boards.ie does Brussels

oscarBravo

Hi all - at the invitation of the European Commission, sceptre, DeVore and I will be travelling to Brussels early next week with a group of Irish journalists to meet with various key personnel. Among the people we will meet are the EC Secretary-General, the Director-General for Trade, the Head of Competition, Charlie McCreevy and the Irish MEPs.

We can't guarantee that we'll be in a position to ask any given questions, or raise any given points, but - since we'll be there representing boards.ie (that's you lot) - what points would you like to see raised?

SkepticOne

I suppose one thing that is of concern is the commission's ability to reject requests from the elected parliament.

For example back in 2005:

The European Parliament voted unanimously in favor of requesting a restart for the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented interventions last month, but the Commission has declined that request, and it could now be formally adopted by the European Council of Ministers within a week. url=http://www.cbronline.com/news/ec_rejects_european_patent_restart]source[/url

I understand that this ability is still in place after Lisbon. I would be interested to see how commissioners defend this ability to reject such reqeusts (not specifically in this example but in general) and how MEPs feel about it.

DublinWriter

I don't mean the following question to sound vexatious, but out of curiosity, who is funding your trip?

SkepticOne

Just another question. When is the trip and for how long?

oscarBravo

DublinWriter wrote: »

I don't mean the following question to sound vexatious, but out of curiosity, who is funding your trip?

The Commission. It's an annual briefing for the Irish media - it's not just a boards.ie trip, we're tagging along with a bunch of journalists.

SkepticOne wrote: »

Just another question. When is the trip and for how long?

Flying out Monday evening, returning Wednesday evening.

P. Breathnach

Good for you guys, and thank you for the invitation to participate indirectly (I'm available to participate more directly if you need an expenses-paid bag-carrier, provided the bag is not too heavy).

Is it an open agenda, or have you been given a frame of reference?

oscarBravo

We haven't seen the agenda yet. We'll share it if we get it in advance.

SkepticOne

Are you arranging meetings for yourselves with commisioners/MEPS etc or will it be all press events?

The Saint

Bring Scofflaw too.

ei.sdraob

what is EU doing about the disconnect/lack of knowledge/interest by the populace about how the EU works/operates, and how EU benefits us all

the above was the real issue that surfaced during the Lisbon debate

Scofflaw

The Saint wrote: »

Bring Scofflaw too.

I am currently negotiating for that to happen...!

cordially,
Scofflaw

dudara

I miss Brussels - get yourselves down to Delirium off the Grote Markt for some fine beer!

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what is EU doing about the disconnect/lack of knowledge/interest by the populace about how the EU works/operates, and how EU benefits us all

Surely events like this are part of the answer.

The Saint wrote: »

Bring Scofflaw too.

Scofflaw deserves it as a reward for work done, but hardly seems to need opportunities like this in order to get a better understanding of the EU.

Dinner

If Nigel Farage is around that day (lol) be sure to say that the Yes voters on boards.ie thank him profusely for all his hard work campaigning for a yes vote to Lisbon.

BlitzKrieg

should the question be more focused on boards.ie and the EU, or simply the EU?

hmmm

Ask them about addressing how unfriendly the EU websites tend to be for research and the oppurtunities the EU offers in funding etc. I swear that website is a nightmare to find out what media grants the EU is offering at times.

Maybe rather then breaking it down by institution they'd break it down by service.


thats not really a question now is it...i'm just b*tching.


hmmmm gonna be thinking long and hard for a decent question

bonkey

I'd like to ask them how they see the role of "new" media developing over the coming years.

I mean this in the following sense...

Its great that we get to be represented at this event, but its a "traditional media" event. We get to go there, do the same things the traditional media journos do, and then report it on a different platform. It doesn't leverage new media any differently to old media...its just another avenue.

New media is, at its core, much more of a two-way street. It doesn't just facilitate interaction, it exists because of it.

Regardless of how opinions may differen in the significance that the likes of boards.ie played in debate leading up to the second Lisbon Treaty, the reality is that such significance will only grow over time. Yet, there is currently no-one leveraging this two-way street. There are some benefits being passively reaped, and we are beginning to see traditional interaction (e.g. in the form of this trip, the video interviews done just before the referendum etc.), but that's about it.

I haven't figured out how to ask the question, but its a question that needs to be asked. Are we JAM to them (Just Another Media), or are we something new...and if we're not JAM, then how do they see this developing?

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

I'd like to ask them how they see the role of "new" media developing over the coming years.

I mean this in the following sense...

Its great that we get to be represented at this event, but its a "traditional media" event. We get to go there, do the same things the traditional media journos do, and then report it on a different platform. It doesn't leverage new media any differently to old media...its just another avenue.

New media is, at its core, much more of a two-way street. It doesn't just facilitate interaction, it exists because of it.

Regardless of how opinions may differen in the significance that the likes of boards.ie played in debate leading up to the second Lisbon Treaty, the reality is that such significance will only grow over time. Yet, there is currently no-one leveraging this two-way street. There are some benefits being passively reaped, and we are beginning to see traditional interaction (e.g. in the form of this trip, the video interviews done just before the referendum etc.), but that's about it.

I haven't figured out how to ask the question, but its a question that needs to be asked. Are we JAM to them (Just Another Media), or are we something new...and if we're not JAM, then how do they see this developing?

Yes, I think that's one of the best questions that can be asked by boards.ie representatives (I'm assuming I won't get to go at this stage).

1. Given that the Commission is currently committed to the increased use of the Internet as a communications channel with the European public, to what extent is the Commission both aware of, and willing to engage with, the unique features of new/social media?

2. Which areas/types of new/social media do they see as particularly influential and/or useful in dialogue with the public?

3. How successful have they been/do they feel they have been in their use of new/social media so far?


It is quite possible, of course, to return a series of glib answers to those questions - "oh, yeah, we're totally committed, look - it's in our action plan", "[blurt name of current hippest media here]", and "well, we're really just starting, you know, but we feel that we've had some useful interaction". Just to provide a little ammunition in response to such answers:

As far as I know, the Commission is committed to the use of the Internet - however, again as far as I know, their internal attitude can be summed up by this document, which outlines a stifling policy of centralised control and lumbering bureaucracy comparable to those adopted by multinationals in the late 1990s. One might well ask why they feel that a policy of rigid centralised architecture is appropriate to the Internet when it isn't used for any other media, given that the Internet is particularly a flexible and decentralised medium?

They have no idea which bits of the internet are most influential, any more than anyone else does - there are no surveys that go significantly beyond having "the Internet" as one of the possible answers to "which of the following information sources do you consider trustworthy?".

A couple of Commissioner blogs, a Youtube channel (EUTube), a forum with about 100 users of questionable sanity (Debate Europe) and the world's most enormous and badly organised website barely constitute even dipping their toe in the modern Internet - it's as much of a start on it as 'thinking about it' is a start on climbing Everest.

Not that I want to be harsh, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Well, you could ask them to sponsor web ads to be placed alongside the columns of the leading Euro-sceptic journalists which would encourage people to learn more about the EU by clicking on the link.

Something straightforward like "Tired of sad fantasies about the EU, read the facts for yourself".

View

Not sure I can express this properly but I'll give it a go.

A lot of websites are very much written from an organisational perspective not from a customer perspective. That is to say, they tend to be "We are XYZ and we have been here since the year dot" - only after you work your way through that stuff do you get to "These are out products/services that we might offer you". By way of contrast, really good customer focused websites, such as Amazon.com etc. are all about helping the customer make a purchase - the pages that say who we are stays tucked away at the bottom of the page.

The EU's websites are not customer focused - they are largely along the "this is who we are/how we do it" line.

Ideally, they should be focused on helping the "customer" find stuff that could be of use to them in a more practical manner. It might be "We are looking at issue X. If you want to comment on it, these are your local MEPs, this the relevant Minister and this the relevant Commissioner and DG". Likewise, "Funding that maybe of interest to you is available for the following programs (and here are the organisations in your county already getting grants)" etc.

The EU would seem more relevant to a lot of people if they could see information in this way.

oscarBravo

Something like citizensinformation.eu, along the lines of citizensinformation.ie? I like it.

star gazer

We're in the middle of one of the worst economic crises a developed country has gone through outside of war, can we count on Europe to help or should we fear Europe will take a role like the IMF might and dictate what will happen in the day-to-day running of Ireland soon?

Can Ireland deflate it's cost base to become competitive while in the Euro area where other countries in the past devalued their currencies?

What areas should Ireland concentrate on to return to GNP growth and how can Europe help with each area?

Does Europe take climate change seriously enough to drive the world forward for the Copenhagen talks?

Will Europe speak with one voice on the world stage?

oscarBravo

We're (sort of) back from this - I won't be properly back until some time tomorrow - but I wanted to pop in and say that the trip went very well. We met all the Irish MEPs as well as a couple from other countries, senior Commission officials, one Commissioner, and one former Taoiseach.

The Parliament and Commission staffers who looked after us were very helpful and welcoming; the officials and politicians were open and forthright.

More detail to follow from me tomorrow, and from the others as and when.

evercloserunion

Did anyone try to abort you while you were there?

In all seriousness, looking forward to hearing what happened. Did you get to ask any questions? I was going to write a post on how some of the questions suggested here are, IMO, inappropriate but then I realised it's a bit late for that now!

oscarBravo

OK, here's a brief summary of the people we met and some of the things that were discussed while we were there. This is from my rather flaky memory and sparse notes, so bear with me and feel free to ask questions.

On Tuesday morning we had a briefing from Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who talked about the role of an MEP. Among other things, she expressed her view that the new roles of President and High Representative should fit into the existing institutions, rather than creating a new centre of power. We also heard from David Martin, Scottish MEP, who said that he believed that Tony Blair would make a good president, but that he probably wouldn't get the job. He talked about the UK's relationship with the EU; how the Conservatives have isolated themselves in the Parliament, and how Cameron is damaging relations with other European leaders. I believe he used the phrase "running sore" to describe the Tories' attitude to the EU. He also expressed the belief that Scotland's attitude to the EU is quite different from England's.

Then we had a briefing from the Irish MEPs, who arrived and left at various times depending on their schedules. I think Seán Kelly and Nessa Childers were there the longest. Liam Aylward didn't make the briefing, but joined us for lunch.

Seán Kelly expressed the view that too much is expected from MEPs at constituency level; there's a perception that if they're not showing up at local events, funerals or what have you, they're not doing their job. He also believes that the ratification of Lisbon has improved Ireland's image in Europe.

Prionsias de Rossa feels that it's important to strengthen the social dimension of the EU. He commented on the EU's role in the Middle East (more on this later); how Obama's rowing back on the subject of settlements did some damage, but also how important it is that the EU and the US continue to work together on the problem. He felt that Ireland having a female commissioner (Máire Geoghan-Quinn, obviously) would be an important marker - this was a common theme, the idea that the Commission should be gender-balanced, and that the Parliament may consider that factor when deciding whether to approve the Commission.

Joe Higgins described the current situation in Brussels as an "inter-regnum", wondered how Lisbon would impact on the working of the institutions, and said he was eagerly awaiting the implementation of the "promised workers' paradise". He said that NAMA was conspiring in a lie to bail out banks and developers, and that there was no latitude being offered on budget deficits, which impacts on workers. He also said the Commissioner, whoever he or she is, will toe the neo-liberal line - not by any means his only airing of the "neo-liberal" catchphrase.

Nessa Childers talked about climate change and green jobs, and the possibility of a Labour Commissioner. She doesn't expect to see a legally-binding agreement coming from Copenhagen - only a gentlemen's agreement.

Pat the Cope talked about Irish fisheries having paid too high a price for Ireland's EU membership (a point to which Dr Garret Fitzgerald, who was one of the journalists present, took exception). He said that the increase in co-decision is a positive development, and that no-one would be a better candidate for Commissioner than MG-Q.

Mairead McGuinness talked about the importance of separating financial regulation from industry, in the sense of not having industry players go on to be regulators (at least, I think that's what she meant).

There was more from all of these, and other contributions from the rest of the MEPs, but I only made notes of those things that jumped out at me.

Over lunch, we each ate with different MEPs - I sat beside Gay Mitchell and near Joe Higgins. I found Gay a lot easier to talk to than Joe, who doesn't quite seem to get the concept of banter.

After lunch, we headed over to the Commission where we had a briefing by David O'Sullivan, Director-General for Trade. He explained how the fact that supply chains have become so integrated means that the global downturn has had a disproportionate effect on trade. He talked about the EU's role in world trade, and how it is strongly informed by a pro-development agenda: the policy is one of 100% tariff-free and quota-free trade of all products (except weapons) between the EU and the world's least-developed countries. He also talked about the recent trade deal that has been agreed with (presumably South) Korea, and how it has involved Korea agreeing to recognise European and international standards.

Then we had a briefing from Valentin Gescher, who talked about EU/US relations. Apparently there was an EU/US summit on November 3-4, which received almost no press coverage - certainly I don't recall being aware of it. He gave an interesting presentation, but unfortunately I didn't take many notes, so hopefully sceptre or DeVore will be able to fill in some blanks.

Finally we met with Catherine Day, who talked about the role of the Commission, refused to speculate as to who will be President or High Representative, and pointedly ruled herself out as candidate for Irish Commissioner.

The day ended with a reception hosted by Charlie McCreevey, whom I didn't get to talk to for more than a few minutes, but I did spend quite some time talking to Francis Jacobs, head of the European Parliament's office in Ireland - a very interesting and enthusiastic gentleman. I took the opportunity to mention to him the idea of a "citizensinformation.eu" sort of website, but didn't get to follow it up - I'm hoping to do so by email.

The following morning we returned to the Commission for a briefing by Anthony Whelan, Head of Cabinet for Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. He talked about the banking crisis in the context of competition issues; specifically, about how the Commission had issued guidelines relating to bank guarantees and re-capitalisation, and how to keep them compatible with EU state-aid rules. (Mary Minahan of the Irish Times wrote an article that sums up this briefing better than I could.)

The next briefing was from Michael Mann, spokesman for Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel. He talked about upcoming CAP reform, including a shift away from payment on a historic basis and towards a per-hectare basis. There will also be a greater emphasis on rural development. He described farm subsidies as a safety net, as farming is not a traditional business, being subject to unpredictable influences such as weather. He talked about the WTO, and how the EU is no longer the "bad guy" in talks because of CAP reforms. He also mentioned that export refunds will be gone by 2013.

Finally, we had a briefing by Gwenda Jeffreys-Jones on the Middle East Peace Process. As tends to be the case, because there was a Powerpoint presentation involved, I forgot to take notes, but I suspect sceptre will be only too happy to fill us in.

That's the basic chronology of the visit. I didn't ask many (if any) questions in the briefings (sceptre and DeVore did), but I did have some interesting one-on-one conversations with MEPs and officials alike. I also had the privilege of a number of conversations with Dr Garret Fitzgerald (who wrote an op-ed on the trip in today's Times).

Rather importantly, we were able to bring this website to the attention of the PTBs in Brussels (and in Ireland), and hopefully paved the way for more interaction between them and you in the future.

Daftendirekt

Fair play, OB.

Sounds like it was a fairly productive trip.