Badenoch Et Al Coordinating Visions

7/28/2019 Badenoch Et Al Coordinating Visions

1/34

1

Co-ordinating Visions: Trans-European Networks and Narratives of European

Integration

Alec Badenoch, Rafaella Broft, Ilse van der Heijden, Marloes van der Heijden, Johan Schot,

Eindhoven University of Technology

Presentation given at the Tensions of Europe conference, Rotterdam June 7-10, 2007

Introduction

Transport infrastructures have long appeared as the epitome of European integration.

Trains rolling over borders signalled the coming of the European Coal and Steel

Community, just as they had been central to US efforts to encourage European co-

operation and participation in the Marshall Plan.1

The free movement of goods over

borders that was laid down in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, to which the Single European

Act added movement of people, services and capital, depend largely on technological

systems of transport and communication. While the connection between transport

infrastructures and European integration seems more or less obvious, when one

examines the invocation of transport infrastructues in connection with Europe, the

extent to which transport infrastructures are a means, an end or 'merely' a symbol of

integration is less clear. As often as not, as J. Peter Burgess has highlighted from

Robert Schumann's rhetoric surrounding European Coal and Steel Community, the

material connections between European nations are proposed as necessary to create a

1The Marshall Plan sponsored both "Friendship Train" from America that rolled around Europe

bringing foodstuffs to various locations, as well as a "Europe Train" travelling exhibition that went

around to several countries in Europe to sell the program, see Hans-Jrgen Schrder, "Marshall Plan

Propaganda in Austria and Western Germany" in Gnter Bischof, et al, eds. The Marshall Plan inAustria (New Brunswick, 2000) pp. 217-218. The now-iconic inaugural event of the European Coal

and Steel Community was the journey of a flag-bedecked train from Germany to France in February

1952.


2/34

2

new sense of European belonging, while at the same time, Europe's spiritual

connections are seen as necessitating building stronger material connections.2

Nowhere has this collision of projects and visions been more apparent, or perhaps

more advanced, than in the EU's Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) project,

which forms one of the three main pillars of the larger Trans-European Networks

projects, alongside plans for Trans-European communication and energy

infrastructures. As the European Commission states on its website, "the idea of

Trans-European Networks (TEN in the EU jargon) emerged by the end of the 1980s

in conjunction with the proposed Single Market. It made little sense to talk of a big

market, with freedom of movement within it for goods, persons and services, unless

the various regions and national networks making up that market were properly linked

by modern and efficient infrastructure."3 In fact, the 'emergence' of the TEN-T

projects was due in no small part to the lobbying of a number of large industrial

concerns, whose seminal publicationMissing Linkspushed for a number of the

projects that are currently part of the TEN-T.4

The attachment of such transport

infrastuctures to the single market was strong enough by the end of the decade that

these material projects for creating European integration were literally written into the

framework of the European Union in the Maastricht treaty (Chapter XV, Articles 154,

155 and 156). These networks were not only seen as improvement of existing

structures, and were also not 'merely' attempts to co-ordinate modes of transport,

energy and telecommunication, they also set out explicitly to co-ordinate and

2J. Peter Burgess, "Coal, Steel and Spirit" in Bo Strath, ed.Europe and the Other, Europe as the Other,

p. 433.3

European Commission website, http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/index_en.htm , consulted 11 May2007.4

Roundtable of European Industrialists,Missing Links: Upgrading Europe's Transborder Ground

Transport Infrastructure 1984.


3/34

3

institutionalize a number of projects for development and cohesion in Europe,

particularly in light of the changes and prospects of new members after 1989.5 In

other words, these projects did not just reflect or strengthen existing territorial, social

and political structures, they were meant to be active means of creating a new Europe.

By bringing together these various projects and goals, in many ways the TENs

projects represented a far more radical change in the governance structures of Europe

than any of the political developments called for in the treaty.

Such projects of course have a longer history. The connection between projects of

Europe and transport infrastructure was already considered vital, and the Treaty of

Rome had already stipulated the development of a common transport policy (CTP)

among the member states. This policy failed to materialize, and led the European

Court of Justice to delivered its well-known 'inactivity verdict', stating that nothing

had been done toward creating the CTP. In addition to their longer history, the

current projects extend well beyond the bounds of the union being formed.6 So how

were these interrelations conceived of, and how were the contradictions between

national and regional spaces, as well as the various actors and stakeholders, inherent

in the project reconciled? How were the histories of such projects both projects for

transport and projects for Europe portrayed?

In this paper we address these issues by examining the presentation of the TEN

projects to a general public by the European Union to explore how these projects have

been embedded discursively in projects of European integration. Drawing on the

European Commission's publicly available information on the TEN-T projects, we

5John F.L Ross,Linking Europe. Transport Policies and Politics in the European Union (London,

1998) pp 186-7.6

Ross cites EU non-universality as one of the key obstacles to the projects.Linking Europe, pp. 55-6.


4/34

4

explore how the technological visions of connectivity, progress and expansion have

been mobilized in broader visions of Europe. In addition, we will also look to the

way that the European Union, and more specifically the European Commission, has

used these projects to help to define its role in relation to other actors, most notably

the member states of the EU and citizens, but also accession countries and nations

outside the EU. We see these documents as reflections of the way the European

Commission conceives of its role in shaping Europe, but also as active attempts to

generate broad consensus and support for its broad-reaching aims.

This paper represents the first findings from a research project undertaken through

undergraduate Honours programme at the Eindhoven University of Technology in

connection with the Transnational Infrastructures and the Rise of Contemporary

Europe project.7 The programme is designed to introduce beginning students to

methods of scholarly research and production through first-hand training in original

research, here with the emphasis on teaching critical reflection on technological

change and innovation.

Our concern here is with the public presentation of the TEN-T projects, and so our

analysis was focused on documents made publicly available on the website of the

European commission, on a special page devoted to the TENs projects (See figure 1).8

The European Commission has placed a number of informative materials on its

website, on a special page devoted to the three branches of the Trans-European

Networks, the energy, transport and communication networks. The website itself is

clearly set up with an eye toward creating a sense of transparency and public access.

7Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)- funded VICI project under the supervision

of Prof. Johan Schot, Dossier number 277-53-001. See www.tie-project.nl .8http://ec.europa.eu/ten/index_en.html


5/34

5

This apparent openness is in part a product of the site's multi-centred production. A

number of agencies and offices seem to be empowered to place information on the

site. In this regard, the documents known as 'memos' are a case in point. The name,

as well as the format, suggest a general document produced for any and all interested

parties to make them aware of relevant developments. The EU memos themselves are

usually 6-10 page documents, which outline a specific area of EC action or concern.

At the same time, it must be said that this transparency also means it can also be

unclear how the projects hang together, or how they are actually structured.

For the purposes of this paper, we examined the section on 'press releases, videos and

memos' (see figure 1, top centre) and further selected to deal primarily with the

transport section of the TENs projects. These are the largest in number and seem,

perhaps appropriately given the historic value attached to transport in projects of

European integration, to take up the largest amount of space on the site. Again, these

documents are not placed in thematic, but rather chronological order, forming a sort of

archive of recent releases rather than a concerted, organized collection. The videos,

many of which were produced by the private firm Mostra Communication, and which

can be downloaded as mpeg documents or viewed online, tend to follow similar

arguments to the memos, and draw from a similar stock of images and texts. 9 A total

of 43 texts, including memos, videos, plus two press releases, formed the sample

9The firm makes videos for a number of European agencies. It specializes in explaining projects and

policies and requires that employees have a " passion for Europe."

http://www.mostra.com/content/jobs_en.htm . The idea behind the films is that they should act in a

similar way to press releases. "The reports are offered to TV journalists and producers free of rights, to

encourage coverage of subjects which the broadcasters may not be able to research and shootthemselves, and to enhance the quality of media coverage of important European issues." From the

company's website http://www.mostra.com/content/22_video_en.htm , accessed 17 May 2007. The use

of such reports will, of course, also help to shape public discourse on the issues at hand.


6/34

6

(listed in the appendix at the end of this document). A basic discourse analytical

framework was adopted for the texts. For each text, we sketched the overall narrative,

Figure 1 website of the Trans-European Networks10

noting subjects, actions described and actions prescribed. Moving to a closer reading

of the texts, we noted down the shorter narratives and networks of associations we

observed working through the text. Attention was also paid to the interaction of texts

and images, particularly in the films, but also the use and placement of graphics and

statistics in the memos was examined, a full list of which may be found at the end of

this document. Based upon an initial set of texts sampled more broadly from the

10http://ec.europa.eu/ten/index_en.html


7/34

7

section, we chose three subject areas for closer examination within the rest of the

texts: the identifications and relationships between the main actors (European

Commission, member states, citizens, and various third parties); descriptions of

European space; and discourses of progress and technology. On the basis of these

analyses, we will show how these various discourses intertwine around visions of the

European Union as technical expert, drawing together systems, people and states to

create a uniform, modern space of Europe.

Compelling Stories

In order to illustrate how these relationships, and many of the other networks of

associations we will describe here, are constructed discursively, it will be useful to

illustrate the narrative structure of a single text. The general structure outlined here

can be found in a number of the texts, and indeed, it will provide a reference point for

a number of the discursive formations we discuss below. We take as our example the

memo from November 2005, "European Aviation: Even Safer By 2010" (Mb). The

first page of the memo follows the format of nearly all the memos, with the large title,

and series of photos dealing with the memos theme (see figure 2). The title,

European aviation: even safer by 2010 works in concert with the photos, showing in

turn an airplane being inspected, the complicated cockpit of a commercial airliner,

and a jet taking flight. The implication is that every phase of a flight, from the

artefact of the plane through the technology of the controls to the overall system of

flight, work together in a total system of safety. The first page of the memo, much of

which is readable in the figure below, lays out the overall narrative structure of the

text. It begins with a description of the growth of aviation in Europe, pointing to the

normalization of flying and its rapid growth spurred on by the growth of the single


8/34

8

market. This growth however, poses a potential problem of safety. While pointing to

concrete evidence of safety issues (the series of recent accidents) the suggestion is that

the problem could be endemic to the growth noted in the previous paragraph. Growth

is not labelled as the problem, however, but the anomaly that member states still

have their own safety standards, even though the airline industry operates in a broader

European market. The phrasing naturalizes the liberalization of the market through

the phrase complete freedom within a unified market and thereby makes national

safety standards appear as lagging behind, a notion reinforced by the phrasing it is

high time to put an end too.

Figure 2 European Aviation: even safer by 2010 (Mb)


9/34

9

Indeed, the anomaly is the justification for EU intervention, which is called for

(highlighted in bold), that the uneven progress between the opening of the aviation

market and the EU-wide standardization of the industry poses a hazard for European

passengers about which they need to be assured. This one phrase sums up a number

of the rhetorical strategies of the memo as a whole: Europe is posited as a single

place, from which one can fly to or from, which needs to have equivalent levels of

safety throughout. This reiterates the danger posed by unevenness caused by

variation in regulation. The text then mentions the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA) which was established to provide a high and uniform level of aviation safety

across Europe, but which has limited powers. Finally, the solution posed is that the

European Commission has decided to take action and expand the role of the EASA

over the whole aviation area.

The rest of the memo reiterates and expands on this basic argument. The reader is

presented with graphics showing the high level of safety that has already been

achieved in the Union, but also warning that if growth continues, the number of

victims could double. The next page after that offers a further discussion of what

the EASA is and why it could potentially be effective. Its mission to create high and

uniform standards is reiterated, this time also noting the need for standards to

maintain competition within the market. Just as the graphs on the previous page show

that the EU is aware of trends in past and future, this section presents simplified flow

charts, outlining the way the EASA functions to create uniform rules that are binding

instantly in all countries (see figure 3). Having thus demonstrated the potential

competence of the EASA, the following page expounds the need extend its remit

Finally, as the recent spate of accidents has tragically confirmed, the safety of

aircraft operated by third-country carriers in the European airspace cannot be left


10/34

10

entirely to the supervision of the National Aviation Authorities (p. 4). This again a

rehearsal of the argument with which the text began there is a uniform European

(air)space in which national authorities cannot be effective, from which the memo

draws the conclusion (again in bold) that a strong and effective response to this

unsatisfactory situation is urgently required.

Figure 3 Flow chart illustrating the role of the EASA in creating common rules (Mb, p. 3)

The text then lays out (using another flow graphic) the key principles by which the

EASA would guarantee safety. Implementing these principles will set in motion the

evolution (see figure 6, below). The potentially negative growth (lack of safety due

to unevenness of rules in the open market) are re-channeled into positive growth not

only evolution but a quantum leap in safety and building upon the single

European sky. The final section (and page) of the document is devoted to what role

for national authorities? The role outlined for the national authorities is, disciplined

into a uniform regime, to implement safety procedures and inspections at the national

level.


11/34

11

The argumentative structure outlined here is common to a number of the texts, and

draws on a number of discursive constructs that are to be found throughout.

Positioning the actors

Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the texts is how much of them are spent

not describing the projects themselves, but in describing the relative positions and

interrelations between the European Commission, the member states and the citizens.

As we observed, there was a remarkably persistent, and consistent, positioning

rhetoric found in a number of the texts. In this section, we will discuss these relations

in turn, looking first to the relationship between the EC and member states, then to the

relationship with citizens, and finally to the way in which other actors, such as

accession countries and other actors are portrayed.

Before turning to considerations of the way in which the European Commission is

defined in relation to other actors is the way in which it positions itself with regard to

Europe. In many of the texts, "Europe", "the EU", and "the European Commission"

are used almost interchangeably. Often it is "Europe" in particular shifts its

signification, sometimes within the space of a single paragraph, meaning alternately

the Commission, sometimes the Union and sometimes, it seems to hang ambiguously

between meanings. It can be used vaguely to refer to a space that one assumes is the

territories of the member states of the EU (as in M3, p. 2). It is often used as the

subject of a sentence and ascribed agency, in constructions such as "Europe needs," or

"Europe demands" (V9). Such usage draws together the 'decision space' of the


12/34

12

European Union and the European Commission and the 'identity space' of Europe into

one whole.11

The single most prominent relationship described in the texts is that between the

European Commission and the member states. Table 1, below, shows a very

consistent set of associations that can be found in most of the texts.

EU Member States

Solves problems

(M1, M3, M4, V6, V5, M13, M16, M18,

M14, V8, V10, M7, M8, M10, V3, V11)

Make problems because of diversity

(M1, M3, M4, V2, V11)

Superior to member states

(M1, M5, M18, V8)

Have to listen to EU, have to cooperate

(M1, M5, M6, M18, M16, V8, M10,

M11, V3)

Quick, fast

(M3, V13, M14, M18, M16, M13, V6,

V9, V10

Slow

(M3, V13, M14, M18, M16, M13, V6,

V9, V10, M9)

Uniform (good)

(M4, V2, M14, V5, V8, M7, M9, M11,

V4, V11)

Different, diverse (bad)

(M4, V2, M14, V8, M7, M9, M11, V4,

V11)

Safe

(M5, V2, M14, M18, M16, V6, V8, V19,V3, V4)

Sometimes unsafe because of diversity

(M5, V8)

Modern, new

(M1, V2, V13, M14, V7, V8, V10, V10,

V7, V11)

Old fashioned

(M1, V2, V13)

Supervisor

(M18, M16, M13, V5, V6, V10, M7, M8)

Needed for integration, although under

supervision of EU

(M18, M7, M8, M10, M11, V3)Own interest (M13, V4)

Responsible

(V6, V8, V9, M8)

Irresponsible

(V9)

Table 1 Relationships and associations, EU and member states

11Charles S. Maier "Transformations of territoriality" in in Budde, Conrad and Janz, (eds)

Transnationale Geschichte: Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien (Gttingen 2006) p. 48.


13/34

13

As might be expected from a series of documents highlighting EU activity, the EU

appears in the texts we examined as a very active body. This activity is set apart

from, and justified by, the actions and roles of the member states, which are seen as

passive, or more often hesitant or obstructive to EU aims and policies. Indeed, when

member states do act of their own accord in the international scene, this is normally

portrayed as ineffective, obstructive, or both. In the memo discussed above, for

example it asserts that "isolated action by individual Member States clearly has a

limited effect: a company, whose operations are restricted for safety reasons in one

Member State, could still continue to operate in neighboring European States! (Mb,

p. 4).

Speed is one clearest markers of distinction in the texts; the EU or the Commission

very often describes itself as quick while it sees Member States as slow. Very often

lines like Member States should speed up (M14, 3) appear in texts. The EU by

contrast is described as moving quickly, in terms such as the European

Commission prepared measures in record time(M18) and EU acted

immediately (M4). Indeed, the EU frequently portrays itself as taking hasty

action, speeding up processes and not waiting for one set of projects to be completed

before taking further action. These linguistic markers are further underlined by

images in many of the videos. When things are said about the Member States, grey

sober cities, old slow trains and traffic jams are shown (for example, V13). When

videos mention the EU, on the other hand, pictures are shown of green nature, high

speed trains and flowing traffic.

A further mark of distinction between the EU and the member states involves a

discourse of awareness. The member states are portrayed as not being aware of their

responsibilities (M16, p. 4) or of only looking after their own interests instead of those


14/34

14

of the union, as can be seen in figure 2 (see also V9). Such demonstrations of

awareness, which also take the form of charts, graphs, statistics and projections,

support the role often portrayed in the texts of the EU as supervisor. In addition to

such demonstrations, the rhetorical devices used frequently describe the EU as seeing

further, or standing above a process, and thus able to oversee, or supervise.12

Figure 4 "We know what needs to be done" EU action and its rationale (M14, p. 2)

The member states, by contrast, appear to be in need of constant supervision, and to

be made aware of their responsibilities within the various policy, infrastructure and

safety regimes.

This discourse of awareness also feeds into a more specific discourse of the EU as

technical expert, which will be discussed further below. A press release noting an

evaluation of the Single European Sky highlights the reports findings that "the SES

12George Lakoff and Mark JohnsonMetaphors We Live By (Chicago, 1980) pp. 15-17; Such single,

overlooking visions are also vital aspects of the conception of state territory. John Gerard Ruggie in

fact argues that nation-state sovereignty over territory is directly related to the development of single-

point perspective, see "Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations"International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 1. (Winter, 1993), pp. 139-174.


15/34

15

offerspowerful tools to improve overall cost effectiveness, flight efficiency and

reduce the fragmentation of air navigation service provisions. However, the use of

most of those tools remains at the discretion of the Member States, which can result in

inconsistencies and does not guarantee significant improvements in performance" (Pb,

p. 1).

In some texts, the EU is seen as using its oversight to identify best practices among

member states and seeking to implement them throughout the Union. Such narratives

can be seen in the video on road safety (V8), for example, where the UK and Sweden

are singled out as having the lowest accident rates, because motorists there obey the

rules, and the Netherlands is held up as an example of places where effective policing

create safer roads. The authority of the EU in this video is assumed and its

recommendations are discussed as self-evident facts; the narrator speaks simply of the

actions that must be undertaken. The memo on the subject echoes this usage: "the

Member States and the industry need to establish an integrated approach" (M14, p. 5).

Overall, a fairly clear discourse can be seen surrounding the relationship between the

EU/ Commission and the Member States from the point of view of the EU. The EU

sees harmonization and standardization as a good thing. The Member States are seen

as negative because they are diverse, and this leads to inefficiency, irresponsibility

and high costs. The EU sees problems (supervisor) and solves it while the Member

States often make the problems (because of this diversity). Also the EU is fast and

modern while the Member States are slow and old-fashioned. The EU's reliance on

the member states is acknowledged, yet the competence and effectiveness of member

states is perpetually called into question.


16/34

16

The other most significant positionings in the texts are the relationships between the

EU and its citizens. It is significant to note that, like the TEN-T project, the notion of

a "European citizen" has a longer, and more contested history, but was first also

formally inscribed, if vaguely, in the Maastricht treaty.13 The connection between the

networks and the invention of the European citizen is not merely coincidental; both

stem from, and are defined by, the overarching goal of free movement within the

single market. As Cris Shore points out, 'citizenship' is defined in the treaty as

possession of certain rights, which are precisely (and only) the 'four freedoms' of

movement enshrined elsewhere in the treaty.14 The table below outlines the key

identification markers in the texts in the relationship between the EU and citizens.

EU/European Commission Citizens

Actor and being active Passive

Carer Needing care, safety, etc.

Protector Vulnerable

Being a guarantor for safety

Taking moves, really moving forward Follower/Trusting

Far-seeing

Up to date

Having the knowledge (learning from the

past, oriented toward future, technical

experts, etc.)

Unknowing

Taking care of the demands Demanding (mobility, etc.); Consumers

13See Cris Shore,Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration, London, Routledge

1999, p. 74ff.14

Shore,Building Europe, p. 75


17/34

17

Easy-going

(Should) feel connected

Table 2 Relationships and associations, EU and citizens

Descriptions of EU citizens generally describe them as passive. They are 'penalized'

by bad networks (Va), need to be assured (Mb) and are seemingly in constant danger

from a number of potential dangers within the systems. The European Union's role

with regard to citizens is primarily that of carer and protector. Citizens are seen as

needing, and sometimes demanding, safety. "Safety" is the explicit theme of a large

number of the texts (Mb, M1, M6, M10, M12, M14, M16, M18, V3, V4, V6, V8, V9,

V10) and a subtheme of many others. Within such narratives, the EU portrays itself

as the only guarantor of safety, as outlined in the sample narrative above. As part of,

and in addition to, portraying the EU as caring for the citizen, the texts portray the

European Union as listening to the demands of citizens. These demands, the

measurements of which are seldom if ever mentioned directly, are for safety and for

mobility. Such listening becomes part of the discourse of EU awareness outlined

above.

Just as notable as the relationship between the EU and citizens which emerges in the

texts is the absence of a relationship between the member states and their citizens.

When people are referred to as citizens, they are always implicitly or explicitly

"Europe's citizens". Where the relation between nations and citizens is mentioned, it

is to show how national regulations ignore or obstruct the needs of people. In the

memo on passenger's rights in the European Union, for example, it mentions that


18/34

18

"Europe's citizens are confronted with a multiplicity of national rules and with heavy

legal procedures that do not provide them with appropriate protection" (M5, p.1).

Thus caring and awareness of citizens actually becomes a mark of further distinction

between the EU and the member states.

Particularly when addressing issues that directly effect citizens, the texts make

frequent and often ambiguous use of the pronoun we. Sometimes it comes in

the phrase we Europeans, other times, as in figure 4 (above) this we is far more

difficult to decipher. It could either mean we the authors of the text, or it could

draw in the reader whereas the member states ignore the rules, we know what is to

be done. Significantly, such formulations also serve to create a distinction between

the member states and the EU and a direct identification with the reader as a European

citizen.

In addition to their passivity with regard to policy concerns, citizens are generally

identified as mobile, and as desiring mobility. Some of this association is natural in

texts that describe transport networks, of course, because they will describe the people

who use them. As noted, however, the coincidence of the TEN-T projects and the

official invention the European citizen also point to a stronger connection. It comes

as no surprise, then, that the general demand for mobility is seldom questioned,

qualified or supported with anything other than vague references to growth or aims to

"sustain the mobility of citizens within the single market" (M5, p. 1).

This mobility is as often as not the individualized mobility of the car driver or less

often the luxury train traveller. Interestingly, for all the emphasis in the TENs

priorities on the transfer from road to railways, and the mentioning of the

development of high-speed rail networks, the image of European citizens as motorists

remains relatively untouched. In the video discussing the TEN-T as a whole (Va), for


19/34

19

example, when it mention's "Europe's citizens" it shows a traffic jam, roughly from

the point of view of a driver. Most of the discussion of trying to relieve road

congestion has very little to do with attempting to get citizens out of their cars, but

rather with getting goods transport away from the roads to leave them free for the

citizens. By contrast, people are only seldom shown on trains. Instead, people are

shown milling through train stations occasionally (Va) but only seldom as train

passengers. In the video on the "Europe of the Railways," for example, the only rail

passengers shown are sitting in first-class in a high-speed train, either as leisure

travellers or as business people using the train as work space (V13). 15 The connection

between such individual ('auto'-)mobility and Europeanness comes out in a memo on

the European driving licence:

European legislation on driving licenses has a direct impact on nearly

every one of us, Europeans. An estimated 60% of the Unions

population holds a valid driving license, around 200 million citizens. A

great number of these Europeans make cross-border trips within theUnion for private or professional purposes and every year many

Europeans and their families move to another EU country (M9, p.1).

Though it is probably not intentional, the linguistic distinction made between the

'population' in general and the 200 million 'citizens' who hold driving licences is

nevertheless quite telling. This is coupled with the direct identification of those who

move over borders as 'Europeans'. The overarching message, then, is that European

citizenship, and indeedEuropeanness, is based around personal mobility over borders.

Finally, there is one more set of relationships that is worthy of note, those between the

EU and external countries (table 3).

15One of those pictured, a woman working on a laptop, bears a resemblance to Commissioner for

Transport Loyola de Palacio herself


20/34

20

EU/European Commission Acceding Countries Third Countries

The EU does it better, different(m1, m4, m6, m18, v9)

Different, worse (m1, m6,m18)

Different, worse (m1, m4, m6,m18)

Example for the rest of theworld, standard, quality (m3,v6, V2, v5)

In need of standardization (v2) In need of standardization (v2)

Cares for minorities/ThirdWorld (m3, m5, m16, v5))

Needing care (m3)

Makes projects happen (m3,v5)

Needed for global projects(m3)

Important for the world (m4)

Superior (m6) Inferior (m6) Inferior (m6)

Modern, developed (V2, m13) Catching-up, to be developed(m13)

Old-fashion (V2)

Interests needs betterrecognized at internationallevel (m10)

Takes care for and knowsabout important things,oversees and foresees (v3,m14, m18, m16, m13, v5, m8,v11)

Can not oversee

Responsible for and bringssafety for all (v4, m18, m16,v6, v8, v10)

Not so safe (m18) Not so safe (m18)

Brings knowledge together(v4)

Nationally oriented (v4) National oriented (v4)

Develops technicalapplications (v7, m14, v11, v9,v10)

Make use of technicaldevelopment (v7)

Make use of technicaldevelopment (v7)

Cares for environment (m18,v5, v6)

Polluter (m18)

Takes action (m13, v10) Passive (m13)

External trade, competitive(m13, v6)

Trading countries (m13)

Friendly terms (m13)

Table 3 Relationships and associations, EU and acceding and third countries


21/34

21

The accession countries are described usually as even more passive than the current

member states. While the 'unevenness' in physical structures in these countries is seen

as a problem, their lack of activity means that they are less in need of discipline than

other member states. In the video on the TEN-T as a whole (Va), for example, Poland

is taken as a case study. When showing the roads and systems in Poland, they are

seen as being behind the times, where the existing physical structures cause problems

for the system as a whole, but where the government (represented by a Polish official

who speaks English rather than his native language with subtitles, like the other

officials in the video) is trying hard to harmonize. Indeed, the video indicates that

through technological intervention, a 'leap' may be made directly to an ideal version of

European space.

'Third' countries, by contrast, often appear in the texts as a potential threat. In some

cases, this is a threat of pollution. In a video on maritime safety, for example, it

points out that making European ships safe is not enough if "floating dustbins" from

elsewhere are still allowed into European ports. The images that follow are of rusty

ships. The video goes on to discuss how harbour pilots can monitor safety and shows

a white harbour pilot juxtaposed with an Asian-looking ship's crew. In other ways,

third countries are either trading partners or economic competition. Particularly with

regard to the Galileo system, its superiority to the US GPS system is readily remarked

upon (V7, V12). Overall, however, the notion recurring in a large number of the texts

that the EU has to remain competitive gently reminds readers/viewers that there are

always potential (if unnamed) threats to EU prosperity and position as a world

leader.


22/34

22

European Space

When looking at the discourse surrounding European spaces, what was most striking

was the degree to which the texts stressed the uniformity, or need for uniformity, in

European space.

Positive (to be aimed at) Negative (to be overcome/avoided)

Single A split

Uniform

Smoothness, flow Slowness

Free movement, free transport

Open internal borders

Harmonized

Natural and cultural diversity Organizational diversity

Table 4 Terms of European space

In many ways, we can view these visions as drawing on what Jensen and Richardson

have labelled the 'discourse of monotopia' that has emerged at multiple levels in

European planning, particularly as part of the EU spatial planning directive. Meaning,

literally, 'one space', this denotes a spatial vision of Europe as a single uniform place

of even development and consistent flow across all parts of the European Union.16

The logic of the single market and the freedom of movement are spatialized to create

16Jensen and Richardson,Making European Space


23/34

23

a vision of such uniform movement across every part of the EU territory. Within such

discourses, intervention is seen as necessary to create harmonized procedures and

uniformity throughout the region. One memo discussion the TEN-T as a whole

speaks of a rebalancing of the territory of the enlarged Union (M13, p. 3), while

another complains that "thequalityofservicesofferedisuneven"(M5,p.1). At

manypoints,theEuropeanUnionasasinglelegalspaceisprovoked

unproblematically.Seatbelts"mustbewornbylawthroughouttheEuropean

Union"(V10).

Thedefinitionofsuchuniformspacesisalsooftencouchedinloadedtermsof

'nature'.The"singlesky"and"singlesea"initiativesmakeappealsto'naturally'

emptyanduniformspacesaslabelsforprojectsthatinfactinvolvemajor

technologicalinterventionsonlandandinspace,aswellasmajorpolicy

changes.17"Theskyhasnolimits"(M3,p.3)amemoontheSingleEuropeanSky

initiativeboldlystates,prefacinganargumentforthestandardsandsafety

measuresadoptedbytheUniontobefurtheradoptedworldwide.Withinsuch

'natural'spaces,diversityofnature(symbolizedinimagesofdifferent

landscapes)andofcultures(barelyvisible,butseenmostlyinportrayalsof

landmarks,butalsointherangeoflanguagesspokenbyEUofficialsinthe

videos)areseennotasproblematicdiversity,butasauthenticatingmarkers.

Whenthevideosspeakofwell-operatingsystems,theyshowtransportnetworks

(usuallytrains)movingthroughscenicnatural,andoftennationallytypical

surroundings(overstonemountainbridgesintheAlpsorpastfieldsoftulipsin

whatisclearlytheNetherlands,V13),usuallyingoodweather.Manyofthemaps

17Jensen and Richardson,Making European Space, p. 82.


24/34

24

usedinthevideostodescribetheprojectsalsohighlightsuchnaturaldiversity,

portrayingEuropeasanaturalspace,oftenwithnaturalreliefandrivers(V1,

V13).Withinsucha'natural'Europeanspace,nationalbordersappear'artificial'

whilsttheEUappearsasamorenaturalentity.

This becomes particularly visible in a sequence in the lengthier video that discusses

the TEN-T projects as a whole (Va). It begins with a close shot over central Europe

of a relief map with no natural borders drawn in. The graphic appears as if a camera

were slowly panning back, putting the viewer in the 'position' of the European union,

with an 'overview' of transport as a whole. The narrator explains "Historically, each

country developed its transport system within its own borders, concerning itself only

rarely with cross-border links." As he says this, straight lines and nodes appear on the

map, in shapes that resemble the current borders of nations in Europe and not

including nations outside the EU, so that there are blank spaces over Switzerland and

much of former Yugoslavia.18

That this is merely a metaphorical graphic and

anything but an actual portrayal of historical transport network development is visible

not least in the separation of Slovenian networks from the rest of Yugoslavia, the

'compartmentalization' of the Czech Republic and Slovakia and the filling in of

Germany's infrastructure in its post 1990 borders.19

The narrator sums up:

"Conclusion: Europe is too heavily compartmentalized[emphasis clear in the voice]."

At this point, the (current) national boundaries are laid over the map, neatly

containing each of the miniature networks, showing how 'artificial' boundaries have

hindered connection. The narrator then offers the solution: "What are missing are

transnational traffic routes." At this point, strong, bold lines sweeping across the

18Accession states, including Bulgaria and Romania, are included, as is, paradoxically, Norway.

19It of course overlooks the long-standing links between nations even in areas where the borders have

been stable.


25/34

25

national borders appear, filling this apparently 'natural' space of the union. In this

sequence, the natual map serves the same metaphorical pupose as the 'single sky' or

'single sea'. From the raised vantage point of the EU, the fact that such routes are

'missing' becomes obvious and the argument that the EU needs to construct them

becomes obvious.

Technology and Progress

As already alluded to, the means for creating such natural and uniform spaces are

generally technological interventions. The justification for such technological

intervention is not solely an appeal to space, but also a more general discourse of

progress. Such a discourse becomes visible in the terms used to describe the

technology (see table 5, below).

Positive (to be aimed at) Negative (to be overcome/avoided)

Moving, work in progress (m1, m5, m6, v2,

V13, v1, m8, m9, m11, m13)

The past (m1, m7, m9, m10, m11)

Modern, innovative (m1, v2, V13, m14, v6) Standing still

Alert (m3, m4, m6, v8) Things that not be noticed

Technical development (m3, V2, v1, m14, v9,

v10)

Technical development that encourages bad

behaviour (m14)

Standing still in technical development

Problem solving (m5) Do nothing to overcome problems


26/34

26

Expertise (m6, V2, V13, v1)

Healty environment (V2, m16, v6)

speed (m3, m4, m6, V2, V13, m10, m18,

v10)

Slow progress

Railway transport (m7, m8) Insecure transport

Safe and secure (v3, v4, m18, v5) Unsafe, Insecure

Overseeing view (v7, v11, m16, v6) Only looking at the past

Research (m14)

Harmonization (m16) bottlenecks and missing links, nationalisation

Standardization (m16)

Table 5 Descriptions of technology and time

We have already shown how the distinction between the EU and member states was

articulated in part through an appeal to their place in time. Such narratives are to be

found frequently in the texts. "History" or "the past" are explicitly invoked as things

to be overcome. "Rail's competitiveness is particularly hampered by the historic

division of the national networks" (M7 p. 2 original emphasis).20 Such language is

also echoed in the memo on aviation safety, positioning 'today' on the cusp between a

safe future and the unsafe past. Indeed, the actions of other bodies than the EASA are

signs of being stuck in the 'pre-EASA period' that is still to be overcome.

20In this, the discourse here is very much in line with general EU history, which sees its role as

overcoming the destructive history of WWII. See for example, the 1995 film "Passion for Freedom".


27/34

27

Before the EASA was established, each EU State adopted nationalsafety legislation, inspired by minimum international safety standards.

However these international standards are not legally binding.

Moreover their implementations widely differ between Member States.

Today this unsatisfactory situation has been only partially remedied bythe transfer of a number of responsibilities to EASA; notably those on

airworthiness and aircraft maintenance. Muchremains of the pre-

EASA period: many European safety rules are still drawn up by avariety of bodies, such as the European Civil Aviation Conference

(ECAC) and its technical body, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAAs)

and the Group of Aerodrome Safety Regulators (GASR) (Mb, p.4).

On the whole, the discourse of progress and momentum often leads to ambiguous

constructions of time. The TEN-T's overall nature as a re-labelling of existing routes

as well as the support of a number of planned projects for improvement allow for the

network itself to sit ambiguously in time. In the following paragraph, taken from a

description, the TEN-T is described at once as something that exists and as something

that is being created and financed in the future.21 While the opening sentences

describe the network in the present tense and it is supported in this with a boxed text

showing figures for the "current" network (for both text and graphic, see figure,

below) while the second half of the paragraph describes the network as "a reference

framework" for legislation and a "label" for a list of projects which will allow them to

attract funding and bring them into existence.

21Cris Shore argues that such "conflating the normative with the empirical" is typical of the way the

EU represents itself.Building Europe, p. 126. Such logics of planning, as well as the ambiguity of thetime expressed through them, has a longer history in European transport planning. See Alexander

Badenoch, "Touring between war and peace: imagining the 'Transcontinental Motorway' 1930-1950"

Journal of Transport History (forthcoming).


28/34

28

Figure 5 Description of the TEN-T projects, present and/or future? (M13, p.1)

Growth also appears as something that, while essential to the EU, can potentially be

unruly if not guided and channelled. Here the relationship to technology is

particularly important. Technology is portrayed as something that can help to channel

growth, but only if it is maintained at the speed of growth.

Indeed, "speed" and relative speed, always appears as positive in the texts, and the

concomitant fear of Europe being slow. As a memo on rail transport states

dramatically, "The average speed of international rail freight services has fallen to 18

km/h, slower than an icebreaker opening up a shipping route through the Baltic

Sea" (M7, p. 1). The physical speed that is required of the railways in the first part

of the memo then carries over into the speed of action (required) of the European

Union. The memo describes the "four measures required to make rapid progress

towards an integrated European railway area" (p. 2) the last of which is "extending

and speeding up the opening of the railway freight market" (pp. 2; 6). As it describes

the latter measure, "So far the European legislation has opened up only part of the

market. To inject fresh dynamism into the industry, the Commission proposes to go

faster and further"(p. 6 original emphasis). Within narratives such as the one


29/34

29

outlined above, such narratives of speed, growth and progress are taken as given. Not

growing or progressing is not an option, though it is sometimes appears as a

dangerous possibility that is to be avoided at all costs.

Figure 6 Airline safety as "evolution" and "quantum leap" (Mb, p. 5)

The solutions presented to many of the issues outlined involve adopting or developing

new technologies. The memo on road accidents (M14) highlights a number of

technical solutions: The EU supports research and technological development

projects. p. 3 revolution taking place in automotive technology. ultramodern

electronic devices, Technical progress. (p. 4). Such 'technological' solutions

also help to define 'technological' problems which the EU as 'technical expert'

declares its competence to solve. The Europe of Railways video, for example, shows

a graphic comparing the route of a lorry and a train from Rotterdam to Turin. The

lorry is able to pass borders unimpeded, whilst the train has to stop at many of the


30/34

30

borders.22

"The problem is mostly a technical one" the narrator states, and lists a

number of technical incompatibilities, each of which is represented by an icon at the

left of the screen, each of which resembles a road sign or standardized signal. The

video's constant cutting back and forth between high-tech digital graphics with high-

tech visions of future railways and video footage portraying high-speed trains in the

present helps to serve (V13).23

The high-tech graphics underline the EU's role as

technical expert, whilst helping to define difficulties in interoperability as technical

problems that the EU has the expertise to solve. A memo on the same topic describes

the same sorts of difficulties at border as "malfunctions", which highlight the vision of

railways in the EU as a single system meant to be providing smooth services

throughout the whole of EU territory (M7, p. 2). In describing the Single European

Sky project, a memo states, in a section under the heading "Political challenge" that a

"technologicalbreakthrough in Air Traffic Management infrastructure is needed"

(M3, p. 3, emphasis added). In the beginning of the same memo, it states:

If European Air Traffic Management is to meet these challenges, atechnological leap forward is needed. European industry needs to stay in the

forefront of technological development.

The EU SESAR programme aims to provide the answer, by developing a new

generation of Air Traffic Management systems, which can in turn serve as a

model for the world (M3, p.1).

This slipping between technical language to describe non-technological system can be

found in many places, such as in the video on maritime safety, where commissioner

Barrot describes the existing system for maritime safety, "and it has been observed

22The choice of Turin is interesting in that it allows the film to show the natural feature of the Alps

on the map, but actually avoid them, and with them avoid the non-EU space of Switzerland.23On the relations between time, 'realism' and ideology in images, see Damian Sutton, "Inside the black

box: from Jacques-Louis David to Ridley Scott" in J. Furby and K Randell, eds. Screen Methods:

Comparative readings in Film Studies, p. 27ff.


31/34

31

that one of the missing links was a better definition of the responsibility [his very

clear emphasis] of the member states" (V6).

Conclusion

As Chris Rumford has argued, "[p]ut simply, the EU actively constructs European

spaces, which it alone is capable of governing. Stated in different terms, the EU works

to create new policy networks and governance spaces within which it can deploy

European solutions to European problems".24 The discourses we have observed in the

TEN-T documents seem to express just such logics at work. Within the texts of the

TEN-T projects, we see them consistently framed as problems for which only the

European Union and more specifically the Commission has the solutions. The

solutions, in turn, are normally portrayed as a need for greater harmonization of

policies and legislation, and often more centralized control over the process at hand.

Within these narrative frameworks, discourses of technology and progress play a key

role. In a large number of the texts we have observed, the problems of co-ordinating

the trans-national networks are portrayed, literally and metaphorically, as technical

problems. The Commission portrays itself as the sole holder of the technical expertise

to solve such problems, and in many cases and the only actor strong enough to push

through such solutions.

24Chris Rumford, "Rethinking European Space: Territories, Borders, Governance"Comparative

European Politics (2006) 4, p. 128.


32/34

32

List of texts

Initial Sample:

Press Releases (P):

Pa "Vice-President Barrot meets railway sector stakeholders at the Colloquium on theFuture of Rail Transport"http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1678&format=HTML&aged=1&langu

age=EN&guiLanguage=en

Pb "Evaluation of the Single European Sky reveals positive impacts on air traffic

management in Europe"

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/317&format=HTML&aged=0&langua

ge=EN&guiLanguage=en

Memos (M)

Ma. The internal energy market: Improving the security of energy supplieshttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/oil/2DEL/memo2002_en.pdf, accessed 15 March 2006.

Mb. European aviation: even safer by 2010 Memohttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2005_11_16_easa_memo_en.p

df

Videos (V)

Va. Trans-European transport network [2003]http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/ten-t/net_te_en.mpg

Vb. Security of electricity and gas supply: Europe spins in its Energy Web [2003]http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/electricity_gaz/ energy_en.mpg

Full Sample

Memos (M)

M1. 27/03/2006 The European Driving Licence: ensuring security, safety and free

movement (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2006_03_27_driving_licence_en.pdf

M2. 07/12/2005 An assessment of the different support schemes

M3. 06/12/2005 The Single European Sky implementation programme (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2005_11_sesar_en.pdf


33/34

33

M4. 23/11/2005 The 3rd set of measures in favour of maritime safety (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2005_11_23_3rd_set_en.pdf

M5. 29/03/2005 Transport with a human face (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2005_passenger_rights/

2005_03_29_passenger_rights_en.pdf

M6. 20/12/2004 Maritime Safety (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2005_06_maritime_security_fr.pdf

M7. 16/03/2004 Rail Transport and Interoperability (RB)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/memos/2004_03_16_inte

grated_railway_area.pdf

M8. 03/03/2004 Rail Transport and Interoperability (RB)

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/package2003/doc/memo-fr.pdf

M9. 21/10/2003Driving licence (RB)http://ec.europa.eu/transport/home/drivinglicence/legislation/doc/2003_10_22

_memo_drivinglicence_en.pdf

M10. 21/10/2003 Maritime Safety (RB)http://ec.europa.eu/transport/maritime/safety/doc/prestige/2003_10_21_memo

_en.pdf

M11. 01/10/2003The Trans-European Transport Networks "TEN-T" (RB)

http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/revision/doc/revision_1692_memo_en.pdf

M12. 25/07/2003 Maritime Safety (not functional)

M13. 30/06/2003 The Trans-European Transport Networks "TEN-T" (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/revision/hlg/2003-06-30-memo_en.pdf

M14. 02/06/2003 European Road Safety Action Programme (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/library/rsap/memo_rsap_en.pdf

M15. 2003 Road infrastructure

M16. 04/04/2002 Maritime Safety (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/transport/maritime/safety/doc/passengers/memo_en.pdf

M17. 23/01/2002 Rail Transport and Interoperability

M18. 27/11/2001 Maritime Safety (IvdH)

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/maritime/safety/doc/erika/memo_en.pdf

Videos (V)

V1. Better and cleaner urban transport for Europe [2006] (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/cleaner_urban_transport/cleaner_urban_transport_en.mpg

V2. Rail transport: speeding up trans-European priority axes and ERTMS (MvdH)a http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_

priority_axes_01_en.mpgb http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_

priority_axes_02_en.mpg


34/34

34

c http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_priority_axes_03_en.mpg

d http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_priority_axes_04_en.mpg

e http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_priority_axes_05_en.mpg

f http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_priority_axes_06_en.mpg

g http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/railway_priority_axes/railway_priority_axes_07_en.mpg

V3. Protecting passengers and goods transport in Europe (RB)

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/videos_en.htm#protecting

_passengers

V4. Europe making our skies safer (RB)

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/videos_en.htm#europe_making_our_skies_safer

V5. Motorways of the sea (IvdH)

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/motorways/motorways_en.mpg V6. Europe strengthens maritime safety (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/maritime/2005_maritime_en.mpg

V7. Galileo: Europe shows the way (RB)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/videos_en.htm#galileo_e

urope_way

V8. Road safety : lets start by respecting the rules (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/road/2003_secrout_en.mpg

V9. Maritime safety: Europe demands safer seas (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/maritime/2003_secu_en.mpg

V10. Tunnels: Learning from the Mont-Blanc tragedy (IvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/road/2003_montblanc_en.mpg

V11. Single European Sky (RB)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/videos_en.htm#single_eu

ropean_sky

V12. GALILEO (RB)

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/publication/videos_en.htm#galileo

V13. Europe of railways (MvdH)http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/rail/2003_rail_en.mpg

Documents

Badenoch Et Al Coordinating Visions