Washington, DC, and Brussels are two of the world’s most influential political hubs. But how does public affairs work differ between them? To explore this, we spoke with Stan McCoy, an American government relations professional who built a successful career in Brussels. He shares insights on his transatlantic journey, cultural surprises, and the key lessons he’s learned along the way.
Q&A with Stan McCoy
Q: What first brought you to Brussels, and how did you establish yourself in the public affairs scene?
A: I came to Brussels 25 years ago as a young lawyer at Covington and Burling, to support their policy and regulatory work on behalf of tech sector clients. While working in Brussels that first time I developed a passion for international trade issues and started trying to find my way into a job at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which I ultimately managed to do. I spent eleven years at USTR before being recruited by the Motion Picture Association to become President of their Brussels-based Europe, Middle East and Africa arm, MPA EMEA, where I spent the next decade.
Q: What were some of the biggest cultural adjustments you faced when transitioning from DC to Brussels?
A: There are more similarities than differences – people are people and the issues are the issues, after all. But beneath that, I see the United States and Europe as differently diverse. For example, just as you can’t understand the United States without exploring our many complexities around race and gender and ethnicity, you equally can’t understand Europe without appreciating the challenges and opportunities of its cultural and linguistic megadiversity. At the MPA, to take just a tiny example, I ran an office of more than 30 people who between them could speak about 40 different languages.
The public policy institutional framework of course is very different. By far the biggest difference is the sheer productivity – and in some ways the overproductivity – of the EU legislative machinery. In the US, you can find lobbyists who have never affirmatively supported a meaningful legislative proposal in their careers, because their job is simply to protect the status quo. It can be quite difficult to overcome that inertia, and that fact, combined with our hyperpartisan politics, makes the US underproductive when it comes to federal legislation. In Brussels, by contrast, it’s a good bet that the Commission will propose legislation of some kind in every area of its competence in every mandate, because proposing legislation is literally their job – that’s a different kind of inertia. Neither one is ideal.
Q: What are some of the biggest differences between Washington DC and Brussels in how public affairs is conducted?
A: Well, they say the never-ending treadmill of proposals coming out of the Berlaymont is a recipe for full employment for lawyers and policy professionals. But, oddly enough, the European associations and NGOs working on public affairs in Brussels are often too thinly resourced compared to their US counterparts. I’m not sure why, but the result is that Brussels policy professionals do more with less. Fortunately I find they also cultivate a culture of camaraderie and work-life balance that helps to make the workload more bearable.
Within the EU institutions there is also a culture of compromise that often stands in contrast to the stereotype of Washington DC gridlock. A side effect of that culture of compromise is that one has to master a very high level of detail to participate effectively in the EU legislative process. That can be true in the US as well of course, particularly in dealing with regulators, but detail is hard-wired into the EU process – for example via EP amendments and trilogues – in a way that I confess can be slightly mind-blowing from a US perspective.
Q: Do you see the Brussels process evolving in the future?
A: Yes, I’m hopeful for one sort of change, and worried about another
On the hopeful side, I’m optimistic that the Commission may take to heart some key parts of the Draghi Report on European Competitiveness, particularly the parts that identified overregulation as a key factor weighing down innovation. An attitudinal shift at the Commission toward more subsidiarity and less regulation would be a real game-changer.
More worrisome is the risk that the fundamentally centrist, compromise-oriented dynamics that have prevailed for many years now in the European Parliament could end as voters opt for more extreme parties and there is less ability to get things done. We’ve seen some of that in France, and it’s not difficult to imagine similar dynamics taking hold at the EU level. That might be a path to less regulation but not in a good way – the high degree of political polarization in the US is not serving us well.
Q: How do you bridge the cultural gaps across the Atlantic, especially at this difficult moment in the transatlantic relationship?
A: On a personal level it helps to be married to a European citizen and have children who are dual US-French citizens – our family has skin in the game.
On a professional level I do my best to be a cultural translator and intermediary. Now that I’m back in Washington full time, I’ve recently started The Trade War Podcast for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a leading think tank. One of my goals with that is to promote transatlantic (and wider) dialogue on trade issues.
Q: How do feel about the transatlantic relationship right now?
A: I worry that President Trump may have been misled with fake history. Contrary to what he has said recently, the European project was not created to screw the United States. The truth is actually the opposite: the Truman Administration in 1949 demanded postwar European integration so that Germany and France could never go to war again, and as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. Dean Acheson urged Robert Schuman to be bold, and when the Schuman Plan came out in May of 1950, the leading American diplomats of the day found it brilliant.
Both sides should remember that European integration was and remains vital to peace. US companies would benefit from restoring European competitiveness, as Draghi is urging. And the global economy would benefit from the US and Europe working together to counter what Prime Minister Bayrou has aptly termed China’s weaponization of global trade. I wish we would hurry up and get on with all of that.
Q: What’s one moment or lesson that truly left an impression on you about working in Brussels?
A: I was in the European Parliament having coffee with an MEP the morning of the June 2016 terrorist attacks, which were such a horrific wake-up call for all of us working in the world of European affairs. That was one of the darker moments of my time in Brussels.
On a happier note, I will never forget the pleasure and sheer collegiality of sunset creative sector cocktails on the rooftop of the MPA offices on Avenue des Arts. If the weather cooperates, it’s the best invitation in town.
Q: What advice would you give to an American looking to break into the Brussels public affairs world?
A: Being an American in Brussels means you have to try harder. Learn the system. If you’re a lawyer, master the law. Be aware of the stereotypes that Americans are arrogant and bossy and ignorant of European ways, and play against them. Be self-effacing and good-humored. And don’t be embarrassed to speak French with an American accent; French speakers don’t get to hear it that often – and secretly I think they kind of like it.
