This is called coverage of the EU?

The UK's Daily Telegraph has outdone itself. Here is the latest example of why the "serious" press in the UK can't claim to be giving Brits the coverage of the EU that they deserve.

The article seems not to have been written by a Telegraph correspondent (no author is identified); it may have come from one of the news agencies. But it refers to a "Leonard Orba", who is identified as the man "in charge of the EU Bookshop project".

Of course the man's name is Orban and not Orba, and he isn't just some project manager. He's a European Commissioner. OK, so he's not Commissioner for Agriculture, or Competition, or Environment. He's Commissioner for Multilingualism. Not exactly high profile. But you can't call yourself a serious publication if you allow errors of this type into reports.

Perhaps just as bad as the misreporting of his name and job is the missed opportunity that the report represents. There is a lot to say about the EU Bookshop and the broader Europeana project. For example, some see Europeana as a strategic European counter to the cultural threat represented by Google's efforts to digitise the world's libraries. There are some serious cultural and economic issues at stake.

But all in all, what the Telegraph provides here is pretty much worthless. Shame on them.

Certain Ideas of Europe

The Economist is one of those publications that people either love or hate; very few who have read it are indifferent. I feel somewhat lonely as a regular reader who enjoys it but well understands the irritation and frustration of others with it.

It does at least have the virtue of providing a great deal of informed analysis on a great may issues. And its coverage of EU business, although it suffers from being too high-level and afraid to get down in the weeds, is very solid.

For those who like to look at EU affairs through the Good/Bad prism, who see any debate about the EU as being necessarily about praising it to the heavens or calling for its demise, the Economist is of little comfort. It takes a fairly middle-of-the-road stance, endorsing the idea of the EU but being critical of its workings. The Economist's excellent blog, Certain Ideas of Europe, is a good example.

I always dread the prospect of entering into a debate on the Constitutional Treaty, or the Reform Treaty, depending on the name you prefer, because it is so painfully sensitive that use of terminology has to be very precise to avoid accusations of favouring one side or the other. What the Economist does do skilfully is to expose some of the less "serious" criticisms of the Reform Treaty in one of its recent postings. I think the publication might have taken a more critical look at the treaty. But I also think that "unserious" journalism like that of British EU-sceptic Christopher Booker does nothing to aid his cause, since it is easily dismissed as ill-informed, misleading, or inaccurate.

Polish Plumbers Apply Here!

The Polish plumber was the bogeyman of European politics for the two years that the Services Directive was going through co-decision in the EU institutions, coinciding with the accession of Poland and seven other former Communist Bloc countries - perhaps not quite a hate figure, but certainly feared as the symbol of Eastern European workers coming to Western Europe to "take our jobs", working for East European wages. The Polish tourist board outflanked French trade unionists by using humour and publishing the now-famous poster of a hunky, wrench-toting, pipe-wielding Polish plumber addressing French lady tourists saying, "Je reste en Pologne. Venez nombreux!"

At the time, the argument went something like this: Polish plumbers will come in large numbers to "old" EU countries like France and Germany, will price local competitors out of the market, and will not contribute a penny to local taxes. This has all been proved to be nonsense by the UK and Ireland, which have no successfully hosted several hundred thousand Polish workers (not just plumbers), of whom the overwhelming majority pay taxes and fill labour shortages. Most EU Member States took advantage of a "phase-in period" for the freedom of movement for workers from the new Member States, and have seen very limited immigration. Germany and Austria retain these controls. What immigration there has been there seems to be part of the grey economy, with the workers legally present in the countries, but working illegally.

And now we have the German government acknowledging a skills shortage in Germany, and calling for immigration from the East to be made easier. Great! Let's all gloat at the Germans and say how pleased we all are that they were wrong. And wrong they undoubtedly were. But is it really that simple?

Now, I'm not an economist, but I know for a fact that Poland is facing severe shortages of skilled construction workers, and yes, plumbers! Word is, you can't get hold of a decent plumber anymore, because all the best, most enterprising ones, have moved West. Can it really be that good for Poland to lose large numbers of its best and brightest? Sure, it makes the government's drive to cut unemployment much easier - the stats are good even taking into account the fact that many who are working abroad are claiming unemployment benefits at home.

There seems to be a consensus that most of the emigration is temporary, that workers are sending money home and will return when the Polish economy begins to catch up. That may be the case, but in the meantime, Poland and some of the other new Member States are making do with shortages of their own.

Shouldn't this really be about addressing the need for better education and training in all EU countries, rather than moving skilled workers from low-wage countries to high-wage countries? Isn't the issue here that all EU countries need these workers, and aren't we making a mistake if we seek to solve the problem only through labour mobility?

Don't get me wrong - I am not in favour of closing the borders. But I don't see governments addressing this in a way that is sustainable for Europe - the German government has little interest in what's happening in Poland; it wants to find the easiest way to fix the skills shortage. Shouldn't policy be more consistently directed at addressing the underlying structural problem?

I don't know. Maybe national governments are taking this seriously and are doing lots to increase the skills of the local labour force, and the media aren't reporting on it. But I have my doubts.

I have a confession to make: I have used a Polish plumber, a Polish handyman, and a Polish-owned Belgian construction company here in Brussels. They are competitive on price, especially for the small jobs, and they do good work. By contrast, my experiences with Belgian plumbers have invariably been negative: rude, incompetent, late, untidy, and expensive. The Poles are "incontournable" in Brussels, but I expect the locals still rule the roost outside the big city.

A Humourous Take on the Future of the UK Conservative Party

Apologies to readers who do not follow UK politics with any interest. As the UK is "the Member State that I know best", I try to keep up with developments across the Channel.

This opinion piece on the future of the Conservative Party from the Daily Telegraph is worth a read for a laugh. I think no one but a die-hard Labour supporter would be able to wish this to come true...