“The first is my new working theory, Steve’s West Wing Paradox or the West Wing euro-idealism coefficient. This theory holds that the extent of devotion to an American TV series about American government is a reasonable indicator of the level of euro-idealism among officials of the EU institutions.

The second is linked to this observation, not least because it in inevitably a theory of limited shelf life, and to the second observation that the EU system is maturing and starting to resemble the US system to an ever greater degree. It is simply that the time is surely ripe for an equivalent of the West Wing to be made about the EU…” [emphasis added by me]

Of course, the thought is tempting, and with all the writing talent both inside the institutions and in euroblogosphere, it could probably be done…the problem is: would anyone outside the EU bubble be willing to sit through a one-hour episode about the fascinating interactions of three Presidents and a High Representative, their inner cabinets and outer DGs, etc? Not so sure, quite frankly! I’m a bigger believer in something short and sweet, maybe less in awe of the fascinating wheels of power and more irreverent in the French sense of the word (i.e. “irrévérencieux”, which does not imply a lack of respect, but just an unwillingness to not criticise at the same time, possibly in a funny way).

So how about this alternative: French TV had a great serie called “Un Gars, une Fille”, showing a guy and a girl (Chouchou and LouLou) in 5-minute episodes in their daily interactions, with everything that can imply in a couple and with nice men/women stereotypes.

Imagine the scene above, replace the guys with Herman and José, the girl with Cathy, the shouting step-mom by the Council…close your eyes…yes, you’re getting my drift (though I would imagine Herman to be less hairy).

But then again, this may be a bit intimate an approach and not suite for our respected institutions (I frankly would not be keen on the bed scene translated to our EU leaders…really not).

A more “professional” alternative would be a remake of “Caméra Café”, with Herman, José, Jerzy, Cathy and all their staffers and entourage meeting around the coffee machine and exchanging their thoughts, frustration, master plans, etc.

Here I leave it to your imagination to replace the actors with EU officials…

So Brussels Wing, Three Presidents and an HR, or Caméra Berlaymont? What do you think? Vote and let us know.

[Addition: Oh, and I'm having some fun exchanges on this with Conor from the European Citizen blog, who is definitely rooting for a "Yes Commissioner" version: check out his post and our exchanges here]

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!

Moreover, this summit has a special culinary element (or so I imagine): with a troïka of Spanish, Belgian and Hungarian presidencies, what will teh menu look like? At least, when we had the Swedes, we knew meatballs would be a given. But this time? Tapas followed by “Lapin à la gueuze” with Belgian Fries and a nice Tokaji wine to close the loop? So much choice, so little time!

But obviously, the menu will not be the main concern. No, ladies and gentlemen: it’s “Vision setting” time.

So what do we, Euro-spectators, need at such a crucial and future-shaping time: our very own “EU Buzzword Bingo Grid” (get yours here)

Finally, an EU Geek Grid

For those of you that have not had the joy of working in large corporations where meetings tend to be places of great creativity and joy, the Buzzword Bingo grid (and I am quoting Wikipedia) :

“ was invented in 1993 by Silicon Graphics Principle Scientist Tom Davis, in collaboration with Seth Katz. The concept was popularized by a Dilbert comic strip in 1994, in which the characters play during an office meeting.

One documented example occurred when Al Gore, then the Vice President of the United States, known for his liberal use of buzzwords hyping technology, spoke at MIT’s 1996 graduation. Hackers had distributed bingo cards containing buzzwords to the graduating class.”

But having a grid is only half the work. The next step is to use it vocally. Invite a bunch of friends over for dinner, listen to that closing speech by the EU brass and don’t be shy to shout a wholeheartedly felt “Bingo” when you have that full grid. The grid being quite comprehensive, you can equally use it once that EU2020 Vision gets issued in a nice glossy official document. There, additional rules can be introduced: you get extra points if you spot 3 Buzzwords in the same sentences or if you were able to identify a buzzword in a different language (yes, we do believe in promoting multi-lingualism), etc.

Setting the vision for Europe for the next 10 years should be an important moments…but that doesn’t mean it should not make you smile!