Guest Post by Fitch F. Rich, Croatian Blogger

The results of the referendum are clear – Croatia has chosen Europe! Two thirds of Croatian voters voted ‘YES’ in today’s referendum on country’s EU accession. Exactly 22 years after that historical day when Croatian delegation left the congress of the Yugoslav League of Communists in Sava Center Belgrade, Croatian people chose to enter yet another supranational association. The time will show whether this was a wise choice.

But what’s most concerning is a turnout of just around 44 percent! Although no one really expected it to be more than 80 percent like in 1990 when the referendum on independence was held, the polls have almost unanimously predicted something between 60 and 70 percent. 45 is pretty low for a crucial decision like this.

Nevertheless, today’s turnout did send a pretty significant message to Croatian political elite. The people are not happy with the way things were handled during the accession process and the government’s pro-EU campaign. They were not properly informed due to lack of any debate and the apathy is pretty visible in every corner of the country. 55 percent staying at home or walking in the sun instead of using their democratic right to vote in the referendum of big significance for their country is a fact that pretty much shows this nation’s state. Apathetic and indifferent, that’s what Croats look and feel like these days.

So, 29 percent of total voters in Croatia made this crucial decision on behalf of the whole country. Although everything is legal and those who stayed at home are first to blame, the legitimacy could indeed be questionable at the moment and that question has already been highlighted by the Eurosceptics. But the real question is whether we are mature enough as a society to accept these results and continue to work for our country in the new circumstances. I’m a little bit sceptic on this one.

The fact is that the majority of Croatian citizens don’t know much about the EU and they acted accordingly by showing the political classes that they don’t care about it also. Don’t know – don’t care, simple as that. And who can blame them? Communist totalitarian heritage still keeps many of them politically passive which is something politicians take advantage of rather than make them active and progressive.

So, the lesson of the day is that if you’d ask an average Croat whether he is pro or contra the EU, you’d probably hear the answer “I don’t care”.

Guest post by Dan Luca

We notice that more and more people read their “newspaper” online. Technological developments are facilitating this, and consequently checking the news online vs. buying a print paper is something that happens more “frequent”. It is also more time efficient and it saves money. This trend has a significant and growing impact on peoples’ way of living.

Nowadays news comes to us through digital means first (eg. through mobile alerts), before it reaches us in print. Then, if you are interested, there are Blogs available with more information, background and arguments, going more deeply into a certain topic – again online. You could say that news is ‘born’ online, and it ‘dies’ online.

Print publications will not cease to exist, but I argue that they will transform into a weekly or weekend magazine, instead of a daily. These magazines will aim at including more in-depth articles, opinion pieces and analyses: as an addition to the breaking news now so readily available online.

However, print publications will also need to incorporate new technology in order to connect to the online community. Not only to inform, but also to entertain and/or communicate with the reader, as they need to compete with the online media who are strongly linked to much used social media.

As for journalists: they will need to adapt and reinvent themselves. They will need to learn how to write articles online (faster and shorter), how to integrate social media and writing blogs, etc. in their professional role as a journalist.

What about the content? I argue that in time we will see new companies, companies that produce content for others (so not publishing themselves): ‘content providers’. Like the current Press Agencies, but than with more tailor-made, client oriented, customized content ready upon request. Content would be produced at a ‘service company’ and the publication (the client) then just has to package and publish the content for their readers. Also, since more and more VIPs from the political-economic world are keen on having personal visibility, it will be easier to have them contribute to a publication for free.

The future content of media will be 3-fold in my view:

1. Tailor-made content coming from a so-called ‘content provider’, described earlier;

2. Voluntary contributions from VIPs (mainly from the political and economic arena);

3. Journalists who package the requested content from the ‘content provider’, conform editorial guidelines – transforming them more into an editor, taking more care of editing incoming content and publishing less themselves. Leading the journalists/editors is an Editor-in-Chief who imposes the editorial line by eg. writing a column.

What will the future of media look like? The future of media is clearly online, a ‘one-stop shop’ that combines all technological developments to cater all possible needs of the reader:

1. Stories will be max. 2 screens long;

2. They will have video’s embedded (max 2 min.);

3. It will include 2-3 links to pertinent Bloggers;

4. Automated RSS from other media which report on the same topic will also be included.

Ideally, to me, these developments will then be available on an A4-size tablet, light and easy to use. This tablet would be bigger than is available now, but as light or even lighter: a device that will compete with the PC.

Dan Luca. Blog- CasaEuropei

Guest Post by Alexander Misharin, Governor of the Ekaterinburg region

For Russia’s regions and citizens last month’s EU-Russia summit has cleared away a lot of the obstacles that made building closer ties with Europe a challenging undertaking. Europe’s support for Russia’s WTO membership will strengthen trade, the reform of the visa requirements will make it easier to strengthen the cultural dialogue of citizens from all over Russia with our European neighbors and EU-Russia Partnership for Modernisation is already bringing together Russian and European academia, businesses and civil society. Russia is unique in its diversity and in its rich cultural and scientific heritage and our closer partnership with Europe will require understanding as well as appreciation for our diversity.

For every country, hosting the world fair is a great opportunity to put the nation on display to the whole world. It means opening up a country by showing its current achievements and by presenting a vision for the future. The world’s eyes don’t just focus on the ideals of an EXPO or on the hosting city, but on the whole country within the world community.

Ekaterinburg, Russia’s fourth largest city, has just launched its official bid to host the Expo 2020, to share with Europe and the world what Russia is about today and to bring the world closer to Russians. In the 160 year history of world fairs, this would be the first time for Russia to host an Expo.

Ekaterinburg is unique amongst its contenders for the 2020 world fair, because it stands firmly on two continents. Located just east of the Ural Mountains, it serves as the Eurasian link for 180 ethnic communities who for centuries have been sharing their cultures, traditions and ideas.

The Expo 2020 will give Russia the opportunity to demonstrate that modernization in our country is bearing fruit. We will show the reality of the modern and diverse Russia, which is increasingly interconnected with Europe and the world not only through politics, business and investment, but also science and culture.

Since 2010 Russia and the European Union are connected through the Partnership for Modernisation. We ask Europe to support our EXPO 2020 bid and let it be the next big highlight of our partnership. European nations are the natural partners Russia turns to for support but also for celebration.

A strong support from our European neighbors for Ekaterinburg’s 2020 EXPO will definitely change a growing mind-set in Russia, which is coined by the impression that the ties are weakening. Ultimately Ekaterinburg 2020 will give Europe and Russia a common goal and be a basis for a much broader partnership.

Guest Post by Dan LUCA. Blog: Casa Europei

The European Union can encourage and facilitate cooperation between Member States in order to develop quality education, however unlike in other policy area’s the EU cannot harmonise any law or regulation of the Member States. The content and organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic particularities are fully in the hands of the Member States.

There is therefore very little what EU Institutions can do in terms of education policy. They can however encourage and facilitate voluntary cooperation between Member States. This is why the EU Institutions carry out the strategy of setting-up programs, instead of doing the impossible: imposing legislation.

They encourage and facilitate cooperation between Member States by dangling a very attractive carrot in front of the national competent authorities. Probably the most famous example is the Erasmus program, already active since the 1980′s. The European Commission states: “ERASMUS has become a driver in the modernisation of higher education institutions and systems in Europe”.

This program, based on voluntary participation, requires higher education institutions to adopt an Erasmus University Charter in order to be part of the program. With a budget of more than 450 million Euro, and over 2.2 million participating students since the start of the program, Erasmus is a very successful ‘carrot on a stick’.

There are other, similar, but small, developments in EU education programs, like Leonardo da Vinci (for vocational training), Grundvig (for adult education). However, based on the Erasmus principle, these developments are not remarkable.

The European Council and the European Parliament are now reviewing and discussing the 2014–2020 program proposed by Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, Mrs. Androulla Vassiliou. The program is called: ‘Erasmus for all‘, and it would bring together seven existing programs into one.

But this program does not have too many new elements; rather it is bringing existing elements together for a more efficient use of resources and easier access for participants. My question is why? Where is the innovation in the EU education policy area?

For my PhD thesis, which I finished 5 years ago, I did research to find new programs in the EU education area: today’s education does not sufficiently reflect a European dimension. The practical part of my research was done by an NGO – a project under the name Eureca. EURECA was conceived as a Campaign for European Education focusing on five main aims:

• Raising awareness for the importance of Education for the future integration of Europe and its citizens;
• Establishing a dialogue and an open exchange of ideas (horizontal – among students of all disciplines – and vertical – between students and decision -makers);
• Underlining the role that the European Union is playing in influencing European Education;
• Paying special attention to the role that Media can play in this issue;
• Elaborating a Proposal for a New Education Program.

Main conclusions of the research:

• In the contemporary world students treat their summer break as a vital period for personal development and learning. We believe that setting up framework for accessible short courses, up to 2 months, would bring out better cultural understanding and academic enrichment for one’s studies. Such action will involve new technologies and offer opportunities for students who fall out of current mobility scheme;
• Open to the youth in general, not only to students (age: 18 – 26);
• Implementation via European and regional structures, not involving the national structures;
• The “mobility” should be only co-financed by an EU program (50%), the rest is supported by the regional and local authorities and private sector.

I proposed a “Summer Erasmus” program, a supplement to the Erasmus program, which would complement it by enabling students to develop themselves through a ‘summer university’. An example of an association already that is experienced in carrying out summer university programs is AEGEE. In 2011 they had 77 participating universities, which accounted for over 2200 places. Their reach seems a bit limited, but the structures in place make a good and strong example for a “Summer Erasmus” program.

This proposal has already been presented to the two EU Commissioners responsible for Education (Viviane Reding in 2003 and Jan Figel in 2006), but without success for the 2007-2013 programs.

In my view, Europe is in need of innovation, continuous development and opportunities in the field of education. Taking the 2014-2020 ‘Erasmus for All’ proposal into consideration: yes, this might make the existing structures and programs more accessible and efficient, but I would like to put this forward again: where is the development to further integrate the EU Member States more in the field of education? And ultimately: where is the innovation in the European education policy area?

Guest post by Katheryn Rivas

Copenhagen has been bustling and buzzing this past week with formal induction ceremonies as Denmark for the seventh time takes the helm of the EU. The Danish government has put concentrated most of their six-month rotating presidency agenda this term in what they call “green growth” — even the Danish National Girls Choir, which performed “Plant a Tree” during the festivities, wore green skirts in allegiance with the nation’s directives.

This is a much-need push toward green regulations for the European Union. Other countries, with more rapidly expanding economies, such as China, are far out-performing the EU in this regard, so it was with excitement and enthusiasm that Denmark and the rest of the EU welcomed the ambitious agenda.

However, on the day Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish prime minister, was to be formally inaugurated as EU President, Vestas, the Denmark-based global leader in wind turbine production, announced they would be letting almost 2,500 of their employees go, with the majority of the layoffs happening in Denmark.

Of course, even as EU president there was nothing Thorning-Schmidt could do to prevent the layoff, but Vestas’ announcement could not have come at a worse time. Instead of optimistically focusing on the green initiatives Denmark had planned, Thorning-Schmidt was riddled with questions about the layoffs, and was thrust into a defensive position, forced to explain the sudden — and apparently antithethetical — industry upheaval.

Furthermore, there was undoubtedly some measure of skepticism about Denmark’s commitment to its own “green growth” plan, when it had just cut back its own contributions to the cause at home. Thorning-Schmidt insisted in a press conference with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that, “this setback should not make us change our strategy. We need to be world leaders in energy efficiency, new technologies, green technologies, because we think it is not only good for the environment but it is also good business for Europe.”

Barroso added that the extensive layoffs at Vestas were a direct result of the sovereign debt crisis that is similarly affecting all European countries, noting that on a previous visit to Denmark many other companies across all sectors — not just the green technology companies — were experiencing cutbacks as well.

In the end, Barroso reassured the assembly that “the reason behind the crisis in Europe is not because of the investment in green technology,” which is a message that the EU desperately needs to hear. It was indeed poor timing for Vestas to release their announcement during on inauguration day — but despite the uncertain light the layoffs cast on Denmark’s agenda, the EU will do well to embrace the green technology challenge so that it does not become outdated and obsolete.

Katheryn Rivas writes on the topics of online university.  She welcomes your comments at her email Id: katherynrivas87@gmail.com.

Guest Post by Dan Luca

Brussels hosts more than 100.000 persons working in EU affairs. Less than 50% are based in the EU institutions, the vast majority: over 50.000 people, have a job in industry federations, consultancies, media, corporate, nonprofit organizations, think tanks or region and city representations.

As Europe’s capital, Brussels has an a-typical and specific job-market. It hosts national, regional, international and sectorial stakeholders that, together with the EU Institutions, form the so called “Community of EU-Actors”.

‘Perm Rep’s': Countries, Regions and Cities

Every EU member state has a Permanent Representation to the EU, based in Brussels. These offices represent the country’s interest in the EU, as well as giving policy advice to their national politicians like the Europe Minister and Prime Minister.

In addition there are also Permanent Representations of European Regions to the EU, based in Brussels, like the ‘West Midlands European Service‘ – a region in the UK; or the West Finland European office. These regional offices represent and promote their regions, providing services to their people.

Adding another layer to this are the Representations of Cities to the EU, based in Brussels, like the City of Prague. These offices represent, promote and organize their cities, like the representations above, but on a more narrow scale.

Industry & Unions

About 3.000 (big) corporations (Microsoft, Shell, Visa), trade associations, industry federations (European Banking Federation, European Wind and Energy Association, Eurometaux), unions and chambers of commerce (British Chamber of Commerce, Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Eurochambers) have an office in Brussels in order to be present in the community of EU-Actors. Even though most of these offices are relatively small, employing 1-5 people, almost 50% of people employed are doing work related to Public Affairs.

Member organizations of Eurometaux make clear why this federation is present in Brussels: they feel that the federation “constitutes the interface between the European non-ferrous metals industry and the European authorities and international or intergovernmental bodies” and that Eurometaux “…is committed to establishing dialogue with the latter in order to ensure early consultation in all fields of policy and legislation that may affect industry and to asserting the sector’s views and positions in this respect.”

This is widely applicable: all these legal entities are present in Brussels in order to advocate their views or the views of their members – and need employees to accomplish this.

Consultancies

There are about 400 consultancy companies based in Brussels. They are a-typical from other consultancies in the sense that they mainly focus on EU-Affairs. Consultancies focus on Public Affairs (Edelman, Pleon, Fleishman Hillard, etc.), Public Relations (Ogilvy, Hill & Knowlton, Grayling, etc.), EU Project Management (Tipik, Quentes, etc.) and Association Management (Kellen Europe, AGEP, etc.).

Consultancies like Hill & Knowlton ensure that clients communicate their points of view to the audiences that matter. The teams working at these consultancies are international, multilingual, diverse and dynamic, consistently delivering services with real, commercial return.

Media

95% of the journalists in Brussels are correspondents of national media. However, this amount is declining, due to money issues, but also because of technological developments which make it easier to report on the EU from the national offices.

The remaining 5% is covered by EU specialized media (3%) like EurActiv, European Voice, EU Observer and by international media (2%) like FT, BBC, International Herald Tribune.

NGO’s and Think-tanks

NGOs like WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Red Cross, Youth Forum, and Caritas Europe have EU offices in Brussels. Greenpeace ‘EU-Unit’ says there’s “based in Brussels, where we monitor and analyse the work of the institutions of the European Union (EU), expose deficient EU policies and laws, and challenge decision-makers to implement progressive solutions”.

Brussels also houses a lot of Think-tanks, like Friends of Europe, Centre for European Policy Studies, European Policy Centre, etc. The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) was founded in Brussels in 1983 and “is among the most experienced and authoritative think tanks operating in the European Union today”. They provide a forum for debate on EU Affairs, and have an in-house research department as well as an extensive network of partner institutes across the world.

Map of Brussels

This is just a superficial glance on job opportunities in Brussels. There are more sectors/fields to look at, depending on your interest and background: law firms, political parties, platform organisations, international organisations in Brussels (UN, etc.).

Doing some research it seems that all legal entities present in Brussels are here mainly for this: to advocate/communicate their views or the views of their members as stakeholders in EU affairs – and they need employees to accomplish this.

Being in constant contact with them and providing coaching on the spot, it is my experience that most of the 3.000 industry associations; 400 consultancy companies; 300 region representations; and 200 nonprofit organizations across Europe employ people in Brussels, providing a world of opportunities when you know where to look.

Guest Post by Dan Luca

Guest post by Fitch F. RICH, Croatian Blogger- Blog: Croatia Calling

After parliamentary elections which haven’t really changed anything despite the defeat of Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), the time has come for us to decide whether we would like to be a part of (Dis)United Europe. The breaking news is that the referendum on our joining the EU won’t be postponed as previously told! Although there were some announcements from Croatia’s future Minister of Foreign Affairs Vesna Pusi?, President of the State confirmed earlier today that there won’t be any delays. The referendum will be held on 22 January 2012. Oh happy day…

So, here we are, 33 days before that historical decision-making day and still without any real political debate on this matter. It’s funny how this proud nation, after all it’s been through, puts up with being treated like a flock of sheep. What’s even more funny or tragic, depending on how you look at it, is that even those 33 days can’t be used properly for a debate or a fair campaign because of the Christmas holidays and New Year’s Eve that follows.

It’s obvious that there won’t be almost any debate and the campaign will be reduced to political leaders’ messages for their voters to vote not by their conscience but by political establishment’s suggestion. Pro and contra arguments won’t even be presented to the public, even though Croatian citizens know so little about the Union that it seems to be so distant and unreal as if it’s some sort of Wonderland and our country is the poor little Alice.

The European Union has given our politicians a great pile of money to persuade Croatian citizens to vote ‘Yes’ on the referendum. Video spots that have been made for the official pro-EU campaign in Croatia clearly show what our political elite think of us. Those spots ‘professionally explain’ that we’ll still be Croats when we join the EU, we’ll continue to speak Croatian language and that no one is going to colonize our land.

Crucial info… for a medieval society without any national consciousness maybe. For a European nation in the 21st century that sort of information is hilarious. While being brainwashed with this bull, many still don’t have even the slightest clue what really awaits us if we join, so I expect the adaptation time will be pretty long and painful. If we add a neverending economic crisis to this charade, it’s obvious that some Chinese guy must have cursed us to live in such ‘interesting times’.

This lack of proper political debate in Croatia has made Nigel Farage a sort of Eurosceptics’ hero despite of our nation’s resistance to the British foreign policy for almost a century. Maybe his nationality really is an obstacle for his corageous messages (especially if we consider some sort of Balkan integrations to be an alternative to the EU accession), knowing that Balkan integrations have always been cooked in the British foreign policy kitchen.

For a Croat, everything is better than Balkan integrations, even the 9th circle of Dante’s Inferno is lesser evil. Hell, I’d rather find myself in the 10th circle that’s been opened especially for us than to be part of such project once again.

British policy on Balkans has always been integrative, putting Serbia in a privileged position over Croatia, so it’s not unusual that there are doubts in Nigel’s good intentions. Nevertheless, over the last few months he’s been telling things that just couldn’t be heard in our public, so one should really be thankful for his words.

Guest post by Dario GROPPI

While Time Magazine publishes The Protester as the man of the year. Eyes on Europe, a magazine dealing with actual and future perspectives of European Union (EU), edited by students, organised a conference on What does European Union learn from the Arab Spring. Hosted by the Free University of Brussels, on 16 December, the conference welcomed Elyès Ghanmi, civil servant of the European Parliament dealing with Maghreb countries, Ines Kalaï, student whose final thesis was about the Tunisian revolution, Vincent Legrand, professor of political sciences at the Catholic University of Louvain and Irnerio Seminatore, president of the European Institute of International Relations (IERI). The question was: The Arab Spring: an opportunity for the European Union? while Didier Leroy, researcher at the Royal Military School specialised in Arabic questions, moderated the debate.

The regimes in Arab countries concerned by revolutions had established dictatorships. Where elections were won by the leader by almost 100% of the votes. Absence of press freedom and lack of women rights contributed to the popular insurrection.

“Bread – freedom – dignity”

Recent revolutions, in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya, have started a revolutionary process. The movement is a consequence of problems of housing, hunger, lack of future for the youths. Professor Legrand points out a posterior “tacit contract” between the population and the authoritarian regimes, in order to allow the latter to develop the country. Therefore, people agreed to leave aside its fundamental rights in favour of their country’s growth. The authoritarian measures could not continue infinitely. Professor Legrand uses the American sociologist Davies’ J-Curve, in order show how starts a revolutionary movement.

The curve highlights the gap between reality and people’s expectation in function of the time. At one moment, the gap becomes unacceptable, people take conscience of their situation and start to protest. He then depicts the famous slogan “Bread – freedom – dignity” in order to explain the needs of the Egyptian population. Ines Kalaï underlines the influence by occidental liberal values, spread principally thanks to the web. “Ammar 404” reminds the “Error 404”, and represents the censorship which blocks some websites such as YouTube, Dailymotion or other news websites that occurred in Tunisia. New technologies such as smartphones an 3G allowed to by-pass the censorship and to spread the movement. Movement which started with the symbolical immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi followed by massive demonstrations. But while heads fall, it does not necessarily mean that the regime fall.

“Democratic transition and the European help”

Following Elyès Ghanmi, the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, which set up a partnership between EU countries, suffers from a deficit of credibility. He argues that “there was only a discourse of a high technocrat to a reluctant government” which put forward the need of an effort of legitimacy from the EU. Besides he compares the External Action of the EU under the Prodi’s presidency during the 2000′s and the actual which has not really changed, see the “3 Ms” – money, mobility and markets, while the need is the politics. Mr Ghanmi pursued by saying the European help is conditional, as reminded by president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek.

“Legitimacy”

Finally, the debate focusses on the term “legitimate”. Irnerio Seminatori argues that “legitimacy in invoked by people who wants the power”. But according to him, the authoritarian regime was in place by tradition. It is the modern State which questions this natural legitimacy and promotes the values as freedom and dignity. But he does not feel legitimate to intervene in traditional countries from outside. Even if they could shock our values, Qaddaffi or also Hussein regimes were legal and legitimate lying on traditional and historical basis. According to Seminatori “legitimacy does not always reflect the wish of the population”, reminding the Nietzschean “cold monster” when he talks about the modern State.

Finally, the answer to the question whether Arab spring is an opportunity for the EU is not very clear. It is a chance, in the way that it inspired the indignados movement all around Europe. It favoured people living in democracies to ask themselves about these modern liberal values. How really are them for the population itself. What do people really win in democracies pressured by a financial crisis and by austerity plans?

From another angle, the European Union has now the possibility to build a new dialogue with countries that are rebuilding themselves with values closer than the occidental ones. Now it does not mean that these are the best values but according to our principles they might be the more legitimate.

Guest Post by Hubertus DROSTE, Graduate student, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

Der Euro ist noch lange nicht gerettet. Aber der Eurofog lichtet sich.

Britannien hat sich entschieden – für eine wirtschaftliche Union, gegen eine politische Union.

Endlich. Jahrelang kamen nur faule Kompromisse dabei heraus. Immer wurde auf britische Sonderinteressen Rücksicht genommen, sei es der „Britenbonus“ oder der Schengenraum, die EU Sozialpolitik oder die EU-Grundrechte. Jetzt gibt es den final opt-out. Das ist schade, aber irgendwie auch erleichternd.

Man kann sie verstehen. Ein Unterwerfung des Finanzmarkts unter das Brüssler „Diktat“ – wie es fälschlicherweise heißt – ist für das Königreich wie für Deutschland eine EU-weite Sondersteuer auf Neuwagen der Mittel- und der Luxuswagen. Die City of London könnte damit wahrscheinlich genau so gut leben wie die deutschen Autohersteller mit einer Sondersteuer umgehen könnten. Aber man will das nicht. Nie könnte man das dem Volk in „Sun“ oder „Bild“ verkaufen.

Zudem ist bzw. sieht sich Großbritannien nicht als Europa. Der Kontinent, das ist Europa. So schon der allgemeine englische Sprachgebrauch. Es ist bzw. sieht sich nach wie vor als eigenständige (Groß-)Macht im Weltgefüge. Und sein Ansehen ist auch wirklich nicht von der Hand zu weisen. In vielen Staaten des Commonwealth ist die Insel das Vorbild, um den gesamten Globus sind Demokratien nach britischem Vorbild entstanden.

Und dennoch hat nach Bush jr.’s Abgang der Pudel sein Herrchen verloren. Und spätestens seit dem BMW britisches Lebensgefühl an Ökö-Hipster weltweit verkauft, ist auch dort angekommen das es mit der eigenen Industrie nicht mehr soweit her ist.

Die Briten mögen gambling. Sie setzen auf ihre staatliche Souveränität, nicht auf Europa. Sie möchten ihre Interessen direkt artikulieren, und nicht durch Brüssel. Es wird sich zeigen ob das die richtige Entscheidung war.

Denn in Europa isolieren sie sich damit langfristig. Europa ist schon lange mehr als nur eine Wirtschaftsunion. Schon lange redet jeder jedem rein, statt Diplomatie herrscht das Durcheinander in einer Großfamilie vor. Das nervt und ist auch ein Grund für die Krise. Aber es zeigt, wie weit wir eigentlich schon sind. Selbst eine Verfassung haben wir schon – auch wenn sie nicht so heißt. Genau so werden in Brüssel noch heute Eurobonds verabschiedet werden – auch wenn sie nicht so heißen werden. Europäische Grundrechte haben wir. Und ein oberstes Gericht. Das einzige, was das Bundesverfassungsgericht noch macht, ist doch verfassungsrechtlich grenzwertige EU Vorhaben abzunicken.

Es ist verständlich das einem dies zu viel werden kann. Aber es ist der einzig denkbare Weg und jede Anstrengung wert. Denn Europa macht auch Spaß, es ist ein historisch einmaliges Projekt, das sicherlich einige Schwächen hat. Aber eine europäische Identität, sie besteht, und sie entwickelt sich schneller als viele zu hoffen gewagt hätten.

Das Königreich Bayern hatte es sich auch nie zu erträumen gewagt einmal aus Berlin regiert zu werden. Aber es geht, und sie können gut damit leben und ihre Interessen jetzt dort geltend machen (was sie auch tun). Genau so wird in vielen Fragen Deutschland bereits aus Brüssel regiert und noch vermehrt regiert werden. Das können sich viele auch nicht vorstellen, aber es geht und wird gehen. Im Grunde ist es doch auch wurscht, ob ich nun auf eine deutsche Politikpfeife als Minister schimpfe, oder auf einen Spanier oder Polen.

Insofern ist diese Krise auch ein Glücksfall für alle, die wissen, dass das Projekt Europa die „größte Erfindung unserer Zeit“ (Dieter Grimm) ist, denn am Ende dieser Krise steht ohne jeden Zweifel eine engere Union mit der dringenden Notwendigkeit weiterer Bündelung europäischer Politik. Eine Entwicklung, die in guten Zeiten undenkbar war, viel zu sehr war jeder mit sich allein beschäftigt. Aber jetzt, in der Krise, bleibt für nationales Klein-Klein kein Platz mehr, genau das lernen wir gerade. Und da wir nun mal in einem auf Wirtschaft basierenden Gesellschaftssystem leben, ist Wirtschaft und Finanzpolitik nicht einfach abtrennbar vom Rest. Involviert sind auch Steuerpolitik, Sozialpolitik, ja selbst Außenpolitik. Und am Ende sind wir dann plötzlich angekommen, in den Vereinigten Staaten von Europa.

Das wollen sie Briten nicht. Das haben sie auch immer gesagt. Und dennoch: 17+6, Schweden und Tschechien werden mit einsteigen, die Ungarn ihre rechte Regierung los und sind dann auch dabei. Am Ende sind es 17+9, fehlt nicht mehr viel bis 27. Island, Kroatien, Serbien, Montenegro: Sie alle wollen dabei sein, und werden es mittelfristig auch. Selbst die tapferen Schotten, seit Jahrzehnten um ihre Eigenständigkeit vom Londoner „Diktat“ – ähm… – bemüht, wären sofort dabei, mitsamt Euro. Vielleicht ist das alles also gar nicht sooo schlecht?

Was bisher leider am wenigsten klappt ist auch das Volk mitzuziehen. Das ist die Schuld der nationalen Politik. Brüssel dient stets als Prügelknabe, in Berlin wie London. Und Brüssel selber, mit seinen Eurokraten und seinem Personal mit dem Scharm von grauen Leitz-Ordnern trägt auch nicht unbedingt dazu bei, dass sich allgemein Enthusiasmus breit macht. Ein Parlament, das zwar Macht hat, aber nach wie vor durch Wahlen von Nationalparteien in jedem Land unterschiedlich ausgetragen wird, mit nationalen und regionalen Themen, trägt auch nicht unbedingt zu einer Demokratisierung des Ganzen bei. Europa bräuchte europäische Gesichter mit Esprit, keine Ashton und keinen van Rompuy. Das wäre wichtiger als jeder Rettungsschirm. Vor nichts haben die Nationalstaaten aber scheinbar mehr Angst.

Es ist eine spannende Entwicklung. Die Wiege Europas liegt eben immer noch in Griechenland.

Guest post by David MORENO (EN) and Dario GROPPI (FR)

Europe is all around us. We feel it whenever we look at our bank account, buy a newspaper or listen to people speaking a foreign European language on our way to work. But what is Europe’s impact in the European capital itself? How do the people of Brussels feel Europe in their daily lives, outside of the European Institutions?

Master Students in European Affairs from Brussels’ IHECS Institute organized a public debate on November 23rd in order to find an answer to that question. In front of a rather small but dedicated audience, four distinguished panelists working to bring Europe closer to the people of Brussels discussed the matter in a lively exchange of views.

The overall message was established rather quickly: Young people are the main target when it comes to promoting the European Union. All panelists talked about their youth initiatives and activities, from role plays in conferences to Internet campaigns. However, they also held dear to emphasize that the adult population plays an equally important role in maintaining the European idea.

Maité Abram, Director of the European Movement Belgium, stated that since the Danish rejection of the Maastricht treaty in 1992 there is a rift between the EU and the citizens. In her opinion, the path taken since has not been “formidable”, and many debates happen too late.

Willy Hélin, Head of the European Commission Representation in Belgium, lamented that “the people don’t know how the EU works, and it’s not their fault”. The European actors need to do more in order to awaken European interest in the mind of the public.

Carlo Luyckx, Director of the Bureau de Liaison Bruxelles-Europe, called for an improvement of the image of the EU: “Europe has bad press; it has become a big monster which imposes its law on the people”, he asserted while calling for a stronger engagement by the youth: “The young people are the deciders of tomorrow”.

That opinion was reinforced by the fourth member of the panel, Maria Laura Franciosi, Journalist and member of a commune in Brussels. She wants to see children learning about the European Union at school. Furthermore, she underlined the importance of social media in order to promote the European idea across the public and believes that every citizen has the ability to learn quickly about the importance of the EU in our lives.

Different social activities aimed at bringing together people from different backgrounds were discussed. In general, all participants supported the theory that the “Bruxellois” and the people who settled in Brussels needed to get to know each other better. However, in order to make the EU more transparent, it was also considered important to allow the citizens to have more access to employees of the EU institutions. Abram acknowledged that the “Open Days” have lost their public appeal in the course of the years. She demanded to identify a clear target group and focus on them in order to make the EU more attractive.

Yet, Hélin reminded everyone that many people don’t even go to vote at local elections. If citizens don’t care about their immediate impact on their lives, it will be even harder to make them understand the importance of the EU. Furthermore, he revealed that more and more so-called “eurocrats” can’t afford to live in Brussels and move to the outskirts of the city, thus making a permanent contact with Brussels citizens barely possible.

But overall, the mood during the debate was optimistic. The problems are well-known, but all panelists have clear ideas on how to tackle them. It will take a major effort to transmit the European idea to those citizens who until now have not shown any interest. The young people sitting in the audience, however, have received some important guidelines during the debate in order to pick up that task.

David MORENO

* * *

The impact of EU institutions in Brussels and its implications can create confusion and misjudgements in people’s minds, argues Dario Droppi. Education from an early age could solve this problem in order to become familiar with the European Idea and everyone who represents it.

* * *

Ce mercredi 23 novembre s’est tenue, au bureau de liaison Bruxelles-Europe, une conférence-débat sur l’impact de l’Europe sur la région de Bruxelles et ses citoyens. La question centrale porte sur la manière dont les Bruxellois accueillent les employés des institutions européennes, et, à l’inverse, comment ces derniers s’intègrent dans la ville. Souvent considérés de riches fonctionnaires vivant dans un ghetto européen, les eurocrates semblent constituer une classe sociale à part, accentuant une fracture déjà présente dans la société de Bruxelles. Quatre invités dont un représentant de la Commission européenne, divers représentants d’institutions tentant d’expliquer l’Europe à large échelle et une journaliste ont pris part à la réflexion.

L’accent porte sur l’implication de la jeunesse. Selon Maria Laura Franciosi, journaliste au Centre européen de Journalisme, « il faudrait apprendre l’Europe dans les écoles ». Certes, cela faciliterait la compréhension d’une Union Européenne (UE) dont les actions ne sont pas toujours claires pour le grand public. De plus l’enfant véhicule l’information vers les parents. Cela contribue à la démystification d’une institution à l’apparence floue, souvent perçue comme un endroit où beaucoup d’argent circule mais pour ne pas voir de résultats concrets. Cependant, selon la journaliste, un manque de volonté politique freine l’insertion d’une nouvelle matière à l’école.

Tant pour les jeunes étudiants que pour leur parents, la frontière entre propagande et information sur les affaires européennes n’est pas toujours bien définie. L’utilité d’associations indépendantes se fait dès lors ressentir. Willy Helin, se trouve à la tête de la Représentation de la Commission Européenne (CE) en Belgique, et insiste sur la transmission de l’information en mettant le holà sur la propagande. Pour cela il faut utiliser des exemples concrets afin d’illustrer les actions des autorités européennes. Ce projet-là mis en place dans tel but, a été (co-)financé par la CE est parlant et on apprend quelque chose par une illustration bien définie. Mais demeure, selon Willy Hellin, un manque de clarté ne fut-ce que dans la différenciation des acteurs principaux de l’UE, c’est-à-dire la Commission, le Parlement Européen et le Conseil de l’UE.

Organiser des événements qui favorisent la mixité entre Bruxellois et eurocrates, est une piste à suivre selon Carlo Luyckx, responsable au Bureau de liaison Bruxelles-Europe. Une conférence ouvre, en effet, la possibilité de débat et de se faire entendre, de part et d’autre. Bruxelles est cosmopolite, et la diversité des cultures se renforce à mesure que l’intégration européenne se poursuit permettant des manifestations à traits plus culturels comme des expositions, par exemple. Néanmoins, toucher le grand public n’est pas chose aisée selon Maïté Abram, directrice du Mouvement Européen de Belgique.

Bruxelles semble donc être la capitale de l’Europe de facto de par la présence de ses instituions. Les clivages, linguistique, politique et religieux que l’on retrouve à Bruxelles ne facilitent pas, d’une part, le travail d’intégration d’une population qui se trouve loin de son pays d’origine, cette distance ne faisant qu’augmenter avec l’élargissement, et parfois pour une période de temps limitée. Néanmoins il facilite le mélange de cultures et la diversité qui constituent la richesse d’une société d’un point de vue humain.

D’autre part, l’impasse se trouve au niveau de l’intérêt que les Bruxellois portent sur les questions européennes. L’organisation d’événements favorise-t-elle un nouveau réel intérêt de la part du public ou bien les événements ne brassent-ils pas uniquement la part de la population déjà initiée par les affaires européennes ou bien se sentant plus « citoyen européen » que « citoyen bruxellois »? Les initiatives ciblées sont effectivement une opportunité d’ouverture, et d’implication mais l’effort devrait se faire des deux côtés. Les frontières sociales de l’UE ne se limitent pas à la commune bruxelloise d’Etterbeek, où sont situées la plupart des institutions, mais elles se trouvent là où l’on décide de les installer, dans nos esprits.

Il est trop réducteur de se limiter à dire « Ces friqués d’eurocrates, ils ne font qu’augmenter les prix à Bruxelles » lorsqu’on entend parler d’un employé à la CE, tout comme trop simple de dire « Excuse me I do not speak French » si l’on est confronté à un échange oral quotidien dans une ville majoritairement francophone. L’effort, selon moi et je rejoins le propos de Maria Laura Franciosi, doit commencer dans les écoles. Willy Helin le rappelle en disant que les enfants ont un effet multiplicateur . Les possibilités sont bien présentes, et le mélange peut se faire, à petits pas, certes, mais en poursuivant, et diversifiant les façons de faire car il n’y a pas une recette miracle pour faire en sorte que les personnes se sentent impliquées.

Dario GROPPI