I just realized that my previous post was MountEUlympus post no. 100. After two and a half years of writing about the EU, this blog is still here, and it is here to stay for a while. Just a few musings about EU blogging before I turn back to proper content in my next post.
It is a rewarding experience to blog about European affairs. The last 30 months in blogging have seen me challenged by Prof. Andrew Moravcsik, reprinted in the newspaper New Europe (New Europe pdf unavailable), responded to by development economist Ha Joon Chang, participate in the Th!nk about it 2 blogging competition on climate change, publish a bachelor thesis on the European blogosphere, become a co-editor of Bloggingportal.eu, discover the workings of the Council of Ministers, cover the EPP Summit and many other experiences. Most of all, however, blogging has put me into an international community in which new ideas are put forward and debated every day and thereby significantly increased my knowledge of European affairs.
As I said, it is a rewarding experience to be a blogger and I can only encourage every citizen reading this post to think about starting his or her own blog. Given that European politics are rarely debated in national public spheres, European debates frequently develop in the blogosphere from where they are sometimes upscaled to national media. Even though the European blogosphere might sometimes appear a little like the electronic version of the Brussel bubble, participation is open to everybody and new entrants are welcomed and listened to. Maybe you will be next?
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Monday, July 18, 2011
MEPs should have the democratic right to decide where they meet
For those who haven't had a chance to read it over at PlaceLux.EU, here is the open letter that MEPs have sent to the new French secretary of State, Jean Leonetti (taken from MEP Raül Romeva i Rueda's blog).
CM. Jean Leonetti
Secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes
Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
France
Secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes
Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
France
Brussels, 14 July 2011
Dear Secretary of State,
MEPs should have the democratic right to decide where they meet
Please accept our congratulations on your appointment as France's new Minister for Europe. We wish you success.
There is now an Absolute Majority in the European Parliament in favour of a Single Seat. Following the vote on June 8 on the Multiannual Financial Framework, enough MEPs have now adjusted their record to achieve an absolute majority (373-285) on the paragraph pointing to "the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a Single Seat". This Absolute Majority -as well as the 2012/2013 calendar vote in March- fundamentally shifts the debate.
As you know, the EU Treaty requires the European Parliament to hold 12 monthly plenary sessions in Strasbourg. As a result, we meet in Strasbourg 48 days every year. From next year, this will be 45 days, following our vote to hold the two October plenary sessions during the same week to save money, time and the environment. This democratic decision of the Parliament is being contested by France before the European Court of Justice in closed proceedings.
All of the Parliament's other activities take place in Brussels (with the exception of a part of the administration, which is based in Luxembourg). Brussels is where committee and political group meetings are held. It is where most of our staff are based. It is where the other two institutions that form the EU decision-making triangle (the Council and the Commission) are located. Over the last 50 years, Brussels has evolved into the EU's democratic capital. It is where companies, NGOs, national, regional and local governments, industry associations and trade unions all have their offices. It is where the EU press corps has its hub, including technical facilities.
When the European Parliament started meeting in Strasbourg over 50 years ago, it was a consultative assembly with part-time Members who were not directly elected, it was purely advisory and had no powers. Today, it is on a par with the Council of Ministers when it comes to making laws and its Members are full-time legislators, directly elected by the peoples of Europe. Yet unlike national parliaments, it cannot decide when and where it wishes to meet.
Recent votes in the European Parliament as well as several surveys have shown that a majority of MEPs believe the European Parliament should have a Single Seat, in Brussels. The Dutch and UK governments have publicly backed this view. More than 1,25 million European citizens have signed an online petition to this effect.
Over time a number of parliaments have moved to reflect political reality: the US Congress moved from Philadelphia to Washington; the French Parliament moved from Versailles to Paris; and more recently, the German Parliament moved from Bonn to Berlin. We believe that in a modern Europe, the European Parliament must be able to do the same. We call on the French government to stop the political and legal posturing on this issue, and to enter into a real debate.
All we ask is that MEPs should be able to exercise their democratic rights and decide when and where to meet. In return, we are ready to help identify alternatives for the city of Strasbourg, both in institutional and in economic terms.
For Strasbourg, a better and brighter future lies ahead. The European Parliament has now far outgrown it. It would be better to find an alternative that matches its facilities and can be a more grateful guest.
Yours sincerely,
(MEPs)
MEPs should have the democratic right to decide where they meet
Please accept our congratulations on your appointment as France's new Minister for Europe. We wish you success.
There is now an Absolute Majority in the European Parliament in favour of a Single Seat. Following the vote on June 8 on the Multiannual Financial Framework, enough MEPs have now adjusted their record to achieve an absolute majority (373-285) on the paragraph pointing to "the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a Single Seat". This Absolute Majority -as well as the 2012/2013 calendar vote in March- fundamentally shifts the debate.
As you know, the EU Treaty requires the European Parliament to hold 12 monthly plenary sessions in Strasbourg. As a result, we meet in Strasbourg 48 days every year. From next year, this will be 45 days, following our vote to hold the two October plenary sessions during the same week to save money, time and the environment. This democratic decision of the Parliament is being contested by France before the European Court of Justice in closed proceedings.
All of the Parliament's other activities take place in Brussels (with the exception of a part of the administration, which is based in Luxembourg). Brussels is where committee and political group meetings are held. It is where most of our staff are based. It is where the other two institutions that form the EU decision-making triangle (the Council and the Commission) are located. Over the last 50 years, Brussels has evolved into the EU's democratic capital. It is where companies, NGOs, national, regional and local governments, industry associations and trade unions all have their offices. It is where the EU press corps has its hub, including technical facilities.
When the European Parliament started meeting in Strasbourg over 50 years ago, it was a consultative assembly with part-time Members who were not directly elected, it was purely advisory and had no powers. Today, it is on a par with the Council of Ministers when it comes to making laws and its Members are full-time legislators, directly elected by the peoples of Europe. Yet unlike national parliaments, it cannot decide when and where it wishes to meet.
Recent votes in the European Parliament as well as several surveys have shown that a majority of MEPs believe the European Parliament should have a Single Seat, in Brussels. The Dutch and UK governments have publicly backed this view. More than 1,25 million European citizens have signed an online petition to this effect.
Over time a number of parliaments have moved to reflect political reality: the US Congress moved from Philadelphia to Washington; the French Parliament moved from Versailles to Paris; and more recently, the German Parliament moved from Bonn to Berlin. We believe that in a modern Europe, the European Parliament must be able to do the same. We call on the French government to stop the political and legal posturing on this issue, and to enter into a real debate.
All we ask is that MEPs should be able to exercise their democratic rights and decide when and where to meet. In return, we are ready to help identify alternatives for the city of Strasbourg, both in institutional and in economic terms.
For Strasbourg, a better and brighter future lies ahead. The European Parliament has now far outgrown it. It would be better to find an alternative that matches its facilities and can be a more grateful guest.
Yours sincerely,
(MEPs)
Friday, July 8, 2011
Respect. Responsibility. Representation.
 |
| CC BY-NC heraldpost |
 |
| CC BY badkleinkirchheim |
 |
| CC BY ME-Arbeitgeber |
 |
| CC BY-NC-SA dolarz |
 |
| CC BY-NC hockeyshooter |
 |
| CC BY-NC-ND European Parliament |
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Hungarian Presidency's legacy: Bloggers allowed in the Council
Today is the final day of the Hungarian EU Presidency. From tomorrow, Poland will set the agenda and organize Council meetings for the remainder of 2011.
It is not my place to judge the overall performance of the Hungarian Presidency, but in one aspect it deserves a lot of praise. It was the first Presidency to allow bloggers into the Council meetings. Several times, bloggers Ronny Patz, Europasionaria and Litterbasket (Joe Litobarski) have reported directly from the Council, and in a handful of meetings with Brussels-based bloggers, the Presidency has made the inner workings of the Council more transparent (see a comprehensive blogtour by Mathew Lowry here).
Although it would seem a basic principle of democracy to let citizens attend a Council and ask questions to their politicians, earlier attempts at transparency achieved one thing most of all: it allowed lobbyists to monopolize the floor. With social media taking a more important place in the European policy debate, the Council is trying to give a greater space to European bloggers. In future, the Council's deliberations go, citizen bloggers should be allowed to request access to Council meetings, but it has to be safeguarded that they don't wear a lobbyist's hat. Much is still under negotiation, but after the Hungarian Presidency paved the way, hopes are high that bloggers could more regularly report from the Council.
We hope the Polish Presidency will be prepared to continue the work started by its predecessor. And we are highly thankful for the efforts of Gergely Polner and Hajdú Márton who devoted time and energy to European social media during the HU Presidency.
Update (19/07/2011): See coloredopinions for an interesting discussion on Blogging as a Wheat and Chessboard Problem
It is not my place to judge the overall performance of the Hungarian Presidency, but in one aspect it deserves a lot of praise. It was the first Presidency to allow bloggers into the Council meetings. Several times, bloggers Ronny Patz, Europasionaria and Litterbasket (Joe Litobarski) have reported directly from the Council, and in a handful of meetings with Brussels-based bloggers, the Presidency has made the inner workings of the Council more transparent (see a comprehensive blogtour by Mathew Lowry here).
Although it would seem a basic principle of democracy to let citizens attend a Council and ask questions to their politicians, earlier attempts at transparency achieved one thing most of all: it allowed lobbyists to monopolize the floor. With social media taking a more important place in the European policy debate, the Council is trying to give a greater space to European bloggers. In future, the Council's deliberations go, citizen bloggers should be allowed to request access to Council meetings, but it has to be safeguarded that they don't wear a lobbyist's hat. Much is still under negotiation, but after the Hungarian Presidency paved the way, hopes are high that bloggers could more regularly report from the Council.
We hope the Polish Presidency will be prepared to continue the work started by its predecessor. And we are highly thankful for the efforts of Gergely Polner and Hajdú Márton who devoted time and energy to European social media during the HU Presidency.
Update (19/07/2011): See coloredopinions for an interesting discussion on Blogging as a Wheat and Chessboard Problem
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Happily walking into the bubble
It’s Saturday and you’re walking through your favorite supermarket. You’ve invited friends for tonight and you’re planning to have a barbecue.
The first thing you look for is meat. As you’re stepping into the meat section, a freezer pushes itself in your way. It bears a note saying “Your colleague chose spiral sausages and chicken filets last week”. You take a peak inside the freezer, your hand finds the spiral sausages and they disappear in your cart. Never did you notice the beefsteaks across the aisle that were on a 20% discount.
Your hands push the cart further. You also need a proper barbecue grill to feed your guests. Just the other day, you remember reading about one in a leaflet and it that seemed quite nice. But as your getting to the section where barbecue grills are sold, only two of the available models are actually on display. All other are stocked on the shelves, hidden away in massive cardboard boxes. “Your mom bought me just yesterday” it says on one of the grills on display, while the other bears a sign “Three members from your football team bought me last summer”. Unnerved, under time pressure and unwilling to start unpacking the other models, you opt for the football team grill – it is less practical than the one you had read about, but it will work for tonight.
You remember that you also need to get a shampoo. Once arrived in the toiletry section, you look for the shampoo you’ve seen in a commercial the other day. It was produced with 100% organic materials, and obviously more expensive than most of the bottles you’ve got in front of you on the shelf. But your brand is nowhere to be found and all shampoos are screaming in your face “Gregory bought me!”, “Cedric bought me!”, “Dean bought me!” Exasperated, you brandish your arm and send bottles flying. In the last corner of the shelf, you find the brand that you were looking for. You cautiously put the trophy in your cart and your glimpse goes back to the other bottles, still scattered on the floor. You believe you can faintly hear them shriek “but your friends also bought us, why wouldn’t you do the same?”
Google +1 works with the same system as your shopping adventure. As you are searching information on the internet, Google puts you into a bubble of friends’ recommendations that obscure your view upon other options. The next time you search something, your friends' recommendations appear on top. This might not seem so much of a problem at first sight – isn’t it practical to have your social network prepare your decisions?
But what happens if you’re a Parliamentarian with a day to work out your position on prenatal diagnostics? Would you trust your social network enough to blend out contrasting opinions? What happens if you’re a journalist, looking for speedy information on the revolution in Yemen? Can you trust your social network to have closed all the information gaps?
The European Commission is currently investigating if Google illegally downgraded external services in its search results. By accepting +1, we would allow Google to upgrade information that we are prone to like and downgrade information that we’d likely oppose. Democracy doesn’t work like this.
Update: For more about the importance of global information and knowledge management, you may listen to this podcast. Google is certainly the fundamental player in this business.
Update II: Facebook has not paid me for writing this post.
Update III: I've just seen that Blogger now added the +1 button to my posts...do me a favor, don't use it.
Update IV: To see my love for Google as a research tool, see this more recent blogpost.
The first thing you look for is meat. As you’re stepping into the meat section, a freezer pushes itself in your way. It bears a note saying “Your colleague chose spiral sausages and chicken filets last week”. You take a peak inside the freezer, your hand finds the spiral sausages and they disappear in your cart. Never did you notice the beefsteaks across the aisle that were on a 20% discount.
Your hands push the cart further. You also need a proper barbecue grill to feed your guests. Just the other day, you remember reading about one in a leaflet and it that seemed quite nice. But as your getting to the section where barbecue grills are sold, only two of the available models are actually on display. All other are stocked on the shelves, hidden away in massive cardboard boxes. “Your mom bought me just yesterday” it says on one of the grills on display, while the other bears a sign “Three members from your football team bought me last summer”. Unnerved, under time pressure and unwilling to start unpacking the other models, you opt for the football team grill – it is less practical than the one you had read about, but it will work for tonight.
You remember that you also need to get a shampoo. Once arrived in the toiletry section, you look for the shampoo you’ve seen in a commercial the other day. It was produced with 100% organic materials, and obviously more expensive than most of the bottles you’ve got in front of you on the shelf. But your brand is nowhere to be found and all shampoos are screaming in your face “Gregory bought me!”, “Cedric bought me!”, “Dean bought me!” Exasperated, you brandish your arm and send bottles flying. In the last corner of the shelf, you find the brand that you were looking for. You cautiously put the trophy in your cart and your glimpse goes back to the other bottles, still scattered on the floor. You believe you can faintly hear them shriek “but your friends also bought us, why wouldn’t you do the same?”
Google +1 works with the same system as your shopping adventure. As you are searching information on the internet, Google puts you into a bubble of friends’ recommendations that obscure your view upon other options. The next time you search something, your friends' recommendations appear on top. This might not seem so much of a problem at first sight – isn’t it practical to have your social network prepare your decisions?
But what happens if you’re a Parliamentarian with a day to work out your position on prenatal diagnostics? Would you trust your social network enough to blend out contrasting opinions? What happens if you’re a journalist, looking for speedy information on the revolution in Yemen? Can you trust your social network to have closed all the information gaps?
The European Commission is currently investigating if Google illegally downgraded external services in its search results. By accepting +1, we would allow Google to upgrade information that we are prone to like and downgrade information that we’d likely oppose. Democracy doesn’t work like this.
Update: For more about the importance of global information and knowledge management, you may listen to this podcast. Google is certainly the fundamental player in this business.
Update II: Facebook has not paid me for writing this post.
Update III: I've just seen that Blogger now added the +1 button to my posts...do me a favor, don't use it.
Update IV: To see my love for Google as a research tool, see this more recent blogpost.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
For a strong EU condemnation of the murder in Libya
During the Tiananmen Square massacre in China in early June 1989, the Chinese army charged into a group of 100,000 protesters gathered in the center of Beijing - between 400 and 3000 protesters were killed, according to different statistics. Others estimate that more than 3000 protesters lost their lives.
The European Community issued a statement on June 6th (not available) and strongly condemned the "brutal repression taking place in China" at the European Council meeting on 26./27. June 1989 in Madrid:
For the European Union, Libya has an important role as a watchdog. Gaddafi makes sure that the number of migrants flowing into the EU remains low. Esther Saoub, German correspondent in Cairo, believes that the EU will remain silent for some time in view of the protests in Libya: "Should the courageous demonstrators, who have these days dared to raise their voice, hope for support from Europe, their hope is probably in vain. Of course, Muammar Al Gaddafi is not popular with anybody in Europe save his friend Silvio Berlusconi, but since when are door guards ever popular? Still, nobody would have the idea to organize entry into an elite disco through grassroots democracy. Why should the EU be the first to have this idea?" (My translation)
Given the situation, the EU should be as courageous towards Libya as it has been towards China in 1989. So far, nothing has been issued by the High Representative yet, neither on the pages of the EEAS, nor via Twitter. There is nothing that excuses the intentional murder of citizens, and there is nothing that excuses a cowardly EU statement on this murder. After the events in Egypt and the sudden love of EU politicians for human rights once Mubarak had fallen, everything but a strong condemnation of the murder in Libya would be hypocrisy. And it would show how much less important human rights are to us today than they were in 1989. Be courageous, Cathy Ashton.
Update (20/02/11, 6:25 p.m.): Cathy Ashton has just issued two statements. One on the elections in Uganda, one on women's shelters in Afghanistan...
Update (21/02/11, 12:30 a.m.): The declaration on Libya is out. "Extremely concerned", "We condemn the repression against peaceful demonstrators", "immediately refrain from further use of violence", "human rights [...] must be respected and protected", "immediately cease the blocking of public access to the internet and mobile phone networks", "legitimate aspirations and demands of the people for reform" - it's about as courageous as the Tiananmen declaration. An international conference on North Africa is to follow. Will economic sanctions be employed?
Update (21/02/11, 9.30 a.m.): Also read reactions to Ashton's declaration here and here.
Update (22/02/11, 8.34 p.m.): EU suspends negotiations on EU-Libya Framework Agreement.
The European Community issued a statement on June 6th (not available) and strongly condemned the "brutal repression taking place in China" at the European Council meeting on 26./27. June 1989 in Madrid:
"The European Council requests the Chinese authorities to respect human rights and to take into account the hopes for freedom and democracy deeply felt by the population [...] In the present circumstances, the European Council thinks it necessary to adopt the following measures:During the last few days, more than 100 protesters have died in Libya, maybe even more than 200. Allegedly, snipers fired into the crowd, intentionally killing individual demonstrators. A tank intentionally crushed two demonstrators to death in their car. Facebook and Twitter have been blocked, international reporters are forbidden to report from Libya. Onlookers fear the worst.raising of the issue of human rights in China in the appropriate international fora; asking for the admittance of independent observers to attend the trials and to visit the prisons interruption by the Member States of the Community of military cooperation and an embargo on trade in arms with China suspension of bilateral ministerial and high level contacts postponement by the Community and its Member States of new cooperation projects, reduction of programs of cultural, scientific and technical cooperation to only those activities that might maintain a meaning in the present circumstances"
For the European Union, Libya has an important role as a watchdog. Gaddafi makes sure that the number of migrants flowing into the EU remains low. Esther Saoub, German correspondent in Cairo, believes that the EU will remain silent for some time in view of the protests in Libya: "Should the courageous demonstrators, who have these days dared to raise their voice, hope for support from Europe, their hope is probably in vain. Of course, Muammar Al Gaddafi is not popular with anybody in Europe save his friend Silvio Berlusconi, but since when are door guards ever popular? Still, nobody would have the idea to organize entry into an elite disco through grassroots democracy. Why should the EU be the first to have this idea?" (My translation)
Given the situation, the EU should be as courageous towards Libya as it has been towards China in 1989. So far, nothing has been issued by the High Representative yet, neither on the pages of the EEAS, nor via Twitter. There is nothing that excuses the intentional murder of citizens, and there is nothing that excuses a cowardly EU statement on this murder. After the events in Egypt and the sudden love of EU politicians for human rights once Mubarak had fallen, everything but a strong condemnation of the murder in Libya would be hypocrisy. And it would show how much less important human rights are to us today than they were in 1989. Be courageous, Cathy Ashton.
Update (20/02/11, 6:25 p.m.): Cathy Ashton has just issued two statements. One on the elections in Uganda, one on women's shelters in Afghanistan...
Update (21/02/11, 12:30 a.m.): The declaration on Libya is out. "Extremely concerned", "We condemn the repression against peaceful demonstrators", "immediately refrain from further use of violence", "human rights [...] must be respected and protected", "immediately cease the blocking of public access to the internet and mobile phone networks", "legitimate aspirations and demands of the people for reform" - it's about as courageous as the Tiananmen declaration. An international conference on North Africa is to follow. Will economic sanctions be employed?
Update (21/02/11, 9.30 a.m.): Also read reactions to Ashton's declaration here and here.
Update (22/02/11, 8.34 p.m.): EU suspends negotiations on EU-Libya Framework Agreement.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Accountability through the media - what is the value of science?
Two publications of political science that I recently had on my desk made me wonder where science stops and where investigative journalism begins - or vice versa.
In the first article "The Quint", Catherine Gegout investigates the secretive decision-making of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the US in an informal working group before 2002. The group took decisions and more or less imposed them on the other Member States in the Council of Ministers without the possibility of them participating. Gegout interviewed multiple members of national bureaucracies under cover of anonymity and could slowly make sense of the informal body that Germany, France and the UK did not acknowledge at all and Italy and the US only mentioned in passing on the national websites.
The second article is Gijs Jan Brandsma's PhD thesis "Backstage Europe" in which the Dutch researcher brings light into the secretive comitology system of the European Union. National representatives are often not held accountable for decisions and yet they have a wide discretion in their actions:
(W)ithin only a few minutes the committee rushes through five official votes related to the points discussed before lunch, and the meeting closes instantly. Then Van Veen [name replaced] turns to me and smiles: ‘You saw that? We just spent 50 million here’ (p. 29).
Like Gegout, Brandsma based his research on personal interviews with decision-makers in national bureaucracies - under the cover of anonymity.
For me, these two papers provide a check on decision-makers in the way in which investigative journalism puts a check on them. But they are published in a scientific journal and will only reach the academic community and a few students. In consequence, this check is confined to an elite community. Will any policy changes result from these articles? Is that the intention of the scientist? Does he intend to saw the chair of a decision-maker, or does he see himself as the person providing the saw? And if he wants to actively saw, do policy-makers feel more threatened by revolting scientists than by revolting masses (i.e. classical journalism)?
You could argue that an important function of the European blogosphere is to find the little flaws in European policy-making which slip through the filter of the MSM, thereby providing an additional check on policy-makers. Science has the resources to provide the same.
But it is not enough to debate hot scientific findings in the scientific community. In the interest of public accountability, I would like those discussions to reach the media and the blogging community as well.
Update (30 January 2011): Don't miss the interesting take on the topic by Kosmopolito. And his add-on published here (3 March 2011).
In the first article "The Quint", Catherine Gegout investigates the secretive decision-making of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the US in an informal working group before 2002. The group took decisions and more or less imposed them on the other Member States in the Council of Ministers without the possibility of them participating. Gegout interviewed multiple members of national bureaucracies under cover of anonymity and could slowly make sense of the informal body that Germany, France and the UK did not acknowledge at all and Italy and the US only mentioned in passing on the national websites.
The second article is Gijs Jan Brandsma's PhD thesis "Backstage Europe" in which the Dutch researcher brings light into the secretive comitology system of the European Union. National representatives are often not held accountable for decisions and yet they have a wide discretion in their actions:
(W)ithin only a few minutes the committee rushes through five official votes related to the points discussed before lunch, and the meeting closes instantly. Then Van Veen [name replaced] turns to me and smiles: ‘You saw that? We just spent 50 million here’ (p. 29).
Like Gegout, Brandsma based his research on personal interviews with decision-makers in national bureaucracies - under the cover of anonymity.
For me, these two papers provide a check on decision-makers in the way in which investigative journalism puts a check on them. But they are published in a scientific journal and will only reach the academic community and a few students. In consequence, this check is confined to an elite community. Will any policy changes result from these articles? Is that the intention of the scientist? Does he intend to saw the chair of a decision-maker, or does he see himself as the person providing the saw? And if he wants to actively saw, do policy-makers feel more threatened by revolting scientists than by revolting masses (i.e. classical journalism)?
You could argue that an important function of the European blogosphere is to find the little flaws in European policy-making which slip through the filter of the MSM, thereby providing an additional check on policy-makers. Science has the resources to provide the same.
But it is not enough to debate hot scientific findings in the scientific community. In the interest of public accountability, I would like those discussions to reach the media and the blogging community as well.
Update (30 January 2011): Don't miss the interesting take on the topic by Kosmopolito. And his add-on published here (3 March 2011).
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Minutes from Newropeans/Grillo meeting in Paris
Newropeans is a supranational citizen organization that wants to make the European Union more democratic. Rather than on societal problems, Newropeans mainly focuses on the institutional reform of the European Union. At the European elections 2009, the organization stood for elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands. However, they could bridge neither the threshold in Germany and France nor win a seat in the Netherlands (no threshold). Since then, not much has been heard of them.
Beppe Grillo is an Italian comedian, blogger and millionaire (see my post about him here), who believes that the future of democratic representation lies in the internet. In Italy, he has become quite popular among young people.
Newropeans and Beppe Grillo met in Paris on Saturday. It was the first time since the elections that they really raised their voice. Here are my comments to their livestream (or fast-forward to my analysis at the bottom of this post).
-Start at 14.30
-First twenty minutes: Grillo is poking fun at the world, entertaining the people. Laughs everywhere. The talk is in Italian and French. Most people in the audience seem to understand both. The panel is talking to an elite.
-Now he's talking about the development of his blog. 25 minutes into the talk. Still nothing tangible.
-Livestream viewers remain at about 20. Pretty stable.
-They got me via their Facebook communications. "Beppe Grillo, Franck Biancheri, Marco Travaglio en conférence-débat: La démocratie en danger: Italie-Europe, les citoyens résistent". So far, the discussion hasn't really mentioned where the danger to European democracy lies in the first place. Nor presented any solutions.
-Finally it's getting more tangible. They're talking about broadband internet access for citizens in Italy. Wish he wouldn't always scream like that.
-Grillo talks about the lack of objectivity in Italian media, naming Corriere della Serra as an example. The web offers a second entry into debate which is not restricted by media agendas.
-Grillo stopped talking. Time for questions.
-A citizen reassures Grillo of the solidarity of young Italians. Italy had a big public discussion when a university professor advised young Italians to better leave the country.
-Grillo talks about the potential of online campaigning. The web allowed the Swedish pirate party to gain support. It allows people to connect across different countries and continents.
-I wish he wouldn't scream like that.
-What happened? Viewers sprung up to 440.
-Over to Franck Biancheri, Newropeans president. Led the party into the European elections 2009; they stood for elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany.
-Biancheri talks about the young generation. Flexible, international, able to adapt to changes. A generation that wants to use its rights as European citizens.
-No other continent besides Europe in which cultures interact in a comparable way. Young citizens profit enormously, says Biancheri.
-Biancheri: The power places in Europe are not Berlin or Paris any more, but Brussels and Frankfurt. They are unaccounted for and don't reflect the opinions of the 500 Million citizens of Europe.
-The importance is to create a structure that allows a democracy from below, says Biancheri.
-Those who want to change something see the space for political action diminish in the nation-states and competences move to Brussels. The political debate has to follow to Brussels, according to the Newropeans president.
-Different electoral structures in the nation-states. Germany: 4000 signatures to put up a list for elections. Netherlands: Only very few. Italy: A lot of signatures. The electors in Italy and Germany don't seem to be equal, says Biancheri and wants to create a single electoral procedure in Europe.
-Grillo is back on. Criticizes the fact that there is no common European vision in Brussels.
-Grillo puts on a red hat resembling the hat of the Ku Klux Klan, and disappears from stage.
-Over to Marco Travaglio, Italian journalist.
-Firefox keeps on shutting down.
-Viewers are up at 600.
-Travaglio recommends an Italian blog, opinione.it.
-Back to Biancheri. He says that 80% of all French media are financed by the state.
-"Nothing is going on in the world [seen through the eyes of the French media]. Except an old lady run over in Southern France, a little dog somewhere in France..."
-Recruitment process in French media: "You take young people that aren't really up to the scratch. Fooling someone who doesn't understand is easy. Fooling someone who knows the subject is already more difficult."
-Journalist selection has to follow more specific criteria, he says.
-European journalism: A much bigger difficulty, since the policy area is more difficult to understand.
-Independent European journalists are necessary. The European institutions spend a lot of money to obtain only positive coverage about Brussels politics, says Biancheri.
-The "Erasmus generation" will need to move the EU out of the impasse. "The only language is translation ... We have a lot of young people who speak the five, six biggest languages in Europe. And we have the highest literacy rate in the world."
-My Firefox keeps on failing me. No chance to see the end of the video.
Overall, what I saw was an analysis of the French and Italian media democracy with media that they depicted as controlled by the government. They see the blogosphere as a way to bypass these limitations and create a second arena for public discussion. Projecting it to the European level, they said that a common European discourse had to be created via the virtue of translation, but they didn't really go into detail.
I would have liked to see some more concrete proposals for a democracy from below through the means of social media. Some polarizations could have been left out.
The idea of a common electoral system is interesting and definitely necessary to create a true European democracy. But there are a lot of legal obstacles. And then, public discussion about the EP candidates has to cross the linguistic borders of the nation-states. It will be interesting to see if Newropeans can make any concrete proposals for the piecemeal achievement of a common electoral system.
Beppe Grillo is an Italian comedian, blogger and millionaire (see my post about him here), who believes that the future of democratic representation lies in the internet. In Italy, he has become quite popular among young people.
Newropeans and Beppe Grillo met in Paris on Saturday. It was the first time since the elections that they really raised their voice. Here are my comments to their livestream (or fast-forward to my analysis at the bottom of this post).
-Start at 14.30
-First twenty minutes: Grillo is poking fun at the world, entertaining the people. Laughs everywhere. The talk is in Italian and French. Most people in the audience seem to understand both. The panel is talking to an elite.
-Now he's talking about the development of his blog. 25 minutes into the talk. Still nothing tangible.
-Livestream viewers remain at about 20. Pretty stable.
-They got me via their Facebook communications. "Beppe Grillo, Franck Biancheri, Marco Travaglio en conférence-débat: La démocratie en danger: Italie-Europe, les citoyens résistent". So far, the discussion hasn't really mentioned where the danger to European democracy lies in the first place. Nor presented any solutions.
-Finally it's getting more tangible. They're talking about broadband internet access for citizens in Italy. Wish he wouldn't always scream like that.
-Grillo talks about the lack of objectivity in Italian media, naming Corriere della Serra as an example. The web offers a second entry into debate which is not restricted by media agendas.
-Grillo stopped talking. Time for questions.
-A citizen reassures Grillo of the solidarity of young Italians. Italy had a big public discussion when a university professor advised young Italians to better leave the country.
-Grillo talks about the potential of online campaigning. The web allowed the Swedish pirate party to gain support. It allows people to connect across different countries and continents.
-I wish he wouldn't scream like that.
-What happened? Viewers sprung up to 440.
-Over to Franck Biancheri, Newropeans president. Led the party into the European elections 2009; they stood for elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany.
-Biancheri talks about the young generation. Flexible, international, able to adapt to changes. A generation that wants to use its rights as European citizens.
-No other continent besides Europe in which cultures interact in a comparable way. Young citizens profit enormously, says Biancheri.
-Biancheri: The power places in Europe are not Berlin or Paris any more, but Brussels and Frankfurt. They are unaccounted for and don't reflect the opinions of the 500 Million citizens of Europe.
-The importance is to create a structure that allows a democracy from below, says Biancheri.
-Those who want to change something see the space for political action diminish in the nation-states and competences move to Brussels. The political debate has to follow to Brussels, according to the Newropeans president.
-Different electoral structures in the nation-states. Germany: 4000 signatures to put up a list for elections. Netherlands: Only very few. Italy: A lot of signatures. The electors in Italy and Germany don't seem to be equal, says Biancheri and wants to create a single electoral procedure in Europe.
-Grillo is back on. Criticizes the fact that there is no common European vision in Brussels.
-Grillo puts on a red hat resembling the hat of the Ku Klux Klan, and disappears from stage.
-Over to Marco Travaglio, Italian journalist.
-Firefox keeps on shutting down.
-Viewers are up at 600.
-Travaglio recommends an Italian blog, opinione.it.
-Back to Biancheri. He says that 80% of all French media are financed by the state.
-"Nothing is going on in the world [seen through the eyes of the French media]. Except an old lady run over in Southern France, a little dog somewhere in France..."
-Recruitment process in French media: "You take young people that aren't really up to the scratch. Fooling someone who doesn't understand is easy. Fooling someone who knows the subject is already more difficult."
-Journalist selection has to follow more specific criteria, he says.
-European journalism: A much bigger difficulty, since the policy area is more difficult to understand.
-Independent European journalists are necessary. The European institutions spend a lot of money to obtain only positive coverage about Brussels politics, says Biancheri.
-The "Erasmus generation" will need to move the EU out of the impasse. "The only language is translation ... We have a lot of young people who speak the five, six biggest languages in Europe. And we have the highest literacy rate in the world."
-My Firefox keeps on failing me. No chance to see the end of the video.
Overall, what I saw was an analysis of the French and Italian media democracy with media that they depicted as controlled by the government. They see the blogosphere as a way to bypass these limitations and create a second arena for public discussion. Projecting it to the European level, they said that a common European discourse had to be created via the virtue of translation, but they didn't really go into detail.
I would have liked to see some more concrete proposals for a democracy from below through the means of social media. Some polarizations could have been left out.
The idea of a common electoral system is interesting and definitely necessary to create a true European democracy. But there are a lot of legal obstacles. And then, public discussion about the EP candidates has to cross the linguistic borders of the nation-states. It will be interesting to see if Newropeans can make any concrete proposals for the piecemeal achievement of a common electoral system.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)