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?
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS