Piloting1_Daniel&Mariella

Looking at the European Elections on 7th June 2009, the broadcasted video intends to provide both general and particular information about the latter. As the host claims "still very few European citizens seem to know what's going on in the run-up to this event." The producers of the video analyse whether there exists a democratic deficit in the European Union or not. A thesis that there exists a distance between the policy makers in Brussels and the European citizens is raised and the host mentions that many scholars of political science think that in the EU a democratic deficit, based on a "lack of legitimacy", evidently exists. They want to find out what exactly is missing in the EU. They start off with a female interviewee, who stresses that the opinions on the subject vary extensively. She expresses the need of exchanging different opinions from other countries and comparing them to the own view. She and her fellows from across all Europe have raised a discussion or debate on the topic. The second interviewee has a more academic background. Dr. Jonathan White from the London School of Economics and Political Science divides the term "democratic deficit" up into the institutional view and the private point of view, or the "belief in politics." The viewer gets acquainted with the different opinions step-by-step. David Grant Lawrence, a former EU official, denies the existence of a democratic deficit in the EU regarding the "institutional structure" and endeavours to prove this by naming a few intricacies of the EU. "The European Parliament is directly elected, the council of ministers represents the member states of the Union and the European Commission is nominated by the council of ministers...!" is his clear view of this matter. A Dutch MEP has quite the opposite point of view. According to him people have not the contingency to take active part in the decision making of the EU. He concludes that if the European citizens are not involved in important decisions which touch, for example the global financial crisis, then the EU lacks the legitimacy which is a prerequisite for an democratic institution. Being asked what could make the EU more democratic he answers that the citizens have to think trans-European and neglect their national views. A journalist explains that there is, on the one hand the responsibility of the voters to push their national governments into the EU and on the other hand the responsibility of the media to concentrate not only on national issues but also on European issues. And that should be its incentive. The report shifts to the Lisbon treaty, which has the intention of reforming the European Institutions, but the host doubts that it can "bridge the gap between Europe and the citizens." Once more David Grant Lawrence is interviewed and he says that the EU has to explain what happens in Brussels and tell the voters how they could influence the decisions of the EU. "Europe needs more European-minded citizens", claims the host. David Grant Lawrence wants the educational systems to seize the opportunity and put more emphasis on European Affairs. Each citizen should, for example, try to learn a foreign language to be enabled to read other newspapers or watch foreign TV. That would lead to the perception that there are many different views across Europe on the EU. The report shows the daily routine of a young MEP candidate in the following minutes. He participates in a general members meeting of the Liberal Party in the vicinity of Maastricht and discusses how to organise the campaign of his party for the election. He also teaches at the local university in an undergraduates program of European Studies and studies European Master in Law school. He represents a new generation of politicians who are more flexible and open-minded than politicians in former times. With this new type of MEP the EU shall gain more popularity with the European citizens. The next part takes a look at right-wing or extremist nationalist parties in the EU and whether this alone is "a contradiction in terms." A female voice names the obvious downsides of extremist parties, such as their radical political views or xenophobia. In 2004 they formed a group called "Union of European nations", which denies the current idea of the EU. A teacher of the Maastricht University, Andrea Tyndall, explains what kind of argumentative circle the extremists follow, like the national states loose their sovereignty and the EU takes over. They simply fear the loss of their individual rights. She also utters that this is an emotional stance, which implies a negative connotation. Anna Rosbach from the Danish People's Party complains that there are, for example, distinctive differences between the cultures and that this alone is an obstacle for the EU to work properly. She clearly reveals the incapability of Italian members to understand the Danish members. She explains why the nationalist parties have this intricate islamaphobia and mentions the unwillingness of the most immigrated Muslims to participate in daily life. According to her the "normal tax payer" does not understand why his money is offered to someone who "rapes his daughter and steals his car." Andrea Tyndall criticizes these fundamentalist views and relates that "80 or 90 percent of the Muslims // do // learn the language" of their new country. A MEP of the Vlaams Party stresses that without an opposition there is no democracy, Anna Tyndall expresses the need for "competing ideas" in order to make the EU work and she says that she very much dislikes the ideas of these right-winged parties, but then she quotes the first Supreme Court justice of America who had once said: "I might not like what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it." That's what democracy is all about. With the hidden request not to vote for the right-wing parties in the election the broadcast ends. The End :)