 |
The end of MyParl.eu17. December 2008 – 11:55 by Hans Hagedorn |
It was planned as a “political MySpace”: MyParl.eu should have been a networking site for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and Members of the national parliaments (MPs), a virtual space to connect and share information and opinion. The project, financed with about 4 mio. Euro was first announced in May, a launch-party was scheduled for October. And until the beginning of October, everything seemed to go fine. So, a few days ago, I was very surprised when I tried to take a look at the site and was welcomed by a mere sign reading “We regret to inform you that the MyParl project has been stopped, following a recommendation of the European Parliament.” That sounded like a serious change of mind. What has happened?
It seems the project was stopped before it even started: According to New Europe, the plug was pulled in the beginning of October, just a few days before the launch-party. The online-platform was already fully developed and included some demo-posts and profiles by MEPs – curiously enough, a few days ago the website was still accessible through direct links, so I could get a short look at how the discussions should have looked like. But they seem to be shutting down now, because as I checked again today (meaning Dec. 17th), all links redirected to the homepage (but you can still find some content using Google Cache, see screenshot below).
So, why did the European Parliament cancel a project at the last moment? And what about the budget: How much has already been spent on the development of the online-platform?
It proved impossible to find some official information on the websites of European Parliament and European Commission. Also Euractiv and Mostra, the two companies assigned to develop the project, do not mention MyParls end. So I wrote to the EPs Press Department, asking the questions mentioned above. Unfortunately I did not get an answer yet. If they do answer during the next days, I’ll post their reply here in the comments.
The authors of the weblog “Europa Transparent”, two German journalists in Brussels, did get contact to some spokespersons (unfortunately the text is in German only). From EU-spokesperson Marjory van den Broeke they learned that the project was cancelled because the EP and national parliaments “did not judge it as interesting enough and it was not providing enough value for the money.” According to spokesperson Joe Hennon, cited in the same article, 800.000 Euro had already been paid to Euractiv and Mostra, and probably a further 800.000 Euro still have to be spend.
Fact is that the project got some criticism from media and blogs, first of all, but not only, from British, euro-sceptic media. Newspapers and blogs criticised e.g. the sum of public money provided for a demo-project that should last only about nine month, and that the public was left out of the debate: According to the plans, citizens were allowed as audience, but could not actively take part in the debate. Critics also commented that the EP and MEPs should concentrate on using open social networks like Facebook instead of building their own. (see Brussels Media, The Telegraph and Jon Worths weblog for example).
Stanley Crossick, British MEP and assigned online-moderator for MyParl.eu, used his weblog to openly answer the critics and to engage in the discussion about the project. But that good example does not seem to be carried on after the project has been stopped: So the questions remain why it is so hard to find any official information on MyParls cancelling – and why the EP has stopped the development of the project in the latest stage.
Simone Gerdesmeier (Zebralog in Berlin)
Tags: EU, inenglish, myparl.eu, social networking site
4 Responses to “The end of MyParl.eu”
By curious on Dec 18, 2008
A very valid question to ask. The myparl project was questionable at its inception and its subsequent cancellation shows that something was indeed wrong there. And the ominous silence that surrounds the affair makes it all even more suspicious.
The bottomline to me is that public money has been spent (or worse yet, wasted) on a blatant propaganda effort and that (as we see) the expenditure has served no public purpose whatsoever. The reported payment of two times 800,000 euro from taxpayers’ money to the Mostra-Euractiv consortium for a project that has never been implemented cries out for further investigation.
At the end of the day, two private ventures have received sizeable non-refundable cash injections from the public purse without providing anything in return. And, worse yet, the said payments have enabled the two companies to strengthen their own existing private projects (cf Euractiv’s ‘network of policy portals’ across Europe), which I believe runs counter to the EU’s competition rules. I wonder if the responsible EU institutions will ever bring clarity on whether or not the original contract behind the myparl project obliged the two said companies to keep myparl and their own projects strictly separate. Just a ‘small’ but telling example to illustrate reasonable doubt: the domain name ‘myparl.eu’ has been registered and is still owned by the owner of one of the said private companies…
A few months before the EU elections, the last thing we, citizens, need is dubious efforts by the EU institutions to set up opaque propaganda channels for their own purposes. I believe we likewise don’t need PR companies and lobbyists to appear in the guise of ‘independent media’ and ‘objective journalism’, drawing on public funding in their effort to squeeze bona fide publications and journalism out of the market.
This myparl project clearly warrants further investigation. At stake here is the public’s right to obtain objective information – and, yes, democracy itself.
By Rolf Luehrs on Dec 18, 2008
@ curious
It is very easy to blame the Commission to waste tax payers’ money, especially after a project has been stopped. The point is that nobody knows in advance whether something will be a huge success or just the opposite.
I also disagree that MyParl.eu has to be considered as “blatant propaganda effort”. The idea to bring social media to the EU Parliamentarians and to provide a public space for MPs debates is not bad as such.
The Commission can not develop such a space on it’s own and it is a common procedure to ask private companies to submit bids. To call that “non-refundable cash injections” is missing the point.
By curious on Dec 18, 2008
Rolf, with all due respect I beg to differ. In an ideal world – which we both know ours is
– no responsible public authority would be in a position to invest four million euros of public money into a communications project that may or may not fly in the end. Of course it is possible to say that hey, we’ve tried it and sorry, it promises to turn out to be a flop – but not before the beta test. At the very least. This project was called off way before it could even test its wings, and the argument – reportedly – was that “it was not providing enough value for the money”. The what?? We are talking four million euros (including my money and yours). Did it promise to be value for money on day one? What exactly has changed since then? Can we please be informed?
As for myparl being a “blatant propaganda effort”: this project was meant to create an exclusive communication channel for parliamentarians. Let me just quote the original post here: “According to the plans, citizens were allowed as audience, but could not actively take part in the debate”. This, I’m afraid, is reminiscent of CPSU Central Committee conduct. Or do you think this is appropriate in Europe in 2008?
Finally, regarding your comment that the “Commission can not develop such a space on its own”: why exactly? Much as I know, the Mostra-Euractiv duo relied on open-source software to develop the said application. It’s not rocket science to come up with such a web tool, and it certainly does not (should not) cost a fortune. Yes, it is common procedure to ask private companies to submit bids. But isn’t it also common procedure to clear up who owns what when the contract expires (or, in our case, is cancelled)? The reason I used the term “non-refundable cash injection” is because I suspect – and I underline: I suspect – that the said private companies have had the chance to identify and hire potential future collaborators for their own projects via this ill-fated myparl venture. I wonder if their contract forbids them from hiring the people whom they found using public money. The fact that the domain name is owned by one of the contractors says that it does not.
Again: my point is that this project – the idea, its management and its outcome – is bound to remain highly suspicious until it is proven otherwise. The original post says that this fictitious myparl has already cost us one million six hundred thousand euros. By my standards, this in and of itself is reason enough to be concerned.
By Asociacion Ciudades Kyosei / Pedro Prieto-Martin on Dec 23, 2008
There is a big problem in the way EU is wasting its money with regards to e-Democracy.
EU pretends to be seriously promoting “e-Democracy”, and huge amounts of money are being invested through a lot of complex instruments (see previous blog entry on the “EU eparticipation jungle” https://pep-net.eu/wordpress/?p=261#more-261). But most projects that get funded are simply stupid projects, that almost from conception “promise” to be not meaningful or productive (Examples? “Demo-net” and most of the projects included in the EU eParticipation portal https://www.eu-participation.eu , seem like that). [Pep-Net, by the way, still has to prove its usefulness; at least it is already providing spaces like this, where criticism can be voiced
]
EU hasn’t really understood what the “social network”, web 2.0 and e-Participation is about.
) with regards to “democratic participation”, which is very well illustrated by its attitude on the “EU constitution” referenda. They can say “whatever”, but what they have shown is that they DO indeed only like citizen participation, when it comes to support its “lobby inspired”, top-down developed projects and plans.
EU has shown so far some kind of “doublethink schizophrenia” (do you remember 1984??
On one hand, EU pretends to be a champion of democracy and e-Democracy; on the other, they want nothing changes, and are afraid of any development that could somehow challenge the “statu quo”. It seems they want to lead the change, so they make sure everything can remain the same.
Millions are wasted in enormous projects that deliver “nothing”, and organizations like us, the association Ciudades Kyosei, which are proposing a really innovative and refreshing approach to e-Participation, are unable to get any support. Their funding schemas are clearly design to exclude institutions like us, and favor big and old, well established dinosaurs.
But it’s already clear that big companies, established university institutes and the like, are not the ones creating change and innovation in this field.
It is small actors that drive Free Software Project, who challenge the imagination of us all. These small virtual organizations are really able to do “miracles” with much less money, because most of the work is done “ad honorem” by people that want to bring change, and not to make profit. But there is no EU money for them.
What could the EU do with 1.600.000 Euros if it wants to promote e-Participation. Not what it did, for sure. It could have started saving 1.000.000 for other things, and use the remaining 600.000 to create a “challenge”, a competition, inviting this kind of networked organizations to present its already running projects and its already developed or half-developed solutions, to claim its prices. Not just monetary prices, but giving them the political and material resources needed to continue the development of the systems, to run trial experiences with the systems, and to spread its usage.
But, for sure, in order to take this approach, EU had to be really convinced about democracy and favor unambiguously its continuous development and improvement. And this doesn’t seem to be the case.
What the EU doesn’t understand is that, by not really helping to develop the e-Participation field, it is at most slowing its development, but not avoiding it.
The “e-Participation FaceBook”, sooner or later, will be created. And its usage will spread quicker than Brussels, and governments all over the European capitals, would like. Many politicians and political institutions will not be able to cope with it, because it will enable citizens to demand real power in political decisions. And they will be forced to change, eschewing many of its current privileges.
So… no surprise that the EU e-Participation money is being “wasted” this way, even if it would be easy to spend it more wisely. So far, EU has acted as a “disguised” reactionary force in regards to e-Democracy. It has still to become a force for change.