Margot Wallström et les Euros du Village, dans son bureau au Berlaymont, bâtiment principal de la Commission européenne, à Bruxelles

THE INTERVIEW

Re-transcription : Camille DE REDE

Xavier LE DEN : We’ll start softly by asking general questions. Your role was created by president Barroso, can you explain to us in a few words what he asked you to do and why this role is this important ?

Margot WALLSTROM : Well, there are actually four different tasks in my portfolio ; my responsibility covers four different tasks. Of course, the first, very important one, has to do with a new communication policy ; secondly I’m also responsible for relations with the European Parliament and the Council, the so-called inter-institutional relations, then national parliaments which is a completely new task, that is to say establish cooperation with national parliaments and also constitutional issues. So I have a number of these sort of horizontal and long-term and rather difficult challenges and we need a new communication policy, we need to always have a good relationship with the other institutions, we want to be better in communicating with international parliaments and involved national parliaments and of course we need to solve the constitutional issue so it was clear that it was a portfolio very much designed for me and my background because we need to work on these four issues.

XLD : Does it mean that the Commission’s communication strategy wasn’t sufficient enough before your role was created ?

MW : It was partly sufficient enough because we’ve had a number of strategies in the last few years, I think we’ve had at least four communication strategies, but we’ve analysed this, and we came to the conclusion that what was missing was really also to agree on the principles and the fact that we share this responsibility between the Commission and of course the other institutions and other member states as well. We also have to become more professional in the way we tackle these issues.

XLD : Surely it’s up to national governments to communicate on Europe and they do it as members of the Council of the EU, so in communicating about the EU is a Commission not overstepping its role and speaking over members states, in other words, do you think member states don’t do their job ?

MW : Well, I think we’ve seen too much of the “blame game” from both the institutions and also from members states, and this is problematic. If ministers go home and blame the European Union when things do not go their way, then we end up in a very difficult situation. We have to listen better, it’s the first principle, we have to advocate better what we are doing and explain a certain decision to citizens, and we have to go local. So these are the three main objectives of the new communication policy. And then, it takes communication from both the institutions because we have a responsibility to let people know what the institutions are doing ; and it takes active involvement from the states without member states it would be very difficult to have a good communication, a good dialogue.

XLD : You are talking about cooperation, some of our readers suggested that the members states are always keen on criticizing the Commission, using it as a scapegoat, so should the Commission be taking a harder line, a more aggressive approach towards the member states in its communication strategy ?

MW : No, we have to create a partnership and we have to make clear that this is the responsibility of all the institutions so I don’t think that we can do it in a confrontational way with member states, but rather engage them. And we also have to show that the European Union is another political scene, it’s an arena where you will also see different political ideas and political ideologies represented. This has to become clear also to citizens, that you will see representatives of different views within the Commission. So we benefit from a lively debate but we then have to explain how this is done and we have to create the possibility for citizens’ voices to be heard. So this is really my job : to give European citizens a voice.

Mathieu COLLET : What do you intend to communicate more specifically about ? About the cost of the non-Constitution, EU policies, or about Europe in general ?

MW : I think we have an obligation to inform citizens about everything we do, of course. We also have to plan and prioritise what the most important issues are and establish the political agenda for the Commission and the member states and of course, the Council and the European Parliament will have to do the same. And this is what we do every week, we decide what it is we should tell journalists in the newsroom, what kind of information do we want to get out, and also how do we consult citizens, how do we get reactions back ? So these are all issues that appear on the agenda. But this is not easy, because this is also a complex “compromise machine” which deals with, as I’ve said before, everything from the content of sausages to the peace process in the Middle East, so how do you communicate in twenty languages ?

And most of the citizens don’t even know what all the institutions are about. The Parliament, the Commission, the Council, what are their role and how all this is actually implemented.

MW : This is exactly one of the things we point out in the white paper, in our proposal for a new communications strategy. We say that you need civic education, unless member states are, in basic education, teaching how the EU works. It would be very difficult to communicate later on. So it has to start early, by having a chance as a citizen and a young person also, to understand how this is constructed and how they can they make their views known to the whole system.

MC : Surely, local leaders are in the best position to bring Europe closer to its citizens, I’ve read your plan D and your communication strategy, I haven’t seen this local issue though, what will you be doing to involve these important links ?

MW : The instruments or the tools that we have are that we are represented in every member state. The Commission, as an institution, has offices in every member state. We say that we could use these also, as a kind of open houses or meeting places, hopefully together with the European Parliament offices, as a chance to establish open meeting places where citizens would be invited to give their views, where we can consult, where we have to use the local media as well and engage them. But without engagement of the politicians and the member states representatives, it would be very difficult. We have to work together with civil society and all those we have contact with. So it’s both on the media side and on the political side to establish the meeting places for citizens.

In concrete terms, do you meet the local representatives ?

MW : Yes, this happens all the time, for example, our representation offices invite groups from local journalists to tell what goes on, to civil society representatives, to those who are involved in projects financed by the EU or they make sure that the news can get out to the local media. So this happens every day on a regular basis. And this is what we need to do more. How do we tell for example that we have a specific proposal that we want people to react to ? And this hasn’t been done effectively enough. How do people know that something is going on at the European level ? How can they give their views or share their ideas ?

MC : In your plan D and communication strategy, you’d like to use the Internet. Many of our readers and NGOs suggested tools like a Pan-European referendum or Internet consultations and both of which came up in Bergamo. Do you think Internet consultations could be a new tool ?

MW : We already use that, and I have personal experience from using this on REACH and we had several thousands contributions in the end, very detailed on specific legal and technical details in the proposals. So this is not a new tool to us, we’ve started to use it and we’d like to use it more. We also have Internet sites where you can debate the future of Europe, but the problem so far is that it’s rather one-sided, apparently we reach young men of certain age and very few women.

Indeed, 90% of the participating people are men.

MW : Yes the plan D assessment is about this, we have to make sure we reach women and young people so that we can engage them in a better way. So you have to use a number of different tools but definitely the Internet in sort of modern ways.

People who answer on these forums, are people who already know how the EU functions. How can you reach the others ?

MW : That can only be done if we also get the news out of television and radio. That’s the main information channel to most citizens. So if we want to reach out in a broad way, we also have to get the news through television and radio. And we have to use civil society. All these organisations that meet with farmers, teachers, consumers, whoever, we have to work with all these channels in parallel otherwise we will not be successful.

MC : Concerning civil society, you said in Bergamo that you intend to evaluate NGOs’ proposals, and Mr. Sorensen said that these proposals will be shown to European leaders, but what is exactly the future of these proposals ?

MW : We have invested and we’re starting a number of proposals of Pan-European projects where, for example, we have citizens’ consultations. I attended one of the first events, where 200 people from all members states, came together to discuss the agenda or their priorities for Europe. And this is the type of things we now follow up for each and every member state. They will do the same thing : bring in, not the politicians, not the political elite but ordinary citizens who will have a chance to sit down and talk about the European issues. This is just one example of what can be done, but also deeper interviews and different methods for reaching out to citizens. As soon as we see the results of this, of course, we will make it public and use it as best we can.

MC : The Better Regulation Initiative scrapped around 70 regulatory proposals in order to create a more efficient Europe. One of the proposals the Commission scrapped was the status of European association, which would have been a useful tool for developing European civil society. For example, at les EurosDuVillage, we now have to create different national entities in order to develop at the European level. Can you tell us if this proposal will ever be back on the agenda ?

MW : The thing is that, if I remember rightly, well, I can’t remember now for how many years this proposal has been in the pipeline. Nothing has happened to it. I think it’s better to admit that this proposal, apparently, doesn’t have a future or enough of a base in order to actually move it forward. Let’s start afresh and take a look at a new proposal that can come up and help us, because if we’ve had it there for 6 or 8 years - I can’t remember now for how long - then it’s better to do something completely new and start from a different perspective. We are not helped by sort of dragging on these things for which the conflicts are so cemented that we cannot move. I think it’s a useful proposal but we have to start from a new base.

You don’t think it’s a bad sign ?

MW : Not necessarily. If we haven’t been able to move it one bit for so many years, then we have to start with a new proposal, some new ideas, I think this is just obsolete now ; we have to just find another solution.

Daisy AYLIFFE : My question is about Strasbourg, you’ve spoken quite a lot about it before, but just so that people can hear it on the website. You described the commute to Strasbourg as “insane”. How difficult is it to communicate policies that you don’t necessarily think are logical ?

MW : It was sort of my way of describing the kind of arguments that I hear from people and the reactions I get. It was not really my own way of describing it. I’ve been in politics long enough to know that you cannot choose words like that, but this is the kind of reaction you get. I referred to the kind of debate I hear when we discuss these things. When it comes to Strasbourg, I also try to explain that we have, again, to help people to understand why this was once upon a time a decision, why this was an important symbolic value of placing the European Parliament in Strasbourg and the role that this has played. But we also have to realise that things have moved on since then. And 50 years on in time we have different situation now, we will soon have 27 member states. And it makes it a very cumbersome and expensive and not a very rational way of taking decisions. We have to explain both the history, why Strasbourg, why the decision was taken, and then what is rational today. Unfortunately, if we don’t do anything about it, it will become instead a negative symbol. What was once a fantastic location will instead become a negative symbol to citizens and a loss of money and time.

Lots of people already do think that and so did a million who signed the petition. One of the things you talk about is listening more. But you said to those people who signed the petition : “We got ourselves together and we told the Commission what we think”. How did Europe listen ? What did Europe do back ?

MW : The thing is that you also have to be very honest with people with these petitions to explain where is the responsibility, who takes the decisions on these things, and of course, those behind the petition, know this very well. But the Commission cannot even present a proposal, we can give our views, but this is something for the member states and this is an issue where you have to influence France. And also Germany in that case, in order to make them negotiate or discuss things like this.

Could the Commission recommend something like this ?

MW : No, we cannot, we are not even allowed by the Treaty to recommend anything so this also has to be made clear to people, we have to be honest.

But if one million people cared, should the Commission authorize it ?

MW : This was exactly why in the new Constitutional Treaty there is provision with the citizens’ initiative so that would become a new rule, that if you have one million signatures, the Commission would have to come up with some kind of proposal or reaction. So this is something I welcome, this is something important.

DA : I’m just going to move on to your policy on getting young people involved and as just mentioned, women particularly. There was a recent thing online with young people in the pressroom and there were these youths interacting and asking you questions. To be honest it was very hard to watch even as an adult with an interest in Europe : it was slow, you could hear people speak in the background, it was badly filmed, and I was just wondering, is that the future of youth interaction ?

MW : I’m sorry, that was the first time we had even done that, it was an experiment for all of us. We made the same comment as you just did when we saw it. It was very difficult because for the first time we also had interpretation into all official languages and that’s why we had to be in that difficult room. We’ll have to make sure next time that we become more professional, we learn from these experiences.

So, what’s the next initiative ?

MW : Maybe we could do it with fewer questions, so that we narrow it down to more specific issues, maybe we have to scrap a number of languages, in order to make it easier to arrange, maybe we could do it in another type of setting, where it flows better, but it was really the first time we ever did it.

I understand. But do you think there is any way politicians can talk to young people without being cringy ?

MW : Most politicians go all the time to schools, so they sit down.

So there is a way.

MW : Of course, in that way, it’s always more difficult if you do it in this very institutional way, it’s always much heavier and it gets kind of artificial. You just don’t speak like that and if you then go to schools, where you sit in the classroom with young people, you speak in a different way and you can have a direct communication. But it’s always heavier when you have the other interpretation.

DA : Another question on the message that you think the Commission is sending on Turkey to EU citizens, as it’s been perceived as being really negative, talks are frozen, now chapters are being closed. What sort of message do you think the Commission is sending to its EU citizens on Turkey and to Turkish citizens ?

MW : It is clear that Turkey is applying for membership in the European Union and it will be very difficult if they don’t live up to the conditions that we’ve agreed on. Of course, it will also be a very difficult situation if they are not willing to accept all the others, all the other member states in the EU, this is so basic. You have to accept the existence of all the member states. And this is the starting point.

Does it worry you that lots of people just said to Turkey : “you should just walk away now that the EU is gonna shut 8 chapters…

MW : You know in our debates we have been very careful, we have discussed this a lot, we have to be clear about the conditions, about what we expect Turkey to do. At the same time we don’t want this process to stop. We want to see Turkey to continue to engage in a dialogue with us and to make sure that we have an established cooperation and see things moving into the right direction. That is why it contains both parts, but we also have to be clear about what we expect Turkey to do.

XLD : One French reader of ours studied in Sweden, and she was surprised to find strong nationalistic sentiments among students in the country. So she would like to ask you, as vice-President of the Commission, but also as a well-known social-democrat in your country, whether you would be able to reverse this nationalist trend.

MW : It worries me, not only for the sake of Sweden or for the situation in Sweden but also for other parts of Europe. Unfortunately, this is not a tendency only in Sweden but you can see it in Germany, where we saw neo-Nazis winning votes in elections, and where we also had the Vlaams Belang here in Antwerp also with 33% of the votes. I am very worried about these tendencies, and in Sweden, after the last elections, the Sverigedemokraterna – who are very hostile to immigrants - have won seats in nearly half of the municipalities. I find this very problematic. So I think we need to engage into a debate about integration, about Europe, and the fact that the world we live in looks different. And what can we do ?

DA : Do you think it is possible to create a feeling of “togetherness” ?

MW : Yes, I think it is part of the job for any politician today.

But can you do it ? Do you feel you can do it ?

MW : Yes, otherwise I would not be in politics if I didn’t think that we can do a lot, and we have to do a lot ! To defend and to strengthen democracy in Europe, and to deal with the whole issue of integration – I think those are the two most important challenges that we see right now. And it is only through these ways and tools that we can achieve sustainable development in Europe. So we need to tackle these problems.

DA : The “together” logo - a lot of people, I’m sure as you know, didn’t like it and it came under attack. Do you think that the sort of division that it immediately sparked is symbolic ?

MW : I like it. I think that’s exactly how a logo should work, that it should spark some reactions. Of course people will analyse, but it’s not about this analysis, this is about finding a symbol that will both carry a message and that will be a visible thing. So, I am not afraid of the debate that it has sparked, and, remember, this is a logo done by a young Polish guy. And to him it was the language of today, his generation, it was the national way of doing it. And then, as you know, it exists in all languages and I think it will be the perfect logo. It will just take some time before it has sort of won the approval of people.

But people would argue that it will take some time for it to be true, because people would say you’re trying to find a symbol but it’s the wrong symbol.

MW : But no, it’s not the wrong symbol to say that we are together ! This is what we’re struggling with. We are not ready, this is also about the future. But this has been the idea since 1957. It was the idea that we would do things together, not by fighting wars but by actually sitting around the same table to discuss what the challenges are and what solutions can we get. So I think it’s the perfect symbol. As controversial as it is, I like it.

XLD : As you mentioned, at the beginning, the EU existed to create peace as the EU had a project. What concrete message is Europe communicating today ? Does the EU have enough to sell itself to build ownership of Europe ?

MW : I think we shouldn’t underestimate that this is still a project for peace in the sense that this is how you maintain peace in Europe. You actually sit around the same table and discuss with each other. This is true and I think also the young generation understands that. But we are very much in search of that sort of new project, which can lead to the future. My son who is 20 years old now, he has not experienced war and he wants to have something additional to the whole idea of the US peace project. He wants to see that we are about to solve some problems for the future as well. To me, it’s clear that the lead words for the overall objectives of the Barosso Commission, which are solidarity, prosperity, security, is fine. But, to me, it is really more about sustainable development : to show that Europe can combine economic growth with environmental and social protection. We can do it in ways, which really point to the future. That’s for me the most fantastic project we have and I think it’s enough as a political goal and as a political challenge !