When the current Commission took office five years ago in the aftermath of the French and Dutch referenda, it was with strong intentions of bridging the gap between Europeans and the EU. Wallström was put in charge, and now, she comes to the conclusion that in order to effectively do the job, the future commissioner for communication needs to have a legal basis and financial means, instead of constantly recurring to the budgets and policies of other institutions. 

At the same time, her colleage Slim Kallas recently stated in very clear terms that communicating the EU is impossible without national governments – and that the Commissionen too often is used as the scapegoat. When you look at the way organizations such as Open Europe portray not only the Commission but the EU as a whole, you’re tempted to agree with him. Kallas point therefore is that instead of complaining, national governements should join the game and take their responsibility for communicating the EU much more seriously.

Does this mean that the Commission has finally realized that spending 300 E a year on diverse EU-publications, citizens summits, boring blogs and websites with no coherent strategy, is not the solution? Will the Lisbon Treaty and the Barosso II allocate the necessary legal and financial means while at the same time not being afraid of telling national politicians an honest word or two?

The recent example of Vaclav Klaus shows that this is not always easy. But there are signs that the Commission finally is realizing that creating a dialogue with Europeans is not something you can wait for will happen eventually. To begin a dialogue sometimes requires hard talk!

The European Commission´s Directtorate for Communication proudly finalized in May first part of its project called “Debate Europe”.  Debate Europe was meant to heat up the dialogue with European citizens. Last December, an online forum was launched across Europe with the purpose of making Europeans discuss and propose new policies for the EU. In May, 15 proposals for the Commission was selected at a much-hyped citizen’s summit in Brussels.

Since then, a so called pan-European blog has been the place where these 15 selected proposals will be discussed and the blog will be the basis for a series of public debates in several member states in the fall, organized by the Commission.  

However, as praiseworthy the initiative may be, I was rather skeptic before I even took the time to read what it actually consisted of (although I’m a European citizen who voluntarily has moved to Brussels to study the EU closer, I have never heard about Debate Europe. Wonder how many people whose work is not related to European politics know about it?).

Why is it that as soon as most of us hear about events or initiatives with the kind of names such as “citizens consultations”, “Europeans challenge Europe”, “Your Europe – right here!” or the like, we instantly start yawning? Is it because we instinctively have a feeling that these kinds of events are like hearing our parents giving us an important lecture? Or is Europe simply just boring?

To be fair, I’m not sure that national parliaments would be more successful in attracting people with no interest in politics either. Besides, I do believe that both the blog and the meetings this fall will be a chance for people to express and discuss critical sides of the EU, so to call it propaganda first hand is maybe to exaggerate. As Commissioner Wallström recently put it, “the goal is not to get people to like the EU”.

But it doesn’t change the fact that no matter how many Debate Europe-initiatives the Commission comes up with, the dialogue remains within the small percentage of Europeans who already have a vested interest in European politics (the probability of finding young, ambitious academics hoping for a career in Brussels is quite high). So, new ideas are needed. According to the EU-skeptical think tank Open Europe, the Commission spent around 2.4 billion euros in 2008 on promoting EU integration via such kind of initiatives. After having read about Debate Europe on the website (http://www.european-citizens-consultations.eu, in case you cannot find it!), I’m still wondering what can be done to give the Commission value for money.

My new Facebook-friend is not like my other friends – in fact, I’m not really sure if it’s a man or a woman. Certainly, I’ve never had a friend like this before. He’s quite a popular guy – he has almost 600 friends, although he barely has a profile photo, nor any personal information listed.

On Facebook, he goes by the name Europäishes Parlament, and I’ve been told that he has a very multicultural background. Interesting friend – how do I get to meet him in person? Maybe I should just write something on his wall, or even a personal message. But I’m not sure what to say, and besides, he’s probably occupied with all his 600 other friends.

In the meantime, I have realized that my friend has quite a few siblings, not only on Facebook, but also on Twitter and Youtube. They go by different names – one of them is called EU Consumer, another one EU relex.  

My new friend and his siblings have emerged in my social networks since the EU institutions have started throwing themselves into social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Although they deserve a big applause for their attempt to get in touch with young Europeans – following the MEP´s attempt to do so the up to the elections  -  I am wondering just how many long-lasting friendships they are in fact going to get out of it. Friendships usually involve a dialogue – and as I see on both Facebook and Twitter, these friends and followers are mostly passive receivers of whatever EU relex and Europäiches Parlament have to say. According to one of the former directors of Communication at the European Commission, the EU suffers as a political organization from the fact that social networks are based on a open dialogue that cannot be controlled. As Charles Crouch from Boston University in Brussels puts it – if the EU tries to control the dialogue, people will disappear. But if the EU allows all comments and information to flourish in different social networks, it will then be faced by credibility problems within its own organization. Creating a Facebook or Twitter page does not help you communicate if you haven’t thought about what to say. The fact that the institutions do not seem to have a strategy such as in the US and UK, only illustrates that they need to rethink the use of social networks.    

Perhaps with time, my new Facebook-friend and I will become closer and I will not be shy to send him a message and start following his tweets and status updates. So maybe the efforts of the European institutions are not wasted after all. But as for now, their online friends are unlike to be anyone else than people they were already involved with before appearing on social networks. The dialogue is missing.

The EU has decided to give its online portal “Europa” a facelift in order to “drive it into the mindset of a 21st century citizen looking to get the most out of the ‘gateway to the EU’”, as Ylva Tiveus, a director of the DG Communication told Euractiv in June. The current portal which was launched in 2003, was already in 2006 trying to make its information portal more popular so citizens who weren’t familiar with the Brussels legislature. The hope was that they would actually read what was on the portal of the European Union.

Now, the Commission has decided to do a make-over of its website which according to Euractiv will have a “simpler, more uniform layout, with content presented in a more logical way,” and represent the first step on the road towards a “more consistent corporate identity throughout” the Europa website family.” 

Indeed, facelifts can be successful in creating a younger appearance and make it easier to appeal to young people.  But if the content remains the same, people will quickly realize that it´s just old news wrapped in new package. Secondly, it’s equally important that you take the whole body into account. If you fix your nose, you don’t do it without taking the whole shape of your face into consideration. If not, you risk distorting the entire appearance.  

This is precisely what is at stake when it comes to the EU´s surgery. If the institutions do not have anything new to say, then a new layout or design are not very helpful. Only those Europeans who already used the website will notice.

It’s too early to say if the surgeons behind this facelifts have done a good job. But unless they make sure that everyone in the organization they are treating gets involved in the operation, then the facelift risks being nothing but a waste of taxpayer’s money. It’s worth applauding the Commission for another attempt to communicate with the citizens of Europe, but the European institutions ought to have learned by now that doing things half does not get you anywhere. If you are going through a surgery, you need to do it properly.

A former colleague of mine once needed a quote representing the European Commission for a story. He was writing about roaming prices in the EU, and as he was sitting in front of his computer, he mumbled to himself “the EU…who am I going to call in the EU”? Later, he admitted that he had found someone by the name Malene, after which he proudly announced “I got in touch with the EU”!

Apparently, the question once asked by Henry Kissinger about whom to call in Europe still remains unanswered, when it comes to journalists based outside of Brussels. If you as much as suggest including the EU in an article, many – especially younger journalist – will try to change the subject before you can even say the word “Commission”. The result is that the debate constantly ends up between pro and contra, instead of concentrating the legislation emerging from Brussels. The European Parliament elections were not even present in Danish media until a few weeks before they took place. In comparison, the coverage of the US elections started a year before US citizens went voting!

So how should national media tackle the challenge of communicating Brussels? We know all about the lack of European identity and crumbly cucumbers: waiting for a European public to emerge by itself is as hopeless as waiting for the moon to turn into a piece of delicious mozzarella cheese. Why not integrate the EU in every aspect covered in the media? Instead of considering the EU as part of the foreign editor’s desk only, how about considering it as a natural part of consumer journalism, business journalism and cultural journalism? In other words, whether you’re a consumer journalist, a fashion journalist or a business journalist, Brussels should be something you monitor, just as naturally as you’d monitor your national parliament. Certainly, the EU´s communication with media and public is far from perfect. But even in Brussels, it’s possible to keep it simple. After all, aren’t journalists taught to take a complicated subject and make it appetizing?