You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2009.
Mulilingualism is a cultural and linguistic challenge for all citizens of an enlarged Europe.
The European Union has 23 official languages, and as the EU enlarges, the number will increase further”[1].
By: Nathalie Henri
European institutions refer to the key term of multilingualism as not only the expression of the plurality of languages but also as source and structure of European “values”.
In a European document defining the objectives of the multilingualism framework, Fleming (2008) explains that the “the notion of the languages of education is dual, it constitutes first a structural tool allowing to identify different parts of the programme, dealing with language development (…) but it is also supposed to translate a belonging to fundamental values which are the core of the action of the European Council: human rights, “plurilinguism”, diversity, social cohesion and democratic citizenship.”[2]
Through multilingual policies in the European Union are European citizens invited to become multilingual citizens or at least master three languages of the European Union in order to communicate more effectively with their neighbours.
Michael Byram (2007) [3], Professor of Education at Durham University and language policy advisor to the Council of Europe, affirms that by teaching of languages “competitiveness and mobility” are raised and reminds that “language teaching should support the development of intercultural awareness, tolerance, social inclusion and a European identity’.
Multilingualism in European institutions can be seen as a long-term investment through Arts and Education, training the future generations of European citizens. Younger generations and future citizens of an enlarged Europe are encouraged to think of themselves as part of the multilingual and united Europe – see the excellent little book “United in Diversity” (2007), edited in 27 languages to encourage primary school children to discover the geography the European Union and learn about the history of the EU, the Euro and landmarks of each country.
Mulilingualism is a cultural and linguistic challenge for all citizens of an enlarged Europe. In a recent Communication, the European Commission has presented a detailed framework to invite Member States to support multilingualism, encourage their citizens to learn two languages.
Multilingualism is presented as “an asset for Europe and a shared commitment” and “linguistic diversity” recognised as “an asset for solidarity and prosperity”.[4]
Notes:
[1]Europa: European Commission>Multilingualism>Languages of Europe: <http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/languages-of-europe/index_en.htm>
[2]“La notion de « langues de l’éducation » est double ; en effet, elle constitue un outil structurel permettant d’identifier les différentes composantes du programme concernées par le développement du langage (langue comme discipline, langue d’enseignement des autres disciplines et enseignement des langues étrangères), mais elle est aussi censée traduire un attachement aux valeurs fondamentales qui sont au cœur de l’action du Conseil de l’Europe : droits de l’homme, plurilinguisme, diversité, cohésion sociale et citoyenneté démocratique.” Fleming (2008), translated from the French by Nathalie Henry.
[3] Languages for Europe: “on the edges” (multilingualism intercultural awareness and European citizenship) Draft proposal for an all-European regional project.<www.britishcouncil.pl/pdf/>
[4] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment, Brussels, 18.9.2008, COM (2008 ) 566 final <http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/news/news2853_en.htm>
Dr Stephen Brown, the Sustainable Development Manager at the regional development agency Yorkshire Forward
The European Parliament is only a “rhetorical champion” in the fight against climate change, with “limited impact” in shaping environmental agreements in the EU and the world. The current economic crisis, along with the shift of the centre of gravity of the EU to the East of the continent, are the two main reasons behind the watering-down by European governments of the ambitious so-called “climate legislative package” outlined by European representatives. These were the conclusions of a study on the role of the European Parliament in environmental policy-making presented at a seminar about climate change sponsored by the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence on 27 January 2009 at the Leeds Business School. The event was a prelude to the official inauguration of the Climate Change Centre on Economics and Policy at the University of Leeds.
The European Parliament aimed at making of EU countries the most advanced in the world in the fight against climate change. Although the ambitious goals of reducing contaminating emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 (as compared to the levels of emissions in the 1990s), and raising the percentage of renewable energy consumption from the current 8 per cent to a 20 per cent have been formally endorsed by the European governments, the final legislation is full of opt-outs so as to leave with little or no punishment the failure to achieve those self-imposed limits. The current economic crisis was the “perfect excuse” for countries like Poland and Italy to justify their opposition to the text submitted by the European Parliament, said Dr Charlotte Burns, a political scientist at the University of Leeds, who presented the initial results of a research project on EU environmental policy and politics conducted with her colleague Dr Neil Carter, a professor from the University of York. The centre of gravity of European politics has moved eastwards, giving more power to countries who are still heavily reliant on coal-generated power. The enlargement and the current financial crisis are the two factors that explain why “all actors were ready for any kind of deal”, according to Dr Burns. Had been otherwise, she said, the European Parliament may have rejected the legislation eventually approved. “The downgraded climate package has weakened the position of the Union as regards to the rest of the world”, said Dr Burns. The EU no longer can expect to lecture world leaders on how to fight global warming at the forthcoming international meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Dr Charlotte Burns, political scientist at the University of Leeds
Comparing US and Europe
Dr Angela Carpenter, an expert on environmental legislation from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds, reported on an on-going research project that aims at comparing the energy efficiency of oil refineries around the world, with a special attention on the question of whether those countries or states with stricter environmental regulations contaminate less. Although strong conclusions on causality cannot be raised from the data available, Dr Carpenter showed that US states with more rigorous environmental regulation like California are less polluting. This research project, led by Professor Andy Gouldson, the head of the Sustainability Research Institute at the University of Leeds, is finding more difficulties than expected when trying to compare US and EU data on environmental issues. EU countries do not follow yet standarised procedures for collecting data on some of the parameters of interest, said Dr Carpenter.
Yorkshire and the Humber, a carbon-intensive region
Dr Stephen Brown, the Sustainable Development Manager at the regional development agency Yorkshire Forward, reported on the local strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Mr Brown said that, along with the Ruhr in Germany, Yorkshire and the Humber has the record of highest emissions of CO2 in Europe. “Yorkshire is an intensive CO2 economy”, acknowledged Dr Brown. However, regional businesses have been willing to co-operate in tackling this issue, showing interest in some of the regional agency’s recent initiatives, such as plans for the capture and storage of carbon to minimise the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and a trial “cap and trade” system for carbon. This programme, known as Carbon Action Yorkshire, is intended as a training for the forthcoming implementation of new national and EU legislation that will ask companies to buy pollution permits from other businesses that may have not reached their maximum limit of contamination. In theory, this system would penalize polluters and would reward those who are more energy efficient. Carbon Action Yorkshire is the UK’s first regional carbon trading scheme, remarked Dr Brown.
Climate Change Centre
This panel session on European environmental legislation and its implications to the regional economy in the Yorkshire was the prelude to the launch of the new Centre on Climate Change, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, and based at the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds, in partnership with the London School of Economics and Political Science.
More information on the new centre at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current09/cccep.html
Rethinking the European blogging competition 2009 launched by the European Journalism Centre in Brussels 26-27 Jan. 2009. The EJC brought 81 bloggers, representing all 27 member states, to Brussels for a kick-off meeting to launch a six-month blogging competition.
“Moses calling from Brussels: EUCommunication Policy…nul points”
There is no doubt that nation states are the dominant frame of reference and belonging for a vast majority of EU citizens. The question is IF and HOW an additional collective “Heimat” can be invented or constructed as a vehicle to legitimise the EU’s present and future goals.
It is not as difficult as it seems. What IS needed is talent, common endeavour and dedication. What is NOT needed are well-paid Brussels based civil servants “playing” at being journalists, or communication policy makers appointed by indifferent national governments achieving indifferent goals. Communicating Europe cannot be an automated procedure. You cannot simply push a button to win the hearts and minds of individuals.
Moreover, further European integration can no longer rely on citizens’ usually silent permissive consensus.
The following article explores the fragmented European self-contradictory communicative space and ways to overcome the solitude of being a pro-EU netizen, dealing with the sentimental pseudo-dilemma: national sovereignty versus European loyalty.
Dealing with the problematic term “e-participation” within the European online realm
Myth: The Internet could become the abstract, symbolic and, at the same time, tangible platform for European political activism.
Reality: Online mediatisation of self-perceptions in a post-modern era can be very problematic. Does joining Facebook groups and community platforms (e.g. www.thinkaboutit.eu), necessarily mean that you are engaged in political activism and can finally make a difference? On the contrary, it might end up being a theoretical oxymoron, an empty undelivered promise, a wishful rhetorical referent or an “empty signifier”. Questions about whether online identities are continuous with offline selves (interaction with the real world) are dominant and self-evident. This is a core issue in the emerging European e-agora: bridging the gap between digitally mediated virtual space and real, flesh and blood individuals who comprise physical communities.
Virtual environments are valuable as places where we can acknowledge our inner diversity. But we still want an authentic experience of self. One’s fear is, of course, that in the culture of simulation, a word like authenticity can no longer apply. (Turkle, 1996)[1]
As stated at the “European blogging competition” Event in Brussels “never have so many people written so much to be read by so few” [2]. Publishing articles on EU Elections using blogs and Facebook groups is like throwing a grain of sand into the Sahara desert.
It might end up being an autistic, hopeless self-repeated action, which might give you the false impression that you have done your duty as an active citizen. Alas, this is the same sand in which you proudly hide your head like a pan-European ostrich.
New media vs Traditional Media : a Pyrrhic victory
The feathers of that ostrich reminded me of the importance of putting both our feet on solid ground. Why spend taxpayers’ money on autonomous, self-selective, self-motivated bloggers from around EU, mostly Euro-enthusiasts, who participate a priori in a discussion originated by them, with them, for them within the context of social networking sites?
To avoid misunderstanding: why only do that? Why not buy advertising time from Public broadcasting networks (ERT Greece, RAI Italy, BBC UK etc.) or from Commercial private channels since – according to Euro barometer [3] – television is perceived as the preferred source for information, followed by daily newspapers, taking of course into consideration the rules regarding political advertising and broadcasting for elections which differ from state to state.[4]
Who will buy the advertising time? Politicians / parties within member states. Why them? Because they are democratically elected. Why not the European Commission? The argument has always been that any “broadcasting / advertising” by the EP or Commission would be tantamount to political interference in the domestic affairs of a member state.
So, why this all of the sudden shift of interest to New Media? Who is so naïve as to believe that the New Media alone will be the panacea for the communications and therefore democratic deficit of EU? No need to repeat that we DO need opinionated bloggers. Let me remind you that TIME’s Person of the Year 2006 [5] was the anonymous blogger and commentator of sites. Blogging is also of great benefit for the journalists of the traditional media. However, on top of that, we need effective channels of European mass communication.
Based on personal observation, the EU is over-represented [6] on the internet. The existential question is: who is listening and moreover who cares, “given the plethora of message-providers and the mounting traffic of content, among the most daunting problems arising is, firstly, that of infoflation (data richness), a term that synthesises the term information with that of inflation in order to highlight attendant problems of entropy”.[7]
Reality: By adopting a more moderate techno-enthusiasm, we might re-evaluate the significance and tremendous power of “officially” moderated, controlled, organised and managed television as we know it. I am not afraid to use the words “controlled and moderated” when referring to western media, which have never been the “sanctuary of impartiality and objectivity”, as they proudly proclaim, comparing themselves to the media from so-called developing countries.
- Is it too late to start in February implementing a communications strategy targeting the Euro-elections which take place in June, bearing in mind that such a strategy has to be implemented in common ways throughout the 27 member states involved?
Yes, there is no need to dispute the fact that blogging and in general the New Media played an important role in the recent American elections. However, we all remember that President Obama’s communication strategy reached its peak on Oct. 29, when the Democrats bought 30 minutes of prime time on major TV networks for a programme on air from 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. In the footsteps of Obama? Not really.[8]
Dealing with Self-perceptions: internalising external signals and messages with EU content is based on the originators of messages and mediation itself.
Myth: The EU is a monolithic, bureaucratic monster. EU politics are not sexy.
Reality: Pirandello could give the answer: “It Is So (If You Think So)” [9] . How many of us really believe that British, German or Italian politics are more “attractive” and “glamorous” compared to EU politics? Let’s try to answer this question honestly. And please exclude Carla Bruni or Berlusconi’s hair colour. Why is political discourse within member states “hot” but “old-fashioned” and “boring” in the EU? Because a bunch of honorable and well-respected (?) journalists in each member state – depending on the degree of national or their boss’s euroscepticism – say so! As the BBC Brussels correspondent Mark Mardell [10] remarked at the TH!INKABOUTIT event “there are pan-European issues to be broadcast, but I am not sure if the media will decide to promote them”. Tony Barber [11] from the Financial Times mentioned that one pan-European issue to be addressed in the future is the economic crisis, which according to him will influence the debate over Euro-elections.
Issues such as citizens’ identification and association with EU were also raised, but nobody had the answer, apart from a few ideas suggested by the BBC correspondent: “an EU president for instance (as this is proposed by the Lisbon Treaty) will help people to associate themselves with the faceless EU [12]. The EU president could mobilise the EU citizens.”
Bloggers’ meeting with MEPs and EU officials at the EP
JMECE Lab had the chance to ask Steve Clark from the WebComm Unit of the EP to comment on the following remarks made by focus group participants. That focus group [13]was recently convened in conjunction with Professor Juliet Lodge in a relatively poor north-east port, Hull, UK.
“The EuroparlTV website was regarded with the same disinterest. One student said he would find it more useful if such a channel were done by an independent company instead of the European Parliament. The EuroparlTV website was seen, in the words of students, as “propaganda.”" Mr. Clark, who spoke at the Brussels Event about the “EP online: web communications now and in the future”, denied that the EU is trying to proselytize or disseminate propaganda, underlining the fact EU citizens are not “stupid” and they understand when they are being brainwashed. He also seemed familiar with all the arguments against this new initiative, the web based parliamentary TV.
Finally, bloggers from around Europe joined three MEPs, Christopher Fjellner (EPP), Richard Corbett (PES) and Jules Maaten (ALDE) in a stimulating discussion on web, bloggers and networkers. Dr. Richard Corbett, one of the first blogger MEPs, noted that he does not allow comments on his blog because of the potential misuse of that feature by other parties, which would use his e-space to promote their own interests. The reactions by members of the audience interrupted the discussion: “no comments, means no Blogging!” Dr. Corbett had to clarify that “all comments are welcome via e-mails”. However, the “instant response” feature of blogging is in this way erased.
The discussion was moderated by Mrs. Marjory van den Broeke, Head of press at the Parliament, who referred to herself and her colleagues as “civil servants”. What the EU needs is talented trend setters and dedicated opinion leaders [14], not Eurocrats, who aim to create “a common sentimental basis”, “a special feeling of co-belonging” starting from 9 to 5 everyday, except weekends [15]. The EU is a sui generis political organisation, which needs individuals who can be engaged in the creation of a common European public sphere “in the making”.
Rhetoric Question for homework!
Is it too late to start in February implementing a communications strategy targeting the Euro-elections which take place in June, bearing in mind that such a strategy has to be implemented in common ways throughout the 27 member states involved?
Notes:
[1] Turkle, S. (1996). Virtuality and its discontents: Searching for community in cyberspace. The American Prospect,24, 50-57.
[2] http://cincypg.org/node/29 / The New York Times’ statement on blogging.
[3]http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eurobarometer-eu-citizens-badly-informed-enlargement/article-111414
[4] For more on that issue check the Euro election books by Juliet Lodge and Val Herman, especially Direct elections to the European Parliament. London: Macmillan.,1982.
[5] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
[6] The core question is NOT whether to create one more common communicative e-space, as suggested e.g. via the European Parliament’s webTV, but to gain more visibility for the existing ones and – from DG Communication’s point of view – to analyse the innumerable contributions by netizens so far. In addition to that, as Raymond Frenken, creator EUX.TV (a web-based channel with EU content http://eux.tv), mentioned a web- based TV channel is not profitable, unless you have a lot of daily hits. European politics won’t attract attention.
[7] Sophia Kaitatzi-Whitlock 2008, Web 2.0 Interactive: the rise of popular agency and its impact, (unpublished paper part of a lecture at LSE, May 2008 available on line: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/newsAndEvents/2008events/whitlock.htm)
[8] http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=131618
[9] Così è, se vi pare!
[10] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
[11] http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog
[12] One can argue that the reason, after all, for making the EU faceless in the first place was to encourage policy solutions in the common interest of the whole EU rather than a specific member state.
[13] The two focus groups with young British vocational education students met at Hull College on 14 January 2009. The first group comprised 12 participants, all male, with a median age of 23 years old. The second group was formed by 10 students (8 males and 2 females), their median age being 18 years old.
[14] See an interesting effort to “use” public figures to communicate EU: the well known in Europe Greek-French journalist Nikos Aliagas promoting EU environmental policy http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=glNHqBuGv-0&feature=related .
[15] I would also like to mention a comment by a journalist in charge of unloading new texts on Europe.eu site during a confidential discussion we had in Brussels. He remarked “these texts which I write for Europe.eu are so boring, that I myself don’t want to read them again!”
Illustration by Peter Schrank, Economist.com
The Economist said once that EU was not a female place (yet) because the European Union had just a few women on top… The Euro Elections is changing that. The proportion of female MEPs elected in 2004 was 30.2%, while in 1979 it was just 16.5%.
Source: EurActive.com [edited]
While the European Parliament has gained extensive new powers since the first European elections were held thirty years ago, voter turnout has consistently fallen, calling into question the ability of EU politicians to reverse the trend for the 2009 elections.
The European Parliament is the only EU institution directly elected on a strictly European mandate. By contrast, the members of the Council of the EU, which represents member states at ministerial level, are primarily elected on a national mandate. The European Commission’s mandate is to pursue the general EU interest but its individual members are designated by the national capitals, a matter which has attracted criticism from those arguing that the EU executive is a powerful yet unelected body.
Each EU member state decides how the European election is organised within its own boundaries, but all follow identical democratic rules: the system must be a form of proportional representation, minimum voting age must be 18, equality of the sexes must be respected and a secret ballot must be the electoral method.
Seats are divided proportionately to the population of each member state (see full distribution of seats on the Parliament’s website). Each country has a set number of seats, the maximum being 99 (Germany) and the minimum five (Malta). The current number of MEPs (785) exceeds the agreed maximum under the current (Nice) treaty.
Article by Mirek Topolánek, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Presidency of the European Union between January and June 2009
Article by Mirek Topolánek, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Presidency of the European Union between January and June 2009.
INTRODUCTION: The motto of the Czech Republic EU presidency is “Europe without barriers”. The Czech Republic will be presiding over the meetings of EU-27 between January and June 2009. The main priorities of the Czech Presidency can be summed up as “the 3 E’s”: Economy, Energy and External Relations.
ARTICLE:
Over Prague, a giant metronome counts the time of the Czech Presidency. It stands on the site of a memorial to the Soviet dictator Stalin, put up with great pomp in the 1950s and then stealthily disposed of during one night. A megalomaniac statue of an autocrat that was to stand “forever” has been replaced by a subtle symbol of transience and the passing of time. True, it sometimes seizes up, which is a technical glitch, and the European Union flag has been twice damaged by vandals, which is being dealt with by the police (although the twelve stars on a blue background are not a “state symbol”), but the Czech Presidency goes on, works on fulfilling its priorities, the “3E’s” – the Economy, Energy and Europe in the world – and has also responded to unexpected events, which, for now, we refer to as the “2G’s” – Gaza and gas.
However, the metronome makes me also think of Fellini’s mock-documentary “Orchestra Rehearsal” in which the Italian director depicts a revolt of musicians who depose the conductor and replace him with a metronome. The director commented on the political metaphor by saying: “Before I hear it with my own ears, I cannot believe that such an inharmonious community of humans, metal and wood can coalesce into one single melody”. For the first half of 2009, the Czech Republic has chosen the slogan “Europe in sweet harmony”. This is to say that we consider our Presidency to be about a search for equilibrium and moderating joint debates rather than pushing through our own interests and ambitions. At the same time we wish our Presidency to be as open and transparent as possible. Of course, we cannot afford this in certain strategic or security-sensitive areas, but in principle we put more faith in dialogue than in monologue; the former is not only easier to listen to, but also to understand.
The European Union – or rather its institutions – are struggling against a crisis of trust. A thirty-year-long opinion poll, i.e. the elections to the European Parliament, show that this has been a long-term, consistent trend. The institutions try to act all the more decisively and convincingly, but whenever someone voices a different opinion or even criticises their actions, they often become wimpy – i.e. they reject even valid objections. Pressure for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty or shuttling between the seats of the European Parliament are thus seen by the general public above all as symbols of obstinacy and unwillingness to listen.
True, for institutions to work together, they need rules to play by or, if you like, a common score and rhythm, and also somebody to make sure that these rules are respected, but, coming back to Fellini’s orchestra, I think it is symptomatic that the musicians often don’t share their conductor’s zeal for the cause and after some time tend to reject his authoritarianism. However, they realise that they need direction and consequently choose the metronome over the man.
- “Over Prague, a giant metronome counts the time of the Czech Presidency. It stands on the site of a memorial to the Soviet dictator Stalin, put up with great pomp in the 1950s and then stealthily disposed of during one night.”
The error is manifest – the conductor had been stepping up his rigour and pressure as criticism directed at him grew, until he lost all backing. He could not bear the criticism nor the challenges; he responded with increasing authoritarianism. A bad communication strategy, we would say today. The apathy of Fellini’s musicians who say: “We have no deeper interests. What are we interested in? Nothing”, and the ensuing disunion are resolved by the impact of a wrecking ball which breaks through the walls of the chapel where the rehearsal is taking place. The conductor picks up his baton again but, instead of humility and respect for others, he starts voicing orders much more strongly than before. With a bit of exaggeration, we could say that the EU is also experiencing turbulence, which has been provoked by the financial crisis. If its institutions respect the different positions of the Member States, their respective situations and the different expectations of their inhabitants, they will boost their trustworthiness, but if they issue new orders that are binding on everybody without distinction, there will be yet another decrease in the turnout at this year’s elections to the European Parliament.
This is what the Czech Presidency brings forward for other EU Member States to consider. Let us not succumb to the momentary mood provoked by the impact of the economic crisis and let us not give up the functioning mechanisms. Let us not weaken the strength of the internal market and let us not undermine Europe’s competitiveness. Let us realise that musicians cannot do without technical rules or without a conductor, but everybody is responsible above all for tuning their instrument and for playing by the common score. I believe that in the end, the important relation is not that of metronome and conductor, but that of orchestra and audience. The tempo may vary but false notes are audible at once.
JMECE Lab is running focus groups to explore the relationship between the Olympic games and the European Identity.
Olympic Movement strengthens EU ties
source: EuroActive [edited]
The European Commission has decided to hold regular meetings with the Olympic Movement as part of a “structured dialogue” with the sports world.
The first European Sports Forum took place in November 2008 in Biarritz, France, kicking off a renewed EU-level stakeholder dialogue between the sector and the European Commission in view of a future EU competence on sport.
The European commissioner in charge of sport, Ján Figel’, confirmed the EU’s respect for the “autonomous and self-regulatory character of sports organisations” and said future dialogue between the EU and the sports world would take account of the international “pyramid structure” of sport.
Together with other sports governing bodies, such as FIFA, the IOC welcomed the reference to sport in the Lisbon Treaty, saying it represented “an opportunity to strengthen the role of sport in Europe and the structures through which it performs”. However, it also makes explicit reference to the autonomy of sports regulatory bodies, guaranteeing their sovereignty in deciding rules.
IOC President Jacques Rogge said sports organisations need the support of the EU “to tackle challenges like doping, irregular betting, racism and violence and to safeguard the specificity of sports structures and sporting rules”.
Japan airlines recently tested biofuel-powered plane derived mainly from camelina. Virgin airlines tested a fuel derived from a mixture of Brazilian babassu nuts and coconuts.
Airlines prepare for EU carbon trading scheme
source: EuroActive [edited]
A directive incorporating aviation into the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) entered into force today (2 February), obliging member states to put in place appropriate legislation within a year.
All flights landing or taking off from EU airports will have to buy CO2 allowances under the bloc’s cap-and-trade system under the new directive. Trading officially begins in 2012, while member states have a year to transpose the directive into national law.
Furthermore, each carrier operating flights to or from the EU will now have to submit a plan describing how it intends to monitor and report on emissions.
The directive aims to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector to 3% below the 2004-2006 levels in 2012, increasing to 5% for the 2013-2020 period. Airlines will consequently have to purchase 15% of their allowances via auctions. The EU says auctioning revenues should be used to combat climate change at home and in the developing world, but eventually this is left to the discretion of individual member states.
The legislation was endorsed by EU justice ministers in October 2008, despite strong criticism from airlines. They maintain the global downturn merits a reconsideration of carbon trading for the sector, which could compromise the industry’s profitability.
Nevertheless, the Commission insists that including aviation in the scheme is key if the bloc is to attain its climate goals. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas called on the sector to make a “fair” contribution to the effort, as greenhouse gas emissions are increasing faster in international air transport than any other sector in the EU.
According to new figuresexternal from Eurostat, the number of air passengers grew by 7% in 2007 compared to the previous year. New member states including Romania and Poland experienced the largest hikes, while the UK and Germany, which registered the highest overall numbers of passengers, reported much lower growth percentages.
The EU has pledged to increase its emissions reduction target to 30% in 2020 in the event that a new international climate agreement commits other industrialised nations to similar measures. Speaking in December 2008, Dimas said aviation should therefore also play its part, claiming that the sector’s growth is not currently sustainable.
“By including aviation in the EU ETS, the EU is demonstrating leadership in addressing emissions from aviation, but we are also underlining our openness to continue a dialogue towards a global scheme. As is expressly recognised in the legislation, our ultimate goal is to get an effective global agreement to reduce emissions from aviation, and for this reason we are advocating the inclusion of emissions from aviation in the agreement to be reached in Copenhagen,” the commissioner said.
![The first [analysis] is very reliable and I think it shows the relative decline in interest for the European institutions and the present Parliament's failure to get public attention.](http://jmecelabblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/google-trends-european-institutions-feb-20093.jpg?w=300&h=160 "google-trends-european-institutions-feb-20093")
Data shows a relative decline in interest for the European institutions
Which institution gets the most attention on the internet? Using the biggest search engines database, it seems that Commission rules the media attention when we talk about the EU. What is very interesting, that the Eastern and the new member states pay a lot more attention to the EU institutions than the old one.
It is visible, that the European Parliament can rule the Google searches, upon which these frequencies are calculated, only in the midst of the election campaign. The European Council, which makes much more serious decisions than the Parliament, gets equal coverage, possibly because of its relative secrecy and because it does not sit permanently.
The highlighted events on the chart are the following:
A – European Commission calls for visa-free travel to Canada for all EU states
B – European Commission gives aide to Burma
C – President Bush Meets with President Sarkozy of France and President Barroso of the European Commission
D – European Parliament honours Chinese dissident
E – European Commission proposes euro200B economic plan
F – EU faces deep, broad recession: European Commission
Attention in Google Searches
Languages
Each comparison is made to the language where people show the most interest towards the European Parliament. This is the Greek-speaking community of Europeans, and their level of interest is taken as 1. If you see another bar at a value of 2 it means that it creates twice more searches in another language for another institution.
Regions
The list of regions (cities and their suburbs or nearby localities) is also very interesting. Not surprisingly, eurocrats are the most interested in the EU, so Luxembourg and Brussels are miles ahead. The surprising fact that there is a relative high interest for the European institutions in the United Kingdom is partly explained by the fact that it has a town which had been always more open to Europe: Edinburgh.
The first [analysis] is very reliable and I think it shows the relative decline in interest for the European institutions and the present Parliament’s failure to get public attention.
Judith is Principal Teaching Fellow in Broadcast Journalism at the Institute of Communications Studies and ICS Admissions Director
By Judith Stamper, ICS
In 1977 I began work as a young television researcher on a BBC documentary that examined the European Economic Community, just a few short years after Britain’s entry. Following my initial sojourn through several of the capitals of Europe and a week in Brussels, I reported back. The producer then told me he wanted to film a wall of death.Television likes to capture ideas in pictures and this was a fascinating depiction of the EEC and might still serve today as the best visual analogy of how the EU thinks of itself. Motorcyclists on the wall of death cannot stop, cannot cease momentum or they will collapse. Member states are like the motorcyclists; to stop momentum is to collapse.
The populations of Europe may be rather tired of circling round and round at high speed and there is evidence that the motor bikes have stalled. In many ways this is a great pity since the daunting challenges that face the continent cannot be tackled successfully by the individual administrations in twenty seven capitals, acting alone.
Yet nations cannot perform fairly or efficiently without the consent and co-operation of their peoples. In turn, citizens have an obligation to find out about and understand the nature of the state that governs them.
In Britain we have often fallen short in the past twenty or so years, of educating our children about the governance of Britain and about the union of nation states that is the EU. The training of British journalists is too often inadequate in these areas as well, at times it is non-existent. The Broadcast Journalism Training Council, the chief industry training body that accredits British broadcast journalism training programmes, does not require in its guidelines, a working knowledge of the EU and its institutions. There is no suggestion that British journalists must arm voters with sufficient amounts of the necessary information to equip them to make informed decisions to elect members of the European Parliament.
At the Institute of Communications Studies in Leeds, the undergraduate programme in Broadcast Journalism has sought to develop in its students an interest in the EU and an awareness of the ideals on which the union was founded, its history and its structures. Students study post war European history and examine the start of the Cold War and the division of Europe as well as the Monnet/Schuman ideas which culminated in the Treaty of Rome. The EU structures then become easier to understand but then so do the subsequent decisions manifest in the Treaty of Nice with the inclusion of eastern European states emergent from the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Discussions about security, immigration, climate change and money markets are of huge interest to intelligent 18-23 year olds and they keenly debate them.
We are not entirely alone but such study is sadly unusual in an academic programme that also seeks to train journalists in the practical business of producing and reporting news. We are proud that journalists trained at this Institute have been encouraged to think of themselves as EU citizens and as reporters with a duty to see their listeners and viewers as EU citizens too. Education fosters awareness and then understanding, vital in the training of British and pan-European journalists.
Another peculiar thing about journalists in Britain which adds to the difficulty of journalism education is that anybody can be a journalist. There are no restrictions, regulations or required qualifications. Unlike many other countries, Britain has no state or other licensing system for journalists. To paraphrase media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, journalism is the exercise of free expression, by occupation. If you want to be a freelance reporter, you can be. You can join a news organisation that is happy to employ you, but it is not forced to train you.
The lack of understanding about the European Union amongst too many British journalists leaps from the pages of an independent report for the BBC Governors in 2005 into the Corporation’s reporting of European issues, it concludes that “the difference between the adversarial nature of British politics and the consensual nature of European politics is rarely explained or explored” and it quotes some written evidence from the Labour Party suggesting that too often the BBC reports EU affairs as a UK versus Brussels feud when “in reality the decision making process of the EU is overwhelmingly characterised by negotiation rather than confrontation, and very few decisions are taken without the UK’s support.”
To be fair, the broadcasting institutions in the UK are more tolerant and impartial about EU matters than the British press which has a reputation for misrepresentation and exaggeration about anything it sees emerging from Brussels. A number of our newspaper owners left their hearts in the old British Empire; many came from Canada or Australia and owed more allegiance to the Commonwealth than the EU. Beaverbrook and Thompson, Murdoch and Black preferred the colonial to the continental.
Murdoch’s Sun when threatened with the Euro in 1998 rallied the troops in its editorial “The Sun will fight, fight and fight again to oppose Europe taking over this country. We will not back down even in the heat of battle. For we know we are right. We will never give up. We will never relent.”
The Daily Express, still with Beaverbrook’s crusader on the masthead threatened in 2003, when the new Constitution was mooted, “The Queen fears that Tony Blair is preparing to sacrifice the monarchy in his bid to seal Britain’s place in Europe.”
What must concern us is that the Euro-sceptic press has a far greater circulation than papers that support our membership; it must also concern us that we are still having this debate over thirty years after signing the treaty of accession.
A better and broader education about the EU in all schools, colleges and universities is clearly the answer to this strange and quite disturbing situation; how we get there is another matter and demands a huge effort of political will.
After reporting to my producer in 1977, I was dispatched back to Brussels and spent the best part of eighteen months based there, travelling between various member states on the continent, researching and making television reports and features about EU related issues. I came away impressed and to some extent humbled by the adventure and determined to try to increase awareness of economic and political benefit this institution could confer upon the partnership of member states. Of course it was also infuriating at times and I dare say it is the same now. It does not feel very English because everything is quite slow, full of obfuscation and extraordinarily courteous. It is much misunderstood, possibly by everyone.
The BBC Europe editor, Mark Mardell, when he was first posted to Brussels three years ago came up with yet another analogy which is both more amusing and no doubt more accurate than the wall of death. He says the European Union “is a strange beast and one that is still evolving. Sometimes the argument makes me think of two people staring at an octopus in an aquarium. One is saying that the creature before them is clearly a spider because of the number of legs, the other that it’s a fish because it is breathing in the water. The twist is not simply that it is neither, but that, in reality, by force of will it can become either, or something in between.”
That it is evolving is perhaps the smartest thing you can say about the EU, and that by efforts of will we can influence that evolution; but first we must study the beast.
Recent Comments