Why is there a media campaign against Juncker?

This blogger is no stranger of being part of an anti-Commission President – the old ones among you may remember "Anyone But Barroso" started by Jon Worth in 2008 – but I still wonder why there is and anti-Juncker campaign in EU-media in recent weeks and where it is coming from.

It all seems to have started with Politico's major article on Juncker some weeks ago, followed with pre-Brexit speculations and denials about Juncker's resignation.

Then, on 27 June, the Czech foreign minister went on the record to criticise Juncker, citing the former saying the the Commission President would not be up to the job. Euractiv and Politico both ran the story. The Financial Times had the Polish foreign minister on the record. Politico then ran several stories with denials from Juncker and his surrounding.

Some days later, Politico reported that Juncker still had the backing of a large majority in the EP, the only body that can make the European Commission (and thus Juncker) go, as I've blogged Sunday after the Sunday Times ran another story reporting calls from Germany that Juncker should resign. The Luxemburger Wort covers the attacks in several German media, such as an editorial in

EUobserver simply repeated the Sunday Times story yesterday morning, just to report the opposite in the evening, while still mentioning Commission Vice-Presidents Timmermans and Katainen as potential successors for the job.

I suppose you have to be part of the Brussels bubble to understand where all this is coming from.

Some central and eastern European countries, none of which share Juncker's europhile attitude anyway, and most recently some forces in Germany seem to want to limit the Commission presidents ambitions. A concerted media attack, with few sources on the record, shows that Juncker must have angered quite some people recently.

But since I cannot remember any similar attack on Barroso, this is probably a sign that, indeed, this Commission is more political than the last. Once you are political, you make (political) enemies.

The fact that Brussels (and some other) media play along could mean two things: either Juncker and his team have angered the journalists – I remember Juncker's Chef de Cabinet Selmayr being coined quite a control freak when he was Reding's spokesperson and chef de cabinet, so he may well have angered some journos in his current role – or journalists got bored over the lack of news stories because the EU does so few laws these days.

Or the Brussels bubble is afraid to actually deal with Brexit substantially, so they focus on key players instead. He against them. They against him. The Council fighting back, afraid to lose ground to the supranational level. The media, jumping on board because it makes a simple story.

Since I've been doing anti-Barroso campaigning in the past, I can fully understand the pleasure in running behind Juncker. But it's kind of cheap politics. It's not like Juncker doesn't do anything that could be expected of him when he was elected President; he was known for how he was, his political program was and is more than clear.

All that anyone seems to blame Juncker for post-Brexit is that he speaks out against what seems to have been the most fucked-up political campaign by UK politicians in our lifetime. The EU would do good to strengthen the pro-European Juncker for what will be difficult negotiations over Brexit (or whatever the future EU-UK relations will be called).

Lobbyists lobby against anti-lobbyists: WHAT?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenore-m/ / CC BY 2.0

I don't think lobbyists are evil; lobbyism is part of democracy.

But I think intransparent lobbying is bad. And lobbying for evil people (e.g. for the weapons industry, criminals or countries that torture or kill people) is worse.

So what is worst? - Spinning against people who work to uncover intransparent lobbying for evil people!*

According to EUobserver, a Brussels lobbyists' organisation (EPACA) is now lobbying against the anti-lobbyists of the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) because they used investigative techniques trying to uncover intransparent work of EPACA members for certain countries that are not known for their positive image**.

Dear European Public Affairs Consultancies' Association, do you realise that you make a fool of yourself and your members by such obvious red herring?

---

*Update: A question on Twitter made me think and now I am in a dilemma: What is the worst - (a) lobbying for evil people or (b) spinning against those who try to uncover intransparent lobbying, even for not-evil-but-still-not-perfect people or (c) me? Don't have an answer.

**Update: And, yes, I admit to Dusan Jakovljevic who raised the question that he caught me with a smoking gun although he would have preferred to find me with a smoking cigar. ;-)*** Yes, I admit, I didn't read the EUobserver article properly, mixing up two paragraphs, and hence left the impression that I was calling certain countries "evil" although all I actually wrote was "not known for their positive image". Yet one could have well-reasoned doubts about that. But now everything is correct. I hope.

*** Remember: Smileys in blog posts look bad. You have to erase them with a strike and then tell your readers why you did this.

PS: Damn, the blog post looks crappy now. I should erase it. But then I would be intransparent. That's the fault of lobbyists. And journalists. And bloggers' ethics. It all ends up crappy just because of some rules some people have set up to mess up our life. Next time I write about kittens. European kittens. But then there would be the European Kittens' Lobby complaining that I use kittens for my private catharsis. And then I will have to excuse in crappy-looking updates that ruin my blog. I then need to go the the European Commission to complain about this. And they will propose a regulation that won't make me happy because it will be watered down by special interests who think that people who blog about kittens shouldn't feel better in Europe. Because they are evil.

I admit: I am evil. Hehe.

PPS.: And please let's not have a debate about whether lobbyism is evil, because it isn't. I agree with Leigh Phillips.

Barroso more expensive than Obama (and not worth the money)

Open Europe recently stressed that Barroso earns more than Obama and will receive pensions and other payments right after leaving the Commission that will reach about one million Euros. The story has been taken over by EUobserver.

From Puisney:

[...] les salaires qui s’élèvent à environ 236.000€ par an par commissaire, 296.000€ pour le président Barroso. Soit plus que le président américain Barack Obama (400.000$, soit 293.000€). Pas mal pour un super secrétaire représentant même pas élu au suffrage universel !

Very good remarks, indeed, given the recent salary bashing. Especially the comparison of a directly elected president and a quasi-secretary (although slightly polemic) is very pertinent to me.

In fact, we are paying a lot of money to somebody who is doing a bad job (and might be re-elected because of this) - and we cannot do anything about it!

The Czech EU-Council Presidency (14): Collapse!!!!

The Czech government yesterday lost a vote of no confidence by 101 of 200 votes. This means, more or less, that the EU presidency collapses.

What a mess: In times of crisis, a new EU member state loses its government and the EU its de lege leadership, although de facto I didn't see much in the last months.

EUobserver tells that this is not the first time an EU Council Presidency government falls during its term:

"This is not the first time that a country in charge of the rotating EU presidency has a change of government during its mandate. In 1996, Italy faced a similar situation when a centre-left coalition headed by Romano Prodi won parliamentary elections, ousting the centre-right government led by Lamerto Dini.

In 1993, Denmark also faced a change of government while it was chairing the EU, with the government led by Poul Schluter falling and Social Democrat Poul Nyrup Rasmussen coming to power."

But I this is maybe the worst timing one could imagine, in a time when efficient leadership is needed, and the European Parliament elections are coming closer every day.

I don't have doubt in the capacities of the Czech diplomats and administrators on all levels, they will be able to keep up the working rhythm which dominates most activities during a presidency, but if they lack clear guidance and leadership, then important decisions might be delayed, cancelled or at least weakened.

In addition, this will give more power to the already too powerful EU Council secretariat, which will use the opportunity of a weak presidency to push through its own agenda.

All in all, an extremely bad day for the European Union!

Read also on this topic: Jon Worth, Coulisses de Bruxelles, EurActiv, Dr. Sean, European Union Law, Toni Straka.

EUobserver with blog platform - updated

EUobserver has started a blog plattform, so far with bloggers who already have their own blogs out there in the EU blogosphere (e.g. Bruno, Friedrich) and EUobserver editors.

Let's see what this new platform will add to the European blogosphere...

(via Kosmopolit on Twitter)

Update: Read Steffen's critical account of the plattform.

The European Union's decline: 2025 in perspective

From EUobserver:

By 2025, the European Union will be a "hobbled giant" crippled by internal bickering and a eurosceptic citizenry. Eastern European organised crime could dominate one or more member state governments, and the bloc will likely be kowtowing to Moscow after having failed at all attempts to wean itself from Russian energy supplies.

My comment:

Upps!!!

This dark assessment is sponsored by the US-Government, published in a report named "Global Trends 2025 - A transformed world" (PDF; > 8 MB!).

In fact, I share the report's assessment on the European Union. I just think that the US and Russia will have entered into a nuclear war before, leaving no single human being on the European continent. In fact, this will solve all our institutional problems. The next Global Trends Report will then be needed for the year 10025, at least for large parts of the globe.

Hmm, I love predictions of the future...!

Warning: Slow down at the border!

The European Parliament transport committee supports transnational enforcement of penalties for offences committed on the streets of another EU country.

So please, slow down from 250 km/h when leaving German motorways towards France and stop parking wherever you want when leaving France towards Germany!

EUobserver on European Education

Have you ever thought about studying in Europe? I mean: abroad? Outside your home country? Some people dream of a European Higher Education Area but in fact there isn't much more than an European Higher Education Chaos.

The so-called Bologna-Process that aims to unify European higher education (and European does not only include the EU but 46 countries from all over the continent) has so far produced an impressive unity in similar problems through a variety of very dissimilar concepts. Labelling them Bachelor or Master is more a marketing strategy than a real innovation.

In this context, the very much appreciated EUobserver today has published several articles under the headline "European Education". I recommend reading!