Work pressure being what it is, this post will be much shorter than I would like, but I still needed to throw it out: there is a huge difference for an institution communicating externally between embodying the VOICE of the institution and the FACE.

Wtf? are you thinking? Has the rhino gone mad (well actually, he’s been mad from the start, so any changes can only be attributed to recovery).

When too much VOICE hides the FACE

Let me try to explain what I am referring to:

• to me, the VOICE of an institution is the communication channel that provides easily accessible information about what that institution is up to and hy it matters to Mr or Mrs Smith in the street. It’s a tweet by @eu_eeas, a press briefing by the spokesperson, a press release on Rapid, etc.
• the FACE of the institution is made up of those individuals that make you “relate” to the institution. That make you think you want to engage not ’cause it’s your job to do so, but as a citizen, a human being, a mom, an angry teenager…It’s a blog like the one put up by the European Parliament webeditors (Writing for (y)EU)  that describes their challenges and dreams, it’s the tweets of @dicknieuwenhuis @euonymblog or @jeaninehennis that tell you they are working on this dossier, are shocked by this press coverage, talked to Ambassador X, or are excited about this project…

Everytime I read something about EU Communications, the tagline seems to be : we need to have a story to sell. To me, if you don’t think Europe is a good story in itself and feel this constant urge to create a zillion other stories on top of it, be my guest. I think however that the important bit is to create a FACE for Europe, and not just stick to the VOICE bit. I realise it’s a challenge, but some seem to get it so why not rely on them to help the others in the institutions to make the shift? I just want to be able to cut off the noise, close my eyes and start seeing FACES…

You know: I’m all for discrete diplomacy. It is a fundamental way of doing things when an issue is complexe, requires a bit of horse trading in a corridor or late-night negotiations with bad Chinese take-away and bundles of paper. In such a scenario, the less said, the better, until you reach a deal.

But diplomacy also requires panache to make the interest you represent shine in the limelight from time to time. A bit like climbing a mountain requires sweat and silent suffering but ends with firmly planting that flag at the top for the world to see.

I did not want to react after the lack of visible presence by Baroness Catherine Ashton during the Haïti events. I even constrained myself when she made her “I’m not a fireman or a nurse” remark when asked why she had not gone to Haïti. Hell, I didn’t even care that she went or not: I just wanted her to stand up and say “Europe cares and we’re doing something”. Forcefully. With whistles and bells. On YouTube, the press, the world, twitter, facebook, whatever. But: I thought: she’s new, let us give her time to settle.

Is someone missing from this picture?

Today, it’s Van Rompuy’s first European Council Summit. And guess who’s doing the statement (you can see it here): Barroso, as President of the European Commission; and Van Rompuy, as President of the Council…and that’s it. Now some will say this is done to respond to criticism that Europe does not have  a single face, a single “Who do I call” recipient. Some will also point out that according to the Treaty, the European Council only comprises “Heads of State and government”: but since when is Barroso a Head of State? Moreover art 15 (3) of the Lisbon Treaty state states that “The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy participates in the meetings”…

I think it’s just disappointing, yet again. There is a thin line between discretion and dilution in the background: Baroness Catherine Ashton should watch out she does not cross it.

The only positive note in my eyes is the fact that the Spanish rotating Presidency did not appear, because I find that system of a permanent President and a rotating Member State Presidency the real source of confusion when looking at the EU from the outside!

But let me finish on a lighter tone by quoting the Walt Disney movie, “The Aristocats”, having decided that maybe “Aristo-Cat” was becoming a fitting nickname for the Baroness:

Berlioz the Kitten: We were just practicing biting and clawing.
Duchess: Aristocats do not practice biting and clawing, and things like that. It’s just horrible.
Toulouse the Orange Kitten: But someday, we might meet a tough alley cat.

I will not go in an in-depth analysis on SWIFT: I have listed some of the excellent ones done prior to today’s vote in a previous post. I will just briefly express my satisfaction at this incredible show of class by the European Parliament, and especially the Rapporteur Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, aka @JeanineHennis (though other MEPs such as Sophia in’t Veld, Jan Albrecht and Alex Alvaro and many other merit to share in the victory too).

Voting against SWIFT is one thing, but doing it so massively and across party lines is even more remarkable, as it shows that legitimate concerns for European citizens can unite the European Parliament in defending them.

One wonders yet again at the clumsiness with which the Council and European Commission (in no particular order) took care of this dossier, seemingly still oblivious of the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is changing the balance of Power in Brussels. When I talk about lobbying, I always say it boils down to 3 things, what I call the “3Ps”: People, Procedures and Power. Boy, did they get the Power bit wrong this time!

In honour of this historical decision, I couldn’t resist to dree Lino in an appropriate outfit:

Lino mimicking the attitude of the EP today facing the US, Council and Commission

Today, as expected, the Barroso II Commission was approved by the European Parliament, with an overwhelming positive vote of 70% (higher than Barroso I in 2004, that was had 66%), based on the approval of the 3 largest political groups (EPP, ALDE and S&D).

No surprise there.

The debate however prior to the vote was to me, quite disappointing. Politics are like reading a good novel. Either the end of the book is unexpected and subject to multiple changes, in which case reaching it becomes the goal of the reader. Or the end is predictable, and then the talent of the author is to make the trip to reach that end as enjoyable as possible. You could also think of the old Columbo TV series: you always knew who the murderer was, but the purpose of each show was to understand the why and how. For the fans, it was not a case of “whodunit” but one of “howcatchem“.

So my frustration came from, well frankly, the lameness of the debate. Thank God for Dany le Rouge (Daniel Cohn-Bendit), who livened it all up with his flamboyant intervention and “Ta Gueule!” to Martin Schultz!

To me, the exercise looked like the wonderful interaction of a well-oiled orchestra and made me put together the short little film below.

European Parliament in Brussels

[UPDATE ON 11 FEBRUARY 2010:  The European Parliament just rejected the Swift agreement by 378 to 196 votes, giving us an answer to the question in our title: not the US, not the Commission and not the Council, at least on this one!]

The press, the euroblogosphere, Twitter…everywhere you look, discussions are taking place about the SWIFT dossier, and the “bras de fer” between the European Parliament and the Council relating to the transfer of bank data from European citizens to the United States authorities.

I won’t go in the substance of the debate as I am not an expert on those specific matters, even if my gut feeling tells tme that somewhere, something went really wrong (a feeling probably stemming from my disappointment some years ago when I saw Europe adopting its Data Retention Directive).

You can read a great post about the issues at stake with SWIFT written by BrusselsBlogger here , as well as a “blog intermediated discussion” between Julien Frish (asking Hillary Clinton to back off and leave the European Parliament alone) and Jon Worth (considering the EU can’t have its cake and eat it when it comes to relations with the USA)

The bit that struck me in this entire debate is: when Europe shows its teeth, at least through its elected officials in the European Parliament, the US know who to call. Jerzy Buzek by Hillary Clinton, numerous MEPs by the US Ambassador in Brussels…No communication issue here and no need for yellow pages.

But to a certain extent, I am starting to wonder if the classic question “Who should I call?” is not also becoming “Who will call them?”. Just imagine a reverse situation whereby Congress in the States were unwilling to sign up to an agreement between Europe and the USA. Who would call Nancy Pelosi? Herman Van Rompuy? Zappatero? Baroness Ashton? Barroso? Buzek? None or all of the above? And after Obama’s decision faced with this cacophony to not attend the EU-US summit (and let’s be frank: it’s not like the guy doesn’t have more pressing things to look after than yet another hand-shaking session in sunny Spain), would Pelosi pick up the phone?

But let’s go back to the title of this post: this week, the European Parliament votes on SWIFT in Strasbourg. The international and Council pressure is gigantic for them to vote YES, whilst I think every European citizen aware of this issue hopes they will stand strong and vote NO. After Super Bowl last night, I hope they make theirs the motto of the Saints and reply strongly : “Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Parliament ? Who dat?”

And for the Saints’ fans:

I had the pleasure of being invited to speak about Lobbying the EU by EDRI (European Digital Rights) at a seminar organised for a bunch of NGOs and activists.

Obviously, aside from the nice feeling one gets being “The Lobbyist” amongst “The Nice Guys” (and actually they all were extremely nice, even when they knew I was an industry representative), I had a fun time talking about my experience in Brussels, especially as I built my entire presentation around quotes from Miguel Cervantes‘ Don Quixote in honour of the Spanish Presidency (which ended up being as fun as when I made a presentation under Swedish Presidency using ABBA lyrics), as you can see from my slides below.

The best part of these speaking gigs is obviously the Q&A at the end. I found a couple of remarks and exchanges especially interesting and worth mentionning in this blog:

• Lobbying Vs advocacy: I must admit, I find the whole labelling discussion a bit odd. To me, as soon as you try to influence a legislative outcome or process, regardless if you are a multi-national, an SME, a trade association, an NGO or Mr John Smith, a concerned citizen, you are lobbying (I even tend to consider that when my 3 year-old manages to convince me that I wil save her from doom by giving her a cookie, she’s one hell of a lobbyist). As you can imagine, NGOs have another view on this and we started discussing on what was different in their way of doing things and mine. They argued they were not doing “lobbying” because they did many other things, but that I found un-convincing personnally, as an argument. But then one argument in the discussion struck me as maybe holding part of the answer: activists told me that quite often, they consider they have reached their goal when on a specific subject, they have raised awareness in the press and amongst citizens and basically “created a stir”, even if the legislative text did not go their way. That is probably at the exact opposite of what I try to achieve in my job. Creating a stir is frankly not what I’m looking for and if a text is not changed in a direction that is “better” from my perspective (and my clients’), the ink dry and the paper printed in the Official Journal, I have achieved nothing. Yes, I do think that is probably the main difference I have found between the two approaches, and I’m actually happy to have been able to put my finger on it.
• The approach to lobbying the 3 institutions: I strongly believe you never lobby institutions but people. But still, it is true that each EU institution has its own “culture” and “approachability factor” (and even within an institution, there are sub-worlds, as for example one Directorate-General can be totally different to another in the European Commission). But summarising these cultural differences is difficult. To me, it ends up being an issue of “length of relationship”: the European Parliament is an institution where “short term relationships” and “one-day stands” in terms of lobbying are absolutly acceptable. You can meet an MEP once, explain an issue, maybe convince him, and never see him again and there will be no hard feelings. Council and Commission on the other hand, require a lot more long term relationship-building. Trust is a hard-earned currency there, based on technical expertise and coherence, and that is hardly something you can earn in a 30 minutes speed-date (see my post on speed-dating at the Mickey Mouse).

This is the second time I am invited to speak specifically about my job and I must say, in both cases, I have learnt valuable insights from my audience, so I really look forward to doing this more often!