Margot Wallstrom (Photo: Audiovisual Service, European Commission)
The re-election of the chameleon Jose Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission must had have killed – in one way or another- Vice-president Margot Wallström. The day after , the spokesman of Margot Wallström Joseph Hennon, sent out “Margot’s legacy”.
“ENGAGING CITIZENS – Five years as European Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy” - a 28 pages text. My first impression: full with self-certification of her excellent work (quotes see below). Strange: judging on your own work. Who dares telling her the truth, Joe?
By the way: Joe, you did a great job - always open, reachable, helpful - service-minded in the best sense, as only Martin Selmayr and a few others in the big spokesperson-bubble of the EU-institutions.
Thank you, Steve Peers, for your quick and valuable comments – see below! Be sure - we’ll come back to the important topic of the transparency rules. Any helpful contributions on the ongoing legislation process and the hard practice to obtain access to documents are welcome.
But, be honest, Joe. Your boss, the vice-president of the European Commission – didn’t she loose more and more contact to reality – over the last five years. That’s again my impression looking at “MW legacy”, as you called it.
But, Dear Reader judge yourself: the text might be soon published. I’ll quote some phrases from Margot Wallströms text – published with todays date:
Margot Wallstrom (Photo: Audiovisual Service, European Commission)
“For the last five years, I have had the privilege of working to transform the way the European Commission communicates with the citizens. My task has been to reform, modernise and decentralise our communication. The aim has been to listen better to the citizens’ views and concerns, to explain better how the decisions and initiatives we take affect their daily lives and to go local and connect better with people by addressing them in their local settings“.
This text – as neraly all others – tries to give to impression that Margot Wallstrom reached this aims. I know: reaching aims is difficult to measure. And especially in fields of communication success or failure is not always easy to measure. But, already my contacts with all kind of people in Brussels and the so called “meber states” demonstrate, that “Brussels” and the “EU” is (and probaly lways will be) far away from the citizens. Or: “Zittycents” in the swedish-english Wallström-voice.
“Changing the way we communicate is a long process and I believe that the steps this Commission has taken have been in the right direction, aimed at strengthening the EU’s democratic legitimacy”. Communication and “strengthening the EU’s democratic legitimacy” – there is no direct link, Mrs. Wallstrom. And by the way: the communication you and your services practised over the last years have more the function to justify certain policies, not to forget and especially the right of the existence and power of the Commission.
So, here, in one of the first sentences of the 28-pages-text, Wallstrom shows not only one of her big misunderstandings, which – by the way – explains the failure of investments of millions of EU-taxpayer-money. More. It smells like ideology. First result would be good stuff for European Court of Auditors – if auditors would look a little bit deeper in the relation of purposes and measures.
“I am proud that the shared ownership of the European project has improved, that we have created partnership with the other European institutions and individual Member States with the aim to communicate better together. And above all that we have achieved a more active European citizenship through consulting and empowering citizens in EU policymaking. Yes, for sure, Mrs. Wallstrom. Much to say ont this: Most of other EU-governments might have the same interest like the Commission(see above). And please, the EU-measures of “consulting and empowering citizens” didn’t in any way improve Brussels politics. It’s a simple PR-technique to give the “Zittycents” the feeling (not the certainty) to have any influence on the EU-decision-making-process.
“I am confident that the new Commission will build on these new foundations I have worked to create”, writes Margot Wallström. I, I, I, – there is nothing to add. You became not only a little bit blind, also rather idle in the Berlaymont on you breakfast-director-post, Mrs. Vice-President. Sentences like that feed the prejudices on the Brussels elite, which lost contact to reality. Something, as far as I remember, you critisized on your own blog, at least at the beginning.
Margot Wallstroms “legacy” by 80 percent of the text continues with same wording like many other text in the Brussels and other bubbles: describing problems bradly shared and giving the impression by naming them, they will be solved by the person, whon named them. That everywhre the same. Look at actual german election-campaign. I’ve no trust in it.
Mrs. Wallstrom. You or persons like Elmar Brok. your are not or you don’t offer any “solution” of the EU-crisis. You, but also businessmen like Declan Ganley, you are part of the problem the EU is deeply involved.
“Vice-President Wallström was the first Commissioner to have her own blog. Since its inception in 2005, she has been a regular blogger on topics of general or personal interest. The blog is open to comments from anybody. These posts are regularly picked up and cross-referenced elsewhere on the internet. The purpose of beginning a blog was to:
put a face to what is seen as a faceless bureaucracy give citizens the possibility of communicating directly and publicly with a member of the Commission explain certain EU policies in an informal way explore the potential of new media as part of a wider communication strategy”.
Wallstroms blog, is by no means a blog, enhancing democracy. Let’s be honest. Mrs. Wallstrom, it’s more or less the (mis)use as the internet as a simple, modern public relation tool.
By mid-July 2009, the Vice-President had made 250 posts in her blog. Did you really wrote all posts by yourself? I doubt.
Painful are also phrases like the following: “The Vice-President’s reputation as an open politician and as someone who is willing to try new ways of communicating with the public has undoubtedly been enhanced by her willingness to blog. This has been commented upon many times in the media and at public events”.
#1 by Steve Peers on September 18th, 2009 - 1:56 pm
Well, this document could be seen either a description of her ‘legacy’, or as a kind of CV/application letter for renewal of her appointment to the Commission, perhaps also ‘promotion’ to another post if she stays. She could certainly benefit from the argument that there needs to be a woman in one of the senior EU jobs.
Quoting her document at length does not really make much of a case against it. My view is that the Commissioner acheived quite a lot as part of the ‘European Transparency Initiative’, though she could have achieved more. Her big failing was the dreadful proposal to amend the access to documents legislation, which would in no way have improved access to documents, quite the reverse.
To be fair, this monster was probably the creation of the staff in the Commission’s Secretariat-General and legal service, and Barroso’s fingerprints are probably on the blueprints somewhere too. But she accepted the job of defending the proposal as part of her job. She has never ceased to defend it, and has never convinced anyone of its merits.
Whatever happens to Wallstrom, I hope that we have a (good) new Commissioner for transparency, etc., who might actually be inclined to revise the proposal along the lines supported by the EP. But I am not holding my breath since Barroso is back and the permanent Commission staff will try to squelch any decent proposal.
The EP should give the new Commissioner an ultimatum: revise the proposal within three months, or we will vote it down at first reading. The current Regulation is so much better than the Commission’s proposal that there is nothing to lose by this approach
#2 by Steve Peers on September 18th, 2009 - 5:20 pm
You have added some sound criticisms of the Commissioner’s paper. Above all it sounds to me like standard corporate/public sector waffle. But there is a lot of that about. Equally while it is probably true to say that her blog amounts to PR, that could be said of many corporate or political blogs. I can’t get too worked up about this – what do you expect?
If you remember when a previous Danish Commissioner started a ‘blog’, perhaps before the word was invented, and was entirely frank, being openly critical of her Commission colleagues, she completely sabotaged her effectiveness and influence in the Commission immediately. (Which was a shame, since, if I remember correctly, she was the environment Commissioner). Since any proposal a Commissioner wants to make will need majority support (in practice usually consensus) to get through the Commission it is just daft for a Commissioner to be critical of her colleagues in public.
This paper may be bland and self-congratulatory but that is probably true of many other people’s CVs as well.
When it comes down to actual accomplishments she made some important steps towards opening up information on beneficiaries of EU funding, and to a limited degree as regards lobbyists. That has to be balanced against the dreadful access to documents proposal. And since Lisbon did not enter into force on her watch she was unable to make proposals on a citizens’ initiative, and perhaps a code of EC administrative procedure, that would have amounted to a more substantial legacy.
I am not too shocked either by the Commission seeking to defend its own existence or its proposals – what do you expect it to do? I agree though that that is not compatible with being an independent safeguard of EU citizens’ consultation rights.
I wonder if the way forward would be to hand over aspects of the EU’s relationship with citizens to some sort of independent body, which could not be accused of being partial to (or against) the EU as such.
#3 by Brusselsblogger on September 18th, 2009 - 6:27 pm
Steve, isn’t the whole “access to documents” thing in Siim Kallas’ portfolio?
Hajo, it is not clear to me, is this a public document? Do you have a link?
And to all: has anyone ever seen a summary of the debate on “Debate Europe” website?
#4 by Hajo Friedrich on September 22nd, 2009 - 10:47 am
Message to “Brusselsblogger”: Sorry, there is no link yet to Margot Wallströms “Engaging Citizens” 28-pages-paper. It “has not been ‘published’ as such but we are happy for it to be public”, Joe Hennon told me after forwarding your question. Joe is Spokesperson for Institutional Relations & Communication Strategy of Vice-President Margot Wallström.
#5 by Kantarellkungen on September 22nd, 2009 - 9:53 pm
The second picture does not look like her. That might rather be Marita Ulvskog (Socialistic MEP).
#6 by Helen Titchen Beeth on September 23rd, 2009 - 10:46 am
Hajo,
I think you make a number of really useful points – particularly, how hard it is to maintain a citizen-centric perspective when walking the ‘corridors of power’ in a massive hierarchical bureaucracy like the Commission, when most of the time, when you get out and about it is to rub shoulders with politicians.
I acknowledge also your service to the non-German speaking world by writing in English. However, I would humbly and respectfully implore you to have your texts proofread by a native English speaker.
#7 by JL on September 23rd, 2009 - 1:40 pm
It is not the job of the Commission to make the EU popular with the European electorate. This job of persuasion is a matter for their governments and elected representatives who got them into it in the first place.
It was an error ever to create the post of Vice President for Communication and an even bigger one to put Margot Wallstrom in charge of it.
In the new Commission, there should a return to the Commission doing what it does best viz. the individual directorates explaining the technical detail of what they do with the technical and communications capacity to enable them to do it.
It is the Member States that are responsible for implementing practically all the actions of the EU, not the Commission.
Against the above background, it is truly astonishing to see the extent to which the heresy of the Commission being the only institution responsible has entered the psyche of those working within the Brussels beltway. I excuse the staff of the relevant directorate as they cannot be expected to point it out. Turkeys do not, after all, vote for Christmas.
#8 by Joe Hennon on September 24th, 2009 - 8:57 am
Yuo can find the full text (also in French and German) on Margot’s website
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/pdf/engaging-citizens_en.pdf
Brusselsblogger – access to documents is in Margot’s portfolio. (and summarising something like Debate Europe would be a challenge to say the least).
Just a word on Margot’s blog, she does write it herself.
#9 by JL on September 24th, 2009 - 1:09 pm
It is difficult to confront a situation that is based on a false premise. The ‘testament’ is all very well as far as it goes and fits in everything but the kitchen sink. Margot Wallstrom’s unsuitability for the job has nothing to with her personally but with the approach that she has adopted. An example would be her support for her countrywoman, Cecilia Malmstrom, in the latter’s initiative to get together a million signatures to move the EP from Strasbourg. This demonstrates a certain level of political naiveté, to put it mildly, which may go down well in communal politics in Sweden but has nothing to do with the real world in the EU.
We need a more “mature dialogue”, to quote the newly reconfirmed President of the Commission”.
cf. extract from his job application.
“… and enhancing dialogue and information
Last but not least, the people’s Europe is also about the accountability and openness of the EU institutions. Dialogue with the citizens and the different actors in civil society, a hallmark of the current Commission, will continue to be of critical importance. People have a right to accessible information. The Commission will redouble its efforts to have a real Commission presence communicating on the ground in the Member States and in the regions, in
partnership with the European Parliament, listening to citizens and dealing first hand with their questions and concerns. I will also examine ways and means to intensify the dialogue between the Commission and the media. But
we should be under no illusions: the gap in awareness of the EU can only be closed in full partnership with national and regional authorities. We must break out of the negative trap where politicians are quick to take the credit for the positive achievements of Europe, and quick to blame “Brussels” or “Strasbourg” for everything they don’t like. We need a more mature dialogue with our citizens on decisions that affect their daily lives”.
The politicians referred to have to stop talking in terms of “you (the citizen), me (the government) and the EU” and instead in terms of “you and our policies, some of which we are conducting nationally and others through the EU”.
A last point is the need to correct the equally misplaced ambition, stemming from the White Paper on Governance (I wonder what happened to that!), to have a “full partnership” not alone with national governments but also with regional authorities. That is a recipe for needless conflict. Regional authorities, who often do not see eye to eye with their national governments, are bound to take advantage of the situation.
By all means, “let’s break out of the negative trap” referred to by President Barroso. But to do so the new Commission needs to be lucid in its analysis. The paper from the current holder of the communications dossier does not provide it.
#10 by Mike Turner on September 24th, 2009 - 7:02 pm
Wallstrom waffle, just more self praise to justify her waste of tax payers money. Same goes for the overpaid and over pensioned spokesman. Do they all have a “self justification crash Course” on commencing their appointments. Of course she writes her own blog, it’s another plank for her ego.