Have a look at the EP from the outside... We need it! (Pic from Gerlos @ http://bit.ly/heflyG)

You won’t believe me if I tell you that my last trip to China made me think about the EU and my job in the European Parliament. Indeed, China and EU do not have a lot in common, if we look at the culture, the political structure, the level of political engagement, the freedom of press etc. However, I had a strong experience there which made me think of what I sometimes – even if to a smaller extent – can experience here in Brussels.

I was in China for the wedding of Chinese friends. It was a good opportunity to travel around the country, mostly in the South, but at the end we came back to Beijing, where we spent two days, before taking the plane back to Brussels.

And it’s only when I landed in Europe that I heard that some – shy – demonstrations were cracked down by the police in Beijing. Nothing surprising, you will tell me, as everyone knows the censorship that takes place in China (I experienced it while working in China Radio International in the summer 2006…). However, it echoed something that happens everyday at work: when I open Le Monde every morning, the French newspaper I get in the office, I learn some new things that happened or are happening in the EU institutions and in the European Parliament…

Yes, I do believe in the power people outside the institution can have. They may need us but, for sure, we need them as well.

Not that I don’t know what happens in the house where I worked but being here on the spot does not necessarily mean that I can see and hear everything. Lost in the day-to-day workflow or in the mysteries of a big administration, I miss some major political debates and issues. Damn, it’s sometimes much better to be outside the institution to look into it, to understand it and… to be free to say what you want about it!

This is not a plea for freedom of expression in the EP, don’t misunderstand me. It’s just that we work here under particular constraints – those being neutrality, transparency, objectivity. And it’s good so but it can not replace opinion, criticism, well-documented journalism… Yes, being outside the Parliament allows YOU to communicate very efficiently about what we do, what we are and why we matter (or not).

Yes, I’m an insider, explaining the European Parliament from the inside. And yes, I do believe in the power people outside the institution can have. They may need us but, for sure, we need them as well.

This Monday, the French newspaper Le Monde wrote a dossier about Facebook. “Is it the dream of an interconnected world of 500 million ‘friends’ that comes true? Or is it the birth of a controlling superpower much more frightening than the one from George Orwell in 1984?” Good questions, indeed, even if in the end, the journalist only seems to consider the worrying aspects and not the opportunies.

Big Brother is watching you - by thefoxling on Flickr

Am I going to start a plea in favour of Facebook? Not really. I’m also concerned by privacy considerations. To be honest, I was quite sceptical about Facebook before working for the European Parliament. I had no profile and didn’t want to have one. I changed my mind when I was told I’ll have to manage the Parliament Facebook page… I entered the FB world as a private person at the same time I started considering it for professional purposes.

Mark Zuckerberg was the youngest billionaire ever in the world. He refused a proposal of 1.5 billion dollars for buying Facebook when he was 22. Now, Facebook is worth 40 billion dollars and that could rise up to 100 billion in 2015. Am I going to earn a lot of money while working on Facebook for the European Parliament? After all, I’m just two and a half months younger than Mark…

But despite the article in Le Monde, I don’t think Facebook is – only – about money. Of course, as a huge business, it’s also about money. But if you look at what people do with Facebook, then you can see some reasons of hope.

#pdfeu showed some good practices. The British Foreign office uses social media to connect 16 000 civil servants around the world and give information to citizens like travel advice. Some citizens try to connect refugees with their families and friends.Some others try to raise awareness about violation of LGBT rights in the world. Civil society organizations like Avaaz, GetUp or MoveOn are also on Facebook to defend and publicize their projects. Facebook can’t then be reduced to a tool designed for and used by single users; it’s also a great platform to organize social movement and – let’s use the world – democracy. The European Parliament tries to find its very own place in the Facebook galaxy, providing a discussion forum on European matters and fostering debate among citizens and between citizens and their representatives.

The European Parliament tries to find its very own place in the Facebook galaxy, providing a discussion forum on European matters.

That’s exactly these opportunities that are totally absent of Le Monde’s dossier. Of course, Facebook will never replace social interactions in the real world, it will never replace the physical act democracy requires – the vote. But nowadays, the concept of democracy is much broader than it was, say, 10 or 20 years ago. The social networks occupy an empty space in the political landscape.

Maybe the problem is that speaking about democracy is not as sexy as worrying about Big Brother… Let’s hope journalists will try to put both aspects together next time to give a more accurate image of what social media are.

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.