This will be my last blog.  I am leaving the European Commission – and Brussels – after 10 years. Ten years is a long time when I look at my youngest son: he has transformed from a small (mischievous) boy to a strong-willed teenager with a girlfriend.  Ten years is of course a short time in the history of Europe: but we in the Commission contributed in shaping it, for example through enlargement, environmental legislation and the introduction of the euro.

For me personally it has been a magnificent experience: politically and from a management point of view – all these wonderful people who have worked with me in my cabinets and services both on environmental and communication issues!  To say goodbye to them is the hardest thing to do now…
There are a few things I will NOT miss:
- breakfast meetings! People should be spared from having to meet me (or worse: listen to me) too early in the morning…
- arrogant cynics of whatever nationality…
- late night sessions about comitology in the European Parliament…

I now feel at home almost everywhere in Europe and enjoy both the diversity and the similarities.  Sustainable development and democracy remain the biggest political challenges – and opportunities! – to the EU.  Examples: the European cities can become the best places in the world for children and young people to grow up! The European transportation systems can become the most modern and climate-friendly in the world. The European Union can offer its citizens unique opportunities for democratic participation.

I will return to Sweden and think carefully about what I want to do in the nearest future.  I have not yet reached retirement age (although looking at photos from 10 years back is scary) so I hope to find another job.  The Swedish government has nominated me for a post as Special Representative to the United Nations, working on the issue of sexualised violence against women in war and conflict.  I want to write a book – but most of all I look forward to spending more time with my family.  To get a hunting licence (and maybe even buy a dog?), play the accordion and exercise are activities on my wish list.

Thank you all for reading, commenting and debating on my blog.  I also want to thank Joe Hennon who is my Spokesperson and has moderated the blog since the beginning.  He has also been an inspiration for innovative thinking about communication.

So what are my thoughts after almost five years of blogging?

First of all, I really enjoyed it but it was more time consuming than I had expected.  It sounds easy to sit down and write a piece per week but finding the time to do this when you have to do a lot of travelling and many many meetings to prepare for and attend is not as easy as it sounds.  As a Commissioner you constantly have mountains of papers to read. I am not at all complaining, far from it, but let me describe briefly what you have to do:  Every time you visit a country and have meetings with Ministers, Parliaments, NGOs, students and national media you have to read through a very thick briefing file.  Similarly, preparing for the weekly Commission meeting requires reading enormous quantities of text.  Dealing with the European Parliament and other Institutions, the National Parliaments, the Ombudsman, the media, your own staff and services takes up a huge amount of time preparing for and attending meetings.  Likewise, delivering speeches and attending events.  And meantime every day letters and emails arrive from all quarters with requests, invitations and questions to be answered.

Despite this I liked blogging and I find I have managed to write 265 blog posts since the beginning, covering everything from the EU to dancing, music, books, Chinese mining, jam and wars.   These received 3.3 million  page views, which seems pretty good to me, and 16,780 comments.  Ah yes, those comments.  I tried to read them all, sometimes printing them out and adding them to the stacks of things to read.  (Advice for anyone thinking about blogging on EU affairs – develop a thick skin, especially if you are writing positive things about the EU.)  Sometimes they were constructive, sometimes supportive, often irritating and occasionally downright insulting.  But they were always useful.  Unless you have the time to read every newspaper and website in Europe then having other people bring things to your attention and give you alternative (sometimes very alternative!) points of view is extremely useful and, in my own case given my portfolio, I think essential.

The European blogosphere was in its infancy when I started.  I was the first Commissioner to write a blog but several of my colleagues later followed suit and many MEPs are now doing it.  However, it is the development of civil society blogs that has been of most interest to me.  Individual bloggers such as Jon Worth, Clive Matthews (aka Nosemonkey), Julien Frisch  and Ralf Grahn to mention a handful have contributed to creating a small but growing EU blogosphere.  Multi-contributor blogs such as Blogactiv, EUObserver or Le Taurillon have also played an important part.  Journalists have contributed thanks to the increasing interest in blogs from newspapers: Les Coulisses de Bruxelles and the FT Brussels Blog for example.  These blogs are thoughtful and do not slavishly follow either a pro or anti EU line, a fact which I find very valuable.

I will most likely be dropping out of the blogosphere but I hope I have managed to play a small part in getting something started which will become a permanent part of the EU furniture.  The biggest challenge?  Undoubtedly overcoming the language barrier.  What I can see of the EU blogosphere is largely in English and French.  Finding out what is going on in German, Spanish, Italian, Polish and the other 17 official languages is for many people an insurmountable hurdle.  We all depend on others to translate for us and bring good stories, ideas and arguments to everyone’s attention.  And before the Esperanto fans inundate me with comments:  No, I don’t believe Esperanto is the answer. (and not Latin either!).  I think that, like it or not, English is becoming the common language through which Europeans understand each other. This has nothing to do with British or American lingustic imperialism and everything to do with practicality.  That is why I wrote my blogs in English not Swedish.

Till alla svenskar: tack för att ni bidragit till debatten om EU och Europas framtid!

Last week finished with the yearly Christmas lunch with my team where we had the traditional Swedish “smörgåsbord” with pickled herring, Jansons temptation, salmon, meatballs, ham and other delicacies. Good food and Christmas carols was a perfect end of a busy week which I partly spent in Malmö in the south of Sweden. There more than 150 participants, representing civil society, business and legislators, gathered at the Road to Copenhagen Conference to explore the necessary drivers for ensuring a Copenhagen climate change agreement based on climate justice. Together with Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and Vice President of the Club of Madrid, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, UN Special Envoy for Climate Change and former Prime Minister of Norway, I hosted the conference.

This was the third conference aiming at giving civil society and business a voice in the negotiations on a new climate agreement. And as usual we agreed on a set of recommendations that we handed over to the U.N.’s chief climate negotiator, Yvo de Boer, in Copenhagen.

Our message that climate justice is the ‘make or break’ trigger that will make the historic conference succeed or fail, was well received by Yvo de Boer who encouraged us to send our recommendations to all the governments that participate in the negotiations. Copenhagen must mark a paradigm shift, away from the ‘us vs. them’ and towards a ‘One Earth’ future. The conference must deliver on the human dimension of climate change; build on the principles of burden sharing and ‘polluters pay’, and on improved access to adequate, sustainable technology and secure financial resources for developing countries.

In between the intense and frank discussions in Malmö I crossed the Öresund bridge to Denmark to visit Christiansborg in Copenhagen which houses the Folketinget, or Danish Parliament. There I received the Sven Auken Award established this year in memory of the former Danish minister for Environment and member of the Danish Parliament. Sven Auken was deeply engaged in environmental and climate issues and I am sincerely moved and honoured to be the first to receive this distinguished award. I was truly touched by the award ceremony, organised by the Danish social democratic party, and the speech delivered by its leader Helle Thoring-Schmidt.

I feel this prize has been awarded to me to represent the tremendous amount of effort that has been invested by the civil society prior to the Copenhagen Summit. Therefore it is my sincere hope that the negotiators will listen to our message finalised in Malmö and take it on board in the new climate deal. This week will be decisive for our future and I hope it becomes a milestone of global governance.

I haven’t had the chance to write for a while but I have been reading all the comments, as always, and thought I would respond to some of them:

- a number of people have asked what will happen to my blog when I leave the Commission and whether other Commissioners will blog during the next mandate.  Well, I will write again on this topic before I leave but I will say at this stage that blogging is very much an individual choice and takes a lot of time. I will be recommending to future Commissioners that they should certainly think positively about it.

- on what will happen to the communication portfolio:  President Barroso announced last week that Viviane Reding would be responsible for communication and citizenship as well as justice, fundamental rights and gender equality.  Putting communication and citizenship together makes sense, it is something I have argued for before and I am pleased the President acted on it.

- there were a number of comments on the Citizens Initiative, many of which indicate precisely why we are having a public consultation – there are a lot of details to be sorted out.  Some of you had very sensible suggestions – please make sure you contribute to the consultation!  For the rest, yes the Commission will be obliged to make a proposal which will be put to the Parliament and Council.  But no, petitions relating to the location of the seat of the Parliament or the UK leaving the EU are not issues on which the Commission can act.

- on the so-called ‘climate gate’ affair: I think the best replies came from George Mountbiot and George Marshall in the Guardian:

- Finally, Julien Frisch criticises the procedures for choosing top posts in the EU and I agree with him.  I think horsetrading behind closed doors does the EU no favours. I see no reason why candidates should not declare themselves publicly and be questioned, whether by the public or by parliament.  Why should candidates for the post of Commissioner, for example, not have a public hearing first in their national parliaments?

United in Brussels yesterday evening for the occasion of an extraordinary dinner summit, the heads of States and governments agreed on the names of the two high profile posts introduced by the Lisbon Treaty: the President of the Europan Council and the High Representative/Vice-President of the European Commission.

Concern had been expressed that the dinner would be prolonged into a dinner followed by a breakfast, or even into a dinner-breakfast and lunch scenario, but surprisingly, the final results were announce early yesterday evening. Whereas the post as President of the European Council was attributed to the Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, the double-hatted post as High Representative/Vice-President of the European Commission was given to Mrs Catherine Ashton, the current Commissioner for trade.

I do not know Mr van Rompuy well enough to make any comments about his appointment but I know Cathy Ashton as a very able Commissioner and a nice colleague. My guess is that these are two people who will not make any mistakes, who will be willing to find compromises, work hard and quickly find their new roles. Yesterday they both looked a bit shell-shocked but I prefer that honest reaction rather than those figures that are just full of themselves… It is a reason to celebrate for all of us who fought hard for having women nominated and appointed. I call it a good start!

Earlier this week, we received some other good news as regards appointments to the new Commission. Several countries put forward their official nominations, amongst them Sweden and Ireland. I congratulate Cecilia Malmström and Máire Geoghegan-Quinn on their nominations. More recently, in fact this morning even, Greece communicated their official candidate; Maria Damanaki. Again, congratulations! However, we still run the risk that the Barroso II Commission will not have more female members than the departing Commission. The status quo will, at the best, be kept.

So we need to remain active and vigilant and continue the pressure on the heads of States and governments. As I said in my letter in the Financial Times earlier this week, it is time to move from commitment to action on gender equality. And in order to transform words into deeds, political campaigning is essential.

Today I spoke at a conference in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Convention of the rights of the child.  You can read my speech here: 550&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

I have thought a lot about the gruesome story of all the poor children that for decades were deported from the UK to mainly Australia and Canada. The BBC reported about the public apology from Prime Minister Rudd of Australia. He asked for forgiveness for the abuse, the violence and the way these children were used as cheap labour. Their childhood was stolen from them and they were lied to, in many cases being told that their parents were dead or that they would get a better future in another country. The woman behind The Child Migrants Trust, which put light on this shameful practice - Mrs Margaret Humphries- is now my new heroine!

When the Lisbon Treaty enters into force on the 1 December, it will offer a new opportunity to citizens to influence the EU agenda. It is the Citizens’ Initiative that will enable one million citizens to request the Commission to bring forward a particular policy proposal. At this weeks Commission meeting we decided to launch a wide public consultation, a so-called Green paper, to help to define for example the number of countries from which people must come, how to check that signatures are real, what form a petition should take etc.

I therefore encourage all of you to participate in this exercise, to give your views on how best to design this new democratic tool. The deadline for reply is end of January 2010.

That is also the deadline for the “old Commission”. It will have to stay that long in order to allow the European Parliament to plan the hearings of the new commissioners.

The Berlaymont building is full of speculations and rumours about that - and the names for the new top posts as President of the European Council and High Representative/Vice President of the Commission.

I have my own view; the right man in the right place is often a woman!

The Constitutional Court in the Czech Republic said that “it is a court, not a place for endless debates”. It ruled that the Treaty of Lisbon is in conformity with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and there is nothing to prevent its ratification. And then President Klaus signed. A long and bumpy road to a new EU treaty finally came to an end and the new treaty will almost certainly enter into force on 1 December.  One of the new provisions which interests me greatly is the Citizens Initiative. With 1 million signatures you will be able to ask the Commission to take an initiative on a particular issue.  The Commission will launch a public consultation next week asking for views on how it can best be implemented in practice.  Who can sign, where and how? Who checks the signatures? What is a significant number of Member States involved, and number of signatures in each state involved?  The consultation will run until the end of January. I hope there will be lots of comments!

Another new provision in the Treaty is of course the appointment of a President of the European Council. The Latvian government has put forward the name of former President Vaira Vike-Freiberga as a candidate. For too long the names mentioned for all of the top EU posts have been exclusively male and I find this unacceptable in 2009 when women make up over 52% of the EU population.  I  was very glad that Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, made that point  the other day at the European Council :  “As far as the position of the permanent European Council President is concerned,  (…) it should be considered that a woman could and should occupy this position. Appointing a woman would send a positive signal”.  I hope the  heads of state and government take this on board when it comes down to deciding who should occupy the posts currently being discussed.

I was disappointed prior to the Council last week  to hear the Danish Prime Minister playing down the prospect of a climate deal in Copenhagen in December.  This is not the time to be pessimistic or  over-cautious. It is more important to present some ideas about a realistic outcome of the Copenhagen meeting and the way forward. And to continue to put forward the offers and commitments from the EU countries. Since we now know that the US Senate will not be ready to give President Obama a full economic mandate - there will probably have to be a follow up - a “Copenhagen bis”…

The EU and its main partners responded swiftly, collectively and coherently to the economic and financial crisis because the urgency of the situation was easy to recognise.  The sums of money involved in dealing with the crisis are quite staggering.  One would think that the threat that climate change poses to our collective future requires an equally swift, coherent and ambitious response…

For two days last week (22-24.10), Stockholm was a real buzz. The fourth edition of European Development Days was organised jointly by the European Commission and the Swedish Presidency. I was honoured to be asked to participate in this annual event that drew together thousands and thousands of people from all over the world.

The main themes of this year’s event were Democracy and Development, the Financial Crisis and Climate Change.  At the heart of the Stockholm Fair Centre Älvsjömässan was the so called “Development Village”, where one could meet hundreds of organisations and learn more about their ideas on international development co-operation.

The whole scenery was colourful and almost overwhelming, with so many opinions and strong statements about development aid and a sustainable future for all. But the best feature of the event was that it allowed for all voices to be expressed – from heads of state and leading world figures to students; from business leaders to representatives of NGOs and international organisations; from academics and researchers to media representatives; from Nobel Prize winners to citizens from Stockholm who had seen the ad in the morning paper..

Among other things, I took part in a round-table discussion on women and security, where we discussed the still weak role of women and women’s organisations in peace-processes. I was impressed by the dedication and clear-sightedness of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia, who got a very warm and loud welcome from the audience. The main conclusions of the discussions were that we need a working strategy to include women in peace and security matters, including accountability mechanisms; we need more education, including for men; we need more countries to have a National Action Plan for implementation of UN resolutions on women & security; we need to build alliances between womens groups; and we need to mainstream gender in all areas of society, including armed forces! And most of all, we need many more Ellen Johnson Sirleafs, to give women on the ground a voice and to introduce democracy and peace in the darkest and most violent corners of the earth…

Then we all learnt more about the effects of climate change on the poorest countries. These effects are not a problem of tomorrow, but felt and seen today. Farmers in Liberia may not be aware of the scientific concept of climate change, but they do notice the change in weather and its effects on the harvest. The Inuit of northernmost Canada recount how the ice is starting to melt earlier and quicker every year. Kenyans are seeing the ice disappearing on their Mount Kilimanjaro, at such a rate that it might all be gone by 2015. And melting polar ice resulting in rising sea-levels means something quite different to small island states with a highest point of just 5 metres above the sea…

At one point I found myself sitting between the Foreign Minister of Micronesia (representing hundreds of small islands and 120,000 people) and the Prime Minister of Kenya (representing 38 million people), both of them sharing their experiences on climate change and the problems they are facing.

During the final plenary session on climate change, many voices underlined the same facts: in the run-up to a potential deal at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, there will be no winners or losers, only losers in case of a bad deal! In my key-note speech during the final plenary session, I underlined that there is no Plan B, because there is no Planet B. The collapse of the financial system has been tackled with real urgency. Can we say the same about our approach to the collapse of the planet?

Developing countries need financial assistance to cope with the effects of climate change, something they have hardly contributed to themselves. But looking to the past to assign responsibilities does not address the future. As Benjamin Mkapa, Former President of Tanzania said, developing countries must do their share, by tackling issues such as waste management and deforestation, as well as contributing towards a mentality change through more and better education. Having said this, I believe we must continue putting pressure on the EU Member States to maintain our high levels of development aid. A recent Eurobarometer study showed that despite the financial crisis, 72% of Europeans are in favour of honouring or going beyond existing aid commitments to the developing world.

Decision-makers’ voices were well represented on the podium, but young people less so. And it is their future we are deciding! I met up with young representatives of an international campaign called 350, which aims to bring the world together around solutions to the climate crisis. On 24 October, people in 181 countries came together worldwide to call for action and strong leadership in the fight against climate change. Great initiative!

From another young man, I learnt about another interesting idea: what if everyone in the world made a 1€ phone call on the same day, and the collected money would be used as climate financing? This is the type of cross-global grass-root initiatives we need! As a young speaker at the event said:

“If you think you are too small to have an impact, try going to bed with a mosquito in the room.”

Last week I visited the U.S. Despite the freezing cold, I received a warm welcome, both in Washington D.C. and New York. The purpose of the visit was to discuss two issues of global urgency: climate change and matters relating to women & security - two highly timely and complex issues that have acquired some momentum recently. However, meetings with representatives in the UN and the Obama administration, as well as with civil society organisations underlined that we still have a lot to do, if we want to achieve a deal in Copenhagen and a painless reality for women and children in conflict and war-zones.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made impressive efforts in preparing the ground for a new UN resolution about sexual violence against women, which introduces a real mechanism of sanctions and punishment of perpetrators. The adoption of the new resolution, together with next year’s 10th anniversary  of Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, makes the issue timely. We need to act now, and give women and children a voice and to bear witness to what they have been through!

The other big topic for discussion during my visit was climate change. Can a new global climate agreement be reached at Copenhagen? That was the question the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace tried to answer at a forum on Wednesday, with Eileen Claussen (Pew Center on Global Climate Change), Mohammed El-Ashry (the UN Foundation) and myself as panellists. The discussion was very interesting, but its conclusion quite pessimistic. In order to reach an ambitious, comprehensive and binding climate agreement, we need the US on board. Other developed countries will not make a commitment without a firm ambitious target from the US. But there seems to be a widespread view in Washington that the US Senate will not pass the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill before Copenhagen. Bill or no bill, President Obama needs to go to Copenhagen and show that he will keep his promise, that his administration indeed would mark a “new chapter in American leadership on climate change.”

It was a long morning on Wednesday in the European Parliament, discussing with the Swedish Presidency and the MEPs the topics on the agenda of the European Council of 29-30 October: the negotiations on climate change, the Treaty of Lisbon and how to get the Union out of the financial and economic crisis.
The decision to be taken at the European Council will have a considerable impact on the international negotiations on climate change. Six weeks ahead of the Copenhagen conference, we still have an enormous amount of work to reach an agreement that will tackle climate change both effectively and equitably. It is disappointing that the Ministers of Finance were not able to agree on an EU financial offer for funding aimed at helping developing countries to tackle climate change. However, despite the current difficulties, I am deeply convinced that the level of ambition should remain high. I am confident that our Heads of States will find an agreement next week and come up with a financial offer that that will hopefully trigger offers from other developing countries.

But it was also a strange morning, when by a handful of votes Parliament failed to adopt a resolution on freedom of information in Italy and in the European Union. Freedom of information and pluralism of media ought to be promoted and defended by all political groups across all EU countries. It was therefore sad to see that even this issue which is so fundamental for European democracy can be subject of a political clash and cleavages among groups. I fear that some tycoons could feel encouraged by this result; but I am convinced that citizens want to have access to a plurality of  free and independent media.
Gender equality is - as you know well - a subject very close to my heart. Together with other women in senior positions in the EP and the Commission, I would like to see a positive gender-balance in the next Commission. And I have been making the case again and again that women must be equally represented among the EU top-posts to be appointed when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. A Call was sent to all Heads of State and Governments, to the President of the Commission and the President of the EP.

This week  I was pleased by the move of President Barroso, who sent a letter to the Heads of State and Government, asking them to take gender balance seriously when nominating Commissioners for the next College.  Let’s see what happens…

First of all I want to thank those of you who expressed condolences on the death of my mother.  It is very much appreciated.  It has been a difficult time lately but I have been able to spend time with my extended family, of course mourning her death but also reflecting on and enjoying memories of my mother’s life.  She was close to 90 years old and had lived life to the full and, although death is always hard to deal with, I know she died as she would have wished – quickly, painlessly and with her friends.

I came back to Brussels only yesterday and I was of course delighted about the overwhelming Yes vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. A turnout of 58% and a Yes vote of 67%, with a Yes in 41 out of 43 constituencies was really a conclusive result.  And really I hope that we can now move forward. The Treaty has now been democratically approved in all member states and I hope the formal ratification will be completed quickly.  Twenty years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, this will give us a new Treaty that will allow us to deliver more effectively, more transparently and more flexibly on the expectations of people across our continent.

So what brought about the change of heart in Ireland? I hope one reason is the fact that people engaged much more and that so many people from civil society got involved in the debate.  My visits to Ireland over the last 10 years as a Commissioner, first for Environment and then my current portfolio, have always been among the most memorable and enjoyable.  I have always been impressed by the Irish appetite not just for the stereotype Guinness and potatoes but for debate and discussion. The airwaves and pubs are full of it.  I know of no other country where you can find more discussion on so many radio stations and where the bars and public places are so full of people with opinions on everything under the sun.

The No side successfully mobilised people in the first referendum. This time I saw a lot of evidence that the Yes side was much more engaged at every level of society.  This was Irish people, not ‘just’ politicians, debating issues close to Irish hearts.  The choice was theirs to make and in the end they made what I believe it is the right choice for Ireland and for Europe.  Ireland has never been far from the heart and soul of Europe and now it will remain firmly there.

At a European level, I can say that we listened, and we responded to the result of the first referendum: we listened to Irish voters’ concerns and the European Council responded to them by agreeing on guarantees – making clear commitments on the issues which mattered most to the Irish. I think these made a real difference and helped to reassure people.

The Commission played its role by producing clear, factual, understandable information, including a Citizens’ Summary of the Treaty in all EU languages. And I am very pleased to hear reports that people said they felt they understood the issues much better this time around.  I believe this shows the clear need for all of us to communicate better about the European Union on a constant basis and not just at referendum or election times. We will continue this important work, in Ireland and across the Union.

Like last time, we will do a Eurobarometer survey of how people voted and why. That will help us to understand the hopes and concerns of all voters, both the Yesses and the Nos. And in the months and years to come, though I will not be here myself, the EU must not forget these hopes and concerns. We must continue to reach out, to listen, to engage and to take action to meet the legitimate expectations of European people.

I visited Ireland again last week.  It was interesting to see the country in full referendum mode with posters all around and the press and airwaves full of Lisbon Treaty related discussions.  As I repeated many times over the two days, I am accountable to the public and was happy to answer the many questions put to me by the media and at public events.

In Dublin I spoke about the impact of the financial crisis and EU solidarity with Ireland at a lunch organised by the European Chamber of Commerce and later on Women in the EU at a meeting of Labour Party women.  I mentioned that The European Central Bank is providing loans of some 900 billion Euros, 130 billion of which will go to Irish-based financial institutions. That is equivalent to 77 percent of Irish GDP.

The evening brought me to Athlone in the centre of the country where I took part in a townhall style meeting and answered questions for over an hour and a half.  I always like this kind of event – the audience was made up of No and Yes campaigners as well as many who seemed to have not made up their minds.  The questions were good ones – many and varied – and while the beliefs and opinions were passionately held, the tone of the debate was civilised and never descended into abuse or disrespect.  I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

Athlone, on the banks of the river Shannon, was very dark and quiet when I went out jogging the next morning. It clears my mind and gives me a ‘flavour’ of the place to go for a run, even at 6.15 in the morning!

Later that day in Drogheda, north of Dublin, I took part in a discussion about women and the EU and I have to say the panel impressed me enormously. The other speakers included representatives of the Irish Countrywomens Association, the National Womens Council, the Equality Authority, the Older Womens Network and We Belong. 

Perhaps it was the unexpected blazing sunshine and blue skies but I did not get the impression of gloom and doom among the Irish people that the economic and political situation had perhaps led me to expect. But then the Irish seem to always be able to chat, laugh and get on with things.  Whatever happens on October 2nd it is their choice and I made that very clear.  No-one is forcing Irish people to vote Yes or No, but it is clear that the deal on the table this time is not the same as last time around.  In the intervening period the other 26 member states have agreed to spell out legally binding guarantees on issues such as abortion, neutrality, taxation etc., and taken a Decision which guarantees a Commissioner for each Member State.  The irony this time is that if there is a No vote the Council will have to decide how to cut the number of Commissioners as required under the Nice Treaty.

I felt obliged nonetheless to comment on the large number of posters I saw which gave the impression that the Lisbon Treaty would see the introduction of a minimum wage of € 1.84 in Ireland. There is nothing whatsoever in the Lisbon Treaty regarding a minimum wage in Ireland or any other country. Decisions on such matters as whether to have a minimum wage or how much it might be are entirely for member states to take and nothing to do with the EU. 

I was also slightly taken aback by a suggestion made by a journalist during an interview that the European Council might later decide to change its legally binding Decision about having one Commissioner for each country.  It was surprising to hear such a level of mistrust in Ireland.  I know that people often have a generally understandable distrust of politicians but to suggest that 27 Heads of State, including Sweden’s and of course Ireland’s, might decide to break an international agreement was taking things to a new and unwelcome level. 

***
On a different note, let me say how pleased I am that the United Nations yesterday decided to establish a new body within the UN system to strengthen women’s rights and development.  I hope this will bring about much-needed improvements to the way the UN protects women’s rights and promotes women’s involvement in development and peace-building.  Women’s involvement is key to effective work in these areas, particularly work to reach the Millennium Development Goals.

Together with my husband I was invited to the presentation of The Polar Music Prize Laureates 2009  in Stockholm last week. Two outstanding musicians and personalities received a nice sum of money from a donation by the late Stig Andersson (who wrote some of the most well-known lyrics for ABBA, for example).  Jose Antonio Abreu & El Sistema (a music-education program in Venezuela) and Peter Gabriel  both prove that “music has no limits but incomparable power” as the motivation for the award read. They both got standing ovations and in total it was an evening filled with fantastic music and inspiration. And nice to see my husband in black tie for once…

This might be the first time that I openly admit my admiration for a military general. I read an interview with US General Stanley Mc Chrystal, who heads the NATO forces in Afghanistan. He has written a report about the last years “bullfighting” – as he calls it - in Afghanistan. “We are like the strong bull that attacks the red rag over and over again. It is predictable and tiring and in the end the bull loses.” He also admits that superiority in arms is not enough to create security for the Afghan people that the ISAF troops are there to protect. And the Afghani peoples’ confidence is the only thing that the Taliban can not afford to lose.  Mc Chrystal goes on to say : “To destroy a home or property for civilians will put in peril the possibilities for a whole family to sustain themselves – and that is what creates new talibans. If we act that way we sow the seeds for our own defeat”.

Finally a word about light bulbs! This is the logic behind the EU’s decision to phase out incandescent light bulbs :
- The EU will reduce primary energy use by 20 % by 2020
- That helps to fight climate change  (up to 150 kg less CO2 emissions per household every year)
- Lighting represents up to a fifth of a household’s electricity consumtion
- Incandescent light bulbs are very inefficient and last for a very short time
- The market has failed to move towards the alternatives although they cost much less seen over their entire life cycle
- Thanks to the regulation EU citizens are expected to save close to 40 TWh (=the electricity consumption of Romania)
- If all households switched to compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs, at EU level we would save around 11 % of the electricity consumtion of households
- Every household would save up to 50 EUR per year
- The regulation will create the right  incentives for the lamp producers and the alternatives will quickly reach the market, including LEDs with no mercury, lamps which light up faster etc etc
I have not yet seen any convincing arguments why we should stick to an old, inefficient technology like incandescent light bulbs - have you ?

It is not always easy to follow or understand the inner workings of the European Parliament – or the dynamics within and between the different political groups. The “power games” that undeniably go on behind the scenes after an election do not normally engage the general public. At the moment the EU Institutions find themselves in a situation between the existing Nice Treaty and a new Lisbon Treaty which (hopefully) will enter into force before the end of the year. So the appointment of a new Commission President is uncertain and has been made part of the “deals” being discussed in the EP at the moment.

This is my view:

1. The procedure for nominating and appointing a Commission President and Commissioners has to become even more open and transparent. It should not be like finding a new pope! Names (plural!) should be presented early on in the process – including women! Don´t tell me that there is not even ONE European woman worth mentioning/ being nominated in the context of appointing four top posts in the EU (now three since the appointment of Jerzy Buzek as President of the European Parliament)!? To start with, here are a few names from me : Angela Merkel, Mary Robinson, Ursula Plassnik, Anna Diamantopoulou, Emma Bonino…

2. Member States can already now open up the procedure for nominating individual commissioners, for example: let different candidates be presented to the public, media and even to national parliaments. Nominate both a man and a woman so as to allow for a composition with even better gender balance in the next Commission.

3. Sort out/separate the relation between procedure, political programme and person. To most people it seems hypocritical to oppose the one candidate named and presented for the post of President of the Commission – if there is no other candidate!

4. I am not convinced that the Commission should be more politicised. The role of the Commission should be maintained, meaning that Commissioners  - as they promise in front of the Court in Luxemburg- should first and foremost look at the European interest, not national interests or political party interests. Of course: the members of the ollege are politicians and they often engage in lively debates but I have appreciated that most of the decisions have been taken by consensus.

Since I already mentioned Anna Diamantopoulou’s name: I would like to support an initiative of hers to organise a trip to Burma insisting on a visit to Aung San Suu Kyi. “To show our solidarity to an extraordinary woman and show our will to change the world to the better”, as Anna writes. We insist on having Aung San Suu Kyi released as soon as possible. After her recent conviction she will be detained until after the May 2010 elections. Guess why?

Brussels tempts us back from holidays with warm weather, making the transition smoother maybe…? Long into the autumn I will remember what it was like to unpack innumerable moving boxes (since we moved all of our stuff from Brussels to Sweden end of June) and the phenomenon of finding that the things we wanted were always in another box…
But there were some highlights this summer: like the performance “Kalevala” by Västanå  Theatre in Värmland . Like the celebration of our 25th wedding anniversary. Like picking blackberries while listening to Robyn on my iPod. Like swimming in the (cold) lake early in the morning after a jog in the forest. Like hugging my brothers and having the whole family around the table.

I tried to follow some of the debate in the US on health reform. The screaming, shouting and political exaggerations made it difficult. “The cost of such a reform will ruin America!” argued the same people who have contributed to paying more than the double to finance the Iraq war. “This reform will turn the US into a socialist country!” was an argument used by citizens that apparently think that it is “American” to leave 40 million people without proper health care. A young man was portrayed stitching up his hand himself because he could not afford an operation. The level of ignorance of other health care systems in the world was appalling. The reaction in the UK in particular was very interesting – the nation seemed to rally behind its often-maligned National Health Service when it came under fire from Republicans. The fact is you can choose your doctor also in countries with health care for everybody. You can combine public and private health care. ‘Value for money?’ should be the question also for the current system which seems to favour the few and leave too many behind…

Afghanistan is counting the votes. Many risked their lives to vote, which is something we in the West are not used to.  Special mention though to the brave women who cast their votes - they risk their lives simply by participating in political life or in some cases simply by working or studying. In too many places in Afghanistan it is still the warlords, military commanders and/or religious leaders who control the so called democracy and what women can or can not do. But women make up half of the population also in Afghanistan. The oppression, violence against and abuse of women must stop!

So, August is here and summer holidays and a news drought with it! Last week the Swedish think-tank Timbro released a report complaining that “EU information is not neutral”, that we “buy coverage in the media” and that “millions of euro are spent on advocating closer European political and economic cooperation”. I must say I was rather surprised by their biased and incomplete image of the EU’s communication activities, something I explained in a letter to the editor of Svenska Dagbladet.

The authors of the Timbro report define communication in an astonishingly simplified way: it is either “information” or “propaganda”. What they completely overlook is that communication is a vital element of democracy because it is a two-way street. It is every citizen’s right to be informed about what the EU does, but also to make their her or his voice heard about what they want the EU to do and how. This has always been my starting point as responsible for the European Commission’s communication strategy.

Timbro blames the Commission for wasting tax-payers’ money on “propaganda”, but the truth is that the EU has no control or influence over the media and no involvement in the national education curricula. What is called propaganda is, in some cases, action to promote involvement and participation. This is the opposite of propaganda since it is aimed at promoting questioning of what the EU does, and action to change it.

Some media who picked up the report made sweeping claims along the lines that ‘every time’ the public is consulted about the EU they say ‘No’ and that this proves the unpopularity of the EU. The fact is that since 1972, no less than 35 referenda have been held on EU-related issues, only 9 of which produced negative results, two of which were in Norway.

Besides, referendums are not the only way to consult citizens on EU matters. We listen to the views of citizens by supporting citizens’ consultations at local, national and EU level (Green and White Papers, as well as the European Citizens’ Consultation in 2009 and 2007); through discussion forums online (Debate Europe); video clip sharing (EUTube), blogs and social networking sites such as Facebook.

For 40 cents per person per year, the Commission maintains offices in all Member States, carries out citizens consultations, funds the Europe Direct service which answers citizens’ questions, provides free studio facilities for radio and TV journalists to use, daily question and answer sessions for journalists, coverage of public events, an audiovisual library and hundreds of multilingual websites including interactive ones such as Debate Europe and EUtube.

The Commission makes no apologies for trying to reach out to citizens, to communicate better with them, to inform them about EU policies and to engage them in open debate. Nor does it apologise for providing facilities to help journalists do their work, nor for trying to create a European ethos or public space.

As for influencing the media through means such as training of journalists – journalists themselves sign up for training courses with organisations such as the European Journalism Centre because they recognise that some training is necessary to understand the complex processes of the EU. There is no evidence of any pro-EU bias in the European media (indeed in some countries one could get the impression that it is precisely the opposite). Besides, all self-respecting journalists should feel insulted by the idea that they could be bought so easily.

The European Radio Network and Euronews receive some EU funding because they meet the aim of providing a cross-border platform for news, analysis and discussion and helping to create a European public space for debate and discussion but both have complete editorial independence. Their editorial charter is published on the internet. Richard Walker, Editor of the English language section EURANET, talks more about this in an excellent opinion piece in EUObserver.

The Commission believes a free and independent media is essential for a healthy democracy. It is neither possible nor desirable to ‘buy’ positive coverage in the media and the coverage of the EU in the European media anyway provides clear evidence that it is not the case…

Apart from keeping an eye on the main news, I have retreated to spend some nice weeks relaxing with family and friends, collecting energy for a surely eventful autumn in Brussels. The new European Parliament will seriously kick off its work; the next Commission President will be elected; and candidates for Commissioners will be nominated. And then of course in October, all eyes will be directed at Ireland… Where by the way Journalist and author Nell McCafferty last week launched a campaign aimed to ensure “the voice of women is heard and not forgotten in the Lisbon Treaty debate”. Great initiative! But more about Ireland later. In the meantime, I wish you all a happy summer. I will be back in Brussels the last week of August.