EU affairs are - par excellence – a field where practice always triumphs over theory. Sure, but now, the Lisbon Treaty changes everything. Or at least it makes everything more complicated. From now on, universities must add case studies to their degree courses, whilst professionals must with humility learn again the legal ground rules of the post-Lisbon European Union.

When I recruit a young graduate for a job or a traineeship, I tend to tell him or her rather abruptly to “forget everything you’ve learned”. With age I keep myself from saying this, but these words do reflect the truth to a certain extent. Universities – or the top ones at least - indeed offer students a good command of the ‘fundamentals’ and of linguistic skills (or multi-linguistic, which is certainly a plus); a respectable array of IT skills (internet research, use of spreadsheets and other IT tools); and a global and clear understanding of how the Union functions between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council.

But students have three shortcomings: too much legalism, a lack of communication skills and few personal ideas

European lobbying is not law. At the best it is law in action. An EU lobbyist does not apply law; he uses it to defend his file. He uses his knowledge of procedures to identify actors, understand the chain of events, and raise the pertinent argument with the right person, at the right moment and in the right place.

Of course, university does not prepare for this. Not more than for communication. It is always a surprise to read the very first drafts of my young colleagues: the texts are always very scholarly, very long, without titles or subtitles or message. Pure academia! Nowadays communication is an integral part of lobbying: one must talk simple, talk clear, adapt messages to interlocutors, and be concrete.

Younger colleagues also give in (bar some rare exceptions) to the most consensual views. Personal ideas? Absolutely none – or few – and a general conviction that “things aren’t so bad and it’ll go better tomorrow.”

It seems clear that universities are nowadays aware of the necessity to reinforce their degree courses with case studies entrusted to professionals. These cases bring the latest technologies (video conferences, online exercises and corrections) into the frame; oblige students to pick sides (NGO or industry advocacy), lead them to identify actors, build a strategy and present it with a view to communicate professionally.

Whether one is dealing with a prestigious university or a lesser-known one, it is always an immense satisfaction to see how students rapidly assimilate a new methodology and dissect with brio a case study. Then they are ripe to step up for a job.

For professionals, expertise is not enough

Brussels, the capital of the European Union, swarms with experts. There are thousands of them covering every bit of Community competences. Knowing ‘what’ is obviously a prerequisite to influence the EU legislator, but it does not suffice. One must also command the ‘how to’, the way of proceeding, have the knack and know the procedure.

And it is here that the difficulties start to creep in. What is indeed the use of knowing every technical aspect of a project for a directive on food labelling if one does not know the difference between a directive and a regulation; between a delegated act and an implementing act?

Each reform of the EU treaties added an additional layer of complexity to the Community decision making procedures. But this was nothing compared to the Lisbon Treaty, which has drastically changed in depth the Community architecture and the balance of powers.

Knowing everything about a technical file, but not knowing how it will be put forward, adopted and executed is like walking in a pitch-black tunnel without any light. I receive calls from experienced professionals almost every week saying: “I know everything about the file, but I am lost in the decision making process”.

From then on it is important for everyone – and first of all the author of these lines – to humbly get back to work, thoroughly analyse the basic legal texts, with the Lisbon Treaty and its various aspects at the forefront, and understand (with all the required energy) reformed comitology.

In Brussels, influence rests upon competency, which in turn rests upon three pillars: technical expertise of the file; a very thorough understanding of the procedure; and excellence in communication.

In the same way as for young students, it is through cases that one acquires method and new competencies. One must never forget that in lobbying one learns by doing. Only case studies can facilitate one’s understanding because they always bring one back to reality and concrete issues.

Persistent weaknesses in communication, anticipation and leadership

Recently participating in a seminar on training organised by a leading university, I’ll now give you the conclusions of a two-day debate between students and teachers. The general view was that university degree courses do not train enough for Europe and for leadership. And they do not adequately prepare students for anticipation, for communication and for challenging preconceptions.

These conclusions call out to newcomers or case-hardened seniors alike, don’t they?

(*) Daniel Guéguen is president of the European Training Institute