It is perhaps the EU's biggest challenge. How do you explain the 25-nation bloc's complex workings in a way which makes sense to ordinary people?
With public support for the EU sagging across Europe, leaders have been promising for years to shear the bloc's texts and communiques of confusing Euro-babble.
But they haven't been very successful. The EU's own Web site even includes a section unblushingly titled "A plain language guide to Eurojargon."
It explains to mere mortals the meaning of terms like "acquis communautaire," "subsidiarity" and "rendez-vous clause" which baffle even seasoned eurocrats and hard-bitten reporters.
Insiders are also critical of the heavy verbiage.
Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, in an interview, scolded the EU for using ponderous and obtuse language to sugar-coat unpalatable compromises.
Calling for states in Western Balkans to be given a chance to join the EU, the straight-talking Rupel warned the bloc not to play games by offering the troubled region second class membership.
"Imagine a Serbian politician goes to a village ... on the Bulgarian border somewhere ... and says `look, if we behave, we shall get an association and stabilization treaty,'" said Rupel rolling his eyes over the EU's sub-membership treaty policy.
"They don't know what that is. They don't have the faintest idea," he said.
Sheer incomprehension is often the public response to EU documents, which must be agreed by all 25 member states and often end up with convoluted formulations taking into account 25 national sensitivities.
A ponderous and uninspiring 125-page EU constitution, torpedoed last year by voters in France and the Netherlands, was a poster-child for language which fails to inspire the broad public.
The failed treaty's preamble says it draws "inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society its perception of the central role of the human person..."
EU texts also have a grab-bag nature with each member state seeking to insert pet projects or ideologies. The intentions may be good, but this means a summit communique often contains clauses which appear contradictory. And most EU declarations are far too long.
The classic case of doing the EU splits pits pro-market economy Anglo-Saxon and northern European member states against countries like France which favors a bigger government role in the economy and is often accused of being protectionist.
A communique for the present EU summit is a textbook example of this and it's obvious at first read which sections were French inspired and which were inserted at the behest of London.
Admitting the bloc's 2000 "Lisbon Strategy" -- a master plan aimed at making the EU the most competitive world economy by 2010 -- needs an overhaul given its failure to achieve results, the text makes a series of curious non-binding suggestions.
"European values can underpin modernization in our economies and societies in a globalized world," declares the summit communique.
What exactly European values are or how they will help the economy to take off is not revealed by EU leaders. No concrete policies or figures are provided for the curious citizen.
Instead, this is followed by what appear to be British inspired clauses calling for "creating a more favorable business environment" and then an apparent French demand that moves for growth must promote "social cohesion in compliance with European values."
A further caveat in the communique is that EU economic growth must be "environmentally sustainable."
Seeking to combine growth with greenery, the text makes a series of again non-binding "lines for action" including "exploration of specific actions to bring about more sustainable consumption and production patterns at the EU and global levels."
The catch-all end of the communique includes a series of issues allegedly discussed by leaders including a "European Pact for Gender Equality," a call to give "all children equal opportunities, regardless of their social background" and support for a "European Pact for Youth."
Finally, there's the declaration of commitment to "flexicurity."
Got it?
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS