You are currently browsing Other Authors's articles.
George studied Economic and Social Administration specialised in international trade and affairs at the University of North Paris.
By : George Tassiopoulos
On June 7th the citizens of the 27 member countries of the European Union will elect their representatives in the European Parliament. Many years have passed since 1979, when, for the first time MEPs were elected by the citizens of the member states.
As always, the same question is in the air: Will Europeans go to vote? In France the rate of participation declines every time: 60.7% in 1979, 56.7% in 1984, 48.7% on 1989, (52.7% in 1994, the only exception), 46.8% in 1999 and 42.76% in 2004. In all EU members: 63% in 1979, 61% in 1984, 58.5% in 1989, 56.8% in 1994, 49.8% in 1999 and 45.7% on 2004.
What does that mean? Do Europeans care about Europe? Their laws come from Europe and for a vast majority even their currency and interest rates policy, the fishing and in general the environmental policies. Europeans work together not only in order to produce steel and coal but in order to protect navigation along the Somali coasts and in order to send satellites into space, which means that, after all, Europe is everywhere.
The low turnout in the elections does not necessarily indicate disapproval of the European Union. On the contrary, it could be seen as a demand for more… Europe. Especially at a time when our continent has to cope with a financial crisis, combined with the explosion of oil prices and the collapse of the real estate market.
In the new global game of power, Europeans can stand next to Americans, Indians and Chinese only if they are united.
A new generation of Europeans who were born after the end of the Cold War is emerging form Bratislava to Dublin. Young people, who speak several foreign languages, discover other cultures through the Internet and the Erasmus schemes and who travel to other European countries extensively. Therefore, new generations are more Europe-friendly than their ancestors. Europe’ target is not to become a super state erasing national identities, as Robert Schuman once said « les Etats nations sont une réalité historique » (nation states are a historic reality). What is a common European identity then? It is the feeling of becoming stronger and stronger especially among young citizens.
Petition for the Prime Minister to inform all citizens and residents to vote in the European Elections on 4 June 09.
Source: Nath Henry
It is the Government’s duty to communicate the importance of these fast-approaching, and largely invisible, elections to all voters. The European Parliament is responsible with the Council of Ministers for passing legislation that affects us all. The Government is represented in the Council of Ministers. It is its job to inform us what it does and how important the European elections are for making the EU accountable to its citizens.
Thank you for adding your name online if you would like to support the petition.
Nath Henry
SIGN IT HERE: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Date4Europe/
Editorial - Media and Communication in Europe: Babel Revisited (pp.269-272)Agnes Inge Schneeberger & Katharine Sarikakis
The special issue entitled “Media and Communication in Europe: Babel Revisited” is the outcome of a successful collaboration between the UACES Student Forum sponsored Specialist Study Group on Media and Communication in Europe (see http://ssg.x10hosting.com/ for more details) and the JCER | Journal of Contemporary European Research (http://www.jcer.net/ojs/index.php/jcer).
The origins for this special issue are to be found at the UACES Student Forum Conference in April 2007 at Nottingham University. The idea was put into practice with a first editorial meeting at the Institute of Communications Studies at the University of Leeds in December 2007. A preparatory thematic workshop at the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the University of Bristol followed in April 2008.
The Special Issue was guest edited by JMECE Lab member Mrs. Agnes I. Schneeberger and Dr Katharine Sarikakis, both of the Institute of Communication Studies at the University of Leeds. Contributors include early career researchers and postgraduate members of the Specialist Study Group. A special guest article was written by Dr Michael Bruter of the London School of Economics.
You are invited to review the Table of Contents below and then visit the web site to review articles and items of interest. Please note that FREE registration is required to allow access to the articles.
JCER | Journal of Contemporary European Research Vol 4, No 4 (2008): Special Issue – Media and Communication in Europe: Babel Revisited
Table of Contents http://www.jcer.net/ojs/index.php/jcer/issue/view/11
Editorial
Media and Communication in Europe: Babel Revisited (pp.269-272) Agnes Inge Schneeberger & Katharine Sarikakis
Guest Article
Legitimacy, Euroscepticism & Identity in the European Union ? Problems of Measurement, Modelling & Paradoxical Patterns of Influence (pp.273-285) Michael Bruter
Research Articles
“We have made Europe, now we have to make Europeans.” Researching European identity among Flemish Youths (pp.286-302) Petra Huyst
Minority Language Protection in Italy: Linguistic Minorities and the Media (p.303-321) Aline Sierp
Communities, Boundaries and New Neighbours: the Discursive Construction of EU Enlargement (pp.322-345) Giuditta Caliendo & Antonella Napolitano
Democracy and new media in the European Union: Communication or participation deficit? (pp.346-368) Asimina Michailidou
Book Reviews
Georgios Terzis (ed.) (2007). European Media Governance: National and Regional Dimensions. AND Georgios Terzis (ed.) (2008). European Media Governance: The Brussels Dimension. Bristol: Intellect Books. (pp.369.370) Patrick Bijsmans
Jackie Harrison and Lorna Woods (2007). European Broadcasting Law and Policy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp.371-372) Oisín Tobin
Nico Carpentier et al. (2007). Media Technologies and Democracy in an Enlarged Europe: The Intellectual Work of the 2007 European Media and Communication Doctoral Summer School. Tartu: Tartu University Press. (pp.373-375) Asimina Michailidou
“EU communication policy: biased propaganda?”
The European Union should be cooler about its communication efforts. Why don’t let us journalists take care of the communication?” argued a German journalist at the debate “EU communication policy: biased propaganda?” which was held in Brussels on the 27th January by Open Europe and Libertas. One can say, that during this debate two sides clashed together. At one side of the verbal battlefield, the British MEP Chris Heaton-Harris and the German “Stern” journalist Hans-Martin Tillack argued that the EU uses propaganda to convince hearts and minds, while on the other side Joe Hennon from Margot Wallström’s Team and Hendrik Kröner, the Secretary General of the European Movement, tried to save the EU communication policy’s dignity.
It was a very interesting and hot debate and, even without having a result or a common statement, I got the impression that the issue of European Communication is one which goes straight to people’s emotions and feelings of rightfulness. As a communication student and now stagiaire at a Communication and information Unit of the Commission I took the side of Hennon and Kröner who did a good job in explaining and defending the EU’s communications policy. Hennon argued that the Commission tries to open up for discussion and even critics, because that is how change and improvement are possible and how the EU gets closer to its citizens. He also explained that he links the word propaganda with the Nazi Regime and therefore with control and authority, both aspects which do not apply for the Commission.
However, these arguments were smashed away by Heaton-Harris and Tillack, who both agreed that the EU uses propaganda to foster integration, especially aimed at young people. This view got strong support from another British MEP from the audience who clearly stated that in his opinion, the EU uses propaganda, and further, the EU cannot be called a democratic and transparent institution. Harsh words, which even got applause from the other participants. His opinion stands in firm contrast to the German journalist who wants the EU to minimize its communication efforts and leave it to the media itself.
In my opinion, to foster the EU’s approach of being transparent and democratic, the EU needs to strengthen its communications efforts, and “get cooler about it”! It is necessary Europe’s citizens to be informed by their national media about the European Union and for that reason they should have various tools, such as “Europe Direct”. It is good that there is a communication policy and that passionate communicators such as Margot Wallström try their best to improve and provide information about the EU to its citizens.
What is the book about?
„In the book, Open Europe argues that EU information policy is geared not towards providing neutral, balanced information, but towards trying to convince people to support EU integration. It reveals how the European Union is spending billions of Euros a year promoting itself and its central aim of “ever closer union”.
In 2008 alone, it spent more than 2,4 billion Euros. That is more than Coca Cola spends on advertising each year, worldwide. The EU pours hundreds of millions of Euros a year into think tanks and lobby groups which promote its policies and campaign for further EU integration, and many of its efforts are directed very deliberately at young people.”
“South East Mediterranean: the region is one of the important routes of illegal migration to the European Union”
Greece is one of the EU countries which supported the project launched by Nicolas Sarkozy for the Union for the Mediterranean (Union pour la Méditerranée). A country with almost 6,000 big and small islands is not only attached to its antiquity, but also to the Mediterranean sea, which has been the cradle of the ancient Greek civilisation, known for advances in philosophy, architecture, drama, government, and science. A reason why Greece supported Sarkozy’s project – in contrast to other member states – is its geography.
Greece is located in the Balkans, a region marked by the recent wars in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and FYROM, just after the fall of the Berlin wall. At the same time, in the East the Greek-Turkish relations are always in the shadow of the Cypriot question.
Linguistically and culturally isolated, with its non-Latin alphabet, Greece made a clear choice with regards to its foreign policy: “We belong to the West” as the former President of the Republic, Constantinos Karamanlis said a few years ago. As a member of NATO, the Council of Europe, and especially of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic intended to create a protective shield within a difficult region, where ethnic cleansings, political instability, abhorrence and absence of democratic values were the norm, not the exception. Thus the creation of the Union for the Mediterranean was also seen by the Greek politicians as one more protective shield.
Potential benefits
Since the “Union for the Mediterranean” is placed within the framework of the EU, the project could have a positive effect on issues such as illegal migration with the reinforcement of the “Poseidon operation” at the Greek – Bulgarian – Turkish borders (the region is one of the important routes of illegal migration to the European Union), as the European agency FRONTEX does, which provides particular added value to the national border management systems of the Member States.
The average per capita income in the south-east Europe is five times lower than in the north, thus the creation of the Union could boost economic growth, tourism, trade and could reinforce investments in the region..
Greece joined the Union for one more reason: it was a French initiative after all. Between the two countries there long lasting excellent bilateral relations, originated by the role of France during the Greek dictatorship, when a great number of political figures lived in Paris and with the accession of Greece in the European Union in 1981. The visit of Nicolas Sarkozy in Athens, (June 6, 2008), the first visit of a French president since 1982, has undoubtedly helped to gain the Greek support to his project.
by: Geoff Martin
“The term “Communicating Europe” is open to much misunderstanding in many countries, especially here in the U.K.”
The term “Communicating Europe” is open to much misunderstanding in many countries, especially here in the U.K.
What does it mean? The answer is probably that it means different things to different people. To some it means regurgitating European Union propaganda. To others, providing neutral information about the European Union and its policies and explaining the meaning and purpose of European level decisions.
The European Commission is the principal actor mainly through its Directorates General and by the activities of its Representative offices and the recipients of its funds and programmes.
The leading figure is usually the Commissioner responsible for Communication.
The other European Institutions are also involved but at a less ambitious level of engagement than the Commission; the Commissioners speak for Europe more authoritatively than the MEP’s or the Ministers who attend the Councils.
Unfortunately, national governments are almost never engaged in communicating with their publics about Europe except when matters of political significance arise as national challenges, such as the ratification of European Treaties. And even then, many are ill equipped to do so, regarding Europe as someone else’s business.
Perhaps rather surprisingly, regional and local authorities are more engaged with communicating Europe particularly when programmes funded by the European Union require appropriate public exposure as in the regional funds, special projects etc.
Those usually NOT involved in communicating Europe, when perhaps they should be, include national government departments, national parliaments, regional assemblies and regional development agencies. They tend to rely on the national regional and local media to provide a service or rely on the Commission rather than themselves.
However in contrast to the paucity of active providers of information there is a burgeoning mass of interests who are actively involved in communicating misleading and anti European Union material for a variety of reasons; profit, prejudice and even apprehension. Among them are the tabloid press, national newspapers whose ownership benefits from feeding on anti European prejudice, radio and television which is not required to provide a public service and much of which IS supposed to provide such a service and many antagonistic or manipulative politicians in most political parties nationally, regionally and locally.
Geoff Martin with ICS postgraduate students studying “Communicating Europe"
Badly informed business and union leaders who exercise influence in major national organisations are also a source of misleading commentary.
What constitutes misleading information?
It is not information or argument used in an effort to defeat a proposal being discussed by governments before their Ministers exercise their government’s vote in favour or against. Nor is it information or argument used in a given country, provided it is factual, in order to defeat a major European decision such as the ratification of a Treaty, or in a referendum.
Misleading information is information used as fact, which is not reflective of decisions taken by the Council of Ministers in its various forms.
In these times of general disregard in the U.K. of the central importance of the E.U. in the country’s future prospects, what are the major changes necessary in order to help the general public as well as specialised groupings know about Europe if they wish to do so?
An important underlying principle is acceptance of the public’s right to know. And an equally important principle should be an acceptance by all involved bodies that individuals have a right NOT to want to know about Europe.
It seems no longer the case that the Commission is best placed to engage the general public interest at any level except the intra European level. This requires some rethinking by governments. But at the intra European level, the Commission is paramount and should maximise that unique advantage. Only the Commission and to some extent the Parliament, are best placed to provide a useful flow of facts and other descriptive material about how Europe is developing in the various member states.
The question arises, are there other effective means to Communicate Europe within member states than the present arrangements which do not seem to work effectively?
A withdrawal by the Commission from the front line of providing European information would give national and regional organisations in both the private and public sectors, the opportunity to inform their members in their own way but also relying in doing so on the Commission now occupying a supportive rather than a leading role – a far cry from the situation today where it is always under attack as propagandist.
The main responsibility would then fall on all Member States to carry information on the European content in all programmes and policies.
Each government department would be involved. This would mean that those policies and programmes lying outside the ambit of EU responsibility would become more easily identified, thus making the important distinction between which areas are governed by EU level policy and which remain national.
This could have the advantage of removing misinformation about the interfering E.U. “at a stroke.”
The organisations wanting to campaign in favour of more Europe would be as able to do so as much as those wishing to withdraw. And everyone wishing to know the facts would be able to rely on national sources.
How can this Utopia come about?
The Commission should discontinue spending any of its resources on proselytising “A peoples Europe” and replace this counter productive effort with a flow of factual material electronically, to all public bodies and private bodies who wish to receive it, in every Member State on an intra European basis.
Information to the public about European policy would then become primarily but not exclusively, a government responsibility. Information about the E.U. would be the responsibility of government departments.
This switch of responsibility would also have the affect of alerting Ministers to an almost forgotten duty on their shoulders; to support the evolution of the European Union as such, whilst defending their national interest in specific policy negotiations at the same time.
The tabloids, the sceptic proprietors and the destructive anti European nationalists would become shadow boxers as a result.
Back in August 2007, Dutch photographer and journalist Bruno van den Elshout started working on a proje
- Day One: Cork, Ireland
ct that would make many a European marvel. Within 366 days, he visited all 27 EU member states in one zig-zag journey across the continent.
Baptised “Us Europeans“, the now-finished travel project contains testimonials of over 2,500 young Europeans, interviewed by the photographer throughout the course of the project. While staying in over 180 different European cities, Bruno kept up a rhythm of interviewing between five and ten people every day.
Subjects differed daily, and ranged from the Dutch Carnival to the Bulgarian alphabet celebrations, from Portuguese tomato jam to Greek coffee, from immigrants in Spain to religious matters in Poland.
- Stockholm’s archipelago: Finhamn, Sweden
Forced into flexible mode, Bruno had to be prepared for roughly 27 culture shocks. “I met lots of small surprises on the way, saw many stereotypes confirmed but also had to adjust many of them,” Bruno says. “I knew the Irish enjoy spending time in pubs, but I never knew that even funerals are likely to include a pub visit at some point. In much the same way, it’s interesting to see how something that seems trivial in The Netherlands – going to a sauna – can be such an integral part of daily life for a Finn.
Also, in some countries, hardly anything gets done without kisses or handshakes, while elsewhere, people avoid physical contact whenever they can. It’s good to know about such differences in advance. It saves a lot of misunderstanding and even mistrust. Being conscious of cultural differences is the best first step in overcoming them. I hope that Us Europeans can serve as some people’s first step in gaining interest in the wonderful world of intercultural communication.”
- Salt: Torrevieja, Spain
Throughout his journey, Bruno stayed with friends, with CouchSurfing hosts and in youth hostels. He used public transport making his way from one side of each country to the other.
The budget for the trip amounted to 30 euros a day. Bruno did not get any subsidies or external funding for the
project, and withdrew the budget from his own savings account. “I also needed to give up my job”, Bruno explains, “which made the project a bit risky. I did count on previous work experience to feel confident about finding proper employment upon my return. And in the end, I did have a “safe landing”.
Since my return, I have been working as a free-lance photographer, journalist and consultant. Besides all that, I am working on a photo exhibition my journey. It’s named “Crossroad Europe”, and it will take off in The Hague, The Netherlands on 8 and 9 May.”
Today, it is hard to appreciate just how sensitive these first elections to a supranational European body were.
The European Parliament has come a long way since the first direct elections in 1979 when even changing its name from “European Assembly” to “European Parliament” provoked paroxysmal perplexity among national politicians anxious about the implications of the very word “parliament” for national sovereignty and their pre-eminence through the Council of Ministers.
The softly-softly approach to the elections was also clear in the campaigns fought in each member state under different electoral and campaign rules, different criteria on voter and candidate eligibility, and fought then – as now -on different days with very different campaign materials.
Today, it is hard to appreciate just how sensitive these first elections to a supranational European body were.
In 2009 concern remains over voter apathy, mobilising turnout and informing the electorate about the European Parliament’s achievements, purpose and goals. In 1979, these concerns were magnified by an important difference to today’s Parliament.
Then, the “European assembly” only had consultative and supervisory powers. Apart from limited powers over the budget (a crucial power of the purse), its right to be consulted over draft legislation did not mean that MEPs could expect any of their objections or proposed revisions to be heeded by the Council of Ministers.
Indeed, their official ‘Opinions’ were often ignored. It was only by dint of careful exploitation of its own Rules of Procedure and by launching deliberations on the purpose of European integration, and the proper shape of the then European Communities’ inter-institutional relations and structures (sometimes dubbed the institutional architecture of Europe / later European governance) that MEPs initiated a process of constitutional reflection and self-assessment that was to change inter-institutional relations and power relationships profoundly.
Guided by firm belief in the liberal democratic principles of representative democracy and the need to hold the executive (the Commission and – most controversially of all – the Council of Ministers) accountable to the parliament elected by the people, MEPs drew member governments and national leaders into a debate about the nature of democracy. The result was a European Parliament that was to exercise genuine legislative power under what is now known as the “co-decision” procedure. Co-decision ended the practice of the Council of Ministers having the final say over the content of legislation, without accommodating or heeding MEPs’ views.
Pressure for the Council (that had always acted in secret) to hold its meetings in public, when acting in legislative mode, had more than a symbolic function as MEPs insisted on greater transparency and accountability.
“Guided by firm belief in the liberal democratic principles of representative democracy and the need to hold the executive (the Commission and – most controversially of all - the Council of Ministers) accountable to the parliament elected by the people, MEPs drew member governments and national leaders into a debate about the nature of democracy.”
That took almost a quarter of a century. In the interim, there had been changes to the EU’s treaties often precipitated by initiatives for constitutional and institutional reform from within the European Parliament. Many of the changes in the Single European Act, the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties echo (belatedly) some of the key democratic principles outlined over the years by the European Parliament.
The Single European Act came into force in 1987 and was followed within five years by the Treaty of Maastricht. These treaties included the first tentative increases to the powers of the Parliament, giving it by the early 1990s “co-decision” power with the Council over European legislation – though limited to just ten treaty articles and with the dice loaded towards the Council in the small print of the procedure. The European Parliament also obtained a right to be “consulted” on the choice of the President of the Commission – who nevertheless still had to be unanimously agreed by national governments; and a right of assent to accession treaties (none were envisaged at that time) and Association agreements.
Parliament was able to employ its twin strategy to develop its authority and powers into what we see today. In the 1990s and 2000s, its Institutional Affairs Committee and its Committee on Rules of Procedure (merged to create the Constitutional Committee in 1999) carefully exploited the new treaty provisions and prepared treaty revisions in a remarkably innovative way.
On the legislative front, by carefully constructing its rules of procedure, Parliament effectively nullified the treaty “small print” that loaded the dice in Council’s favour. For instance, the Maastricht treaty had provided that, if Parliament and Council did not agree on draftlegislation, then the Council could adopt it anyway : it would stand unless Parliament subsequently rejected it outright within three months by an absolute majority. In its Rules of Procedure, Parliament laid down that it would always, automatically, vote on a rejection motion if Council tried that course of action. Council subsequently tried it, Parliament duly rejected, and the Council never tried such unilateral action again.
Parliament had successfully made it clear that, under co-decision, laws could only be adopted with the agreement of both branches of the legislature. The offending small print, along with other irritations, was removed from the Treaty in the next revision, of which more below.
On the appointment front, Parliament provided in its rules that the consultation on candidates to be President of the Commission should involve a public vote on a named candidate proposed by national governments, after he or she has presented himself to Parliament. Such a procedure was intended to make it unthinkable for a candidate rejected by Parliament to be appointed, an interpretation soon confirmed by aspiring candidates themselves. This led to acceptance in the next treaty revision that Parliament’s vote was legally binding.
Similarly, Parliament “stretched the elastic” on the treaty requirement for a vote confirming the Commission as a whole. It laid down in its Rules that such a vote would be held only after the proposed Commissioners had each appeared in public confirmation hearings before the parliamentary committees corresponding to their prospective fields of responsibility. Despite initial reluctance, the proposed Commissioners agreed to participate in the exercise, not least because Parliament would otherwise have simply postponed its vote of confidence until they did. The hearings procedure also required the Commission President to allocate portfolios before the Commission took office. This meant that member governments had to complete their selection of nominees for Commission portfolios far more swiftly than in the past.
As to the right to approve association agreements with third countries, Parliament quickly won a legal battle to establish that this applied not just to the initial agreements, but to any subsequent revision. This considerably increased the significance of this procedure.
Space limits preclude us describing many more examples of the astute way in which Parliament exploited its powers to pave the way for MEPs to exercise legislative power and their authority vis-à-vis the EU executive in an accountable manner. Crucially, Parliament has stressed democratic legitimacy and public accountability and secured an extended right to participate in the treaty revision procedure itself, namely the intergovernmental conferences (IGCs) at which reforms and new treaties are negotiated. This was a coup.
“Parliament had successfully made it clear that, under co-decision, laws could only be adopted with the agreement of both branches (Council of Ministers and EP)”.
Only after Maastricht did Parliament secure such a right. The negotiations leading up to the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty saw it appoint two MEPs to the preparatory “Reflection Group” and to some meetings of the IGC. For the negotiation of the Nice Treaty and (Lisbon’s forerunner) the Constitutional Treaty, its two representatives were allowed to participate in all meetings of the IGC. For the Lisbon Treaty negotiations, three MEPs were allowed. Their presence was crucial in securing treaty changes that enhanced Parliament’s position.
The Amsterdam Treaty changed the co-decision procedure to one where Parliament and Council have equal powers; greatly expanded its scope to cover the majority of non-agricultural legislation; made the vote on the Commission President a legally binding one; and extended the range of international agreements requiring Parliament’s assent. Maastricht may have planted the seeds for the Amsterdam augmentation of Parliament’s powers. Within a few years they were further extended by the Nice Treaty and again potentially by the Lisbon Treaty. So which MEPs have brought the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a legislature with genuine power?
The legacy of federalist Altiero Spinelli is, but should not, be under-estimated. When in 1984 the European Parliament boldly adopted a draft Treaty establishing the European Union, it was far in advance of what national politicians were prepared to endorse. But it set the scene for the future.
History books highlight national leaders who ultimately brokered and ratified the treaties. Occasionally there is a mention of “heroic” Parliament figures like Spinelli or of Commission President Delors. But there has been little mention of those who worked out Parliament’s strategy and dedicated themselves to the detailed work necessary to turn aspiration into reality. Over the years, some EP Presidents and many MEPs played a role in this process, mostly members of the Constitutional affairs committee. They include MEPs from many states and different political persuasion. In the 1980s and 1990s, besides Spinelli, names like Herman, Dankert, David Martin, Bourlanges, Haensch, Cot, and Napolitano spring to mind.
None of this could have happened without the consistent, informed thinking, political nous and persuasiveness of those who worked behind the scenes to make a reality of the European Parliament’s quest to make democracy accountable to the people and sustainable as a model of peaceful conflict resolution through constructive dialogue and adherence to principles of fairness, justice, openness, transparency and democratic accountability.
Who are these people? Here we begin with five who follow in the footsteps of the founding fathers of European integration in making modern contributions to ensuring that successive generations follow Jean Monnet and leave a strong legacy and democratic footprint to their children for them to interpret in the light of contemporary needs and experience.
If public awareness of Euro elections and the purpose of the European Parliament is hazy, in 2009 voters will not be called on to vote for an assembly devoid of genuine legislative and budgetary powers. Behind this achievement are many politicians – from President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl (architect of German reunification) to those now being talked about as future EU Presidents. However, without the initiatives of the European Parliament, democratic reform may not have got off the starting blocks.
Who are these people? Here we begin with five who follow in the footsteps of the founding fathers of European integration in making modern contributions to ensuring that successive generations follow Jean Monnet and leave a strong legacy and democratic footprint to their children for them to interpret in the light of contemporary needs and experience.
The first three are the co-ordinators of the three largest political groups (and have led their Groups on these matters for a decade). They have thus negotiated on behalf of their Groups virtually all of the positions adopted by the Parliament on these issues over the last decade. They have at the same time taken on several other key roles, notably key rapporteurships. It is striking that two of the three are British – Andrew Duff and Richard Corbett. Two are German.. Jo Leinen is the Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Elmar Brok has been chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but also active in the Constitutional Committee. He represented the EP at successive IGCs.
The Movers and the Shakers : A look at their various contributory roles sums up why these five have been so influential
.
Inigo Mendez de Vigo (EPP/Spain)
Inigo Mendez de Vigo (EPP/Spain):
- Spokesman (Co-ordinator) for Christian Democrats (EPP) on constitutional affairs
- Co-rapporteur (with Corbett) on Constitutional Treaty
- Co-rapporteur (with Corbett) on Lisbon Treaty
- Leader of EP delegation to Convention
- Co-rapporteur (with Tsatsos) on Amsterdam Treaty
- EP representative on Nice IGC
- Co-rapporteur (with Seguro) on Nice Treaty
.
.
Richard Corbett (PES/UK)
Richard Corbett (PES/UK)
- Spokesman (Co-ordinator)Socialist Group on constitutional affairs
- Co-rapporteur (with Mendez de Vigo) on Constitutional Treaty
- Co-rapporteur (with Mendez de Vigo) on Lisbon Treaty
- Rapporteur on revision of EP procedure on rules to take advantage of Amsterdam Treaty
- Rapporteur on revision of EP procedure on rules to take advantage of Nice Treaty
- Rapporteur on revision of EP procedure on rules to take advantage of Lisbon Treaty and to adapt EP procedures to internal reform report (Dagmar Roth-Behrendt working group)
- Negotiator for EP (with Joseph Daul) with Council and Commission of the new “comitology” system giving EP the power to block Commission implementing measures
- Negotiator for EP (with Salafranca) on the Commission of new system of informing EP of implementing measures
- Before becoming an MEP, he wrote his doctoral thesis on role of EP in treaty reform, worked with Spinelli on the 1984 draft treaty, assisted David Martin as rapporteur on Parliament’s proposals to Maastricht IGC (including making the first draft of the co-decision procedure) was advisor to Elizabeth Guigou at the Amsterdam IGC and its preparatory Reflection Group, and had links with future Labour ministers at the IGC prior to the change of British government. He has written standard texts on EU treaty reforms and especially on the European Parliament.
.
.
Andrew Duff (ALDE/UK)
Andrew Duff (ALDE/UK)
- Spokesman (Co-ordinator) for Liberals on constitutional affairs
- Vice-President of EP delegation to Convention
- Chaired Liberal caucus on Convention
- Co-rapporteur (with Voggenhuber) on Charter of Rights
- EP representative at Lisbon IGC
- Author of works on constitutional reform, and regular contributor on this to the Financial Times
.
.
Elmar Brok (EPP/Germany)
Elmar Brok (EPP/Germany)
- EP representative at Amsterdam IGC
- EP representative at Nice IGC
- EP representative at Lisbon IGC
- Co-rapporteur (with Baron) on EP proposals to Lisbon IGC
- Rapporteur on future EU External Action Service
- Chair of EP Foreign Affairs Committee 1999 – 2007
- Chaired Christian Democrat caucus on the Convention
.
.
Joe Leinen (PES/Germany)
Joe Leinen (PES/Germany)
- Chair of AFCO
- Rapporteur on revised Charter of Fundamental Rights
- Co-rapporter (with Dimitrakopoulos) on Parliament’s proposals to 2004 IGC
- Rapporteur on European political parties
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>
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.
Recent Comments