Section G: well, it needs mentioning that the major points of general policy are handled near the end, instead of at the beginning. It's true the point is less clear the further one is from the Green paper and the Consultation questionnaire itself.
This leads me to the conclusion, actually, that we can't push this too far from base. The complaint necessarily supposes a degree of knowledge of the questionnaire. Commissioner Piebalgs and his staff may be assumed to have that, and Commissioner Wallström can take a look at it. MEPs and EP Committees too can be supposed to be familiar with the workings, at least, of these things. But the more general the audience, the less likely it is people will understand what we're bitching about...
This is one of the ways in which party lists put the elected representatives far away from the voter even if they achieve proportional representation. It really doesn't encourage a bottom-up approach as people follow in the UK and US. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Being a cynic, I wouldn't necessarily suppose that the Commissioners know the details (in the same way that my managers don't know the details of much; or MPs for that matter), but they should, and so the letter has chances. Ditto for specific MEPs and committee members...
My lack of knowledge of the structure and the process(es)...
Maybe the same approach for signatories to the letter? Yer goodself, of course. Jerome, if he agrees with the content (and can act as "head" of ET.) DoDo (if s/he wishes) has the technical skills. Migeru, if he wants to push the spanish angle and agrees with content.
Me, nowhere mate. I'm the one in the bar waiting to hear how it went. Learning "go".
(I taught it to a friend of mine. Great game.)
(I'm stuck at 16 kyu. I can cheat and get to 13, but in truth, against igowin, I still need a three stone handicap to win confidently.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
