I'm a parliamentary assistant in the European parliament and a satirical blogger, AMA !

/u/dns99 from **/**r/AskEurope asked : How does EU look at further unification i.e. federation: one central bank, one military...

Federation is a whole debate, but I’d say it’s very unlikely even in the long run. You have some very hardcore federalist like Verhofstadt, but even among those who are in favour of a very deep level of integration, very few want (or think it possible/realistic) an EU that would end up being somethink like the US or Germany or any other federal state. Because it doesn't correspond to what people want and you would have a shitload of problems (different culture, languages, need to have the approval of all the current countries, etc.) to deal with.

Nonetheless, many in the Eurobubble think that the EU should be deeper than what it is currently, notably because in some sector an EU approach would make much more sense and also to build a direct link with citizens (90% of what the EU does is invisible to the average citizen). But you don't need a USA-like state for that.

On the central bank, the Eurozone already has one, the ECB, whose main role is to ensure the financial stability of the monetary union.

The one military, you can forget it (sorry-not-sorry for all those who believed the EU army scarecrow was a thing) beyond some very symbolic things, because it would be unpractical and almost impossible to run. The Member States have very different level of military power, different military doctrines (from the traditionnaly neutral states like the Nordic states to the heavy-weight like France), different strategic priorities (the Eastern and Nordic states being focused on Russia, Greece and Cyprus focused on Turkey, Italie on the Mediterranean, France on the Middle-East and Africa, etc.) and the list goes on and on. That being said, Brexit (since the UK has always been reluctant to any kind of EU defense policy) and the panic that Trump created when he more or less threatened to pull the plug on NATO (that was the sacred thing for a lot of EU countries, especially those in the East who are scarred shitless of Russia) created a vaccuum that allowed the EU to relaunch its defense policy, by deepening the level of military cooperation between most EU countries (which disappointed France, who would have prefered far more tight group of countries but that would be ready to get their hands dirty and put boots on the ground to support the French army). In practice the EU now will finance some military relevant research, encourage European military projects (for instance the Franco-German future airfighter or the European consortium for military drones), increase the security/military effectiveness of the Galileo satellite constellation (aimed at making the EU independent from the US GPS and the Russian GLONASS), etc.

Apart from that, there are many things the EU could and wish to unify further, where national approach would be meaningless, either by having common laws, approaches or bodies: EU digital policies, fight against climate change, the European prosecutor (to prosecute some crossborder or EU-threatening crimes), fiscal rules, etc.

The main EU idea is to act where it would make sense to act together. Otherwise you leave it up to the Member States. That’s a subsidiarity principle, which is key in European law.

sorry-not-sorry for all those who believed the EU army scarecrow was a thing

the panic that Trump created when he more or less threatened to pull the plug on NATO

I think most of the people that talk about an EU Army imagine a direct replacement of NATO (or at least a parallel entity), so the EU defense will get disengaged from US internal politics.

It wouldn't replace NATO, but I do imagine a European Defence policy could exist alongside NATO and be complementary to it, allowing for more European autonomy on these matters.

isn't there already a clause that if one country gets invaded the other have to help?

Indeed there's a mutual defense clause (copy-pasted that from the Eur-Lex website):

The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between EU countries in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all EU countries. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain EU countries and is consistent with the commitments of EU countries which are NATO members.

This provision is supplemented by the solidarity clause (Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) which provides that EU countries are obliged to act jointly where an EU country is the victim of a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster.

However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain EU countries and is consistent with the commitments of EU countries which are NATO members.

What happens if the aggressor is for example Turkey towards Greece or Cyprus, since they are a NATO member? What takes precedence?

Well, I'd say it would depend of the type of agression.

If it's low-key (airspace violation for instance), both EU and NATO would call for dialogue and let the concerned parties deal with it.

Greece, Turkey and Cyprus have been on the verge of war several times, but it didn't fully blow because everyone from NATO to the EU told people to chill out. But should something really serious happen, then EU membership would take precedence I'd say (because Turkey is not a part of it, while NATO would not be able to intervene).

Because of that, Turkey would back off, because they know they would be no match for either a military action from powerful EU States or the economic sanctions (that would shatter the Turkish economy).

Problem is, Turkey will probably go for a Crimea landgrab scenario, not a full on war (They already have a track record with Northern Cyprus). I wonder if the EU will lift a finger then, or just protest.

You can landgrab a weak, isolated country, especially when you have by a high level of superiority (military and economic).

Turkey would have way too much to lose in this, because it's economy relies heavily on the EU and because on the military side, they would get wrecked by a European coalition (France, Italy and Greece alone would have a field day) without any possibility of back up from either NATO or anyone else (Russia isn't going to move a finger if it risks an open and direct conflict with the EU).

The EU would have to react, because if it doesn't, then it's just the end of the Union, because it would have showed that it doesn't help its Members when they are most in need. And right after, you can bet that Russia would just roll in the Baltic States just for the kick of it and because the EU would have proved it wouldn't act.

It didn’t fully blow? I hope you are referring to the period after 1974. Your answers are too plain I think. Do you think Germany would help Greece in a war against Turkey? Just because they are in the EU? I’m sorry to say but the reality is more complicated than that.

Of course reality is more complicated than that, but I can't make a full 10 page essay ;)

And no, war didn't fully blow between Turkey and a Member of the EU (Greece joined only in 1981 and Cyprus in 2004).

Germany would not help Greece/Cyprus in an open war, because of its military doctrine and its big Turkish diaspora. But if shit really hits the fan, it becomes a question of survival for the EU (for reason I told above, if you don't draw a line in the sand, then other, more powerful, will cross that line) so they would not stay idle.

NATO has always been a defensive treaty

If one NATO member attacks another (e.g. Turkey attacking Greece) NATO is bound to defend Greece

If one NATO member attacks a non-member (e.g. Turkey attacking Cyprus), neither is NATO obliged to help Turkey nor are NATO countries prohibited from aiding Cyprus against Turkey (at least to repel the invasion, when it comes to a counter-invasion or bombing Turkey it becomes a bit more murky)

So legally, nothing takes precedence, both are entirely compatible

Legally for sure, politically that's another story ;)

Thanks for doing this! Really interesting to hear things coming from the management :)

ECB does exist, so does EBA, EIB and so on. Then you have central banks of member countries that take what ECB/EBA defined and change it.

Completely unnecessary.

Few other questions: What about fiscal stuff... Forgot to mention that and health insurance. There is where most of bruto/netto difference from our salaries go and some countries are extremely bad at this.

Corruption et the EC and Parliament? Are they aware that this is a thing? How do they think to improve transparency ... Because websites are not very good.

How do they look on disconnect between high politics and regular people? Overregulation like defining curvature of bananas and stuff?

Fiscal policies are an area that the Parliament and the Commission would love to get moving but that the Council blocks because they are very jealous of their own competence. And since you need the unanimity of Member States to move on these things, it's supra slow.

On health insurance, you have the European card that allows citizen to benefit from their health insurance all over Europe, but apart from that i don't know what is exactly done in that field. I think that Juncker wanted to do stuff on that as part of his Social Europe policies, but not sure.

On the difference of salaries among Member States, I read that it goes from 1 to 10 for the same job (hence the social dumping, that the revision of the Posted worker directive is supposed to help sort out).

Corruption : There must be cases in the EC and Parliament of course (just like in any organisation), but the EU does not look lightly on that and whenever it can OLAF (the European anti-fraud office) goes stirs some trouble.

The regulation on the curve of bananas is a myth. A lot of what the EU does is very technical indeed, not visible but very necessary nonetheless even if the average citizen doesn't see it. Look at the Brexit negotiation and you'll realise how many useful things the EU is doing.

On health insurance, you have the European card that allows citizen to benefit from their health insurance all over Europe

This is only for temporary visits to Member States other the one you reside.

Indeed, sorry for the imprecision.

/u/horatiowilliams from **/**r/AskEurope asked : Will it be possible in the future for non-EU citizens to apply for EU citizenship directly without going through a member state?

Nope, I don’t see how it could be possible, unless the EU becomes a fully fledge state (which is not even nearly on the agenda). The EU citizenship does not exist on its own (one could even argue that it has only a political existence and not a legal one), because the EU is not a country, it’s a (sort of) international organisation. That’s why the EU citizenship can only exist complementarily to a (EU) national one, mostly as a political statement (to create a European state of mind for citizens) because the rights that goes with it (freedm of circulation, mandatory assistance from other EU countries, etc) are in fact attached to the national citizenship.

If you wanted to get a self-standing EU citizenship, it would be an absolute nightmare for thousands of reasons of different reason, practical, legal and political.

/u/aanzeijar from **/**r/AskEurope asked : I don't know if you have numbers on that ready, but I'd like to hear a bit about the regulatory weight of the EU. Specifically, a while back Tesla tried to introduce their custom charging stations and Germany shut it down with a figurative "our way or the autobahn, fuckers", but Germany alone can not establish standards on an international level. The EU however can. How much of a say does the EU have in international standardization situations? I doesn't seem to work out very well in the automotive industry from what I hear.

The regulatory weight of the EU is huge, just because of the size of its market. The EU single market is the biggest economic area in the world, with 500 million potential customers. And to get access to that market you must respect the EU rules, so it will be interesting for companies or countries to adapt themselves to the EU regulatory framework, especially if they see that it is efficient.

To take a recent example, the scandals about personal data on Facebook and Cambridge Analytica put the spotlight on the EU Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that will be applicable from next month and which is the most advanced and citizen friendly in the world. Because of that you have more and more countries that are reforming their data protection rules and taking the EU law as a model (even the US, which has been highly critical of this EU law is now looking at it). The same goes with security measures in manufactured goods, health standards, etc. Because a good legislator will always look at what other countries do, to see if it works and if having the same rules would make thing easier for his own country. And a legislator knows that if he makes a good law, it can be used as a model by others and thus give his own country a comparative advantage.

This regulatory weight is also at the core of the EU trade agenda. Because trade is about recognizing the standards of the other and impose them as a model. Meaning that if you have a very important part of the economic market that decides to trade on the basis of a set of regulatory standards, the other countries will have no choice but to follow these rules, in order not to be cut from these huge markets. Basically all the trade negotiation made by the EU (whether with Canada, Mercosur, Mexico, etc.) is a race to determine whose regulatory model will be the world reference/standard in the future : European, American or Chinese.

On trade, the EU is having a field day ever since Trump got elected because he scared off many commercial partners of the US, that preferred in the end to get deals with the EU instead of an unpredictable and protectionist partner. That’s why you have negotiations with the EU that were advancing slowly (Japan, Mexico, etc.) before Trump that suddenly hit the full throttle and got concluded super fast, with the non-EU countries being ready to suddenly accept demands from the EU that they were refusing before. That allowed the EU to score some serious victory about the protection of their regional products, for instance to ensure that only Parmigiano cheese (Parmesan) produced in Italy can be sold under the name Parmigiano in Canada or Mexico.

By the way, this is known as "the Brussels effect", and is of tremendous importance worldwide. See here for more info. It's long, but even the intro is fascinating.

On YouTube..

Very interesting, I might share that on my twitter, cheers :)

Regarding the last bit, not all products will have this protection, I think. For example, Manchego cheese being sold in Mexico not being originally from Spain. Why? Is it just what was the result of negotiations before signing the trade deals?

GPIs (like Manchego) are the big EU trade crusade. Currently regional products have no recognition/protection at all beyond EU borders, meaning that any company could sell cheese in Mexico and call it Manchego. What the EU is doing is through its trade agreement is to get countries to recognise the concept of GPIs and protect directly a number of them (depending on the priorities due to the bilateral market structure), but that list is not closed and will be constantly evolving. Meaning that in the future, Mexico could agree to add Manchego to the list of protected products as GPIs. So in the current case, the EU-Mexico trade deal doesn't include Manchego, but you can count on the EU (and Spain) to push for its inclusion later.

/u/konbini_man from **/**r/AskEurope asked : I want to know why you guys seem to work so few hours a day and still get paid a whole lot of €€€

You can insist on the word “seem”. It depends of course of the kind of job you’re having (civil servants being in a different category than assistants), but if you take the example of assistants, we are far from chilling at work. The key word for our job is “flexibility”, meaning that you arrive and you leave work when it is required, no matter if it’s 18:30, 03:00, a Tuesday or a Sunday. When it’s crunch time, you can forget your weekends or any kind of free time. It happened lots of times to me to be at the office from Monday to Sunday for a month and a half straight, to work without sleeping for several days or work/get calls until very late in the night. And you don't get “bonus” time-off to balance that, you make do.

For civil servants it’s different, they have a more “regular” schedule, but they’re not working “so few hours”.

On the pay, it’s true that you can be really well paid (at least in the institutions themselves), but it’s a usual thing in international organisations, because those jobs require highly skilled people and because it’s a way to “ensure” the loyalty (you don’t want them to work for their own country or someone else because they give them a check) and keep these people and their knowhow within the institution. That being said, it’s true that you can sometime have truly ridiculous pay that don’t match in any way the work that is actually done, even if there are safeguards to avoid abuses.

/u/IrishFlukey from **/**r/AskEurope asked : Expansion, particularly Turkey, will be a possibility.

The current official EU policy is no expansion at least until 2025, although it seems unlikely there will be an expansion soon after, given the ground most of the candidate countries still have to cover.

But in the long run there is a wide consensus on the fact that the Balkan states will enter the EU, and a question marks for the Eastern countries bordering Russia (both the EU and Russia are fighting for influence, the EU being very appealing but Russia equally as threatening).

Turkey is a particular case, because basically everyone knows that they will never ever enter the EU, because 1) an adhesion requires unanimity of the Member States and some of them are dead opposed to it and 2) because of the dire turn Turkey has been taking lately in terms of human rights, rule of law, etc. But, as both side do not want to take the political responsibility and cost of being the one to put an end to the process, the talks are just frozen on and on.

The EU is less appealing to countries like Belarus than you may think. Within the Eurasian economic union, their industrial and agricultural goods can compete and find a niche on the market. I doubt the EU is willing to give up the market share of their own companies to Belarussian dairy products and buses. We can see what happens when a country that is industrially tied to Russia decides to break off said ties on hopes of eventual EU ascension in the face of Ukraine.

That's why I'd put a question mark on any expansion in the East, because while geographically, country like Ukraine or Belarus are EU-compatible, there's a shitload of reasons that would also play into this. And I agree that in the case of Belarus, Russia is much more appealing.

I think ultimately it depends on EU russia relations in the following 2-3 decades. As a Russian, I would personally like to see a strong EU. I feel a lot more threatened by a strong US

Why is that, if you don't mind my asking ?

from memory, turkey has asked for EU membership before the UK. well technically it wasn't called the EU back then but you got the idea

Turkey's candidacy dates back from 1987 (before that they were an associate member, like the UK), while the UK first candidacy dates back from 1961 (but was vetoed by France).

Why did France veto the UK?

Because the President of that time (De Gaulle) saw the UK as a "Trojan horse" of the USA (especially since at the beginning of the EU UK tried, and failed, to sink it through the EFTA), because he never trusted the UK ever since WWII (some problem he had with Churchill if I remember correctly) and because he saw the UK as being too different from continental Europe, both culturally and economically.

And for good measure, he vetoed the UK again in 1967.

/u/celtic_caravan from **/**r/AskEurope asked : Here that's a good idea actually, u/mepassistants how fucking thrilled are you all to be shot of this ^ kind of guy?

To give context, the question was after a British user said “EU Boooooo”.

Most people in the Eurobubble are not particularly thrilled (quite the opposite) about losing the British and the UK, but they made their peace with it and just want to get on with it. Now the fact that UK is leaving could be used as an opportunity to deepen the action of the EU in some areas (defense, social, fiscal, etc.) that the UK was blocking.

In any case, people critical of the EU are not found only in the UK (they were probably just the most vocal/brainwashed about it), but in the case of the British ones, good for them (less good for the rest of the country) and good luck. Personally I could not care less.

/u/VictorVenema from **/**r/europe asked : American firms mostly move faster and thus dominates the propitiatory software market. One would thus expect Europe to help its own software industry by supporting Open Software (plus many other reasons). Are there any reasons why Europe does not do this (both EU and national governments)?

Europe supports Open format, whether for software, research, public data, etc. It will usually either build upon or support national policies or provide funding, platforms or stakeholder forum to improve it. It supports it for a wide range of reasons (interoperability, security, AI development, etc.) and it can take many forms (financing, exchange of information/good practices, bug-hunt, etc.). It may not be very visible because: 1) it’s not the absolute top EU priority, 2) the EU has mostly soft powers in this field (it doesn’t have the competence and/or the sector only request a “light touch” approach not laws) and 4) the EU doesn’t have a lot of money or means to pour into that (the annual budget of the EU is around 140 billion € vs 3500 billion € for the USA).

Here is the official EU Strategy on Open Software : https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/informatics/open-source-software-strategy_en

If in open source we don't want to reinvent the wheel, hiring 20 developers to work with upstream projects like libreoffice and KDE would be peanuts for EU and would greatly improve status of those projects. Is there a way to have EU somehow do this? Or this needs to be done from private sector pulling those subsides?

The EU always prefers to let private/public initiative (where the actual expertise is) lead the way and then support it.

/u/GDPRThr0w4way from **/**r/AskEurope asked : GDPR pls?

Best data protection rules in the world. Facebook was kind enough to mess up big time lately and show how relevant the European rules (against which they fought tooth and nails) are. Now a lot of people and countries are looking into it to do the same back home.

The core principle of the GDPR is about making sure that people control their data and consent explicitly and clearly about them being used. Meaning that you must have the option to decide what personal data you want to share, be informed if your data are collected and agree specifically to it and ultimately be able to request the deletion of these data. And if companies don’t play by the book, they can get fined up to 4% of their global turnover.

At the time when it was being made, this regulation was the biggest regulatory battle of all time in the EU (there was about 4 000 amendments on the file in the European Parliament, which is absolutely huge and the absolute record).

/u/ViniisLaif from **/**r/AskEurope asked : What would interest me is the ‚attitude‘ in EU, that is to say: do you feel a lack/enormous amount of passion in people working there? A common theme in these institution is ‚just be there‘ for you paycheck and similar things. At least i‘m interested in it. What i‘d also care for is how you got the job (because working for the EU is essentially my dream job)

People working in the Eurobubble are generally passionate about what they do, because they usually are very pro-European and they see their work as a way to be a part of it and have a concrete impact. Of course, you will always have people who things only for the check, especially if they stayed very long in the Eurobubble.

Then on how I got my job, I have a very typical experience: finished my studies, got an internship in the Parliament, did a good job at the time and got lucky enough to get a full-time job as assistant afterward. The most important part is usually the internship (unless it’s a political appointment), because that’s where you will learn how things work in practice. you can be a very brilliant person, but if you don’t know how the Parliament or the Eurobubble works in practice and how to get things done, then you are not very useful to your boss.

/u/VictorVenema from **/**r/europe asked : The new EU privacy regulation is a current theme, I guess. Looks like a clear improvement. Maybe too much of a detail, but what I do not understand is what exactly is "personal data". Would that include a comment below a blog post or newspaper article and would we thus now get the right to delete such comments?

Personal data will be for instance your name, birthday, age, address or basically anything that can allow someone to identify you either on its own or by combination.

Here is the official legal definition from the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR):

> ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

Now on the example you give, in my understanding it would not be considered as personal data, because it doesn’t give anything about your identity or anything (unless you are identified by name or some other personal data in this comment). What can be deleted (under the so called “right to be forgotten”) is any personal data that you gave away in the past, either because the specific purpose for which you gave these data has been completed (for instance you completed a survey once) and is no longer needed, because the data has been unlawfully used (think Cambridge Analytica) or because you decided to withdraw your consent for these personal data to be out there (for instance you want to delete your personal info from a dating website).

what about mail address and name for commits in a DVCS system like git (used by GitHub)?

there every commit has a hash which changes completely if some bit is altered leading to the following commit history to be invalid. it's very important for various reasons...

would the right to be forgotten apply there? if so it could cause serious problems to open source contributions.

anyway when one publishes a commit, he agrees to share whatever name and mail address he used when creating the commit (and those could also be fake)...

Given how specific the case is, I cannot answer for sure, but in pure theory I think it could apply, even if the person (as you said) gave ihis consent to put his name and address out there (which makes the initial process of the data ok).

You have exceptions to the right to be forgotten, but mostly if the process/use of the personnal date relates to public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes or because of legal obligations. So I don't think Github would fall in there.

That being said, maybe there are ways around that that would not screw up commits. For instance replacing the name/addresses by a pseudo.

But then again, very specific case and I'm not sure the case will arise (and if it does, either the Courts or data protection watchdogs will have to provide guidance)

/u/dns99 from **/**r/AskEurope asked : One more question: are the people there aware that EU websites are crap? Most od the stuff is unusable without Google...

Well I suppose they optimised everything to work well with Google, because of the fact that Google owns 92,5% of the market in Europe. That being said, it’s true that a lot of these website are far from being efficient and easy to use, Google or not.

One thing that repeatedly came up when I talked with EU people was that they said "but you can watch/read this thing totally transparently on our website!"

Yeah, on subpage 100 that I have to guess which category it might be in and how to reach it...

Yeah I know, it's terrible :/

The one-thing that is buried in there but that is wonderful is the research service, that makes tons of great thematic notes, infographics, etc. Don't hesitate to check it out !

EPRS : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/20150201PVL00031/European-Parliamentary-Research-Service EPRS blog : https://epthinktank.eu/ My personal favourite : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/home.html

/u/r1200gs2007 from **/**r/eu asked : Is there a schedule for MEPs and Presidents meeting EU citizens ? Business associations, Educational establishments.

There is no official schedules per say. Dialogue with citizens or anyone else can pretty much happen every day. For MEPs it depends of their own agenda, that they are free to organise by themselves, and in the form that they prefer (whether public meetings, talking in schools, taking part in events, etc.). The only thing the Parliament does is to reserve weeks in the official calendar (the so-called green/turquoise weeks) where there will be no official Parliament meeting to give MEPs clear and certain timeslots to have external parliamentary activities (whether meeting citizens in their constituency or going on a delegation trip somewhere in the EU or outside).

For the Commission they have local representations in all the Member States that are used to organise “citizen dialogue” or events. You also have a lot of pro-EU associations that organise debates or events about the EU and where they will invite MEPs, experts, Commission officials, local authorities, businesses, etc. alongside citizens. I’m sure that if you look for such events in your country/region, you can find plenty of opportunities.

Now, given the proximity of the European elections, you will have more and more official events organised so that citizens may meet EU officials or debate about Europe (see the European consultations spear-headed by Macron that will take place in every Member States except Hungary).

Fellow Eurobubbler here.

1. Do you agree Thursday night at Plux is vastly over-hyped? (Unless it's sunny and you're getting a beer from the Deli, of course.)

2. Any stereotypes to share on assistants from different unis? College of Europe, Maastricht, Oxbridge, LSE...

3. How the hell did you get in? Are you (a) from a small country, (b) from an expat family that speaks 30 languages, (c) have some nice contacts on the inside, or (d) one of those guys that did 1,000 extracurricular activities? (Totally not bitter.. I'll just be chilling in my little NGO near you guys...)

1. Plux can be overrated indeed, but personally I find it fun, especially in Spring/Summer, because everyone is there and you can talk with people from all over that you would not have met otherwise.

2. No particular stereotypes comes to mind, sorry :/

3. I simply applied for an internship with a MEP, got lucky adn made my through ever since :). a) can mostly help you if you want a job as a civil servant (because you have quotas per Member States, and it's harder to find people from the small ones), b) (only for the 30 language part) is very useful no matter what, c) and d) can help as well.

a) can mostly help you if you want a job as a civil servant (because you have quotas per Member States, and it's harder to find people from the small ones),

Is that not also the case with traineeships?

I simply applied for an internship with a MEP, got lucky adn made my through ever since :)

Mmhmm, gooo ooonn... What's your profile like? Gotta help us dox you somehow. ;)

I'm going on my third application attempt and it feels Sisyphean. It appears I'm a peasant with only 2.5 languages, 4 internships in EU affairs and a Masters from a Russell Group university. ^{Totally. Not. Bitter. Gaaaaaahhhhhh....}

Nope, from my understanding you don't have country quotas for internships (at least in the Parliament, I don't know for the Commission's "Bluebook" system).

On my profile, I'll just say that it is relatively average ;) I know the process to get in is frustrating, but just keep at it, watch your timing, do your homework before applying, and with a bit of luck it'll work out :)

/u/mothdetective1 from **/**r/eu asked : Hello! Some things I'd be personally interested in knowing more about if it helps-

what sort of educational/ experience background do people have in the euro bubble? I'm guessing it depends on the job but would you say many people come from elite schools or anything like that?

how do people on the inside of the bubble feel about lobbies?

what is the eu currently doing to tackle fake news/ ignorance about itself?

how is the relationship with the council of Europe

are many people on the inside of the bubble fédéralists?

- You will find a wide diversity of profiles in the Eurobubble, depending on the kind of job people have. You’ll find political sciences, communication, EU studies, Public affairs, law, specialised fields, etc. But as those jobs usually require the mastery of several languages and specific knowledge, de facto I think that people come from what you would call “elite schools”. Not much because it’s voluntary but because these schools have a good reputation and provide the necessary skillset. There are of course a lot of exceptions, it is not a requirement to come from these schools.

- On lobbies (generally speaking, whether companies or NGOs as lobbying is just the action of defending an interest), people in the Eurobubble mostly have a neutral feeling about it, because it is widely accepted, very present (Brussels is second only to Washington in terms of number of lobbies), mostly transparent/framed and considered useful/legitimate. So for us, it’s a non-issue, even if we know people have a bad image of it because they associate it (wrongly) with automatic corruption. You can find here a long post I made on the subject : http://mepassistant.tumblr.com/post/115390262924/could-you-tell-us-more-about-of-lobbying-there-is

- On the fake news/ignorance about the EU, that’s the biggest weakness of the EU and it always tried to fight against it. On the question of fake news, the EU is launching initiatives to tackle it (especially as we all know that there will be a shitload of fake news during the European elections next year) through soft law mostly (code of conduct, pushing platforms to do more against it, etc.). And of course the EU will be organising, as usual, as many events and communication tools as possible to spread information about the EU toward the citizens.

- Relationship with the council of Europe : there is a (good) relationship but it’s minimal I would say, as the EU and the Council of Europe are 2 different organisations, with different goals, role, members, etc.

- On the federalist question, it will depend of what you call federalist. You have of course a very large majority of people who are pro-EU and support a strong and integrated Europe, but not necessarily in the form of a federal state. Those in favour of that are, I think, a minority and/or consider it possible only in the very long term.

Do you have some examples of common ‘elite schools’? I wanted to have a career related to this, in the legal/political side of things, however Brexit has pretty much forced me to change my plans.

Depends of your Member States, but if you're British I'd say LSE, OxBridge, etc. At the European level, the one elite school that is meant for European affairs is the "Collège de Bruges".

In terms of field of studies, law, political sciences, economics would be the top pick I'd say. Or a specialised area if you want to work as an absolute expert in a field.

Thank you for the response. I’ve think I’ve looked into that university before, since it’s for postgraduate I guess my undergraduate won’t matter as much? I’ve been looking mainly into law & international relations/politics.

Your undergraduate will matter because there is a selection. Law and international relations/politics would indeed be the best way to have the proper background to get in the Collège, I think.

Thank you for your help! This gives me something to aim towards as the path is now clearer. Do you know any alternatives in case I do not get accepted?

You can apply to jobs/internships without going through the Collège, most of the people aren't graduate from there.

With Brexit looming and the US becoming more unreliable ally each day, do you think that we might see a return to French as the primary lingua franca (before the UK joined the EC) of the European institutions or at least a weakening of the predominant status of English in favor of other languages, considering that most the EU's political centers are in French speaking cities or simply as a means of the EU to distinguish itself from the Anglo-Saxon bloc? Are there people already advocating for this? What are your personal feelings on this matter?

It seems unlikely I think, at least in the short term. French will regain importance for sure, but English will remain the lingua franca I think, simply because more people speak it.

You have of course francophiles (who said Quatremer ?) who want to get rid of English all-together after Brexit, and people like Juncker like to play on that to piss the British off but that's pretty much it.

1. What was the atmosphere in the Parliament like right after the announcement of the Brexit referendum results? How's the atmosphere due to it now?

2. Also, was there any funny/serious accident in the Parliament you vividly remember?

Thanks in advance.

1. Most people (includng those advocating for Brexit) were not expecting at all Brexit to win. So there was a moment of shock and depression in the Eurobubble, because people were very sad that citizens believed lies about the EU to the point of acting against their own interest and some concern about what it would mean for the future of the EU. Now people moved on, in the sense that they accepted that Brexit will happen and the only priority is to defend the interests of Europe and to have the EU move forward.
2. The one event that was very odd was last year I think, there was allegedly a fight between UKIP MEPs during an internal meeting and one of them (Steven Woolfe if I remember correctly) took a hard punch. The thing is that later that day, during the vote, the guy felt suddenly bad, left the hemicycle and just dropped unconscious in the hallway before the hemicycle. But there are plenty of funny things happening in the Parliament all the time.

Apologies for piggybacking on to the reply, but for me it brings up a couple of issues, namely:

1) Given what you said I think the EU completely missed the strength of feeling in certain sections of the population against the Union. From my perspecitve, having grown up with some people who were Eurosceptic and indeed voted leave, this feeling has been growing for years. I'm not sure if I was disappointed in the result or not but I certainly wasn't surprised. They, and I, feel wholly disconnected from the EU.

The other is 2) This quote:

people were very sad that citizens believed lies about the EU to the point of acting against their own interest

Do those working within the EU parliament not believe that it's possible for citizens of EU countries to genuinely dislike the EU, or at least enough of it to want out? I've seen this attitude from a number of EU supporters on Reddit, that those who voted leave must have been lied to, or been victims of propaganda, or some other reason. As I've said, I know people who voted leave. They don't dislike the EU because of lies, they dislike the EU because of certain aspects of it that are absolutely true. People on the internet is one thing, but it's a bit worrying when even those working for the EU can't seem to accept that there are issues, or at least people who genuinely have issues with the EU.

No problem for the piggy-back :)

1) I'm simplifying of course (I could write tens of pages on the subject), but even if there can be legitimate concerns against/about the EU (that oftenly relates to the place people see their country/nation in the context of globalisation), in the case of the Brexit campaign you had a lot of pure lies about the EU (do I need to talk about the EU army or the NHS bus ?).

That being said, like you I personally wasn't very surprised by the result of the referendum, because we were talking about people who were told for 40 years every day that the EU is trash. You can't expect them, especially after the campaign there was, to vote to stay in the EU, just because the guy who was criticising the EU yesterday suddenly said "well we should stay nonetheless". Also, we know that the average citizen feels disconnected from the EU, for a great deal of reasons : the EU doesn't know how to communicate toward citizens (hence my question at the beginning of the AMA), the EU is a very complicated and technical subject, the media rarely cover/talk about the EU, the EU is the perfect scapegoat for Member States (all Member States love to do things in Brussels and once home either bash "Brussels" for the things they supported but do not want to take political responsibility for or take credit for things the EU did (see May when she tried to say that her policy to reduce plastic bag consumption was her idea while in fact it's an EU decision), etc...

2) We do believe that there can be genuine dislike of the EU or want out. Like I said above, there are legitimate concerns and the EU should answer those concerns. But a lot of people voted Leave because of the NHS (see where they are now), because they believed Europeans were taking their jobs, because they were afraid of the refugee crisis, because they thought that the EU was slowing the UK economy/opportunities, etc. But you can't deny at the same time that Brexit is going to be a tremendous bitch on the UK. The British government own assessment says that there will be a 2 to 8% GDP recession. In my opinion, the only ones who voted Leave and will be happy about Brexit no matter what are those who voted on "sovereignty" grounds, even if this sovereignty will be limited in reality. All the other will be screwed on the very grounds they voted Leave for.

I appreciate the reply, so thanks.

However.

we were talking about people who were told for 40 years every day that the EU is trash.

These leave voters I know did actually vote in originally, because they thought it was a good idea that we should be part of. It's the way that the EU has evolved since then that they have a problem with.

Although you say that you understand that people have legitimate criticisms, the quote that I've mentioned above suggests otherwise. It still implies that you believe they voted out because of lies and propaganda, not because they have legitimate concerns. Even in a reply to a different question you imply that those who voted leave did so because they were brainwashed.

a lot of people voted Leave because of the NHS (see where they are now), because they believed Europeans were taking their jobs, because they were afraid of the refugee crisis, because they thought that the EU was slowing the UK economy/opportunities

This was part of it, certainly, but the fact is that those I know beleive a country should be able to control it's own immigration, it's own trade deals etc. They are fine with immigration, they just want the UK to have the power to control how much we have. They weren't afraid of the refugee crisis but they think it was handled incredibly poorly by the EU.

you can't deny at the same time that Brexit is going to be a tremendous bitch on the UK

It may well be, and I accept that, but in another response you mention that the EU may make things harder for the UK (or at least not make things easier) because they don't want the Union falling apart. This is understandable but if countries would be better off outside the EU then why do we need a European Union? At least in the form that it's in now? What's wrong with countries being even more successful outside? The EU is not the goal, it is a possible route to that goal.

I understand that as an employee of the European Parliament you are overwhelmingly likely to be pro-EU but it still seems that you (and by extension the EP, as you're here representing them) cannot accept that some people genuinely dislike being in the EU. There seems to have been a huge underestimation of the strength of feeling amongst Eurosceptists and a continued misunderstanding of why people voted leave. It shouldn't be forgotten that they don't only exist in the UK.

If you want to deal with the Eurosceptic sections of the population you have to talk to them, to ask them about why they feel that way, to address their concerns. You can't just ignore them and write them off as victims of propaganda or (as many people seem to do) racists. That's where you should be focusing your efforts at improving communication. As with their feelings towards our own government, they feel ignored.

Question and answer sessions like this are a good idea but given that Eurosceptists (certainly here) tend to be older you need to hold them offline, on TV. Like how we have Question Time for our MPs.

These leave voters I know did actually vote in originally, because they thought it was a good idea that we should be part of. It's the way that the EU has evolved since then that they have a problem with.

Although you say that you understand that people have legitimate criticisms, the quote that I've mentioned above suggests otherwise. It still implies that you believe they voted out because of lies and propaganda, not because they have legitimate concerns. Even in a reply to a different question you imply that those who voted leave did so because they were brainwashed.

I fully acknowledge the concerns of people, but I do believe at the same time that these concerns were played with and pushed to a 10000% through lies or disinformation. At the same time I acknowledge that the Remain/EU failed to provide the info to either debunk lies (although data suggest that debunking has little effect) or answer those concerns.

This was part of it, certainly, but the fact is that those I know beleive a country should be able to control it's own immigration, it's own trade deals etc. They are fine with immigration, they just want the UK to have the power to control how much we have. They weren't afraid of the refugee crisis but they think it was handled incredibly poorly by the EU.

Then you joined the wrong organisation. Trade has always been a EU competence, which worked perfectly fine. Plus the EU doesn't act on its own, it does what the Member States (including the UK) tells it to do and negotiate, and in the end all Member States have to say aye to the deal.

On immigration, the UK has always been in control : it's not part of Schengen and obtained a shitload of opt-outs. And on the freedom of circulation of Eu citizens, it has always been part of the deal from day one.

On every matter the UK had its say at EU level.

The problem here is not the lack of effective control, it's that people believed they were not in control. And one reason (key in my opinion) is because it was the national sport for medias and politicians in the UK to blame everything on the EU.

This is understandable but if countries would be better off outside the EU then why do we need a European Union? At least in the form that it's in now? What's wrong with countries being even more successful outside? The EU is not the goal, it is a possible route to that goal

If a country believes it would be better off outside the EU, it's they very own right and nobody is forcing anyone to stay. But for those who want to stay, they have no reason to treat someone who is outside better than they treat themselves. If the UK is successful outside the EU, good for the UK (and good for the EU, because you remain a neighbour), but only as long as it doesn't threaten the interest of the EU itself. You can't blame us for defending our own interests as well ;)

I understand that as an employee of the European Parliament you are overwhelmingly likely to be pro-EU but it still seems that you (and by extension the EP, as you're here representing them) cannot accept that some people genuinely dislike being in the EU. There seems to have been a huge underestimation of the strength of feeling amongst Eurosceptists and a continued misunderstanding of why people voted leave. It shouldn't be forgotten that they don't only exist in the UK.

I understand that people can dislike the EU, that they don't exist only in the UK, etc. But indeed as someone who believes in it for me it seems "irrational" (just like I must appear like an absolute batshit crazy person for someone who dislikes the EU), but do not mistake it for disdain from my/our part. That's why, like you say, it's very important not to ignore them but to discuss, debate, try to convince, etc.

you had a lot of pure lies about the EU (do I need to talk about the EU army or the NHS bus ?).

Many prominent EU figures have called for an EU Army. From Juncker in 2015, to even the more Eurosceptic politicians like Hungary's Orban.

Not that its a bad thing - I think it would be great, especially considering how both Greece and Turkey are in NATO despite increasing tensions - but in hindsight the speculation about it wasn't far off.

There's a difference between the political speech and the reality or the realm of possible ;)

Hello! I’m from Finland, 16 years old and I’m interested lot in the EU.

1. Why is EU on the side of the consumer a lot more than companies?

2. Is there talks about the nvidia’s geforce partner program about hurting competition?

3. Why is it hard to get a unified decision in the parliament.

1. I don't know if the EU is more on the side of consumers than companies (you would have lots of people saying the exact opposite), but the EU is historically on a line Christian-democrat doctrine, where capitalism and free market must be balanced by protection for the citizens and the weakest. Also, since the EU isn't only a "market", it's important for the EU to do things for citizens and consumers.
2. I have honestly no idea. but if there is something that is meant to unfairly hurt competition, I'm sure the European Commission DG COMP (lead by the awesome Vestager) would love to hear about it.
3. It's not particularly hard I think, it just requires discussions and compromises, because no single political group holds the majority. So you always need to discuss with others and find compromises that will get a majority.

/u/Cartellion from **/**r/AskEurope asked : Would be interesting to hear something about the internal social dynamics of the EP. For example, are assisstants from groups like ENF generally less accepted than those from the 'constructive' groups? Also, what does the EP think of the dominant role of Germans? (Five group chairs and the SG and deputy SG). I know there was a VoteWatch poll about it recently, but I'd be interested in a more personal viewpoint. Lastly, any opinions on the changes to the statute on European political parties?

On the social dynamics : most of the time assistants know how to put aside their political differences and befriend one another depending of their affinities, just like anywhere else. It’s also encouraged because having good relations with the people on the other side makes the job easier for everyone (you don’t make compromise with someone you don’t trust at least a minimum) and you can get precious information or get support thanks to that. Plus, we all live in the Eurobubble, meaning that people will see each other outside of work, etc. So it’s very normal to see conservative people being friends with socialist, greens or whatever. That being said, you have indeed the ENF and the non-attached who are a bit of an exception and it will be more difficult for them to be accepted by people from the other groups, because their political groups and ideas have a very bad image. That doesn’t mean they are being stoned when we pass accross them in the Parliament, but the very large majority of people will avoid mixing or being seen with them.

On the dominant role of the German, that’s kind of an eternal debate, and it’s true that it makes a lot of people grumble. But to be fair to them, as Germany is the biggest EU country, they have the most people in the Parliament (and elsewhere) so mechanicaly they are in a more influencal situation, and Germans understood very well the interest of being involved and organised at European level. They have bright people, involved, with lots of experience and knowledge, etc. So in a way, they get the influence they deserve.

And on the change of statute regarding European political parties, it’s a good thing, because it was known to be used (mostly) by anti-EU parties to get money and finance themselves (as they are, ironically, oftenly incapable of being elected at national level and therefore get public funding). So the rules are now tighter to plug those loopholes.

So basically you are doing all the hard jobs and your boss is taking advantage of you, right? :)

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah our job is to prepare everything so that our boss just has to roll in and kick ass :)

Do you think your work has a positive impact on the Europeans ordinary life? Are you proud working in the European neighborhood not to far from a dirty, filled with homelles and beggars city center? How do you see this discrepancy in the capital of the EU?

Yeah, the work that we do does impact the European ordinary lives, but it's most of the time not visible for them : the safety protocols regarding what they eat is decided (partly) by the EU, the consumer protection mechanism are harmonised by the EU, the rules about data protection are determined by the EU, etc. In a sense, Brexit helped a bit people to realise how big the impact of the EU is on their lives.

And I have no problem with Brussels itself, even if it's a typical Belgian chaos :)

What do you think about an EU army/European Defence Force?

Is it needed? Is it feasible?

Not feasible if you mean a standing army like a national one, but you can do a lot of things on European Defence without going into that. But you could have a military solidarity (like NATO). And I do think that the EU needs a proper European Defence policy.

Also, I'll copy-paste what I replied earlier on a similar question : The one military, you can forget it (sorry-not-sorry for all those who believed the EU army scarecrow was a thing) beyond some very symbolic things, because it would be unpractical and almost impossible to run. The Member States have very different level of military power, different military doctrines (from the traditionnaly neutral states like the Nordic states to the heavy-weight like France), different strategic priorities (the Eastern and Nordic states being focused on Russia, Greece and Cyprus focused on Turkey, Italie on the Mediterranean, France on the Middle-East and Africa, etc.) and the list goes on and on. That being said, Brexit (since the UK has always been reluctant to any kind of EU defense policy) and the panic that Trump created when he more or less threatened to pull the plug on NATO (that was the sacred thing for a lot of EU countries, especially those in the East who are scarred shitless of Russia) created a vaccuum that allowed the EU to relaunch its defense policy, by deepening the level of military cooperation between most EU countries (which disappointed France, who would have prefered far more tight group of countries but that would be ready to get their hands dirty and put boots on the ground to support the French army). In practice the EU now will finance some military relevant research, encourage European military projects (for instance the Franco-German future airfighter or the European consortium for military drones), increase the security/military effectiveness of the Galileo satellite constellation (aimed at making the EU independent from the US GPS and the Russian GLONASS), etc.

/u/casekeenum7 from **/**r/AskEurope asked : I'd be interested to know whether the right for EU citizens to vote in municipal elections where they live in the EU (even if they aren't a national of that country) might ever be expanded to the national level. As someone who lives abroad it seems strange that I can vote in my home country, where whatever happens doesn't really affect me, but can't vote where I live, where the consequences are much bigger.

It would be up to the Member States to decide if they want to allow that at Eu level, but I would find it highly unlikely that they would authorised non-national to vote beyond the local/regional elections. That’s because of the meaning of the voting right.

The reason for which you can vote in national elections (and thus determine the direction a country as a whole will be going) is because you are a citizen of that country, a part of its nation (as an abstract concept, going beyond the mere addition of the people/population, in a way close to the soul of the country). As a non-national, you are not part of that nation, so you’re not legitimate to have your say on its fate. It’s especially because the consequences are much bigger that it’s a “VIP” only (meaning restricted to national citizens) right to vote.

Plus, on a practical level, Member States (or the EU) would argue that if you live long enough in a country, you can perfectly acquire the nationality and then be able to vote at national level.

What are your personal career ambitions and are they similar to other assistants in the EU? Curious to know if they link to the EU or politics in particular.

I don't have a career plan right now, I'd say that as long as i do something that I find interesting I don't care. But usually assistants want to capitalise on their Parliament experience, either by passing a concours to become a political group adviser or a Parliament/Commission civil servant, or work in lobbies, go back home to work for the government, etc.

But it's not an absolute, you have people who do completely different things after the Parliament.

Do you think that some European deputes are corrupted by foreign states? For example by Russia.

I know that there are suspicions about some particular MEPs being on the payroll of foreign states (such as Russia) and I'm sure that it happened, at least in the past. But, apart from illegal acts such as corruption, it's hard to draw the line between influence and adhesion.

In the case of Russia, you know that on the far right and the far left there are lots of MEPs who are very supportive, either because of ideological reason (rejection of the USA/capitalism, nostalgia for the USSR, nationalism etc.) or political reason (some groups are partly financed through Russian loans for instance).

Is it true that the recent Hungarian vetoes, which we did completely alone, like the one against China, or the EU-Africa agreement, are creating an echo against our opinion? How are we Hungarians viewed in the European Parliament?

Well Hungary (like Poland) is notoriously the "enfant terrible" of the EU and it has been giving the EU a lot of headaches for the past 10 years. They are seen as those who are very happy to take the EU money (and possibly to give it to their friends) but do not want to take any responsibility. Because of all that, Hungarians from Fidesz in the Parliament are not very well regarded and the EPP is criticised for keeping them among their ranks despite being one of the pro-EU groups. But even the EPP is more and more uncomfortable with Orban's policies (even if Orban is very smart and knows not to cross the red lines and to back off when necessary).

To some extent, Hungary is seen as a model for those who want the EU's role to be limited and who advocate for a more nationalistic approach of things (Hungary was the first to call itself an "illeberal democracy").

On the China vote though, don't forget Greece, that is protecting China whenever the EU does something on that, because China invested a lot in Greece for the few years.

Hello!

What do you think is the best deal between the EU and Britain after Brexit?

How is the EU planning to help/support those who voted IN in the referendum in the deals? Our government feels currently that 52% is enough for a hard brexit.

Do you think Britain would ever be able to re-enter the bloc in the future?

Finally, your favourite aspect of working in the EU parliament?

Thanks!! 😊

1. Currently the only deal made possible by the UK (because of its own red lines) would be a free trade agreement similar to the one with Canada. The infamous "Barnier slide" is very clear on that : http://www.powerinaunion.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-20171_Page_2-1024x724.jpg
2. Unfortunately the EU's responsibility is not toward the 48% (or the 52%) but toward its own citizens. That being said, as the EU insisted on maintaining the rights of EU citizens in the UK, it also means that the British rights within the EU will be maintained (at least until the end of the transition period, so until the end of 2020).
3. Of course. Nothing prevents the UK from applying to come back in the EU if it wishes to. But the UK will have to do the whole process of adhesion once again and it will need the support of all Member States.
4. The flexibility, the lack of routine, the cosmopolite aspect and the fact that we get to weight on things concretely.

What's your favourite flavour of ice-cream?

Uh, would either be Vanilla with bits of chocolate, lemon or strawberry.

And while you’re at it, can you give me your opinion on something: we always struggle in the European institutions to “connect” with citizens. It’s not by lack of trying, willingness or things to say, far from it, but rather a difficulty to find the proper channels or way to get to you guys and talk about Europe. So what in your opinion are the best ways to do that?

Shitpost on Twitter, promote /r/YUROP.

No, but seriously this is an issue. The EU helps people in ways no one knows. If people felt more connected to Brussels, euroscepticism wouldn't be on such a high.

I think a good first step would be to revamp how EU institutions use social media. The EU Commission and Parliament post videos on YT that are 2 minutes long and don't really explain anything. We should make good use of these platforms in a Kurzegast way to improve communication with the EU. From that point we'd also have more feedback and be able to improve things even further with more information.

Also, the EU website is shite, and all websites about the EU aren't really friendly. If you want to find a poll or research or new law you have to dig in for hours and more often than not you're not able to even find anything worthy. If you want to watch plenary sessions you need to download a million things, and I still didn't manage to do it.

Overall, I think we should embrace new means of communication and use them as much as we can in effective and meaningful ways.

Thx for the feedback :)

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to do a AMA.

As an Irish person, Brexit as me a bit confused about what will happen. Lots of uncertainty in where we are going to sell, what taxes will be placed on Britain. They are our biggest buyer for almost everything we produce. My Question is what does EU hope to get out of Brexit, how do they want it to play out? And what will happen in Northern Ireland? Me personally I would hate to see another "Hard Border" on our tiny island. I have friends in the North I'd like to visit without worrying about bringing a passport.

I think that the ideal option for the EU would have been the UK joining the EEA/EFTA countries (so Norway, Iceland, etc.). But the UK doesn't want that, so for now the most compatible option for both side would be a free trade agreement (see: http://www.powerinaunion.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-20171_Page_2-1024x724.jpg).

Northern Ireland will be a bitch to deal with, because both sides do not want a hard border (to safeguard the Good Friday Agreement), but it's only possible if Northern Ireland stays in the European custom union (the UK argues for a technological solution that is impossible to do). So for now the compromise is that the UK is supposed to propose a workable solution on that, but that if the UK fails to then the EU option (integrating NI in the custom union) will be the one applied.

From my limited knowledge leaving the EU means the UK would have to leave the EEA but that does not stop it from reapplying to the EEA/EFTA. When you say "the UK dosen't want that" do you mean its the UK government's policy to leave the EEA and have no plan of rejoining, if so what is the reasoning if you know for that view.

One other separate question: Do you think the EU has become too politicized and should have remained mainly as an economic union with a focus on trade, how much did this politicization contribute to Brexit?

Thanks.

It's the official UK position not to join EEA because it would cross their red lines (respecting the EU freedom of movement, having to follow EU law, be under the European Court of Justice jurisdiction and having to pay in the EU budget). Plus Norway already stated they not necessarily be keen on that because it would mess up the balance in the block and the advantages they get from it.

On the second question, I personally believe that the EU isn't too politicised, because a political union is in my opinion the best/only way to have Europe be relevant when facing giants like USA, Russia or China. From the very beginning of the European Union in the 50s, the political union was stated as an objective (the so-called "ever-closer union" principle) but to be pragmatic it would start from economic powers that over time would lead to political ones. The UK was fully aware of that when they joined (and contrary to common belief they openly said it in their national discourse, see here : https://medium.com/@UKIPNFKN/uk-voters-knew-the-1975-referendum-was-about-both-an-economic-political-union-with-the-rest-of-2f565b972cd6).

People maybe forgot about it, especially when later Europe bashing became the national sport.

I''d like to ask you about the influence the parliament has compared to the council and the commission. Most people who view the EU as having a democratic deficit view the EP as a toothless organization. Do you believe the parliament will gain influence (for example, having more of a say in the priorities or general direction the EU should take) or already has sufficient capacity? Do you personally believe its role should be expanded? How do other institutions or bodies regard further democratization?

Another question I have is how connected you believe people in the "Eurobubble" are to the people outside of it. Are there ways/methods to ensure people are not isolated from what happens in the rest of Europe?

Lastly, how powerful do you believe lobbyists are? I know that's a tough thing to answer to since I'm not giving a metric but do they play a pivotal role in decision making? Does civil society have comparable influence to corporations? Has there been a change in the balance in recent years?

In regards to the connection aspect, I'd say the biggest obstacle would be lack of identity. There is no larger European identity, and even where it exists language often forms a barrier. Connecting should happen through and on the local level. It requires the EU to be active in local debates/news/discusions, and not the other way around.

The Parliament gained a lot of power and influence over the years (and it's still fighting, especially with the Council, to gain more), but I'd say that the Council still has the upper hand. It's not very surprising because the EU is an international organisation (a very special one, with features close to the ones of a State, but still an international organisation) so the power resides with the governments that form this organisation. But it doesn't mean that the Parliament is utterly toothless, it made an entire Commission fall in the past (the Santer Commission at the end of the 90s), it made an international agreement fall apart (ACTA), it imposed its vision on the designation of the Commission President (the Spitzenkandidaten system), etc. As someone who works in the Parliament, I'm of course in favour of the role of the Parliament being expanded. And generally, the Commission tends to be supportive of the Parliament getting more power (as it legitimise the whole EU) while the Council hates it.

On the Eurobubble : as the name implies, it's true that it is a bubble. People working there live in the same areas, go to the same places, party with the same people, etc. The usual joke is to say that we have friends from Brussels, because while it's "easy" to have Finish, German or Greek friends, it's more difficult to know people who are truly from Brussels, because of all I mentioned before. It's also true, but with a lot of nuance, that people in the Eurobubble are not necessarily connected/relatable with the average citizen, but for many different reasons (the bubble is mostly composed of highly educated and cosmopolite people, with good jobs, thinking on a macro level, etc.). And we remain "people" : just like everyone else we shop our things, get problem with the local administration, pay our bills, etc.

On lobbying, it's a very long and interesting subject. To gain some time, here is a post I made on the subject a while ago : http://mepassistant.tumblr.com/post/115390262924/could-you-tell-us-more-about-of-lobbying-there-is . But to be short, lobbying is very necessary and useful (because no one is all-knowing), it's not about good or evil (for me a lobbying is a neutral toolbox that is used equally by the corporate lobby than the NGO, Monsanto and Greenpeace do exactly the same thing, with different tools, when it comes to lobbying) and it's ABOLUTELY NOT corruption. NGO love to do victimisation when it comes to lobbying (that they call "advocating" for the sake of being different and make their opponent seem evil) but that's part of their own lobbying strategies. In Brussels, lobbying is widely accepted and considered normal and it is regulated in ways that are much more developed than in pretty much all the Member States.

/u/Nirocalden from **/**r/AskEurope asked : What would you say (either personal opinion or backed with objective data) are areas where the* EU* has to improve or get more efficient in order to be a successful project in the next decades? Does the EU need more legitimisation by the people (e.g. Commission)? Does the parliament really have to move between two cities?

1. There are plenty of area where the EU has to do better or more, because it’s the only way to solve EU-wide problems and also to build something citizens can relate to: environment and climate change (even if the EU is pretty much the world leader in that field), social policies (even if it will never replace the Member States), defense, digital policies, fiscal rules, etc. But this is something the EU and many Member States are very aware of.
2. Depends who you’re talking to. The Council (representing the Member States) will say yes but in fact will do everything against that (because legitimising the EU would make Member States a bit more irrelevant), while the Commission and the Parliament will say an absolute yes and do everything for it (Juncker, the Commission President, said that he would prefer if the President of the Commission and the President of the Council was combined in a single post, so that people can clearly know the one guy that “leads” Europe). That’s also the idea behind the “spitzenkandidaten” process, that basically force the Council to designate as President of the Commission the leader of the list that won the European election (while before the Council appointed whoever they wanted according to their own political deals), to copy a bit the process that leads to the designation of a national Prime Minister after an election. You also have lots of people who believe that the President of the Commission should be directly elected during the European elections.
3. Yes because the official seat of the European Parliament is in Strasbourg (where all the votes in plenary take place) while Brussels is only a “working place” (it was a political deal back in the days between the Member States. You have a lot of fight about putting teh Parliament only in Brussels and thus end the monthly migration to Strasbourg, but it won’t happen anytime soon. Because the seat of the Parliament is determined in the Treaties (which is like the Constitution) and to modify it you need the unanimity of all Member States, and France will never agree to it (for political, symbolic and economical reasons).

/u/BushMonsterInc from **/**r/AskEurope asked : Local news tends to portay Brexit as EU trying to hit UK as hard as it can to prevent other members from leaving. Is it true? What is EU parliaments stand on countries leaving EU? If UK tries to return in the future, what would EUs plan of action be?

On the EU hitting hard the UK, there’s a bit of truth in the sense that it is not in the interest of the EU (and the Member States, who determine what the EU does in that matter) to give an easy time to the UK, because why would a country stay in the EU if it can have a better deal or all the advantages without the duties while being outside of it? Also, there is this widely accepted perception in the EU that the interests of the UK are not those of the EU anymore, so the EU will do everything to defend its own interests (as does the UK, except that it fails tremendously at that), which is perfectly normal. That doesn’t mean that the EU is on the mission to beat the UK to a pulp (it could do it without breaking a sweat if it wanted to) or that it tries to frighten other countries, because the UK will remain a neighbor and a partner in a number of areas so it’s in the interest of the EU to maintain a working relationship with the UK. Plus, trying to make other country afraid would not make sense, because the EU is not autonomous, it doesn’t decide on its own what to do in the Brexit negotiations, it act strictly according to what the Member States wants.

On the stance of the European Parliament (EP) regarding countries leaving the EU, of course the EP isn’t favourable to that, but it doesn’t matter because no country wants to leave the EU, especially as Brexit shows them how messy and suicidal it is. Even the most Eurosceptic countries (Poland and Hungary) would rather die than leaving the EU (for many different reasons).

And if the UK wants to join the EU again in the future, nothing will stop them from it. The EU would say “ok, just get at the back of the line of the candidate countries and we’ll sort things out”. Given the specific situation of the UK, the process would be quicker than for other countries that have a lot of catch-up to do before, but that’s it.

Could you name all the countries in this 'line of candidate countries' that you think would be accepted before the UK would be allowed back?

Depends on when he UK would apply to come back, but those who are certain to enter in the EU as some point are the Balkan States : Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia.

I think you missed the point of my question...

In your previous comment you were implying that if the UK applied to rejoin it'd be at the end of a long queue of countries and would have to 'wait its turn'. I'm just checking if you actually believe that is the case or not.

Oh, sorry. I didn't meant to imply that queue would be long. I meant that it won't be an automatic process or that it would be treated in priority. The UK will have to follow due process just like any other candidate country.

Hello and thank you for this AMA.

My question is regarding my country's entry into the Eurozone - Bulgaria. Our economy is times weaker than that of the average WE country and yet our government and the EU are convinced that there are little drawbacks to this deal. How so?

Will Bulgaria and the Eurozone really benefit from our weak economy's entrance. People are worried of inflation and doubled prices (1euro=1.95BGN).

I'm all in for our country's entrance into the eurozone, but just not in our current economic state.

I'm not an expert at all on the subject, but I know that some people in the EU are worried than Bulgaria might be indeed too weak for the eurozone and end up being the next Greece.

But entering the eurozone will be beneficial because you will drop all the issues about change rates and all that. It will also increase the economic "security" because you will be part of a wider monetary area that is overall solid (so the markets will be less likely to drop on you).

Then on the inflation, from what was observed in the other Member States, the prices didn't increased dramatically after joining the euro. The inflation was rather comparable to the one before joining and/or due to external reasons (oil prices for instance)

• How can a Commission staffer interested in EP work interact more with people working there? Are there informal workshops/events focused on the EP as such?
• Who are your best bets to become the next Commission President and the next President of the Council?
• What's the weirdest memory you have from Plux? (for others reading this: Place du Luxembourg, social gathering place in Brussels for European Parliament staff and others)

1. You have lots of events/workshops all over Brussels all the time, with people from the Commission, the Parliament and the lobbies coming over. So plenty of opportunities for people from both institutions to discuss. Plus, there is always contact between the Parliament and the Commission, either at the parliamentary committee level or at the MEP level.
2. President of Council is hard to guess because it's very political and decided between the head of Member States. But for the Commission President, it will be one of the Parliament's "spitzenkanditat" (meaning the leader of the list at the European election for each political group) and the political groups haven't decided yet on that. It will probably be someone from the EPP (because they are most likely to win the elections) and there's a lot of talk around Michel Barnier, who is currently the EU negotiator on Brexit. Politico made recently an article on that : https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-presidency-package-runners-and-riders-derby-handicapping-the-field/
3. The weirdest memories of Plux are usually the ones you don't have because you had a drink too much and that your colleagues tell you about the day after ;)

What are the ways to become an parliamentary assistant?

The best way is through an internship, to get inside the Eurobubble and learn its ways. I made a post on that on my website, go check it out, and let me know if you need clarifications :) https://mepassistant.wordpress.com/the-assistants-life/how-to-become-an-apa/

What's cooler than being cool?

Ice Cold !

In contrast to many here, I did see Brexit happen (failed to see Trump) because I saw that the press was not only completely biased to it, but also failed to challenge the outrageous lies made (still today) by the people supporting it, be it Nigel Fuhrage or Boris Johnson.

Fact is, most of them actually used EU funds to propagate their lies. Couldn't the EU do something to ensure that those actively working against the institution have to resort to their own finances, rather than effectively funding treason and sabotage, in the name of "tolerance"?

The EU is always pissed about the fact it is the main funder of those anti-EU groups (since they generally fail to get elected nationally and therefore get financed). Recently they changed the rules around the European parties, because a lot of Eurosceptic parties (but not only) were abusing them to get money. Anti EU are also known for their "tendency" to miss-use EU funds, which OLAf is having a field day on.

Well, I personally hope the EU bankrupts them. I can't stand that my money is being given to traitors who wish to undermine the only successful long lasting peace project on Earth for their petty gain.

Bankrupt them no, because they represent a part of the citizens, whether we like it or not, so they must be allowed to express their ideas (that's democracy after all). That said, the EU must not be made a fool of.

/u/olizinho from **/**r/eu asked : I know this is terribly simple, but i found that most of the citicens have no idea of how many things the EC makes. Usually people mistake also the EC, the parliamennt, the counsil, the european counsil and the counsil of europe (fuck that, they could not thing about new names?).

Regulations that make our live better. People do no notice how much it changed our lives things like moving abroad around europe without passport.

Euroatom. Why is it nowadays more necessary than ever.

One of the worst driven thing in europe: external policy. It is not serious to construct a union and let each country to have their unique posture with non-eu countries. Also, the connections of europe with non-democratic countries should be reduced to its minimum. Why we do not do it

Sooooo right now those are my possibles questions :)

On things that affect people lives, it’s true that people oftenly have no idea about what the EU does for them, for several reasons :

- Lack of media reporting

- It’s oftenly very technical and not visible

- Member States do not talk about it and prefer claim the credit for the obvious good things or blame the EU for things they don’t want to take political responsibility for.

- A lot of people take for granted things that are in fact not (take free circulation, peace, etc.)

That being said, Brexit helped a bit in that regard, because people started to discover how far-reaching the EU action is.

On external policies, I’d say it’s not realistic to think that the EU could have a unified view on everything, because each country has different priorities, external relationship, doctrine, etc. The EU can only act where everyone agrees, the rest can only remain at the level of Member States, even if the EU then serves as a European forum to try to get common position or cooperate.

For Euratom, it help enhancing the safety of nuclear facilities and it takes part in energy related research, such as ITER.

And for non-democratic countries, it’s kind of a paradox, because usually you need them for things (dealing with illegal migration, security issues, ressources, etc), you can’t really piss them off because they would perfectly be able to do something rash to get attention, screw you over or have what they want, and finally you have a question of influence. If you don’t talk to these countries, other countries (who don’t give a crap about democracy) will get BFF with them and use them against you. So dealing with those countries is not a question of liking them, it’s about being pragmatic and act in the best interest of your country/union.

/u/icyDinosaur from **/**r/AskEurope asked : Woohoo, I'm currently working on my BA thesis about party politics in the EP! My project talks a lot about relations between national parties and European parties/party groups, and I'd be curious what your perspective on this is - who has more power? (I won't be using interviews in the project because I don't have enough space, but it'd be cool to know from a personal interest POV)

Second question: what is the general attitude towards European non-EU countries (like my native Switzerland) and how can pro-Europeans like me get involved with the EU if they're not a union citizen?

On the European/national party, it’s hard to say, at least in absolute, because it depends of the size of the parties and their relative importance in the European group. I’d say the national party is more powerful, unless you are in trouble at EU level, because the members of the European parties rely on the national one to be elected. But at the same time, european parties are rather disconnected from national parties because they mostly don’t give a crap about what happens on a day to day basis in Brussels. The European group is nonetheless an important way to build bridges between national parties and sometime put pressure on them (for instance, Fidesz in Hungary is keen on staying in good terms with the EPP, because it’s the only reason it doesn’t get completely bashed at EU level).

You also have examples of mistakes made by the national parties that resulted in a loss of influence at EU level : the fact that the UK Tories left the EPP back in 2009 to form their own group is considered to be one of the reason they got more and more isolated at EU level and unable to get the EU to do what it wishes, or the fact that PiS in Poland isn’t part of the main EU parties leaves them ultra isolated at EU level (where most governments are either EPP, Socialist or ALDE) and open to sanctions (that Hungary avoids by being a member of the EPP.

The average European has a positive attitude toward Switzerland I believe, apart maybe when it comes to your banking practices, but they are puzzled by the fact that you don’t join the EU while being literally right in the middle of it. And being a non-EU national will make it a bit harder to be directly involved in the EU but it’s not an absolute obstacle if you got skills, I do know Swiss people (and other non-EU nationals) working in the Eurobubble.

Is it actually possible to become an EU civil servant or similar position while not being a citizen? I feel quite strongly (positive) about European federalism and was always rather frustrated by a "not part of the cool kids". So I'm really wondering how a non-EU national can become involved in official Europe because that'd probably be my dream.

If it helps to know that, I studied political science in Zurich, did an exchange in Maastricht (European Studies minor) and will do a masters in European Politics in Amsterdam. Would I have a chance to work in the EU or does my citizenship make that impossible? (I guess worst chance I can try with the Swiss negotiation team, but that'd feel kinda like betraying my own beliefs)

I had a quick look at the EU staff regulation and I didn't see any reference to an obligation to be a EU citizen to work as a civil servant (although non officially it must be a criteria for sure), so you can look into that (worst case scenario it doesn't hurt to apply). Plus, given that you come from a EEA/EFTA country, your country has close ties with the EU so I'm pretty sure it'd be easier for you to be hired than someone from Brazil for instance (no offense intended for the Brazilians out there :p)

And to work in the wider Eurobubble, you can definitely do that despite being non-European, I know lots of non-EU national working here.

1. How has the EU changed over the last ten years?

2. Which fundemental change within the EU is most needed in your opinion?

3. What is EU's biggest embarrasment as of right now?

4. Which further unification process do you think is moving the slowest?

5. Which do you think is moving the fastest?

6. How is the United States seen compared to China seen in the eyes of the EU?

7. And vice versa?

1. A shitload of things changes over the last 10 years. To summarise, I'd say the EU got through a lot of threatening crises and earned its battle scars. It's also imposing itself as a true leader in a number of area (environment, data protection, etc.). It's also more divided, because the Eastern Member States got more confident to challenge the European model.
2. Finding a way to connect/reach directly to citizens and their concerns.
3. Biggest embarrassment, I can't say, but I'd say the inability of Member States to move together and decisively unless on the brink would be in a good place in my opinion.
4. Fiscal policies, even if it moves a bit due to the number of scandals (Panama paper, LuxLeaks, etc.). Here the problem is that the EU can only advance if all the Member States agree to it but they (especially some of them like Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, etc.) want to keep things as limited as possible to protect their own national interests.
5. There's a lot of movement on digital regulation because the EU lost ground in the 90s but is seeing that its intuition on regulating platforms was right (data protection is a prime example) and is now trying to regain the advantage in the regulatory race on how to deal with digital.
6. The US is the slowly decaying leader, a competitor that we love to fight but also an ally that we need to face other players (Russia or China) or to deal with issues we can't sort out ourselves (international security). The election of Trump makes things very complicated but it also gives the EU an opportunity to rise and shine as a competitor, either on the regulatory or trade level.
7. China is seen as the next giant and the very reason the EU is needed and must be strong. Because no Member State can face China on its own. It's also seen as a regulatory challenge, because the decisions taken now will determine whether the world standards in 20-30 years will be European or Chinese. That's also why the EU wants to keep a good relations with the US, because it knows that their best chance against China is to have each others back.

Is the parliment a secret child molestation group?

Dammit, busted :/

/u/matinthebox from **/**r/AskEurope asked : What the EU is doing against populist / anti-democratic policies such as those in Poland (Romania, Hungary) and how these ... approaches ... by these countries influence decision-making in the EU and the EU's capacity to act on particular issues.

When a Member States does something that goes against the EU rules (in the present case the “rule of law” principle), the Commission will act upon it by asking the Member State concerned to explain what the hell it is doing, request changes and if the Member States refuses he can either get him to the Court of Justice or seek to activate Article 7, the nuclear weapon that deprives a Member States from its voting rights in the EU. But to activate such Article, you need unanimity, which in the present case isn’t achievable because Hungary and Poland ae watching each others back. But as a political message it’s already devastating.

You have some Member States that are now pushing to use some European funds (the regional funds for instance) on which these country highly rely, as a sort of weapon by conditioning their access to the respect of the rule of law.

So bottom line, the EU mostly use political pressure to get these country to play ball, even if in reality it could not go for the nuclear option because these countries protect each other in the Council. But it’s equally not in tyhe interests of these countries to stay in the crosshair of the EU, so they usually try to find compromises.

I have a couple of questions here if I may,

Do you think Romania will be accepted into Schengen?

What are the chances(from your point of view) of Moldova and/or Ukraine to be accepted in EU?

Will Germany and Russia eventually make that "Nord Stream 2", and will it hurt economically the Eastern and the Southern Europe?

- There's been talk about it for quite some time and Romania (as well as Bulgaria) is pushing for it, but some countries (mostly France and Germany) vetoed more or less the adhesion for now, because of concerns regarding the rule of law and corruption, and also because it would play bad back home.

- For Ukraine, it will depend of the outcome of the war, and it won't be anytime soon for sure. But generally speaking, I'd say it will be unlikely, not because the EU would not want to, but because Russia will be drawing a line in the sand on it. Russia never accepted the EU "landgrab" in its influence sphere, so it will not allow further countries directly at its border joining the EU. That's partly what lead to the war in Ukraine and fuels it. Plus, in both case, Russia has a direct way to make a mess in these countries, through Crimea/Donbass in the case of Ukraine and through Transnistria in Moldova. So I'm afraid that these country will remain disputed influence areas and will serve as a buffer zone between the EU and Russia.

- Merkel recently acknowledged that the project had political implication and, to calm down the Eastern countries, said that Nord Stream 2 would not be happening unless the situation with Ukraine is clarified. The Commission (supported by the Parliament) also wants to regulate this project through the energy union. Here are some articles I found on the subject : https://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-says-no-nord-stream-2-without-clarifying-ukraines-transit-role/ ; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-gazprom-nordstream-parliament/eu-lawmakers-back-draft-rules-to-regulate-russias-nord-stream-2-pipeline-idUSKBN1GX1LE and https://euobserver.com/energy/141570

/u/remphos from **/**r/AskEurope asked :

Okay.

Well, consider if you were able to calculate the flight path of an unladen swallow using the greatest curvilinear distance across the EU, do you think we'd be able to use landsat technology to classify every restaurant directly on that path by what type of food they serve?

If so, would you predict that the greatest abundance of food would be:

some type of sausage

soup

pastries

or some other wildcard contender?

Thanks for your support.

I'll vote for you if I ever get EU citizenship!

That would require some pretty badass Galileo and AI skills to do that. But my money would be either on pastries, kebab or pizza.

/u/ssshane from **/**r/AskEurope asked : I'd love to hear your take on what you think the EP's top 3 priorities should be in terms of improving its functioning, and inspiring citizen confidence (I was thinking Bxl-Stras move, transparency of procedures, etc.).

I hate picking priorities because you always end up pissing someone off :p

On the Bxl-Stras move, it doesn’t depend of the Parliament but of the Member States (because the statute of Strasbourg as the official seat of the Parliament is enshrined in the Treaties). But it won’t change anytime soon, because France will never agree to it, for symbolic (the Parliament is one of the three main institutions), political (Strasbourg as the symbol of the Franco-German entente) and economical (the Parliament creates lots of jobs and money in the Strasbourg area) reasons.

On transparency, the Parliament is knows for being a glasscase, pretty much everything is transparent and public, even if getting the information is not necessarily easy if you don’t know where to look.

Overall the biggest challenge, as always, is communication and connecting with citizens. If people don’t know what is happening, they can’t trust.

Hello! I’ve always been fascinated with Europe in general, what would you say it is like there.

Also, do you feel the EU is falling apart due to political parties advocating leaving it?

Well I pretty like it here, so feel free to come over and enjoy :)

Then on your question, I would not say the EU is falling apart, we're not doing too bad all things considered. The political parties (and populism generally speaking) advocating leaving the EU is sure not giving us a good time, but we make do and Brexit shows people how suicidal it is to get out of the EU.

How does the EU plan on dealing with the growing Euroskepticism? There are people wanting the destruction of the EU itself and that number of people appears to be growing. Will more member states try to break away from the EU? What happens if a core state like France breaks away?

• EU plan to deal with Euroskepticsm : The EU is willing to be more on the offensive for the next European elections in terms of communication and it's setting up policies to fight against fake news on internet.

• Will more country break away : Currently, I can safely say that no other Member States wants to leave the EU. First they see through Brexit how suicidal it is, including for a powerful country like the UK, and secondly event the most Eurosketic countries (like Poland or Hungary) would rather die than leaving because a) their population remains largely in favour of the EU, b) because they get shitload of money from the EU that is essential for their economy (and their main economic partners are in the EU) and c) because they are scarred shitless of being on their own facing Russia.

• What happens if a core state breaks away : It could potentially be the death of EU or at least the start of its decay, because the symbol would be devastating and it would mess up the political balance in the EU. But that's not on the agenda, because the population of these countries remain very pro-european (and most of the Euroskeptic parties in these countries are rebranding themselves to drop the whole "leave the EU" platform).

I ask this question only because I've been binge watching episodes of the 1980's British show "Yes Minister". My question, assuming you're familiar with the show, is this: as a lover of satire, an employee of the EU governing body, and as a person with the kind of job that the show poked fun at, how accurate is the show and is it still relevant in today's political climate?

Sorry I don't know the show, but I'll have a look at it :)

What would you say would be the benefits for my native Switzerland joining the EU?

I would say that it'd be the full integration in the single market (for now you have a shitload of bilateral deals, about 120 if I remember well, but that don't cover everything, notably financial services), that would allow you to import/export everything without any problem and get access to new product right away (for instance in the medical field, you currently get access new medicine between 4 and 6 month after the EU).

The other benefit would be that you would finally have a say in the EU regulatory framework, that you are currently applying almost fully without being able to influence its making/content.

Any thoughts on Eurozone reform? (EDIS, EMF, Fiscal union, Eurobonds, all that ...)

Both from a normative angle (are these good ideas?) and a practical one (Is this at all achievable? Or will at least one MS say Nein?)

I'm not an expert at all on these subject (to be honest I tend to run away from them) so I won't be very useful on that I'm afraid :/

All I know is that it will be subject to big negotiations between Germany (supported by the Nordic states) and France (supported by the Southern ones). And I think that Germany will not be able to afford to say a big Nein, simply because of the political weight that France regained ever since Macron's election. So there will be movement for sure, but I can't say how far.

Plus, the non-eurozone members will be freaking out because their big fear is to have the EU focus exclusively on the Eurozone and leaving the non-eurozone members in the dust.

What’s your favorite video game?

2048 saved me from countless death by boredom during meetings

They let you play 2048 during meetings?

I play from time to time, when things I already heard a thousand times are being said. Or when it's on a topic I don't work on and isn't part of my field of interest.

But the goal is to discreet when doing it :p

What is your opinion of Martin Sonneborn, MEP?

Never dealt with him so no particular opinion. But given that he is with the non-attached, he must not be very influential or active for that matter.

Never dealt with him

Color me surprised! Are you aware that Martin Sonneborn actually worked for a satire magazine, and only went into politics as a joke?

Yeah I know :)

Are there people who don't have a humanities background working for the European institutions/agencies?

Of course ! People without humanities background are also present and provide specialised knowledge that is essential. Humanities people like me just put pretty words behind it :)

/u/Glaere from **/**r/AskEurope asked : EU roles and responsibility on internal and external immigration (if any).

On internal immigration, the EU guarantees to all EU citizens the freedom of circulation between the Member States. That’s one of its golden rule (as the UK learned the hard way in its Brexit negotiation). Then you have the Schengen area, which is a group of 22 EU Member states + 4 other countries (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) that have abolished their internal border between each other to fully allow the free circulation of persons and goods (even if they can temporarily reinstate them in some circumstances, as many did during the refugee crisis or following terrorists attacks). These Member States also have to apply common rules when it comes to their external borders (meaning anyone coming from a non-Schengen country) in order to ensure the safety of the entire area.

On external immigration, it remains largely a national policy, but the EU is here to provide common rules (for instance to deal with asylum rules or in terms of security features), ease the cooperation between Member States (for instance to share information quickly and easily through common databases) and support them when necessary (for instance, the EU created “hotspots” in Italy and Greece, with experts, facilities and material to help the local authorities to deal with the incoming refugees. It also financed a naval operation in the Mediterranean to help the Italian Navy deal with the immigration flow). All that is being reinforced since the refugee crisis, because the rules were not meant to deal with so many people at the same time. The EU also created a common border corps, whose job will be tp help the national authorities secure the external EU borders. Another thing the EU is doing is negotiating deals with non-EU countries so deal with immigration.

EU created “hotspots” in Italy and Greece, with experts, facilities and material to help the local authorities to deal with the incoming refugees.

I'm pretty sure you know the situation is unbearable there - for both refugees/migrants and habitants.

I'm sure it's not a walk in the park, but at least the EU is helping the national authorities to get it done.

Ehm, it was the EU's idea to create the hotspots. It's simply not working and the same applies to the whole EU migration policy so don't blame the national authorities so easily.

I'm not blaming the national authorities at all. They are in this mess because they are utterly overwhelmed with the number of people, not necessarily equipped for that and also because other Member States do not want to help out. The hotspot are a hotfix to help out, in combination with a wider strategy (revamping the migration policy that was not meant to deal with such a crisis, making deals with other countries, etc.)

Would you be in favour of changing the way EU commissioners (and president) are appointed so they are drawn from a pool of elected MEPs?

Many feel that'd remove a lot of the democratic defect that exists within the EU as it'd ensure that those coming up with the laws do have to first pass a level of direct public scrutiny before they can be nominated to the commission by the member states.

Is that a statement you'd agree or disagree with?

Change the way Eu commissioners and President are appointed, sure, but not necessarily by drawing them from MEPs. You can get competent and great people without them being MEP before, look at Vestager for instance. But I do agree that it would preferable that they held public office before in their career. That's something Juncker insisted on when he formed his Commission in 2014.

For the Commission President, while I fully support the Spitzenkandidat system (that force the Council to appoint as president the leader of the list that won the European election), I would not be against having him/her being elected directly by the citizens. But the Member States will never ever agree to that (because it would challenge directly their own legitimacy).

Is the European parliment the one where we see all the fist fights?

I don't know about "all" the fist fights, but there was allegedly one last year between UKIP MEPs that sent one of them to the hospital.

How did you end up in your current role? Say, from university (presumably) to now?

I've been very curious and interested about one day working in the EU, but as of right now, I'm kind of barred because of Brexit and my lack of language skills. I'd like to know how others made it into those so called Eurobubble you speak of.

Very classical : finished my studies in Uni with an internship in a MEP's office, did a good job there and got lucky enough to be hired as a full fledged assistant afterward.

The Eurobubble is hard to get into, so the best way is through an internship (to get there and learn how things work in practice) and then work your way up from there.

with an internship in a MEP's office,

Follow up question, if you don't mind: do you have any tips for securing such an internship?

Research your target : the common mistake is that people apply for an internship/job and turn it like they're doing the potential boss a favour, while it's the other way around. While your profile and interests might be indeed very interesting, what an employer wants to see is that you know who you're talking to, what the person is dealing with and how you can help that boss in that.

So that means looking into what the MEP works on, his/her positions, etc and turn your application in a way that the person from the office who will read the application think "damn, that's exactly the kind of guy we need".

/u/Toby_Forrester from **/**r/AskEurope asked : I'd be interested to hear about the role and power of lobbyists in the Parliament.

You can find here a post I made on the subject : http://mepassistant.tumblr.com/post/115390262924/could-you-tell-us-more-about-of-lobbying-there-is

I’ll also copy-paste some answers I already made here :)

- On lobbies (generally speaking, whether companies or NGOs as lobbying is just the action of defending an interest), people in the Eurobubble mostly have a neutral feeling about it, because it is widely accepted, very present (Brussels is second only to Washington in terms of number of lobbies), mostly transparent/framed and considered useful/legitimate. So for us, it’s a non-issue, even if we know people have a bad image of it because they associate it (wrongly) with automatic corruption.

- But to be short, lobbying is very necessary and useful (because no one is all-knowing), it's not about good or evil (for me a lobbying is a neutral toolbox that is used equally by the corporate lobby than the NGO, Monsanto and Greenpeace do exactly the same thing, with different tools, when it comes to lobbying) and it's ABOLUTELY NOT corruption. NGO love to do victimisation when it comes to lobbying (that they call "advocating" for the sake of being different and make their opponent seem evil) but that's part of their own lobbying strategies. In Brussels, lobbying is widely accepted and considered normal and it is regulated in ways that are much more developed than in pretty much all the Member States.

Hi! So I have seen the EU trying to get closer to it's citizens, and I'm glad about that, but so long as the EC remains largely undemocratic and technocratic, people will have a hard time trusting it and other EU institutions. I love the EU and I'm a proud European citizen, but it is hard to trust the EC. Are there any plans in the parliament for making the EC more democratic? Are they getting any traction? Keep up the good work!

In my opinion, people are unfair to the EC when they say it's undemocratic and technocratic.

It's not any more undemocratic/technocratic than any national government. The EC President is designated according to the Spitzenkandidat system, meaning according to the European elections, the commissioners are all former elected officials and have to get through the Parliament vetting.

Even if you can always do better, let's not throw rocks at the EC when it doesn't deserve to :)

Since EU is known to have a bad PR, which proven to be disastrous in Brexit, do you have plans on improving on that?

What approach do you think is best, and what would you do to avoid being called propaganda?

---

In a second question: what do you think about some people who, upon being disenchanted by actions and/or values of their own government or nation, turn their national identity towards EU? (I did encounter some of them - staunch remainers are an example)

Do you think their turn is permanent, or only temporary?

---

Lastly - I enjoy drawing comics, that contain international drama, and EU parliament seems like a perfect breeding ground for those. Especially when new budget is negotiated. Do you have some stories you would want to share with me? (Don't have to be drama. I do like funny, wholesome or depressing stories)

- Well, PR is always difficult, the main issue is to keep people informed about the EU regularly, not once every 5 years, explain to them how it works, what it does, etc. People do not tend to trust something they do not understand. I think the best way not to be called propaganda is to have data to support what you say, show that you are willing to listen to people and engage with them and not screw them over (which is one of the reason I commited to do these AMA once a month). You also have to acknowledge differences of opinion and answer question without being condescending. But easier said than done.

- Being strongly pro-EU I won't criticise people who choose to believe in the EU. But I always thought it to be a mistake to oppose national and European identities. For me they are complementary and Europe is the way to allow your national identity to remain relevant in the future.

- I don't have stories that comes to mind right now, but I'd suggest you follow the Politico Europe Playbook, that is published every morning. They put there some EU gossip and funny anecdotes, so you may find interesting things for you from time to time :)

Have you noticed any self reflection within EU, after it's many fails, from Greek debt, to illegal immigration crisis and Brexit?

Of course there was plenty of self-reflection that leaded to reforms. It's a sort of (sad) habit for the EU to get close to the brink and then sort its shit out because it's make-or-break.

And once we get to it, things get done : Greece will be out soon of its debt-relief program, the financial crisis as been sorted, the refugee crisis got more or less under control and Brexit is tuning into a British disaster.

Funny thing is that following Brexit, surveys showed that citizens all over the EU got more optimistic/positive about the EU, because they saw what it was doing for them.

Do you sometimes consider EU useless, shrinking joke with unreasonable self-importance feeling?

Sometime it's frustrating for sure, but I remain deeply pro-EU and in favour of a strong EU (even my views evolved from my initial thoughts).

How does it really feel like working for someone who has zero legislative initiative power and is essentially a highly-paid rubber stamper for Commission? Do you sometimes feel like small-souled bugman?

It's true that the Parliament is lacking the legislative initiative, but it's not without legislative power as most of the EU decisions need the Parliament approval and participation.

So no, I don't feel like we are utterly powerless/useless :)