Welcome to the JMECE Research
Students LAB
JMECE LAB is a platform designed by post-
graduates aiming to create a research net-
work among students, European youth move-
I S S U E
ments and others sharing an interest in the
Europe in my Eyes Project
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 Communi-
cations Studies site (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/
index.cfm) with the following objectives:
NETWORK:
Objective 1: To encourage postgraduates
and academics from different European coun-
tries as well as from different parts of UK to
work together in the field of European integra-
tion.
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-
laboration and exchange of ideas between
young researchers with an interest in the
European Union, helping them to overcome
the isolation and solitude of research.
ACTIVITIES:
Objective 4: to invite partners to play a full
part in our work , including our website, meet-
ings, workshops, speeches, events etc.
Objective 5: to provide up-to-date profiles of
the people currently involved in this forum and
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 RESEARCH STUDENTS LAB NEWSLETTER
2 1 5 A U G U S T 2 0 0 8
senting a personal vision of a
European Parliament fit for digi-
EU - a space for European stu-
dents at 70 Universities to ex-
change views and ideas about
how they see the European Par-
liament, what their own policy
priorities are, how they think EP
candidates do and/or should re-
late their own parties’ priorities to
it kova those of the public, how they see
M
A lek sandrina t/ the future of the European Parlia-
my eye
s" b y /conten
ro pe in e a n-v ibes.eu ment and their own responsibili-
©"Eu p
p:/ /ww w.euro ties for communicating with MEPs
htt /55/
Tozeva view/31 and their own peer group, whether
digi-exclusion (estimated to
cover 30% of the popula-
For the next academic year, The EUROPE IN tion) creates new democ-
2008/2009, 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 dis-
to inform and encourage apprecia- projects. seminated by the JME-
tion of the role of the European CELAB under the direction
Parliament in stimulating and sus- of our team and in con-
taining democratic accountability, vigi- sultation with academic staff as
lance and responsiveness in the EU for appropriate. More on page 8.
the benefit of citizens.
A) A conference open to the public.
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).
C) “My EP - democracy in a digi-EU”– this
is designed to be a web space for pre-
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
Graphic (logo) designer
Dr Richard Corbett, MEP
Internal Communication
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
Who we are
JMECELAB
COMMITTEE
JMECELAB
“Europe in my Eyes”
Newsletter editors
Talke Hoppmann
Stergios Mavrikis
Fabro Steibel
Talke Hoppmann
JMECELAB
Stergios Mavrikis
(cla7sm@leeds.ac.uk)
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 anniver-
sary of the European Par-
liament 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 publi-
cised on the net and via
professional association
newsletters (such as
ECREA and UACES and
Leeds ICS, 9 May 2008 / Celebrating Europe Day
JMECELAB Members of JMECE LAB
External Communication would like to thank Prof.
Fabro Steibel Juliet Lodge, co-director of
(csfbs@leeds.ac.uk) 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
Stergios Mavrikis
all stages of this project.
Fabro Steibel
The “EUROPE IN MY EYES”
JMECELAB Members
team contacts
May Jacob
Prof. Juliet Lodge, Judith
Alina Dobreva
Agnes Inge Schneeberger
Stamper, Dr Katharine Sari-
kakis, Stergios Mavrikis, Fabro
Jasmine Li Zhang
Steibel, Nicholas Miller &
Francisco Seoane Pérez
Renate Cordiera
Annemarie Sprokkereef
Silke Stumvoll
the YEM). The invitation to citizens with the right to
participate states: “Creative vote for the European Par-
minds wanted to brain- liament.
storm and produce an
audiovisual product which ICS Broadcast Journalism
will be sent to European undergraduates have a
Forums and European In- special role in this project
under the direction of Ju-
stitutions. If you have any
dith Stamper, ICS Pro-
ideas, story lines, scenar-
ios etc. please contact us gramme Head of Broadcast
in order to arrange a meet- Journalism.
ing and develop further
your idea. Our focus is on: For more:
European elections, politi- http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/
cal participation and mobili- jmecelab
zation of young people and
how young people perceive
themselves as European
We celebrated Europe Day with a reception,
where we invited Leeds students to a truly dy-
namic event. The participants of the Leeds
Europe party enjoyed an evening with enter-
tainment, good food and interesting information
on EU. The highlight of the party was the Euro-
quiz, 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
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 Commis-
sion come in which publish a
plethora of free leaflets to assist
the public in forming an opinion
on the work of the European Un-
ion, 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 web-
site gives easy access to publica-
tions ranging from "How the Euro-
pean Union works – Your guide
to the EU institutions http://
Leeds, ICS, 6 June 2008/ 2nd Annual International Postgraduate
Conference: “Communications and Space/Place”
On Friday 6 June, the 2nd An-
nual International Postgraduate
Conference on Communca-
tions 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-
European Union: Closer than you thought!
Photo & text: Judith Schilling
Publications Manager
© Björn Clasen
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 re-
search tool for visitors from all
levels of EU knowledge; an ever
increasing number of currently
more than 25 000 different publica-
tions only a few mouseclicks away.
EU bookshop allows a thematic
search according to 14 categories
ranging from competition to educa-
tion 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, study-
ing in another EU country" http://
bookshop.europa.eu/uri?
target=EUB:NOTICE:
KM6805098:EN:HTML and a se-
lection of similar brochures on the
advantages of the internal market.
Every visitor to the EU Bookshop is
able to order for themselves a sin-
gle copy of this wide range of
publications from their own com-
tations on Europe by research stu-
dents: 1) Mrs. Li Zhang:
“Communicating EU in China:
News Media, Foreign Policy, and
National Interests”, 2) Mrs. Agnes
Schneeberger: “Communicating
Diversity or Unity? The Construc-
tion of European Identity in Media
and Citizen Discourses on Turkey's
Accession to the EU”, 3) Ms. Alina
Dobreva:Interpersonal Commu-
nication and Media Perception in
Post-Communist Context (Case of
Bulgaria).
3
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 net-
work of "Privileged Partners" has been cre-
ated 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 bro-
chures 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 Commis-
sion's representation in the United Kingdom
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/about_us/
index_en.htm .
“Wha
t is b
So high is demand for EU informa- abou est
t our
tion that about 1/3 of all publications
servi
ordered via EU Bookshop from privi- ces, i
that s
leged partners in the EU27 were they a
re
delivered to recipients in the United all co
mple
Kingdom. tely
free o
f
charg
The European Commission's repre- e!”
sentation in the United Kingdom Judit
h
offers a selection of the most popular
Schil
publications on its website http:// ling
ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/
information/publications/
index_en.htm which is at the same time an
interactive order form transmitting the orders
to manager Judith.Schilling@ec.europa.eu .
.
.
We also had the unique
chance to film our dis-
cussion 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 hard-
won 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 su-
pranational 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 per-
suade them that doing so is significant and worthwhile when those elections
have no impact on the political colour of a government? And when no Euro-
pean 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 Some were concerned that elected Euro MPs
the meantime would simply be either less important than local councillors, (MEPs) would eventually challenge their
Euro-bores, or a nuisance.
authority and that many of them in the meantime
Worse still, when these elections took place, the Commission’s role was con- would simply be either less important than local
tested in some member states. Some wanted the Commission to be no more councillors, Euro-bores, or a nuisance.
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) suspi-
cion that potential voters in the European Community’s (then nine) member states were too unaware, ill-informed or blissfully un-
concerned 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 legis-
lative authority.

Some felt that elected Euro MPs would not accept that status. History shows that their concerns, on the latter score, to be well-
founded. 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 com-

mon electoral event, but the campaigns resembled parallel national elec-
tions 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 Euro-
pean Assembly’s “party groups” but were responsible nonetheless for get-
ting 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 Campaigns were off-limits. Their role was therefore to
of agreeing a common manifesto so problematic that it had many footnotes
inform the public when the elections were to take place
exempting different parties from specific sections (origins of the opt-outs).
The European Liberal and Democratic Group comprised strong European and advise them that those eligible to vote in national
integrationists and strange right-wingers but managed to create a common elections would be eligible to vote in the Euro election.
platform. The French and Italian communists disagreed too much to do so.

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 infor-
mation 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 ac-
cepted 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 rain-
bow 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 vot-

ing. A logo — hand placing ballot paper in box — was Ten years later, things had improved in terms
accepted instead. 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

Location: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Uni-
versity. Conference coordinators:David Lazer (Harvard University)
See conference
and James Fowler (UCSD).
website here:
http:// The social world is about networks. It has always been the case,
www.hks.harvar 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
d.edu/netgov/ contacts we have. The focus on the relationships among and be-
html/ tween individuals, rather than on the characteristics of individuals,
colloquia_NIPS.h is the main defining feature of the research on human networks.
tm “Politics is intrinsically a relational thing”, said David Lazer, a pro-
Report & photo: fessor in Public Policy at Harvard University and the director of its
Francisco Program in Network Governance. Although the research tradition
on political networks could be traced back to the 1930s, it was not
Seoane Pérez
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 net-
work 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). Schol-
ars 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 Sci-
ence, 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 California-
Davis 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 methodol-
ogy can be applied to policy analysis by taking examples from his own research on EU policy networks at the 1996 Intergovern-
mental 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 institu-
tional form, presenters and attendees agreed on the need of continuing to share their common interest on politics and net-
works. “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 atten-
tion 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:

The participants of the JMECE Research Students LAB

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:
are invited to place their research projects in one of the
following fields. Like our own research this is a work-in-
progress and open to development:
• European e-participation, e-citizenship, e-

C O N T A C T
Stergios MAVRIKIS governance
Institute of Communications Studies
• European Citizenship
Houldsworth Building
University of Leeds • European Citizens – European Netizens
Leeds • Enlargement
LS2 9JT, UK • The Lisbon treaty
• European democratic/communication Deficits
Mob: +44 (0) 7900116588 D E T AI L S • Multiculturalism
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 5808 • Europeanism
eMail: cla7sm@leeds.ac.uk • European history, politics, law and business
• Post-national identities / supranational identities
Website: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/jmce/ • European public sphere(s)
Forum: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/pdp/index.cfm (at the moment • European audiovisual policy
available only to the members of JMECE LAB) • European public opinion
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php? • European Communication Polyglotism
gid=22750100523 • 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
The one day event organised by
JMECELAB will take place at Leeds
Civic Hall. Speakers include MPs and
MEPs for Yorkshire and Humber,
media practitioners, academics, re-
searchers and local authorities. We
would like to thank Lynette Fal-
coner, Information Development
Manager, Leeds Europe Direct at
In this newly designed section of our enda. Watch the interview here: http://
Leeds City Council for her support.
we welcome your views, pictures,
texts, quotes and suggested links.
Please contact: Stergios Mavrikis
cla7sm@leeds.ac.uk or Fabro Steibel
23 October 2008 / csfbs@leeds.ac.uk. 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 pub-
talk on Europe and Globalisation. lish material.
More details coming soon.
JMECE LAB Latest video release
JMECE LAB
EUROPE IN MY EYES
Dr. Richard Corbett, MEP for Yorkshire
EuroBlogFest and the Humber was interviewed about
the Lisbon Treaty, ratifications and refer-
webpage (http:// jmecelab.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/the-
jmecelab.wordpress.com/euroblog/) lisbon-treaty/