Never on Sunday? Hmm. Though it was not the first time that I heard an excuse about not voting, it hurt. The reason is difficult to explain. It goes beyond the fact that I work for the European Parliament, beyond my strong faith in the EU. How can I tell people that (whatever) their vote is valuable without being labelled as a brainwashed eurocrat? I am searching to do it through a story… Maybe Europe is an ugly frog that can turn into a prince if we kiss it? No, that’s not it. How is Europe (conveniently?) seen today by many people? As a big bad wolf. That’s it, that’s my story and that’s my reason for voting, however over simplistic it might look to some.

Europe, a big bad wolf? - Photo by dinonikk on Flickr

Once upon a time there was a big bad wolf called Europe (the taurus story is a myth as we all know). While walking in the forests, it devoured all human beings it crossed: bad and good. They made him move to the left, to the middle or to the right -according to where his stomach weighed heavier. Sometimes the human activity inside of him brought the best out of him -some people made him lean to a field and think “why not plant a flower here?”- or the worst -some made him crash all flowers it met on its way… The reactions among the people that were lucky enough to stay out of his stomach varied: others watched him with fear, anger or disgust, while others with awe, astonishment, sympathy or just indifference. Whatever their feeling, they just watched him, unable to take responsibility and act to change a situation that deep down they did not really like. Sometimes they even said “why bother? The big bad wolf is too far to reach me!”. Until the big bad wolf invaded their secret garden and smashed their own flowers. And then they cared but it was a bit too late to act… “The rest is silence” (as Shakespeare would say).

I might be caricaturing, but I am sure you all know what am talking about. Responsibility for our (in)actions. Whether the EU is “too far” and can communicate with us as well as a wild animal, there is no excuse for inactivity. And by inactivity I mean not voting in the forthcoming June elections of the European Parliament. The wolf in my story devoured everybody it met without distinction, without asking for permission, but luckily in today’s democratic world we can have our say as to whom it will absorb via one very valuable but at times disregarded thing: our vote. Am not saying the European Parliament is indeed destroying every good thing on this planet -I believe quite the contrary in fact- but I can accept the idea that there are good and bad people in it, some efficient ones and some inefficient. Just like everywhere else in our society. But it could be that the EU goes into a whole different direction than the one we want it to go. Do we really want to stand by and watch our worst fears turn into reality? It’s up to us to make the reality the way we want it to be… And to have no regrets whatsoever -because, whatever the outcome, at least the not yet born will not blame us for being passive observers.

Lack of knowledge about “complicated EU stuff” and no time to read the online election pages that we work so hard for or the myriads of relevant information available online or on paper?

Lack of knowledge about “complicated EU stuff” and no time to read the online election pages that we work so hard for or the myriads of relevant information available online or on paper? Here is the one thing you need to know in order to vote on 4-7 June, apart of course from the exact date of the election in your country: just like you have representatives in your national parliament, that you elect, you have also representatives in the European Parliament (coldly known as “MEPs” though they are as normal as the rest of us -and by “normal” I mean who laugh and cry too at times and who act according to their beliefs). They represent the citizens of the current 27 EU member states (yes, you too!) and decide on some issues that affect our daily lives -so yes, that would make their selection quite significant. It is as simple as that in my view.

Troubled about who to vote for? The political world obeys no fixed compass. Just follow your heart and choose the ones that you feel will plant the most flowers. Lets make Europe flourish in all possible ways -not only in spring but also in the summer (as of June) and in all the (difficult?) winters to come… Whether we “happily live ever after” (“and go to the sea shore” as Melina Merkouri adds in the unmemorable film “Never on Sunday”) or not is up to nobody else but ourselves.

How do you write an article in 22 languages about the very same subject without translating it ?

Not that we have anything against translation nor translators. They are the salt of the European Parliament good way of working. Since it is a fundamental right to run for an election whatever your skills, experience or knowledge might be, you cannot ask to the Members to be fluent in foreign languages. Hence the essential needs for translation, so that your chosen ones can read, work, amend, debate and vote in their mother tongue. 

But for our own editorial needs, translation wouldn’t do the job. We are a team of writers devoted to every street guys. We do our best to write in a comprehensive language, free of eurojargon, with its vitality, its charm, its colloquial ways of informing about the acts and decisions of the Parliament. All that flavour is sometimes lost in translation.

Also, when composing the team, we wanted as much as possible people from the journalism or communication fields. We work as closely as possible as a news agency would do. This requires specific profile with many talents – but adding the translating skills to the check list would have been asking for too much. 

So we brainstormed…

After some gallons of coffee, we came up with the idea of the synopsis. The synopsis is what the French having studied in Science-Pô would call “un plan détaillé”. It is a detailed draft of the story, a skeleton well structured, which provides all facts, quotes, figures, examples. It is written in a basic English to be understood by everyone. It is almost always written by two editors (it provides a second pair of eyes to challenge the structure) and it should be no longer than two pages. Before it is sent to the rest of the team, the synopsis is reviewed (and formally “approved”) by Steve, the Boss-of-the-pop, and sometimes revised by some of our colleagues from the Press Room who cover the Committees. We call them the “specialists” because they follow deeply all legislative matters and they are the best to check the facts and the political positions.

From the synopsis, the editors write. In their language. They stick to the synopsis but they add the flavor, the spices, the taste of the final text. All our stories are the same in 22 languages but none of them are identical. Our writers have their style, even their voice. For example, Gaëlle’s writings (she’s our French editor), sound like my eldest sister explaining me the European affairs. Without the naughty comments about my fashion tastes.

And we still brainstorm

Synopses belong to the list of most debated subjects in our staff meetings. Despite our common rules, the fact that we produce two to three of them every day lead to different perspectives. Different schools in the way we perform the task. Some prefers long (too long ?) and very well detailed synopses. Some write in their best English, which can be gratifying but also painful for others. Some editors have a touch for extremely short and bullet-points style synopsis – which others hate because they need more information to feed their prose with more details. That’s what we call diversity.

So we discuss, we exchange, we improve, we criticise - oh, and we complain a lot too. We even have theories explaining the different levels of quality in our synopses (one of them puts the blame on Steve but don’t tell him).

But we stick to the synopsis because there is no better way, to this date, to ensure a good European coverage of the Parliament’s news with the same pieces of information for 22 languages and 27 countries.

Next time you meet an editor, ask him or her about his/her favorite synopsis. And about the worst ones he had to write from lately. And don’t forget to change the subject after a while, after all, all those chats about works can be sooo dreadful.