Why?

I got super-stressed when I arrived at the European Parliament’s building in Strasbourg.
“No info desks,” I was told by the buildings service, “however, the security service at the entrances can provide information. Plans of the buildings can be consulted at main points and in front of the lifts.”

But …… If you think that you will arrive there and the security men will tell you the correct updated office number of your boss, then you are as naive as I was. They sent me to the 14th floor, where he had been more than three years previously. No DG Communication anywhere near… A Polish administration lady went with me to investigate the right office. We even grabbed a passing fire-fighter to help us to find it.

After asking, labyrinthine-ing among 2.600 offices and 57 meeting rooms, including the Hemicycle, while hoping I would not have to take all 34 staircases and sweating because I was already late, we finally arrived. After three quarters of an hour. Polish lady, fire-fighter and ME {laugh}.

Letters, numbers and colours … Coffee, please!

There are 4 buildings and 6 places to get some snacks in European Parliament area:

1, Louise Weiss (LOW) named after a lady Weiss born to a Bourgeoisie, Alsatian family. The centre of her interest was Europe, and so she came to find herself in Strasbourg towards the end of her life. She was then the oldest Member of Parliament to be elected by direct universal suffrage. She remained MEP and oldest member until her death in 1983 at the age of 90.

LOW is famous for its Flower Bar with a very funky carpet and a lot of yummy things to choose from. It is always very full, though. :{

Second one is Visitor’s bar at LOW 00 – under the Hemicycle
Thirdly, Members’ bar at LOW 01 -next to the Hemicycle zone Nord
And the fourth one – Press bar at LOW 00 zone Nord – approximately opposite of the Members’ bar, one floor beneath.

1946: “There is a remedy which … would in a few years make all Europe … free and … happy. It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

2, Winston Churchill (WIC), a former army officer, war reporter and British Prime Minister (1940-45 and 1951-55), was one of the first to call for the creation of a ‘United States of Europe’. Sir Winston Churchill also made a name for himself as a painter and writer; in 1953 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I think Mr. Churchill would be very happy If he would have known that we have on -1 floor Cygnes/Swan Bar. It is very nice one with view to the river and a lot of trees. Bonus!  It is very close to the one of 28 restrooms in the complex.

3, Salvador de Madariaga (SDM) is the founder of the College of Europe. Passionate defender of liberty and tolerance, he wanted to construct a free and democratic Europe of continental scale. He was also a writer, poet, historian, philosopher and politician. After working for the League of Nations, he pursued a university career at Oxford, where published a number of works, including the famous “Englishmen, Frenchmen and Spaniards”, an essay on the observation and comparative psychology of people.

Unfortunately, no bar in SDM.

4, Pierre Pflimlin (PFL) Pierre Eugène Jean Pflimlin was a French Christian democratic politician who served as the penultimate Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic for a few weeks in 1958, before being replaced by Charles de Gaulle during the crisis of that year. Pflimlin served as mayor of Strasbourg from 1959 to 1 983. He also was the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from 1963 to 1966 and President of the European Parliament from 1984 to 1987.

And finally our building: It has an Accueil Bar on the -1 floor. Wonderful place to meet all communication people.

My PFL F000445A.  My castle.

First 3 letters is the abbreviation of the building’s name PFL= Pierre Pflimlin. The first 2 numbers are the floor number and then the rest is the office number.

LOW building, the biggest of the 4 Strasbourg buildings, is divided into 6 zones: N=Nord, S=Sud, T=Tower, H=Hemicycle, C=Canal, R=Rivière. The other 3 buildings have not been divided into zones. However you can still follow different colours connected to different zones in the WIC.

You can get to our office in PFL by two ways – the official way and my way

The official way: “The common floor to all 4 buildings in Strasbourg is floor 01. You access the PFL building through the WIC building, than you take the lift or staircase down to floor 00. The working post F00044a (and not F000445a) is situated inside the open plan space F00040. There are 2 such spaces in the PFL, the F00030 and the F00040, each one contains approximately 30 working posts, ” explains  Buildings service.

My version would be: Get off the bus. Behind the corner, there is a big entrance to PFL building. Pass the security. First stairs on your left to first floor. And do you see second door on your left? You scored….

Strasbourg a peaceful city

The capital city of the Alsace region situated in north-eastern France where some of us spend every 4th week or the others have the only possibility to see while on traineeship.

What interests me is the density of the city. It is around half of Brussels one {according to an online encyclopaedia statistics Brussels has 6,6 inhb/m² while Strasbourg only 3,5 inhb/m²}.

Getting around

You can easily get around by bus, tram or on foot. The best way to get to EP is tram or bus number…  It has actually no number. It is a special service for the European Institutions and it is called the Navette. The actual bus stop is on your right side behind the flags when you are standing the way that the train station is behind you.

SWIFT rapporteur Jeanine Hennis is congratulated after the vote (EP Flickr)

A “yes” to the Commission did not come as a surprise, but no-one who was there could mistake the political buzz surrounding the decision, itself the result of a process which will have undoubtedly left scars and unfinished business. The debate in the chamber was passionate, the political clashes genuine, the language straight, at times to the point of being what we stuffy Brits might call “unparliamentary”. This was not the turgid technocratic consensus stuff of euromyth. Nor was it play-acting. Under the surface were good old-fashioned ideological clashes, contrasting personalities, plus, variously, hefty doses of radical euro-federalism and militant euroscepticism (with not one, but two, allusions to violence on the streets!) in the smaller groups. Not a routine occasion in anyone’s book. In the end, Barroso got his Commission, indeed with a higher proportion of MEPs supporting him than last time (he was spotted in the chamber examining a table comparing the two occasions), but he would be very optimistic to expect a long honeymoon period with this parliament.

There has rarely been a greater compliment to Parliament, nor a greater acknowledgement of its new-found power

Parliament’s “no” to the SWIFT agreement to provide banking data to the US authorities was a less foregone conclusion, but was in the end passed by a convincing majority. This was the EP taking a position against European governments, the Commission, the Council and (gasp!) the US administration of Barack Obama. Much indeed was made of the lobbying efforts of the Americans, with European imaginations caught by Hillary Clinton’s widely reported calls to Jerzy Buzek, and the inhabitants of the Brussels bubble equally engaged by the efforts of US Ambassador Kennard in the corridors of Strasbourg. For all the outrage of some at the US lobbying of MEPs, there has rarely been a greater compliment to Parliament, nor a greater acknowledgement of its new-found power.

The ultimately solid majority decision to block the SWIFT agreement belied a cliffhanger and a close political call. Immediately before the final decision, a motion to postpone it was defeated by a slim margin of just over 30 votes. The joy of rapporteur Jeanine Hennis-Plaschaert as Parliament followed her recommendation on the substantive vote was unalloyed and the delight of her supporters genuine, though, one might fancy, tempered by a sense of – well, yes, – history.

There was other business in Strasbourg this week of course, but the week’s “maybe” was played out in Brussels as EU leaders met to work out how to respond to the first great crisis of the euro. No, this one was not primarily the Parliament in action, but it nonetheless says much about the new political Europe in which the Parliament has staked its new, greater role. Leaders scurrying to rally the currency, bankers, business, pundits following their every move, workers taking to the streets… Remind you of anything? Surely this is old fashioned “real” politics, the sort that moves markets and hits citizens where it matters – in the pocket.

Yes, it was a huge week. Huge in Parliament, and huge because it gave us a foretaste of the Europe Lisbon built.

1. We don’t have any

None. Reason is: our significant others stay in Brussels, most of the time. Another incapacitating factor is also our condition of civil servant. Grey suits, parliamentary reports as main subject of conversation, eurojargon volapuk don’t rate high on the sexiness scale.

2. Those who have one don’t tell

Yes, I don’t think it’s very team spirit like, but that’s the truth. Although we know a lot (too much?) about each other, we still maintain a red closed curtain on our private sports. During October’s session, three out of eight members of our Strasbourg’s crew were in town with their significant other (either because he/she works at the Parliament or in a professional field linked to Parliament’s activity). The five others may have behaved like wild cats on a hot tin roof or like reclusive nuns, we have no idea.

3. There’s a dog involved

One of our colleagues, who comes to Strasbourg every month always comes with his girlfriend. And their dog. The dog squats 40% of our chats – which says a lot about our art of conversation.

4. Two girls, one guy, one bedroom

Two of our female editors were supposed to share a bathroom connected to two rooms while staying in Strasbourg. One of them had arranged the venue for her other half but… the hotel only offered them one single room (with three beds). So that must mean the lucky one shared a room with two of our female editors. And he doesn’t even belong to our team. This proves both the existence of God and His peculiar sense of humor. Wait, there’s worse: they refuse to tell us anything about their nights! How selfish one can be…

5. Pajama parties are for dummies

Of the same female editors mentioned above, one never wears pajamas and the other forgot her pajamas in Brussels. Is it me or is it getting hot in here?

Wait! You forgot your pajamas again! (c) Lastnightsparty

6. We have rules

The staff regulation is the civil servant’s Bible. Here what it says on the subject we are dealing with here:

“Officials shall refrain from any form of psychological or sexual harassment.

An official who has been the victim of psychological or sexual harassment shall not suffer any prejudicial effects on the part of the institution. An official who has given evidence on psychological or sexual harassment shall not suffer any prejudicial effects on the part of the institution, provided the official has acted honestly.

Psychological harassment means any improper conduct that takes place over a period, is repetitive or systematic and involves physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts that are intentional and that may undermine the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of any person.

Sexual harassment means conduct relating to sex which is unwanted by the person to whom it is directed and which has the purpose or effect of offending that person or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive or disturbing environment. Sexual harassment shall be treated as discrimination based on gender.”

So, we refrain.

7. We don’t have condom dispensers

The H1N1 threat has brought to all Parliament’s facilities tissue dispensers impregnated with some viral repellent, nice foam dispensers and smart instructions regarding best hand washing modus operandi, but no condom dispenser. That makes us less equipped than the average French high school but we don’t know if it has something to do with the staff regulations or with the actual and real level of our collective sexiness.

“It’s a pity there is no more European pornstars anymore, like Rocco Siffredi” complained loudly a male editor

8. There’s a wallpaper debate

One regular member of the Strasbourg crew uses a photo of Ms Kate Moss, topless, as his desktop wallpaper. Every time there are female nordic editors present in Strasbourg, he gets sharp remarks about it, which makes him stick to this wallpaper although he used to change it every month. Latin female colleagues don’t frown at him, though he suspects this could change, should he favour a topless photograph of, say, Ms Monica Bellucci.

9. The golden years are behind us

“It’s a pity there is no more European pornstars anymore, like Rocco Siffredi” complained loudly a male editor in our open space. Everyone nodded vigorously, expecting more. But he never elaborated. Men have the focus ability of goldfish.

10. So all the fun is in Brussels

While we are sweating and typing and running between meetings, we *know* that the fun is, actually, in Brussels, where we suspect the core of our team is having deliquescent orgies, lap dances and exquisite flirting just to keep us on our toes. Or maybe they just work and go home as usual.

It’s possible that you landed on this page by “feeling lucky” in Google while doing some university researches absolutely not connected in anyway with sex, p0rn nor foam dispensers. If this is your first visit on our blog, you may want to read our About page as well as our Team’s.

If you are interested in the October Plenary session, why don’t you have a glance at our 10 things we learnt during last plenary story?

In our collective mind’s eye, we all see something similar: slick, designer, multimedia aggregation pages updated with new material as it becomes available.

We are convinced that the idea is good, but of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and translating an idea into reality is always going to be an issue when your website is as huge and complicated as ours, and in 22 languages to boot. In our collective mind’s eye, we all see something similar: slick, designer, multimedia aggregation pages updated with new material as it becomes available. Want the latest on the immigration debate: concise, clear background, up to date coverage of debates and votes, helpful illustrations and arresting photos, video interviews, links to all relevant documentation and resources, a profile of the rapporteur perhaps? One click and it’s all there! Yay!

That is, until the man with the spanner very reasonably points out that this is all very well, but there is a small matter of developing all the underlying technologies, building a robust content management system, idiot-proofing the whole thing (that’s us…), and all this – lest we forget (which we, in spite of ourselves, inspired by our perigrinations on the web, always do) – IN TWENTY-TWO LANGUAGES! 

Hmmm you’re right, of course…

We take our good old familiar  front page in both hands, and start bending, folding, squeezing, pummelling it to extract the last drops of potential still lurking there

But still, time waits for no man, so let’s see what we can do with what we have. ‘Twas ever thus, fortune favours those who get on with it. So we’re operating a brand new state-of-the-art workaround system this week, using the tools and the technology we already have, while the man with the spanner disappears into the basement to build us the machine of our dreams. The sounds of clanging and rivetting (with just a spot of totally justified muttering about bloody clients who want everything done, like, yesterday) drift up the stairs. Meanwhile, we take our good old familiar  front page in both hands, and start bending, folding, squeezing, pummelling it to extract the last drops of potential still lurking there.  

The new tube of toothpaste is coming soon.

Now, dear reader, read on.

Westerplatter, Gdansk, Poland: Where the 70th anniversary of the war was marked this week.

 Moscow and Warsaw have been trading verbal blows over the circumstances of the outbreak of WW II – the opening of which began 70 years ago this week.

To anyone who follows the European Parliament it seems that historical disputes are never far from the surface. The arrival of countries from central and Eastern Europe in 2004 and 2007, with their painful memories of Soviet rule, has simply added a new dimension to this.

 This is particularly true when it comes to relations with Russia. The ghosts of history are now very much floating around the hemicycle – which could be a good place to exorcise many of them.

 One source of controversy with Russia has been that the last Parliament called for 23 August (the date of the Nazi-Soviet pact) to be made a day of remembrance for the victims of Nazism and Stalinism.

 In April, an MEP resolution declared…that “Europe will not be united unless it is able to form a common view of its history, recognises Nazism, Stalinism and fascist and Communist regimes as a common legacy and brings about an honest and thorough debate…”.

As resistance to Nazi invasion is seen as one of the most glorious chapter in Russia and Soviet history, any attempt to equate them both as dual evils has led to furious reaction in Moscow. The question arises as to what extent Russia will loom over the next European Parliament and to what extent relations will develop.

History is, indeed, an argument without end – A.M. Schlesinger, Jr. 

Of course controversy about the Second World War is not limited to people whose countries took part. In October 2006 at a signing ceremony to mark the purchase of the Parliament from the city of Strasbourg (on the Franco German border and symbol of post war reconciliation in Western Europe) Parliament’s then President, Spaniard Josep Borrell hit out at the campaign organised by Swedish MEP to have the Parliament’s seat moved to Brussels.

“Europe will not be united unless it is able to form a common view of its history” – EP resolution

 In his remarks Mr Borrell alluded to the Stockholm’s neutrality during the war saying “this historic dimension cannot be perceived in the same way in ’some Nordic country’ which did not participate in WWII”.  For his troubles Mr Borrell was assailed by various parts of the Swedish press.

 Only time will tell how this newly elected European Parliament deals with historical disputes. The end of the term coincides with the 100 years since the start if the 1914-18 war which opened the 20th century’s long “civil war”.

Fishing for public attention is the daily business of politicians; therefore it is always a pleasure to witness some original and positive ideas in this respect. One such election project was a Czech MEPs idea to cycle from Prague to Strasbourg and to announce it as a central pre-election promise. “If you vote for me and I get elected, I will pedal all these six hundred forty seven kilometres or so to get to the Strasbourg plenary!” (He told us about his project when he was one of eight new MEPs we interviewed for the website)

Well, he did it! And in order to attract the well-deserved attention, he took a shower, shaved, combed his long hair and instead of slipping into a business suit, he put his cycling gear back on and walked into the plenary chamber for all to see as if he would be saying: “Look, I am a cyclist! In case you wonder why I am dressed like that … I came by bike to the plenary … yes … not just from the hotel, but all the way from my home county … the Czech Republic … this “far away country of which we (you) know little …”.

What a voter-friendly and ecologically inspiring deed! We can sit back in our chair and start daydreaming … “if we all could take our bikes to work, or even to Strasbourg … what a wonderful world this would be …”.   

Now to be honest, I was a bit jealous at first. I like bike tours as well. However, somehow I do not have the luxury to take out twelve days in order to go to work, however … to be honest, neither did he. In the middle of his commuting, on his “way to work”, soaked wet by sudden rain showers somewhere in the Bohemian-Bavarian borderland, reality caught up with him – the next day his presence was required at a political group meeting in Brussels. “How to cover the distance between Nuremberg and Brussels by bike in a day?” might have crossed his mind. Well, the only way is air travel of course and there goes the purity of the ecological commitment … but let’s not be unfair.

The life of a politician is not easy. Especially if one does not live up to election promises made. Our cycling MEP did indisputably live up to his election promise. This is even more impressive because his political profile is not centred on ecological themes, but rather on the reduction of regulation. And being part of a club with a majority of middle-aged men who maybe give the impression that they prefer limousines, for his cycling exploits at least he is destined to stand out during the coming five years. A nice political PR job!

PS: The bike trip eventually turned out to be 871km long and was concluded with a bitter aftertaste. Edvard’s fellow traveller, Czech globe trotter František Šesták, who has cycled tens of thousands of kilometres around the world, was deprived of his bike in Strasbourg. After having served him for more than 32,000 km, it was stolen. Links:

http://www.kozusnik.eu/

http://tinyurl.com/lkrzor – Edvard Kožušník on Facebook

Frankly, I find all of this a bit of a shame. From a communications perspective it’s tragic.

It’s not that there isn’t real politics behind all this. The fight for positions and influence has been tough, the deals which result in the outcomes to be formalised this week come after tough negotiations and sometimes bitter fights. Heads of government across Europe even get involved. There are winners and losers. Some are in, others are out. For the well-informed observer, the process is a fascinating one. Yes, it’s even fun to watch.

Trouble is we can’t talk about it. At least not to our readers.

From the outside, it can be hard to tell what's really going on. (Photo EP)

In house, the rumour mill has been in gossip-fuelled overdrive. Unsurprisingly, the Parliament is full of people with a taste for political gossip, who love nothing better than to trade stories, even where they have no direct stake in the outcome, which, of course, in our little hothouse, they frequently do. Acquaintances in the political groups with titbits to offer about, say, what latest trade of a chairmanship against a vice-presidency is in the offing take on the aura of oracles, their delphic utterances propelling a new story into the heady swirl of speculation. For those thus inclined, the hard-core political geeks and anoraks, it is also possible to add some judicious number-crunching into the mix. One can for example immerse oneself in the arcane delights of the d’Hondt mathematical formula for the attribution of positions in a system of proportional representation (Parliament even has its own variation on this fiendish calculus: “d’Hondt continu“). Empirical Britishers, brought up on cricket stats and an unwritten constitution, may prefer to delve into murky precedents, long-standing gentlemen’s agreements and case law.

This is the messy end of democratic politics, at the same time highly technical and deeply human.

There’s no question that the whole thing is highly entertaining. This is the messy end of democratic politics, at the same time highly technical and deeply human. So it’s a pity we are unable to share the joy of politics with the outside world. I fully understand of course. It would be – from an institutional perspective – a highly risky enterprise to communicate on the ongoing shenanigans, to speculate on outcomes and to report the latest word on the street (word on Place Lux, in our case perhaps) to our avid readership.

Risky but fun. There is a serious point here. The fact that so much of the real politics takes place off camera produces the impression among uninformed outsiders (i.e. most people) that everything just carries on in the Parliament as if the elections never happened. Most of the cliffhangers, the battles, the political realignments and, above all, the personal stories linked with them remain invisible to the public, leaving the impression of a dull, technocratic parliament, where everything appears to be pre-cooked and most elections to positions of power seem to produce  North Korean style majorities endorsing the will of the men in grey suits. It’s not the reality, but it could stand as a metaphor for the EU as a whole: impermeable and technocratic seeming from the outside, fascinating if you can get under the surface. Perhaps, as many have remarked before, we need a European West Wing to tell people what this place is really like.

Meanwhile, I look forward to the week to come.  It’ll be interesting, but maybe not as interesting as it should be.

Car seat by jules:g

The idea of this entry was born when I was driving (first time ever and for good reasons – I’ve always taken a train before) those 430 km from Brussels to Strasbourg, to join 6 other colleagues of the web communication unit . After asking around a few colleagues and MEP assistants and resisting the temptation of sending “a spam message” on free seats to Strasbourg, I hit the road the next morning.

The trip came just one day after coming back from leave, so there was not much time to find co-passengers, with all the catching up for the website and other tasks to do.

Unethical single seat

The drive on a sunny Tuesday was great, and with a little help from Augie March and Travis music I have done it. And even though I was driving an environmentally friendly LPG car with 1.2 engine and new tyres , I wasn’t feeling the greenest driver on Earth with all those empty seats around me. Will there ever be a centralised car- sharing scheme for EP missions, so no seats are wasted in vain?

Europe behind the wheel

Look at mine – a French car assembled in Turkey, bought in Lithuania with the money borrowed from a Swedish bank, assured with a Latvian company and converted with Italian LPG equipment.

When travelling through Belgium, Luxembourg, France you can really see the benefits of borderless Europe and the power of European funds used to improve the infrastructure.

Usually your car is a real European too. Look at mine – a French car assembled in Turkey, bought in Lithuania with the money borrowed from a Swedish bank, assured with a Latvian company and converted with Italian LPG equipment. I am not going any deeper that that :)

Two speed Europe: traffic offenses

Alas, there’s not enough Europe yet. Why? By trying to get to work as quickly as possible I was probably flashed speeding while passing Luxembourg. As there’s still no efficient data exchange on transnational traffic offenses, will I be immune to justice just because my car has Lithuanian licence plates?

Luckily, the situation will soon change, as a future directive on a cross-border road safety will ensure that foreign drivers caught speeding are not more equal than the locals. It will include speeding, drink-driving, not wearing a seat belt and failing to stop at a red light. Road hooligans beware!

More standardisation needed

During the trip I skipped cheap, but crowded filling stations in Luxembourg, but when I tried to fill up my LPG tank in France I was hit by a harsh reality – event though I would be able to fill it up in UK or Italy and have a Belgian adaptor, it does not help in France. How long will we wait until we have a single European standard on LPG fillers, chargers and other handy things?

More Europe and less empty seats, that’s what a European traveller needs. And yes, I already have a fellow-traveller for coming back, and a bicycle for getting to work in Brussels, but no French LPG adaptor yet  :(

Our articles are full of draft reports, chairmen, plenary sessions, commissions, agreements… But we try to keep it short, I promise you! In fact, it’s not always easy to find a “citizen friendly angle” (one of our key words in the unit…). Fact and figures: that’s what we’re talking about. But it doesn’t interest people or journalists sometimes…

Is that really what people expect to see at the European Parliament? © takitimu on flickr

I’m always happy when, in the morning, listening to the radio, I heard something about the European Parliament. Well, we’re communicators, we pay attention to the result of our work, and we’re defending the brand we stand for! But if – fortunately – we heard something about the European Parliament, it’s not about the decisions it took but about… the prank of a MEP, political divisions or spectacular events.

Let’s take three examples to make it clear. In August last year, the ceiling of the hemicycle in Strasbourg collapsed: huge topic for the mass media, which are waiting for spectacular and symbolic events. In December, the Sakharov Prize was awarded to the Chinese Hu Jia; newspapers, radio and television spoke about not because of the prize itself, but because of the Chinese diplomatic protest. And more recently, the EP draw the attention of the press because of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who called anew the gas chamber during World War II a “detail of history”.

And what about the climate change package? The roaming directive? The cod stocks? Their attendance in the media couldn’t be compared with their significance for the all-day life of the citizens…

On the one hand, it’s a bit disappointing for us. Is our work insubstantial? What do people want to hear about the EP? Is anybody interested in what MEPs decide? Aren’t policies as important as politics? We could feel useless sometimes.

On the other hand, political controversy is highly needed in Strasbourg and Brussels, in order to raise the curiosity and the interest of people toward the European policy making level. That’s perhaps the way to show the voters that their choice has an incidence on the direction the European Union takes. And finally: as civil servants, we work for the MEPs, who are directly elected by the citizens. We’re the tool, not the brain! And we can’t take the role the MEPs have to play…

One perhaps unexpected consequence of the crisis is a general re-awakening to the fact that politicians are fundamentally necessary and have a very real job to do. 

Whether anyone actually KNOWS what to do is a moot point. But that said, everyone knows that someone HAS to do something, and that that some-one is a politician. One perhaps unexpected consequence of the crisis is a general re-awakening to the fact that politicians are fundamentally necessary and have a very real job to do. The notion that politicians should stay out of economic life has taken something of a battering lately. Now everyone wants to know what they are going to do. People are interested in what they have to say.

It can’t be easy for them. This recession seems to have caught everyone off-guard.  It seemingly came out of nowhere. You only have to go back a few months (say in a book , magazine or a movie) to find people inhabiting a different world, where the assumptions of big money, fatcat self-indulgence and consumerist self-gratification for the masses are unchallenged. And now, what a difference a (metaphorical) day makes… 

Another difficulty is that a large proportion of Europe’s workforce is unfamiliar with recession. Maybe once upon a time people would assume that they came round now and then. Certainly, that’s how it seemed to me, growing up in the coal-mining areas of the English East Midlands in the late seventies and early eighties. Now that it looks like the 3 million plus unemployment of that time in the UK is coming back, I can’t help wondering whether the depressing and rather grey “feel” of that time will also return.

But now seems psychologically very different. Then, in Britain, it all felt like the outcome of a long process of decline, a reckoning stored up over decades. (This notwithstanding the bitter arguments which raged over the remedies applied by Mrs Thatcher’s government of the time.) And in day to day life it was met with a kind of acquired stoicism, leavened with a fair dose of social solidarity, neither of which is easy to identify in contemporary British mores. Now is also different because, this time, the crisis comes seemingly from an external cause, which, for all that it might be associated with “Anglo-Saxon” capitalism, is truly global in impact. This is not a national recession, but one we all share. It is consequently impossible to see the current recession as something that any single government can hope to address with any success alone.

Gordon Brown at the European summit 20 March (http://www.flickr.com/photos/downingstreet)

Maybe because of this mixture of personal recollection of a past British recession, the new experience of global downturn and the central role of politicians, I was particularly hoping to talk to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who will be in Strasbourg this week to address the Parliament on the subject of the G20 summit on 2 April. 

Interestingly, Mr Brown is coming at the express request of the UK government, not because it was his duty (as President of Council or whatever) or because the Parliament asked him to. No, he actively wanted to come to address the European Parliament. This is a fascinating sign of the times. More and more, it seems that politicians who want or need to talk to “Europe”, by which I mean the people of Europe, realise that there is a body which allows them to do just that – the European Parliament. (President Obama take note!) Brown’s predecessor Tony Blair did so to great effect in 2005, perhaps providing Mr Brown with some inspiration.  As Tony Barber of the FT reminds us, Brown matched Blair’s ovation count in the US Congress, now perhaps he thinks he can match his European Parliament enterprise too?

So the “big cheese” of the title is Gordon Brown. I won’t be meeting him, by the way. My request for an interview for the EP website was politely declined by his people, because he had “no time” (the only saving grace for me being that they gave the same answer to every other request too).  It’s a shame, because I thought I had interesting questions for him which he might actually have relished answering. And so to our “sacred cows”.

I read an interesting article recently in “Prospect”, which pointed out that the three long-standing orthodoxies of European economic policy were teetering – or had definitively teetered – in the storms of the economic slowdown. I found the point fascinating. Are we seeing – yes, I’ll say it – a paradigm shift?

Are the orthodoxies set to change? I would have liked to hear Mr Brown respond to that.

First, balanced budgets, the heart of the single currency, will be hard-pressed to survive the huge public expenditure needed to stimulate the economy and keep banks and businesses afloat, especially when combined with declining tax revenue. So Keynesian deficit financing, here we come? Second, the leading economic role of the private sector (reflected inter alia in the long-standing fashion for privatisation across Europe), is under attack as governments nationalise and prop up businesses and set conditions for executive pay and bonuses. Third, free trade and open competition seem at least under threat, as least to the extent that politicians around the world feel the need repeatedly to restate their commitment not to slip into protectionism. 

So the issue is: are we undergoing a sea-change in European economic policy? Are the orthodoxies set to change? I would have liked to hear Mr Brown respond to that. Perhaps, if he reads this, he could leave the answer in a comment.