In Search of the Citizen - European Year of Citizens

It was, Commissioner Viviane Reding declared, "A fight against indifference". Speaking at the closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, she correctly noted that the EU is "more than a market", but the story of "freedom, prosperity and stability" no longer worked as a European narrative. Europe certainly doesn't feel so prosperous anymore. From citizen dialogues to reaching out to civil society, the EU is not just trying to reach out to be closer to citizens, but you get the sense that if they could just deliver what people wanted, hopefully a new narrative will spontaneously emerge. Reding didn't say what Europe's new story was - she had to leave quickly for another Citizens' Dialogue in Lithuania.

How to make Every Year a Year for Citizens was the conference's theme, with discussions running from civil society organisation's at EU level to freedom of movement to the upcoming European elections. Hosted by the Lithuanian Presidency in Vilnius with the help of the European Year of Citizens Alliance ("EYCA" - an alliance of national civil society organisations), the conference was very much about how civil society can influence and interact with the EU - and above all the Commission.

And they do have something to say. Organising against the discrimination of the vulnerable in society, speaking out and even intervening in court cases in defense of the marginalised who try to exercise their free movement rights, and advocating giving a voice to 3rd country nationals who come to the EU. Proper consultation! was the cry, not "Insultations"! "Insultation" - shorthand for consulting with civil society groups just to tick boxes without really listening to them - was definitely the word of the conference. EYCA took the opportunity to hand Reding their recommendations for making the EU more open and democratic for citizens.

Here is the public the Commission yearns for - it's active, wants to participate and it has learnt the jargon, from your Charter of Fundamental Rights to your institutional triangles (even if this still proves a barrier to civil society organisations when it comes to knowing who to talk to). They can be disappointed, pleased, listened to or ignored. Most importantly, they talk.

It's a public, but are we talking about European citizens here? At times it felt more like a year of civil society organisations rather than a year of citizens. It's understandable - who else to you invite to this kind of event if not them? Apart from the bloggers, pretty much everyone present represented a civil society organisation (which went some way to slowing down the Q&A sessions, with each audience member taking the chance to explain what their organisation does). But though civil society makes a valuable link between the EU and citizens, you will probably only get that sense of a European public if and when the European elections start to feel European.

One of the most surprising speakers was the new head of the European Movement, Diogo Pinto, who - surprisingly for the EM - said that while the European Parliament does have new powers, it's still rational for citizens not to vote at European elections, because it's hard to see what changes in terms of power. Hopefully having candidates for the Commission Presidency in the election will change this, but it would be a slow process. The political drama of parliaments and elections is where you'll find citizens and a sense of citizenship emerging rather than targets and outcomes.

In future - the theme of citizens will unofficially continue because they couldn't think of a theme for 2014 - it would be good to have a citizens' dialogue as part of the conference (I assume that they were held separately due to falling under different institutions - the Council and the Commission). Having the chance to watch ordinary citizens put their questions to the Commission would bring up interesting issues and would actually be citizens participating.

So was the conference and the Year of Citizens a success? It depends on who you wanted to engage, but there is a sense that a wider public rather than simply campaigning civil society organisations was desired. At the opening of the conference it was admitted that it was "a mistake" to involve PR companies so much because it led to more of a broadcasting campaign than more engagement. After the European election promotion campaign in 2009, I hope the Parliament was listening!

Amartya Sen: Democracy, Austerity and Social Justice in Europe

I came across this interesting article by Amartya Sen via the CELS: "What happened to Europe?" It's a very broad article, but covers the connection between politics (and democracy) and austerity, social justice and European integration. An extract:

"That austerity is a counterproductive economic policy in a situation of economic recession can be seen, rightly, as a “Keynesian critique.” Keynes did argue—and persuasively—that to cut public expenditure when an economy has unused productive capacity as well as unemployment owing to a deficiency of effective demand would tend to have the effect of slowing down the economy further and increasing—rather than decreasing—unemployment. Keynes certainly deserves much credit for making that rather basic point clear even to policymakers, irrespective of their politics, and he also provided what I would call a sketch of a theory of explaining how all this can be nicely captured within a general understanding of economic interdependences between different activities (emphasizing in particular the fact that someone’s expenditure is another person’s income). I am certainly supportive of this Keynesian argument, and also of Paul Krugman’s efforts in cogently developing and propagating this important perspective, and in questioning the policy of massive austerity in Europe. 

But I would also argue that the unsuitability of the policy of austerity is only partly due to Keynesian reasons. Where we have to go well beyond Keynes is in asking what public expenditure is for—other than for just strengthening effective demand, no matter what its content. As it happens, European resistance to savage cuts in public services and to indiscriminate austerity is not based only, or primarily, on Keynesian reasoning. The resistance is based also on a constructive point about the importance of public services—a perspective that is of great economic as well as political interest in Europe.

THERE IS A CENTRAL ISSUE of social justice involved here—that of reducing rather than enhancing injustice. The public services are valued for what they actually provide to people, especially to vulnerable people, and this is something for which Europe had fought. Savage cuts in these services undermine what had emerged as a social commitment in Europe at the end of World War II, which led to the birth of the welfare state and the national health services in a period of rapid social change in the continent, setting a great example of public responsibility from which the rest of the world—from East Asia to Latin America—would learn.

In order to understand the inadequacy of Keynes as a guide to solving the European economic crisis, we have to ask: what kind of an economist was Keynes in terms of his vision of a good society? Keynes did say—famously, and accurately enough—that paying laborers to dig holes and then to fill them up can be a very good thing, because of its impact on increasing effective demand to combat a recession or a depression. This is fine as far as it goes, but Keynes had extremely little to say on what social commitments a state should have—what public expenditure should be for, other than for just strengthening market demand through state intervention."

 And:

"[...]

If we add to this economic argument the long-term concern in Europe about some form of social justice and the more immediate political worry about the undermining of the European sense of solidarity, we can see what a disaster the recent European financial policies have been. The case for resisting the savage cuts in public services can hardly be ignored. This is not because the commitment to social justice must always be paramount, but surely it must be a serious concern that cannot simply be discarded by bankers and financial leaders. There is, of course, always a need for rational scrutiny and examination of what a country can afford and what it cannot—taking into account all the relevant factors, including the changing age distribution of the population. But this is not the same question as checking what a country can afford with inefficient economic and financial management, with fuzzy thinking on exchange rates and market demands and economic competitiveness."

The first two pages are a bit of European integration history, and the substantive argument really gets going from page 3 onwards.

Bloggers and the Council Presidency: #Cy2012eublogs

I attended the European blogging event held by the Cypriot Council presidency two weeks ago (you can find the event on Twitter with the hashtag #cy2012eublogs). It was a well-run event, with four panel discussions between bloggers on Europe in the World, the EU and citizens, the economy, and a more sustainable Europe, before a general panel discussion on the results from group. There were also some Cypriot bloggers present to talk about the Cypriot blogosphere.

It was definitely a good experience, and a great opportunity to talk with other bloggers from across Europe on different issues. I largely agree with Protesilaos that the event was a success, and hopefully this will be the start of an engaged dialogue between the presidency and the Euroblogosphere that will leave a legacy.


1. Panel #2: A Europe of Growth.

I took part in the second panel on the economy and growth. The panel was chaired by Bernardo de Miguel, and we had the opportunity to talk to a Commission civil servant working on the Multiannual Financial Framework and to Cypriot presidency representatives. Some of the debate can be seen here:




(Part of the debate was broadcast via Google Hangouts, though there were some technical difficulties and the feed was off for part of it. We didn't have any interaction from those watching, but some of the other panels did. You can watch all the videos on this YouTube Channel).

The debate started off focusing on the Multiannual Financial Framework and what the EU could do, and there was some discussion about structural funds, which were agreed to be a positive aspect. The austerity debate was naturally a central issue, including how the EU budget would either live up to the austerity being pursued across Europe, or how the EU could offset the effects of austerity. Much of the debate also focused on perception of the budget and how citizens/bloggers could/should be involved - that the budget has to pay for commitments already made by the European Parliament and Member States, and whether we would be comfortable with the implications of more EU control and oversight that might come with any specific funding of national welfare states.

Overall it was a good debate. It's hard to get to grips with the details of the MFF, so the discussion remained quite general, but hopefully there will be follow-up in the Blogosphere.


2. The Cypriot and European Blogospheres.

Cypriot bloggers Petros Mavros and Mike Simopoulos where in a panel discussion on the Cypriot blogosphere, which seems to be seen in a similar way to the nationa media (that there is a specific party political agenda).

Will there be more connections built between Cypriot and EU bloggers? With Cyprus in the Council driving seat for the next few months, EU blogger interest in Cyprus will be much higher than before, and the Cypriot blogosphere could be a big help in getting to know the domestic politics better. Personal connections matter too, so meeting with Cypriot bloggers was a great idea and will encourage me to look out for Cypriot blogs.

If there are more blogging events (not necessarily physical) with the Cyprus presidency on specific issues that include both EU and Cypriot bloggers, this would promote connections and a more vibrant exchange of views.


3. #Cy2012eublogs: Success and Sustainability.

The aim of the event was to connect EU bloggers with the Cyprus presidency, and I think it made a great start. As a blogger when I look to institutions and their websites, my main stop is the European Parliament because it is easy for me to follow the policy areas I'm interested in and, if I have time, the debates in the Committees. The Council has nothing approaching this level of openness (though VoteWatch.eu is trying to shed some more light on the Council), so I don't use the Council website that much - in fact, I use it the least of all the main EU institutions.

This event has drawn more attention to the Cypriot presidency, and I'm already much more interested in this presidency than in previous ones. For bloggers the event has raised interesting discussions that desrve follow-up in our blogs - and a closer look as the presidency develops.

Further events on specific areas or issues would be a good way for both bloggers and the Cypriot presidency to capitalise on the goodwill and interest generated by the event. There are plenty of interesting topics coming up or already under discussion: the Multiannual Financial Framework, the new general Data Protection Regulation, in the area of justice and home affairs (measures such as EU PNR or and EU Terrorist Financial Tracking System ["EU SWIFT"]), and the collective management of music copyright. Upcoming work on these kinds of issues could be flagged by the presidency in advance as a way of highlighting both their work and areas where civil society can debate before matters have been decided. Using these initiatives as the focus of future meetings or blogging events could generate interest and useful debate on these points and on the work of the Cypriot presidency as a whole.

The Observer, Europe and Blogging

Henry Porter's article in today's Observer is interesting for 2 reasons: (1) he repeats the mistake of confusing the ECHR and the EU and the role of the President of the European Council, and (2) he calls for a kind of enlightened scepticism of the EU's institutions - a good idea - that is undermined by the factors that bring about point (1). So I sent the Observer a letter (ok, email):

Henry Porter is convincing in his argument for a better scepticism when it comes to the EU institutions ("I saw the joy on German faces - but now I despair", 8th November). The need for civil society to debate and scrutinize European institutions is great, and the duty of the media to enable continuous debate is particularly strong. However, Henry Porter fell victim to a few assumptions that highlight the lack of media scrutiny in this area, and shows that without this scrutiny, it's hard to have an effective and informed scepticism.

Getting basic facts such as the difference between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU's European Court of Justice wrong (the ECHR belongs to the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation) can make such scepticism ill-informed and misdirected, since placing the blame at the EU's door for the ECHR's rulings would be ineffective. Similarly, the office of President of the European Council has been talked up to be a full-blown "President of the EU" (there's no such post), giving rise to fears of a powerful executive President who would be unelected - when, in fact, the post is one of chairman/woman who would only preside over the European summits, with no vote or veto on issues. The President would be more the role of a parliamentary speaker than a president, though with more publicity.

For such scepticism and political engagement to work, we need to not only see the EU as a set of institutions, but also take part in the political discussions at its heart - the EU isn't monolithic: there are many fractions in the Parliament and the Council arguing for different policies. We can't just blame "the EU" for faults and failings, we must identify who is in power (currently the centre-right EPP, with Barroso as Commission President), and what the opposition (Socialists and Democrats, the Greens, etc) is doing, and question their policies.

It is a demanding task to stimulate this kind of debate, but it's essential. The EU can try to open up all it wants (for example, the Commission President has to face a European version of PMQs before the European Parliament), but without the engagement of ordinary people and the media, it won't work. Will the Observer start scrutinizing the Brussels Bubble?

Conor Slowey

It's annoying to see that important political debates (over liberty versus security, and questions over the ECHR court case on cruifixes in Italy) being diverted off course by ingrained misinformation. The EU is mind-numbingly complex, and it can't just be explained in a short run up to European elections or each time there's a summit: there needs to be constant media scrutiny of the policies and political actors acting in the Brussels Bubble. Though I'd like to see the mainstream media improve it's journalism on the EU - and really open up a continuous debate on the issues and policies confronting the EU (as well as if the EU should confront them in the first place) - it'd be very naive to expect anything to change here.

So if the mainstream media won't do it, could there be a duty for civil society to step in? I'm generally sceptical of the power of blogging versus the mainstream media, although the mainstream media clearly doesn't always get it right, but could bloggers be said to have a certain duty in this instance?

Probably not. Bloggers are probably the most prickly of groups when it comes to independence and implying duties, and I can't see how you could convincingly say that people have a duty to investigate these things, except as, perhaps, the general and vague duty of voters who want to participate in the political process fully.

Still, I think that scrutinizing the polcies, actions and goals of the parties and fractions in the EU is vitally needed (despite the boring detail), and I'd encourage EuroBloggers out there to start looking into the Parties and holding them to account. EuroBloggers (and perhaps particularly myself) are guilty of focusing too much on the institutional/constitutional side of things, but hopefully that will change with the passing of the Lisbon Treaty.

It's certainly an area we'll be keen to look at on Chasing Brussels in the future.

Edit: Jon Worth has gotten wind of this journalistic mistake.