A lot can change in two years. When we interviewed Mario Monti on the sidelines of the State of the Union conference during the Festival d’Europa in Florence in 2011, the former European commissioner and president of Bocconi University spoke spontanously, during a coffee break. Now that he has added Prime Minister of Italy to his list of former accolades, a bodyguard-surrounded Monti keeps a hectic schedule at the conference’s 2013 edition. However, after a short press conference with Italian journalists eager for his views on his successor Enrico Letto's new coalition government, Monti accepted to speak with Presseurop.

Two years ago, Monti shared his thoughts on the threats of the crisis on the unique market and the euro. The future of these two pillars of the European Union now seem guaranteed, regardless of how the EU and its member states deal with the crisis. We asked Monti if he believed the current atmosphere in Europe was more favourable to resolving the crisis today than in 2011.

I have the impression that it is. We have made many concrete moves to end the crisis. We have also directed European policy toward the future, drafting an outline that is about to be finalised of a plan for a true economic and monetary union, under the guidance of the group presided by [European Council President] Herman Van Rompuy. I also believe heads of state and government are finally taking the political and psychological impact of nationalism and populism more seriously into account. I believe economic policy must change, but not out of pressure from nationalists and populists. If we want to adopt certain policies in a climate exposed to the risks presented by nationalism and populism, care must be taken to proceed with caution.

Throughout his mandate as prime minister, particularly during spring of 2012, Monti attempted, alongside French president François Hollande and Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy, to rebalance relations between member states and get Germany to soften its position on many issues. We asked for his thoughts on what the different perspectives and current tensions between France and Germany meant for the continuation of the European project.

I remain convinced that strong Franco-German ties are an essential condition for Europe to move forward. But if it is essential, it is also not enough. It is also very important for France and Germany not to give the impression they are being exclusive and discriminatory. I believe this was partly the case during the years of cooperation between Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, and much less so now between Mrs. Merkel and François Hollande.

Supported by the right and the left, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Dacian Ciolos, defends his reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is expected to be adopted this year. Presseurop met with him at the BioFach Organic Trade Fair in Nuremberg.

Presseurop: What is the status of the CAP in the aftermath of the European Council on February 7 and 8, in which the 27 member states agreed the EU budget for 2014-2020?

Dacian Cioloş: The fact that the European Council reached a decision on the budget was very important for agriculture, because in the absence of an agreement, we would have been unable to move forward with talks. I cannot say that I am delighted by the fact that the sum initially proposed by the Commission has been docked by 6 per cent. But if you look at the amount that was docked from the overall budget, you will see that the cuts in agriculture are lower than average.

What are the next steps for CAP reform?

As I was saying, the 6 per cent budget reduction will not affect the reform of the CAP. The decision will have to be approved by parliament, in March we will have the Agriculture Council’s decision, then, in April, we will begin trilateral talks – with the Agriculture Council, the European Parliament and the Commission.

You must often come under pressure from agri-food industry lobbyists. How do you go about imposing your point of view?

I have no difficulty imposing my ideas. I try to listen, make suggestions, and to convince them with rock-solid logic, even the most stubborn ones. You have to bear in mind that there are certain limits in agriculture which even lobbyists have to take into account if they want to avoid serious consequences. One obvious fact, which has not been decreed by the Commission and does not figure in any legislation, is that problems emerge very quickly whenever the connection with nature is not sustained: for example the soil depletion that occurs when adequate fertiliser is not used. Even those lobbyists who are not supporters of the reform have to acknowledge this kind of logic.

Having said that, the difficulties of our current situation are to some extent our fault too, because, as consumers, we want more produce, and we want it faster and cheaper. So we push farmers in a certain direction. It is not going to be be easy to change course now, because investment in agriculture takes place over generations. But I believe that when you have solid arguments and a willingness to listen to others, you can reach a positive compromise that will move things in the right direction. Having spoken with many of those who have criticised the reform, I have realised that they are not motivated by ill will, but by simply by a need to defend their interests.

Do organic farming and greening form part of this positive compromise?

In my view, the idea of organic agriculture is one that extends beyond the traditional paradigm for the development of agriculture. It is a novel concept which has slowly been making progress — a conventional form of agricultural practice, but one that demonstrates that things can be done differently and one that meets a certain need on the part of consumers. However, I do not think we should contemplate separating European agriculture into two, or that we should say that we will support organic agriculture and abandon other existing models. We have to strike a balance, and take advantage of the fact that we are now at crossroads where some of the ideas from organic farming can be used to influence more traditional practice so that it can move forward.

When you launched the reform of the CAP, you organised public debates. Are you planning to organise consultation about the future of organic farming?

The review of organic agriculture policy is one of our future projects, and a consultation process in which Europeans are invited to participate is already underway. The survey will be online until April 10.

Interview by Iulia Badea-Guéritée

On 29 November, the Commission on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament approved the assembly's position on the supervision of the European banking system. This position will serve as the basis for negotiations with the Member States over the text on the banking union to be adopted by the Council of Finance Ministers on December 4th. It's an issue that the Vice-President of the Parliament, Gianni Pittella, has followed closely. In an interview on the eve of the Commission's vote, he shares his views with Presseurop.

Presseurop – Where are we at in the union and the banking supervision?

Gianni Pittella – Berlin had no desire at all to let the European Central Bank (ECB) exercise any control over the smaller banks, especially the almost 1,600 Landesbanken (regional banks) and savings banks in Germany. But we have reached a compromise: the supervisory committee of the ECB will be responsible for national banks and those whose failure would entail a risk to the whole system, as well as those struggling banks that have asked for financial assistance. The national banking authorities are to have oversight over the remaining banks. The ECB, though, will have the chance to look at the books of the latter if it considers that necessary, and on a case-by-case basis. Parliament will also ensure that there is no conflict of interests between the regulator and the banks being regulated. It's a sensitive issue, particularly because of the extreme permeability of the banking sector. Then, we have established that the president and vice-president of the supervisory committee are to be elected after having been approved by the European Parliament – like the President of the ECB, for that matter – to ensure democratic control over this organisation. We are also asking that the oversight committee be in constant contact with the Parliamentary Commission on Economic and Monetary Affairs.  As for putting it into force, we hope that the Council approves it at the summit on 13 and 14 December, so that supervision can gradually get underway in early 2013. Once this Banking Supervision Committee has been adopted, what steps remain before a true banking union is achieved? There are still a few steps ahead of us, including the harmonising of bank deposit regulations. But the most important thing is the supervision. It's even a revolution: to go from 27 national supervisors from the 27 states – something absolutely contradictory in a Europe of supra-national banks, a real handicap – to a sole supervisor. If we stick with the current system, we won't be able to prevent new banking crises. Bringing in the single banking supervisory authority also has the advantage of being a virtuous circle: if we create the banking union, we can also create the economic and fiscal union. And then political union, because it makes no sense to share only the economic and financial aspects at the EU level, and not the political aspect too. Do you believe in a political union? Yes! Even if there is resistance that we must strive to overcome. And I hope that from 2014, when the next European elections are to be held, we can set up a new European Convention, which will offer the Union new rules on the political agenda and set the framework for the political union to come. Do you think Parliament has a role to play in the economic life of the Union and in the search for solutions to the economic crisis? With the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament became an equal in the decision-making. I think that within a few years it will become a genuine legislative chamber. Eventually, it will have to become THE legislative chamber of the European Union. Today we want to make our voices heard on how to manage the crisis. We are fighting to make those who preach austerity understand that all the analyses confirm that the effects of a policy based solely on austerity are devastating: public debt is not declining, the recession is entrenched, unemployment is growing, domestic demand is falling, Europe is losing international competitiveness and forecasts of a return to growth say we'll have to wait until 2014. Do you have alternative proposals? We must turn the page on austerity. The time for investment has come.  We want a European plan for growth, social cohesion and sustainable development. A plan based on the financing of tangible and intangible infrastructure networks. The first in line are the rail networks, energy networks, telematic networks and renewable energies. The second part is education, training, research and youth mobility. It is a programme that will cost hundreds of billions of euros, and we must put it in place as quickly as we can. And where do you expect to find these billions, while member states are facing budget cuts, which in some cases are massive, because they are running out of money? We must bring in European treasury bonds – the famous eurobonds – to collect some 3,000 billion euros. It's not me who made up this sum: economists led by [former President of the European Commission] Romano Prodi and [Italian economist] Alberto Quadro Curzio came up with it. Of that, 2,300 billion euros would be earmarked for a pooling of European debt, and thus to reduce it; the remaining 700 billion would be used to finance the investment plan. We could tell Merkel and the citizens of Germany: “Look, launching these eurobonds will not cost you a penny, because they will be backed by the gold reserves of the Member States and their public assets.” The states can back both their own debt and a possible European public debt? Their gold reserves and their public assets are enough. We could decide that states would guarantee eurobonds with that part of their GDP exceeding 60 percent [that portion of public debt allowed by the convergence criteria for the eurozone]. Technically it's feasible. We must acknowledge that this is the correct solution. After that, if to support the eurobonds Merkel demands moving towards fiscal union, i.e. the eurozone Member States will meet the criteria set by the fiscal compact and there are stricter controls [by the EU] on their balance sheet policies, I say “OK”. Provided that at the same time we also move ahead with political union. You mentioned the assumption that Parliament becomes the Legislative Chamber of the EU. Currently, this role is played by the Council. In this scenario, how do you envision the relationship between the two institutions? I imagine a bicameral legislature – the Council being the second chamber, a sort of Senate – where the two chambers have equal powers. The President of the Council would be considered equivalent to a President of the Senate. Unless we want to imagine turning the Council into an executive organ, but that would raise the question of the role of the Commission. In the future, do you imagine instead a federal EU, or a union of two or even three speeds, or a more intergovernmental union? My wish is to achieve a federal union. The intergovernmental union has not produced brilliant results, because the intergovernmental logic is that all negotiations are governed by national interests. And it is clear that these diverge. A reform often mentioned in the articles we have published is that the President of the Commission and the European Commissioners be elected by universal suffrage. What is your view? I'm for the direct election of the President of the Commission.  And it could be done even by 2014, without wreaking havoc on the current rules governing the European elections: if the parties belonging to a political grouping in the European Parliament state during the campaign who their candidate for the presidency of the Commission will be, the voters will also be voting for the latter. If the Party of European Socialists chooses the current President of the Parliament, Martin Schulz – whom I support, because he has all the necessary stature for this position – all the affiliated parties will declare Schulz their candidate. What do you think of the hypothesis of transnational candidate lists, with candidates who campaign in countries other than their own? I'm in favour of it.  I'm also all for electing Commissioners from among the MEPs, as it would let us get away from having them nominated by governments. And that would help us resolve the democratic deficit, which is one of the evils afflicting Europe today.

Interview by Gian Paolo Accardo

With national leaders apparently unable to act, such institutions as the European Central Bank, the German constitutional court, and the European Court of Justice are playing an increasingly influential role in European affairs. French political analyst Antoine Vauchez argues that their intervention amounts to a bending of the rules of democracy which urgently needs to be addressed. Is there any better illustration of the current paradox of European democracy than the fact that its fate hangs in the balance in the decisions of the board of the European Central Bank and the rulings of the German constitutional court? European political leaders have become so convinced of their lack of legitimacy and their inability to win the “battle of credibility” that opposes sovereign states and the markets, they are voluntarily giving up their room for manoeuvre to “independent” institutions and automatic penalties (the notorious fiscal compact), thereby enabling judges (both national and European ) and central bankers to dominate the daily conduct of European affairs. Better still, in a remarkable demonstration of upside down logic, these “independent” officials are monopolising the debate on the future of the political union, extending the scope of their intervention well beyond their mere mandate as civil servants: to wit the magic worked by the management of the ECB who have transformed a brief to maintain price stability into a platform from which they can demand structural reforms (labour market, wage agreements etc…) and, more recently, intrude on discussions on the architecture of the future political union… And, let’s not forget that they are already directly intervening in the drafting of future treaties, as is currently the case with the mission attributed to the group of four so-called “wise men” who head the ECB, the European Commission, Eurogroup and the European Council.

Direct elections

Finally, we have been treated to the supreme irony of these “independents” calling on member states to fulfill their democratic obligations, with Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann and ECB President Mario Draghi banging on about the need for “democratic responsibility” in new institutional structures, and the German constitutional court positioning itself as the last line of defence for the country’s parliament etc… All of this has served to highlight the precariousness of democratic legitimacy in the union, and the solid control exercised by “apolitical” institutions: courts, central banks, and other authorities and agencies etc. In spite of two decades of wishful attempts to reinforce the powers of the European parliament, the chain of delegation that connects democratically elected representatives to “independent” institutions has continued to lengthen. In this context, it is hard to believe José Manuel Barroso when he says, as he did last June on the occasion of the G20 summit, that Europe does not need to “receive lessons” in democracy from emerging countries. Any attempt to reorient the course of the European project would have a greater chance of success if it took as its starting point the more realistic observation that European democracy is shrinking.

With this in mind, the introduction of direct elections for the presidency of the European commission – the current credo of German diplomacy – will not be enough to create a fresh momentum to push European politics towards greater democracy. This measure could even have the opposite impact if it is accompanied – as many German conservatives ardently hope it will be – by the granting of greater powers to the European Central Bank and the European Court of Justice.

Black boxes

The overhaul of the political union should in fact prioritise the bid to develop new forms of democratic connection with Europe’s “independent” institutions. In all likelihood, it is probably too late to restrict the scope of their competency, but there is still time to rethink the two pillars on which their authority has been based: a certain notion of their independence sustained by belief in their separation from vested interests on the one hand, and a certain assumption of scientific objectivity in their analyses and verdicts on the other.

Concerning the first of these points, the introduction of a form of representation for social partners and political minorities would act as a safeguard for an authentic ‘independence’ by ensuring that these emergent spaces for the conduct of European politics are not monopolised by particular groups, political camps or ideologies.

Such a pluralist approach is the only way to expand the scope of the debate on indissociably technical and political issues so that it is not the sole preserve of lawyers and economists: this is the second point. While they still have control over the nomination of the members of these institutions, national governments will have to take the initiative to open these black boxes. If they do not Europe’s democratic institutions – and in particular the European parliament – will be mere smokescreens.

Recently published EU research says that full-time workers are pulling longer shifts in the face of ongoing economic slump, but hours worked do not equal productivity, says Jason Walsh.

A study performed by Eurofound, the European Union's labour research agency, has found that working hours have increased across the EU, with workers taking-up the slack left by colleagues who have lost their jobs and working longer just to stay in employment.

What is clear is that the traditional office hours of nine-to-five appear to be long behind us, and with most professionals and office-bound workers not actually clocking-on and off it is difficult to know precisely how many hours people are actually working. Indeed, in an era of always-on internet access, smartphones and tablets it is hardly news that more and more of us are taking work home with us.

The aggregate increase across EU as a whole isn't so great: just twelve minutes, up from 39.5 hours per week to 39.7. That figure disguises a number of important facts, however.

Firstly, the survey is only of full-time workers. What of part-timers working extra hours? What of those with more than one job?

Secondly, disparities in working time remain across the EU. The post-2004 accession states work the longest hours, but are also the only cohort of countries to see hours dropping as they begin to come into line with EU norms. 

Among the rest there is no correlation between long hours and economic success. Finns work the fewest hours in the EU, at just 37.8, while Greeks work 40 hours per week and Germans work only slightly more at 40.6. 

The World Economic Forum's 2011-2012 Global Competitiveness Report says the ten most productive and competitive economies are, in descending order,  Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, Finland, the United States, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan and the United Kingdom. Of these the US, Singapore and Japan are notorious for their long hours cultures. The culture in the other seven varies.

Thirdly, as the study was at pains to point out, the greatest differential is between agreed and actual working hours: right across the EU, as well as across industrial sectors, people work longer hours than are specified in contracts and union agreements –  and in some cases, employment law.

What is true of a macro level, that long hours do not a strong economy make, may also be true on a micro level. Despite demands on workers to pull ever-longer shifts, productivity slumps when we work too long; a piece of knowedge that we've had since since the early decades of the twentieth century.

This isn't just about the spectre of "presenteeism", the desire to be seen to be in the office regardless of whether you are working or faffing-around on Facebook. Study after study has borne out the fact that there is only so much useful work any one person can do. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with long hours, particularly if workers are recompensed appropriately, but hanging around the office for no real reason other than trying to impress the boss does neither party any favours.

The euro may yet be saved, Martin Schulz believes: at best, if Europe’s leaders can change their spots – give up their ex officio wheeling and dealing –  and let their institutions act.

In an interview with Presseurop the President of the European Parliament, in office since the start of this year, sounds just like the boss of a rival government that he wants to build: the Parliament versus the Council and the Commission. Changes at the next European elections should help bring Parliament more to the fore in the minds of voters.

We meet the President of the EU Parliament in the Parliament’s Paris office, near the National Assembly and the Seine. The former bookseller, notorious in the plenary hall for volleys of loud insults (“The financial markets drive a Ferrari, and the governments of Europe plod behind them on a bicycle”), now sits quite calmly on the white sofa of the meeting room and is giving interviews by the dozen.

Mr. Schulz, the euro crisis has entered its third summer.  Can the currency still be saved?

I think the euro can be saved. This depends a little on the willingness of the parties involved to finally arrive at sustainable and lasting management in the eurozone. Such events like those at the last summit – when agreement is reached in a meeting at night and the next day two governments say, “We didn’t really mean it like that” – do immense damage. We have a strong economy. We have a strong economic zone with a strong currency, 17 governments. It can’t move forward like this over the long run.

The euro crisis so far has brought twenty-five crisis summits, “historic decisions” that have not made history and that have made the citizens angry at Europe’s governments, which clearly continue to restrict themselves to a tenacious “business as usual”. What can you say to Europe’s citizens to keep them from losing the faith?

I’ll try to address myself to European citizens, and with a positive message.  Namely that, if we want to, we are very strong when we act together. That if we do not want to act in concert and to break down into our constituent parts, with Germany as the largest country and Malta the smallest, we’ll be at the mercy of the interests of other parts of the world.

Europeans are very fond of talking about “rising states” such as Brazil, South Africa, India, China ... I’ll give the Europeans some good advice: don’t start talking about “descending nations”. If we want to prevent this, we need a strong and united Europe.

The problem is not the institutions, but the unwillingness of the government leaders, both of the eurozone and of the 27 member states as a whole, to reach agreement. This is because of a strong ideological confrontation in the Council between a way of thinking, which Germany strongly represents – and so too do the Netherlands, Finland and other countries (“We won’t pay for the others”) – and the attitude that only a general pooling of debt can resolve the problems (which, on the other hand, they exaggerate)...

If we do not build a bridge between the two and finally find a workable compromise, then we are moving towards the dark ages. I  would like to tell that to the voters.

Do you want to expand the EU Parliament into an institution that defies the Council of the government leaders. What would be better in Europe if the Parliament were in the driving seat?

We act with clear majorities. Three examples: two years ago, the Parliament called for and presented an investment pact. One percent of the gross domestic product of the eurozone. Rejected. Last year, the European Parliament, with a bigger majority than I had ever seen, voted across party lines, 570 votes, for the financial transaction tax. Rejected. Two years ago the European Parliament called, with an overwhelming majority, for a banking union. Rejected.

Now, two years on, after a reaction-time of 24 months, the European Council has adopted the banking union, the financial transactions tax and a one percent growth pact, and claimed that as a great achievement. These are all things that the EU Parliament presented long ago and that the heads of government, in all their arrogance, rejected. We have wasted two years on it.

So the European Parliament does act, but regrettably, the heads of government do not.

It’s just that no one hears that, as can be seen every five years in the record abstention rates for European Union elections. Tell us your recipe to make going to the EU polls something more than merely a reaction by voters to their national governments.

I think that in the next European elections, for the first time, there will be candidates who campaign across Europe for their political orientation. That is, a candidate for the Socialists, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Greens and so on – for the Office of the President of the Commission.  Why? The Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the President of the Commission, that is the supreme executive of the Union, almost a head of government, be selected by Parliament. The Council must propose a candidate, “taking into account” – as stated in the Treaty – “the outcome of the elections”, i.e., the candidate who can unite a parliamentary majority behind him.

This leads to an electoral battle between political agendas and human minds. And then it’s no longer about the national governments, but whether the Left or the Right will rule Europe.

For several years he has been mulling over the Czech national character and the distinctive Czech sense of humour. His numerous stays in the Czech Republic have resulted in several books, the best-known of which, “Gottland”, won the 2009 European Award Book Prize for the best European book.

It took him a long time to realise why he had begun to write about this country. “It was only with my psychotherapist that I discovered the truth – why I like the Czechs. When I write stories and reports on the history of Czechoslovakia, on characters I shake my head over – such Orwellian-Kafkaesque types – I’m actually writing about myself,” admits Polish journalist Mariusz Szczygiel.

In your new book, Heavenly Love, which has just come out in Polish, you write that the Czechs were created to raise the spirits of the Poles. What makes Czechs so funny to the Poles? It starts with language. Poles get a lot of laughs from Czech. The Czech expression “Láska nebeská (Heavenly love)” means “blue wand” in Polish. “Láska (Love)” also means a slim young girl, or penis, in Polish. When I hear Czech, I get a metaphysical orgasm.

When Poles don’t understand something, they say “it’s like a Czech film”. At this year’s festival in Karlovy Vary Czech director Marek Najbrt introduced a film called Polski Film. According to the Czech critics, Poles can’t understand it. Are we not condemned to a kind of patriotic national misunderstanding?

Actually, that’s exactly why I’m so busy. I feel a little like a translator of Czech culture. Some translate books into foreign languages; I suppose I translate culture.  And I work not only for Poland but for Europe too, so my books come out in other countries. Speaking about films, a friend recently sent me an interesting book about Czechoslovak posters. A Czechoslovak film that won an Oscar – “The Shop on Main Street” – is described on the Polish poster as a “psychological drama”, but on the Czechoslovak poster it’s described as a “tragicomedy”. Milos Forman’s film, “Loves of a Blonde”, is described in Poland as a “celebrated psychological drama”, but in Czechoslovakia as a “comedy.” On the Czech poster for the film Morgiana there’s a laughing woman; on the Polish poster, a stricken woman under a skull and crossbones.

Poles are interested in Czech literature, theatre and film – and in your books you refer to Bohumil Hrabal, Jaroslav Hasek, Ota Pavel, and the films of Jan Svěrák and Petr Zelenka. Do these authors have a common denominator that would explain the interest in them in Poland?

We in Poland feel that those authors and filmmakers do not take life too seriously. A certain distancing, and one more step away from oneself, is the basis of Czech culture. I’ll give you an example. At the time when Alphonse Mucha was considered the most famous Czech painter, in recognition of his status he was asked to design the first Czechoslovak banknotes after Czechoslovakia emerged as an independent state in 1918. In them he immortalised his wife Maruška (on the hundred-crown note) and daughter Jarka (the ten-crown note). I really like that, because it’s another example of Czech culture not being too pompous. Can you imagine a state where someone would put their relatives on the banknotes? In Poland? No chance. The banknotes have to have heroes on them.

Of course, I know that Czech culture has its intrinsic elements of religion, metaphysics, depression, or lyrical elements etc., but that doesn’t interest most Poles. We’re interested in Czech joys. I’m just trying to explain that that joy is often a result of grief, that it’s a kind of lifeboat, a form of self-defence.

The thesis of your new book is that the Czech mentality ennobles the everyday, because it does not believe in God and an afterlife. Why does that so affect the Poles, who are largely religious?

From the top of Borůvková hora (Blueberry Mountain) in the Zlaté Hory (Golden Mountains), you can see the Czech-Polish frontier. There’s a buffet there, and on its walls are inscriptions in both languages. Every day, the Czechs who run the buffet write up on the wall the name that’s being celebrated that day in the Czech Republic and Poland – the so-called “name day”. My friend has been there several times.

One day the fellow running the buffet invited him into the back and showed him a sign with an inscription in both languages, which had to be taken down off the wall and hidden away after Polish tourists asked for it to be removed. Do you know what it said, and what scared my countrymen so much? I quote: “Eat and drink while you live; after death, you will have no joy.” Well, in short, we’re Catholics, and we feel that we have a patent on the truth, and that Catholicism has the answer to all questions. And what’s more – how can anyone allow himself not to believe in God? Maybe Czechs think they’re better than we are, because they have no fear of God? That’s audacity.

That predilection of Czechs for the everyday life, though, is also bound up with a certain laziness. The Czechs’ favourite word is “peace”. While Poles are fighters, Czechs have always gone for the easier way. This was true in the fight against communism, which culminated in the so-called Velvet Revolution. We were almost the last country where the Iron Curtain fell...

In short, the Velvet Revolution was made for you by someone else. Communism had to fall in Czechoslovakia too when it crumbled everywhere else in Europe. It’s interesting that on June 4 1989, when the first free non-communist parliamentary elections were taking place in Poland, in Czechoslovakia Vaclav Havel was still sitting in prison.

The Czechoslovak film director Fero Fenič made the film “Strange Beings”, which tells of the last night of communism. Fenič had foretold that night, because the film had actually started shooting in February 1989, but – as he says – no Czech actor in it wanted to play a major role. And so Polish actors played them.

A friend told me that her grandparents were in a streetcar in November 1989 on Wenceslas Square and had a cake with them; my friend was about three years old then and it was her birthday. Grandma and Grandpa, of course, didn’t get off the streetcar, even though they realised historical events were happening on the square, because “we had the cake and the child was waiting,” the grandmother said. “And besides,” she added, “we’ll see everything on TV.”

Poles like topics such as heroism, courage, patriotism. These are concepts that say nothing to the Czechs. Do you have any explanation for it?

Jesus-Maria, it’s not true that those terms mean nothing to the Czechs. Maybe they’re notorious for not talking about them. They don’t like talking about patriotism openly, but it’s pretty evident in the way they look after their cities and towns, which look like something out of fairy tales, out of stories for kids.

Even the belief in the nonexistent Jara Cimrman – a Czech genius who can be compared only with Leonardo da Vinci – is a form of patriotism. Czechs are the only nation that ever created a nonexistent hero. And they’re proud of it. Patriotism isn’t just about fighting for one’s country.   

Do you think that, despite all these cultural differences, there’s a chance that “Heavenly Love” won’t remain a one-way street for the Poles?

It’ll probably stay that way. It’s a good sign that after visiting Poland during the European Championship a lot of Czechs said: “The Poles are great, they got everything ready perfectly.” That’s just one small step perhaps towards seeing a few Czechs start to take Poland seriously.

Europe continues to lurch toward ever-greater union, but few ever make a positive case for it, says Jason Walsh.

Eurogroup head and prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker has come out in favour of an EU president – a real, elected-by-the-people president.

Speaking to Der Spiegel, Mr Juncker said: "I would be in favour of creating the position of a European president at the end of the process who would be directly elected by the citizens of the EU."

Mr Juncker is not alone. Declan Ganley, long regarded as Europe's bête noire, has welcomed the idea of a European presidency – once again, a real, elected-by-the people head of state.

"Juncker's call for the merging & then citizens election of Presidency of EU Council & Commission is to be greatly welcomed. Let's have at it […] The battle for European Presidency could strain Europe's current political sclerosis to breaking point. That's good, real reform will follow," he said in series of messages on social networking web site Twitter. 

Having interviewed Mr Ganley for reports in the Christian Science Monitor on several occasions, it is perfectly clear to me that his position is not that of a eurosceptic. In fact, he is pro-European and supports closer political integration – much closer than many EU establishment figures would be comfortable with. 

Don't believe me? In May he wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Europe needs a parliament than can legislate and a president that can lead […] To the population-based EU Parliament, a nation-based EU senate should be added. By the end of next year, the EU should have elected somebody with the moral and democratic authority to lead it in a clear, consistent direction, and given itself an infusion of democratic legitimacy and political vision."

Whether he is setting the bar so high that it is unachievable, as his critics intone when briefing agasint him, remains an open question, but that is a matter for another day. His arguments, whether one likes them or not, are coherent.  

Perhaps you think Mr Ganley is a fringe character. Perhaps he is. Perhaps. But he is not the only person speaking on this issue.

Germany and Britain swap places

German economist Hans-Werner Sinn has published an open letter in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, signed by over 170 economists, that amounts to the opening salvo in the case for breaking-up the euro.  

Dr Sinn's objection is pure euroscepticism: he is objecting to German chancellor Angela Merkel's moves toward an EU banking union that would, he says, create "collective liability for the debts of the banks in the euro-system".

The underlying argument is simple: why should there be a banking union if there is not also a political union?

On what we might call the pro-EU establishment side, what we hear is… deafening silence.

Wolfgang Münchau of London's Financial Times, a noted europhile, complains, quite accurately, that "today’s pro-Europeans are incapable of defending" the idea that the EU we already have requires an, at least minimal, fiscal and political union. 

It's a theme not unfamiliar here, if looked at from a rather different perspective. At heart the EU is an anti-political institution. That is not to say it is unpolitical – far from it, though some of its biggest boosters seem to wish to project the idea that it is. What Europe seems to fear most is the public, as a result of which a truly European public has never developed. The rich irony here is that a real European populus is precisely what would be needed to save the EU.

Pro-Europeans have long dismissed criticism of the creation of an EU 'superstate' as paranoid nonsense. That argument can barely be sustained anymore, not because we're necessarily on the way toward a single European state – in fact, it seems more fanciful than ever – but simply because the inexorable logic of the euro is, as we all always knew, political union of some form.

British newspapers regularly thunder about German domination of Europe. How again ironic, then, that the brake on political integration has been applied not by semi-detached Britain, but by Germany, more usually accused of harbouring crypto-imperial ambitions than acting like a one-eyed, small town bank manager. After all, Ms Merkel's push for a banking union has come very late into the euro crisis and feels like a move driven by desperation rather than vision. 

For now Germany's politicians are resisting the push for political integration because they know full well they will be expected to foot the bill for fixing the problem that is the euro. There is some justification for expecting Germany to dig deep – the country's exports benefited enormously from a dual-prong policy of domestic wage restraint and offering cheap money to its neighbours – but it is also an understandably tough sell to an electorate that feels, also with some justification, it is being asked to pick-up the tab for other people's parties.

Whatever side one takes on the question of whether the EU should become something like a state, it should be a source of embarrassment for those of a pro-EU bent that they continue to, at best, obfuscate and, at worst, dissemble on the issue. 

It's tempting to say it's now make-or-break time for the Europe, but such a thought is, sadly, the stuff of hyperbole. It's always make-or-break time for Europe, but here we are and Europe is neither remade nor broken. I suspect the stalemate will continue for as long as it is possible to dampen the centrifugal forces that, if we were to actually be honest about things, would either break-up the euro and loosen the EU or else tie the continent together into some kind of federal non-nation state.

It is time for something, though. It is time to stop pretending. Pick a side. Be on it.

He is the man who shook Slovakia. For years, Thomas Nicholson, a Canadian investigative journalist living in Slovakia, tried to publish the “Gorilla” file about corrupted politics in the country. No one would pay attention to it, until the beginning of this year when the documents he had received from a secret service agent surfaced on the Internet. The file had a major impact on the March 10 general elections. “Politicians will have more and more difficulties to continue practice corruption”, says Nicholson, when we met in a Bratislava café on the wake on the election.

Some people say that “Gorilla” pushed more people into social-democratic leader Robert Fico's arms. What's your opinion on Fico coming back to power?

I am surprised by how little effect the Gorilla file has had on these elections. The expectation was lower ballot participation because people would lose faith in democracy; the right wing would be absolutely destroyed, because this corruption scandal primarily affects them. They were in power when it happened, but in fact we have had the highest turnout since 2002 (60%). The right was punished but they got a second chance.

There are many positive things about these elections. First of all, the Nationalists did not get back into Parliament. And finally we have Fico as a single party government that will have no excuses, no Nationalists or Populists to blame for corruption or for his failure. It's a good recipe for a better government than the last time he was in power [2006-2010].

I think all in all, these elections, even though they were bad news for the Right, are about as good as what we could have hoped for. People were tired of instability, stupid arguing and inability to make compromises. Gorilla has not much to do with it in the end. People were tired of instability. Fico himself is not an angel but compared to the right wing he represents stability and that was what people were looking for.

Fico is apparently mentioned in the Gorilla document. Do you think the investigations will continue during the second Fico government?

Fico is not directly threatened by Gorilla, but his party is. Obviously his secretary was in the incriminated flat [in which politicians were meeting members of the Penta financial group and which was wire-tapped by the secret service. The transcripts form the material of the Gorilla file], he accepted money from the Penta financial group to finance his party Smer. Whether he will support or not the investigation, that is very difficult to say. There is lot of public anger about this file, and this anger goes all across the political spectrum. If he wanted to gain political points he would appear to support the investigation. But we know how politics works. He can easily stop it. This file was buried in 2006 by Josef Magala, the head of the Slovak secret service SIS, when police got it under Fico they absolutely failed. So he is not probably going to be enthusiastic about the investigation.

Do you believe that thanks to the revelation of such a scandal Slovakia will become a more democratic country?

I do. It might sound naive, but I have concrete reasons to think that. I don't think it's possible anymore for any financial group to do business with the government or politicians, in the future these connections will be very politically fraught with danger for any politicians to have.

As a result of this Gorilla investigation there will be a lot of initiatives that have started focusing on transparency and clarity in politics. I am a good example. I will probably leave journalism to set up a website which will be a database of connections between politics, financial groups and organised crime. It will be publicly available to voters, especially when the next election comes around. All kinds of these initiatives will come up in next four years.

The public has been empowered by knowing how corruption works, it's a knowledge about oligarchy, politicians, political nominees, how they work. Important is that people know about these connections. You have no governmental groups providing this kind of information. All that changes the environment that we had before. Politicians will have more and more difficulties to continue to practice corruption.

Your book about Gorilla has been banned by a tribunal in Bratislava. But you’ve started publishing some fragments of it anyway in the newspapers. The Penta group, which is considered as a financial shark swimming in the Central European waters, has pressed charges against you. Do you think you can win against them?

The suit against me is 500 pages long. But at the same time they have no foundation to stand on. These people, when they can't buy someone or scare someone, they run out of ideas because they don't know anything else. Besides the individual discomfort of being threatened by these people, I don't need money, I don't need fame, anything really. And I don't have anything to lose. As Janis Joplin said a long time ago: freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. I don't really care about their lawsuit. I have the publishing house Petit Press, who represent me. Whether the court will be for me or against me doesn't make much difference, because Penta lost in the Court of public opinion and I don't think anybody is afraid of them anymore. So whatever they win in terms of financial squeeze of my double-mortgage house, they are welcomed to it.

Mass social movements only make waves when they have the internet in tow. This distorts our understanding of the world says Angela Nagle.

From the Arab Spring to the Occupy movement, revolutionary events and radical politics have certainly made headlines in the last year. Last week however, one of the largest strikes in human history took place and it barely registered as a newsworthy event in European media. With most of India’s major unions and thousands of smaller ones on board, the 24-hour general strike drew out an estimated 100 million-strong workforce, bringing banks, businesses and public transport in many parts of the country to a halt.

Back in the heady days of 2011, BBC journalist Paul Mason’s claim that “it’s all kicking off everywhere” (written in a blog – where else? – and now worked into a book published by radical press Verso) seemed to capture something of the spirit of a moment of popular revolt, where commentators who support the recent apparent radical turn have been keen to draw links between diverse movements happening around the world, from struggles against authoritarian regimes to those resisting austerity in Greece and Spain. But while opining over the Occupy movement continued unabated, both the press and bloggers remained relatively quiet about the Indian strike, with minimal coverage, such as the BBC’s report, which described it mainly in terms of inconvenience to commuters.

One explanation that leaps out is that Western audiences may just prefer to read about Western issues. This doesn’t quite explain things, though. The Arab Spring was, rightly, afforded significant coverage in the West, so much so that it defined the tone of the protests in Spain and later at Occupy Wall Street. It has been the subject of countless opinion pieces, blogs, essays – and no doubt spawned more academic papers than will ever be read. It's not surprising that we Europeans tend to view the world through a Europeanised prism, but it is interesting that the Indian strike failed to pique our interest given the country's role in the global economy. Perhaps the strikers reminded us of our European selves after all – just ourselves four decades ago.

The key ingredient that the heavily reported and blogged movements like the Arab Spring, Wikileaks, Anonymous and Occupy had that the Indian strike didn’t was the internet. It appears that if Western commentators can’t frame extra-parliament politics in terms of the internet, if struggles don’t come with a live stream and a form of organisation that sits comfortably with our contemporary internet-centric network sensibility, it will simply be ignored.

While commentators celebrating this new internet-centric radicalism have praised it for moving beyond cold war politics, the narrative being imposed, one of the internet as a technology of liberation, is not as removed from power or the cold war as its advocates would like to think. When US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton came out in support of the Arab Spring in her now famous internet freedom speech, she was continuing a tradition that began during the Cold War of casting the civilian internet, a byproduct of military spending, as a means by which to bring American democracy and the free market to the world.

If this really is a pattern that shapes our understanding of the world – and it is one that has already penetrated academia and is in danger of further shaping foreign policy, as experts like Evgeney Morozov have warned – the implications are troubling. The promise and optimism of the cyber utopian wave of the moment is so intoxicating that commentators seem afraid to step-up and play the role of kill-joy. In this strange distortion of global politics, Congolese coltan miners are not 2.0 enough to be part of our global village, while strikes such as last week's in India are just a bit too twentieth century to be part of our ongoing celebration of “the power of organising without organisations” as Clay Shirky put it.

Internet boosters are quick to point to the deficiencies of the so-called "mainstream media" but whatever its problems, the internet has played a role in futher diminishing serious, commited coverage of foreign news. With news organisations cutting back on foreign reporters and adapting as best they can to the conditions of the internet and online audiences who never commit, this cyber utopian frame is likely to be self-perpetuating.

The Indian strikers had clear demands. They were calling for a national minimum wage, social security benefits and permanent jobs for 50 million contract labourers. If the labour movement in countries like India continue to grow and organise they will bring about huge shifts not just at home, but also in the global economy. 

Jean Baudrillard famously claimed that the 1991 Gulf War did not take place. This absurd claim was much debated at the time, with critics accusing Baudrillard of denying reality and supporters saying he was accusing the war of existing primarily as a mediated, television conflict. Regardless of one's views on that war, the hashtag revolution seems to confirm that if something doesn't happen on the internet we don't care about it the real world.

For the time being, it may well be “kicking off everywhere,” but if it doesn’t come with a hashtag attached you’re unlikely to hear much about it.

It's time to rethink internet culture, says Jason Walsh

After mass protests across Europe, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta) has joined recent US legislation, the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and Protect IP Act (Pipa) on the scrapheap of history.

On the one hand it's a pretty clear victory for people power. Protestors across Europe took to the streets with a clear agenda and politicians saw this and started to roll back.

On the other hand, it really is about time we got to grips with the internet culture we are creating.

Sopa and Pipa were not good laws and deserved to be junked. Acta now appears to be headed in the same direction. While the negotiation process was far from public and therefore deeply problematic, most of the accusations flung by anti-Acta activists simply weren't true. Acta did not give customs the right to seize people's iPods, nor did it include a "three strikes" rule for illegal downloading. Either way, though, it is time to rethink online culture's free-for-all.

No reasonable person wants to deny creators a living. Sadly plenty of unreasonable people do, as a quick dive into comment threads on tech websites like Slashdot will indicate.

As everyone knows, the internet was an academic creation and it has inculcated a culture of sharing knowledge and information. This is fine as far as it goes, but not all information is flat. The reductionism involved in depicting music, film or even journalism as simple information is a breathtaking act of intellectual acrobatics that sees things as existing pre-formed, just waiting to be plucked and consumed. 

In reality much of it is a product of labour – and not just the "creative" labour that we all pay lip service to, but a lot of people doing an awful lot of unglamorous work, too.

A university scholar is free to share his or her ideas because they are salaried professionals who derive an income from institutions that are funded by state aid, massive donations and tuition fees. The rest of us? We need to be directly paid for our work. But the argument isn't just about creators' rights.

The tech industry has successfully portrayed that battle as one between "Big Content" and the little guy in the form of the consumer. Unfortunately this is a rather partial picture that ignores the work of not only the auteur genius (a fairly dubious idea in the first place) but also the veritable armies of people who work to get the culture we consume past the idea stage into actual existence.

The decoupling of information – seen as little more than disembodied, free-floating assertions – from work has its roots in the left's post-modern theories that gained traction in the 1960s and 1970s and the business class's simultaneous abandonment of risky and costly industrial production for rent seeking schemes that provided massive returns on investment at the cost of increased instability. When these ideas met widespread internet access it was perhaps inevitable that people would suddenly demand access to all non-material goods for free, but to reduce every product of intellectual or artistic labour to mere symbols is to deny reality.

Theories that promised liberation from hierarchy are now being used to enforce an even more rigid hierarchy, but one that is being created in the name of democracy and participation centred on continous and endless communication between peers. The problem is, the content of our communication is invariably small and individual, or else the result of other people's hard work. We are all free to trade in symbols, but symbols make for a fairly poor replacement for fully realised culture and ideas. We will all be poorer if we strip the value from culture.

Borne of failure and fear, the EU moves toward political union not in strength, but in weakness. The latest proposed treaty for a "fiscal compact" continues this inglorious tradition, says Jason Walsh

And so, 25 European countries will now, we are told, sign a pact, the objective of which is to reinforce the euro by toughening and regularising budget rules. Sold as a step forward, this move in fact underscores just how politically incoherent Europe has become.

At once high-minded and a product of failure, the European Union had its genesis in the maelstrom of the Second World War. Devised as a means of politically and economically aligning the power blocs of France and Germany in the –  quite correct –  belief that they would never again go to war with one-another, plunging the rest of the continent into hell with them, if they shared a common interest. 

European Coal and Steel Community founding father Jean Monnet was remarkably clear about his designs for Europe: political union. Those who followed, however, have been less open.

In fact, the seeds of European Union disregard for the masses we see being played out today are a direct result of the EU's gradualist approach. Instead of taking the bull by the horns and straightforwardly arguing for political union, successive generations of EU leaders have balked at the, admittedly Sisyphean, task of uniting European nations and instead trod a piecemeal path, fiddling here, meddling there and all the while refusing to admit that the ultimate logic of going beyond a mere trade bloc is political union. 

And so, Europe lurches forward, if you can call it that, not as a united social entity or political demos, but driven by the fear and failure of the various national political elites. The latest proposed treaty, or "fiscal compact" if you prefer, ties 25 supposedly sovereign EU nations together under German-led anti-growth economic policy in the name of safeguarding the future of euro and with it, in the darkest and most apocalyptic visions, that of the entire EU.

To some small degree it has already succeeded: markets have rallied in response to the announcement. But in the longer term this plan will not work.

German-inspired "fiscal discipline" is not the only way to run an economy, nor is it the necessarily the right way to run one. For instance, Greece's spending cuts have worsened the country's debt crisis, not alleviated it.

There is, and has been, much that is good in European co-operation, even integration, but this madness must stop. Greece is being immiserated, crushed underfoot by Franco-German diktat that cares only about the country's (entirely imaginary) ability to repay its debts. And so, more money will be thrown at Greece, though it will slide through the country without so much as touching the ground, making its way to Greece's creditors while unemployment and poverty will continue to grow.

Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain are all also getting a raw deal, though none quite as egregious as that foisted in Greece, and now the rest of the EU, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Czech Republic, have signed this mutual suicide pact that will do nothing but depress consumer demand and, with it, the wider economy. 

No country being forced to implement swingeing cuts will ever be able to emulate Germany's enviable export-driven economy even if they desired to do so –  and, in truth, few seem so inclined anyway. Germany too will suffer, with the European market for its goods going into decline. Next to the absence of workable industrial policy and the ability to make strategic investment in industry, talk of stimulating the small and medium enterprise and tackling youth unemployment melts into so much blather. What we will get is a longterm slump.

When the warnings start about the growth of far-right and populist movements, and they will surely come soon, the European elites will cast around looking for scapegoats before finding one in the supposedly backward, nationalist and selfish European publics. But they will have no-one to blame but themselves.