Published Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 16:48
by
martina 
(1125 views and 4 comments)
Many visions have been given to her: international collaboration in times of mistrust, the common hymn, the architecture. With the latter I’m not only referring to the buildings in Strasburg and Brussels, but also the intellectual architecture in Rome, Schengen, Den Haag, Maastrict or Dublin. My compliments for the past. Visions tied together with a strong symbol: stars on a sky-blue – the colour of peace – background which sparkle so positive and yet discreet.
In spite of this everyone still is primarily focusing on his own affairs in the community building process. In the new EU member states you can win elections with showing hostility towards the EU! Why is that? Because the EU is not producing enough positive action. To be a member of the Union is profitable in terms of the granted subsidies, not in terms of visions. EU-friendly politicians quickly run out of arguments. In Great Britain Maggie Thatcher and John Major could win elections with EU-hostility. Why? Because people over there were afraid that the EU could bring too many developments! Does that make sense? Only when you have no clue, which is because of a lack of professional communication! So, can Europe then agree on a common head of communications? Of course not.
Foreign policy, pensions, health, workers’ rights – all hot topics and cards you can play when you discuss politics with your neighbour, across the fence. And still these issues are tackled better in Germany than in other places where they are not really debated in the population.
There is no discussion: From a German perspective it would be only negligent to create a common European standard for health care policy (since this would mean the end of the German statutory health insurance). Indeed, this might be in the interest of most EU citizens and a prerequisite for community rights. But it will not work out. I fondly recall the stereotypical photos from holidays in Southern Europe: Old people scrambling in their little olive grove or sitting in front of a shabby cottage, most of them without teeth. Romantic images, but maybe not quite to the individual taste of those who got to know partial retirement and health insurance. Still, beautiful photos to show your friends after the holiday.
It is obvious, especially after the failure of the EU constitution, that Europe is not communicating its successes. From all sides Europe is framed as dangerous. Not satisfactory for those who are familiar with the content of the EU constitution. Not satisfactory for those who supported the Euro. No one talks about 'toy money' anymore and being able to travel and work abroad without passport and visa requirements is so great, that nobody brings up the issues anymore. Visions that have become reality are quickly forgotten.
But let us return to the topic at hand, since Europe has to earn its place in the world. My proposals for the PES manifesto themes: Tendering procedures, which bind employers to wage agreements, were recently abolished by the European Court of Justice (see for example the Rüffert case). What do we do? We wait and see if the EU can present a new vision. - short-term and good. Recharge the batteries, bring the megaphone to the mouth and determinedly communicate until a visionary and social Europe for everyone has become reality.
This is a contribution from my fellow party member, Martin Koch, SPD Göttingen.
Find a German-language version attached to this post or read it on Parteiblog.
Tags: blogger of the week, democracy, diversity, EU
File:
Europa - die Frau hatte Weitsicht_DE.pdf
loading...
Comments
1. European political parties by Asynjen
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 17:19
Hello Martina and Martin - I definetely agree that there's a need for a lot more (professional) communication from the institutions. We need to see more ambition from the EU in this respect - today the EU communication budget is significantly lower than that of the UN, communication is not a priority!However, I would prefer to see the European parties more visible than to invest more in 'EU PR'. I don't know if you have ever seen the Commission's YouTube channel? Honestly, in my view, it's a bit propagandistic! I would rather invest the money in the European parties who are in more direct contact with the electorate and more motivated for mobilizing citizens (than an institution like the Commission which is unelected by nature and not really concerned about voters). What do you think?
2. PES or EU communication by MartinKoch on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 22:25
Hi Asynjen!
Thank you for your comment! I totally agree that the parties and Members of Parliament should be in a better position to communicate their work. But - at least in our region - not enough measurable work take place to be communicated.
The EU - in comparison to the regional and national administration - simply does not support projects and is not involved in everyday's life of the people here. This could, of course, be the fault of local administration or politicians, but I don't think so entirely. The PES-candidates or MoPs are not present here, unless it is 'election time'. You will not get closer to them by supporting ther communication. But you would surely get a better view on their efforts!
This leads me to the thought that we should support official EU-communication as well as qualifying PES-people to optimize the local EU-communication at the same time. Most of the EU- and PES-material that lands on my table is too lengthy and too complicated for the life of the people. We want colorful, realistic visions and energy on short- and midterm-basis!
And we need sucessful projects to demonstrate the power of Europe. ;-)
Sad, but at least here we really have a lack of examples to show that Europe is important and will hopefully become the most important political base for all Europeans. This would be a good reason to go and vote. In our hometown, not more than 30 % take part in EU-elections.
I am sure that the power of the Parliament will increase and the power of the Commission (I don't know their channel) will decrease in order to strengthen democracy in the near future. In addition, we need A1 candidates and MoPs so that the politics of the EU will be understood. Do you share this impression?
3. More about communication... by Asynjen
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:05
My hope is also that the power of the Parliament will continue to increase - this has been the trend until now, so I'm optimistic in this respect.
I once read a text by a German author, Michael Brüggemann, about different approaches to communication within the EU institutions. It might sound a bit boring at first, but it was a really interesting study. The conclusion was that there are 7 different approaches to communication among the people working in Brussels - ranging from 'archaic' (very old-fashioned, preferably not communicating at all!) to a much more modern and interactive understanding of communication (a dialogue between equal partners). So if we can push a lot more people in the Commission to believe in a modern form of communication AND at the same time invest more in the European political parties - I think we will move a BIG STEP forward! :-)
This, I think, is also in line with what you suggest; investing in BOTH official EU-communication and European political parties. Would you say that the PES manifesto should mention this explicitly?
4. Communication by MartinKoch on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 18:22
Hey Asynjen! Sorry about the delay of my response!!
I would definately agree that there is a need of mentioning this point in the PES-manifesto. If I understand you correctly, then you are right: It is not only a question of official languages and translations, there has to be a general agreement on high-quality-communication in modern terms.
Since this is a translation of my German text (by the way: Thank you very much, translator ;-)) I would also like to mention a reaction on the German version on www.parteiblog.de:
parteiblog.de-user "Nils" wrote (my translation): Quite a lot of good observations. But there is a fact that is not mentioned often in the debate about EU-communication: EU is not a thing of it's own. It is a decision-making level. The EU is made either valuable or harmful by the political decisions that are made for our societies.
The people don't trust the EU because they are not taught why and how political decisions are made. That is why we need functioning political parties so badly. They can offer their concepts of civil society and their therefore resulting projects in the EU. As long as this does not work, the EU will stay a project for professional idiots (elites would be to nice a word).
To be able to post comments you need to be logged in. No account yet? Register here! Lost your password?