The Green Paper presents a number of major policy directions on this vital subject and it states that the Public Consultation should open up a "wide-ranging public" (p.4) and "Community-wide" (p.19) debate on them.
3. The Community needs a real Community-wide debate on the different energy sources, including costs and contributions to climate change, to enable us to be sure that, overall, the EU's energy mix pursues the objectives of security of supply, competitiveness and sustainable development.
BTW, this translates, in the Consultation, into chapter C, Diversification of the energy mix, and a single question:
8. What should the EU do to ensure that Europe, as a whole, promotes the diversification of energy supplies? Use more indigenous energy sources Use more renewable energy sources Use more nuclear energy Be leader in energy efficiency OTHER
For a much-needed Community-wide debate, it's a wowser.
Sorry I didn't notice your request until now.
I've asked some friends who don't participate here for lack of good English mastery
You could start by translating the letter to French with a view to submitting it to French newspapers and politicians. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
I'm unsure about further signatures. Perhaps we should keep it "ET Contributing Editors"?
What I suggest is that when I finish the translation later on tonight, I email it to you -afew-, and you then review/correct it to produce a final version (or leave it as it is if you're fine with it).
I'll certainly collaborate on a fr version.
What is the proper way to do this?
The open letter is addressed to Piebalgs and Wallstrom.
We can also copy others explicitly (in a CC: field, such as, for instance, the EP committee on Energy, and maybe someone from the Council, that would have to be the Finnish minister in charge of Energy policy).
Then there is a wider distribution list of MEPs and national politicians? (not named on the letter) These people would require some sort of short cover letter to introduce the document we're sending them, since they're not addressees.
And then there is the press...
Should the letter be released here on the ET website and a press release sent to media outlets on top of that? The open letter would have to be submitted with a cover letter in any case. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
The reason I re-wrote is that I think the preliminary paragraphs are too...boring. Not snappy enough. I could re-write them if anyone agrees with me.
(sound of tumbleweeds blowing across empty streets...)
I also think that you must absolutely propose alternative questions for the ones you disagree with. Not just "This is clearly biased" (many people will tell them that; and will be just as easily ignored), but also: "Here is our non-biased alternative, with added ET zip and zing!"
This must be done for each question, and therefore you may need to reduce the number of questions used as examples (if you wish to keep the letter a decent length (it's one page of A4 double-sided at the moment, I think.)
The part about the responses could be broken up into easier-to-see bullet points (I can do that do if you want.)
In my re-write, I missed out the part about Section G. We say "It's superficial", they say, "No it isn't." What is gained? If it is, then examples of the superficiality need to be highlighted.
And always, always, offer alternatives.
Having said all that, I support you all 100% and admire the effort everyone has put in.
I don't think I would be the correct person to co-sign the document as it stands because it relies on a technical understanding of the issues I don't have, and a letter signed by "me too, (Mr. Thicko)" isn't any better than one that isn't--if quality is to beat quantity.
Ach, am I making no sense? I'll shurrup. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
I think afew makes the point repeatedly that the entire questionnaire should be reorganised along different lines. It is not just that the questions are leading. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Most of the questions in the questionnaire are restrictive, leading, and manipulative. The effect is to force respondents into apparent consent to the policy choices set out in the Green Paper. A polling institute which made use of questions of this kind would quickly be challenged and discredited.
My reading of the above: "A polling institute would have to ask better questions to maintain credibility."
=What are the better questions?
But maybe I shouldn't be in this conversation at all? (I'm don't think I'm being helpful.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
All questions are helpful. Convince yourself, then convince a friend, then convince an enemy. You're playing the role of friend needing to be convinced. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
How to get into that "anything interesting" envelope?
So, do we agree that it is impossible to write a non-loaded multiple choice question regarding the topic(s)?
Thing is, I can't see them changing the whole structure because we have found fault, but I can see them taking note of "the form of the questions" for next time round...
I'm trying to think practically. A hundred great suggestions end up in the bin because they don't tie to what's feasible on the ground. I can see it where I work. The guy from Data Quality bores us for hours about how much we need X, Y, and Z, and he's right of course. He spends hours writing long messages, paper and e-mail, intranet, you name it, he sends his messages out and is ignored by everyone because they're not that interested and he never gives them simple things to do. He needs to say:
STOP DOING 'A', DO B INSTEAD. IT WILL WORK BETTER. (HERE ARE SOME EASY TO REMEMBER NUMBERS IN CASE YOU FORGET.)
We're not paid enough to be like other lobby groups. We have to be faster, smarter, more fun, more exacting, ET always gets to the point, knows what's what etc. If the survey is a crock, then I think the letter could say so more clearly and be shorter.
Then again, I never was good at meetings or reading reports... Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
But I don't fully agree with you. If we're just going to do a snappy, smart, brief put-down saying the consultation is a crock, then we will get shoved in the wastebin, imo. The point of this is that it does go to (I think) sufficient length to argue the case against the questionnaire, and that it will also be sent to the Communication Commissioner whose job it is to look out for this sort of thing, and we will also copy in EP Committees and MEPs. Which I think means it will be read and responded to.
It won't change the face of the earth. I hope it may serve as a basis for challenging whatever "results" DG-TREN try to present as "public opinion" on the basis of responses to the questionnaire. And push the (reluctant) EC a millimetre along the road towards more open communication and acceptance of democratic input.
This is the version I had.
(That pic brought back sudden memories...another strange part of the mind awakens...as if it had been slumbering...and the song isn't even on it!)
Here he is:
looking a bit like this chap:
And to think I never knew 'till now (though I'd heard it) that the original was by the Animals.
Diddle-iddle-iddle-ow;
And to place the date, my memory of the Graham Parker album is linked to this:
(Whatever happened to, all of those heroes, all those...shakespearos...we made their ears bleed...No! We watched their Rome burn. No! They watched their Rome burn. The memory is an unbalanced tool..."I said, somefin be'ah change!")
Afew, I wish you all ze good luck and I offer you ze big drink!
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
<Garble burble old fart memories pffflll....>
(Oh, it's one of my all-time favourite songs!)
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.
If I were on a newspaper, what could I do with it even if I thought it had some interest?
Nothing, of course, or something evil. One would have to write a separate letter regarding this to send to newspapers. And this issue can very easily be turned into/read as some rather standard and too often occuring Eurosceptic crap: "That EU is non-democratic and no good and they don't listen, maybe we should get rid of it." I don't believe that is the message we would like to get across to anyone. This letter does a good job, as it is written, of being critical of this particular consultation but pro-EU. But I have a hard time imagining any of the papers I read presenting this issue as anything other than Eurosceptic drivel, if at all.
