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?
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is