Commission to make the case for the EU and the Treaty in a convincing way. The upcoming referendum in Ireland should make training of the Commission staff in Dublin a priority! Or to put it more dramatically: Dublin might be the only place in the EU where people actually want to know details about the Lisbon Treaty!

- Problem No.2 is of course the complicated nature of the Lisbon Treaty which also makes it more difficult to explain (but that should not be understood as an excuse!). Of course the reason for this is the failed constitutional treaty and the problematic idea that the new treaty should be similar in content but with a different form. It is believed that only a stripped down treaty that looks very technical and incomprehensible (= “non constitutional”) can win the support of all member states and, at the same time, prevent as many referenda as possible.

- Problem No. 3: The missing consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty. Ralf Grahn put together a list of existing consolidated versions of the Treaty which is probably the most comprehensive list to date. I guess there are three reasons why the EU has not published consolidated versions: firstly, a lot of legal details have to be clarified, secondly, a translation in all languages takes quite a while and, thirdly, I think the EU institutions have an interest to preserve the “technical look” (see above) as long as possible.

- And problem No. 4: Journalists that are unable to find facts. Of course I understand the point Vincente Brown wants to make in his article. But in a way he is doing it in such a typical manner. I agree that the Commission Representation behaved in a very unhelpful way, but why is it not possible for journalists to distinguish between the Commission in Brussels and Dublin? Why did he not phone the various information services of the Commission? What about the journalistic principle to check more sources? Maybe he would have found that website! Somehow I am sure that he just wanted to “test” the knowledge of the Dublin Representation so why does he not say that clearly in the article? I also agree that the treaty is not easy to understand: the language of the treaty is very legal and compared with other treaties also the structure is confusing and complicated. But can we not expect from journalists to read the treaty a bit more carefully? Because he would have found the following article (admittedly very hidden in the treaty!):

Article 2
The Treaty establishing the European Community shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
1) The title of the Treaty shall be replaced by “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.

Anyway, if he still has problems with the TFEU he should start reading EU blogs!