Problemele polemicilor UE

8/2/2019 Problemele polemicilor UE

1/8

Problemele polemicilor UE

The problems of EU debates

After reading recent posts by MartinWestlake and Julien Frisch I actuallyremembered a post on EU debatesthat I wrote a couple of months agobut somehow forgot to publish. It israther an exploratory post, verygeneral and patchy and open to newideas. I want to look at the nature ofEU debates without getting into any

ideological debate. And after writingthis blog for almost 2 years, I thinkthere are numerous problems ofdebating EU issues online as well asin the real world. Here some reasonsand possible solutions:

Dup citirea corespondenei recente ntreMartin Westlake i Julien Frisch, mi-amadus e fapt aminte de o postare desprepolemicile UE pe care o scrisesem nurm cu cteva luni, dar pe care uitasems o mai public. Este mai degrab opostare de prob, foarte general ineuniform i deschis la idei noi. Vreaus privesc natura polemicilor UE fr s

intru n vreo dezbatere ideologic. idup ce am scris acest blog timp deaproape doi ani, cred c existnumeroase probleme referitoare lacontroversele dezbaterilor UE, la fel ca in viaa real. Iat mai jos ctevaprobleme i soluiile posibile:

However, to put it into context of thedebate, lets look at the main

argument of Julien Frisch who thinksrightly that The problem of Europeanpolitical communication is that it isnot filling our attention on a dailybasis because it focuses on the wrongnotion of importance. Of course it isdebatable whether importance as suchexists or whether it is a construct ofthe media/society. So if we accept thelatter we should ask ourselves why EUdebates are generally constructed as

not being important?

Totui, pentru a- l pune n contexulpolemicii, s ne uitm la argumentul

principal al lui Julien Frisch, care pebun dreptate crede c Problemacomunicrii politice europene este aceeac nu ne capteaz atenia zi de zi, punndaccentual pe nelesul greit alimportanei. Bineneles, este rleativdac exist o astfel de importan saudac este numai o creaie a mass-mediei/societii. Deci dac acceptm ultimavariant, ar trebui s ne ntrebm de cepolemicile UE sunt de obicei construiteca nefiind importante.

1. facts vs. myths

Every EU debate at some pointtouches the issue of EU myths. Whatdoes this tell us about the quality ofthe debate? The fact-myth problem in

debating the EU is a time consumingone with two implications: (1) it onlyreinforces the ideological standpointof the reader and the commentator;and (2) people tend to forget about thereal issues at stake. This shows that


2/8

something is missing. I would suggestit has something to do with education.Interestingly, not many nationallegislative myths do exist (at least Itend to believe that, but I could be

wrong about that)1. fapte vs. mituriFiecare dezbatere UE se lovete, la unmoment dat, de problema miturilor UE.Ce ne spune acest lucru de calitateadezbaterii? Problema fapt real mit n

dezbaterile UE este una consumatoare detimp, avnd dou implicaii: (1) ntretepunctual de plecare ideologic alcititorului i al comentatorului; (2)oamenii au tendina de a uita deproblemele reale aflate n joc. Acest

lucru arat c lipsete ceva. A sugera car avea legtur cu educaia. Interesant,nu exist multe mituri legislativenaionale (sau cel puin eu unul tind scred acest lucru, dar poate m nel )

2. facts vs. oversimplification

Closely connected to myths is thetendency to oversimplify EU issues.

One example is the notoriously usedBrussels wants phrase. But alsothe battle motive is very popular:Head of state 1 vs. Head of state 2. Itis very handy to forget that differentactors (Commission, Parliament,national ministers, lobbyists, NGOs,) are involved in the decisionmaking procedure. The EuropeanParliament has a similar problem,citizens do not link their MEPs (in

case they know them!) with any EUpolicies.Another tendency is a kind ofconspiracy component. Lots ofpeople conveniently buy into somesort of conspiracy theory when itcomes to EU institutions. I want toemphasize two points: (1) In everypolitical structure there needs to be acertain degree of secrecy in order for

the system to function. (2) Theinstitutional setting of the EU is quitecomplicated and, yes, the EU is a hugebureaucracy.The result of overlooking both aspectleads to the perception that the EU is ahuge anti- democratic conspiracy

and lots of people also tend to believethat there is some sort of master plansomewhere behind closed doors. I donot want to deny that there are indeed

problems regarding democraticaccountability in the EU but peopletend to forget where they actuallycome from Paradoxically, bothpoints are also interconnected: If theEU acts not coherently (because of itsinstitutional setting) it rightly getscriticized. But if the EU tries tocoordinate policies and approaches(similar to the coordination betweennational ministries) it gets accused of

too much secrecy and not enoughtransparency. I do not want to defenddeals behind closed doors but it israther difficult to streamline positionsof 27 member states (includinginternal disagreements betweenministries!), several EuropeanCommission DGs as well as thenecessity to deal with lobbyists andother organizations that all want tohave a say in EU policy making!

2. fapte vs. simplificare excesivn strns legtur cu miturile este itendina de a simplifica excestivproblemele UE. Un exemplu este frazafolosit att de notoriu Bruxelles idorete . Dar de asemenea, motivul


3/8

luptei este foarte popular: efulstatului 1 vs. eful statului 2. Estefoarte uor s uitm c diveri actori(Comisia, Parlamentul, minitriinaionali, lobiti, ONGuri ) sunt

implicai n procedura de luare adeciziei. Parlamentul European seconfrunt cu o problem similar,cetenii nu fac legtura ntre MEP-uri(membrii Parlamentului European),(n cazul n care i cunosc!) i oricepolitici UE.O alt tendin este un fel decomponent conspiraional. Mulioameni intr ntr-un fel de teorie

conspiraional atunci cnd vine vorbade instituiile UE. Vreau s accentuezdou lucruri: (1) n orice structurpolitic trebuie s existe un anumitgrad de discreie, pentru ca sistemul sfuncioneze. (2) Cadrul instituional alUE este destul de complicat i da, UEeste o mare birocraie.Rezultatul studierii ndeaproape aambelor aspecte duce la percepia c

UE este o mare conspiraie anti-

democratic i c muli oameni autendina s cread c este un planmajor pe undeva n spatele uilornchise. Nu vreau s neg c exist,ntr-adevr, probleme privind

responsabilitatea democratic n UEdar oamenii uit totui de unde auplecat Paradoxal, ambele punctesunt de asemenea legate unul decellalt: dac UE nu se comportadecvat (din cauza cadruluiinstituional), este criticat, pe drept.Dar dac UE ncearc s coordonezepolitica i modul de abordare (similarcoordonrii ntre minitrii naionali),este acuzat de prea mult discreie i

lips de transparen. Eu nu vreau sapr ceea ce se ntmpl n spateleuilor nchise, dar este destul de dificils accelerezi poziia a 27 statemembre (inclusive schimburile depreri interne dintre minitri!), maimuli Directori Generali ai ComisieiEuropene, precum i nevoia de a facefa lobitilor i altor organizaii, toivoind s aib ceva de spus n procesulde creare al politic UE.

3.institutions vs. policyEvery EU debate at some point turnsto the legitimacy question of EUinstitutions. Of course this isimportant for any future developmentof the EU and it also shows that EUinstitutions are far from being perfect.At the same time, the debate aboutpolicy content is missing. Publicdebates never discuss policy options atan early stage.3.Instituie vs. politic

La un moment dat, pentru oricedezbatere UE apare problemalegitimitii instituiilor UE. Desigur,acest lucru este important pentru oricedezvoltare ulterioar a UE idemonstreaz, totodat, c instituiileUE mai au mult pn la atingeperfeciunea. n acelai timp, lipsetepolemica ce vizeaz coninutul politic.n dezbaterile politice nu se discutniciodat despre opiuni politice.

4. General popular apathyOk, this is a topic on its own.However, the majority of Europeancitizens seem neither very enthusiasticnor concerned about the EU. They

simply do not care about the EUbecause it is not something one caneasily relate to, it is too far away fromevery day life and it is really boring(that is how it is perceived). Even theEuropean success stories (generally


4/8

related to the four freedoms) areusually taken for granted. I am notvery optimistic here, probably this isnot gonna change any time soon 4. Apatie general des ntlnit

OK, acesta este un subiect n sine.Totui, majoritatea ceteniloreuropeni nu par nici foarte entuziati,nici preocupai de UE. Pur i simplunu le pas de UE pentru c nu se pot

relaiona uor la aceasta, este preadiferit de viaa de zi cu zi i estechiar plictisitoare (n acest mod esteprivit). Chiar povetilor europene desucces (despre care se vorbete de

obicei ca despre cele patruliberti ) li se acord credit. Nu suntfoarte optimist n aceast privin,probabil acest lucru nu se va schimbaprea curnd

Conclusions

I my opinion EU debates take placetoo late. Especially national mediaonly reports about EU initiatives aftertheir adoption in the Council, or moreaccurately, in that moment thenational parliament debates it. Thedebate needs to start earlier in order tohave any impact on proposals. I thinktwo major reforms should take place:Concluzii

Dup prerea mea, polemicile UE auloc prea trziu. n special mass-medianaional reporteaz numai iniiativeleUE dup adoptarea lor n Consiliu,sau, mai exact, n momentul dezbateriilui de ctre parlamentul naional.Dezbaterea trebuie s nceap maidevreme pentru a avea impact asuprapropunerilor. M gndesc la doureforme majore care ar trebui s aibloc :

1. It is still cumbersome for non-experts to monitor the EU decisionmaking process. Especially theinternet and new online tools have thepotential to make it easier to monitorand control EU decision makingprocesses. Even though the europa.euportal contains most of theinformation, it needs a seriousrelaunch. A new EU portal needs to betransparent, with a focus on policyprocesses that makes it easy to followdocuments, combined with someinteractive elements.

1. Este nc greoi pentru cei care nusunt experi n domeniu pentru amonitoriza procesele UE de luare adeciziilor. n special internetul i noileunelte online au potenialul de a uuramonitorizarea i controlul proceduriide luare a deciziilor UE. Dei noulportal europa.eu conine majoritateainformaiilor, are nevoie de o relansareserioas. Un nou portal UE trebuie sfie transparent i s pun accentul peprocesele politice care uureazurmrirea documentelor, combinate cucteva elemente interactive.

2. Education seems to be the key.Topics such as EU institutions anddecision-making procedures need tobe integrated in all school curricula asa core element at an early stage. Alsonational newspapers and TV stationsshould find ways to integrate EU newsin their daily news coverage.

2. Educaia pare a fi cheia. Subiecteprecum instituiile UE i procedurilede luare a deciziilor trebuie integratentr-un curriculum colaratotcuprinztor ca element central, nstadiu incipient. De asemenea, ziarelei staiile TV ar trebui s gseasc


5/8

modaliti de a integra tirile UE npaginile zilnice ale tirilor.3. The European Parliament or betterMEPs individually need to strengthentheir relations with national

parliaments/MPs. At the same time,national parliaments should beencouraged to engage more withBrussels in order not to be surprisedin the end Needless to say that a lotof MEPs should step up their efforts tocommunicate with their constituency.

3. Parlamentul European, sau maidegrab MEPi individuali, trebuie si mbunteasc relaiile cu

parlamentele naionale/ primi minitri.n acelai timp, parlamentele naionalear trebui ncurajate s interacionezemai mult cu Bruxelles pentru a nuexista suprize ulterior Nici nu maitrebuie menionat faptul c MEP-ii artrebui s fac eforturi pentru acomunica cu circumscripie.

4. Further institutional reform (eventhough that is neither on the agendanor very popular these days) that

addresses legitimacy, accountabilityand efficiency issues.

4. Reformele instituionale ulterioare(dei acestea nu sunt nici pe agend,nici foarte populare zilele astea )

care abordeaz probleme referitoare lalegitimitate, rspundere i eficacitate.

5. Better politicians for Europe!Although some improvements havebeen made in the last couple of years,there is still a tendency that Brussels/Strasbourg is seen as a retirementposting. However, it is a good signthat lately MEP and Commissionerswere appointed national ministers!

5. Politicieni mai buni pentru Europa!Dei au fost fcute cteva mbuntiri

n ultimii ani, nc exist tendina de acrede c la Bruxelles/ Strassbourg esteun schimb al locului de munc ninteres de serviciu. Totui, este unsemn bun c n ultima vreme, MEP icomisarii au fost numii minitrinaionali !

European higher education

The concept of the Universityof the Future has beendiscussed at the University ofMaastricht by 30 delegates from10 European universities. Theparticipants were top studentsfrom Copenhagen, Dublin,Warwick, Mannheim, Bamberg,Liege, Hassel and Maastricht.

Conceptul de universitate aviitorului a fost discutat laUniversitatea din Maastricht decatre 30 delegati din 10universitati europene. Participantiiau fost studenti eminenti dinCopenhaga, Dublin, Warwick,Mannheim, Bamberg, Liege,Hassel si Maastricht.

The topics of the discussionwere mainly the academiccompetences that a universityshould provide to its students,

Subiectele de discutie au fost inmare parte: competenteleacademice pe care o universitate artrebui sa le ofere studentilor sai,


6/8

the social responsibility of theuniversity, and not least, thedilemmas of standardizingEuropean higher education.

responsabilitatea sociala auniversitatii, si nu in ultimul rand,dilemele standardizarii educatieisuperioare Europene.

The idea that emerged from thediscussion is that there is nosingle university of the future.There are students who preferstudying alone and reject theidea of working in groups andthere are others who learn better

interacting with others.

Ideea care a reiesit din discutie afost aceea ca nu exista ouniversitate a viitorului. Suntstudenti care prefera sa studiezeindividual si nu agreeaza ideealucrului in echipa si sunt altii careinvata mai bine interactionand cu

altii.

The required academiccompetences a university shouldteach and promote are multiple:communication skills, teamskills, interpersonal skills,reading/writing skills, ethicalawareness, open-mindedness.

Competentele academice cerute pecare o universitate ar trebui sa lepromoveze si sa le predea suntmultiple : competente incomunicare, abilitati de lucru inechipa, competente interpersonale,abilitati de scriere/citire, constiinteetica si receptivitatea.

They are all important.However, the most important isthe role of the university: that ofproviding knowledge.

Toate sunt importante. Totusi, celmai 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 thetime 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 dintrenoi ar trebui sa revizuiasca intrebarile standard, precum si posibilele raspunsuri.


7/8

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 jobapplication 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 aplicatpentru 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 anexample, 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 grijasa 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?


8/8

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 folosireaunor metode inovative. Trebuie sa punem accent pe gandirea noastra analitica sicreativa.

Problemele polemicilor UE

Documents

Transcript of Problemele polemicilor UE