On Bin Laden's Lingering Face

Morgan Meis being characteristically wise, over at The Smart Set:

The most surprising thing about the death of Osama bin Laden was his funeral. Islamic law declares that a person must be buried within 24 hours of death. "We are ensuring that it is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition," Time reported a U.S. official as saying, "This is something that we take very seriously. And so therefore, this is being handled in an appropriate manner."

Bin Laden was buried at sea, presumably so that there will be no burial site, no country that owns him, no place on Earth could be associated with him ever after. The sea gets him, being the only place capacious enough to take on the burden. There is dignity in having done it this way. Not dignity for him, but dignity for us. It is understandable that people want to celebrate the death of a man who scared us, who was the author of a traumatizing act of violence, who plotted the deaths of thousands and dreamed of the deaths of thousands upon thousands more. But I am not sure that celebrating death ever does anything very good for the one who celebrates.

I shuddered for the souls of the men at Saddam Hussein's execution. The footage is, now, widely available on the Internet. It was captured surreptitiously on a cell phone video camera. Saddam is brought into a dingy room in what looks like a basement. He is bustled toward a noose and begins praying. Some of the people standing below begin to shout. They are calling out, "Muqtada," in reference to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia religious and political leader. Saddam says the name Muqtada back to them and then asks, "Do you call this courage?" Another person yells at Saddam to go to hell. He replies, "the hell that is Iraq?" Then he goes back to praying. All of a sudden, the trap door beneath Saddam opens and he plummets. He is gone. It is impossible to watch that footage without feeling that Saddam stole his dignity back in those final moments. The people in the room gave Saddam the opportunity to do it. They gave him a moment to be the honorable one in death. It lessened those men, those witnesses. They became small in the face of the ultimate thing, the death of a human being.

The last few days have seen a lot of talk about whether or not it is appropriate to celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden. I would phrase the question in a different way. What does it do to one human being to celebrate the killing of another human being, whatever the circumstances? What happens inside you, how does it make you feel? Is that something you want to feel? Is it a way you want to be?

By http://www.3quarksdaily.com/

Commission utterly confused by its own aid figures

Our recent aid report has kicked off a bit of a storm in the Netherlands.

Nieuws.nl reports this evening that a debate will be held in the Dutch Parliament, the Tweede Kamer, on EU aid spending at the request of a PVV MP, with the support of the governing VVD and CDA, as well as the Socialists. Dutch MPs are asking why EU external aid has been spent on various projects cited in our report, including €463,ooo in funding for a dance project in Burkina Faso, and by what Sunday Times' journalists found in Sierra Leone.

Meanwhile, the Commission is particularly sensitive about this issue. We're reliably informed that its press officers are briefing journalists that our main criticism - that only 46% of EU development aid reaches lower income countries - is unfair and inaccurate as it includes EU aid that is not meant for development (The 46% of EU aid targeted at lower income countries compares with 74% of UK aid using the same methodology).

The Commission has been saying, although not yet in public, that money spent in Europe's neighbourhood cannot be considered development aid in the same sense as aid to sub-Saharan Africa, for example.

To get technical, what this boils down to is how much aid is classified as "Official Development Assistance" (ODA) - a classification used by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee to categorise external aid spending that has "promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective". ODA only includes money granted to what the OECD classifies as "developing countries".

Now we are particularly puzzled as to what the Commission is playing at on this one as our findings simply bear out the facts contained in their own figures. The Commission's 2010 Annual Report on External Assistance, which looks at funds spent in 2009, lays it all out very clearly in black and white (the key financial tables are from p168 onwards). In the Commission's own words,

"Figure 6.5 shows the share of the EU’s external assistance classified as ODA. In all, 96% of the total resources of EU external assistance committed in 2009 are considered reportable as ODA, indicating an increased focus on development in external financial allocations."

So, of the EU's €12,298m 2009 aid budget, €11,764m was considered as reportable as ODA or development aid. And to be clear, this includes the majority of money spent in European countries under the so-called European Neighbourhood Policy, for example. Table 6.3 (on p170 of the report) clearly shows that of the €1,463m spent on the "European Neighbourhood Policy and Relations with Russia", €1,356m was considered by the Commission as ODA (click the table below to enlarge).


What about our claim that only 46% of EU aid reaches lower income countries. We are especially surprised at the Commission's refusal to accept this as its actually more generous than the Commission's own figure of roughly 35%. Please take a look at this table from the Commission's own report (p15):


The green line at the top combines EU ODA spent in what the OECD considers to be "Least Developed Countries" and "Other Low Income Countries", which dips to about 35% of EU aid disbursed in 2009 (if you're wondering why our figure is a higher percentage, it's because we have taken the EU's spending in lower income countries as a share of "allocable ODA" rather than total ODA spending, which includes aid that can't be allocated to countries using an income category).

In its 2011 multilateral aid review (p170), the UK's Department for International Development said of the Commission's central aid budget that, "Although almost all budget instrument spend is classified as ODA, none of the budget instruments, except for the DCI geographic programmes and most of its thematic programmes, are purely development focused."

So, unless the Commission is saying that its own figures are wrong or can explain why this (its own) methodology is no longer valid, we don't know what other conclusion can be drawn from the figures - they're there in black and white in the Commission's own documents. It's not our fault if the Commission reports something as development aid which it doesn't consider development aid (it doesn't exactly inspire confidence but that's a different discussion).

Frankly, what in the world is the Commission on about?

How to win friends and influence people (with other people's money)

We've consistently questioned the logic of sending taxpayers' money from Paris to Berlin via Brussels in the form of the EU's regional (or structural) funds. It seemingly makes little sense for taxpayers in economically comparable countries to subsidise each other's regional policies, only minus the Brussels admin fee.

And it turns out that the search for a logical explanation was all in vain, as, according to German MEP Markus Pieper, the use of EU-channelled money to co-finance projects in relatively wealthy member states is completely justified because it contributes towards making the EU more visible to citizens.

"In countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands, Europe shows its face through local projects in the regions," he said.

This is the kind of argument you might expect to hear from the Commission or an MEP from one of the net recipient countries, but coming from a member of Chancellor Merkel's CDU party, which is making some pretty loud noises about fiscal prudence at the moment, makes it quite odd.

And it's not like the Commission doesn't already have a sizeable pot of money to spend on EU PR.

"She cannae take it Captain": ECJ ruling testing EU's PR machine to breaking point

We have been quick to criticise the EU's vast efforts dedicated to 'improving it's image' with citizens in the past but we're almost starting to feel sorry for the 'communications team' behind them.

Well not really, obviously, but when the ECJ makes daft decisions, like it did this week when it ruled to impose unisex insurance rates, increasing costs for consumers in the process, you really do have to wonder whether the EU's taxpayer-funded PR machine can cope.

With some exceptions, the public and media reaction across Europe has been a mixture of anger and bewilderment . Yesterday, picking up on our briefing on the ruling, a leader in the Times argued:

Many great changes have been made in the name of equality. Forcing women drivers to pay higher car insurance premiums is not one of them. It is extraordinary that the European Court of Justice has decided that what women drivers pay, for the simple act of getting behind the wheel, is a supranational issue. But having done so, it will have made many ordinary people aware for the first time of just what a complex web of issues is increasingly decided by a remote court that is suffering acutely from mission creep.

Unlike the prisoners' votes furore that was limited to the UK, this case has also stirred others across Europe to speak out against the judicial activism of Europe's supranational courts.

FAZ argued that:

Rarely has a court intervened so deeply into contractual freedom as the European Court of Justice has now...In this judgement the ECJ takes up the role of lawmaker in an astonishing way.

Czech business paper Hospodářské noviny:

Insurance premiums are based on statistics. Women cause fewer traffic accidents than men do, and so they pay lower premiums. Men, by contrast, have shorter life expectancies, and so they receive higher monthly pensions. That's all reasonable and logical. The European Court of Justice's decision to ban differentiations between men and women is unreasonable and illogical.

Spain's Cinco Dias wrote:

As [the Spanish insurance association] Unespa explained yesterday, putting this decision into practice will mean that both women and men have to pay more. This leads us to the conclusion that equal treatment won't result in lower insurance premiums and that it will be the consumers who end up paying for the consequences of this ruling.

In the immortal words of the man pictured, "She cannae take it Captain!"

The EU won the Olympics, the World Cup...and now an Oscar

The EU won the 2006 and 2010 World Cups in football (at least according to Romani Prodi and Jean-Claude Trichet, so it has to be true).

It also won the 2008 Olympics, according to highly credible EU-funded sources.

Now, it has upped its game yet another notch and raked in the film world's greatest prize - an Oscar.

The "King’s Speech”, which won several Oscars at last night's ceremony, apparently received €562,000 in “distribution support” from the EU’s Media Programme. Stopping just short of "there are a few people that I want to thank...", Androulla Vassiliou, the European commissioner in charge of cultural issues, wasted little time in claiming the EU's share of the credit (in what the FT Brussels blog labels "an acceptance speech"),

"What a great night for the European film industry and the Media programme. Europe loves cinema and the world loves our films. This shows that the European film industry can compete with the best."

After such an accomplishment, all eyes now turn to Euro 2012 (the football tournament, not the currency), where we're told the EU has an excellent chance of repeating its record of success.

Mean journalists ganging up on Brussels

An internal commission newsletter reveals what European Commission President José Manuel Barroso thinks about criticism of the pay and perks enjoyed by EU staff.

In what is seen as a direct response to revelations that 2,000 EU officials, earning between €124,000 and €185,000 a year, were also entitled to three months off work on full pay last year, Presidente Barroso said:

"The European civil service is often attacked for its apparent 'privileges' when this is not the case and I am always defending this."

Adding that he "cannot accept populism against the European civil service", while paying tribute to EU officials, describing them as a "great asset to Europe".

Sure, EU officials can do a good job but please! Not a week goes by without media across Europe lamenting the various excessive ways in which EU officials are compensated for their work. In Barroso's world, one is led to believe, this is just a case of mean journalists ganging up on Brussels (despite the Commission spending around €8 million a year on entertaining, training and 'informing' journalists. What has the world come to when you can't even buy some decent coverage?)

Only today, Danish newspaper Politiken reported that on average, salaries across Europe have fallen by 5% since 2008, while for EU officials they have increased by 4% during the same time period. One in five EU officials has an annual salary of around €135,000, or more - which seems high even to us. Between 1,100 and 1,600 make more than the Danish PM.

It would be strange if media did not report on this.

Barroso should take a stroll down the hallway in the Berlaymont building and have a chat with his colleague, Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski, who understands the need to cut at least some of the EU institutions' expenditure.

What the EU ‘didn’t’ do for you in 2010

If you were wondering what the EU actually did for you in 2010, have a look at this taxpayer-funded video released by the Commission just in time for Christmas.

"What has the EU done for you in 2010?"

On a long list of claimed achievements, such as "fair trials" and "boosting jobs", we were struck by this claim, which was followed by flashing images of euro notes and a euro symbol:

“Securing a sound economy and stronger financial markets"

Can this really be serious? Of all the years to spin this line they chose 2010 - the year when the flawed construct if the Single Currency nearly brought the entire European economy to its knees, forcing multi-billion euro bail-outs.

Or maybe they just got this mixed up with the EU's wish list for Santa. While they are at it, why don’t they just say world peace?

A classic example of EU spin

Here's an example of some good old EU spin for you:

The European Commission today announced the results from the latest Eurobarometer poll - carried out in May during the height of the crisis - with a press release carrying the headline,"EU citizens favour stronger European economic governance". 75 percent of Europeans, we are told by the press release, are in favour of giving the EU a stronger role in the coordination of member states' economic and budgetary policies.

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding - who also is in charge of Communication - comments:

"The clear majority for enhanced European economic governance shows that people see the EU as a decisive part of the solution to the crisis".

Clearly, something fishy is going in here, not least since only 26 percent of people then go on to say that they consider the EU best placed to deal with the financial and economic crisis.

And sure enough, the Commission is trying to take us for a ride. Respondents to the Eurobarometer survey were only asked whether or not "a stronger coordination of economic and financial policies among all EU member states" would be effective to combat the ongoing crisis (see p. 38 here). The question doesn't even mention the role of the EU or the term "European economic governance". Creatively, the Commission then adds up the respondents who think that stronger coordination would be "very effective" (26 percent) and those who only find it "fairly effective" (49 percent) to reach the 75 percent figure.

Seriously, how stupid do they think we are? By no stretch of the imagination is this the same as 75 percent of Europeans being in favour of giving the EU more powers to monitor national economies, which the Commission is trying to make us believe in its press release.

The Eurobarometer could have asked this question instead: “Do you think that the EU should be given more powers to monitor your country’s economy, including decisions on public spending and taxation?” We suspect the result would have been completely different.

What the Commission really should be focussing on is the troubling fact that only 49 percent of respondents think that EU membership is "a good thing" down from 53 percent last year. Or that the percentage of people who think that EU membership is "a bad thing" has reached its highest level in a decade - now at 18 percent (see p. 12).

What's more, the percentage of people who think that EU membership is a good thing has decreased by 5 percent in France and the Netherlands, for example, and by a striking 10 percent in Germany (down to 50 percent) in only one year. Incidentally, these countries are all net contributors to the EU budget.

Is the Commission getting the hints? We hope so, but somehow doubt it.

Ps. If we were to use the same method as the Commission to support our claims, we could add up respondents who said that EU membership is "a bad thing" with those who said it is "neither good nor bad" (29 percent) to obtain a remarkable 47 percent of "EU non-enthusiasts".

Is even virtual democracy too dangerous for the EU?

A lot of attention has been paid in recent weeks to the European Parliament-funded virtual reality experience, Citzalia, which recreates life in the Parliament online.

As its weblog states, it is "a role playing game and social networking forum wrapped in a virtual 3D world that captures the essence of the European Parliament." All for the tidy sum of €275,000.

In The Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker made the suggestion that "We are given virtual democracy in exchange for real power”.

However, it seems that even "virtual democracy" cannot be trusted by the EU.

The Guardian reported that in the new taxpayer-funded virtual world, "Avatars of European commission officials will also wander the halls 'correcting' mistaken views about the EU." The developer stresses that "there won't be any censorship, but there is a huge risk that misinformation could be fed in. They won't be editing for views, but having these people in can sort of correct things."

Given the EU's inability to accept what voters tell it in the real world, it is hardly surprising that Alles tonenit cannot trust ordinary citizens (who, let us not forget, are paying for this through the EU budget) to have their own debate online, without the need for EU supervision (sorry, "correction").

Aid yes, but be sure to wave the EU flag

A famous Chinese proverb says: "When the finger points at the moon, the foolish man looks at the finger". We don't know if EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid Kristalina Georgieva (in action in the picture) is familiar with Chinese proverbs, but this one she would do well to contemplate.

In an interview with EurActiv, Georgieva lamented that - unlike the US - the EU's humanitarian efforts in the aftermath of the recent floods in Pakistan have barely been visible in TV and press coverage of the disaster.

So says Georgieva,

"Raising the visibility of Europe and making sure that our flag shines when we are abroad helping people in need is something that I find incredibly important. Especially now, when we are still not through with the economic and financial crises and it is hard for people here, and we also have our own disasters at home".

Say what? You would think that the existence or not of EU flags is the last thing anyone (not least the 14 million victims) cares about on the ground of Southern Asia's worst flooding in 80 years. But the EU's Aid Commissioner knows her priorities.

Euractiv also noted that "Georgieva said she was telling humanitarian organisations that they should do more to help the EU to help them by flying the EU flag". So EU flag first, then aid, is that the message?

Of course Europe should give emergency aid to Pakistan - and much of it (given that it is properly targeted and effective - which unfortunately EU aid too often isn't). But the EU's obsession with visibility and flag-waving is becoming more disturbing by the day.

What's next, a fine for Pakistan for failing to fly the EU flag?

Margot Wallstrom: a failure?

A new book, to be published in Sweden today, paints a rather bleak picture of Margot Wallstrom's stint as EU Communications Commissioner. The book, written by Swedish journalist Emily von Sydow, blatantly labels Wallstrom's time in office a failure. The theme of the book reminded us of the Economist's description of Wallstrom a couple of weeks ago as "a Swede whose 'kum-bay-yah' approach grated with colleagues."

The book catalogues Wallstrom's failures, including:

One of her main responsibilities was to "sell" the EU Constitution. However, the Constitution was voted down in three seperate referendums - in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. (The scope of this failure - and Wallstrom's incapacity to respect the will of the Irish people - were conspicuously illustrated in an infamous interview with the Swede on Newsnight.)

Wallstrom was supposed to boost turn-out in the European elections. However, despite a flamboyant promotion campaign, costing taxpayers around €10 million, turnout dropped in 16 of 27 countries, as did the overall average - to an all-time low.

Her campaign to put more women in top jobs in the EU has not been "particularly succesful", according to the book.

Her proposal for more access to information and EU documents for citizens ended in failure (in fact, the proposal she came up with in the end was widely regarded as a step backwards, making it harder for citizens to access official EU documents).

Neither has Wallstrom's blog been the success story she likes to portray it as, bagging about 50,000-80,000 visitors a month, compared with the 140,000 visitors Swedish blogger HAX gets some months - blogging only in Swedish.

All in all the book goes pretty hard on Wallstrom, but also acknowledges that she hasn't had the easiest job in the world.

Still, at the end of the day Wallstrom has failed spectacuarly in her main duty: to bring the EU closer to its citizens. Altough her intentions have no doubt been good, she has ignored three referenda results and pushed through an agenda of more centralisation of powers at the EU level, against the will of most Europeans. On her watch, DG Communication has acted more and more like a political lobby group for more integration, than an objective provider of information about the EU, wading into national politcal debates and even seeking to control what is written in the media. And the fruits of her labour, the bitter taste they have left, speak for themselves.

Given that she will receive almost £1.8 million when she leaves the Commission this year, she cannot possibly be described as good value for money.

Let's hope that the next Communications Commissioner will be a lot more willing to actually listen to people. Or better still, maybe they will scrap the role altogether in the upcoming shakeup which is likely to see the more pointless posts like EU Commissioner for Multilingualism consigned to the history bin.

Wild claims

On 14 June 2009 the Irish Independent reported that Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner for Communication, said during a visit to Dublin that the Lisbon Treaty would "encourage" affordable childcare in the EU.

A question was tabled to her in the European Parliament, by Syed Kamall MEP, asking the simple question:

"Can you please clarify which articles in the Lisbon Treaty will encourage affordable childcare in the EU?"

The question was tabled in order to deliver a response mid-September at the latest. However, having delayed this far, our Commissioner for "Communication" has, at a minute to midnight today declared her response will only be ready on 6 October, conveniently after the Irish referendum has already taken place.

So this completely unsubstantiated, nonsense claim from the politician we pay good money to communicate the Lisbon Treaty is allowed to stay just as it is, with no explanation.

We're reminded of The Economist column last week which described Wallstrom as "a Swede whose 'kum-bay-yah' approach grated with colleagues". It's grating with us a bit too.

If you haven't already checked it out you should have a look at her here on Newsnight after the last Irish referendum, when she failed spectacularly to explain what on earth people are supposed to do to reject this Treaty, since voting no is clearly not enough.

Paying people to tell you what you want to hear

Just received a ridiculous survey to fill in from Gallup Europe, which is working on behalf of 'Friends of Europe' - a Brussels-based outfit that gets most of its funding from the European Commission.

The survey asks questions about the EU's 'communication policy', with a view to producing a new report on the subject to feed back into the Commission and "improving communication about Europe."

Apart from the obvious issues with the Commission paying organisations to come up with policy ideas to feed back into the Commission, the problem is that all the questions are asked on the assumption that the respondant believes there should be an EU Communication Policy in the first place, which we do not (click here to read why).

Clearly the Friends of Europe wishes to help the Commission's DG Communications department in its ongoing efforts to convince people of the benefits of EU integration. Judging by its last effort along these lines, which was a report for the institutions called Can EU Hear Me?, (resulting in a letter to the EU Commission recommending it "Promote the benefits of EU Membership"), it has no intention of improving people's knowledge of the EU but instead wishes to improve its popularity.

If this survey is to be the basis of the future direction of EU 'communication' policy, we should be very worried indeed. Questions focus on such things as what the Commission should be doing to improve 'communication' about Europe in schools and in the media, making use of the internet to persuade people of the benefits of the EU, creating a 'Europe' brand, and creating a 'Commissioner for Citizens'.

Having commissioned many polls in the past, we imagine this online questionnaire is not coming cheap. Hopefully they will take note of some of our suggestions, such as scrapping EU Communication Policy altogether and allowing people a direct say on the big EU questions like treaty change. Is anyone in any doubt that Irish people will be the best informed about the Lisbon Treaty and the EU in general than any of their European neighbours, as a direct result of the recent referendums?

Without a hint of irony...

European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek has flown to Dublin to tell the Irish people to beware of 'outside' influences telling them how to vote in next month's Lisbon Treaty referendum. He described the Lisbon No campaign as “made up of marginal groups…and some [located] outside your country”.

He then went on to say that he had no wish to “tell people how to vote”, before telling people how to vote by suggesting that the referendum should not be “used for domestic messages” to bash the Irish government.

We've talked about the various EU institutions' penchant for meddling in the Irish referendum many times before but these remarks are a fine illustration of how seemingly intelligent people manage to lose all sense of reason and self-awareness.

Double standards II

As the Lisbon campaign in Ireland gets into full swing things are starting to get heated.

Ireland's Defence Minister Willie O'Dea yesterday told us to butt out after we published research showing that the Irish government only managed to get 24 percent of their proposed amendments made to the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty, when it was negotiated back in 2002-2004 by Europe Minister Dick Roche. The fact is he was dead against some of the things the government is now pushing - such as a permanent EU President, a change to the voting weights, which will see Ireland lose 40% of its power to block decisions it disagrees with, and many of the important veto losses.

It seems fairly inevitable that the Government would have a pop at us for publishing facts they desperately would prefer to hide. But in light of the recent interventions from the EU Commission in the debate, it seems highly hypocritical to tell us to "butt out".

Only two weeks ago, the Commission felt the need to weigh in and rebuff claims made by the 'Farmers for No' campaign. Maybe the Irish government was too busy that day to do the rebutting itself, or maybe it wasn't considered to be up to the job by the "experts" (ha ha) occupying the corridors of DG Communication.

Other imaginative ways to use our taxes its resources to promote a Yes vote include sending EU officials into schools, to foster that all important pester power, and sending Communication Commissioner Margot Wallström to Ireland later this week to speak at various events, including the 'Lisbon Treaty Business Lunch with European Chamber of Ireland' and the 'Labour Women's Conference'. That's not to mention the appearances already seen by EU Commissioners Neelie Kroes, Magelena Kuneva and senior EU Commission official Catherine Day.

Will their salaries be included in the public cost of the 'yes' campaign?

There's more

At the risk of banging on quite a lot about EU propaganda (but there's so much to say!), further to yesterday's post, we reckon that email from the UK Commission office looks pretty embarrassing for EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom.

Just this week, in response to criticisms about EU propaganda from Swedish think-tank Timbro, she said:

"Timbro blames the Commission for wasting tax-payers’ money on 'propaganda', but the truth is that the EU has no control or influence over the media and no involvement in the national education curricula."

That's not for want of trying, believe us. Sending 600 EU officials a year into schools all over Europe in its "Back to School" programme? Despatching 'specialists' to promote EU policies in universities? Sending literature and 'teaching guides' to teachers?

Margot, this is bordering on a downright lie.

EU Commission officials - coming to a Uni near you

We have just seen an email that the European Commission would probably have preferred we didn't.

Dominic Brett, Head of Public Diplomacy (!) at the European Commission Representation in the UK, has just sent an email out to students and teachers using the huge mailing list of the University Association for Contemporary University Studies. (UACES)

In it, he offers Commission staff to speak to students, either by visiting their universities or by hosting meetings in London, about topics such as climate change and the Lisbon Treaty.

As we've argued many times before, the Commission is engaged in many attempts to influence young people's thinking about the EU - but this has to be one of the most blatent.

Is there any possibility whatsoever that these talks will be balanced? Of course not - this is the Commission, whose job it is to work towards 'ever closer union'. Commission officials speaking to students about the Lisbon Treaty can only mean one thing - trying to convince them that it is a good thing .

How do we know that? Because endless Commission documents confirm that it sees its "mission" as promoting the EU and its policies, not merely providing neutral information. See this latest one for example, which we mentioned the other day. It clearly states that in its communication policy, the Commission aims to "build up support for the European Union's policies and its objectives".

That means, therefore, that this is a completely unacceptable use of public money, and goes way beyond even the remit of the EU institutions. The EU has no mandate for education policy - so why is the Commission interferring in university teaching?

Here is the email in full - we particularly like the "we specialize in" bit, which makes it sound like some kind of corporate marketing bumf. It's like an after-dinner speech service with a twist (i.e. that it's "of course" free of charge, because we EU taxpayers are forking out for it.)

Following the high level of demand over the past twelve months, we're repeating our offer to speak to students in 2009-10. I'm the head of public diplomacy here at the EC Representation in London. Part of our job is to offer relevant departments in English universities (other parts of the UK have their own Commission office) presentations to their undergraduate and master's students. Over the past couple of years, we've hosted dozens of student groupings here in London or gone out to visit universities across the country.

We specialize in:
- key policy areas (climate change, economic recovery package, Lisbon Agenda, Lisbon Treaty, etc.) - the structure of the EU and the division of labour in Brussels and between the Union and its Member States on the other
- careers in the EU institutions.

This service is of course free of charge to any universities who so request it. Generally, we look for a two-month lead time. Our tight schedule and limited budget means we can't satisfy every request.

If you're interested, please e-mail me.
All the best, Dominic Brett
Dominic Brett Head of Public Diplomacy European Commission Representation in the United Kingdom

Spin spin spin

Before disappearing on holiday, EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom (who, BTW, will have earned more than £2 million in basic salary when her term ends in November, and who will then receive an extra £1.8 million in pension payments and so-called 'transitional' and 'resettlement' allowances), has today posted a response to the recent claims by Swedish think-tank Timbro that the EU uses propaganda to promote the concept of EU integration.

This may or may not have been spurred by an article today by Open Europe in Sweden's biggest newspaper, Aftonbladet, on the same subject. (See here for an English version of the arguments).

As well as the usual predictable and unconvincing arguments about how the Commission is, in fact, using our money to "promot[e] questioning of what the EU does, and action to change it" (ha!), Wallstrom also makes a shaky counter-claim, which on close inspection is a classic example of exactly the kind of spin for which she is being criticised.

She says:

"Some media who picked up the report made sweeping claims along the lines that ‘every time’ the public is consulted about the EU they say ‘No’ and that this proves the unpopularity of the EU. The fact is that since 1972, no less than 35 referenda have been held on EU-related issues, only 9 of which produced negative results, two of which were in Norway."

Let's take a look.

First of all, 17 of these 35 referendums took place in countries outside the EC/EU as they considered whether or not to join. Norway, for instance, voted against twice and Aland Island (a dependency of Finland) voted in favour. One referendum was held in the UK to decide if it should remain in the EC and one was held in France prior to the first enlargement in 1973 whether to allow new members.

In other words, 19 out of 35 referenda have been held to decide whether to join the EC/EU or related questions as in France and the UK.

Margot knows fine well that usually, when people talk about rejecting further EU integration in referendums, they are not referring to countries voting on EU membership. To suggest otherwise risks muddling the difference between how people feel about further EU integration, or specific policies such as the Euro, with how they feel about membership per se. As we've argued many times before, over-simplifying this issue only serves to disenfranchise the vast majority of people who are in favour of their country's EU membership, but who do not support giving ever more powers to the EU.

The remaining 16 referenda were held to approve policy or ratify treaties (SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the European Constitution, Treaty of Lisbon). 7 out of these 16 referenda returned negative results.

(Wallstrom seems to have sensibly discounted the two 'yes' referendums which should arguably have never been held in the first place, since they were repeats of referendums in which the public had already said 'no' - the second Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, and the second Danish referendum on the Maastricht Treaty).

After 1998, the overwhelming trend is quite clear - 6 out of 8 referenda on treaties and policy issues have returned negative outcomes.

Post-1998 referenda:

Nice, 2001: Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum. Negative outcome. It subsequently voted again and said yes.

Euro, Denmark 2000: Negative outcome.
Euro, Sweden 2003: Negative outcome.

European Constitution Mark I 2005: Spain and Luxembourg both voted in favour and the Netherlands and France voted against.

European Constitution Mark II (Treaty of Lisbon) 2008: Ireland only country to hold a referendum: Negative outcome.

Note that turnout was 42% in Spain. Compared with 69% in France, 62% in the Netherlands, and 53% in Ireland - all of which voted no, but were ignored and overridden. (Luxembourg has compulsory voting, so a fair comparison of turnout there is not possible. However note that a smaller percentage said 'yes' in Luxembourg than said 'no' in the Netherlands).

While we're at it, we also find the following claim particularly interesting:

"The European Radio Network and Euronews receive some EU funding because they meet the aim of providing a cross-border platform for news, analysis and discussion and helping to create a European public space for debate and discussion but both have complete editorial independence."

How then, does Wallstrom explain this March 2009 Commission policy document, which describes EuroNews and the radio network etc as the Commission's "corporate communication"?

Answers please. Or is the whole of 'DG Communication' on holiday this month?

Pass the sick bucket...

Another day, another highly professional pro-Lisbon website crops up in Ireland. This time, it's "Women for Europe" (hot on the heels of We Belong, Generation Yes, Ireland for Europe, etc etc etc - you can see the whole list of links down the right hand side of 'Women for Europe').

Quite aside from our views on the Lisbon Treaty, and the growing number of suspiciously similar campaign groups (who's paying for all this?), there isn't a female in our office (including the one typing) who doesn't find this approach cheesy and patronising in the extreme.

The 'Why vote yes?' section for instance seems to suggest that tackling climate change, eradicating poverty, and protecting children and the eldery (which all have extremely tenuous links - if any - to the Lisbon Treaty) are issues that disproportionately concern the female of the species. Especially those who like attractively-iced cupcakes, judging by the nice photo in the Irish Times today.

Would "Men for Europe", staffed by a men-only team and complete with smug male photoshoots get away with this? Of course not. This is the opposite of equality in action.

On the question of who's paying for it - the whole thing smacks of EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, who has (laudably enough) championed the participation of more women in EU politics. Another female EU Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, is photographed on the website, participating in a "Women for Europe" event. Oh and according to the Irish Times, the European Commission's most senior official, Catherine Day, will also be visiting the group ahead of the referendum on 2 October.

It's the latest shot in the European Commission-backed onslaught to make sure Irish people don't cock up its carefully-laid plans to grab control over dozens of new policy areas. No doubt many will fall for it.

Bad for democracy

Further to yesterday's post on EU propaganda, see EUobserver today for some more snippets of what the institutions have been up to - and Open Europe's own experiences at the hands of the political campaign at the heart of DG Communications.

There is also a good piece on the International News Service, which repeats Open Europe's finding that the Commission has earmarked €885m to spend on efforts to promote a “common European identity” among the under-25s in a campaign which deliberately confuses the difference between information and propaganda.