EU opinion & policy debates - across languages | BlogActiv.eu » Communications

Roaming: the Parliament will vote this week

fairroaming.org — Tue, 08 May 2012 09:15:39 +0000

This Thursday, on the 10th of May, the European Parliament will vote on the renewal of the EU roaming regulation. It is expected to accept the compromise that was reached between the Parliament and the Council at the end of March.

What is to be expected from the new roaming rules? First of all, prices for roaming will go down further. For example, calling home will cost around 34 ct/min from July on and go down to around 23 ct/min until 2014. The cost of using the internet when abroad will come down from up to 12000€/GB now (no kidding!) to around 840€/GB this year and 240€/GB by 2014. In addition, consumer protection mechanisms will be improved: for example, you will receive a warning message when you travel outside of the EU and spend more than 50€ on internet roaming. This is all not too bad. We at Europeans for Fair Roaming fought for those things and are happy with the compromise. But nevertheless, prices will remain high. Just compare the price caps above with what you pay at home…

But the hopes are really pinned on two other measures of the new regulation: Operators will put in a position to offer lower prices (but whether they will do so remains to be seen). And from 2014 on, you will be able to switch to a different provider when going abroad if you feel your home provider takes too much money off you for roaming (that’s called “unbundling”). This way, existing operators will be able to access markets where they don’t have their own networks yet. In effect, we could see the emergence of low-cost providers for roaming services – or even the emergence of pan-European providers. Some even see players like Google and Apple as future pan-European virtual operators.

Whether this will really play out this way will only be seen in two years from now and will depend heavily on how user-friendly this unbundling will be. We might find ourselves back in the same discussion in three years if it doesn’t…

On Thursday, the European Parliament will vote on the new EU roaming regulation. Voting starts at 11:30 in the Brussels hemicycle. Europeans for Fair Roaming will be there to report “live” so make sure you follow us onwww.fairroaming.org and www.twitter.com/fairroaming.

East/West trajectory in the Commission’s communication strategy on enlargement

Blogactiv Team — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:51:04 +0000

Guest post by Senka Neuman Stanivukovi?, researcher at the University of Groningen. As a part of novelized Enlargement strategy, the Commission has released a set of short videos to communicate the EU’s widening eastwards to the citizens. I suggest that the campaign not only prejudices against the Eastern members and to-be-members by portraying these as a derivative of the West, but it also verifies the East/West dichotomy as inherent to the EU’s political structure. In view of that, the article speaks up against the Westernization of European identity and the EU’s political order. La révolution dévore ses enfants. Provided that the post-communist transition and subsequent 2004/2007 EU enlargement in conjunction with the pending accession of the Western Balkans was revolutionary, then the ten Central European and the seven Balkan countries are a textbook example of the above-cited Danton’s claim that the revolution devours its own children. In an era when discourses of the PVV, the Front National, and the Lega Nord are becoming part of the mainstream public narrative vis-à-vis the EU’s Ostpolitik, to argue that the Central and Balkan Europeans are victims of the Europeanization process is certainly not without controversy. The enlargement fatigue discourse, de facto euphemism for Western Europeans’ uneasy relationship with their Eastern counterparts, is unfit to grasp that the biggest weight of the accession process has been and continues to be carried by the acceding countries. The West can never be as tired from expanding as the East is tired from transitioning towards the West. I argue that, notwithstanding the political rhetoric, in the context of the EU’s widening eastwards, the act of accession comes closer to Anschluss than to integration with the EU. Semiotics aside, for Central Europe integrating with the EU meant becoming more westernized than the West. Thus, in the same manner as Europeanization qua accession has reproduced the power relationship between Western Europe as certified Europe and Central Europe as its copie conforme, the newest Commission’s video clips on Southeast Europe, as a part of the pro-EU Enlargement campaign, portray this region as a derivative of old Europe and thus worth of EU membership. But is this so problematic? Faced with an institutional vacuum subsequent to the fall of communism, these countries were provided with a brand new set of political and economic institutions and were additionally given the very much needed financial and administrative support for putting these institutions into practice. The role the EU has played and still plays in helping membership candidates in swapping communism for capitalism is undeniable. More importantly, the impetus for joining the EU always comes from the candidate state. Nobody has forced Central Europe to join the EU and nobody has forced these countries to comply with EU rules and norms. Yet now, almost a decade after the 2004 enlargement, while witnessing continuous economic growth and consolidation of democracy in most of the new member states, I dare to call out the EU for victimizing these countries. The trick is that while being the engine behind the Europeanization process, the EU has simultaneously occupied this very process. It claims monopoly over democracy and capitalism, and, more importantly, it claims monopoly over Europe. In 1984, Kundera argued that Western Europe has kidnapped Europe. In the 1990s, by coupling the infamous Return to Europe with EU accession, the political nomenclatura of Central Europe and later of the former Yugoslav republics plus Albania has confirmed the EU’s hegemony over Europe. Put differently, in the same fashion as the West has stolen Europe during the Cold War, it has also stolen Europeanization in the post-Cold War period. In this context, the conformist non-members and to-be-members are labeled as good Europeans, whereas the recidivists are singled out as bad Europeans and, where geographical and cultural variables allow, as non-Europeans. Again, this is still not problematic per se. If the West is the EU and the EU is Europe, by joining the EU, Central Europe and the Balkans confirm their place within Europe and break away from their troubled past. At the same time, for Western Europeans, this means ultimate confirmation of the supremacy of their system, which is no longer vulnerable to internal or external contestation. It seems as a win-win situation, or, to quote Fukuyama, the end of history. But it is not. Scholarship on EU identity teaches us that the idea of Europe is established in opposition to the East. Ergo, Europeanism is not solely constructed in line with a Kantian ideal of a European federation nor does it solely progress towards constitutional patriotism basing itself on a set of commonly shared norms such as democracy, rule of law, solidarity, and respect for human rights. Au contraire, Kant himself sees Western European nation-states as a stepping stone for an emerging cosmopolitan order. European identity is therefore constructed vis-à-vis the Occident/Orient. The 20th century underpinned the West/East frontier awarding the Soviets with the role of the European other. Hereafter, pan-Europeanism was based on liberalism and capitalism and in opposition to an undemocratic and communist East. In 1938, Coudenhove-Kalergi framed the Paneuropa movement as, among others, a response to the emerging threat of Bolshevikization of Europe. This East/West dichotomy was further fortified against the background of the Cold War and was consequently embedded in the EU’s political order. When the founding fathers talked about the core of Europe, they talked of France, Britain, and Germany. Thus, the récidive of European ethnocentrism was sustained and reinforced by the bipolarity of the Cold War order. In effect, today’s EU exists as an artifact of Western Europe, defined in opposition to Eastern Europe. In this scenario, the former Soviet Block and the Balkans are read as the EU’s other or as the Zwischenland, at best. To what extent the fall of the Iron Curtain and subsequent events have made this borderline fussier or have moved the frontier further eastwards is debatable. On the one hand, in 2004, Prodi talked about the unification of the Continent. On the other hand, to many, Vienna still seems much closer than Prague will ever be with the us vs. them mentality continuing to shape the European public and political discourse. Nowadays, we tend to debate the finalité of the European project, but is seems that qua identity, this matter has been settled already with the Peace of Versailles. I argue that by moving the EU’s border eastwards, we have not deconstructed the East-West schism. Rather, we have internalized it. The present debates indicate that the Cold War dichotomies are still very much alive and kicking. While contained by the Iron Curtain, today these divisions have moved into our backyard with the other becoming our first door neighbor. For the countries that have taken the path of EU membership to establish their place in Europe this is tough luck. With EU membership failing to provide one with an external validation of one’s Europeanness, the enduring process of conforming to EU rules and norms is comparable to Sisyphus rolling the immense boulder uphill only to watch it fall down again. In an effort of becoming more Europeanized than the EU, the only thing these countries managed to establish is that they are more European than their first neighbor to the east. Consequently, the Central Europe of today and the Western Balkans of tomorrow are in a schizophrenic state due to a diametrical difference between the Ego and the Alter. Ultimately, this means that transition is a never-ending process. With the above-developed discussion in mind, I would like to reflect upon the current enlargement campaign. The EU’s 2005 enlargement strategy, as a summary of the lessons learned from the big-bang enlargement, highlights the need of improved communication of the future accessions to the citizens. Consequently, in 2012, DG enlargement released a set of video clips under the motto of narrowing the existing democratic deficit by advertising the upcoming new members among the common folks. Particularly interesting is the release on Southeast Europe entitled So Similar, So Different, So European. While escaping the hype of the more notorious Growing Together video, the ad on Southeast Europe is very much representative of the West-centrism in the EU’s order. In short, the add presents sights in Southeastern Europe such as the Lady of the Rock monastery, the Old Bridge of Mostar and the Zagreb National Theater to be identical to sights in Sweden, Italy, and Austria. The campaign is however a backhanded compliment to the essence and the uniqueness of Western Balkan identity. To be blunt, if the enlargement process reproduces the existing power relationships between the superior West and the backwards East writ large, this clip does exactly the same on a small scale. As such, it reinvents the Southeast against the image of the West in the same fashion as Central Europe was manufactured as a western corollary in the East throughout the 1990s. The arising narrative of the Western Balkans being good only if similar/comparable to France, Germany, the Netherlands etc. is stereotyping, patronizing and quite offensive. Unfortunately, however, with Western identity as a benchmark of certified Europe being deeply entrenched in the EU accession discourse, we often fail to see this. The question, however, is to what extent going along is worth it? Already today, the West has monopolized European culture, history, arts, education, the understanding of progress, social order, democracy etc. Now, with the above-discussed clip in mind, we are even witnessing a monopolization of landscape. Sure, it is certainly more rewarding for one to see her country represented as the New France than the villain of European modern history. But, again, I ask, is it worth for the East to become more western than the West, when, in the eyes of those who matter, they will never be good enough?

La « marque Europe » ou la nouvelle phase dans la politique de promotion

EU-Logos — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:44:55 +0000

La réforme de la Politique Agricole Commune (PAC) envisagée par la Commission Européenne et en ce moment débattue par les autres institutions, au Parlement et au Conseil, tente de répondre, en se projetant sur le long terme, aux défis engendrés parla PAC elle-même (inégalité, atteintes à l’environnement, distorsions de concurrence) et aux réformes successives de celle-ci qui ont progressivement amené l’agriculture européenne à s’exposer aux turpitudes des marchés. Ainsi, dans une optique de « développement durable », il s’agit de faire « mieux et plus » alors même que le budget – qui n’a pas encore été précisé -, ne devrait pas changer (à en croire les Perspectives Financières de 2014 – 2020 présentées en juin 2011).

Si le « verdissement » dela PAC est un des grands chantiers de la réforme actuelle et induit des changements (1), la recherche d’une plus grande compétitivité est également au cœur de cette réforme. Ainsi dans sa Communication de Novembre 2010 sur «La PAC à l’horizon 2020 » (2),la Commission constatait que « l’agriculture de l’UE se heurte aujourd’hui à un environnement beaucoup plus concurrentiel du fait de l’intégration croissante de l’économie mondiale et de la libéralisation accrue des échanges ». Cette situation est considérée comme un défi mais « ouvre également des perspectives aux exportateurs européens de produits alimentaires ». Dans cette optique, « il est important de continuer de renforcer la compétitivité et la productivité du secteur agricole de l’UE ».

Outre les questions de répartition de budget (entre les pays de l’Ouest et ceux de l’Est, entre les piliers) faisant débat dans les institutions, toute une partie du travail dela Commissionet du responsable en charge des questions agricole et de développement rural, Monsieur Dacian Cioloș, est de faire en sorte que les produits agricoles européens deviennent plus compétitifs, sur le sol européen et à l’extérieur de ses frontières. C’est pour cela que la Commissionentend également réformer la Politiqued’information et de promotion en faveur des produits agricoles, qui constituera « une action phare du renforcement de la compétitivité de l’agriculture de l’UE » (3). Ce travail de proposition de la Commission prolonge l’adoption d’un Livre Vert (4) sur cette Politique et un rapport d’évaluation externe conduite en 2011. Le Commissaire prend dorénavant acte du désengagement du secteur public dans les aides apportées et considère « une bonne promotion plutôt que des restitutions » (5). Il s’agit ainsi d’améliorer cette politique complémentaire, politique à l’intérieur dela Politique, en communiquant davantage sur « les efforts des producteurs de l’Union à atteindre ce haut niveau de qualité, déployer l’éventail des produits et des saveurs des régions de l’Union » (6). Cette réforme participerait au grand chantier de « redonner du sens à la PAC», éprouvée il est vrai par les critiques de toutes parts.

La Communication de la Commissionessaye de répondre aux défauts de cette politique de promotion et, par là, d’en faire un instrument important pour faire gagner des parts de marché aux produits agricoles européens évoluant dorénavant dans un contexte mondialisé et libéralisé. L’atout principal évoqué est celui de la qualité des produits européens. Ainsi, en prenant acte de la libéralisation inéluctable et de son corollaire, la fluctuation des prix,la Commission Européenne énonce que sa compétitivité ne se fera pas sur les prix mais sur la qualité des produits. L’accent sera mis essentiellement sur la différenciation des produits, entre ceux de qualité produits à l’intérieur de l’UE et ceux de moindre qualité à l’extérieur.

Quatre objectifs ont retenu l’attention de la Commission :

- Apporter une dimension européenne spécifique aux produits agricoles ;

- Créer des campagnes qui interpellent et une étude d’impact dans les pays tiers ;

- Clarifier des rôles entre Etats et Commission pour une meilleure flexibilité des programmes ;

- Trouver des synergies dans les promotions des différents secteurs afin de rendre cohérent l’ensemble de la politique de promotion dela PAC

Pour ce faire, la Commissionenvisage différentes « orientations » :

- Faire en sorte que la politique de promotion aille au-delà des organisations professionnelles et atteigne une population beaucoup plus élargie ;

- Homogénéiser la liste des produits éligibles (plus de différence marché interne / externe) ;

- Promouvoir et soutenir davantage les systèmes européens de qualité alimentaire (Appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOP), indication géographique protégée (IGP), spécialités traditionnelle garanties (STG)) ;

- Davantage illustrer les caractéristiques des produits européens grâce à des messages thématiques (sur la qualité, la gastronomie, la santé, le développement durable) ;

- Toujours mentionner « origine Europe » (à titre principal ou en accompagnement à côté d’autres appellations spécifiques) comme garantie d’un savoir-faire et un style de vie européen propre

A l’intérieur comme à l’extérieur de l’Europe, il s’agit ainsi de promouvoir une spécificité européenne, gage de qualité, qui doit permettre à terme de construire une véritable « marque Europe » légitimant les produits agricoles européens vis-à-vis de la concurrence.

Notes de bas de pages :

(1) « 30 % de l’enveloppe attribués aux paiements écologiques, introduction (progressive) de la directive-cadre Eau dans l’éco-condi¬tionnalité, inclusion des surfaces d’intérêt écologique et des surfaces classées pour protection de la nature dans la surface éligible aux paiements de base affichent un réel changement ». Pour un premier bilan des réformes envisagées et si celles-ci forment une « grande réforme » voir Louis Pascal Mahé, Le projet de PAC pour l’année 2013 annonce t-il une grande réforme ?, Think Tank Notre Europe, 2012 ; http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/ReformePAC_LP-Mahe_NE_Mars2012.pdf

(2) Communication de la Commission Européenne« La PACà l’horizon 2020 », novembre 2010 : COM(2010) 672 : http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post 2013/communication/com2010-672_en.pdf

(3) COMMUNICATION DE LA COMMISSION AUPARLEMENT EUROPEEN, AU CONSEIL, AU COMITE ECONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL EUROPEEN ET AU COMITE DES REGIONS, La promotion et l’information en faveur des produits agricoles : une stratégie à forte valeur ajoutée européenne pour promouvoir les saveurs de l’Europe, 2012 : http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/promotion/policy/communication/com2012-148_fr.pdf

(4) Livre Vert sur la politique de promotion : COM(2011)436 : http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/promotion/policy/green-paper/com2011-436_en.pdf

(5) Discours de Monsieur Dacian Cioloș, La promotion des saveurs de l’Europe, Bruxelles, 30 mars 2012 : http://europa.eu/newsroom/index_fr.htm

(6) COMMUNICATION, op cit, note 3

Mathieu Arnaudet

(Master complémentaire Institut d’Etudes Européennes – Université Libre de Bruxelles)

Classé dans:Actualités, BREVES

EU: Consultation or Participation

Blogactiv Team — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:53:53 +0000

Guest Post by Dan Luca

When it comes to involve and engage citizens in the decision-making process on a European level, there is confusion about terminology.

Some see “asking the interested citizens what they prefer” as active public participation. It is not: “asking the interested citizen” falls under consultation. Consultation is a top-down professional or bureaucrat-led process. At best, consultation produces choices from which the selected consultants can choose. Worst case scenario: community preferences are ignored, because they do not fit some preconceived model of “what the public needs”, designed in the minds of bureaucrats, politicians and professionals.

Participation is a process of setting up structures, within which professionals or bureaucrats become facilitators of a broad-based deliberative process. Participation is more difficult and time-consuming than consultation. It requires the leaders of the process to have the commitment to public participation and at the same time also the techniques to enact it. It requires skills in working with groups, but also skills in keeping the lobby group representatives or vociferous individuals to dominate and unduly influence proceedings.

Often enough there is big confusion between consultation and participation processes. People taking part in a consultation process can be disappointed and disillusioned when the results clearly show that their recommendations / opinions / ideas have not been taken up. So when questions like “why are citizens not engaged?” – Well, it’s just not structured to facilitate engagement.

Dan Luca, Casa Europei

Roaming: the Deal the between Parliament and Council is good for the users

fairroaming.org — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:25:30 +0000

Due to technical reasons, our last post that was planned to be shown here on Monday only appeared on Thursday and therefore after Parliament and Council already agreed on a very positive compromise on roaming. This lead to some confusion. In fact, we warmly welcome this new agreement:

On Tuesday evening, the EU lawmakers European Parliament and the Council of Ministers managed to broker a deal that will allow mobile phone, smart phone and tablet users to enjoy much lower costs when using their devices abroad. The deal came after some hard discussions between the two institutions. As we have been been working on this issue, we warmly welcomes the agreement, even though we hoped for a faster reduction in prices.

According to the deal, prices for roaming will be lowered to 29ct/min for calls and 70ct/MB for internet access in July 2012 and will keep going down to 19ct/min for calls and 20ct/MB for internet access by 2014. In addition, users will be enabled to choose a different operator for roaming which should bring about more competition.
Consumer interests defended
We are happy about this compromise. While we would have hoped for a faster reduction in prices so that consumers could enjoy lower prices this year, it is great to hear that the EU will continue its push for low prices for roaming. For a short time it looked like some governments were more interested in corporate interests than in consumer-friendly prices. But the deal struck will not only prevent consumers from suffering high prices but will also help the European economy in general.

Besides lowering prices for roaming and allowing users to choose a networking of their choice for roaming within the EU, consumers will also be protected better when leaving Europe because operators will have to warn them if their bill approaches 50 Euro.

For more information about our campaign, please visit www.fairroaming.org.

Mobile Roaming: the Council risks to fail consumers

fairroaming.org — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:56:05 +0000

At the end of February, the European Parliament’s ITRE committee voted in favour of lowering roaming costs within the EU. The Parliament’s vote followed a proposal of the European Commission from last July but demanded even lower price caps for roaming (no more than 15 ct/min to make calls and no more than 20 ct/MB for internet access from 2014).

According to information by the European telecom regulator BEREC, actual costs for roaming are very low and surcharges are not really necessary. The proposals were therefore still rather cautious. But at least they would have meant that mobile phone and smartphone users would finally have been able to use their phones without fearing high bills when returning home.

But right now, this proposal is being debated between the European Parliament and the European Council – and it looks like the Council is doing all it can to prevent consumer-friendly decisions. Some governments have obviously fallen to corporate lobbying and are now preoccupied with making sure we will continue to pay dearly for roaming instead of defending consumer interests.

This is a huge letdown for the millions of mobile phone users across Europe. Instead of the interests of users and the general economy, national ministers have given in to the lobbying of a few large telecom companies. Ministers obviously do not care that roaming charges damage the competitiveness of the European economy and they do not care about travellers who are forced to pay thousands of Euros when returning from holiday. The last decision by the European Parliament already proposed quite high price caps but if they even compromise on that with the Council, prices could end up being three to four times higher than what is economically feasible.

In order to find out more about the campaign against high roaming charges, pelase visit our website atwww.fairroaming.org.

Policy & Politics : la politisation de la communication européenne en question

Jacques Raybaut — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:38:22 +0000

Un intéressant billet de Michael Malherbe à lire sur http://www.lacomeuropeenne.fr/2011/11/16/policy-politics-la-politisation-de-la-communication-europeenne-en-question/

Facing up to the Social Media Challenge – How Should the Industry Engage with Consumers?

eucomed — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:12:43 +0000

Next week, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies will change the way they interact with consumers on Facebook. These changes are occurring, not based on new communications strategies or industry regulations, but because Facebook it...

Using Google in the Classroom

mikegreen40 — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 02:14:28 +0000

This Semester, I began a new experiment in the use of digital technology in the classroom. At the beginning of this class, I decided that students would open a Google Docs account. I stressed the point that if they already had a Gmail account they might consider having a separate account just for class. Why use Google, and not what the university provides. First, I am an adjunct and the systems such as blackboard can be intimidating for students young and old. That and it is not always easy to remotely connect. Secondly, as an adjunct, I felt that it was a way to have a semi-closed community for class. In this manner, an adjunct could share with the class power point presentations, and other assignments without the worry of cross pollution in other classes. Finally,it provided a way for students to present their materials in a timely manner and not worry about losing their assignments.

One of the main reasons I chose to use Google was its simplicity. Google easily integrates all the services for the student and the instructor. At the beginning of the class, I stated that students must have a Google account, and that all materials submitted in writing in class must also be uploaded and shared with me via Google docs. This allows the instructor to offer criticism on writing assignments in a timely manner and keeps the privacy of both student and instructor intact. For some students who may issues with technology, it is important to put students at ease right from the beginning to reassure students that they will be submitting their papers both online and in class. As time progresses, this may not need to be the case. One must also emphasize that students need to write their papers and save them as either a word doc or a pdf file to allow the up load in Google to convert their papers to the Google formant without changing any of the format.

Secondly, as the instructor, one has the control of access to documents that you create. Hence, students need to understand that if they want feed back they will need to share their documents with you and allow the instructor editing privileges. In addition, group assignments can be presented and shared among students. For the history class, students had to write several questions for discussion sessions to be given over specific chapters of the book. Hence, I created a Google Doc that would have the questions written upon and then shared that document with the designated students. This offered the ease of students writing their questions as they read the chapters in question and eliminated the need for a turning in a separate piece of paper. At grading time it was also easier to make sure that students had followed through with assignments. It also allowed students to coordinate their material for their designated discussion. This allows students more time to develop questions and less time they feel they need to meet with other group members. It also allows instructors to gage the amount of work each group member places on the project at hand.

in the end, the instructor has the ease of control under the Google system. It had a friendlier interface for students and appears less complicated that institutional systems. Instructors can share their PowerPoint presentations with students both in class and after. in this manner, students can review the presented materials in class along with their notes. Also, if a student misses a class, the power points can help students catch up quicker. At the same time, instructors can give feedback on materials such as course papers and exams. Indeed, one can share comments with students on their paper and keep those comments private between instructor and student. And, if you have very bad writing, it allows students to read your comments, whether they want to or not.

in the end, I find that the Google system had great potential for class. I highly recommend its use and the use of the new Google plus part of the account. This will have some use in classes the require social interaction and research on current events and historical materials. This is the next test. Nevertheless, the system as it stands presents a good method to provide good material to students, and allow students the ease of turning in assignments with little worry that they will get lost. At the same time, it provides students a good way to interact between student and instructor. Students can chat with the professor online, get feedback on written assignments and offer easier access to the instructor. For adjuncts, I think this is a great way to interact with students and put them at ease with technology.

Europe’s Digital Agenda

digital-europe — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:41:14 +0000

President of DIGITALEUROPE, Dr Erkki Ormala, writes about the European Digital Agenda for neurope: Europe is at a cross road. In the climate of a continuing fiscal crisis most of our energy is focused on short-term fiscal consolidation. This issue must be resolved in an appropriate way to restore macroeconomic stability which ultimately is a precondition for growth and prosperity in Europe. At the same time a digital revolution is sweeping societies and businesses across the globe. Countries which have been quick to respond are enjoying the benefits and making their way to the top of world rankings. Emerging economies are a case in point; their impressive positive growth figures can be attributed to their willingness to embrace this digitally driven revolution. Europe too has a window of opportunity to capitalise on the growth potential embedded in this digitally driven revolution. Investing in innovation is a prerequisite for harnessing Europe’s growth potential and ensuring macro-economic stability. DIGITALEUROPE applauds the European Commission for its foresight in responding to this need through flaship initiatives like the Innovation Union, a highlight of the Barroso II Presidency. The Innovation Union acknowledges that the creation of a competitive innovative ICT industry sector is a corner stone of job creation and long term economic dividends in the EU. DIGITALEUROPE shares the European Commission’s view that there is a need to focus EU innovation on the Grand Challenges, but we are also conscious that the greatest challenge of all in Europe is to restore economic growth. Please follow this link to read the full article about the European Digital Agenda.

The E-G8 Deauville Summit

Florian Pantazi — Tue, 31 May 2011 10:19:20 +0000

As a regular user of internet services as well as a content provider, I was very interested in last week’s e-G8 summit. The idea of bringing together the chieftains of the internet industry and the world’s most powerful political leaders seems a step in the right direction. The internet as a platform and applications such as social media have an awesome power to help people network,educate themselves and even promote major political change, as the unfolding events in the Arab world illustrate. As always, however, along with great power comes great responsibility. If during the ’90′s hopes of a new frontier in business development via e-commerce have somewhat evaporated in the wake of the dot com bubble, academic research, political awareness or activism and some areas of the mass-media have benefited enormously from the IT revolution. This is not to say that all is well in the virtual world. The relative absence of adequate regulation protecting personal data and the confidentiality of communications / business transactions is sapping users’ confidence. The fact that executives of internet companies resist the introduction of minimal norms and regulations governing further development of services proves that neoliberalism is still affecting the mentality of many – albeit not all – in the business community. J.A. Schumpeter, the noted Harvard economist otherwise known for his professional admiration of American corporate achievements, was nevertheless in favour of the introduction of laws and regulations governing innovations and business development in general. To make his point, he used an analogy from the car industry, demonstrating that automobiles have been able to reach ever-increasing speeds only after being equipped with adequate brakes and safety features, which had to be developed first. As matters now stand, however, intellectual property rights are trampled upon by “content farms”, children are exposed to pornography, and governments, from the US on down, can unlawfully obtain data from personal emails and have access to confidential files on a regular basis. As a consequence, the cyber world looks more as if it were governed by the laws of the jungle than those of civilised states protecting their citizens from harm or legal abuse. One issue that has not been discussed so far at e-G8 is the hegemonic position achieved by the United States due to its status as the global communications hub. In the long run this has to be addressed in a way that could relieve the national security concerns of European, as well as Asian governments. As the recent financial crisis has shown, America’s position as the centre of both global finance and global communications by no means guarantees the integrity and smooth functioning of the two systems, on the contrary. The EU’s political leadership also has to investigate why the invention of the internet by local specialists was not followed by a development of applications for it. Lack of technological savvy is surely not one of the reasons. It’s a sad spectacle to witness the fact that even the most mundane applications such as operating systems for PC’s and leading edge word processors, not to mention search engines or efficient email services come from the United States. Instead of endlessly dragging Microsoft through the European courts, it might prove a better idea to provide financial and tax incentives to interested European e-entrepreneurs or existing IT corporations to develop home-grown IT products for the 500-million strong European market. From an international relations perspective, “the real problems of the post-cold war world would not be challenges for hegemony, but the new challenges of transnational interdependence” (Joseph Nye Jr, The Changing Nature of World Power). The political leaders of the G8 proved that they are aware of this fact. It is now up to the executives of the internet industry to grasp it and live up to their many responsibilities. (sources: Dow Jones newswires, WSJ, France24)

Are cyber-revolutions real Revolutions? The answer of a Cynic

Protesilaos Stavrou — Fri, 27 May 2011 15:12:30 +0000

Over the last months the social conditions in the Arab world and in Europe have forced people to go out on the streets to express their frustration, their indignation, to all things that deprive them of a better life. Within this period we have witnessed the birth of cyber-activism; activism that occurs on the internet, on the cyberspace, utilizing the means of modern technology, those being social networks (twitter, facebook, etc.) and blogs (blogger, wordpress, etc.).

We have thus been witnesses of demonstrations and mobilization of peoples that have been initiated by the people using these means. The massive gatherings of frustrated people in Tahrir Square in Egypt, in the Puerta del Sol in Spain and in Syntagma Square in Greece are only a few of the examples. The people joining these demonstrations have different backgrounds, both ideological and social, implying that their understanding of the events is probably different from others sitting next to them. Nevertheless these people, with their diverse world-views agree on the basis of changing the political status quo, that denies them of a respectable standard of living.

I have been one of those people who has supported these initiatives, as I see in them the power to make people active and aware of the forces that affect their lives. Furthermore, as part of an observational study I find in these cyber-revolutions (they are called revolutions – whether they actually are is another issue) the power the sentiment of uncertainty has. But supporting these movements should not imply that I also believe that they can actually change the world significantly as real revolutions do. I just support them because they are better than nothing.

The reason why I am writing this article is to cynically point out the flaws of these cyber-uprisings and why they will not change anything in the long run and most of all to send a message to my friends (the cyber-revolutionaries) who in the delirium of getting out of their bed think that they will change the world. Being a revolutionary is a way of living and not a spontaneous reaction, that has no clear-cut objective, no ideology and no well-defined strategy.

So what did the Egyptians achieve? They still have a military regime that has “promised” transition to democracy. Let us assume that this transition will indeed occur (which is not sure). But towards what sort of democracy? Who will control the natural resources of Egypt, how will power be distributed and to which classes of people? What sort of authority will the various institutions have? And what kind of traps will exist in the new constitution? Have the cyber-revolutionaries in Egypt thought of such questions, or do they really think that by walking on the streets you gain your freedom? I do not know the answers but I only put these questions down to make you aware of the severity of a struggle. It is not like going for a promenade and having fun.

My friends in Spain… I know it is still early to judge the outcome of their actions. But again I need to ask if they have worked out the ways through which their demands will be materialized? And after all have they worked out in detail those demands? Do they really know in full what they are asking for? Or do they just go on the streets because of despair? Because I have to say that if despair, fear and frustration prevail over reason, clear-mind and knowledge, then nothing is achieved, as those who have power will find the ways to infiltrate the gatherings and disintegrate the demonstrations.

As for my fellow Greeks. I am empathic towards your situation, I am no better-off after all, but I am afraid that you are losing your time. Now that the dust of enthusiasm has gone down, I see that you have no idea what you are asking for. Or do you? Do you have any proposals against the interests of the banks? Do you have any proposals regarding the European Safety Mechanism and the ways in which Greece can escape from the economic crisis? Do you know anything about the euro and the drachma and which one to choose in the transitory period? Do you ask from the Christian Orthodox Church to give up its immense property (and its greed) to save the country? Do you know how to change your world? What are you expecting mates by demonstrating in the way you are? That those politicians who brought the country into this miserable conditions will suddenly be “enlighted” by your actions and change their policies? If you believe in such things and if you do not know how to change Greece then you are fooled to believe that your gatherings will have any real effect and you are doomed to failure.

I am not writing all this to oppose you dear cyber-revolutionaries. To the contrary, I am writing this to make you aware of the importance of what you are doing and to make you understand that you must do it correctly if you are to succeed and see real change in your lives and in your countries.

I am writing this because I have seen that you are “indignant” (that is the word they use) and that is why you revolt. Sentiments have no place in struggles my friends. Revolutions are the end-product of deep intellect and of solid, clear-cut demands.

Keep that in mind the next time you go out for your afternoon walk in the city square where your fellow cyber-revolutionaries are gathered.

Are cyber-revolutions real Revolutions? The answer of a Cynic | Protesilaos Stavrou.

Une nouvelle Stratégie Nationale de Développement Durable du Sport 2010-2013

sportetcitoyennete — Wed, 11 May 2011 15:58:12 +0000

Le développement durable est le plus grand enjeu de civilisation de notre siècle et possède en France un fondement de valeur constitutionnelle pour la définition et la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques. Sa prise en compte est désormais une nécessité qui s’applique à toutes les décisions.

Le sport n’échappe pas à cette réflexion et se doit de prendre en compte ces considérations. Tel est l’enjeu de la Stratégie Nationale de Développement Durable du Sport 2010-2013 présentée par Chantal Jouanno mardi 3 mai 2011.

Les acteurs du sport se sont engagés collectivement depuis plus d’un an pour élaborer une stratégie pour un développement durable du sport. Les Assises du sport et du développement durable organisées par le Ministère des sports, en association avec le CNOSF, ont permis de mobiliser 2 000 personnes issues des services de l’Etat, du monde sportif, des collectivités locales, des milieux économiques et environnementaux. De ces travaux résultent 234 leviers d’actions et 12 priorités qui engagent le sport dans une démarche ambitieuse de développement durable, autour de 9 défis.

Plus d’informations sur la Stratégie Nationale de Développement Durable du Sport

Mr Barroso: Where is EUROPE’s celebration of the first real PEACE and DEMOCRACY in 2000 years?

David — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:22:32 +0000

Dear President Barroso and Presidents of European institutions, Today 18 April 2011 marks the sixtieth Anniversary of the foundation of European Democracy. It is also the Birthday of the Commission although the Commission together with the other institutions that were also created that day refuse to acknowledge it. Not even a press release was published.

Being Useful beats Being Tuneful

mathew — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:46:49 +0000

This is the sort of post which could get me into trouble for a number of reasons. Particularly as I’m going to comment on the celebrations to be enjoyed next month at the Festival of Europe, where one can do everything from “seeing the political groups at work inside the European Parliament” to “experiencing a festival of Europe´s regions and cities at the Committee of the Regions”.