It is perhaps the EU's biggest challenge. How do you explain the 25-nation bloc's complex workings in a way which makes sense to ordinary people?
With public support for the EU sagging across Europe, leaders have been promising for years to shear the bloc's texts and communiques of confusing Euro-babble.
But they haven't been very successful. The EU's own Web site even includes a section unblushingly titled "A plain language guide to Eurojargon."
It explains to mere mortals the meaning of terms like "acquis communautaire," "subsidiarity" and "rendez-vous clause" which baffle even seasoned eurocrats and hard-bitten reporters.
Insiders are also critical of the heavy verbiage.
Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, in an interview, scolded the EU for using ponderous and obtuse language to sugar-coat unpalatable compromises.
Calling for states in Western Balkans to be given a chance to join the EU, the straight-talking Rupel warned the bloc not to play games by offering the troubled region second class membership.
"Imagine a Serbian politician goes to a village ... on the Bulgarian border somewhere ... and says `look, if we behave, we shall get an association and stabilization treaty,'" said Rupel rolling his eyes over the EU's sub-membership treaty policy.
"They don't know what that is. They don't have the faintest idea," he said.
Sheer incomprehension is often the public response to EU documents, which must be agreed by all 25 member states and often end up with convoluted formulations taking into account 25 national sensitivities.
A ponderous and uninspiring 125-page EU constitution, torpedoed last year by voters in France and the Netherlands, was a poster-child for language which fails to inspire the broad public.
The failed treaty's preamble says it draws "inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society its perception of the central role of the human person..."
EU texts also have a grab-bag nature with each member state seeking to insert pet projects or ideologies. The intentions may be good, but this means a summit communique often contains clauses which appear contradictory. And most EU declarations are far too long.
The classic case of doing the EU splits pits pro-market economy Anglo-Saxon and northern European member states against countries like France which favors a bigger government role in the economy and is often accused of being protectionist.
A communique for the present EU summit is a textbook example of this and it's obvious at first read which sections were French inspired and which were inserted at the behest of London.
Admitting the bloc's 2000 "Lisbon Strategy" -- a master plan aimed at making the EU the most competitive world economy by 2010 -- needs an overhaul given its failure to achieve results, the text makes a series of curious non-binding suggestions.
"European values can underpin modernization in our economies and societies in a globalized world," declares the summit communique.
What exactly European values are or how they will help the economy to take off is not revealed by EU leaders. No concrete policies or figures are provided for the curious citizen.
Instead, this is followed by what appear to be British inspired clauses calling for "creating a more favorable business environment" and then an apparent French demand that moves for growth must promote "social cohesion in compliance with European values."
A further caveat in the communique is that EU economic growth must be "environmentally sustainable."
Seeking to combine growth with greenery, the text makes a series of again non-binding "lines for action" including "exploration of specific actions to bring about more sustainable consumption and production patterns at the EU and global levels."
The catch-all end of the communique includes a series of issues allegedly discussed by leaders including a "European Pact for Gender Equality," a call to give "all children equal opportunities, regardless of their social background" and support for a "European Pact for Youth."
Finally, there's the declaration of commitment to "flexicurity."
Got it?
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
A retired elementary-school teacher surnamed Lai (賴) said that, after retiring at the age of 50, he earned a monthly pension of over NT$60,000. Since retirement, he has earned over NT$10 million (US$306,457). If the government does not allocate more funding, the pension funds would soon go bankrupt. There is an urgent need for reform. If his monthly pension were lowered to NT$50,000, it would still be enough to cover basic life expenses, he said. In response, Taipei School Education Union president Lee Hui-lan (李惠蘭) said to Lai: “What do you mean by using your own pension as an example?”
RSS