[Part of the series on the Northern Irish MEPs' first year in the 7th European Parliament]
Bairbre de Brún (GUE-HGL [United Left]) (Sinn Féin). Member of: the Environment Committee, Petitions Committee and the Delegation to the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee. (Substitute on: the Regional Development Committee, Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council, Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranian Parliamentary Assembly).
Statistics:
Attendance in plenary: 84.31%
Loyalty to Europarty: 89.88%
Loyalty to national majority: 53.02%
Speeches: 16 (In plenary, 14 [via VoteWatch, which wasn’t updated as recently])
Parliamentary Questions: 8
Motions for resolutions: 7
Written declarations: 0
Reports Amended: 8 (Mostly regarding reports on Climate Change, transport, biodiversity, and the treatment of animals (pets)).
Drafted Reports: 1 (Report on a proposed regulation on animal health requirements for non-commercial movement of pets).
Opinions: 0
De Brún’s speeches mostly cover climate change and animal welfare. On climate change she gave a speech in January advocating a binding international treaty on climate change, and urged for 40% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 and of 80-95% by 2050 for the EU, as well as funding for developing countries to combat climate change/clarity on the funding. These figures appear in several speeches and she has spoken for her political group on the matter a few times. Bairbre de Brún has also given speeches on the report on regulations for animal treatment (of pets while being moved) as rapporteur. The legislation concerns the transportation of pets and controls on rabies. In the end a few technical amendments were recommended.
[NOTE: A rapporteur prepares a report on a piece of legislation for the relevant committee and helps conduct negotiates between the political groups on it. The final report contains recommendations to accept, reject or amend the legislation].
When it comes to the Irish language, which is an important issue for de Brún’s national party, Sinn Féin, she gives her speeches in Irish. She has also made a speech on the legislation (now passed) on the access to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings criticising aspects of it where the native tongue might not be used/translated into [Text in Irish, but if you click on video and scroll down the speakers, you can find a translated video speech].
On Parliamentary questions, the 8 questions are on a range of topics. Though there’s no one topic, there is a theme of the environment for a few of the questions. Topics include: Lough Neagh Eels, Genetically Modified Organisms, Foreign Lecturers in Italian Universities (equal pay question), the movement of animals in Ireland, cross-border use of childcare vouchers and the failure of certain member states to implement EU law/questions on whether or not the law was being applied correctly in a certain case. Questions are asked regularly (i.e. roughly monthly rather than a bunch of questions at once), and tend to refer to specific situations and refer to a specific law.
The motions for resolutions are mostly procedural – motions to finish the debate on an issue, etc. The other resolutions are political declarations, and not legislation, on topics such as the Gaza flotilla incident and AIDs.
The reports that de Brún submitted amendments on mostly concern reports on climate change, transport, biodiversity, and the treatment of animals. This shows a specialised role that probably leads on from her membership of the Environment Committee.
Analysis:
Bairbre de Brún’s national party, Sinn Féin, is part of the GUE-NGL group (United Left-Nordic Green Left), so you could say that she plays the role of a party MEP. Groups get certain resources and being part of a political group increases your chances of forming alliances and getting high profile roles such as rapporteur, etc. So the role of the party MEP would be different to an independent MEP. On the whole, it looks like de Brún is asking specific, detailed questions, submitting amendments and motions that are around the same amount as most other MEPs (10 or less for each, though some few MEPs submit a lot more), and drafting/co-drafting a report. She seems very specialised in the environment policy area, and how good this is depends on your idea of the role of the MEP. Specialisation suggests that she is well positioned to influence environmental EU law, and has good party connections (whether or not the party has policies you agree with in this or other areas is another question). But perhaps this means that she doesn’t have as much time for questions/amendments in other policy areas (see the above linked video on the translation legislation, where she claimed not being on a Committee that dealt with that legislation meant that she’d less time to read it and come up with amendments). Other constituency work isn’t measured – we can’t say that these statistics and info show everything an MEP does/can do. Is she doing a good job in her area? Is she doing enough?
My personal opinion on the independent/party MEP aspect is that in a Parliament of 700+ MEPs, you need alliances on policies to get things done, and having them along ideological lines means that the voter can vote for a party that represents a broad line that they can support – pretty much like any other Parliament. Of course there are other advantages and disadvantages to each role. De Brún has voted with the United Left the vast majority of the time (shown by the high “group loyalty” percentage), so voting for Bairbre de Brún as an MEP is a vote to strengthen that party in the Eruopean Parliament, and their policies/ideology can be taken as a rough guide to her political behaviour as an MEP. In my opinion, Bairbre de Brún does a good job as a party MEP.
[For analysis on the other Northern Ireland MEPs and an overall analysis: link]
Showing posts with label Sinn Féin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sinn Féin. Show all posts
Monday, 19 July 2010
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Perpetual Peace Process
Northern Ireland is back in the news, and this time it's not because of sex and money. The more familiar peace process crisis has returned (though, technically, it never really went away), with the devolution of police and justice powers to the regional government in Belfast the central issue (apart from all the other issues). Once again the British Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have waded in to try and sort the mess out, and, with no deal reached today, set a deadline of 48 hours for the main parties to strike a deal, or the two governments will set out their own proposals.
It's been almost 12 years since the Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement) which set up the devolved regional government in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland had its own government from 1922-72 until the outbreak of the Troubles led to London imposing direct control (known as "direct rule"). The new system is a consociational one: in other words, both communities share power. This was to ensure that the institutions would have a broad cross-community support, which was absent from the first period of regional government. But while the Assembly and Executive are seen as legitimate, they're also seen as ineffective - after all, it's been 12 years and we're still stuck in the same old process, with the same old arguments.
It's hard to explain to people who didn't grow up in NI exactly what it's all about, and every time I try it always strikes me how ridiculous the whole thing must sound.
So, here it goes with the very, very brief and crude description of the state of play [Warning: may contain traces of exasperated cynicism]:
- The government (Executive) is a coalition of four parties, but the main ones are a party of former revolutionaries/rebels (Sinn Féin) and a party of reactionary fundamentalist Christians (DUP).
- Sinn Féin wants the devolution of police and justice powers to the Executive/Assembly because it would complete the set of devolved powers, and because the whole issue of decommissioning of the IRA's weapons has been resolved.
- The DUP want other issues to be settled in the deal, including the abolition of the Parades Commission (PC).
- The PC was set up to restrict/ban contentious parades, in practice this mainly concerns the parades of the unionist Orange Order (or the "Loyal Orders", which commemorate the overthrow of an English king and the enthronement of the Dutch Staatholder William of Orange in the 17th century [I know this might not make sense, but it's best not to think about it]). Some of their parades run through nationalist areas, and have been sources of what we might politely call tension.
- Sinn Féin are angry at what they see as a precondition to any deal, and feel that they shouldn't have to make many more concessions because the DUP have blocked the introduction of an Irish Language Act and other Sinn Féin pet policies. They don't want to look weak.
- The DUP are hurting from the Robinson sex scandal and are worried about loosing support to the more extreme unionist TUV party. Want a political victory and obstructionism worked well with decommissioning.
- DUP & Sinn Féin don't really want an election, but the brinkmanship may bring it about.
- The other 2 (more moderate) parties are angry about just generally being ignored; increasingly only get publicity involving them being angry about being increasingly ignored.
- IF a deal is reached, the minister who takes up the portfolio can neither be from the DUP or SF parties because they don't trust each other and it may be the leader of the (tiny) opposition cross-community party. Maybe.
The line in Yes, Minister that government isn't so much a team as a loose confederation of warring tribes is perhaps more apt in this case.
What's so dispiriting is that politics really hasn't changed. There is still the sense that a gain for one community is a loss for the other. Both sides are guilty of this, but the DUP is unbelievably explicit and brash in its approach - in other words, the biggest party of government and the holder of the First Minister's office (which is a joint equal office with the deputy FM, despite the name) sees gloating about keeping the leading nationalist party - their government partners - down and out as "good politics". Is it any wonder that more extremist parties and groups are emerging if politics aren't being normalised? Maintaining such attitudes legitimises the extremes while the paralysis of the Executive mean that moderate voters loose faith in the purpose of government and are less likely to vote.
When decommissioning was achieved and the DUP and Sinn Féin apparently reconciled, some people thought that people would move to more moderate politics, but the weakness of the moderate parties (who refuse to leave the government and set themselves up as a separate alternative) and the ineffectiveness of the government mean that there's little oxygen for the moderates.
So the perpetual peace process trundles on, forever on life support...
It's been almost 12 years since the Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement) which set up the devolved regional government in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland had its own government from 1922-72 until the outbreak of the Troubles led to London imposing direct control (known as "direct rule"). The new system is a consociational one: in other words, both communities share power. This was to ensure that the institutions would have a broad cross-community support, which was absent from the first period of regional government. But while the Assembly and Executive are seen as legitimate, they're also seen as ineffective - after all, it's been 12 years and we're still stuck in the same old process, with the same old arguments.
It's hard to explain to people who didn't grow up in NI exactly what it's all about, and every time I try it always strikes me how ridiculous the whole thing must sound.
So, here it goes with the very, very brief and crude description of the state of play [Warning: may contain traces of exasperated cynicism]:
- The government (Executive) is a coalition of four parties, but the main ones are a party of former revolutionaries/rebels (Sinn Féin) and a party of reactionary fundamentalist Christians (DUP).
- Sinn Féin wants the devolution of police and justice powers to the Executive/Assembly because it would complete the set of devolved powers, and because the whole issue of decommissioning of the IRA's weapons has been resolved.
- The DUP want other issues to be settled in the deal, including the abolition of the Parades Commission (PC).
- The PC was set up to restrict/ban contentious parades, in practice this mainly concerns the parades of the unionist Orange Order (or the "Loyal Orders", which commemorate the overthrow of an English king and the enthronement of the Dutch Staatholder William of Orange in the 17th century [I know this might not make sense, but it's best not to think about it]). Some of their parades run through nationalist areas, and have been sources of what we might politely call tension.
- Sinn Féin are angry at what they see as a precondition to any deal, and feel that they shouldn't have to make many more concessions because the DUP have blocked the introduction of an Irish Language Act and other Sinn Féin pet policies. They don't want to look weak.
- The DUP are hurting from the Robinson sex scandal and are worried about loosing support to the more extreme unionist TUV party. Want a political victory and obstructionism worked well with decommissioning.
- DUP & Sinn Féin don't really want an election, but the brinkmanship may bring it about.
- The other 2 (more moderate) parties are angry about just generally being ignored; increasingly only get publicity involving them being angry about being increasingly ignored.
- IF a deal is reached, the minister who takes up the portfolio can neither be from the DUP or SF parties because they don't trust each other and it may be the leader of the (tiny) opposition cross-community party. Maybe.
The line in Yes, Minister that government isn't so much a team as a loose confederation of warring tribes is perhaps more apt in this case.
What's so dispiriting is that politics really hasn't changed. There is still the sense that a gain for one community is a loss for the other. Both sides are guilty of this, but the DUP is unbelievably explicit and brash in its approach - in other words, the biggest party of government and the holder of the First Minister's office (which is a joint equal office with the deputy FM, despite the name) sees gloating about keeping the leading nationalist party - their government partners - down and out as "good politics". Is it any wonder that more extremist parties and groups are emerging if politics aren't being normalised? Maintaining such attitudes legitimises the extremes while the paralysis of the Executive mean that moderate voters loose faith in the purpose of government and are less likely to vote.
When decommissioning was achieved and the DUP and Sinn Féin apparently reconciled, some people thought that people would move to more moderate politics, but the weakness of the moderate parties (who refuse to leave the government and set themselves up as a separate alternative) and the ineffectiveness of the government mean that there's little oxygen for the moderates.
So the perpetual peace process trundles on, forever on life support...
Friday, 29 May 2009
Election Mail (Northern Ireland Style)
I've finally got some election literature (not that the writing exactly warrants that description) for Northern Ireland. So far I have something from all of the major (and some not-quite-so-major) parties, except for the UUP/Conservatives' Jim Nicholson. Here's a quick overview for anyone who wants a taste of NI political leafleting (you know who you are):
DUP/No Group (Diane Dodds):
Medium-sized booklet promising "Strong Leadership in Challenging Times". The chief concern is on preventing Sinn Féin from topping the poll and the state of Unionism in general. It is almost entirely composed of one-line long bullet points (European issues are mentioned in 2-3 out of 22 of them on the inside pages). EU-wise the DUP is for the "best deal from Brussels for business, farmers and fishermen" - it doesn't elaborate, but my impression from their campaign so far is that they want less regulation and CFP reform.
Sinn Féin/GUE-NGL (Bairbre de Brún):
Tiny stretched postcard of a leaflet; tagline: "Putting Ireland First". Has "MEP" written beside Bairbre de Brún's name, which I thought wasn't allowed (but that might only apply to election posters). Contains a mere two paragraphs - one English, one in Irish. Talks about delivering for Ireland, supporting various communities (agriculture, business, etc) and mentions the potential of a green economy. No policies outlined or even general stances on policy areas mentioned.
Jim Allister/No Group (Traditional Unionist Voice):
Booklet with the most writing out of the bunch. Tagline: "Experience, Principle, Integrity". Main points are the need for a full time MEP (claiming that 70% of laws originate in the EU), outrage over Sinn Féin being in government (the NI regional government) with the DUP (his former party), and his principles on moral and constitutional issues. Highlights his number of speeches, oral questions and written questions versus the 2 other NI MEPs and the NI MEPs of the previous EP, and his ability in "Opposing Sinn Féin 24/7".
Talks about local government issues, but he does talk about European issues - EU funding (he wants more), farming (wants fewer Brazilian imports), CFP (against), regulation (proposes a "regulation holiday"), traditional family values (for), Euro (against) and the Lisbon Treaty (against). Has quotes from Farage and Hannan praising him.
The Alliance Party/ELDR (Ian Parsley - not connected to the more famous Ian):
Fold-out leaflet; tagline: "Replace the Politics of Fear with the Politics of Hope". Pro-European, but not much that stands out - wants to make Europe closer to its citizens, to make it work for citizens, and is pro-green investment - but no policies. May be what Julien Frisch has yearned for in terms of "European experience" - Parsley has lived in Germany, Spain and England, speaks fluent German and Spanish and he has set up his own business (though it doesn't mention if this business was outside NI).
SDLP/PES (Alban Maginness):
Small fold-out poster; tagline: "When we Win, You Win" - in English, Irish, Polish and Spanish. Highlights his online campaign, which in website terms is on all the usual suspects; though his blog makes a play on the old Guinness ad slogan, calling it: "Maginness is Good for EU". Describes himself as "passionately pro-European", and there are some bullet points, which is pretty much the same sort of stuff as in the other parties, except the anti-CFP and defensive CAP stance of NI in general is gentler in rhetoric. Emphasises the importance of the PES and belonging to one of the big EP groups - and has the PES logo beside the SDLP one (one of only two to have the Group logo on their literature - at least, out of this collection).
Green Party/Greens-EFA (Steven Agnew):
Another fold-out booklet; tagline: "For a New Green Deal". One of the few candidates I have actually met in person, but that was a year ago. Calls for a "Green Industrial Revolution" and claims that 5 million jobs could be created across Europe if there's proper investment in green technology (seems possible) - with 50, 000 of them in NI (which I don't personally find a particularly convincing number). Also highlights its links with its EP Group (one column devoted to it), though the group logo is small and on one of the inside pages.
I have to say that none of the leaflets actually impacted on or changed how I'm planning to vote (at the moment, anyway), but that could be because I'm just interested in politics so I'd already knew the outline of the parties' stances. Does leafleting have much of an impact on your voting intentions?
DUP/No Group (Diane Dodds):
Medium-sized booklet promising "Strong Leadership in Challenging Times". The chief concern is on preventing Sinn Féin from topping the poll and the state of Unionism in general. It is almost entirely composed of one-line long bullet points (European issues are mentioned in 2-3 out of 22 of them on the inside pages). EU-wise the DUP is for the "best deal from Brussels for business, farmers and fishermen" - it doesn't elaborate, but my impression from their campaign so far is that they want less regulation and CFP reform.
Sinn Féin/GUE-NGL (Bairbre de Brún):
Tiny stretched postcard of a leaflet; tagline: "Putting Ireland First". Has "MEP" written beside Bairbre de Brún's name, which I thought wasn't allowed (but that might only apply to election posters). Contains a mere two paragraphs - one English, one in Irish. Talks about delivering for Ireland, supporting various communities (agriculture, business, etc) and mentions the potential of a green economy. No policies outlined or even general stances on policy areas mentioned.
Jim Allister/No Group (Traditional Unionist Voice):
Booklet with the most writing out of the bunch. Tagline: "Experience, Principle, Integrity". Main points are the need for a full time MEP (claiming that 70% of laws originate in the EU), outrage over Sinn Féin being in government (the NI regional government) with the DUP (his former party), and his principles on moral and constitutional issues. Highlights his number of speeches, oral questions and written questions versus the 2 other NI MEPs and the NI MEPs of the previous EP, and his ability in "Opposing Sinn Féin 24/7".
Talks about local government issues, but he does talk about European issues - EU funding (he wants more), farming (wants fewer Brazilian imports), CFP (against), regulation (proposes a "regulation holiday"), traditional family values (for), Euro (against) and the Lisbon Treaty (against). Has quotes from Farage and Hannan praising him.
The Alliance Party/ELDR (Ian Parsley - not connected to the more famous Ian):
Fold-out leaflet; tagline: "Replace the Politics of Fear with the Politics of Hope". Pro-European, but not much that stands out - wants to make Europe closer to its citizens, to make it work for citizens, and is pro-green investment - but no policies. May be what Julien Frisch has yearned for in terms of "European experience" - Parsley has lived in Germany, Spain and England, speaks fluent German and Spanish and he has set up his own business (though it doesn't mention if this business was outside NI).
SDLP/PES (Alban Maginness):
Small fold-out poster; tagline: "When we Win, You Win" - in English, Irish, Polish and Spanish. Highlights his online campaign, which in website terms is on all the usual suspects; though his blog makes a play on the old Guinness ad slogan, calling it: "Maginness is Good for EU". Describes himself as "passionately pro-European", and there are some bullet points, which is pretty much the same sort of stuff as in the other parties, except the anti-CFP and defensive CAP stance of NI in general is gentler in rhetoric. Emphasises the importance of the PES and belonging to one of the big EP groups - and has the PES logo beside the SDLP one (one of only two to have the Group logo on their literature - at least, out of this collection).
Green Party/Greens-EFA (Steven Agnew):
Another fold-out booklet; tagline: "For a New Green Deal". One of the few candidates I have actually met in person, but that was a year ago. Calls for a "Green Industrial Revolution" and claims that 5 million jobs could be created across Europe if there's proper investment in green technology (seems possible) - with 50, 000 of them in NI (which I don't personally find a particularly convincing number). Also highlights its links with its EP Group (one column devoted to it), though the group logo is small and on one of the inside pages.
I have to say that none of the leaflets actually impacted on or changed how I'm planning to vote (at the moment, anyway), but that could be because I'm just interested in politics so I'd already knew the outline of the parties' stances. Does leafleting have much of an impact on your voting intentions?
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
EU Communications Strategy (Ireland), or, How should the public best be informed about European issues?
The European Commission plans to spend €1.8 million on a new communications strategy in Ireland, which will be specifically aimed at women, 16-30 year olds and those on lower income. Information about the EU is to be disseminated in several ways, of which:
"Blogging, cinema advertising, listening exercises and advertising in women’s and youth magazines are key parts".
Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin MEP and a prominent figure of the Anti-Lisbon campaign, has called this new initiative "propaganda", noting that this strategy is set out explicitly to target the sections of society which tended to vote no in the June Referendum. The Commission has countered that the publicity campaign will be rolled out after the referendum.
So how far should the Commission - or any other EU institution for that matter - be involved in publicity or information campaigns? There is a lack of public knowledge of how the EU works and what it does (and both have very complicated answers), largely due the way the media works. In the absence of national media reporting on EU affairs (especially when legislation is being drawn up/considered when people can get into contact with MPs and MEPs to try and influence the process, instead of merely pronouncing the end result occasionally), and when national parties and governments devote little time to European issues, then it is left to the EP and Commission to disseminate information about the EU.
Ideally the parties in the EP would provide this function, but their fragmented nature and the fragmented and nationalised nature of European debate during EP elections has meant that the EP groups have not been able to preform the "educational" function that political parties are normally supposed to preform.
This leaves the Commission to fill the gap, though it is not noted for its success in this area. The Commissioner for Communication, Margot Wallstroem has made some good moves, including setting up her own blog, but in general the Commission has been severely lacking in providing political leadership for the EU. Arguably this not the role of the Commission. The European Council is tasked with the political leadership of the EU in the Treaties but the Commission is a guardian of the Treaties, and this has led to the Commission in some ways styling itself as the "guardian of the European ideal" since it is the institution that is meant to represent the common European interest.
So the Commission is trying in some small ways to engage people more in the EU, an effort which (as far as I can see) is mostly carried out on the internet. The internet is a great communication tool, but for engaging people in political debate I would still prize the traditional media over it - the internet is an area for people with similar interests (even if they hold opposing viewpoints) to voice their opinions, get information and debate, but I'm very sceptical of its worth in drawing more people in to debate European issues. Judging by Wallstroem's comments that the politicisation of the Commission is a good thing, the Commission does seek to some extent a leading political role in the European debate (or in generating one). But on this count it has failed: Commissioners have not made themselves more visible in national-European discourses - especially Barroso, whose invisibility during the Constitution and Lisbon referendum campaigns as well as generally despite being head of the Commission has sparked the online "Anyone But Barroso" campaign.
Having the position of the Commission President electable by the EP (or better yet, directly by the people), would be a good way of using politicisation to encourage political debate and awareness. However the political will in the case of the EP needs to be there (and in the absence of any EP group putting a candidate forward, it clearly isn't there yet) and though having a single electable post would put institutional/political pressure for debate, the lack of a very informed and informing media would hinder a lot of the initial interest, and could seriously weaken the effectiveness of this aspect.* Simply tinkering with institutional balances won't have much affect on debate either, as can be seen from the declining EP election turnouts.
The criticism of any Commission attempt to promote awareness of the EU and its affects (which are criticised as opaque) is that it is only pushing its own agenda, that it's only producing "propaganda". European issues are perhaps the only political area where opinions can be classified as foreign or propaganda, and then dismissed from the debate altogether. This is worrying. Governments and governing parties all release information and have publicity campaigns on their policies and their opinions and views are contested by those who disagree - and this leads to debate (and hopefully increases public understanding of the issues). Official information, opinions and policies all carry assumptions and agendas behind them - all information and forms of media and debate do, so it's hardly special - but it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand and not engage them.
McDonald is right when she says that this initiative is not dialogue, but she misses the point. The only dialogue that the Commission can stimulate is by inviting statements of opinion - which would end up being a focus group type of "dialogue". Imagine an Ireland, or any European country, where the political parties refuse to debate the issues with each other, so that the government resorts to asking (only) focus groups and interest groups their opinions and then goes about its business. In order to engage in a debate, you must at least know what the opinion of each side is, what they claim the facts are. Then you debate, dispute, disagree - engage! By dismissing not just what the Commission says, but indeed what any politician or group from outside the country says as being irrelevant and even unworthy of consideration due to bias, propaganda, "them being foreigners", etc., McDonald and politicians who accept this political culture or use it to their political advantage are smothering the possibility of debate at birth.
Anyway, the Commission apparently spent €650,000 on its communications plan in Ireland last year, and I'm willing to bet that it had no impact whatsoever (I certainly didn't notice it, and I'm interested in this sort of thing!). Just over doubling it may (theoretically) double its impact, but I'd say it would just upgrade "no impact whatsoever" to "next to no impact whatsoever". If McDonald is worried about propaganda, then she can rest easy.
*I will try to post about the media and its role in European debate later, either as an issue on its own or together with institutional factors.
"Blogging, cinema advertising, listening exercises and advertising in women’s and youth magazines are key parts".
Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin MEP and a prominent figure of the Anti-Lisbon campaign, has called this new initiative "propaganda", noting that this strategy is set out explicitly to target the sections of society which tended to vote no in the June Referendum. The Commission has countered that the publicity campaign will be rolled out after the referendum.
So how far should the Commission - or any other EU institution for that matter - be involved in publicity or information campaigns? There is a lack of public knowledge of how the EU works and what it does (and both have very complicated answers), largely due the way the media works. In the absence of national media reporting on EU affairs (especially when legislation is being drawn up/considered when people can get into contact with MPs and MEPs to try and influence the process, instead of merely pronouncing the end result occasionally), and when national parties and governments devote little time to European issues, then it is left to the EP and Commission to disseminate information about the EU.
Ideally the parties in the EP would provide this function, but their fragmented nature and the fragmented and nationalised nature of European debate during EP elections has meant that the EP groups have not been able to preform the "educational" function that political parties are normally supposed to preform.
This leaves the Commission to fill the gap, though it is not noted for its success in this area. The Commissioner for Communication, Margot Wallstroem has made some good moves, including setting up her own blog, but in general the Commission has been severely lacking in providing political leadership for the EU. Arguably this not the role of the Commission. The European Council is tasked with the political leadership of the EU in the Treaties but the Commission is a guardian of the Treaties, and this has led to the Commission in some ways styling itself as the "guardian of the European ideal" since it is the institution that is meant to represent the common European interest.
So the Commission is trying in some small ways to engage people more in the EU, an effort which (as far as I can see) is mostly carried out on the internet. The internet is a great communication tool, but for engaging people in political debate I would still prize the traditional media over it - the internet is an area for people with similar interests (even if they hold opposing viewpoints) to voice their opinions, get information and debate, but I'm very sceptical of its worth in drawing more people in to debate European issues. Judging by Wallstroem's comments that the politicisation of the Commission is a good thing, the Commission does seek to some extent a leading political role in the European debate (or in generating one). But on this count it has failed: Commissioners have not made themselves more visible in national-European discourses - especially Barroso, whose invisibility during the Constitution and Lisbon referendum campaigns as well as generally despite being head of the Commission has sparked the online "Anyone But Barroso" campaign.
Having the position of the Commission President electable by the EP (or better yet, directly by the people), would be a good way of using politicisation to encourage political debate and awareness. However the political will in the case of the EP needs to be there (and in the absence of any EP group putting a candidate forward, it clearly isn't there yet) and though having a single electable post would put institutional/political pressure for debate, the lack of a very informed and informing media would hinder a lot of the initial interest, and could seriously weaken the effectiveness of this aspect.* Simply tinkering with institutional balances won't have much affect on debate either, as can be seen from the declining EP election turnouts.
The criticism of any Commission attempt to promote awareness of the EU and its affects (which are criticised as opaque) is that it is only pushing its own agenda, that it's only producing "propaganda". European issues are perhaps the only political area where opinions can be classified as foreign or propaganda, and then dismissed from the debate altogether. This is worrying. Governments and governing parties all release information and have publicity campaigns on their policies and their opinions and views are contested by those who disagree - and this leads to debate (and hopefully increases public understanding of the issues). Official information, opinions and policies all carry assumptions and agendas behind them - all information and forms of media and debate do, so it's hardly special - but it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand and not engage them.
McDonald is right when she says that this initiative is not dialogue, but she misses the point. The only dialogue that the Commission can stimulate is by inviting statements of opinion - which would end up being a focus group type of "dialogue". Imagine an Ireland, or any European country, where the political parties refuse to debate the issues with each other, so that the government resorts to asking (only) focus groups and interest groups their opinions and then goes about its business. In order to engage in a debate, you must at least know what the opinion of each side is, what they claim the facts are. Then you debate, dispute, disagree - engage! By dismissing not just what the Commission says, but indeed what any politician or group from outside the country says as being irrelevant and even unworthy of consideration due to bias, propaganda, "them being foreigners", etc., McDonald and politicians who accept this political culture or use it to their political advantage are smothering the possibility of debate at birth.
Anyway, the Commission apparently spent €650,000 on its communications plan in Ireland last year, and I'm willing to bet that it had no impact whatsoever (I certainly didn't notice it, and I'm interested in this sort of thing!). Just over doubling it may (theoretically) double its impact, but I'd say it would just upgrade "no impact whatsoever" to "next to no impact whatsoever". If McDonald is worried about propaganda, then she can rest easy.
*I will try to post about the media and its role in European debate later, either as an issue on its own or together with institutional factors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)