At one level it has been a privilege to attend the Danish Presidency Press Trip for the past four days. I’m the first blogger ever to have been allowed to attend, and hopefully not the last. But the whole experience leaves me feeling a little empty, although not quite for the reasons that may be immediately obvious.

Let’s start with what works well. The trip – from my point of view – was impeccably organised. Wifi in all venues, buses to get us everywhere, staff on hand to answer any questions we had. I’m waiting for the Foreign Ministry people to confirm the budget for the trip to me, but it will not be excessive for the journalists trip alone – beyond flight and hotel costs there were not too many other direct expenses. There was some pleasant food, but beyond that most of the events were either provided free, or the press people attended things that were happening anyway. As Jakob Alvi from the Danish Permanent Representation pointed out to me, this is only one of dozens of press visits that the Danish government supports during the Presidency and, for trade or tourism purposes, at other times too.

This then is a critique of a system, not a critique of the specific event I attended.

A key problem lies with the cosy yet dysfunctional relationship between the press, and the administration and politicians. Over the course of the four days we received on the record briefings from 9 ministers in the Danish administration: Margrethe Vestager, Villy Søvndal, Bjarne Corydon, Morten Bødskov, Morten Østergaard, Ole Sohn, Mette Gjerskov, Martin Lidegaard and Nicolai Wammen, and had off-the-record discussions with a few more at a dinner. In addition we heard speeches from Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Donald Tusk, Jerzy Buzek and José Manuel Barroso, and attended a press conference with Thorning and Barroso. We also heard from more than a dozen leaders of businesses of various sorts, with Claus Meyer (founder of Noma) the only one to truly stand out.

That sort of access is unprecedented. However it also seems to be rather useless.

The on the record briefings from ministers were remarkable mostly for their complete absence of content. 8 of the 9 ministers (Agriculture Minister Mette Bjerskov being the only exception) gave little more than simple summaries of the Presidency priorities. The Q&A sessions with the ministers were little better. Søvndal at least showed a little more passion and determination for some issues than others, and was willing to say so when he didn’t know the answers, and Wammen coined the phrase that this was the tap water (i.e. discount) Presidency. But sat writing this blog entry now I cannot recall a single thing Corydon, Bødskov, Østergaard, Sohn or Lidegaard said.

Oddly I don’t actually know who is wasting whose time here. We used up more than 10 hours of ministerial time – could these people have been doing something more useful? Yet conversely 60+ journalists sat and listened to hours of this. Could they have been doing something more worthwhile?

“Why do you bother listening to all of this?” I asked a veteran of a number of these press trips. “In Brussels we wouldn’t,” he said, “but here we’re the guests of the country holding the Presidency.” Why then, I asked, bother to come at all? “To make contacts,” he said, going on to say that these were made in the margins. But surely there is a more efficient way to achieve the same result?

There is also undoubtedly some educational aspect to the event. One correspondent I spoke to had only been in Copenhagen once before – for the UN Climate Negotiations – and was happy to use this trip to heal the scars from his previous visit. Many others had little knowledge of Danish politics and society beyond Forbrydelsen, one even raising the idea of making a ‘Danish politics 101′ presentation at the start of the trip. My knowledge of Denmark and Danish politics, and an excellent Twitter network giving me the gossip on the politicians we were meeting, meant I knew more than the average. But I am a politics nerd I suppose.

The press trip was timed to coincide with the joint meeting of the College of Commissioners and the Danish Government, and the opening ceremony of the Presidency. This was a gala concert at the DR Koncerthuset. The event was a mix of short speeches and classical music played by the DR orchestra, yet the audience was confined to the high and mighty of the Copenhagen political elite. The hall seats 1800 but it was only about a quarter were full. I’m not sure a classical music concert is something for mass public consumption, but here was an opportunity to show a slightly wider audience a little more of the spirit of the Presidency, and this was missed. Here Wammen’s notion of a discount Presidency was not much on show, with expensive canapés and ice sculptures.

Over glasses of wine after the opening one of the most interesting scenes of the trip was played out. Olli Rehn, dour and grey Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, was surrounded by a crowd of journalists. How? Why? It cannot be because he has anything interesting to say, can it? I expressed my surprise to one of the journalists afterwards. Rehn didn’t say anything new or interesting was the reply, but he’s a nice guy. We (meaning the Brussels correspondents) talk about football and go for dinner with him, I was told. I countered that his communications were disastrous and towards the outside world he looks ineffective. This was met with a shrug and a further defence of Rehn as an individual. Are these journalists too close to Rehn to be objective? Or am I – as an outsider – just too cruel? Conversely, I am told that many Brussels correspondents are not altogether enamoured by the High Representative for the EU’s Foreign Policy, and on that one I am with them.

The icing on the cake was today’s Press Conference with PM Thorning and Commission President Barroso. It took place at Bella Center, a 1970s conference centre on the windswept edge of Amager. Throne like chairs – occupied by less than 100 press – sloped up the cavernous room from the impeccable stage with a flower arrangement that must have cost more than I’m paid in a day. The two politicians arrived late and gave us 30 minutes of their time – initial introductions that more or less word for word what they had said the night before followed by just half a dozen questions.

As the howling wind made the Vestas wind turbine spin at speed outside Bella Center, the Presidency flags billowing in the wind below it, it was with a grim face that Thorning discussed today’s announcement that the very same Danish wind turbine company is laying off 2300 workers. No words from the politicians could counteract this very concrete bad news.

The best question at the press conference came from the FT’s Peter Spiegel. Directing his question to Barroso, he neatly connected the Commission President’s campaigns against authoritarianism in Portugal as a young politician with the ongoing constitutional problems in Hungary. Did Barroso, Spiegel asked, think that Viktor Orban as a politician represented European values? Barroso’s answer was a classic, vague fudge. He didn’t mention his own view of Orban at all and instead kept referring to legal process needing to take its course. His words ended up being weaker and more vague than the Commission’s statement on the matter from the day before.

“What did we learn from all that?” I asked one of the journalists at the end. “It’s always like that” he said. So we all pottered off to the cavernous press room to file pieces about what we had just heard, crouching over our laptops and trying to muster up something worthy to say, with every practical need covered except anything noteworthy to actually write about.

So that folks, is a Presidency Press Trip.

UPDATE 16 Jan – @SpiegelPeter has just tweeted:

@jonworth Saw your blog. Found it cheap and self-serving.

16.01.2012 06:45 via Twitter for BlackBerry®ReplyRetweetFavorite

@SpiegelPeter

Peter Spiegel

Why does this matter?

When I hear the word ‘official’ it implies to me someone whose position is on the basis of appointment, whose function is bureaucratic, and whose task is to in some way be impartial. Barroso’s job as President of the Commission is none of those things. He’s a political actor and hence using the term ‘official’ to describe him is inaccurate. Doing so puts him at the level of Secretary-General of the European Commission, Catherine Day.

My discussion with AP’s journalist who wrote the piece, Don Melvin, is here. This is not a critique of Don personally, as he’s undoubtedly complying with rules from a house style, but I would argue that those rules are wrong. In EU matters, just as in any other area of politics, words matter (as I’ve previously argued).

We refer to David Cameron as British Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy as French President, so it’s high time we consistently refer to Jose Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission.

(Article updated Thursday 29th Sept due to changes in links at AP’s website. Content remains unchanged)

While the speech was fine (and indeed I was more impressed than I thought I would be), the real issue will be how any of this will change the way the EU moves forward. Importantly what reaction – if any – will there be from Heads of States and Governments from the Member States of the EU? Sadly rather little I fear.

The lesson from this year must be this: that next year Barroso’s speech must be delivered to a special joint session of the European Council and the European Parliament. Confronting and challenging Member States, in public, would be a vital step in the EU’s political and democratic development.

The basic idea is that you need to list 10 words or phrases you reckon our esteemed President is going to use in his State of the European Union speech, to be delivered from 0900 CET on Wednesday 28th September, and the person with the most mentions wins… Please post your suggestions as comments below, or link to wherever your 10 phrases are. As before names of Commissioners and other EU institutions are not allowed.

As last year you can also play on Twitter, using #SOTEU (State of the European Union) and if you want for follow without humour then the Commission has an official account for the speech – @StateofUnion_EU.

Playing the game for real involves the audience shouting ‘Bingo’ out loud when their word is mentioned, and the speech is in the plenary chamber of the European Parliament. So any MEPs wanting to play and shout out would be most welcome!

My 10 phrases are: economic crisis, the eurozone, show leadership, speak with one voice, more integration, jobs and prosperity, what Europe represents in the world, creation of euro bonds, fiscal convergence, our friends.

Which one will be ousted first?

In a regular government, when a Minister is struggling he or she is removed by the Prime Minister. I don’t think anyone has any doubt that the European Union is struggling to get to grips with the Eurozone / debt crisis. So who’s the fall guy?

Well, so far, there hasn’t been one, at least not at EU level. It’s high time that changed.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive, has a Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs – Olli Rehn. Yes, Olli who, you might be asking. While Member States bicker over the future of the Euro, the EU needs a clear line from the Commission, and Rehn – a tremendously cautious politician with non-existent communications skills – has failed to step up.

Unlike a national government it’s not legally possible for Commission President Barroso to sack a Commissioner, but he can reshuffle them, so Rehn could be dispatched to somewhere where nothing is expected of him. Until the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission President could not sack any of his Commissioners – since Lisbon (see Article 16 TEU – pdf here) the Commission President has this power, but so far it has never been used. Hence a reshuffle of the Commission is the more likely solution.

My favoured replacement in Rehn’s portfolio would be Neelie Kroes – tough, experienced, ready to take hard decisions. Barnier, Kallas or De Gucht would be alternatives. There’s a quick poll – let me know what you think!

[Note: entry has been amended at 2146 on 20.9.2011 in light of comments below]

Stepping back for a moment, why are we in this predicament?

It starts, I think, with the nature of representative democracy in the era of the internet (building on the era of 24 hour news), and the way that political parties function internally.

About representative democracy James Madison wrote that it would “refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”

Where are we today with efforts to achieve that end? In the formal sense our representative institutions – at least at a national level – are still working (although thousands of Spanish would disagree). However, as Madison implies, representative democracy is a process through which the interests of different groups are weighed up, evaluated, and decided upon. From Aberystwyth dealing with parking infringements via Merkel’s U-turn on nuclear to the UK government’s EU bill, the balance between the people and their representatives (the governors and the governed) is in a state of flux.

In the era of 24 hour news, furthered by the internet connected era, it is possible to muster mass critique of anything and everything to a much shorter time than throughout most of our history of representative democracy. Importantly it is much easier to muster critique than it is to build something positive instead. Taking long term or tough decisions against that backdrop is more complex than ever.

With this in mind, politicians think they need to be more and more conscious of what citizens think, and shape their policies on that basis – in the UK context it’s the sort of stuff written about by Paul Richards on LabourList, and can be gleaned from focus groups and listening exercises: “the greater danger for Labour [...]: to be on the wrong side of the public’s attitude towards NHS reform, tackling Islamist extremism, reforming parliament, or providing council houses for people on £100k“.

In short it’s ‘if the people are there, we’ll go there’.

The paradox of this is that while politicians are trying to be ever closer to the people, so trust in them also declines, a point developed further in New Elites by George Walden. Taking that a step further, within a political party what incentive is there to choose leaders who are bold or interesting? Surely better to choose some that give the impression that they are in tune with the people (although of course that continues trust seeping away in the paradox).

But hold on, what if the people are wrong? Or at least politicians have not weighed up their relative interests correctly?

Sorry, rather shocking to say it this way, but it is not hard to imagine how such a situation would arise.

What should happen if 55% of the population as a whole want to leave the EU, but 85% of business owners in the UK don’t want to? (stats are made up for illustration purposes only) Or every citizen wants to keep driving and flying and doesn’t want restrictions on either, but unless the common interests of all of us are taken into account, we will end up with gridlock, chronic air pollution and runaway climate change?

Democracy is more than 50%+1 of the people wanting something. It’s a delicate balance between leading and listening, and balancing the needs and requirements of different groups and individuals. It’s about deciding what’s right, setting a moral vision for countries and for Europe, and finding practical ways to get there.

There is a politician at least partially capable of doing it, and there are plenty in Europe who idolise him. Interesting is that he is less bound by party political constraint than his European counterparts. Time for Europe’s heads of states and governments to learn some lessons?

Barroso you're a coward http://j.mp/jBBfEz Who is there in the Commission defending the integrity of the EU? Anyone? #Schengen

01.05.2011 18:00 via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@jonworth

Jon Worth

@jonworth Disagree. Intelligent Cion w/ courage to c that governance may possibly have 2 b adapted 2 take account of exceptional circumst.

01.05.2011 19:09 via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@ECspokesKoen

Koen Doens

Subsequent to the Twitter discussion, I’ve had some time to digest the letter Barroso sent back to Berlusconi and Sarkozy (you can find the PDF here) and, frankly, it’s not bad at all, and indeed contains plenty of positive points about how Schengen needs to be improved, although the letter does admit that reimposition of borders may be considered. The Guardian article to which I had linked only mentions the part about re-imposition of border controls, not the other answers provided by Barroso, notably to do with strengthening Frontex.

It strikes me that there is a game of brinksmanship going on here, and we are only hearing the side armed with a megaphone – Berlusconi (aided by his interior minister Maroni) and Sarkozy. On the other side we have the European Commission, and the Member States of northern Europe, who have rather little time for the protestations of the Italians, but are saying so in a more subtle, quiet manner, as with Barroso’s letter. This is the line from this Charlemagne blog post, and alluded to in the FT Brussels Blog here. Roderick Parkes also gives a good, comprehensive overview of the posturing, even questioning how serious the circumstances are that Italy is facing:

Back in March, Italy cried solidarity. Northerners resisted. So Rome regularised immigrants, sharing its problems with its immediate northerly neighbour France. Now France and Italy have teamed up to force support from their partners. If denied, they threaten to trigger the end of passport-free travel as we know it.

So what is the solution? The optimistic answer is that, so long as no real influx of immigrants materialises, the current panic will quickly resolve itself.

The problem with the protestations of Sarkozy and Berlusconi is that – knowing their appeals for assistance are going to fall on deaf ears – they step up the ‘put up the borders’ rhetoric, so much that the terms of the debate are changed, framing a re-establishment of border controls as the only viable solution (even if burden sharing is actually doing the job). With populist parties already on the rise across Europe, the Franco-Italian calls could be in danger of becoming a crescendo.

So how about a politician somewhere – in public – being willing to make an open, clear and determined defence of Schengen?

[UPDATE - 2.5.2011, 1800]
Thanks to a friend working on immigration policy I’ve been told that Germany took 432000 asylum seekers from the Western Balkans in 1992, while the number of Tunisians coming to Italy today is in the region of 25000. That would not seem to constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’, or at least less exceptional than Maroni speaks of. Amnesty has also gone as far as to argue that a lot of the issues in Lampedusa are of the Italians own making.

The entire speech is now available here, and the Wordle for it looks like this:

Barroso also proposed a letter to MEPs has been made public. Follow this line for a Wordle cloud of the words from the letter.

[Note: post updated with a new Wordle since first being published]