Small - Jmece Newsletter - 15 Aug

Welcome to the JMECE Research Students LAB

JMECE LAB is a platform designed by postgraduates aiming to create a research network among students, European youth move-

JMECE RESEARCH STUDENTS LAB NEWSLETTER I S S U E

2

1 5

A U G U S T

2 0 0 8

ments and others sharing an interest in the future of Europe. See us on:

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/jmecelab

on The Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/jmce) at the University of Leeds Institute of Communications Studies site (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/ index.cfm) with the following objectives:

NETWORK: Objective 1: To encourage postgraduates and academics from different European countries as well as from different parts of UK to work together in the field of European integration. Objective 2: To bring together postgraduate students at the University of Leeds concerned with European Union issues.

RESEARCH: Objective 3: To provide a platform for col-

Europe in my Eyes Project senting a personal vision of a European Parliament fit for digiEU - a space for European students at 70 Universities to exchange views and ideas about how they see the European Parliament, what their own policy priorities are, how they think EP candidates do and/or should relate their own parties’ priorities to those of the public, how they see va o k it M andrina s the future of the European Parliak le t/ A s" b y /conten my eye ment and their own responsibiliibes.eu in -v e n p a e ro p ©"Eu w.euro w /w ties for communicating with MEPs :/ p htt /55/ Tozeva view/31 and their own peer group, whether digi-exclusion (estimated to cover 30% of the populaFor the next academic year, The EUROPE IN tion) creates new democ2008/2009, JMECE LAB will launch MY EYES team ratic deficits and how these a series of events and initiatives might be overcome. under the project “Europe in my looks forward to Eyes”. The project has three re- welcoming you Information about the lated elements designed (under the and your ideas EUROPE IN MY EYES and academic guidance of the JMECE) to these exciting related projects will be disseminated by the JMEto inform and encourage appreciaprojects. CELAB under the direction tion of the role of the European Parliament in stimulating and susof our team and in containing democratic accountability, vigi- sultation with academic staff as lance and responsiveness in the EU for appropriate. More on page 8. the benefit of citizens.

laboration and exchange of ideas between young researchers with an interest in the

A) A conference open to the public.

European Union, helping them to overcome

B) Accompanying dvd made by and for students and young people demonstrating the relevance of an elected European Parliament in the digi-age to shaping and sustaining democratic accountability and cross-national, multi-ethnic dialogue on common topical European themes (such as the potential benefits to citizens of a common consular space; mobility; and emerging policy challenges).

the isolation and solitude of research.

ACTIVITIES: Objective 4: to invite partners to play a full part in our work , including our website, meetings, workshops, speeches, events etc. Objective 5: to provide up-to-date profiles of the people currently involved in this forum and

C) “My EP - democracy in a digi-EU”– this is designed to be a web space for pre-

build a research network to inform our work. We draw inspiration in wanting to share our research resources, questions and thoughts, from Jean Monnet’s legendary phrase: “we do not unify countries, we unify people”.

JMECE LAB at University of Leeds is highly recommended by the European Information Network (http://www.europe.org.uk/europa/ view/-/id/1126/), a website maintained by the European Commission Representation in the United Kingdom, which brings together contact details for organisations and individuals in the United Kingdom.

P A G E

2

Who we are JMECELAB COMMITTEE JMECELAB “Europe in my Eyes” Newsletter editors Talke Hoppmann Stergios Mavrikis Fabro Steibel

Graphic (logo) designer Talke Hoppmann

Dr Richard Corbett, MEP welcomes the JMECE LAB: “Congratulations to Leeds ICS in being a step ahead of the rest of Europe in this interesting initiative.”

JMECELAB is a partner of SENT Network for European Studies The Network of European Studies (SENT) - brings together 66 partners from EU member states, It is an ambitious, far reaching project and network aiming at assessing the state of EU studies today, as well as the idea of Europe as it is transmitted by schools, national politicians, medias, films, etc.

For more: http://www.sent-net.uniroma2.it

JMECELAB Internal Communication Stergios Mavrikis ([email protected])

Members of JMECE LAB would like to thank Prof. Fabro Steibel Juliet Lodge, co-director of ([email protected]) Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence Editors of Euroblogfest (JMECE) at the University (http://jmecelab.wordpress.com/ of Leeds, for her inspiration, euroblog/) support and contribution to Talke Hoppmann all stages of this project. Stergios Mavrikis JMECELAB External Communication

Fabro Steibel

JMECELAB Members May Jacob Alina Dobreva Agnes Inge Schneeberger Jasmine Li Zhang Francisco Seoane Pérez Annemarie Sprokkereef Silke Stumvoll

The “EUROPE IN MY EYES” team contacts Prof. Juliet Lodge, Judith Stamper, Dr Katharine Sarikakis, Stergios Mavrikis, Fabro Steibel, Nicholas Miller & Renate Cordiera

Production of a DVD clip marking the “50th anniversary of the European Parliament”. Call for expressions of interest. Production of a DVD clip marking the “50th anniversary of the European Parliament and 30 years since the first Euro-elections”. JMECE LAB will produce a dvd which will be uploaded onto the JMECE webpage and will go around the world. The JMECE webpage and call for participation from interested parties is publicised on the net and via professional association newsletters (such as ECREA and UACES and

the YEM). The invitation to participate states: “Creative minds wanted to brainstorm and produce an audiovisual product which will be sent to European Forums and European Institutions. If you have any ideas, story lines, scenarios etc. please contact us in order to arrange a meeting and develop further your idea. Our focus is on: European elections, political participation and mobilization of young people and how young people perceive themselves as European

citizens with the right to vote for the European Parliament. ICS Broadcast Journalism undergraduates have a special role in this project under the direction of Judith Stamper, ICS Programme Head of Broadcast Journalism. For more: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/ jmecelab

Leeds ICS, 9 May 2008 / Celebrating Europe Day We celebrated Europe Day with a reception, where we invited Leeds students to a truly dynamic event. The participants of the Leeds Europe party enjoyed an evening with entertainment, good food and interesting information on EU. The highlight of the party was the Euroquiz, when we challenged our guests with questions dealing with various matters of the EU. JMECE LAB would like to thank Caroline Boyle, Press attaché & Head of Outreach (European Commission Representation in the UK) for sending us the “Quiz for Europe Day” on time.

ISSUE

2

P A G E

3

European Union: Closer than you thought! Photo & text: Judith Schilling Publications Manager © Björn Clasen

The biggest survey ever carried out by the European Commission in the UK, showed that well over half of respondents said they knew only a bit about the EU, while three in ten said they knew nothing at all. But Britons do want the information deficit plugged. The same survey showed that 70% of respondents would like to know more about how the EU related directly to their daily lives. Here is where the information efforts of the European Commission come in which publish a plethora of free leaflets to assist the public in forming an opinion on the work of the European Union, to enable them to take part in the public debate about the future of Europe or simply make them feel better informed about what's in it for them but how does one find out which brochure to read best and how to actually get it? EU Bookshop, this is where the needs of the general public meet with those of expert researchers looking for in-depth information on specialised topics. This website gives easy access to publications ranging from "How the European Union works – Your guide to the EU institutions http://

ec.europa.eu/publications/ booklets/eu_glance/68/ index_en.htm to "Guidelines on positive environmental initiatives to be taken by the fishing sector" http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?ta get=EUB:NOTICE:KL7506744:EN: HTML . EU Bookshop is a valuable research tool for visitors from all levels of EU knowledge; an ever increasing number of currently more than 25 000 different publications only a few mouseclicks away. EU bookshop allows a thematic search according to 14 categories ranging from competition to education to statistics who in turn divide into even more subcategories until one has found the best one to search for e.g. the newly published leaflet on "Renewables make the difference" http:// bookshop.europa.eu/uri? target=EUB: NOTICE:KO7807244: EN:HTML . Even easier is the search by words where entering e.g. "your rights" brings up "Living, working, studying in another EU country" http:// bookshop.europa.eu/uri? target=EUB:NOTICE: KM6805098:EN:HTML and a selection of similar brochures on the advantages of the internal market.

puter, but what if a lecturer on EU issues, a library or a teacher would require multiple copies of a brochure? For the benefit of providing resources to those much appreciated multipliers a network of "Privileged Partners" has been created who have access to the bulk ordering facility of EU Bookshop to order up to 100 copies of each title on a limited list of brochures and posters for the general public. Those privileged partners are Europe Direct Centres http://www.europe.org.uk/infolinks/-/ ctid/8/ , European Documentation Centres http://www.europe.org.uk/infolinks/-/ctid/5/ dotted all over the UK and last but not least the four offices of the European Commission's representation in the United Kingdom http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/about_us/ index_en.htm . So high is demand for EU information that about 1/3 of all publications ordered via EU Bookshop from privileged partners in the EU27 were delivered to recipients in the United Kingdom.

“Wha t is b est abou t our servi ces, i s that they a re all co mple t e ly free o f charg e!” Judit h Schil ling

The European Commission's representation in the United Kingdom offers a selection of the most popular publications on its website http:// ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/ information/publications/ index_en.htm which is at the same time an interactive order form transmitting the orders to manager [email protected] . . .

Every visitor to the EU Bookshop is able to order for themselves a single copy of this wide range of publications from their own com-

Leeds, ICS, 6 June 2008/ 2nd Annual International Postgraduate Conference: “Communications and Space/Place” On Friday 6 June, the 2nd Annual International Postgraduate Conference on Communcations and Space/Place took place at the Leeds Institute of Communications Studies. JMECE LAB, which was one of the official sponsors, organised a panel on EU, inviting Dr. Sophia Kaitatzi-Whitlock as keynote speaker. Participants of that panel had the chance to attend three interesting presen-

tations on Europe by research students: 1) Mrs. Li Zhang: “Communicating EU in China: News Media, Foreign Policy, and National Interests”, 2) Mrs. Agnes Schneeberger: “Communicating Diversity or Unity? The Construction of European Identity in Media and Citizen Discourses on Turkey's Accession to the EU”, 3) Ms. Alina Dobreva:Interpersonal Communication and Media Perception in Post-Communist Context (Case of Bulgaria).

We also had the unique chance to film our discussion with our guest speaker, the renowned sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who spoke about “Creating Space/ Place”. His remarks about the future of Europe emphasised the necessity of a more human EU through sharing its own hardwon historical lessons. Keynote speaker: Prof. Zygmunt Bauman

Invisible? Unintelligible? Pointless? Euro elections in historical perspective Professor of European Studies Juliet Lodge, Institute of Communications Studies 1979 saw the first ever elections by direct universal suffrage to the first supranational European Parliament. This was a momentous occasion. Getting out the vote, and persuading more people to vote in Euro elections than commonly voted in US Presidential elections challenged all concerned. But how do you get people to vote for something they know little about? How do you get them to vote for something lacking power? And how do you persuade them that doing so is significant and worthwhile when those elections have no impact on the political colour of a government? And when no European level “government” as such exists? Moreover, just because Euro elections were held did not mean that all EEC member governments were equally enthusiastic about the prospect of such elections. Quite the contrary. Some were concerned that elected Euro MPs (MEPs) would eventually challenge their authority and that many of them in the meantime would simply be either less important than local councillors, Euro-bores, or a nuisance.

Some were concerned that elected Euro MPs (MEPs) would eventually challenge their authority and that many of them in the meantime would simply be either less important than local councillors, Euro-bores, or a nuisance.

Worse still, when these elections took place, the Commission’s role was contested in some member states. Some wanted the Commission to be no more than an administrative body, a civil service stripped of the right conferred on it by the Rome Treaty to initiative legislation in the European common interest. Some saw little point in giving the European Assembly the right to be elected when legislative decisions were taken by the Council of Ministers, without reference to the majority wishes of the Euro MPs, all of whom until then were their nominees. Others, however, wanted the occasion marked by a reasonable turnout as a symbol of democratic legitimation. All agonised over the question of getting out the vote. All had to tread carefully to avoid upsetting national laws on political campaigns. Without genuine transnational political parties to mobilise the electorate, steps had to be taken to inform the electorate about the elections without simultaneously persuading voters to elect one particular candidate over another. This was a tall order. Small units in the secretariat of the European Commission and the European Assembly accordingly had to draft common, objective (i.e. non-ideological) neutral information leaflets to be made available throughout the member states in more or less uniform formats, translated into the official languages and using identical illustrations. Electioneering as such was left to national parties, with a little funding being given to the European Assembly’s party groups for similar types of information. The result? Not the stuff to make the heart beat faster. While the European landscape has changed dramatically since 1979, the question is whether Europe in the digi-age of online deliberation and blogs by MEPs and Commissioners will be better able to mobilise voters than in the past. What’s the point of Euro elections? That question was asked in the run up to the first elections to the European Parliament in 1979, and it has been asked ever since. From sugar cubes to the human touch? In 2008, the human face will not be missing as it was in much of the information material produced for the first Euro elections. But scepticism and a lack of understanding of the genuine impact of the work of the European Parliament remains. Can elected MEPs really “do something” to address the issues closest to the hearts of the voters? In 1977-1979, there was a general concern that mobilising voter interest in voting would be hard for three broad reasons: (i) suspicion that potential voters in the European Community’s (then nine) member states were too unaware, ill-informed or blissfully unconcerned about the EC to be interested in turning out to vote; (ii) if they did know anything about the EC, they wouldn’t want to bother voting for a European “Assembly” (as it was then called) that was powerless, and lacked any legislative authority; and (iii) Euro-elections in general were a “bad thing” presaging a federal future and political union. The importance of democratic elections, as understood in Western liberal democratic polities, to the conduct of government and to the relationship between government and citizens adds a further frisson to Euro-elections. Governments had assiduously avoided honouring the obligation in the Rome Treaty to elect the European Assembly by direct universal suffrage according to a common (not uniform) electoral system (Article 138 EEC) from the inception of the EEC. They

had instead accepted national MPs being nominated to a chamber that was relatively unchallenging and devoid of genuine legislative authority. Some felt that elected Euro MPs would not accept that status. History shows that their concerns, on the latter score, to be wellfounded. Elected MEPs immediately embarked on a process of gaining legislative power and forcing the Council of Ministers to meet openly (rather than behind closed doors) when acting in a legislative capacity. Moreover, once citizens of the EEC were granted the first political right–to elect Members of the European Assembly/Parliament – those MEPs championed their cause, acting as “voice of the people”. What is surprising is that all this happened even though member governments did not strain themselves to boost public interest in Euro-elections. Few leading government politicians engaged in political debates around the campaigns. National MPs, too, in many member states, saw the European Assembly/Parliament as a rival to their own authority and few were prepared to campaign vigorously to get out the vote between 1979 and from then on, with some notable exceptions. What did this mean for “communicating Europe” to first time Euro-election voters? There were four main consequences: 1. A lack of coherence and cohesion / The preparation of campaign material for the elections was left in the hands of national parties fielding national candidates in their own member state according to electoral rules that either mirrored or slightly amended national general election rules from rules on voter and candidate eligibility criteria, to campaign, television and financial criteria. 2. Invisibility / It was hard to discern the quintessential Europeanness of the world’s first supranational elections to an “Assembly” intent on being more than a mere “talking shop” in an institution (the EEC) that the Soviet Union regarded as the hostile economic arm of NATO and the USA. 3. Unintelligibility / Levels of knowledge and awareness about the EEC were low and even lower regarding the existence let alone role of MEPs.. The question was how to get the vote out. Since the European Parliament’s nominated outgoing members had claimed that Euro elections were essential to boost the EEC’s democratic legitimacy (and with it their quest for legislative authority and executive accountability), getting as high a turnout as possible was seen as important. It still is, thirty years later. 4. Campaign manifestos and logos / The first Euro-elections were a common electoral event, but the campaigns resembled parallel national elections rather than a distinctive European event. The situation was not helped by the lack of coherent organisation, funding or sense of purpose among the politicians contesting the elections. Logos and manifestoes had to be agreed and written. The newly emerging transnational parties had no voice as such in the European Assembly’s “party groups” but were responsible nonetheless for getting voters out in the member states because only the component national parties could campaign there. Their membership was not uniform. The new European People’s Party of Christian Democratic parties, shunned by the British conservatives as “too catholic” in 1979, was later to reject British Conservatives in the 1980s as potential members on the grounds of Prime Minister Thatcher’s hostility to trade unions among other things. The Confederation of Socialist Parties was disparate and found the concept of agreeing a common manifesto so problematic that it had many footnotes exempting different parties from specific sections (origins of the opt-outs). The European Liberal and Democratic Group comprised strong European integrationists and strange right-wingers but managed to create a common platform. The French and Italian communists disagreed too much to do so.

Campaigns were off-limits. Their role was therefore to inform the public when the elections were to take place and advise them that those eligible to vote in national elections would be eligible to vote in the Euro election.

In 1979, the main political groupings inside the European assembly were reflected in these groups but they were distinct from them – something that did not add to campaign or programmatic coherence. (turn the page)

ISSUE

2

P A G E

6

5. Invisible and unintelligible / In 1977, the EEC Commission was a far smaller outfit, ill-suited to the role of producing information material to mobilise people to go and elect MPs. Indeed, that was not in its remit. The most it was equipped (and allowed by governments) to do was produce anondyne, “neutral” information in all official EC languages by way of “information” about policy areas. Campaigns were off-limits. Their role was therefore to inform the public when the elections were to take place and advise them that those eligible to vote in national elections would be eligible to vote in the Euro election. Devoid of the usual spin and ideological rhetoric, which could be seen as “influencing” the outcome, the material that met the criteria of neutral, objective information came to be presented in “safe” ways. For example, real people could not be used even to show voting. A logo — hand placing ballot paper in box — was accepted instead. In Ireland, where (unlike in the UK) television advertising for a political event was far less problematic, even the animated image of a man walking to put his ballot slip into a ballot box had to be replaced by a sugar cube doing the same. In Britain, newspaper advertisements advising people when the Euro election was being held (on a different day to the majority of EC states) was written. It was informative, dense, dull and the same text was used regardless of whether it was to be located in a broadsheet or tabloid…in either case, it did not feature prominently. Nor did colour. The more pro-EC states allowed greater imagination. In Belgium, Picasso’s famous dove of peace was adapted as a rainbow dove emanating from a stylised “E” (significantly associated with the “e” of European movement federalism and adapted too by the pro-integrationist centre European People’s Party (comprising mainly Christian democrats). Ten years later, things had improved in terms of candidate and voter eligibility criteria, campaign funding and the use of more visually attractive material in many member states. But twenty and thirty years on politicians ask the same questions. In 2009, we will see whether the new technologies and e-spaces for exchanging views affect voter turnout in those states where voting is not compulsory. In the run-up to June 2009, what, if any, images will come to symbolise European democratic commitment and endeavour? And can the Euro elections embody a sense of common purpose and identity?

[…] real people could not be used even to show voting. A logo — hand placing ballot paper in box — was accepted instead.

Ten years later, things had improved in terms of candidate and voter eligibility criteria, campaign funding and the use of more visually attractive material in many member states

ISSUE

2

P A G E

7

13-14 June 2008 / Harvard Conference on Networks in Political Science See conference website here: http:// www.hks.harvar d.edu/netgov/ html/ colloquia_NIPS.h tm Report & photo: Francisco Seoane Pérez

Location: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Conference coordinators:David Lazer (Harvard University) and James Fowler (UCSD). The social world is about networks. It has always been the case, but the age of the Internet has made it more salient: websites like Facebook define us not by what we are, but by the friendships and contacts we have. The focus on the relationships among and between individuals, rather than on the characteristics of individuals, is the main defining feature of the research on human networks.

“Politics is intrinsically a relational thing”, said David Lazer, a professor in Public Policy at Harvard University and the director of its Program in Network Governance. Although the research tradition on political networks could be traced back to the 1930s, it was not until very recently that political scientists began to pay attention to the study of relationships. This long sleep could be explained because of what Lazer calls “paradigmatic blinders”: dominant paradigms in the social sciences made assumptions on the independence of observations, whereas the network perspective calls for the interdependence of observations. Network research has now become one of the hottest trends in Political Science (and in the rest of the social sciences). Scholars are now dealing with the study of all kinds of relationships: between people (e.g. representatives and their constituents), between people and organisations (e.g. the website http://www.theyrule.net/ eloquently shows how the same few individuals sit on the boards of companies one would think unrelated), between people and objects (e.g. members of parliament sponsoring the same legislation), and between all kinds of collective entities (e.g. trade among companies or among countries). “The actors of the system can vary, but the key [in network research] is the relationship among individuals”, Lazer noted. Tapping the state of research in political networks was the main goal of the Harvard Conference on Networks in Political Science, held on 13 and 14 June 2008 at the JFK School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Initially conceived as a small symposium for political scientists, the feedback to the call for participation (over 200 submissions from disciplines across the social sciences) exceeded all expectations. The two-day conference was preceded by two days of workshop sessions on network analysis software applications. My poster presentation, which explained how a combination of network analysis and ethnography can help reveal the reasons behind the so-called European communications gap, was one among the nearly 80 poster presentations shown at the event. Robert Huckfeldt, a professor in Political Science from the University of CaliforniaDavis and one of the pioneers in the study of political networks, closed the conference with a keynote address titled “Interdependence, density dependence, and networks: Observational challenges for political analysis.” The European Union is arguably one of the finest examples of networked governance, hence the presence at the conference of researchers studying policy networks in the EU. Paul Thurner, from the University of Munich, explained how network methodology can be applied to policy analysis by taking examples from his own research on EU policy networks at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. After the success of the event, the conference organisers are now exploring how to keep the “momentum” going. A new section on political networks within the American Political Science Association was one of the initiatives suggested. Whatever its institutional form, presenters and attendees agreed on the need of continuing to share their common interest on politics and networks. “This is a great moment to be alive”, said James Fowler, professor of Political Science at the University of California-San Diego and one of the co-organisers of the event. In his view, science is about to experience a kind of Copernican Revolution. His own research is crossing the disciplinary borders thanks to his focus on networks. A paper of his co-authorship made the headlines in The New York Times last Summer, giving new insights to public health researchers: Obesity can spread like a virus from friend to friend. That is, we are more likely to become obese if one of our friends becomes obese. (http:// tinyurl.com/5v8bet) The network perspective, the study of relationships, could become a new scientific paradigm, a new way of seeing the world around us. Biologists are now researching how proteins interact with each other, very much like a sociologist would pay attention to who relates with whom in a given organisation or social setting. Networks were there since the beginning of times, but somehow we have overlooked them for quite a long time. The pervasiveness of the Internet might have had its role in the current awakening. “The Internet is a powerful metaphor”, said David Lazer. Indeed, for Facebook users is easy to understand that our life is about networks.

P A G E

8

Research Interests:

Would you like to be added to our database to receive news of future events and initiatives? If you like to become members please contact:

eMail: [email protected]

D E T AI L S

Mob: +44 (0) 7900116588 Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 5808

C O N T A C T

Stergios MAVRIKIS Institute of Communications Studies Houldsworth Building University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Website: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/jmce/ Forum: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/pdp/index.cfm (at the moment available only to the members of JMECE LAB) Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php? gid=22750100523

The participants of the JMECE Research Students LAB are invited to place their research projects in one of the following fields. Like our own research this is a work-inprogress and open to development: • European e-participation, e-citizenship, egovernance • European Citizenship • European Citizens – European Netizens • Enlargement • The Lisbon treaty • European democratic/communication Deficits • Multiculturalism • Europeanism • European history, politics, law and business • Post-national identities / supranational identities • European public sphere(s) • European audiovisual policy • European public opinion • European Communication Polyglotism • EU internal and external security, liberty and free dom.

You can also find us on:

Forthcoming events of the Europe in my Eyes Project 13th March 2009 Conference on Euro-elections “You and the future of Democracy in the EU” Baqueting Hall / Leeds Civic Hall

we welcome your views, pictures, texts, quotes and suggested links. Please contact: Stergios Mavrikis [email protected] or Fabro Steibel 23 October 2008 / [email protected]. This blog-space The Minister for Europe, Jim Mur- will be open and moderated by the phy, visits JMECE LAB team leaders. Any articles or blog and Leeds University postings must conform to University Regulations. The moderators have Euro-minister Jim Murphy will give a absolute discretion to refuse to pubtalk on Europe and Globalisation. lish material. More details coming soon.

The one day event organised by JMECELAB will take place at Leeds Civic Hall. Speakers include MPs and MEPs for Yorkshire and Humber, JMECE LAB Latest video release media practitioners, academics, reJMECE LAB searchers and local authorities. We EUROPE IN MY EYES Dr. Richard Corbett, MEP for Yorkshire would like to thank Lynette FalEuroBlogFest and the Humber was interviewed about coner, Information Development the Lisbon Treaty, ratifications and referManager, Leeds Europe Direct at In this newly designed section of our enda. Watch the interview here: http:// Leeds City Council for her support. webpage (http:// jmecelab.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/thejmecelab.wordpress.com/euroblog/)

lisbon-treaty/