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.

1. What happened with the “Telecoms Package” (that I have mentioned here and here)? It seems that most of the worrying amendments regarding copyright issues (especially the three strikes approach) were not adopted by the European Parliament. A detailed analysis by La Quadrature du Net will be published in the next days. However, it was an impressive example of digital citizen lobbyism. If you read German head over to netzpolitik.org and heise.de.  EurActiv has a long and rather general article on the whole initiative. But it is true: the Internet is rather quiet about this success in the European Parliament as A Fistful of Euros notes. Bashing the EU is much easier, I guess.

2. And what about the mysterious “blogger regulation” of Marianne Mikko … that actually never really existed in the first place? Well, it was not adopted by the European Parliament (or rather not included in the EP resolution). For more details check out EUobserver and Julien Frisch.

“Just by getting closer to Russia’s borders, NATO is not becoming stronger,” Medvedev said. “…what if Georgia had a NATO membership action plan? I would not wait for a second in making the decision I made at that point.”

Vladimir Putin also tried his best to defend the war in Georgia:

“What did you want us to do? Wave our penknives in the air and wipe the bloody snot off our noses? When an aggressor comes into your territory, you need to punch him in the face – an aggressor needs to punished.”

I just have some objections about “the aggressor coming in your territory”, Mr Putin, somehow that explanation does not really convince me. Apart from that little “twisted fact”, I particularly like the diplomatic language in this statement.

The Russian President has another interesting analogy:

“Immediately after the events in the Caucasus it occurred to me that August 8 was for us almost what 9/11 was for the United States. There were many useful lessons from 9/11 in the United States. I would like the world to draw its own lessons from what happened. The world changed.”

Yes, the world is always changing. Interesting, first the “genocide” label, now the 9/11 analogy, any deeper meaning or just because it is September?  Russia as the victim? And what about these “useful lessons”? I can’t think of ‘many’.

I guess statements like the ones above show that Russia is trying desperately to tell its side of the story. But somehow it always sounds clumsy, undiplomatic, arrogant and based on ‘wrong’ realities (at least in our view). However, any ‘legitimacy’ depends on perceptions abroad. And Moscow is loosing ground there. It becomes obvious that Russia simply has neither the tools nor the allies to dominate a “global information war”.

Via Paul Goble’s blog I discovered some interesting data from UNOSAT, that is the” the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Operational Satellite Applications Programme”. Basically they released satellite images that were taken during the conflict in the region. Paul Goble explains the implications:

Satellite photographs analyzed by United Nations experts show that only five percent of Tskhinvali was destroyed during the fighting there but that 50 percent of ethnic Georgian villages were destroyed in that region by Ossetian marauders behind Russian lines, a pattern that undercuts Moscow’s claims about what took place. (…) But these photographs taken over the course of August also call into question repeated Russian claims that the Georgian army had destroyed much of the South Ossetian capital – the satellite photographs show only five percent of its buildings having been damaged — and that Georgian forces had carried out a systematic genocide there.

Human Rights Watch also offers some further explanations here.

I am pretty sure that we will see more of this kind of data in the future, also for other conflicts. Satellite technology has been developed rapidly and quality improved considerably in the last years. And when free services such as Google Earth already show quite detailed images, what about high quality, high resolution satellite images frequently used by governments? Propaganda and the spread of false information will definitely get more difficult.

I also wonder whether the EU Satellite Centre has similar evidence regarding the conflict in Georgia? Never heard of this EU agency? Here the short mission statement:

The mission of the European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC) is to support the decision-making of the European Union by providing analysis of satellite imagery and collateral data. The EUSC is an Agency of the Council of the European Union. It is one of the key institutions for European Union’s Security and Defence policy, and the only one in the field of space.

At least with that in mind the proposed EU “fact finding mission” in Georgia could get quite interesting…

This time the topic is even more complex than last time: It is about the conflict in the Middle East. The video was made by Axel Rudolph, a student of media design in Ravensburg/Germany. Here he explains the purpose of the video:

My dissertation, titled ‘Knowledge’ for my degree at Ravensburg College (subject: media design) deals with a virtual TV format that gives current important matters a more visually attractive shape.

It is especially attractive to younger people. One of my goals is to show that education and learning may also have a ‘cool look’. This new look often reminds the viewer more of a TV music video than that of a matter-of-fact history lesson. The sample – to be seen here – gives a 5-minute-explanation of the roots of the Middle-East conflict. It took about 3 ½ months to research this project, write the story book, and prepare the animation graphics.

I think it is a great piece of work that shows how political news can be presented. The combination of powerful visuals, clear explanations and a certain ‘MTV feel’ is both informative and attractive. It actually reminds me of a survey from a couple of months ago that showed that a majority of people that watch news on TV actually don’t understand them. Maybe a video like that one could help…

knowledge video

Obviously, this is a more than incomplete list, but for me a good task to get into blogging mood again after a long summer break… So what can you expect in the coming months? This blog will hopefully get a new design and a new domain, a new exciting blogging portal will be launched and I will start a new job.

Oh yes, and a few interesting posts maybe. So stay tuned!

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

“Make complex ideas easy to understand” … sounds like the EU needs something like that. Although the EU started experimenting with online videos lately, it still lacks creativity and a certain “online buzz”. Most of the videos about the EU (not only EUtube!) are either pure news reports or have a political motivation. However, one of the greatest problems of the EU is that nobody understands what exactly it does and how it works (which can also explain low turnouts at European elections). Unfortunately EUtube as well as other video producers do not address these issues. Short simple online videos could help people to learn and think about the EU.  Maybe the video on US elections can turn into an inspiration to produce similar videos about the European elections or the EU decision making process …in plain 23 languages!

1. Great visions for the future of everything: yes.   – Policy details: no, not really.
2. Great rhetoric: yes.  – Great visuals for his campaign: yes, definitely.
3. Bush-bashing: no. – And a “Berlin surprise”: Oh yes please.

And what did we get? (You can read the transcript of the speech here)

1. What about “visions”: well, sort of. Barack Obama spoke about many global problems and a lot of shared responsibilities and the need for cooperation. Not more, not less. Of course freedom played a big role (George W. Bush would have said the same!). Also the importance of immigration is something Europe needs to learn! Interesting maybe the issue of nuclear disarmament. I haven’t heard any politician to call for that in the last decade or so. Of course he did not go into any detail (it is election campaign time! not a good time for details). However, the “big visionary moment” of the speech was missing. But considering what could have gone wrong with such a speech, I guess it was OK. But of course symbolism prevails over content in every election campaign…

2. What about “great rhetoric”: First of all, I think the rather short speech was well constructed. The second part was better than the beginning. But I also found that the family background did not really work (maybe he should have started with something else and talked about it later? ). I liked the idea of a “world citizen” (what do you expect with that blog name…?). The delivery was very professional but, again, the big moment was missing. BUT the visuals for the campaign were great (and eventually that matters at the moment): They can suggest that he is respected and hugely popular in Europe (the crowd of 200 000 was impressive, right? ) which might give him some foreign policy credibility in the US. But that depends on the spin of the campaign…

3) Obviously no Bush-bashing abroad which is unthinkable in the diplomatic world. So what about the “Berlin surprise”: Nothing really. Basically he used Ernst Reuter and the Berlin airlift for his speech trying to put it in context with globalisation and global challenges. Not a bad idea. But then again, since expectations were huge I doubt that he could have delivered a real “surprise”. Maybe next time…

Anything else?

Well, from a European perspective we can take note that he knows about the EU and he generally thinks highly of global institutions and international cooperation, which is good to know. But I think the really remarkable thing is the pure existence of this event, a kind of “globalisation of US election campaigning”. I think we will see similar events in the future! As somebody on German TV said “It seems that he is the candidate for the world presidency”.

Update: Here is the video of the speech:

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

The arrest of war criminal Radovan Karadžić is clearly a political breakthrough, not only for Serbia but also for the entire region as well as a promising sign for EU-Serbia relations.  Actually it can be interpreted as a success for the EU foreign policy approach towards Serbia in the last couple of months which consisted of openly supporting pro-EU forces coupled with some small concessions.

So what is behind this bold move of Serbia? Obviously symbols are very important in diplomacy (referring to the discussions about the “pro-EU” government) but I do not think this is purely a short term bit of PR. It is poltics, in a very realist sense of the word. The arrest of a war criminal like Karadžić is a politically risky business. And more importantly, the improvement of relations with the EU and the prospect of getting better contractual relations with the EU seems to be a political priority for the Serbian Government. So  it is rather easy: In order to receive any benefits out of the SAA (just consider the economic problems!) they needed to show their willingness to cooperate with the ICTY. If they are serious about their policy priorities they have to deliver. (BTW: The SAA, which was not that easy to get for the Serbian government in the first place, is signed but not implemented, implementation depends on full ICTY compliance.)

What next for Serbia?  – Here is the “to do”- list for the Serbian government:

1.) Serbia needs to get the SAA implemented which is in its own interest. However, the arrest of Karadžić might be enough for the time being to prove “full compliance with ICTY” which is a precondition for the SAA implementation. A bit of diplomatic wrangling (especially with Netherlands and Belgium) will be needed but it is possible to get the “full compliance” despite the other missing war criminals.

2.) Arrest Ratko Mladic & Goran Hadzic – Could happen quite soon. Apparently Karadžić was found during a operation that was aimed at Mladic. Of course the success now gives them a bit of extra time to arrest the next one. (I would look for someone with a long beard … just a thought after the arrests of Saddam Hussein and now Karadžić)

3.) Push the Kosovo issue in the background for the time being. Finding a diplomatic formula over the Kosovo issue is obviously the most difficult thing for Serbia, so tactically it is better to get it out of the way. I don’t think a quick solution is likely here. My guess is that this will be one of the political chapters in the EU accession negotiations, so it will be on the agenda in 5 years or so…. Although a final solution can be posponed until the very last moment of the negotiations (maybe with one of those very tense EU summits…), but eventually a Serbian recognition will happen. Plus, the EU will not repeat the Cyprus mistake.

4.) Status of an official EU candidate: Depends a bit on the complex “Lisbon Treaty and Ireland” issue. But I think once the SAA is implemented, the logical next step would be to get the offical status of a EU candidate, maybe next year. We are not talking about EU accession here, not even about opening EU accession negotiations, that is clearly a long term project.

Another interesting (and somewhat overlooked) story is that Serbia’s foreign minister Vuk Jeremic announced plans to reinstate the country’s ambassadors to twenty (!) EU countries that recognized Kosovo’s independence.  Belgrade withdrew its ambassadors for “consultations” on Feb 17 following the recognition of Kosovo by the majority of EU countries. So far these plans do not include ambassadors to the US and Japan.

However, another sign that Belgrade has priorities. And the priority, at the moment, is to have better links with the EU. I know it is strange to write and read about “policy coherence” in a Serbian context and that some “election promises”  were actually not forgotten and official priorities are treated like priorities… but c’mon why not give them some credit for a remarkable political move !?

• MEPs who accept paid work and hospitality from businesses with a vested interest in their legislative work
• MEPs with a financial interest in industries they promote
• MEPs who are in key legislative positions – for example, chairing parliamentary committees – while at the same time being involved with powerful business lobby groups.

the reasons behind the report:

The report argues that these potential conflicts of interest demand the attention of Europe’s leaders, more so than the recent scandals involving MEP’s expenses. Too Close for Comfort? profiles 12 MEPs from the UK, Germany, France, Finland and Romania. Their activities are seen as illustrative of these potential conflicts of interest but are not deemed extraordinary.

So, who is included? Here is the list of MEPs:

• Sharon Bowles: Patent lawyer pushing patents
• John Purvis: Investing in industry
• Klaus-Heiner Lehne: Another lawyer pushing patents
• Elmar Brok: MEP and media man
• Jorgo Chatzimarkakis: Network of lobbying links
• Malcolm Harbour: MEP inside the car industry
• Giles Chichester: Close to (nuclear) power
• Pervenche Beres: Opening doors to the financial industry
• Caroline Jackson: Benefiting the waste industry
• Ioan Mircea Paşcu: Consultant to US military contractors
• Eija-Riitta Korhola: Pro-nuclear and funded by nuclear
• Martin Callanan: More MEP motoring perks

You can download the report here.

Maybe also some potential contestants for the “Worst EU Lobbying Awards” … ?

• Serbia’s climate change

  The formation of a new government in Serbia offers modest hope of progress in its path to European Union membership, say Daniel Korski & Ivan Zverzhanovski.

• Grahnlaw: Anti-EU by any other name

  Is the label “euroscepticism” misleading? The idea is that labels such “anti-EU” or “anti-Europe” would be more suitable to describe “Eurosceptics” since most people that would put themselves in this category actually oppose any Europe wide approach. Very interesting thought!

• Fear and strange arithmetics: when powerful states confront powerless immigrants

  Interesting essay by Saskia Sassen: “It is surprising to see the high price in terms of ethical and economic costs that powerful ‘liberal democracies’ seem willing to pay in order to control extremely powerless people who only want a chance to work. Immigrants and refugees have to be understood as a historical vanguard that signals major ‘unsettlements’ in both sending and receiving countries.”

• National populism versus democracy – Antony Todorov

  Populist movements are a threat not because they raise the issue of direct democracy, but because they advocate nationalist mobilisation based on xenophobia, writes Antony Todorov. Given the failure of the leftist projects of the twentieth century, it is telling that far-right populism is more anti-democratic in the new democracies of central and eastern Europe than in western Europe. Is populism identical to the crisis of democracy or rather a symptom of it?

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

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

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

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

La Quadrature du Net / Squaring the Net, a European NGO initiative, released a press release that criticises a series of amendments which aim “at closing the open architecture of the Internet for more control and surveillance of users.” The proposed amendments could jeopardise the net neutrality principle and might change the nature of the internet:

European Internet users could be blocked from lawful activities by mandatory spyware, in the interests of their security. The right to use free software for internet access would therefore not be assured anymore. The neutrality of the Internet is also directly attacked, as is the principle that technical intermediaries have no obligation to prior surveillance of contents. Other amendments will de facto enable administrative authorities to obligate ISPs to work with content producers and rights-holders’ private police, including the sending of intimidating messages, with no judicial or regulatory oversight. (more…)

There is also a wiki in English, French and German with the main arguments against the amendments and some guidelines how to get active and how to contact relevant MEPs.

A good overview about the whole issue can also be found in this Briefing paper on the Telecoms Package (pdf) by Monica Horten, a PhD student at Westminster University:

Abstract:

This paper considers how imminent changes to European  telecommunications law will permit the monitoring and blocking of websites and peer-to-peer exchanges by ISPs, in  a way that is currently not legally possible. These legal  changes  will also permit ISPs to sanction users by suspending or terminating Internet access. And they are essential in order  for the French ‘riposte graduee’ or ‘3 strikes’ copyright enforcement measures to be implemented.

The changes are a series of hidden amendments related to copyright, and contained in the so-called ‘Telecoms package’. This paper argues that  these amendments  will  effectively erode  the ISP’s legal status of ‘mere conduit’, which currently  protects individual rights and liberties on the Internet. It argues that the ‘mere conduit’ status should be preserved, and  the copyright amendments rejected. The proposed copyright amendments will result in the loss of individual freedom and privacy on the Internet – in breach of fundamental principles of human rights law in Europe.  Ultimately, they  could open the door to wider political or commercial censorship, and this is the real danger of permitting them to get into law. The risk is that this will happen without proper legislative scrutiny or public debate. The European Parliament committees responsible for the Telecoms package vote on July 7th and the Parliament as a whole will vote on September 2nd. (more…)

Update 10.7.2008: EU Parliament split over electronic data protection

Anyway, today the EUobserver reports that this story has also arrived in Sweden:

Swedish media have erroneously reported that the EU plans to register and bill all bloggers, setting off a firestorm of reaction in the country.

Politicians of all political stripes and most major media outlets have since furiously attacked the idea as another example of Big Brother snooping into people’s daily lives, while the MEP at the heart of the controversy has been compared to Romanian dictator Nikolae Ceausescu.

The article makes some good reading if you are interested in

a) How long it takes for a topic to spread across Europe… The whole issue came up more than a month ago! Another interesting thing is how the story was transformed … the ‘first’ debate a month ago was about a “quality mark and some disclosure remarks”; now the Swedish debate was about EU  plans to “register and bill all bloggers”.

b) How national and European debates mix. The new surveillance legislation in Sweden is of course a good context for the blog topic, although both originated within different policy areas. However, it seems to me that the bigger scandal is indeed the new Swedish law…

c) A bold political statement: “She has a hole in her head”

d) More proofs that blogging and presumably the Internet are not properly understood … In the words of Ms Mikko: “The Economist is a valuable brand, its articles are trusted by readers without contributors having to reveal their names,” she said. “If there is a way to validate the best bloggers the same way that publishing in the Economist validates its writers, it should be done.”

A Northern Perspective offers an explanation why we see this kind of debate in Sweden:

A combination of  a lack knowledge of how the EU works, British type tabloid sensationalism and the hidden agenda of a certain group of so-called liberals can make wonders in influencing the public opinion, a very useful thing in these days when the future of the Union is very much at stake.

• Half of the reporters covering European affairs have been doing it for less than 5 years.
• Only 10% read EU blogs
• Many journalists say their audiences are interested in the EU but not well informed about it, and that journalists’ bosses are hardly any better informed than their readers, viewers and listeners.
• 43% of the polled journalists would like to learn more about “The balance of  power between EU institutions”, only 13% want to learn more about the Single Market, the budget and trade issues.
• A relative minority of journalists cover issues related to business regulation, fisheries, development and humanitarian aid.
• Almost half of the journalists produce one or more stories a day.
• What are the most important sources for story ideas? Blogs are seen by  3% as “very important”, by 4% as “often important”, 30% say Blogs are “sometimes important” and the majority of 63% say they are “not important”.
• European Institutions get quite good grades for the quality of the information they provide.
• Webcasts and podcasts as well as conference calls are relatively unimportant for EU journalists.
• The best communicator of European affairs is… the European Commission, but at the same time a solid majority of journalists surveyed feel it does a poor job of communicating with the public.

Click here for more results of the survey (pdf).