The language question: of course I understand how it may keep costs down. The point is that that is not EU policy on languages, or on communication/consultation. The EC (Report on Governance, WP on Communication) is supposed to be improving its offer on communication, reaching out more and listening more. It cannot follow a (supposedly) more ambitious policy, and limit the languages used "to save money". (That's a word to Wallström rather more than to Piebalgs.) (My personal belief is that, if it's done to save money at all, it's done to avoid spending on a procedure that irks the Commissioner and his staff, and that they have no intention of carrying out other than minimally, or even sub-minimally).
This is not a minor point: the gridlock on the "Constitution" text shows that the EU has lost touch with citizens. The Energy Consultation is an example of how the Commission is not yet ready to recognize the problem.
The final paragraph: I agree with the points that have been raised. As it stands, it is open to misinterpretation. Thanks for your suggestions.
DG-TREN Letter http://123.writeboard.com/52ba421d56bc6d403/login Password: wiffle
Is the allowed HTML set independently for comments and diaries? Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
It would be an even greater tool if edits could be voted on, could be closed/open (as +/- expansion zones) ...
Since the resulting redraft is likely to be considerably longer than Draft One, I'm waiting to see clear on these points.
Take it I'll change "your Commission" in line 1 (as nanne suggests), and will use various redrafts proposed here to rewrite the final paragraph.
What do you think? Would you systematically pull apart the entire questionnaire, question by question?
How would you handle the language question?
