I suggest that we pick a cut-off date, call whatever we have then "done" and send it off.
Next I asked for input on a good example of how the questionnaire excludes important policy options, from someone more clued-up than me.
I don't see this as a side issue. It's just as important to make a point about democracy in the EU as it is to talk about energy policy, and ET has everything to gain by moving forward on this ground.
There are a few dodgy translation which don't sit comfortable - generally concerning translations of "market", "market-oriented" and "stakeholder". But that's 1) a field I'm not spectacularly knowledgeable about in the English language and 2) these are terms which are quite difficult to translate succinctly in Dutch anyway.
Aside from those minor translation issues and of course the ridiculous misleading options, the Dutch translation from the English is - as far as I can judge it - all right. No big fouls that I can see. The Dutch version is a bit wordy and pompous at places, but that way it does bring justice to the phrasing and meaning of the English original. It's however, obviously, a translation. In case this was written originally in Dutch the wording would likely have been more accessible.
Which brings me to the accessibility of this questionnaire. Aside the obstruction in language, and a preference in English, some of the options offered in the questionnaire are part of a terminology that may not be understandable for everyone. Using myself as an example here: I've zero clue on what is meant with the options offered in question 2:
Security Rules Balancing Rules Congestation Management Etc
Nice - but what does it mean for the common Nomad?? These links are not clickable to a definition, no examples are given. All I get as background information is.... the Green Paper website. That surely helps.
Do I need to have a degree in economics before I can participate in the questionnaire? I think not.
Lastly, afew, my round of compliments (yet again) for such a nice piece of work. Although even our limited effort may not be result in turning the GP consultation completely mood, by sending it to the top I hope to deliver a strong signal that all is not well in Brussels with communicating to EU citizens who demand a transparant, accessible governance in Europe. You've my name on the list, if you need it. Also, do we already have the official European Tribune e-mail address as kcurie suggested in your other diary?
I don't think, on this basis, that it's worth taking the language aspect any further. So we can go with the text as it stands, unless there are any new suggestions.
If you need an Europeean Tribune email, use the one at the bottom of the site: etg@eurotrib.com. It goes to me (and, if Colman has exercised his option to do so, which I think he did not, to him as well). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I also received, this evening (!) a reply from the Biofuels Consultation to our mail thanking them for running a proper consultation. I'll post it tomorrow with the final draft.
To draft an open letter of complaint to two commissioners seems to me to be a useful thing to do, and one which can increase our "visibility".
The drafting of the response to the GP can start without this being finished. Who's going to start it off?
