History blogging: The Commission hearings 2004

From time to time we need a little history blogging to see what connects the present and the past.

So I just had a look at Nosemonkey's blog and his posts from 2004, like this one, this one or this one with the following quote:

"[A]re EU states DELIBERATELY appointing dodgy candidates to the Commission, and are they DELIBERATELY being appointed to the least appropriate positions? Is this an attempt to sabotage the existing EU system, or just the usual incompetence?"

I looked it up because the Euroblogging scene was just minuscule in 2004 as far as I know and Nosemonkey one of the few already blogging at the time.

Seeing the amounts of euroblog posts on the Commission hearings this time, we definitely see that (a) through the live stream transparency is much higher than 5 years ago and (b) that the level of debate, though still small, has risen considerably and will allow future generations to study more thoroughly what was going on during 2010.

Still, it is nice to look back to 2004, a time when I - I have to admit - did only notice that something was going on with Rocco Buttiglione, not more and not less.

European Parliament elections 2009 (109): Looking back at 1999 and 2004

Earlier, I took a look at a German newspaper article from June 1999 on the European Parliament elections. And you bet what was the core message:

The campaign was focused on national topics, the candidates where not known, and the only true European references in the electoral manifestos where similar across all major parties: More democracy, more transparency, better connection to the citizens.

This post could also have been filed under "History blogging" instead of "European Parliament Elections 2009"...

And since it fits into the history blogging thing:

On my scientific "journeys" I found a 2009 issue of the Journal of Political Marketing dedicated to the 2004 EP campaign with the following articles:

• Second-Rate Election Campaigning? An Analysis of Campaign Styles in European Parliamentary Elections

• “Struggling for Voters”: European Campaigning in Germany

• Marketing With a Feeling: The Brand New Party Junilistan in the Swedish European Parliamentary Election 2004 

• Strategic Miscalculations: Election Campaigns to the European Parliament in Estonia 2004 

• Framing the European Union and Building the Media Agenda: The 2004 European Parliamentary Elections in the Spanish Daily Press 

• Framing the New EU: U.S. Media Portrayals of the 2004 European Union Expansion and Parliamentary Elections
  

It's kind of funny reading such analyses now, so short before the elections and not 2-3 years ago. Feels like marketing from the journal editions, because these days people might be looking for such kind of articles - so you offer them a nice special edition.

When it comes to me, I am already looking forward to the findings for the 2009 campaign(s). I suppose, the only big difference to 1999 and 2004 will be two additional countries, Libertas, and the emergence of large-scale internet campaigning. Maybe a glimpse at the institutional EP campaign, too. But the conclusions will be very close to those we got in the past.

Anyone betting against me...?

------------------------------
Under the category "European parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

History blogging: The challenges of EU governance

Today, political leaders throughout Europe are facing a real paradox. On the one hand, Europeans want them to find solutions to the major problems confronting our societies. On the other hand, people increasingly distrust institutions and politics or are simply not interested in them.

The problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike. It is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. Many people are losing confidence in a poorly understood and complex system to deliver the policies that they want. The Union is often seen as remote and at the same time too intrusive.

The Irish "no" highlights the impact of these problems on many people. This was reflected not only in the final outcome of the referendum, but also in the low turnout and quality of the debate which preceded it.

Yet people also expect the Union to take the lead in seizing the opportunities of globalisation for economic and human development, and in responding to environmental challenges, unemployment, concerns over food safety, crime and regional conflicts. They expect the Union to act as visibly as national governments.

Democratic institutions and the representatives of the people, at both national and European levels, can and must try to connect Europe with its citizens. This is the starting condition for more effective and relevant policies.

(Extract from the Executive Summary of the White Paper on European Governance, 25 July 2001)

History blogging: Nosemonkey and EU geekery

Since I was writing about the "Geek circus" some days ago, causing reactions on this blog and at Citizen Europe, allow me to do some history blogging and to quote from "A year of geekery" published by Nosemonkey (whose blog was previously named "Europhobia") in August 2005:

It’s now on to Europhobia Year 2 [...] [A]s of yet I have not managed to capitalise on this bloody thing at all. It annoys me, damn it.
[...]
It may be intensely frustrating sometimes, it may be far more time-consuming than you ever plan, it may end up taking over your life if you’re not careful, but it’s worthwhile, this blogging lark, even if you don’t get any dough out of it.

I'd say that this is one of the notions of being geeky: You stick to something particular, even when it doesn't bring about the expected outcome.

And although he has reduced his blogging lately, Nosemonkey is still there - but looking for work!

(Seems like the blog still doesn't pay his living.)