The European Parliament has information for media about their own coverage via webTV from Brussels.

Moreover for those interested, BBC2 is showing two programmes on Sunday, one at 19.30h and then a longer one from 22h.

I am still talking to friends to set up a small “party” somewhere, so if you are interested to join, let me know.

If you wonder why UK results are only going public on Sunday, keep in mind that no country is allowed to issue any results until Sunday evening when the last (and majority of) countries have closed the ballot boxes.

With this blog entry I will try to sum up Andrew’s speech and include some observations and comments from myself. It is surely not complete and anyone who wants to hear the real Moravscik is more than encouraged to attend any of his inspiring lectures!

Andrew in short:

The centre of gravity of the study of European integration has shifted to Europe (where it belongs) since the 1990s.

EU citizens do not spend much time thinking about the EU because they do not care much. However, the EU does have some significant distributive effects. Consequently, there are many reasons to be concerned about the “democratic deficit”.

Moravcsik’s main argument is: The core of the democratic deficit stems from relative unimportance of EU issues in the mind of voters – i.e. the relative lack of issue salience.

There are three myths
1. The EU as an emerging super-state (libertarian myth)
One of the most misquoted “facts” (from an old Delors statement) is the idea that 80% of laws emanate from the EU. In the meantime several studies have shown that only 7-20% of laws originate in the EU – and there is no increase over time.
2. Voters cannot influence EU politics (pluralist myth)
The EU is possibly one of the most transparent polities. In fact all actors (except maybe the Commission) are directly or indirectly elected and fully accountable. Moreover, decisions are usually taken with super-majorities.
3. EU institutions are distant
In recent referendums there has not been a serious protest vote. Only a margin of “no” voters in Ireland voted specifically anti-EU. More than 70% of the Irish had a positive view on the EU on the whole (at the time of the referendum). Other surveys have found that citizens trust EU institutions as much or even more than national institutions.

Why are EU citizens not interested in the EU?
The non-participation has a very simple reason. It is because EU issues are not salient to EU voters. There are no really fundamental decisions taken on EU level that really get the broad majority of voters excited.
Europe is boring!
Attempts to mobilise people (for Europe) is counterproductive. The best (negative) example are random (national) referendums.

According to Moravcsik there are three kinds of proposals to overcome the democratic deficit.
1. the institutional proposal (Simon Hix et al.)
There is no focal point in EU elections. Therefore, the election of the Commission President needs to be made the central contest.
I very much agree with this line and it is also supported by federalist organisations like JEF and UEF who have launched the campaign “Who is your Candidate” to demand from European political parties to nominate their Commission President candidates before the elections. Unfortunately, only the European People’s Party (EPP) has in some way declared its support for a second term of Barroso.
However, Moravcsik claims that this proposal lacks empirical grounding. It exaggerates the Commission’s role because priorities emerge from Council and the European Parliament, and he doubts that such a minor change would be decisive in changing Europeans’ perception of EU politics.

2. the social-democratic argument (Habermas, Scharpf and others)
These people argue that more important issues should be directly tackled by the EU. This would include such vague challenges as globalisation or the “race to the bottom”.
Again, Moravcsik is convinced that these topics are not concrete enough to mobilise sufficient voters.

3. the “informed” social-democratic argument (Giddens, Schmitter)
These people argue that the EU should help to reform the welfare state in member states. Concrete examples suggested are a guaranteed income for farmers or rules for the treatment (and subsistence) of immigrants. This would surely get people out and interested. But even Giddens himself suggests that such suggestions are maybe not necessarily legitimacy-enhancing because citizens are broadly against EU interference in their welfare policies.

Moravcsik’s conclusion therefore is that we will continue to live with the status quo.

In a final remark Moravcsik suggested that China is “over-rated” and that studying the EU (the other global super power next to the US) is the most fascinating thing to do. More on this in my previous comment.

[Picture taken from http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/photos.html]

Nach einigen Minuten kam ich mir in diesem sauberen, abgesicherten Raum aber nicht mehr nur klein vor sondern irgendwie auch mehr als Tier. Auf Pawlowschen Reflex hin holt man sich zwar nicht das Essen oder die Streicheleinheit, aber doch sein Visum (kommt bloß nicht zu zahlreich, das Boot ist voll), Pass (unDeutsche, die es wagen im Ausland Kinder zu bekommen oder in binationalen Ehen zu leben) oder Unterschriftsbestätigung (naja…halt ich, mittlerweile armer Student). Zu allem Vergnügen – und das unterschied dann wohl aber doch Mensch und Tier – durfte ich dann für die Unterschriftsbestätigung auch noch 12 Pfund zahlen. Tiere zahlen ja nicht selber, für sie wird bezahlt. Immerhin konnte ich dabei doch gleich noch einen Blick auf die aktuelle Visa Gebührentabelle werfen. Als privilegierter Europäer (= besserer Mensch) hat man damit ja normalerweise nichts zu tun. Also, jedenfalls bekommen gute Tiere (aus ausgewählten europäischen Nachbarländern) das Schengenvisum nämlich schon für 35 Euro, während der Rest der Welt 60 Euro abdrücken darf (“Markblatt” hier), um sich an unserer Zivilisation zu ergötzen. Damit ist der Antragsaufwand natürlich lange noch nicht abgegolten und jeden, der zahlen könnte, lassen wir ja schon gar nicht rein.

Nachdem mir also endlich mal wieder vor Augen gehalten wurde, wie groß der Staat und wie klein ich als sein Bürger bin, stellt sich mir dann doch noch eine Frage: Werde ich es noch erleben, dass Menschen wie Menschen und irgendwie auch gleich behandelt werden? Selbst wenn sie das Pech hatten am falschen Ende der Welt geboren zu werden?

Aber um jetzt nicht alles schlecht zu reden, darf ich vielleicht doch sagen, dass mein Sachbearbeiter (so nennt man solche Leute wohl im Beamtendeutsch) freundlich und fix war.

But whether my time here is to be limited we have to see. I have inscribed for a Masters at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) at the heart of this great city. For the coming 12 months I should come out with some new perspectives. Not only for this blog but obviously mainly for my life, my learning and my future. New projects are naturally in preparation and until the end of the year I should know where I am heading. Until then I can only praise the LSE’s efforts for a smooth integration of its new students: useful information was sent to me way in advance. More current updates came in by email and the registration at the school was the smoothest thing I have ever seen at any university (and this is somehow my 5th!). Even though I had arrived a little earlier than foreseen by LSE, I could immidiately receive my student card and gain complete access to all services. Internet is running in my comfortable student residence (except for the SMTP). Only a fridge is waiting to be delivered tomorrow.

But more than that I have just spent a wonderful (last?) summer weekend in Dorset with great walks, good food and interesting discussions (i.a. about organic cidre farming) in between a wonderful countryside. May the year continue like this!