Martin Luther starring in "When Luther came to Brussels"

Swedish-speakers were given a real insider treat when former Brussels correspondent Emily von Sydow some ten years ago published a recollection of her insights into Sweden’s first years in the EU maze.

The year was 1995. It had been close, almost 50–50, but here we arrived – with Luther in the back of our heads. Sweden and Finland had joined the family, over two decades behind their southern partner Denmark, the Latin of the North. Protestant Nordics, champions of openness and modern administration, had entered a predominantly catholic union of peoples, characterized by French-inspired bureaucracy, centralisation and an air of secretiveness.

Blow of fresh air?

Blow of fresh air? Or an unavoidable clash of cultures? Women and men driven by ideals such as good order and discipline, pragmatism, punctuality and equality came to realise it was a matter of learning, adjusting and surviving. And transparency? In a culture of leaking bits of information to the chosen ones it soon became evident it was – if not all, but almost – about whom you know. Information is power, indeed.

Transparency train

Yet the debate had already emerged, in the 1980s, on the European agenda. Conscious of the democracy deficit, lack of openness and the need to try to “bridge the cap” between Brussels’ elites and the people… EU’s main three institutions took action, during the 1990s, to allow access to their documents.

Breakthrough came in 1997. With Amsterdam, transparency and openness finally made a real, though still restricted, entrée into Europe’s decision-making. The treaty stipulated EU citizens’ right to know and called for action to put it in place.

Transparency, simplicity and efficiency in EU decision-making were priorities unlikely to be presented by another than a Nordic Presidency. Finns got there first in 1999. Yet it was in May 2001, under the Swedish Presidency, that the EU finally got its first serious set of rules on access to EU institutions’ documents – symbolic or not.

Has progress been made?

A question I put some months ago to British Labour MEP Michael Cashman, Parliament’s rapporteur for the first ever EU regulation on access to documents. “Yes, but” – he answered. The MEP, having become “something of a train spotter” for transparency, has now been working on the 9-year old EU rules’ revision.

Certain institutional and cultural reluctance towards transparency still exists, Cashman noted. Speaking about year 1999, former EastEnders‘ star explained: “It was felt that it would slow up the work of institutions, that they would be less effective and that somehow scrutiny was something to be worried about”.

New clothes needed

“But there are also faults and the clothes we gave to the first born are no longer fitting”. In order to make access to documents easy, Cashman has proposed, among others, a common register for EU institutions’ documents, “one doorway saying European Union access to documents, where you go in and type your request”.

“If you are a journalist, if you are a lobbyist, you will know your way around the maze”. Exercising and testing the boundaries of the right to access EU documents has fallen largely in the hands of those who already “believe” and know. Statewatch for example is notoriously famous for having drafts on sensitive issues such as the EU–US “SWIFT” agreement even ahead of the MEPs. And if you are not? “Citizens should be able to access documents online, despite the administrative burden”, Cashman argues.

With Lisbon the EU entered yet another era in transparency, the new treaty reconfirming the need to take decisions “as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”. Making the EU’s other legislator, the Council, to legislate doors open, “people will see in Finland, the UK, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, wherever, that things are not imposed by Brussels, but actually agreed by their governments acting in Council. And they’ll be able to see how their governments voted”, Cashman reminds us.

With the risk of starting to sound all too complacent, one cannot talk about transparency without mentioning the European Ombudsman. The EU’s first ever parliamentary watchdog Jacob Söderman got credit for being a “people’s champion” for openness, like European Voice put it, dressing, well, the Finn, as a crusader. Despite years of work in this field, the successor Greek Nikiforos Diamandouros still faces similar challenges: of the 355 inquiries he completed in 2008 , 36 % dealt with a lack of transparency, including a refusal to provide information or documents.

Why does transparency matter?

With Lisbon the EU entered yet another era in transparency, the new treaty reconfirming the need to take decisions “as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”. Making the EU’s other legislator, the Council, to legislate doors open, “people will see in Finland, the UK, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, wherever, that things are not imposed by Brussels, but actually agreed by their governments acting in Council. And they’ll be able to see how their governments voted”, Cashman reminds us.

Citizens have a right to know. This is pure basics of a democratic system. Without knowing what is being and has been decided, and why, you cannot participate, nor can you try to hold decision-makers accountable.

Right to know and be informed

That brings us to the other side of the coin: the administration’s duty to inform and communicate its work and decisions – in an understandable way. Yet we know that communication involves choices. It cannot therefore replace the right to access information and documents.

Transparency, openness, access to documents, clarity of EU communication… these all are keys to the legitimacy of EU politics and laws so dearly sought after.

The hurdles of opening up EU’s businesses to citizens’ participation and oversight will be back on the MEPs’ plate after the summer break. After having been stalled at an interinstitutional level, the stumbling blocks now seem to be indoors the one-year-old new Parliament.

What do EU and dogs have in common?

“A very typical Finnish subject!” was the reaction when I recently mentioned my interest in transparency issues in a job interview. Sure: we Nordics tend to have a special liking for the case of open administration, and like to think we have worked to get the rest of the EU on board. A lot has changed since 1995, much for the better, and also not only thanks to the Nordics. The EU itself has almost doubled in size. But transparency and openness still matter and benefit all of us, no?

…As for von Sydow, unlike many other Swedes and Finns, she doesn’t seem to have grown tired of Brussels ways. She writes, just around the EP corner, on European affairs – and sometimes dogs.

Fazer's infamous lakupekka. This candy wrapping you won't find on shop shelves anymore.

Europeans are, and have always been immigrants. They have fled hunger, they have fled wars – or just left in the hope of a better new life elsewhere. The map of Europe has evolved through migration, and tens of millions of European migrants have transformed the faces of other continents.

I myself am an immigrant. I did not flee hunger, despite the fact that coming here meant quitting a job of managing EU food aid to the welfare state’s poor back home. But yes, in a way, you could say the latter, search for a better life, applies to me, too.

Like many of us working for Europe, me too I have faced certain suspicion from the side of the indigenous Belgians towards us the “Common Market” people, like they often call us – “prices have gone up, life is more difficult…” And sure, we bitch about Belgium, the sometimes hopeless and endless bureaucracy, and crime. Never resorted to the “I’m not a racist, but…” phrase? I have to admit I did, resort to it.

As naive it may sound, it was in Belgium where I for the first time really realised how privileged I was, a white blond – whom the police would never stop on the street to check the papers, who would get most chances and only the sky would be limit – except maybe for the glass ceiling. A girl who “won in a lottery” as she was born in a country like Finland… Whereas, in another life, I might not even have had a chance to been born, nor to go to school…

The F-factor

Yes, Finland, a country where 59% of the population just claimed not to want more immigrants. With their current 2.5% share of the whole population, I find this poll difficult to grasp – even if the question could have been better formulated. And I live in a country where the extreme right gets even third of votes in some areas. There’s a pattern, they say. During times of economic downturn people’s attitudes tend to harden. Increasing unemployment makes any industrious Thai berry picker or Somali bus driver a threat to you, no? I am ashamed.

When the first boat refugees from Vietnam arrived at the end of 70s, they were flown over the Helsinki archipelago to get a better view of the country they where about to start a new life in. Welcome to Finland, the pilot greeted – I read in our main daily. What a change in attitudes.

Matter of fear? Of not just “them” taking “our” jobs. Fear of the “the other”, unknown, fear of change? That’s at least what MEPs concluded after visiting Italy’s Rosarno earlier this year, following incidents between immigrant workers and locals. And fear is present, everywhere in Europe. Those who have spoken out, researchers and the few politicians, they have felt it. They have been threatened – even up to being silenced. So are artists like the Muhammad cartoonists, some of which claim only to have experienced with limits of art.

At the same time we know, our decision-makers know that Europe is getting greyer, older and our way of living more and more untenable – unless we get more people to keep us going. For many Europe is still the Eldorado, worth even risking one’s life for to get to. But three months of -20 degrees Celsius? Not sure everybody fancies making snow angels or jumping from a hot sauna in an ice hole…

R like responsibility

My country, like the EU, is bound by international conventions such as the Geneva Convention, which defines who is a refugee, as well as the states’ responsibilities to protect them by granting asylum. The Convention has also been the starting point for Europe’s work to protect better those fleeing persecution, be it for their race, political opinions, religion, or nationality.

EU is moving, though slowly, towards a common asylum and migration policy with minimum standards. My native town Tampere still gets some credit for having been the cradle for this process. Our MEPs have been working on proposals to improve the way the EU asylum system works and to strengthen asylum seekers’ rights. However, sharing the burden, by way of a binding mechanism and obligatory solidarity, is not something all EU member states are keen to agree to.

Are we talking big money? At less than €4.2 billion EU wide, these total asylum-related costs in 2007 were less than what UK citizens spent on pets and pet food in the same year.

The burden varies from one state to another. Europe received in 2007 just 14% of the world’s refugees, while EU countries received some 220,000 asylum requests, about 75% of those filed in the whole world. Those on the Mediterranean coast are under biggest pressure. But they are not the only ones reaching, or having to reach, out a helping hand. In the past years Sweden granted asylum to 40% of the Iraqis seeking protection in the EU. As for my country, Finland is committed to taking an annual quota of 750 persons with UNHCR refugee status. Not much.

Are we talking big money? Not really. According to a recent study, the total of direct spending by each EU country has generally not been more than the equivalent of 1/14th of the UN official development aid target of 0.7% of Gross National Income. At less than €4.2 billion EU wide, these total asylum-related costs in 2007 were less than what UK citizens spent on pets and pet food in the same year.

R-talk

We know we need to talk about it, but who dares to pronounce it, the R-word? In the era of political correctness, no hot potato is a potato. Euphemisms encroach. We change candy wrappings, we are ready to give up school plays and customs not to offend. But how relevant are these gestures if we don’t talk about the real “59% problem”. In my country, populist forces have gained in support with their “immigration-critical” talk, something which the main parties have found too irresistible not to resort to. So they encourage it. There’s of course nothing wrong with being critical, But. Any system means some failures – but all that claimed abuse we now have to deal with? Or is it just an easy hand wash?

In a multicultural Europe, clashes occur. But we who are better off have a responsibility to do our best to make those fleeing or leaving their homes part of our societies. Yes, it is a two-way street. They need to learn too, be it our ways, culture, language, laws. But anybody having lived abroad should be able to say it is a two-way street also in another sense: we too learn from them, their ways, culture and language. Something to think about, and not only on Sunday March 21, the international day against racism.

Would this girl prefer soft ice to a treaty?

We finally got it, beginning November. The last of the many hurdles was surmounted when Czech President Klaus, a vehement opponent of the new treaty, finally gave in and signed it. It was a long and winding road: nearly a decade of negotiations, a draft Constitution rejected by a French “non” and a Dutch “nee”, a plan B, a plan D, two Irish referendums, one “no”, talks and more talks, little touches here and there, some concessions, another “yes”… and we’re finally there. Intended to take effect in January 2009, Lisbon is coming into force close to a year later, on December 1.

Looking back, I ask myself, how come Lisbon’s been such a bitter pill to swallow? After all, the reform treaty was all along meant to streamline and modernise the EU machinery, making it more able to act and deliver – in a time when Europe and the rest of the world are faced with new challenges like globalisation, climate change, energy security and terrorism – and no single state can effectively deal with them alone.

“We-know-best”?

After the “no-nos”, Europe’s been dealing with its history’s biggest political damage-control exercise. It’s been about democracy, dialogue and debate. It’s been about a totally new focus on communicating EU to its citizens, and it’s been about giving birth to us. But did the EU, its Parliament, manage to convince the 500 million Europeans in the 27 member states that this is for their own good, and that the sky is not falling?

I’m afraid we didn’t quite make it. I’m afraid the man and the woman of the street still think of us as the distant Brussels elite, bureaucrats and politicians pushing for things they don’t need nor want, or might even fear – with a top-down authoritarian tendency: “we-know-best”. I’m afraid the way the new treaty was pushed through – let alone the recent name game on the appointment of the new top dogs – has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Europeans. Lisbon is not an easy sell as an exercise in greater democracy.

EP 2.0 in the making

Yet both Europe and the rest of the world have changed since the EU laid its foundations some 50 years ago. Something has to be done to make it function better, no? I myself am not suffering from high F-fever. But if we’re here to work together for common goals, I sure wish to have the best possible means for it. And, then again, no tool is of course ever going to suffice if the will to use it is missing.

We in the “EU bubble” believe it is only by working together, in a more efficient, accountable, transparent and coherent way and speaking with one voice that Europe can respond to its citizens’ major concerns…

On that treaty paper, signed by EU presidents and prime ministers in Lisbon just about two years ago, we have a new European Parliament with more power and more responsibility in shaping Europe than ever before. On paper, we have more democracy, both representative and direct, we have more efficiency, more transparency, more accountability, and we have a whole new binding catalogue of civil, political, economic and social rights – the Charter of Fundamental Rights – for Europe’s citizens. The reform treaty makes the EU and its Parliament better equipped for today’s and tomorrow’s challenges – also in view of future enlargements. We need it.

What the EU, its Parliament and the MEPs will make out of Lisbon remains of course to be seen. But we got it, and we now have to sell it: the new treaty, and, in particular, the new Parliament. Both to the media and to the citizens.

We have a story…

The story is there. In the institutional power game, your Parliament is a winner, once more. Its powers have increased with every successive change of EU treaties, Lisbon being the latest and so far the highest step. With Lisbon, your Parliament becomes a truly equal lawmaker with the member states’ Council of Ministers. And it will also have a tighter hold on EU’s purse strings: from now on, it will decide on the entire EU budget together with the Council. Further, in the Lisbon era, your Parliament will not only decide what is done and how money is spent, but it will also have a greater say on which men and women run the EU.

New power means more responsibility. As the only directly-elected EU institution, the Parliament will have new tools to give a stronger voice to the half a billion citizens it represents and to hold the EU accountable to them. It will be the guardian of EU citizens’ new catalogue of rights, as well as their new right of asking for policy proposals if supported by 1 million signatures. Also, it will be a watchdog for national parliaments’ right to object to European level legislative proposals should they think they can handle it better at national level.

Yes, the story is there. But how to tell it? How do we get the message through? Via traditional media? Via new social media? What are the right tools? What are the citizens concerned with?

…but how to tell it?

Yes, the story is there. But how to tell it? How do we get the message through? Via traditional media? Via new social media? What are the right tools? What are the citizens concerned with? We read Eurobarometer. And should people be excited about the EP and its new powers (but of course!) Can they ever care? We tried to convince them to vote. Now, with a presumable elections’ fatigue, is anybody any more receptive to our message? And, could the EP be a victim of its own success?

We try to say it’s good for them. We say it has an impact – a big one – in their daily lives. We give examples, concrete ones. But we’re faced with a lack of faces (except the “X-factor”, soon to be 754, our MEPs), we’re faced with a complex treaty, we’re faced with 22 languages and 27 member states with their different political and legal cultures.

Brand! Target! Go local! Involve emotion! Be creative! Establish a relationship! Invite them to stay in touch – the wise guys out there say. We try. But it’s so much more easier to say than to do it. This is a tough one.

The Candidate (1972) starring Robert Redford

Ministers come and go but the business goes on as usual…

And MEPs? Sure, some, though very few, are there ever since the first direct European elections in 1979. Yet, like ministers, the majority of MEPs come and go – some staying longer, others shorter. What should we voters make out of this? What kind of representatives do we need? Fresh faces – or old foxes knowing their way through the Brussels maze?

One thing is for sure: there are bound to be plenty of new faces among the 736 MEPs to be elected during 4-7 June elections. Some 180 members of the currently 785-strong European Parliament resigned since taking their term in 2004, often to get another job in their national parliament or government. And many others are not running again. Take the case of Finland, my native country. Half of our current 14 MEPs are stepping down, some after a ten years’ turn.

While getting fresh faces and air to the house is good, without any doubt, the renewal also raises questions of continuity, of institutional, party-political and national political memory. For a small (in population terms) country like mine, the memory will be kind of halved, and the new MEPs, even if they were no political novices, will have to work hard to find their place and create their networks, if they wish to make things happen.

The Candidates

In principle any European with full citizens’ rights can stand for election. And to do so not only in his/her native country but also in another EU country, provided he/she has been resident there. As a voter you hardly get the chance to cross-examine your potential choice. And you should be able to trust that the parties have already done this for you, made sure that she/he is up to it, right? As a consumer of political decisions, you can expect a certain level of protection, no?

So what kind of criteria do political parties apply when looking for and choosing their candidates? Celebs to attract and gather votes? Women and men of common sense? Experts to deal with the day-to-day European agenda and legislative work? National political figures looking for a break, or even a refuge, abroad? Yes, as amazing as it sounds from my Brussels perspective, it seems that despite its extremely influential position in EU decision-making, some still consider Brussels and the European Parliament just a temporary retreat with not-that-tremendous responsibilities.

Coming back to my country: There will be only 13 Finnish MEPs after June 2009 elections. This makes it all the more important they all are both competent and skilful. As compared for example to Germany and its 99 members, there will not be enough Finns to follow all the legislative work done in the 20 standing committees.

Despite the fact that MEPs do not sit in national groupings, but in political groups of the likeminded, and the fact that it’s all about coalitions and compromises, it’s also about representing your country. Some member states are in fact very active in lobbying or “briefing” their MEPs. And the MEPs often have more say on a piece of legislation on the table than a member states’ minister.

While we may not want to turn European legislating into the hands of an oligarchy of EU experts or civil servants, we voters surely can expect a kind of minimum criteria for those to represent us?

So what is a good MEP made of?

Let’s give a word to those who should know it best, the MEPs themselves. We recently put the question to some of the current representatives, and this is what we got: good negotiating and language skills, ability to listen, build bridges, compromise, solve problems… perseverence, openness, idealism…

“Identify where Europe can be part of the solution, cut through Brussels bureaucracy and work across national and party political boundaries to get results”, as a British MEP put it. “They must have clear values and know what they want, and are not afraid to stand up for their opinion “, a Swedish member said. An Estonian colleague felt that often “it is better to have younger people as MEPs as they have good language skills and can be more flexible sometimes”.

Us, the civil servants, we stay and keep the house going. But without the MEPs there is no Parliament. This is a predominantly political house, full of sometimes converging, other times diverging dynamics, but hey, that’s exactly what makes it so fascinating.

Plenty of attributes. And on top, “energy is needed, since European decision making sometimes can be very hectic”. Rushing from one meeting and vote to another, followed and rated by the press, late nights at work, constant travelling, staying in hotels… Yep, being part of the wheels of the machine is not that bad. Us, the civil servants, we stay and keep the house going. But without the MEPs there is no Parliament. This is a predominantly political house, full of sometimes converging, other times diverging dynamics, but hey, that’s exactly what makes it so fascinating.

And in the end, there are MEPs and MEPs…There are backbenchers and frontrunners. Some hide in the shadows whereas other more ambitious ones crave for influential posts at the head of committees, where more and more decisions are actually taken, to lead the legislative work in the house.

Get ready: 4-7 June approaching

At the time of writing this post not all of 27 Member States had finalised the registration of candidates. In some countries, like mine, it ended, in some others parties or their coalitions will be able to continue registering candidates even up to mid-May. And to find out who are running? Once the registration is over and official lists of candidates become available, EP Information Offices around Europe will provide them.

It’s your choice!

In just a month’s time you, one of the 375 million Europeans to be able to vote, will have the choice, not only to pick (check out this great EU Profiler!) a good candidate, but also to point the way for Europe for the upcoming five years. Like we like to say: If you don’t vote, don’t complain.

Starting from health and environment, going through economic and monetary affairs, fisheries and agriculture…we finally got to my field: justice, home affairs and citizenship issues. I share this subject with my colleague the Tapas Chef (because he likes to keep it short), but he was on holiday, so I presented the upcoming offer.

Given the choice, my main course would definitely have been the protection of EU citizens’ personal data subpoenaed by SWIFT within the US for counter terrorism purposes. We already wrote about the Belgian based company’s transfers of financial data to the US (in order to trace financial transactions of suspected terrorists) and the data protection and privacy issues these transfers raised.

Jade Spence going after an all-time scoop

But that was some two years ago. I would have loved to come back to it – if only the meeting of MEPs, Commissioner Barrot and the expert, “European eminent person” and former prosecutor Jean-Louis Bruguière was not going to be held closed doors. Even in the most open and accessible EU house, confidentiality is sometimes an issue.

So move on. Parliament adopted during its February Strasbourg session a report on the findings of Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) MEPs who during the past three years visited a number of detention centres for asylum seekers and refugees in the member states. Their aim was to see with their own eyes whether minimum standards for asylum seekers were being applied. A WebComm colleague was by the way “dispatched” to Denmark along with the MEP delegation last April.

According to this “Roure” report (named according to the French Socialist Rapporteur), adopted by a large majority of MEPs, the detention centres for asylum seekers are “intolerable” – especially when it comes to reception conditions (hygiene, overcrowding) and the legal aid available (or not). Well, not exactly a scoop, no (and am not Jade Spence either), but an important topic well worth coming back to (that’s what we often do after plenary sessions, as the schedules are simply too loaded during those weeks). Furthermore, immigration issues are one of our priorities. So Roure will be the starter of our week, normalement.

Know your rights! – this will be my main course – provided that the bosses in their editorial committee approve our weekly suggestions. Why? Because only 31 % of the participants of a 2007 Eurobarometer survey regard themselves as well informed about their rights as European citizens. Less than a third… and we do hope that they will know by June 2009 at least about their right to vote in European elections! On Monday LIBE members will discuss what to do about it and how to inform them better. That’s where you’ll find me, in the committee.

But the question of the day was definitely: Albert or Javier? Monaco’s Prince was going to be in Brussels to talk about peace and water. A man with – at least some level of – environmental commitment. That’s what I like, and will eagerly forgive him the playboy past. 

What else? I did have some other ingredients such as CIA prisoner flights, access to documents and Internet security… but these will have to wait.

But the question of the day was definitely: Albert or Javier? Monaco’s Prince was going to be in Brussels to talk about peace and water. A man with – at least some level of – environmental commitment. That’s what I like, and will eagerly forgive him the playboy past.  And: I missed Haakon of Norway just a few weeks ago! and we have no royals in my country! Not enough arguments?! Could we maybe do an interview with him?

Then again, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, will be addressing the Parliament (in Brussels “mini-plenary”) next Wednesday, February 18… and the topic, among others, will be the EU’s role in the Middle East. I think of Gaza. I think of Hamas. And all that suffering. Hmm. Despite the female majority present around the table, we decided to go for Javier. C’est la vie… They say Javier is not easy to get, but who says it’s not worth trying?

…As usual, the late morning Friday stand-up (baptised by Tibo who says they call it so in the real world of French quality journalism) will confirm who and what it will be, as far as it depends on us…

While preparing for breakfast, I was thinking what a challenge it is for us to try to pass a message that reaches our readers of different nationalities, cultures, ethnic origins and religions – when our starting points, expectations and interpretations vary so much. Jokes don’t always translate well, and even the use of adjectives can be tricky…

By the time I was brushing my teeth, it was clear I was again more “southern” than “northern” in my time perception – and would be a “little” late (defined by colleagues as something between 5 to 30 minutes during Monday’s training exercises on cultural differences…) for work.