A few comments on Euroblogging

Polscieu has written many interesting posts on the state of the Euroblogosphere from the lack of linking between blogs to the language barrier when it comes to reaching wider audiences. These are big issues that surface from time to time – I was amongst a few bloggers who tried to make a bigger commitment to communicating across the Blogosphere borders (between national blogospheres) and linguistic borders.

It was a failure, as Polscieu has rightly pointed out a lack of linking and cross-language debates. The natural question to ask is how can we solve these problems? I have to admit that I’ve always been a bit sceptical about blogging and its power, and I don’t think there’s any solution that can be advocated that would solve these issues simply because you come up against the Blogger. (For clarity, I’m not attacking Polscieu on these points since he was being analytical and not really suggesting actions, but what he wrote provoked me to think “yes, but...” a few times and an impression I have that there can [from several directions] be a general assumption about the Euroblogosphere’s “duty” to create a public space).

Time

Say you know a lot about the EU. You know how laws are made (and what laws the EU can make), and have a vague idea about the headline national interests of the Member States (the UK doesn’t want certain financial regulation, for example). Are you going to read up on the progress of a law, the different interests and political faction views involved, then the different linguistic and national responses to the law (either press or blogging-wise) before writing a post? And perhaps translate the post or leave comments on the blogs you cited to alert them to your post in their original languages? It’s a bit of an exaggeration – not all these steps are necessary, and it could be a response to a press article – but for there to be links generated, there needs to be some level of wide-reading and the ability to be authoritative enough to encourage reactions to your post.

There are a lot of people who are good at languages and know about the EU, but this type of blogging is limited because of the time it consumes.

Structure

 (Probably not the best subtitle). My recent impression of the Euroblogosphere is that it’s grown, increased in quality, and become more niche and technical. Perhaps my impression is wrong, and there is simply a growth in blog numbers so I’ve just picked up on the number of niche topics now, but it does seem that as the mass media have become better at explaining the EU, Euroblogs have become more focused on certain areas of policy making, which lessens contact with national blogospheres (it’s harder to keep in contact so that when you do write something at a topical time, they’re aware of you). It may be that due to the financial crisis and the better coverage of the EU in the mass media, Eurobloggers have been put off writing in a more generalist way, since they are put off reading and reproducing views on issues that are already well covered.

In any case, apart from this, the topics at the EU level still do not have identifiable actors for national audiences that Euroblogs’ more Europeanised narrative can compete with the narrative of national interests and summitry. National mass media remains the gatekeeper in terms of readership and the narrative-setter for readers who read and write in the Euroblogosphere. This means that issues are only of interest in a national blogosphere/media when they cross national interests or the interests of national actors, and only cross linguistic barriers to a great degree when it crosses several national interests or a fundamental general interest such as human rights. For day-to-day work in the Bubble, there are a lot of political victories and defeats, but little market in readers for them. Even Euroblogs are – comparatively - more orientated towards national responses to issues, with not so much “screen time” for parliamentary battles.

But I think that national Blogospheres are taking up EU issues and politics more now, and national mass media might slowly focus more clearly on EU actors and issues (I agree that the next Euroelections could be big). The main point, however, is that these structural issues in the national media, personality politics in the Brussels Bubble, and the Europeanisation of national Blogospheres will lead to a change in the Euroblogosphere and heighten its effect and relevance, and that there is little that Eurobloggers can “do” as such to hasten that.

Growth

Growth in the Euroblogosphere will help solve a lot of these issues, as you will have more bloggers, and a greater likelihood of crossover of stories. However the development of traditional mass media in the EU will be key in driving people into EU blogging (to a lesser degree) and increasing cross-EU blogging links (to a greater degree) as more European issues become of more interest to a general EU public. The Euroblogosphere will be important in examining EU politics and providing a great platform of public debate and policy analysis, but I feel that the ‘sphere operates via the individual, and the direction of the ‘sphere will be a reaction to trends in mass media as bloggers decide what is worth blogging about and how many borders they cross.

Conclusion

I wrote this mainly because I feel there’s a bit of a general attitude surrounding the Euroblogosphere that it has the potential to drive a European public sphere, and I simply don’t think it can. Such a public sphere will probably develop partly through the Europeanisation of national mass media, and the greater personalisation or European politics which will feed into a bigger and better ‘sphere. I doubt that we can be the barrier-busting force that some seem disappointed in us for not being, since at the individual level the effort, organisation and dedication needed over a long period of time and across a great number of people is simply unrealistic.

I may not believe in blogging’s ability to break down barriers and create a European public sphere, but I firmly believe in blogging as a vibrant part of that public sphere. Blogging, I think, is a great way to become involved, and to learn by being involved, and that other ways, such as party or civil society organisation membership, are an aspect of being an engaged citizen, which is personally and publically enriching.

We need to start paying more attention to the European Parliament

I don't think I can say it any more clearly than the title: we really do need to start paying more attention to the European Parliament. Every so often there's a blog article about how the European Parliament is no longer a talking shop, but a strong co-legislator with the Council, usually citing as an example the Parliament's rejection of the first SWIFT Treaty as evidence. It's true, but though the idea that the European Parliament is more powerful now seems to have caught on a bit more, there's no real debate on what Parliament does, and it's a real failing of our media and a lost opportunity.

What do I mean? Well, the Fiscal Stability Treaty that everyone's discussing now makes hardly any changes to the current state of EU law, given that the European Parliament passed around 90% of it last year. These are big issues on how we run our Eurozone economy that we have been debating for the last two years, not a sudden report of this or that treaty* - legislation supposed to help deal with the economic crisis! They are already having an effect nationally and in national politics. And yet there has been little public debate on this until the treaty, and little attempt by the public to use the Parliament as a means to influence EU policy and law.

That's the most damaging part of this: we're not using the European Parliament to its half potential, never mind it's full potential. It's supposed to be there to represent us. There are issues with the distance between the EU institutions and the public, but I'm not satisfied with the attitude that the institutions should bring themselves closer to us - we should be demanding and dragging them closer to us, and calling them on what they get wrong. Our media has improved its coverage of the EU for the economic crisis - a lot of it has been extremely good - but it's missing out on how decisions are being made by focusing on the European Council and all the summits. These are important, but European politics should not be a spectator sport: we need to let the Parliament know that we're demanding participants.



*The European Parliament does deal with lots of security issues - like surveilliance of air travel through the PNR system, which is still going through Parliament.

Europa site

There's a great new site on The Guardian: Europa. It's a joint project with a few other European newspapers to tackle European affairs. Hopefully it will generate some good analysis and debate on what's going on - and help us to debate a bit more across borders. The article on the EU budget is good, though I hope it moves on from the articles on stereotypes to more, well, news.

Definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Hungary for change

Last year when Hungary was taking over the rotating Council presidency, the Fidesz government was bringing in a controversial media law which we launched a blogging action over. Though the law was revised after discussions with the EU, EU law in the area is mostly market-based. This time around the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank is under threat and is the source of a dispute between Hungary and the IMF:

"Hungary, the EU's most indebted eastern member, already saw its credit rating downgraded to junk in December and initiated talks for a standby loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

But the centre-right government led by Viktor Orban has pursued controversial legal changes to some of the country's independent institutions, including the central bank and media bodies, prompting IMF negotiators to walk out of talks.

The laws came into force on 1 January, prompting tens of thousands of people to take to the streets on Monday and repeated warnings from the EU commission that it may take Hungary to court."

The markets haven't reacted well to Hungary's course either:

"The forint fell to 319.4 against the euro, a record low after a gradual depreciation of 20 percent in the last six months, while 10-year bond yields spiked to 10.5 percent, the highest since April 2009."

At the moment Orban's government seems intent on sticking to it's course despite protests and pressure from the EU and IMF - perhaps the plan is to use the bank to print more money to avoid the necessity for the IMF loan. Fidesz's two-thirds majority in the Hungarian parliament allows it to change the constitution, and it's been making full use of the opportunity. Orban has made it clear that he sees these changes as the end-point of Hungary's post-Communist path:

"In Orban's view, the new legal text "marks the end of the country’s transition to democracy from Communism" - as he explained in an interview with the Magyar Nemzet newspaper on 24 December.

Foreign journalists are "right when describing what happens in Hungary not just as simple governance, but a regime change," he told the newspaper.

"They say this in a disparaging way but I think this is a compliment. We Hungarians have failed for over a hundred years to show western Europe our own virtues.""

It seems pretty odd to be portraying the rapid expansion of executive power as an anti-Communist evolution, particularly when former Communist dissidents are protesting against Fidesz's constitutional changes. Orban's rhetoric also smacks of Hungarian exceptionalism and is reminiscent of the talk of differing values and rights from the media law debates last year (not that anyone explained how Hungarian rights should differ from those set out in the European Convention on Human Rights or the values in the EU treaties).

As the EU deals mostly with internal market, security and environmental matters, and the Council of Europe's Convention and Court of Human Rights deals with human rights law and standards, the EU isn't well equipped or experienced enough to deal with Member States drifting away from the standards required for membership. Article 7 TEU gives us a nuclear option of sanctioning a Member State who risks breaching the values of the EU, but it would require a four-fifths majority of Member States and a majority in the European Parliament, which is unlikely to be reached (and would need to be focused on the health of Hungary's democracy and media rather than the central bank).

It does raise an interesting question though: what "red lines" should the EU have for Article 7 action, and how much constitutional change can be brought about before the EU starts questioning whether a country is still membership material?

Geographical Values

There's a new blog over at Blogactiv - "EUphobia", which has the tagline: "The Unofficial Troll Blog of the Hungarian Presidency". In its first blog post, The Party has Started, EUphobia doesn't defend the Hungarian media law (rather the opposite), but does defend the Hungarian government, comparing it to the previous government: while the laws may not be good, the argument runs, at least its better than the disregard the previous government had to laws and rights. In the comments section there is a discussion that touches on the political leanings of the EU and whether its values are "Western European values".

A part of the post which I found worrying was:

"Another important point is how to “purge” Hungarian media and state offices from the socialist plague?

[...]

Communism, national socialism and socialism are the same sort of ideological infections and should be quarantined. Comments reflecting these ideologies will be strictly deleted."

That's not to say that there aren't abuses in the media in Hungary at present (I don't know enough about the previous government and its relations with the media to comment), but if their political colour (the focus on socialism) is the popular rallying cry behind taking action, it does raise concerns.

I posted this comment (awaiting moderation at the time of writing):

"The EU is definitely not left leaning - the EPP have been in the majority in most of the institutions since 2004. I think that the values aren’t a left-right issue (though more specific political ideas and values clearly are), and that they are a part of most of the political parties at a European and national level. One of the worrying aspects of this (apart from the law itself), is the relevation of what seem to be the terms of the debate within Hungary. The last government was undoubtedly rotten, but the extent of the demonisation of anything approaching opposition is troubling - your own mention of “purging” adds to the impression that the whole thing is based on tribalistic party politics rather than any positive values of the Fidesz party itself. Which in turn raises worries about how the vague media law will be applied.

European values are indeed patchily applied, and Hungary is the focus at the moment because it is caught in a perfect storm of a bad law coming into force, mixed with worryingly tribalistic-sounding politics, and its assumption of a high-profile European post (even if the profile of the rotating presidency has fallen after the Lisbon Treaty). The EU is ill equiped to deal with rights issues within Member States - human rights is a ECHR/Council of Europe issue more than an EU one. It seems that rights issues are increasingly important in the EU - it could be a sign of how EU countries are growing closer together, with citizens taking more interest in rights issues in other Member States - as can be seen from the Roma crisis.

I certainly hope that “European values” are ones that Eastern Europe can ascribe to as well as Western Europe - after all, all the EU Member States, East and West, have signed up to these values in the EU Treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in joining the Council of Europe. Applying pressure and scrutiny to countries is, however, not very equal - as the EU isn’t well equiped to deal with such questions, power and state size become bigger issues in how countries are treated. There is the nuclear option of suspending a country’s voting rights, but this is unlikely to be used.

Past lapses in applying standards cannot be used as an excuse not to apply or aspire to such standards now. A wider issue how should the EU deal with these questions.

On the other hand, if it’s not a question of unequal application and Eastern Europe does have different values to Western Europe - what are they?"

How should the EU deal with values in the Member States, and does Eastern Europe really have different values (and, if so, what are they?), or is it more an issue of unequal application of principles?

#EUuk: EU, media and blogging in Britain

Last month I attended Bloggingportal's #EUuk event, on the EU in the British media and the British blogosphere. The first panel's topic was how the British media deals with the EU, and the second covered the British blogosphere and blogging about the EU in general.

FIRST PANEL – “The EU in the British Media”

PANELISTS:

David Rennie – Political Editor and Bagehot Columnist, The Economist, Bagehot’s Notebook
Paul Staines – Blogger, Guido Fawkes
Mats Persson – Director, Open Europe
J Clive Matthews – Blogger, Nosemonkey’s EUtopia


SECOND PANEL – “The EU in the British Blogosphere”

PANELISTS:

Bruno Waterfield – Brussels Correspondent, The Daily Telegraph, Europe not EU
Gawain Towler – UKIP / Europe of Freedom and Democracy Press Officer and Blogger, England Expects
Sunny Hundal – Blogger, Liberal Conspiracy, Pickled Politics
Jon Worth – Blogger, Jon Worth’s Euroblog

The first panel (now on YouTube; first part here), was interesting, though it was a pity that David Rennie couldn't stay that long, as he was very critical of the British press generally, and had a few interesting angles, that would have been worthwhile exploring further. On the central question, the themes would be very familiar to anyone who's been writing or reading euroblogs for any length of time: the lack of interesting news to report in the first place. In the UK this is compounded by bad reporting in the press, spreading information that's patently untrue (such as on nursing, and on selling eggs by the dozen). Different issues were raised: the EU needs more personalities, there should be a simpler way of communicating with the EU (the separate departments [DGs] mean slow communication and reaction to the press), and (perhaps) better standards in the press (this last one I'm implying from the discussion of the media's treatment of EU subjects).

Personalities are probably the way forward, but it's hard to see anything that could be done about it in the short term. The new media strategy of the Commission, for instance, is supposed to focus on Barroso - yet Barroso is less visible and present in the media than Van Rompuy or Lady Ashton. And this is during the greatest economic crisis and challenge to the Euro, when ideas of fiscal union are in the air. The attention remains on the Member States, specifically France and Germany - which is no bad thing, as the Member States are extremely important. However, it does led to a lazy toting up of approximate national interests to calculate who "won" and who "lost", instead of facing the key questions of what should be done about the Eurozone (and what the alternatives are). Though the Europarties have done some policy work, little attention is paid to them, and they haven't been tested, simply because nobody believes they can do anything, despite the activism of the EP this year. It probably won't be until there are campaigns during EP elections based on the Commission President they'd elect, will it matter what policies or personalities there are, and what the wider debates might be.

Perhaps the Euroblogosphere, and national blogospheres could help uncover some of the choices for the next election (and debate what should be done now!), but this goes back to the idea in the middle of last year that there should be more interaction between Eurobloggers and national bloggers - hopefully this event (and future ones) will help on building up links.

So I'll try and do more to boost links - and as a reminder, I welcome comments in other languages on this blog.

The second panel (also on YouTube - the first part is here) was a brilliant debate on blogging generally, and on the EU. One of the main themes that developed, was that blogging and mainstream media journalism are increasingly converging, with journalists occupying more dominant positions in the blogosphere(s), and acting more like bloggers. The role of bloggers was also explored, and there was disappointment from some (Bruno) that bloggers didn't seem to be reaching their full potential in reporting on and exploring issues like the financial crisis and Irish bail out. For others (like Jon Worth) blogging was about adding your voice to a debate when you have something to contribute, and it wasn't up to bloggers to write about areas that are being covered well enough in the mainstream media. I've a lot of sympathy for this view - the main reason I didn't blog much about the Irish bail out was my lack of an economic background (I hope to read up more on economics and to blog more about it soon). Still, blogging is a great educational experience, and I hope it encourages more people to inform themselves and to form an opinion on matters so they can add to the debate. The future of the media and blogging after the Wikileaks Cablegate was also briefly discussed.

I was presently surprised to get a great plug from Telegraph journalist Bruno Waterfield (Part 5, 1:05-1:50):

“One of the reasons why Conor’s blog is worth reading is because he situates... his blogging in wider constitutional debates about sovereignty/shared sovereignty... It’s not usually polemical – it doesn’t have to be – but it’s interesting to read the EU through a much more reflective, much more considered prism about what should politics mean in the 21st Century.”

So cheers, Bruno!

[Thanks to the Commission Representation in the UK for allowing use of Europe House for the event, and to Mia and Joe for chairing the panels].

EPP President defends Hungarian Media Law

The centre-right European People's Party (the biggest in the European Parliament), or specifically its President, Wilfried Martins, has defended the new Hungarian Media Law, which blogs, including this one, are against due to the chilling effect it will have on press freedom. In the absence of any other EPP comment on the subject, it seems like it's the current EPP position.

Martins said:

""I appreciate the efforts of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government to improve the former Hungarian media law with the aim to strengthen the freedom of the press, the culture of respect, the protection of minors and human dignity. I also understand the challenge of strengthening media accountability, while keeping media freedom intact. Discussion on the Hungarian media law should not be based on the politicaly motivated misinterpretations, but on the exact knowledge of the text.""

By politically motivated misinterpretations, I suppose he's referring to the outburst of fellow party member and Luxembourgish Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn who condemned the laws, saying: "It's a direct danger for democracy".

Or perhaps the OSCE, which produced a damning report on the law in September (PDF), and is still talking about it in strong terms:

""I am concerned that Hungary's parliament has adopted media legislation that, if misused, can silence critical media and public debate in the country," Mijatovic [OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media] said, referring to the "Law on media services and mass communication", adopted on 20 December.

"The law regulates all media content - broadcast, print and online - based on identical principles, which runs against OSCE standards on free media. It also gives unusually broad powers to the recently established media authority and media council, which are led exclusively by members supported by the governing party," Mijatovic said.

Traditionally, regulatory authorities govern broadcast media only, but the new law in Hungary empowers the authorities to also govern print and online media content.

"Such concentration of power in regulatory authorities is unprecedented in European democracies, and it harms media freedom," Mijatovic said. "Regulating print media can curb free public debate and pluralism. Even though regulating online media is considered technologically impossible, it introduces self-censorship.""

So far, two other European parties have commented: the Liberals (ALDE), and the European Greens. The Liberals are calling for the Commission to take (as yet undefined) action, and the European Greens want Article 7 TEU to be used against Hungary (the article is the mechanism for dealing with EU Member States who breach the fundamental values of the Union). Scope for EU action on the subject is somewhat limited, but it is hard to see this nuclear option succeeding against Hungary, particularly when it holds the rotating presidency. Article 7, does, however, mean that the EP could try to apply political pressure through its resolutions or even trying to start the Article 7 procedure.

Martins also stated the EPP's support for the Hungarian Presidency (Fidesz, the ruling party in Hungary, is an EPP member):

""I would also like to take this opportunity to wish Prime Minister Viktor Orbán a successful EU Presidency. Needless to say, for the next six months PM Orban can rely on the full support of the EPP," Martens added."

In this Parliamentary term the EPP have definitely been the "government party", supporting the positions of the (EPP-dominated) Council and Commission. It's a pity that the governing party and opposition aren't being tested properly on their records, particularly as EP votes and support are key to getting proposals through...



[Also, see Deutsche Welle for a broader view of the prospective Hungarian Presidency].

Note: Post edited the same day, thanks to Cédric picking up on an Article 7-related mistake.

Blog Action against Hungarian Media Law

Bloggingportal.eu has called for a Blog Action against the new media law that will come into force in Hungary on January 1st. Hungary will assume the rotating presidency of the Council for the next 6 months, and has set up a presidency blog, so it is a great time for the Euroblogosphere (and national blogospheres) to highlight the dangers to press freedom, and to push for the law's repeal.

You can find the OSCE's damning assessment of the legislation here: PDF.

OSCE Report:

"They will introduce a highly centralized governance and regulatory system, with many new and unnecessary bodies of oversight and supervision and with many decision-making processes involving a succession of inputs by disparate bodies – probably breeding conflicts and inefficiencies, but also multiplying opportunities for political control. The whole system may have a serious chilling effect on media freedom and independence ((by encouraging selfcensorship) and on the exercise of freedom of expression.

[...]

The new institutional framework may, if deliberately (mis)used for this purpose, create conditions for the realization of the “winner-takes-most” or indeed “winner-takes-all” scenario in the current term of Parliament, in defiance of the principle of the division of powers and of the checks and balances typical of liberal democracy. As such, the design of this framework runs directly counter to democratic standards in the field of media system organization and governance. Accordingly, this package, which exceeds what is justified and necessary in a democratic society, is cause for very serious concern."

The legislation covers traditional and internet media, though the OSCE report fears that the legislation is framed so all internet content could conceiveably be covered by the law. In any case, the law will change the media landscape in Hungary significantly, by bringing in content regulation where previously the content itself had been "virtually free" of, and which is "without precident in democratic countries" (page 6 of the report PDF). The legislation will set up a National Media and Telecommunications Authority, which the Hungarian government will be able to appoint officials to, and will oversee media (including group blogs) in Hungary, without the national parliament being able to form a adequate check on the government:

"...the manner of appointment of the Media Council Chairperson
amounts to nothing less than government capture of Parliament. Parliament is left no choice but to vote for the Prime Minister’s candidate. Moreover, should it fail to elect that person, its decision will be disregarded in the sense that the President would still chair meetings of the Media Council (with a voice, but not a vote) and the only option left to Parliament would be eventually to elect that same person to this position – or leave the position unfilled, thus considerably weakening the MC. This is very likely if the governing party/coalition does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Then, the solution designed to promote the development of consensus on the chairmanship of the MC could easily turn into an opportunity for obstruction by opposition parties."

Group blogs are another issue, as in Hungary group blogging is popular. As blogs can be fined if they are "edited" or written by several people, this could have a chilling effect on blogging in Hungary, where people are afraid of blogging together and risking suffering for what other people write. Mathew Lowry has written about this over on his blog.

I won't go into the law in greater detail (other blogs and the OSCE have done a good job - the OSCE Report is 57 pages long, after all!), but the vagueness of "appropriate" information, the vagueness of the idea of content and the political nature of appointments are a threat to freedom of the press and to blogging, so I would encourage everyone to join in with the Blogging Action, and raise awareness through blogs and Tweeting. Though the Presidency has argued that this is a purely national matter, and the presidency shouldn't be "hijacked" by it, but the freedom of the media is fundamental to democracy, and we should be concerned about such laws taking root in other countries. Not only is it a question of how we can ensure the same standards of rights, openness and democracy in Member States after they've joined the EU, but just as the presidency used the argument that none of the measures were not found in other Member States, tolerating the erosion of rights in one Member State makes it easier for such erosion to spread.

Blogging about Cancún

An agreement has just been reached in Cancún, which has produced another political agreement, but with no legally binding force over emissions. It's not an event I have been following closely over the last few days - I've been caught up in JHA and the excellent Bloggingportal.eu conferences/events - but I've noticed that one of my local MEP's Twitter account lit up.

Bairbre de Brún is a United Left MEP (Sinn Féin) who was part of the EP's delegation to COP 16, and was part of last year's delegation to COP 15 in Copenhagen. Normally Northern Ireland's MEPs' (and candidates') Twitter accounts are fairly inactive, only showing some life around election times, though I've seen some more activity from NI political figures recently. For the trip, de Brún also started to write a blog on the negotiations, talking about some of the issues and the negotiating styles at Cancún.

Environment is an area that is frequently mentioned as something that impacts at local, national, European and international levels, and it's a policy area particularly important in the EU - as Gawain Towler pointed out in the Bloggingportal conference yesterday, the EU affects the light bulbs you can buy, so it does effect people's lives. While lightbulbs might be too small an issue to hold much political or media attention, COP 16 is an example of important events were the EU's politics and position matters, and could be newsworthy. But then perhaps reporting on the negotiations of delegates and the differing positions of other countries and regions is too detailed to be newsworthy. Is blogging a better medium for covering these kinds of big negotiations?

Accreditable Bloggers

Last week the question was posed by M van den Broeke (head of the European Parliament Press Unit): "Should serious EU bloggers get some sort of accreditation to EU institutions? But on what criteria?". Twitterers debated about what the criteria for "serious EU bloggers" should be, and Stephen Spillane wrote a follow-up article here.

Defining "serious EU blogger" would be a very sensitive question, given the nature of blogging and the goal of an impartial accreditation system. Blogging is a hobby, in that people blog on whatever topic they what, if they feel passionate about it, for as long as they want. It's hard to say if there's a right way or wrong way to go about blogging - mainly because there isn't. Some blogs may be more successful than others, depending on their topic, the writing style, the engagement of the author with commenters and other blogs, the number of different media used and the extent of hyperlinking, etc., but given that people blog for different reasons and different goals, there's no real "right way" of blogging.

So how can we assess who is a "serious EU blogger"? If we say only bloggers who blog only about EU affairs are "serious", then we would be excluding a vast number of national bloggers who blog - or who might want to blog - about EU matters and how they affect their country. On the other hand, it should probably be more selective than anyone who has ever written about EU affairs since there would be a huge volume of potential bloggers, given its nature as a hobby. The number of articles and the "seriousness" of the articles is another sensitive measure of a serious EU blogger - who decides how often someone should blog and what constitutes serious content? This shouldn't be looked into too deeply, I feel, since taking more subjective factors into consideration may lead to decision-making that feels arbitrary to some bloggers. Still, for someone to qualify as a "serious EU blogger", some amount of time and effort would be necessary factors for consideration, though they would need to be as objective as possible.

So here's a (flawed) suggestion: a serious EU blogger is someone who has written about the EU for a year, over the course of the year. The articles wouldn't need to be spread out (or some figure like 2 posts per month given), but picking up on some matters of EU affairs as they affect the main theme of the blog over the year. For borderline cases, where the blogger hasn't written a lot/often about EU affairs, an extra condition of having contacted an MEP/Commissioner/EU official or institution for information that they used in a post would show some serious interest in following up and investigating an issue.

Is that too simplistic? Too easy-going and open? Not open enough and too restrictive?

It's good to see this issue being talked about, and hopefully it will lead to the institutions opening up more for citizens in general.

A Week as a Romanian S&D MEP

From 10th-17th April I was a Romanian MEP for the S&D group in the Model European Union 2010 event in Strasbourg, and it was definitely a memorable week.** MEU did an amazing job trying to recreate the whole experience of the EU political system: people played the roles of MEPs, Council ministers, interpreters, lobbyists and journalists. This post will be part report, and part MEP's diary for the week, but considering the number of roles and work and experiences that the event took in, its inevitably a snapshot from a (sometimes tired) MEP arguing for a few amendments in a sea of activity, as journalists filmed, took photos and published daily newspapers, interpreters strove to make sense of what MEPs were saying, lobbyists tried to persuade creatively (I even saw some €500 notes exchanging hands!), Council ministers maneuvered, and MEPs fought to make themselves and their opinions heard. And all in the grand setting of the Strasbourg Parliament building itself.

The two topics we had to deal with were a GMO Regulation proposal and the Returns directive proposal. Both went through the co-decision (or "ordinary legislative procedure" in today's Lisbon-slang), though due to time constraints (a phrase which became notorious over the course of the week), there was no conciliation committee at the end if the Council and Parliament failed to agree after 2 readings. Parliament started off with the GMO proposal, made amendments, then switched to the Returns directive to amend it and the Council's amendments, then finally switched back to the GMO proposal, as amended by the Council for the final vote to pass into law. (For the Council it was the same, just with the topics reversed). Before the simulation started, we had prepared for our roles - in the case of EP parties, we worked on common position papers - and in Strasbourg we had parliamentary procedure and debating workshops.

So this is my week as "S&D Romania".



**(In fact, two weeks: not only was there the event itself, but it happened to take place during perhaps the most news-filled week of the year, and then I had to take the scenic route home via Germany, the Netherlands and England. In February, when I went to The Hague, the Dutch government collapsed the day before I left. This time, there was the Polish plane crash, another plane crash, a French train strike, the biggest volcanic eruption in Europe for years, the grounding of nearly all European air travel, and the LibDems became popular in the UK. I'm expecting the US government to subsidise a trip to China for me any day now!)





In Parliament: Round #1: GMO Regulation.

The GMO Regulation aimed to regulated GM food and feed in the single market. It had been difficult finding out the Romanian S&D positions, and I'd done some research on GMOs in Romania, which had problems with contamination. The S&D as a whole wanted a lower threshold for contamination (which started off at 1% in the proposal, so something less than that) after which it would have to be labelled as a GM product. I lobbied for a small as lenient a threshold as possible for the position paper, though I was always going to be outvoted, so I tried lobbying for some sort of insurance against contamination, which was adopted as a negotiating position. Apart from that, we wanted stricter controls on GM and more frequent renewals for authorised GM, as well as more impartial scientific control over authorisation.

The Parliament (which took place in the S&D's party room in the Parliament building), consisted of 110 MEPs, and was dominated by the centre-right, like the real Parliament. The EPP had 42 MEPs to our 28. The Liberals tended to be the swing vote faction, and potentially decisive in passing amendments - though this only really struck us when it came to voting time!

Speech-wise the far left and far right were the stars, with loud (and at times worryingly charismatic) speeches on nationality and on the evils of capitalism. Lobbyists were also called in to be interviewed and questioned by Parliament. Though it started off easy-going, things got a lot harder when we realised that we had pretty much only dinner to draw up amendments, since we had a charity Gala that night. Our party split up into amendment groups, and I was in one on insurance. We ran into a few problems on what scheme to come up with and deciding on what would be the best way to phrase it so it would pass. We ended up with 2 good ideas but sadly - due to time constraints - we only put one forward. We proposed an insurance scheme that the authorisation holders would pay into to insure against the costs of any large scale damage caused by the crop even though authorisation conditions were complied with.

When Parliament opened again, there was a free-form secession, with MEPs running everywhere to make coalitions and sell their amendments. We tried speaking to some party leaders and any MEPs we could get our hands on (who were naturally delighted to be cornered on the issue of insurance!). Parliament then went through the amendments one by one, with MEPs introducing their amendments. There was a long debate on the threshold, the expense of labelling and on how often authorisation of GMOs should be renewed. When it came to the vote, I knew that we had the Greens and the United Left on our side for the insurance amendment, but that wouldn't be enough for it to pass. It could only pass if other parties split or MEPs rebelled against their party lines.

Luckily for us, the Liberals split (from what I could see of the red and green lights blinking on in front of their MEPs), and our insurance amendment passed by 56 to 52! (We only seemed to have all MEPs present for the final vote on Friday).

Unfortunately some good amendments that would have given the Parliament more oversight and control of the process were defeated, and the voting highlighted the need for more networking and lobbying. We then elected a Rapporteur to present the EP's amendments to the Council.


Round #2: Returns Directive.

A Council minister presented the Council's amendments to the Parliament before we quizzed him on the details. At this point most parties and MEPs seemed to switch to full human rights mode, and some of the right-wing parties acted slightly more left-wing (in some cases) than I expected. Once again the far-right EFD group and United Left had the most strident (and entertaining) speeches. [But a few of us weren't about to let them have all the fun, and we formed a kind of informal inter-party group. It's an old game, but we challenged each other to slip Father Ted and Star Wars references into our speeches in such a way as to make them seem a natural part of the speech. Though proclaiming that the Council might strike back may have been pushing it.]

Meanwhile, the insurance amendment must have been unexpected, and the Council asked for someone to be sent up to explain it. I volunteered, and got a grilling from the Dutch and Maltese ministers, whom I gave my best politician answers. The Council was sealed off from the public (and journalists and lobbyists), so it was only at lunch I could ask around to see how the amendment was fairing. The news wasn't good, though it seemed to depend on who was asked.

In the Parliament, however, the knives were definitely out as MEPs got ready to drastically rewrite the Council's amendments and the rest of the directive. Once again MEPs swarmed about the hemicycle trying to make alliances on amendments. I ended up talking to the EPP and ECR on rewriting a new article 15 that the Council had introduced. Worryingly, some parties became more fragmented towards the end and there were a few voting rebellions, though luckily the S&D group seemed to become more cohesive towards the end; article 15 seemed to be something we all generally agreed on though, and it passed with 104 votes.

It might have turned out to have aggravated the Council, though - from what I heard from the Council, they were always worried about what would and wouldn't pass through Parliament, while MEPs barely mentioned the Council. Council negotiations also sounded long and detailed, whereas MEPs were ruthless in cutting speaking time. Though the Council is more powerful and influential in real life, in the simulation sheer numbers meant that Ministers didn't have a big personal influence on MEPs, and didn't figure much in MEPs' political considerations, while the lack of the technical staff and advice meant that 27 people had to do the same amount of work that 110 people were doing in the EP. Perhaps having a team (1 Minister + aides) would help rebalance things and get more people involved?


Round #3: Final Vote.

The Council returned a heavily amended version of the GMO Regulation to Parliament, and the Minister presenting it had to deal with some typos in the text (which she did very well). It turned out that the insurance amendment had survived - thanks probably to QMV which meant there needed to be a super-majority to remove it. Though Parliament was unhappy with some of what was changed (and there were some serious typos), it was passed into law with 63 votes.


Overall MEU 2010 was a brilliant experience. It was hectic, meeting lots of new people, making speeches, working on amendments and alliances, and a full social programme with stuff to do every night (tours, parties, etc.). It was tiring but very rewarding, and I'd recommend it to everyone. The MEU 2010 website is here. I applied in January 2010, so I'm guessing that January 2011 will be the deadline month for participants next year. They also do national MEUs in some areas, so that might be worth looking into.

If you're wavering about going, then just go for it! I can't recommend it enough.

Legal Prose

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be turned into an epic, multi-media poem, by the time the Fundamental Rights Conference on 7 December rolls around. The poem is to be 80-minutes long, and be accompanied by music and dance (and perhaps some computer wizardry).

The poem was commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which feels that the Charter is too dry and legalistic for people. It will be an immense task to shape an 80-minute long, multi-lingual, multi-media show on rights into something accessible and which will have an impact outside its original showing. The tender is now closed, though the agency is still open to being contacted if you feel you would like to play some role in it.

With European Council President Herman Van Rompuy releasing a multi-lingual poetry collection, the EU seems to have gone very artistic lately. Perhaps the romantic image of the Philosopher-King still lives on in Brussels...?

Can you film the answer to poverty?

I recently received an email from the European People's Party (EPP) promoting a 60 second film competition on how to tackle poverty in the EU. Prizes include having your film recorded in a DVD collection of entries, and, of course, a possible trip to Brussels. The rationale of the competition is:

"The European People’s Party and its Group in the Committee of the Regions believes that it is important to give you the chance to show us what you think about the European Union and its policies. Nearly 80 million people – or 16% of the EU population – are living below the poverty line today and facing serious obstacles in accessing employment, education, housing, social and financial services, particularly in urban areas. During the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion and at a time of financial and economic crisis, the EPP is keen to hear ideas about how to stop poverty from young adults given that you are at a stage in your life where uncertainty and vulnerability is everywhere."

You can read about the competition here.

It good to see some attempt for the group to reach out to people directly rather than only through national parties, but I wonder how many people received this email. I'm not an EPP member, so I suspect I only received it because I'm a blogger and therefore might enter an internet-based competition - have EPP members received it too?

(Perhaps towards the end the EPP will promote its own views a bit more...?)

"Yes, Commissioner..."

There's a great post over at Writing for (Y)EU about the West Wing and the EU - and the possibility of an EU version of the West Wing (perhaps to be called something like "The 13th Floor"...?). Interesting was the comparison between the West Wing's optimistic view of politics and the more pessimistic views in Yes, Minister and The Thick of It. There are some really good points here, but perhaps this is just a cultural thing: Europeans aren't just religious atheists, but are also pretty sceptical when it comes to government, science and technology.

In a way the idea seems a bit counter-intuitive; how can Europeans, for whom the state plays such a big role in life, be more wary of state power? Of course, history provides the obvious answer, and, as Tony Judt has rightly put in his writings, the welfare state is really a sort of modern social contract to mitigate the social extremes of the past. The welfare state is borne of pessimism, not optimism for state-centred utopias.

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent, but I think that the West Wing couldn't be replicated here - not at national level, but definitely not at EU level. Not only because of different attitudes to politics, but also because the EU doesn't really do anything quite as dramatic. But I do find the idea of a "Yes, Commissioner" exciting. I can just see it as a mix between Yes, Minister and The Thick of It - the Commissioner of "Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration" trying to cut bureaucracy and maneuver his/her way through the Brussels bubble without being caught in the path of the colliding institutions, the bickering political groupings, rival fellow-commissioners, while trying to not being drawn under by his/her waring cabinet and DG civil servants... (Imagine Sir Humpfry Appleby versus Malcom Tucker!).

Let's face it, it'd be the best way for people to get to know the institutions, politics, etc. while poking fun at the clear absurdities of the system. So any takers to write it?

Or am I just in a nerdy minority of one here...?

(In the meantime, Julien Frisch will have to be our premier comedian).

[Edit: See also the blogpost on the Lobby Planet Blog, who prefers a 5 minute sketch format rather than a longer (perhaps an hour long if it's West Wing style) slot. It would definitely be hard, but I think Yes, Minister shows that if the writer is skilled, you can get some great humour from the turf wars and inter-personal conflict even if the issues (Hacker was minister for "Administrative Affairs") are kind of boring. In fact, having a bland "admin" ministry allowed the writers to have access to issues in all other government departments...)].

Update on the EU's "Visibility"

The Times has now started bashing Ashton for her failure to fly the European flag in devastated Port-au-Prince. It's strange to see a newspaper such as the Times - one generally sceptical towards all things European and which seems to doubt the usefulness of European initiatives - effectively supporting a vanity trip for the EU. While it is good to fly the flag, it's vastly more important to get things done, which in Ashton's case means organising good co-ordination.

Despite the attacks on Ashton's style, I have to say that I haven't heard/read a similar attack on her co-ordination efforts. There's probably more that can be done in this area, but if Ashton's opposition can't back up their criticism with evidence - or even claims - of effective policy failure, then it's just hot air.

Watching Ashton briefing the EP on Haiti, I was struck by how the government-opposition roles were reversed. The EPP is normally in government mode (it is, after all, the largest party, and controls the Commission - perhaps even forcing Barroso to lending more public backing to Jeleva then he wanted to). Yet here the S&D group was playing the role of the governing party: Michael Cashman gave a particularly vocal defence of Ashton while strongly attacking other parties (translation: EPP) for "political point scoring".

Which raises the question: was lobbying for such a high profile post politically wise?

The EPP is very much in power at the moment; it's the strongest in the EP and controls the Council and Commission. But while the S&D group has largely started to play a more natural (if sometimes grandstanding) opposition role, Ashton's prominence makes it harder to claim that they have nothing to do with the current Commission. On one hand, the S&D are making the best of an awkward hand - the state-centredness of the Commission means that unless the centre-left aren't in power in any member state, they will have at least one Commissioner. Nevertheless the S&D have strongly looked for some governmental power, and it's not completely free to play the constructive oppositional politics it needs to if it wants to have any hope of making an impact.

Not all coverage of European News is that bad

I've complained about journalists confusing the ECJ and ECHR before, so I thought I'd just point out an article that caught my eye last week in the Irish Times:

"European Court to be told Irish abortion ban violates rights".

It caught my eye because it does make the distinction between the EU and the ECHR, and it brings up an interesting case before the ECHR which affects some of the politics of the religious right who sided with the No side campaign in the Lisbon Treaty referendums. The claim that the Treaty would affect Irish law on abortion was a false one, which makes the distinction between the two courts in the media all the more important if there's to be a clear and proper debate on it.

"The court is to have a full hearing of the case before its grand chamber of 17 judges on December 9th.

Based in Strasbourg, the court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights – now incorporated into Irish law – the Government is obliged to seek to implement whatever decisions are made by the courts.

The identities of the women, known as A, B and C, will remain confidential as the case proceeds.

They include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.

They argue that the lack of any effective remedy at home means they have satisfied the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies. In addition, they say that taking a case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity.

The Government, however, contends that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women. It also robustly challenges suggestions by them that there is a lack of post-abortion care or counselling in Ireland. Among the questions the court will ask of the Government, and the the three women, include:

Have the applicants exhausted domestic legal remedies available?"

Also, the case is interesting in itself, since it will consider whether a case will be taken on by the court if it hasn't been through the entire national legal system first. So it could be an interesting case to watch out for, with the hearing beginning tomorrow.

I first mentioned this case here.

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.

European Elections 2009: Update (2)

Some more news and updates on the elections and stories that could affect the elections:

In Italy, which will start its 2 day long poll today, Berlusconi has been caught up in yet another scandal in the media, with pictures of naked women in his villa (and a naked man who may or may not be Topolanek, the leader of the Czech ODS party). The pictures were published by El Pais and are banned from appearing in the press in Italy due to being a breach of privacy. I doubt the pictures, or rumours of pictures, will have much effect on Berlusconi's EPP-aligned right-wing party in the elections - none of the other scandals have (including divorce proceedings).

In France, there's been a big clash between Danny the Red and the leader of ELDR aligned MoDem, Francois Bayrou, on French television. Daniel Cohen-Bendit viciously slammed Bayrou as a leader and presidential candidate, while Bayrou countered by raising old allegations of pedophilia against the former '68 student leader. I wonder how much of an impact this will have on the Greens and MoDem in France - Sarkozy's UMP are expected to comfortably win a good number of votes, with the Socialists behind due to their disarray. A new communist group is doing well in the polls, perhaps to the socialists' expense, but it means that MoDem and the Greens could be fighting for third to fifth place. Perhaps this outburst will damage the chances of either reaching third.

MoDem has also declared themselves against Barroso's bid for a second term.

The Commission is once again annoyed with the Netherlands for producing preliminary results before the rest of the member states have voted. There have been some indications that the Commission could actually do something about it and perhaps even refer it to the ECJ. However, the lack of a truely pan-European campaign means that the Dutch results are unlikely to have much of an impact on the rest of the voting.

Analysis over the preliminary result is already taking place - especially on what the surge in support for the right wing PVV actually means.

RTÉ predicts that there will be a healthy turnout in Ireland - around 60%, and perhaps higher than the last local and European elections due to the economic crisis (then also 60%). On Northern Ireland, RTÉ reports that there was a 42.8% turnout (a drop of around 9% from the last European election), and speculates that de Brún will top the poll with a big lead, making Sinn Féin the "biggest party in any election" - not that it matters in this election. The DUP could have been hit hard (they've not exactly run a good campaign, with a candidate who was frankly embarrassing at times). I suspect that the extent of the vote-splitting with have a lot to do with how Diane Dodds has gone down with DUP voters.

Recession hits European News coverage

The Irish Times has reported on the dwindling number of journalists posted at Brussels, with rumours that the BBC will not replace Mark Mardell as their EU correspondent. The lack of Irish reporters there is lamentable, especially considering the political relevance of the EU to Ireland, whether or not the editorial line is pro- or anti-EU - it's a blow to serious, informed journalism.

Not only does Denmark, of a similar population size to Ireland, have more journalists, but Norway has more than double the Irish journalistic contingent and Switzerland has more than double that, despite their non-member status.

The European Parliament Groups will have to step up political engagement with the public (or really start it) if they want the attention of the media. It's a frail hope that they will, but I can't see the media covering the EU out of a sudden new-found sense of public duty...

Update on the European Elections (and media coverage)

France 24 has set up its own page on the European elections, where you can see the current president of the EP, Hans-Gert Poettering, facing questions from young people on issues and how Europe can/should deal with them.

Personally, I found Poettering's answers very disappointing: he waffled on and didn't answer some of the first questions put to him. On one question he didn't make it clear where the responsibility for decision-making lies - blathering on about the need to work together rather than properly addressing the issue. Since his role was to explain what the EP could do for citizens and to encourage young people to vote, I have to give him a fail on this occasion - he gave no real sense of what the EP was for and what it could do for citizens.

Another story is Sarkozy and Merkel's common campaigning for the EPP - and Merkel's thinly veiled criticism of the UK Conservative's championing of enlargement while not facing up to the need for reform by embracing the Lisbon Treaty. Though it seems not to have made much of an impact over in the UK (the BBC haven't reported it anyway), it will probably be used by the Liberal Democrats and Labour to bash the Tories' weakeness/highlight their isolation in Europe.

The LibDems have just launched their election campaign. I wasn't impressed with their Public Election Broadcast (PEB) on the BBC: no mention of Europe, just a promotional video for the still new-ish leader Nick Clegg. Quite disappointing, since Clegg used to be an MEP. However, at the launch Clegg stressed the need for the EU and gave specific examples of how it was a positive force for Britain.

The Irish Independent and the Irish Times have increased their coverage of the European elections, with sections of their papers devoted to the campaign leading up to the June 5th polls.