Fighting for the public opinion

It is worrying to see the growing number of opportunistic columnists and politicians writing and stating foolish opinions about the EU. They think that´s what will make them popular and look smart. It´s about their personal gain, as they see it in their hearts. But for me, they  are just unwise and self-centred. And also very dangerous, as they are creating the conditions for a serious backlash in Europe.

It´s time to respond to this very serious threat. To engage in the war of narratives, I mean.

Murdoch against the EU

The billionaire Rupert Murdoch owns several, diversified press groups in Australia, Hong Kong, the US and the UK. As a result, he controls a good share of the information that shapes the views of many ordinary people in these different countries. In Australia, for instance, about 60% of the media, both national and local, is under the grip of his holding group. In the US, Murdoch´s main vehicle is anchored on Fox TV, which has a tremendous influence on the conservative public opinion. In the UK, his empire is built around the daily tabloid The Sun, but comprises other means, including TV, and also that “old lady” of the British press, The Times.

Murdoch, who is now 85, loves political power and the games that go along with it. He is always ready to play a major role in the building of the most populist political agendas and to actively support the blatantly conservative causes. All that is rooted in a very old fashioned way of looking at the world from an outdated and long gone Anglo-Saxon perspective.

His British media tools were decisively behind the Brexit propaganda. His loyal scribes made use of them to actively and purposely misinform and misguide the British grassroots readers. And also to promote the key advocates of quitting. Lies and half-truths make excellent headlines.

Now that the referendum results are in the bag, Murdoch has instructed his agents to move to the next stage of his anti-EU crusade: to attack the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. The insinuations and fabrications have started in a very subtle way by placing dismissive and unsettling words in the mouth of no-name-mentioned German diplomats. They are abundantly “quoted”, but nobody knows their identities. And the Murdoch boys and girls are doing it in a smart way, by using the very serious Times, instead of the more sensationalist papers the group controls. The Times pretends, and then other media outlets take the cue from it, that Germany sees Juncker as major problem and therefore it will be asking for Juncker´s departure later in the year or soon after that.

This is the new stage of Murdoch´s anti-EU demolition initiative.

It is also a smart move to justify the Brexit option to the very sceptic eyes in the UK. Particularly now, that the Brexit promoters are in some kind of disarray and also under fire. The best and better informed sectors of the UK are on the offensive against the “quitters” and their irresponsible behaviour.

In the near future we will see the anti-Juncker campaign moving to the level of the personal insult. That will the task reserved for the tabloids Murdoch owns. They will be gladly accompanied by other European media organs, both in the UK, including by The Telegraph, and elsewhere. That´s a good way to continue the job of undermining the EU and its institutions.

And Rupert Murdoch, if we let him on the loose, will be able to claim that he is always a winner.

EU: the Slovakian presidency

As of today and for the next six months, Slovakia will take the lead within the EU. It is the first time they are in charge.

I have read the plan they put together for their turn and found it well thought through. It gives quite a bit of attention to economic growth, the digital economy, energy policy, and innovation as well as to the trade agreements that are under negotiation.

It also mentions migrations and asylum but these are the two areas that come out as weak. Slovakia appears, like many other countries in that part of Europe, unable to put forward an approach that would balance their fears with the EU´s commitments and duties in these matters.

Migrations and asylum policies will remain notwithstanding top priorities for the EU during their presidency. And they will call for better defined and more convincing lines of intervention by the whole of the EU.

EU Global Strategy: an initial comment

The EU High Representative has now presented to the Heads of State and Government the new “Global Strategy”.

I have seen the document but still need to digest the contents. My initial reaction is that the strategy is placing too much emphasis on EU´s role on defence. That might be a huge mistake.

First, because in matters of defence the key goal should be to strengthen the European nations ´capabilities within NATO. That´s the existing commitment, made at the last NATO summit meeting, and also that´s the only way for the Europeans to be able to leverage the US and Turkey´s powerful military machineries. They need to create and combine additional capacity with the extraordinary capacity non-EU NATO members have, particularly the US.

Second, the EU States have to take into account the new situation of the UK. It is unquestionable this country has the best European army. But it will outside the EU in the medium term. They will no longer be part of any EU defence arrangement. To take advantage of their power can only occur elsewhere, not within the EU. Elsewhere means to have to look into NATO´s direction again.

The Spanish elections: Act 2

Once again the opinion polls were wrong. This time they missed the picture in the Spanish general elections. The forecasts and the final results belong to two different worlds. And this raises a definitive question: the sampling methods are outdated. The polls as they are presently carried out can´t be trusted anymore. A new type of pre-electoral analysis is required. We have an opening here.

Regarding the elections outcome, outgoing Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy should be congratulated. His party, in the centre-right of the political spectrum, did much better than expected. But the number of seats he got is not enough to have a majority. In the circumstances, he would prefer to lead a grand coalition that would bring together his party, the Socialists and the citizens’ movement of liberal inspiration, known as Ciudadanos.

I do not think that will happen. In the end, Rajoy will have to govern alone, and hope the Socialists will let him move on and stay in charge. That´s a very precarious arrangement. It will not last. Basically, as I see it, we will have general elections again any time in the second half of 2017. 

Brexit: the days after

So, my guess of yesterday was wrong. The “quitters” won. And I felt a bit of fool because I had reached that same conclusion long ago that Brexit would take over. I thought so for a good deal of time and only changed my mind during the very last stretch of the process, influenced I was by the bookmakers and the financial analysts and other stock market gurus.

Well, that´s how it is now.

But one should raise the question, once again, about the professional competence of the financial analysts. They are paid fortunes, they work in large teams, they have all the information and techniques, and then they end up by messing up.

The polls were also wrong. It was less surprising though as this was a vote of a unique type and there were little past references to guide the extrapolations.

It´s true that the score came as a big surprise. Many of my British friends were simply shocked. They work in international places and could not understand the choice made by the majority of the voters.

That´s democracy.

Now, the point is for the EU to prepare very well for the negotiations with the UK. On the European side, it is important to have a clear understanding about the EU´s interests and be resolute in their defence. It is also important to show that this is a true and tough negotiation. The people in the different corners of Europe have to see this discussions as exemplary.

It is also critical to rethink the relationship between the EU institutions and the citizens. It´s time to take this matter seriously, well beyond grandiloquent declarations and be able to show that the institutions are dealing with the issues that matter for the citizen. There is a need for narrow focus, good communications and political courage. 

The referendum outcome

My intention is to write these words before the first results start coming out of the British polling stations. Just to say that for many weeks I thought –and anguished – the exit response would win the day and the UK would vote for the exit from the EU. And then, during the last couple of days or so, I began to believe that the Remain vote could gain the upper hand. And I am still convinced that will be the case.

In a few hours, I will know the answer to my guess. 

A divided Britain

I watched this evening´s BBC debate on the UK´s European referendum. And I was very impressed by two of the Remain supporters: the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, a Labour politician, and the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson. They are excellent debaters and, being still relatively young, they are rising stars. Both will certainly have a lot to contribute to their country´s political life. Their main opponent was Boris Johnson, the Conservative sacred bull, a very well informed and smart fellow, and also an excellent orator. But he comes out as disingenuous, as someone who is above all self-centred and concerned with taking advantage of any opportunity to advance his own ambitions.

The debate was a bitter one. This has been an extremely divisive time for the UK. It has turned political friends into acrimonious enemies. Whatever the outcome of the vote on Thursday – I hope it will be in favour of keeping the EU membership – the British political landscape will come out radically changed. A new type of alliances will be formed within the key political parties. And half of the country will feel terribly left behind. That´s certainly not good. 

Germany and NATO

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, is an important player in European affairs. Thus, it is always wise to listen to his public statements. Tomorrow´s edition of the Bild am Sonntag newspaper will carry an interview with him. As I get to understand it, the Minister seems critical of the current approach NATO is following on Russia. He recognises the relations with Moscow are not good at all. But he thinks that escalating NATO´s military presence in Poland and the Baltic States is not the answer.

That´s an interesting position. It is obviously contrary to the current policy options within the Alliance. Moreover, Steinmeier has been aware for a good deal of time of the ongoing exercises that NATO is implementing in Poland and in the vicinity of Russia. Why did he consider necessary wait so long before stating his views? Why are those views expressed through an interview and not in the more reserved decision-making forums that are available? What should be the reading of such a position at this stage? And a few more questions, of course.

Trump is a dangerous candidate

I watched Donal Trump´s speech on Orlando´s tragedy. That was the day after the heart-breaking act of extreme folly. He had hence time to organise his thoughts and decide on the messages. And what came out should be seen as a very dangerous approach to peaceful relations between diverse communities, at the domestic level, and also to international affairs. Dangerous because the speech was well delivered and could be easily understood by those who have a primary approach to life in America. And seen as convincing. Dangerous because it put across the absurd belief that Muslims in the US know about terrorist intentions and radical people but keep quiet. Dangerous because it was about open confrontation and stigmatisation. Dangerous again because it was about lies, including about the President, who has been very active in the fight against terrorism in many parts of the world, including through the controversial drone killing programme. And above all, it was a excellent reminder that Trump is a danger himself, and should not be allowed to get going without being seriously challenged, particularly by those within the leadership of his own party.