Problemele polemicilor UE The problems of EU debates

After reading recent posts by Martin Westlake and Julien Frisch I actually remembered a post on EU debates that I wrote a couple of months ago but somehow forgot to publish. It is rather an exploratory post, very general and patchy and open to new ideas. I want to look at the nature of EU debates without getting into any ideological debate. And after writing this blog for almost 2 years, I think there are numerous problems of debating EU issues online as well as in the real world. Here some reasons and possible solutions:
Dup citirea corespondenei recente ntre Martin Westlake i Julien Frisch, mi-am adus e fapt aminte de o postare despre polemicile UE pe care o scrisesem n urm cu cteva luni, dar pe care uitasem s o mai public. Este mai degrab o postare de prob, foarte general i neuniform i deschis la idei noi. Vreau s privesc natura polemicilor UE fr s intru n vreo dezbatere ideologic. i dup ce am scris acest blog timp de aproape doi ani, cred c exist numeroase probleme referitoare la controversele dezbaterilor UE, la fel ca i n viaa real. Iat mai jos cteva probleme i soluiile posibile:

However, to put it into context of the debate, lets look at the main argument of Julien Frisch who thinks rightly that The problem of European political communication is that it is not filling our attention on a daily basis because it focuses on the wrong notion of importance. Of course it is debatable whether importance as such exists or whether it is a construct of the media/society. So if we accept the latter we should ask ourselves why EU debates are generally constructed as not being important? 1. facts vs. myths Every EU debate at some point touches the issue of EU myths. What does this tell us about the quality of the debate? The fact-myth problem in

Totui, pentru a- l pune n contexul polemicii, s ne uitm la argumentul principal al lui Julien Frisch, care pe bun dreptate crede c Problema comunicrii politice europene este aceea c nu ne capteaz atenia zi de zi, punnd accentual pe nelesul greit al importanei. Bineneles, este rleativ dac exist o astfel de importan sau dac este numai o creaie a mass-mediei/ societii. Deci dac acceptm ultima variant, ar trebui s ne ntrebm de ce polemicile UE sunt de obicei construite ca nefiind importante.

debating the EU is a time consuming one with two implications: (1) it only reinforces the ideological standpoint of the reader and the commentator; and (2) people tend to forget about the real issues at stake. This shows that

something is missing. I would suggest it has something to do with education. Interestingly, not many national legislative myths do exist (at least I tend to believe that, but I could be wrong about that)
1. fapte vs. mituri Fiecare dezbatere UE se lovete, la un moment dat, de problema miturilor UE. Ce ne spune acest lucru de calitatea dezbaterii? Problema fapt real mit n

dezbaterile UE este una consumatoare de timp, avnd dou implicaii: (1) ntrete punctual de plecare ideologic al cititorului i al comentatorului; (2) oamenii au tendina de a uita de problemele reale aflate n joc. Acest lucru arat c lipsete ceva. A sugera c ar avea legtur cu educaia. Interesant, nu exist multe mituri legislative naionale (sau cel puin eu unul tind s cred acest lucru, dar poate m nel )

2. facts vs. oversimplification Closely connected to myths is the tendency to oversimplify EU issues. One example is the notoriously used Brussels wants phrase. But also the battle motive is very popular: Head of state 1 vs. Head of state 2. It is very handy to forget that different actors (Commission, Parliament, national ministers, lobbyists, NGOs, ) are involved in the decision making procedure. The European Parliament has a similar problem, citizens do not link their MEPs (in case they know them!) with any EU policies. Another tendency is a kind of conspiracy component. Lots of people conveniently buy into some sort of conspiracy theory when it comes to EU institutions. I want to emphasize two points: (1) In every political structure there needs to be a certain degree of secrecy in order for the system to function. (2) The institutional setting of the EU is quite complicated and, yes, the EU is a huge bureaucracy. The result of overlooking both aspect leads to the perception that the EU is a huge anti- democratic conspiracy

and lots of people also tend to believe that there is some sort of master plan somewhere behind closed doors. I do not want to deny that there are indeed problems regarding democratic accountability in the EU but people tend to forget where they actually come from Paradoxically, both points are also interconnected: If the EU acts not coherently (because of its institutional setting) it rightly gets criticized. But if the EU tries to coordinate policies and approaches (similar to the coordination between national ministries) it gets accused of too much secrecy and not enough transparency. I do not want to defend deals behind closed doors but it is rather difficult to streamline positions of 27 member states (including internal disagreements between ministries!), several European Commission DGs as well as the necessity to deal with lobbyists and other organizations that all want to have a say in EU policy making!
2. fapte vs. simplificare excesiv

n strns legtur cu miturile este i tendina de a simplifica excestiv problemele UE. Un exemplu este fraza folosit att de notoriu Bruxelles i dorete . Dar de asemenea, motivul

luptei este foarte popular: eful statului 1 vs. eful statului 2. Este foarte uor s uitm c diveri actori (Comisia, Parlamentul, minitrii naionali, lobiti, ONGuri ) sunt implicai n procedura de luare a deciziei. Parlamentul European se confrunt cu o problem similar, cetenii nu fac legtura ntre MEP-uri (membrii Parlamentului European), (n cazul n care i cunosc!) i orice politici UE. O alt tendin este un fel de component conspiraional. Muli oameni intr ntr-un fel de teorie conspiraional atunci cnd vine vorba de instituiile UE. Vreau s accentuez dou lucruri: (1) n orice structur politic trebuie s existe un anumit grad de discreie, pentru ca sistemul s funcioneze. (2) Cadrul instituional al UE este destul de complicat i da, UE este o mare birocraie. Rezultatul studierii ndeaproape a ambelor aspecte duce la percepia c UE este o mare conspiraie anti3.institutions vs. policy Every EU debate at some point turns to the legitimacy question of EU institutions. Of course this is important for any future development of the EU and it also shows that EU institutions are far from being perfect. At the same time, the debate about policy content is missing. Public debates never discuss policy options at an early stage.
3.Instituie vs. politic

democratic i c muli oameni au tendina s cread c este un plan major pe undeva n spatele uilor nchise. Nu vreau s neg c exist, ntr-adevr, probleme privind responsabilitatea democratic n UE dar oamenii uit totui de unde au plecat Paradoxal, ambele puncte sunt de asemenea legate unul de cellalt: dac UE nu se comport adecvat (din cauza cadrului instituional), este criticat, pe drept. Dar dac UE ncearc s coordoneze politica i modul de abordare (similar coordonrii ntre minitrii naionali), este acuzat de prea mult discreie i lips de transparen. Eu nu vreau s apr ceea ce se ntmpl n spatele uilor nchise, dar este destul de dificil s accelerezi poziia a 27 state membre (inclusive schimburile de preri interne dintre minitri!), mai muli Directori Generali ai Comisiei Europene, precum i nevoia de a face fa lobitilor i altor organizaii, toi voind s aib ceva de spus n procesul de creare al politic UE. La un moment dat, pentru orice dezbatere UE apare problema legitimitii instituiilor UE. Desigur, acest lucru este important pentru orice dezvoltare ulterioar a UE i demonstreaz, totodat, c instituiile UE mai au mult pn la atinge perfeciunea. n acelai timp, lipsete polemica ce vizeaz coninutul politic. n dezbaterile politice nu se discut niciodat despre opiuni politice. simply do not care about the EU because it is not something one can easily relate to, it is too far away from every day life and it is really boring (that is how it is perceived). Even the European success stories (generally

4. General popular apathy Ok, this is a topic on its own. However, the majority of European citizens seem neither very enthusiastic nor concerned about the EU. They

related to the four freedoms) are usually taken for granted. I am not very optimistic here, probably this is not gonna change any time soon
4. Apatie general des ntlnit

OK, acesta este un subiect n sine. Totui, majoritatea cetenilor europeni nu par nici foarte entuziati, nici preocupai de UE. Pur i simplu nu le pas de UE pentru c nu se pot Conclusions I my opinion EU debates take place too late. Especially national media only reports about EU initiatives after their adoption in the Council, or more accurately, in that moment the national parliament debates it. The debate needs to start earlier in order to have any impact on proposals. I think two major reforms should take place:
Concluzii

relaiona uor la aceasta, este prea diferit de viaa de zi cu zi i este chiar plictisitoare (n acest mod este privit). Chiar povetilor europene de succes (despre care se vorbete de obicei ca despre cele patru liberti ) li se acord credit. Nu sunt foarte optimist n aceast privin, probabil acest lucru nu se va schimba prea curnd

Dup prerea mea, polemicile UE au loc prea trziu. n special mass-media naional reporteaz numai iniiativele UE dup adoptarea lor n Consiliu, sau, mai exact, n momentul dezbaterii lui de ctre parlamentul naional. Dezbaterea trebuie s nceap mai devreme pentru a avea impact asupra propunerilor. M gndesc la dou reforme majore care ar trebui s aib loc : 1. Este nc greoi pentru cei care nu sunt experi n domeniu pentru a monitoriza procesele UE de luare a deciziilor. n special internetul i noile unelte online au potenialul de a uura monitorizarea i controlul procedurii de luare a deciziilor UE. Dei noul portal europa.eu conine majoritatea informaiilor, are nevoie de o relansare serioas. Un nou portal UE trebuie s fie transparent i s pun accentul pe procesele politice care uureaz urmrirea documentelor, combinate cu cteva elemente interactive. 2. Educaia pare a fi cheia. Subiecte precum instituiile UE i procedurile de luare a deciziilor trebuie integrate ntr-un curriculum colar atotcuprinztor ca element central, n stadiu incipient. De asemenea, ziarele i staiile TV ar trebui s gseasc

1. It is still cumbersome for nonexperts to monitor the EU decision making process. Especially the internet and new online tools have the potential to make it easier to monitor and control EU decision making processes. Even though the europa.eu portal contains most of the information, it needs a serious relaunch. A new EU portal needs to be transparent, with a focus on policy processes that makes it easy to follow documents, combined with some interactive elements. 2. Education seems to be the key. Topics such as EU institutions and decision-making procedures need to be integrated in all school curricula as a core element at an early stage. Also national newspapers and TV stations should find ways to integrate EU news in their daily news coverage.

modaliti de a integra tirile UE n paginile zilnice ale tirilor. 3. The European Parliament or better MEPs individually need to strengthen their relations with national parliaments/MPs. At the same time, national parliaments should be encouraged to engage more with Brussels in order not to be surprised in the end Needless to say that a lot of MEPs should step up their efforts to communicate with their constituency. 4. Further institutional reform (even though that is neither on the agenda nor very popular these days) that addresses legitimacy, accountability and efficiency issues. 5. Better politicians for Europe! Although some improvements have been made in the last couple of years, there is still a tendency that Brussels/ Strasbourg is seen as a retirement posting. However, it is a good sign that lately MEP and Commissioners were appointed national ministers! 5. Politicieni mai buni pentru Europa! Dei au fost fcute cteva mbuntiri

3. Parlamentul European, sau mai degrab MEPi individuali, trebuie s i mbunteasc relaiile cu parlamentele naionale/ primi minitri. n acelai timp, parlamentele naionale ar trebui ncurajate s interacioneze mai mult cu Bruxelles pentru a nu exista suprize ulterior Nici nu mai trebuie menionat faptul c MEP-ii ar trebui s fac eforturi pentru a comunica cu circumscripie. 4. Reformele instituionale ulterioare (dei acestea nu sunt nici pe agend, nici foarte populare zilele astea ) care abordeaz probleme referitoare la legitimitate, rspundere i eficacitate. n ultimii ani, nc exist tendina de a crede c la Bruxelles/ Strassbourg este un schimb al locului de munc n interes de serviciu. Totui, este un semn bun c n ultima vreme, MEP i comisarii au fost numii minitri naionali !

European higher education

The concept of the University of the Future has been discussed at the University of Maastricht by 30 delegates from 10 European universities. The participants were top students from Copenhagen, Dublin, Warwick, Mannheim, Bamberg, Liege, Hassel and Maastricht. The topics of the discussion were mainly the academic competences that a university should provide to its students, Conceptul de universitate a viitorului a fost discutat la Universitatea din Maastricht de catre 30 delegati din 10 universitati europene. Participantii au fost studenti eminenti din Copenhaga, Dublin, Warwick, Mannheim, Bamberg, Liege, Hassel si Maastricht. Subiectele de discutie au fost in mare parte: competentele academice pe care o universitate ar trebui sa le ofere studentilor sai,

the social responsibility of the university, and not least, the dilemmas of standardizing European higher education.

responsabilitatea sociala a universitatii, si nu in ultimul rand, dilemele standardizarii educatiei superioare Europene.

The idea that emerged from the discussion is that there is no single university of the future. There are students who prefer studying alone and reject the idea of working in groups and there are others who learn better interacting with others. The required academic competences a university should teach and promote are multiple: communication skills, team skills, interpersonal skills, reading/writing skills, ethical awareness, open-mindedness.

Ideea care a reiesit din discutie a fost aceea ca nu exista o universitate a viitorului. Sunt studenti care prefera sa studieze individual si nu agreeaza ideea lucrului in echipa si sunt altii care invata mai bine interactionand cu altii. Competentele academice cerute pe care o universitate ar trebui sa le promoveze si sa le predea sunt multiple : competente in comunicare, abilitati de lucru in echipa, competente interpersonale, abilitati de scriere/citire, constiinte etica si receptivitatea.

They are all important. However, the most important is the role of the university: that of providing knowledge.

Toate sunt importante. Totusi, cel mai important e rolul universitatii: acela de furnizor de cunostinte.

Cum ne pregatim pentru un interviu in engleza

The best way to reduce the stress of an interview is to be prepared. One should take the time to review the "standard" interview questions and answers most likely be asked. Cea mai buna metoda de a reduce stresul unui interviu e sa fii pregatitit. Fiecare dintre noi ar trebui sa revizuiasca intrebarile standard, precum si posibilele raspunsuri.

1. What is your career path and experience? Recruiters expect a candidate to be able to review their work history in detail. One has to make sure that what they tell the interviewer matches what they filled out on the job application or resume. 1. Care va descrieti experienta profesionala? Recruterii se asteapta la o detaliere a experientei de munca. Trebuie sa ne asiguram ca ceea ce raspundem la interviu coincide cu ce am completat in cv sau cand am aplicat pentru job. 2. What were your responsibilities? It's important to be specific and positive. The best way to respond is to describe your responsibilities in detail and to connect them to the job you are interviewing for. 2. Care erau responsabilitatile dumneavoastra? E important ca raspunsul sa fie concis si pozitiv. Cea mai buna metoda de a raspunde este de a detalia responsabilitatile si de a le lega de jobul dorit. 3. What were the biggest accomplishments / failures? Find the best example and use that to show how what you accomplished will be beneficial to the company. If you did not fail at anything, say so. If you can think of an example, be sure that it's a minor one and turn it into a positive. 3. Care au fost cele mai mari successe/cele mai mari deziluzii? Gasiti cel mai bun exemplu pentru a arata ca ce ati realizat poate fi benefic companiei. Daca nu ati avut vreun insucces, spuneti asta. Daca va ganditi la un exemplu, aveti grija sa fie unul minor pe care il puteti transforma intr-un lucru pozitiv. 4. Where do you see yourself five years from now? One possible answer: In 5 years time, I see myself progressing in (the field) and in (the company), learning new skills to the benefit of (the company). 4. Unde va vedeti peste 5 ani? Un raspuns posibil : In 5 ani, ma vad lucrand in acest domeniu si in aceasta firma, dezvoltandu-mi competentele in beneficiul companiei. 5. When faced with a work-related problem, what steps do you take to solve the issue?

The recruiter is interested in an analytical approach to problem solving and the use of innovative methods. Emphasize on your creative and analytical thinking. 5. In fata unei probleme legate de job, care sunt pasii spre rezolvare? Recruterul e interesant de o abordare analitica in rezolvarea de probleme si de folosirea unor metode inovative. Trebuie sa punem accent pe gandirea noastra analitica si creativa.