5 Years of Bloggingportal!

Today is the 5^th birthday of Bloggingportal! In the years that Bloggingportal has been linking Euroblogs and trying to make discussions more accessible, the number of blogs has ballooned from barely 100 to over 1000. The Euroblogosphere is still relatively small, but the Eurocrisis and Europeanisation of national politics has spurred the increased debate on the EU.

Bloggingportal has been around for almost as long as this blog, and I’ve found it useful in following different opinions and news. But 5 years is a long time and the site is definitely showing its age. Editors have drifted off as work and life have become more demanding, but the people at Bloggingportal towers have been planning and working on a renewal and relaunch of the site. With the 2014 European elections coming up in May, it’s important to keep up with the debate across the continent, and hopefully Bloggingportal will soon be able to make it easier to do so.

So here’s to another 5 years!

ECB lending to buy time for... what?

The European Central Bank's announcement that it would buy Eurozone government bonds is a massive boost to the Eurozone, but a lot remains to be done before we can say that the Eurozone is starting on its path out of the crisis. The banking union legislation will be a key part of the agenda over the next months (the Commission should publish a draft law on banking union next week), and it is vital in separating the link between national banks, which have grown as part of an EU-wide financial system, from national governments, many of whom are simply too small to support such large financial sectors.

However like most initiatives banking union focuses on preventing similar problems next time - in order for it to have an appreciable effect on today's crisis there would need to be a deal on old banking debt that has been taken on by national governments, in particular Spain and Ireland. (The Fiscal Stability Treaty, the six pack and the yet-to-be-passed two pack share this weakness too). Could this be agreed? Would there be joint liability for debt already generated and taken on by national governments (that the ECB pressured the protection of banks to ensure the stability of the system means that there was also a European interest in these national financial systems from early on in the crisis too)? It's a highly political area and the Irish government - and no doubt Spain too - are eager to reduce their debt as far as they can while avoiding austerity.

But it's not just in Ireland and Spain's banking case that the debt question is posed (though they raise the spectre that rigid application of public debt rules bear little relation to the ability to weather economic crises), since debt and economic growth is a European question. So what is the ECB buying time for: for an agreement on economic union? How far should economic union be extended? If debt needs to be shared to ease the burden and to provide breathing room for reforms and recovery in the most crisis-hit countries what kind of institutions do we need, and how do we make them accountable?

Merkel has signalled that she wants a convention by the end of the year to decide on the future of the EU, and apparently France and Germany are moving closer together on political union. Barroso has also called for a EU Treaty "renewal". There's very little detail on what is meant by different people about economic or fiscal union, so it's hard to get a debate going it. It's likely that the only debate we'll get is on the results of a convention - hardly a good way to build such a union or to build support for it. In any case Barroso is supposed to put forward some ideas in his State of the Union speech on September 12th. If he does put some ideas on the table, it could be one of the few opportunities for civil society to study the up-coming integration debate.

Making the pro-European argument

Listening to The EU Debate on the BBC last week, I was struck again by how often the pro-European argument re-treads old arguments, and I have to admit I roll my eyes every time the peace argument is brought up.

This is not to say that there's anything wrong in the peace argument itself (or to take away from the debate on the BBC, which had a very limited time to establish the argument). The EU does contribute to peace in Europe because it promotes continuous cooperation between the Member States. NATO has contributed massively to peace in Europe, but it's not as deep as the EU or as good at generating connections and cooperation between its Member States - despite Greece and Turkey being members since 1952, the fifty years since joining have not been the most cordial (indeed the deterioration of relations between the two countries after joining was a case study in how multilateral military alliances can destabilise relations between countries at my university). Likewise the Council of Europe and its Court of Human Rights have not prevent war between its members, with the Russia-Georgia war being a recent example.

However the European Union is much, much more than just a peace project and requires a more complex argument to justify it. By launching the pro-European argument with the "peace in Europe" rationale, by the time NATO has been addressed there is less time to set out a deeper context or basis to the EU to build on when the debate moves on to the economy or justice and home affairs. Not only does the opening argument on peace sound distant from today's concerns (it's inevitably admitted that war wouldn't suddenly occur if the Euro collapsed tomorrow, etc), but it also means that there is little underlying rationale or idea that holds together the cooperation covered by the EU. Not a good way to start off the pro-European argument.


Explaining takes practise.

A common thread to discussions in pro-European circles seems to be that the pro-European case would find more supporters if it was explained. This irritates me for two reasons: it's a boring discussion that doesn't solve or further anything, and pro-Europeans are terrible at explaining things. Probably because they constantly talk about explaining things rather than actually explaining them.

Or, more seriously, there is usually less need to defend and think about defending the status quo than if you want to change something. It reminds me of the position of unionists in Northern Ireland or the unionist argument in Scotland, where the status quo came or is coming under pressure (in greatly differing circumstances), and those who supported the union lagged behind in creating an articulate narrative in its favour. While supporters of the British union have adapted, pro-Europeans still lag behind - with the pro-European position more precarious if it also wants to argue for the future changes that are a key part of the pro-European position in the Eurocrisis.

The structure of the EU and the reliance of the pro-European movement on European leaders and European summit meetings meant that it struggles to create a convincing narrative and has lost time. It also means that there's been a shrinking support base - a generation of believers in the European ideal as a way of maintaining peace have passed, and the European statesmen and women who pushed the project along in the past are less likely to be generated in the future by a generation for whom the need for peace is less visceral and the narrative for the European Union less clear.


Participation needs to be at the core of pro-Europeanism.

Protesilaos Stavrou has pointed out that there are two types of pro-European: the intergovernmental and the federalist. If the focus on European statesmen and stateswomen and all the related summitry has left us with a withered pro-European base and an out-of-date narrative, then I don't see much future for that strand of pro-Europeanism - how can it bring the EU closer to citizens and build a convincing narrative? The summitry that has dominated the Eurocrisis has not only failed to deliver a solution, damaging the credibility of the intergovernmental model, but is also corrosive to the political confidence and support necessary for the outcomes of summits to be delivered on. The intergovernmentalist pro-European seems to assume that necessity will overcome objections in the end and that the EU will find a way to muddle through. But integration has progressed further than in the past with an outdated narrative in the present: there isn't the same reserve of goodwill to run on, and it is hardly desirable to run a game of chicken between economy necessity (or any other necessity) and European voters and hope that we'll muddle through each time.

The second element of the pro-European argument is generally that cooperation between Member States means that we can achieve more together than we could apart. This needs to be developed further with the idea of participation and a more democratic EU: that if cooperating means that Member States can do more and achieve more than on their own, then a democratic EU would empower citizens to a degree that they wouldn't be without the EU.

This also means that the pro-European side needs to drop the idea that everyone benefits equally and nobody looses out from this process: that the internal market, justice and home affairs cooperation, etc, make sense, but they have downsides that need to be debated and avoided or mitigated. This is why there is social elements to the internal market - ensuring that there are certain common standards on employment (such as maternity) mean that the social protection that is part of our common values is not undermined. However we need to build a substantive European public sphere so that we can debate these issues better and so we can use the European Parliament better.

It is a complicated argument to make and needs to take on the failings of the EU as it stands as much as it builds a robust narrative to defend the idea of European Union versus ad hoc argeements or free riding on the rest of the EU while withdrawing. (And of course it would need to be more flesh out than I've written here). But there must be a coherent narrative to support the cooperation that pro-Europeans are advocating, and one that underlines the alternative argument of Euroscepticism in the public mind. If the EU is to survive, it needs to be responsive to citizens, so participation needs to be at the heart of the pro-European argument.

No National European Vision

In the EUobserver today, there's an article on Barroso's response to the Eurobarometer results. Barroso says that the member state governments have failed to defend the European project during the crisis:

""I admit that we should do more together in order to give confidence to citizens and consumers. But I also want to tell the truth: We won't solve the problems unless each nation sees the European project as its own," the Portuguese politician said.

"In fact this is not the case now. When things go well it's their merit and when they go wrong it's Brussels' fault," he added."

It's a tough position for the EU institutions, because it is hard for them to communicate with the public - hard to get information and debate on what's going on in the institutions into the mass media. The long process of passing legislation that is often technical does not help win column space in the newspapers. So I appreciate the difficulty that the institutions have in informing people about what the EU does, and the dependence of the EU on the member states to inform their citizens about the EU. However, I agree with Gawain Towler that it's not really the member states' role to promote the EU (though I don't agree with his other conclusions).

It would be nice if the national governments were candid about the good and bad work they do around the Council table, but it is unlikely to happen. Member state governments don't fall or get re-elected based on their Council voting record. Apart from that, national parties aren't designed for European politics and issues - quite simply, national parties are designed to get members elected to national office. A conflict negotiation lecturer I had in university highlighted this through referendums - generally civil society is better at running referendum campaigns because parties are more suited to getting people elected on broad policy platforms. Which is another reason why I support the PES Primaries Campaign: because making executive elections matter forces the issues of policy more clearly, and the transnational party bodies (and their national member-parties) have a clearer interest in explaining their voting records and policies. Though it is, in a way, simplistic to target institutional conditions, if these aren't changed, there will remain an in-built disincentive for explanation and debate over policy.

That's one way of promoting a "national European vision" and encouraging people to discuss what kind of policies and cooperation they want, if indeed they want it. It's all very well saying that national parties need to promote the European project - but, let's face it, it hasn't happened yet, and if things stay the same it will remain unlikely. Less blame, more ideas, please.

My Europe Day

My Europe Week has opened up a blog carnival for ideas, thoughts and opinions on Europe, to get a sense of what people hope, want and expect for the future of 500 million people - and counting. Over the last week it's been open to bloggers and non-bloggers alike, and I'd encourage everyone to make a contribution if you can and submit it.





What I'm celebrating

Europe Day should be a celebration, if nothing else! Europe is more to me than the politics that this blog deals with - through language learning (well, attempted language learning!), blogging, traveling and debating, I've met many great people both at home and across the continent, and I've had many brilliant experiences that I otherwise wouldn't have had. Like Julien Frisch, trains and railways symbolise Europe a lot to me. Standing in a train station in Germany, I feel the freedom of being able to travel to practically anywhere on the continent, across several countries and cultures.

It's that feeling of freedom and possibility, along with all the people I've met that makes me so enthusiastic and passionate about Europe, and I'll be celebrating all of this today.


What I want

The flip side of Europe Week is what you want from Europe, and where you think Europe should go.

When politicians speak of Europe, they always seem to talk about the past - and they shouldn't. Speeches on Europe tend to focus on absence, and what isn't: Europe means that there's no war on the continent, etc. While this is obviously something to cherish and celebrate, what I want to see is a more positive vision of Europe, and the leadership to back it up. Lately environmentalism and fighting climate change became Europe's more positive crusade, but there needs to be a vision and a greater level of citizen involvement to make the European project more relevant to people today.

The Europe I want should be about citizen empowerment. Brussels is bureaucratic and distant, but its politics need to be opened up and people need to be drawn in. There's nothing new in saying this; most people in the Euroblogosphere want more interaction and better communication. But empowerment and participation could be part of an engaging vision and renewing narrative for Europe. If the member states are in the EU because they are stronger together than apart, the political parties at a European level need to start communicating and engaging with the public on what "Europe" can do for them. National governments may not be able to tackle these problems alone, but citizens should be empowered to debate the solutions and engage in solving the problems facing Europe today. It's a simple thing to say, but obviously be an arduous task to undertake. But I think it's the only way Europe can become relevant and closer to its citizens.

This requires the Europarties to get their acts together. In the last election, voters rewarded parties to had a relevant message for the European stage - for example, UKIP in the UK and the Greens in France. Explaining challenges, providing solutions, communicating with voters; all these things will pay off in elections, even though the Europarties seem resigned to dependency on national politics providing them with lucky electoral windfalls. So parties need to become more structured in their engagement with the national media and on the internet. Parties should pick MEPs as their spokesperson(s) in a member state, build up relationships with the main broadcasters and newspapers, and be ready to supply talking heads when European issues arise. Having party faces and connections available will help the news media report on European issues: party-point-of-view makes occasional mentions more interesting, detailed and involving, and familiarity with MEPs will open up the EU system to journalists more.

I'm likely to be disappointed in this, but I believe that Europe needs active leaders in Parliament, and Council, and active citizens in NGOs, locally and online to add to the debate and vision so citizenship can be enriched and Europe can move forward. There has recently been indication that electoral reform will be on the European Parliament's agenda. Let's hope that MEPs will be bolder and braver in engaging with the public. 60 years on from the Schuman Declaration, Europe needs a citizen-centred vision that can deliver for citizens and involve them in building a pan-continental future.



Happy Europe Day from The European Citizen blog!

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.

Poettering and France 24

This Sunday (May 10th*), the outgoing President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poettering, will feature on a special programme on the EP for France 24. It's a debate on "Young People and Europe".

15 young Europeans will address questions to Poettering on a range of issues, though why Europe matters/why they should bother voting will probably take up a lot of the programme. Poettering will also be joined by Monica Frassoni of the EFA/Greens.

It's not quite an election debate, but it could be interesting to see how effectively the EP/MEPs are trying to put themselves across, and to see how Poettering himself will fare - apparently he didn't do too well when Julien Frisch saw him - just an off day?


*2.10pm and 8.10pm Paris time.

There's Europe Election '09!

After I complained about the BBC's lack of coverage of the EU elections this June, it's only fair that I point out that they now have an Election page. It's got videos on how the EP works, what Commissioners do, etc.

So you've no excuse for not voting now (!) - they even have advice on forming your own party.

Also, on their programme The Record: Europe, the BBC have had a half an hour long debate over the areas of social protection/free movement of workers, business, and environmental protection. The whole programme is here (in clips).

Good to see more of an effort.

Where's Europe Election '09?

It's great to see that the BBC is making the effort to cover the Indian elections more extensively. India is, after all, the biggest democracy in the world.

However it's sad to see that there's no comparable Europe-wide coverage of the European Elections this year, despite the fact that the UK electorate will return MEPs to the European Parliament.

Does the BBC think that the European elections simply aren't a serious public interest matter? Mark Mardell may have a well read blog on Europe, and the BBC does have the Record Europe, but there doesn't seem to be the reporting resources on this election as in the Indian one.

Public Service Broadcasters should inform citizens of the political choices they have in elections - isn't that supposed to be a very basic function of the "fourth estate"? If the BBC and others don't report on anything much except on how low the turnout will be, then of course the turn out will be low - if people don't know why and for what the candidates are running, then why should they vote? Special political programmes tucked away in special political channels, aired in the middle of the night, do not serve the public well.* If something is not discussed on the main channels, then it can hardly be surprising that there aren't that many people who are aware of what's going on, or who know that there's anything to follow up on other channels/the internet.


*Annoyingly, RTÉ seems to do a monthly report on the European Parliament aired only at an ungodly hour - and I'm not sure what day it's on! I didn't even know about it until I stumbled across it. This isn't fulfilling your public service duty, RTÉ!

Do we need a revolutionary European Parliament?

The European Parliament is not exactly held in high esteem across the continent, something reflected in the predictions of turnout reaching a new record low this June. The EP is not just a talking shop as was once the case: it is becoming increasingly the equal of the Council, though the Council remains a powerful centre of negotiation and diplomacy - a world with a political culture quite different to parliamentary norms and values. The Lisbon Treaty will extend the power and influence of the EP, notably undoing the French bargain dating back to when the EP first became directly elected: Parliament will have a say over the entire EU budget, including CAP.

But should the Parliament just depend on the goodwill of member states for increases in its power each time there's a reforming treaty? Can it afford to? The argument for increasing the EP's powers rests on the idea that it reduces the democratic deficit, but with voter turnout falling, the EP's political influence falls when it comes to this question.

The most celebrated points in the EP's history are the ending of the Santer Commission and the influence it had over the composition of the Barroso Commission. Moments of asserting, even in a limited way, the place a parliament should hold in the system. So should the EP become more revolutionary, more combative and assertive?

Take the issue of the EP's seat. At the moment it is spread over Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. This isn't the EP's fault; this is written into the Treaties, one of many compromises between the member states. But, as I've read suggested here, should the Parliament simply rebel against this? MEPs could just sit in Brussels, refusing to travel to Strasbourg once a month, and demand to have the right to decide for itself where it sits. The institutional paralysis would be a powerful bargaining counter, though it could be a long protest, since it would take a lot to move France. (Even if the EP passed legislation, if it didn't make the trip, the legislation could be open to challenge). The commute is not popular with the public, and it would be a great chance to boost the EP's public profile and power. It could be part of a wider push for more scrutinising power over the Council and Commission, and even the power to elect the Commission.

Of course, this strategy has many weaknesses. First, it doesn't project an image of a "responsible parliament" as parliament would be blocking up the whole process of legislation (if it needs EP assent or consultation, which is the vast majority of it). Second, the EP has over 700 members under Nice and Lisbon, and it would be a huge task to keep the majority of them together in a strong alliance. Add to that the influence of national party executives over their MEPs, it would be a big ask to try and keep a unified movement running. Third, it could damage its public image at a time when it should be demonstrating what it can do for citizens in a time of recession.

And it's not to say that the EP isn't doing anything to assert itself: the recent demands of the EP to see the books of the Council or the EP won't sign off on them may seem quite boring, but if followed up with a strong stance, it has potential. The EP has little or no power over the Council: it is made up of member states, and it cannot scrutinise or fire them or COREPER. To demand to see the books of the Council is a step in demanding greater transparency, but it is also an assertion of superiority over the Council, and, by extension, the member states. It says that it is the EP that should have a say on the Council's books, and implies that the EP should have some power to back that up. There have been hints that Solana, head of the Council's bureaucracy and of the CFSP (two separate posts), could be in the firing line in the future (see here. Thanks to Julien Frisch for flagging up the video).

While the Council desperately needs a massive dose of transparency, how far should the EP have direct power over Council officials and over the Council's dealings? And how far should the Council be better made open just by Treaty?

Young, Irish & Pro-Lisbon? Welcome to Generation Yes

A new pro-Lisbon group has launched in Ireland today, and surprisingly it's a youth-orientated group. During the first Lisbon referendum, the age group with the highest percentage of No voters was the 25 to 34 age group.

Which is why it's interesting to see the emergence of a grass-roots, pro-Lisbon organization, which is seemingly willing to really make the case for the Lisbon Treaty:

"Mr Byrne, a member of the Green party, says the campaign is “all just friends of ours” who were frustrated by the failure of politicians to properly explain the treaty the last time or to campaign effectively, so they decided “we’ll do it ourselves”. He noted that they recently started a Facebook page and have more than 800 members. “I think Declan Ganley only has about 100” he says of the Libertas anti-treaty campaigner."

Generation Yes has it's own website, Bebo and Facebook pages, and is on Twitter. On it's website it provides bullet-points on the Lisbon Treaty along with references to the relevant Treaty article for those who want to check things out in detail. I especially like the committment to referencing all points that they make - it will be good to lend the Yes side some authority by campaigning on practical changes rather than just vague benefits. Of course, there is the danger that the debate could get bogged down in too much detail, but I doubt that would happen for very long on the streets (or even on TV debates if they get there).

Its director is the former president of Trinity's student union, Andrew Burn. It is not funded by the Irish Government or the EU, but is looking for donations to help with its campaign, and plans on raising money through events such as table quizzes.

I'm really happy to see a grass-roots pro-Lisbon movement like this come together, and I hope they'll be able to make a great contribution to the debate in Ireland.

Televised European Parliament Debate

Considering that I go on about the need for a debate between EP party group leaders, I should flag up a (so far?) 4-part debate by Euronews here. Euronews also has an European election section (which I think is new), here. I haven't had a chance to watch the whole debate, so I won't go into detail, but at least something is being done, even if it's still not mainstream enough (well, it doesn't have a massive potential audience, anyway) for me to stop whining yet.

Letters From Brussels

Yesterday I posted about Barroso's new online survey, and my short rant about using more traditional media methods to communicate policy and EU politics in general to the public (which would make better debate more likely). By coincidence, Barroso has written an article for today's Irish Times on the economic crisis and the role Europe is trying to play. Link here.

It's good to see some communication (Javier Solana has also written in the Irish Times about the CFSP back when the Chad mission was coming to a close), but obviously more is needed.

So what would you TellBarroso.eu?

I saw an advertisement on EUobserver for a survey to tell Barroso what you think the EU should be doing. So if you like filling out surveys and then re-arranging the survey entries of others in order of importance (or if you secretly wish to meet Barroso himself), then this is for you.

As you can probably tell from the detail of my description, I have filled it in myself. I wrote in a few things, but I also basically re-hashed my rant on voter engagement (but constructively):

"...I am very doubtful of the value of the internet in getting citizens involved if it is not backed up by a traditional media presence. I only discovered this website via the EUobserver website, which I doubt is widely read by those who are not already interested in EU affairs. I accept, though, that this could be a practical judgment in that people who read the EUobserver are more likely to reply, and that there would be less value for money in advertising elsewhere.

However, there should be a larger effort made in creating debate (not just consultations) with citizens. There should be, for example, a transnational televised debate between the party group leaders in the elections; more national media interviews given by Commissioners, not just on the constitutional issue of Europe, but on various Commission policies so the public can debate and organise support or resistance to such policies; and simplifying the language of press releases on up-coming legislation along with other measures to transmit information through the traditional media to citizens - so they can make use of their MEPs, etc by contacting/lobbying them."

In other news, the PES have shown a bit more backbone in opposing a second term for Barroso. Still no alternative candidate, though.

We want informed debate on Europe! (But Europe shouldn't take part)

The EU is distant; it doesn't engage; people feel uninformed about the issues and there is rarely any debate on substantive issues - the only debate seems to be infrequent, confused and hurried grandstanding on the constitutional issues.

People want more information. There should be more debate on what legislation is passed and decisions are made at an EU level.

Perhaps a campaign to try to engage people in the European elections would be a good idea? No, that would be propaganda.

Now this campaign is not at all likely to be effective - billboards cannot replace a vigorous political party debate and campaign, and these billboards aren't much good to start off with - but it does highlight a certain attitude which is sadly quite widespread in some approaches to debates on Europe, on both the pro-Europe and Eurosceptic sides. And it's mainly this: if a viewpoint on Europe comes from outside the member state, it is derided as foreign and therefore invalid and not worthy of consideration; official information campaigns are automatically labeled propaganda and are unhelpful to the debate.

Wait - so, on issues that effect more than one European country, other Europeans views are invalid; and in an area where people decry the lack of information, the official stance and official information is ignored? Perhaps I'm missing something, but how else do you improve the quality of debate and participation if you don't bring in more views and perspectives and never discuss the pros and cons of official policy? Is there another way?

I don't think so. As I've written before in more detail, all information has an ideological standpoint (something I've tried to put across in response to an Open Europe article), including official information and policy. But to dismiss its value out of hand for debates misses the point completely: after all, what would national political debates be like if nobody ever talked about what the government does or thinks on a particular issue? If policy statements or facts issued by the government are merely dismissed as propaganda and meddling in the debate, then it devalues the debate.

Basically, as long as politicians on both sides refuse to examine and debate and engage with official sources of information or other Europeans who are equally effected by common decisions, the public at large will be largely cut off from the political world and the decision-making process. And as long as the media doesn't hold the politicians to account, they will get away with it.

If anyone can show me how the debate can be enriched and the public engaged more without doing this; by continuing to exclude opinions and policies from the EU institutions, then let me know. But for now it seems to me that the unwillingness of politicians to fight on the basis of ideas and policies is what's really holding back and diminishing the quality of politics in today's Europe.

Journalists Turn to the EU for help

Journalists have turned to the EU for help, the EUobserver has reported.

They have written to the EP party groups as well, hoping to get some policy out of them. (Well, I'm glad that some journalists know that the EP's there...).

Perhaps some compromise could be found? If journalists report more EU news (and help get more debate going), the parties could come up with some policies on the media. ...Well, there'd be more incentive for the party groups to formulate common policies if they thought they would get media attention...

Image and the EU: Are they starting to think about it?

Everyone knows that the EU has an image problem, though it's not exactly clear what can be done about it (though I personally think it requires some structural and institutional changes). Communication problems about the EU are chronic not only at the EU level itself, but even at national level.

Still, in an election year it's harder for politicians and even EU bureaucrats to avoid the feeling that something must be done. The elections are, after all, an obvious opportunity to reach out to the public and to attempt to get them more involved in European politics. Though it was always going to be, of course, an uphill struggle.

So the EP has unveiled a plan for more spending and more promotion on the campaign trail, as well as plans for more co-ordination of electoral campaign strategies (based around a choice of 4 of 10 "themes") in order to give the elections a more European character. The lack of clarity over what the powers of the new EP will be (due to the problems of Lisbon Treaty ratification*) will make the task of sending out a clear message harder in some respects. I hope that the Lisbon issue won't be focused on too much - it would be far better in my opinion, if candidates and parties focused on providing a clear message of what plans they have to use the powers they currently have to work on the issues facing the electorate. Dredging up constitutional issues, which the EP has no control over, is not a good strategy, and it isn't likely to help MEPs connect with voters. Showing the voters how their votes can make a difference on practical issues would be more effective than focusing on more abstract constitutional questions.

And even Barroso may be showing some dim awareness of the need for good PR - on Wednesday he got into the Irish Times for having a pint of Guinness with Bob Geldof in Brussels on St. Patrick's Day. Though he spoilt the occasion by making a "St. Patrick's day wish" for an Irish yes to Lisbon. By all means promote Lisbon, but it would have been much better to celebrate the occasion for what it is, without turning it into such an obviously pro-Lisbon PR stunt.

I don't expect a big difference, but hopefully there will be more engagement with voters.




*I'm still of the opinion that it would be wrong to push having another referendum before the guarantees are decided on and worked out.

The Democratic Europe Act

(Or, an exercise in vanity?) I've said before that I think the EU needs a modern day Single European Act. The SEA relaunched the EEC/EU and its economic/political rationale, and today we need a clean break in the form of a radical democratic reforming act for the EU. Here, I'm assuming that the competences and powers of each of the institutions is the same as under the Lisbon Treaty, apart from a few exceptions, which I'll put under "constitutional" (though they should be obvious anyway). Some of what I propose will be achievable through national or European legislation, or measures to encourage debate in the media.

Of course, the usefulness of setting this out is next to nothing in practical terms, but given the increasing need for more democratic input into the EU, and the German Bundesverfassungsgericht's concern for democracy, I thought it would be a good time to actually set out what I would like to see be done. I'll not say that I'll not change my mind in the future about some aspects, so feel free to think of this as an exercise in vanity if you want.

The Democratic European Act

1. Constitutional Changes.
2. Political Changes.
3. Changes for the Media and Member States.


1. Constitutional Changes:

(a). The Commission President will be directly elected by the people. Rationale: apart from the obvious legitimacy this would give the commission, it would motivate the EuroParties to put up candidates, and so explain their policies and attempt to live up to their political educational role. However, I wouldn't be opposed to the Commission President being elected by the EP as a first step.

(b). The Commission President nominates the members of his/her commission and they are individually voted into office by the EP. Rationale: widens the pool of talent available if the President can nominate rather than just pick from national nominees (which would hardly make much sense if the Commission President was elected...)

(c). The Council approves the Commission as a whole by QMV, but otherwise they have no input in the appointment of the Commission. They can remove the Commission by unanimity, or by a QMV vote with a very high threshold.

(d). The European Parliament will have the power of initiation - they can propose legislation, if enough MEPs sign up to the proposal, and then it would be put before the EP.

(e). The Council can block legislative proposals coming from the EP by QMV with a high threshold.

(f). The EP elections will be by proportional representation of the single transferable vote kind. Voters will be able to vote for candidates, not party lists.

(g). The Court of Auditors will evaluate each EU institution's and member state's spending of the EU budget, and will approve each one separately.

(h). When the treaties will be changed in a significant way, a Constitutional Convention will be convened to draw up the treaty changes. Each member state will directly elect 3 representatives (or whatever number is decided), and each member state government will negotiate too. The member states will still have the final say on the final wording of the treaty, but the Convention would be a more democratic way of drawing up a draft treaty and involve citizens more (and apply political pressure on the member states). Treaties will be ratified by each member state unanimously in accordance with their constitutional methods before they take effect.


2. Political Changes:

(a). Local party branches and the EuroParty leadership will have more input into the choice of EP candidate.

(b). There will be a Charter for the Composition of the Commission to ensure that a certain percentage of member states are represented in the Commission and that the Commission doesn't just end up being drawn from the big member states or from a few countries. This would not mean that the national governments have a say in who gets appointed (though see (c) in "constitutional changes"), but it will ensure that the Commission is still representative of Europe. While I think that the Commission has become too "nationalised" lately, as many member states should be represented as possible. (This can be done under a binding inter-institutional deal under Lisbon, as can (a), the case of the EP picking and electing the Commission President, under "Constitutional changes").


3. Media and Member State Changes:

(a). To encourage the media to report more on EU developments, a number of measures could be adopted. As correspondents based in Brussels/Luxembourg/Strasbourg/European capitals are vital to reporting on EU and European affairs, there should be certain tax exemptions for journalists based there to encourage TV, newspapers, etc. to investigate and report on developments without cost being as much of a deterrent to do so. This should help inform citizens about goings on in Europe that effect them, without the need for Commission info-campaigns which can be labelled as propaganda. It should also flag up interesting/important legislation so the public can influence the EP, national governments, protest, etc and be more involved in influencing the passage of legislation.

(b). There should be a number of pan-European televised debates: especially in the run up to EP elections.

(c). Other tax relief for covering up-and-coming topical legislation at a European level could be provided for the media too (this could be used for national level politics too!). Should help give the public greater access to legislative info while they can still try to influence the debate.




I'm aware that there are a lot of problems with the practicality of adopting this - member state governments would hate to see some of these passed. But I think that a lot of this needs to be done to involve the public more at a European level. I also think that involving the mainstream media more is crucial to providing the public with more information, though I'm not totally sure of my proposed ways of achieving this.

The Swiss Vote Yes

Switerland has voted yes to continuing closer ties with the EU. The vote was on whether or not to extend the free movement of workers to Bulgarian and Romanian citizens - if it didn't do this, it would have led to looser ties with the EU at a critical time.

Interestingly, from a country which celebrates direct democracy;

"With an eye on Ireland’s Lisbon Treaty vote, an official familiar with the Swiss and Irish tradition of referendums, observed that “Swiss direct democracy is not half as problematic as referendums in Ireland’s ‘occasional direct democracy’.” Well-organised civic education programmes encourage Swiss citizens to propose laws by popular initiative backed by 100,000 signatures.

Just 50,000 signatures can force a referendum to act as a brake or to force consensus on an issue."

Gasp - are they calling us "absolute fools, uninformed idiots"?

Ganley lurches further right - perhaps Brussel's elite is to blame for this too?

Eh? Who is this Ganley now and where is he coming from? He was speaking at a panel discussion hosted by a pro-life Catholic group. Here's a long quote from the Irish Times:

He also assured delegates of his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, referring to earlier opening remarks in which he quoted from Pope Benedict’s recent encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi , “with their message of God’s love”.

Reflecting on Ireland’s history he continued, “our faith and our rights are strong today because we have suffered the yoke of oppression . . . we grew stronger and we grew free”.

He queried whether “we have lost something” and noted the address of the pope at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome immediately prior to his election in April 2005. There, the pope criticised a “dictatorship of moral relativism . . . in a world where faith in God is seen as a threat”, Mr Ganley said.

He went on to criticise “a media obsessed with breaking down the domestic church . . . and the family” and reminded delegates that “the essence of our faith is that all life is sacred”. He concluded: “Yes we must, we must take risks for truth.”

In the later question-and-answer session, he said any guarantees given by the EU on social and ethical issues “were not worth the paper they are written on”, where the European Court of Justice was concerned.

Ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church itself, upon examining the Lisbon Treaty, found that it would not effect family law and issues such as abortion (well, it is what right-wing Catholic pressure group Coir did during the referendum campaign - but who says that Catholicism needs to be coherent?), and ignoring that the Treaties post-Lisbon explicitly state that family law is to remain a matter for the member states, why exactly should the Catholic Church have a central role in Ireland?

We tried that before, and it wasn't exactly fun. Does Ganley want the "dictatorship of moral relativism" to be replaced with Church authority? He would probably deny that, but modern societies are diverse, with many groups with different views - and such an idealised version of religious and family life can't even be attempted to be maintained without a the Church being in a position of great authority in society. It seems perverse that someone who claims to want the EU to be democratized and rails against Brussels elites, at the same time criticises the press for not showing enough deference to Church authority and advocates an idealised, conservative model of society which would exclude so many others.

The media is right to be critical of the Church, and the Church has only itself to blame. Ganley, raised in England, may not fully appreciate the sway the Church had on society here, but he should be well aware of how it has been abused. Child abuse is only the most extreme example.

Faith should be private.

On a probably more relevant political note:

"The party was now recognised in all 27 EU countries, he said, and referred delegates to its website www.libertas.eu."

The website is another thing. It has not been updated in ages, has no mention of who has given Libertas support (I had to find that out elsewhere), and seems to mainly exist to issue howls of righteous indignation against the government, other parties and Brussels whenever they say anything against him, or he suffers a setback. There are some who have reacted by trying to smear him (and he reacts by smearing them back), which is totally the wrong way to go about it. His ideas and his "party" are so riddled with weaknesses that it should be easy to take him on. Wild rhetoric on the pro-Lisbon side is a sign of weakness, and brings the debate down.

And despite support from a Finnish MP, I note that Libertas' Finland page is still in English...