Only an EU bureaucrat could have written this:

The development and acceptance of new technologies have led to the emergence of new media channels and new kinds of content. The emergence of new media has brought more dynamic and diversity into the media landscape; the report encourages responsible use of new channels.

In this context the report points out that the undetermined and unindicated status of authors and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits.

It recommends clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs.

What does it mean? Honestly, your guess is as good mine. A couple of smart people think that the EU is moving closer and closer to making an attempt to regulate blogs.

If you read the whole document, it sounds like a grievance manifesto from a journalists’ union. Taken in that context, it’s not hard to see how the EU could use protecting journalists as a pretext to online regulation, labeling, mandated impartiality and all the rest.

I don’t have enough experience with EU reports to decipher this sort of prose. (Which in itself is a commentary on the problems of the EU.) But I know that I what I’ve read makes me very nervous. And glad that my server resides happily outside of the EUreaucrats jurisdiction.

I’ve been writing a lot about the EU lately, and I apologize to both our readers if I’m boring you. But it’s been an eventful week.

Today, Nikos Konstandaras, the editor of a Greek newspaper, pens an opinion piece for the Washington Post website about last week’s Irish vote rejecting the Lisbon Treaty. If you haven’t been paying attention — and you may be excused for your apathy — the Lisbon Treaty was the compromise for structural EU reform following the defeat of the EU Constitution in 2005.

In his analysis, Konstandaras essentially blames Irish voters for holding up progress across Europe. He implies that they are stupid and provincial, blaming the defeat on “more domestic concerns regarding abortion, taxes and jobs that seem to have swayed their vote.” He goes on to urge European leaders to ignore the vote and press ahead.

Alas, Konstandaras’ argument, which has been embraced by other European commentators, is as arrogant as it is incorrect. And its tenor exemplifies why efforts to reform the EU continue to go down to defeat.

So, what did he get wrong?

Start with a simple, undeniable fact: Had the same referendum been held in virtually any other European nation, including France, Germany and the UK, it almost certainly would have been defeated. That’s exactly the reason that none of those nations’ governments put the treaty up for a vote. So the Irish vote, which Konstandaras wants to cast aside, was the one and only barometer for popular sentiment.

So, why are voters ready to stand in the way of reform? In short, it comes down to trust. Europeans, by and large, seem to instinctively understand that the EU is broken, and they are wary about handing any further power to Brussels bureaucrats.

Further, the EU is not a democratic institution, and Europeans increasingly seem to realize that. They elect MEPs, but they seem largely irrelevant in the European system. It’s the commissioners and bureaucrats who hold the power. And creating a European president seems a step in the wrong direction.

This shortcoming of democracy is exhibited, time after time, through arrogance. Indeed, the very arrogance that Konstandaras demonstrates by offhandedly dismissing the Irish vote.

I haven’t been in Europe long enough to have a strong opinion about the value of the EU, the Lisbon Treaty or any of the other fine points of European politics. But if I were advising those that think the EU needs to be a strong institution with a structure that allows greater flexibility and decisiveness, I would tell them in clear terms that they have to start listening. Their arrogance is undermining their case and making success harder and harder to achieve.

Last weekend, I took the Eurostar over the Paris and spent a couple of days. First of all, I had a lovely time taking in the major tourist spots. The Notre Dame was amazing. Louvre unbelievable. Musee d’Orsay sublime. And the food, of course, was wonderful.

Mostly, however, I did what I love to do in any new city: I eschewed transport and just wandered the streets.

On Saturday afternoon, I was wandering along the river on the Left Bank, when I passed this government building:

You’ll notice the French national flag flapping away on the left. But it was the flag on the right that struck me. It’s the EU flag, and I can’t say that I recall seeing one anywhere before outside of Brussels.

After seeing this, I started paying attention, and during a walk around a neighborhood full of government buildings that same evening, I noticed that nearly all French official buildings fly the EU flag.

First of all, I wonder if other EU nations do the same. I can say with certainty that the UK does not.

But more broadly, this practice struck me as a huge symbolic gesture of fealty to the EU. It suggests that the French have surrender the primacy of their own nation and given over their sovereignty to Brussels.

Now, I realize that I am probably overreacting. After all, it’s just a flag. But still… To me, it sends a powerful message.

What do you think?

If you think the U.S. government is meddlesome and intrusive, the EU will knock your socks off.

Lately, EU bureaucrats have set their sights on health and safety in hotel kitchens, and their resulting regulations, as ever, put a metaphorical stick in the eye of the principles reasonableness and common sense.

The issue? Dogs in homes. Specifically, homes that also rent out rooms to vacationers and feed their guests breakfast each morning during their stay.

Thanks to the EU, these bed and breakfast owners may soon have to choose between the family business and the family pet.

Owners of bed and breakfasts have been banned from keeping dogs in their kitchens under a European Union ruling that could see hundreds of family-run businesses close.

Officials claim that the animals pose a potential health and safety hazard to guests’ food. However, bed and breakfast owners vowed to close rather than turn out the family pet.

Oliver Letwin, the former shadow home secretary, called the legislation “barking mad”.

Someone far smarter than me once said that the problem with legislators is that they’re always legislating, and the problem with regulators is that they’re always regulating. That stands to reason, of course. If they aren’t, they literally are failing to do their job. The question of whether it’s a good idea to legislate or regulate never seems to enter their mind.

The result: Stupid, wasteful, insulting, freedom-sucking mandates like this one.