What’s the first thing you should do when the Commission’s proposal is published?

What’s the first thing you should do when the Commission has published a proposal?

It’s not to have many internal meetings to anguish about the proposal or give a summary of the proposal in a very long ppt 50 + times.

Instead, I do something dull and radical. I print a copy of the Impact Assessment, the RSB Opinion/Opinions, and the proposal and work through them.

All these steps can be done in-house.  This is bread-and-butter work.  There is no need to outsource this.

When I worked on fisheries policy, there was nothing more that I enjoyed than getting hold of the draft of a Commission proposal going into Inter-Service Consultation, and using the Commission’s own Impact Assessment, to take apart their very own proposal. More often than not, using their own reasoning and evidence helped get the  Cabinets to reverse a proposed decision.

Step 1: Nit-pick the Impact Assessment

I go through the Impact Assessment and nitpick every sentence.

I’m looking for logical fallacies, does 1+1=5,  and correct reference and reliance on experts, e.g. do the reports that are cited support the points being made?

This is a dry and emotional exercise. It does not reflect my position on any of the issues. If the proposal claims x% of fish were overfished, but the number is y%, this is what you need to list. If someone is wrong on the small things, it hints they be wrong on the big things.

This nitpicking is not about your beliefs or positions. You are trying to take apart the Commission’s case and highlight the logical fallacies on their own grounds.

The easiest way to do this is to use comments on the text and have a separate document listing the errors.

I remember a report being used to back a course of action that, if you were dull and read it, argued for the opposite course of action. Recently, I came across a report that the Commission selectively mentioned, and failed to highlight the main point, that if the action that was finally taken would mean the Commission’s target in another area would be all but impossible to deliver on.

You’ll be surprised at how long the Commission can be bogged down with the Council and EP explaining why 1+1 = 5, and how it can erode confidence in core elements of a proposal. People who don’t back you may well be happy to raise questions when they see logical fallacies.

Step 2:  Go through the RSB Opinion(s)

Did the Commission consider the RSB’s feedback in their first or second opinion?

If not, highlight that.

Did the RSB miss any points that were raised during the public consultation?

Again, add this to the review document.

You’ll find that the points the RSB raises keep returning during the legislative negotiations. And, for files that got a double negative opinion but were still tabled, they tend to get a rough ride through the Council and EP.

 

Step 3:  Provide Feedback

Use this document to provide feedback to the post-proposal consultation.

Divide your feedback into two parts.

  1. The first part should be dry nitpicking.

2.  The second should be your point of view. You may disagree that your produce half of a perceived problem, but you don’t have any evidence to rebut it. Raise your point and your lack of evidence.

Both parts should be strictly separate.

The document should be sober and clearly written for non-experts.

 

Step 4:  Prepare Amendments

The clock is ticking as soon as the proposal is out the door.

Get your amendments, alternative working solutions, and justifications ready.  It takes a few days of focused work.

Skip the internal meetings if need be. If people want to know what the proposal is, write them a short memo, do a PPT, record yourself delivering the PPT, and send them a link.

If you don’t have amendments and workable solutions, you don’t have anything.

MEPs and the Council will start working on the proposal as soon as it is published in English.  Whilst the formal clock will start ticking when the translated copies arrive, most of the positions will be solidified before the formalities of Committee leads etc, are done.

Ideally, amendment text, solutions, and justifications should be ready four weeks after the proposal is out.

 

Step 5: Go and meet the MEPs and Member States (In Brussels/National Capitals)

Unless your telepathy is advanced, you’ll need to go and see people making the decisions.

My preference is the following. Send along with the meeting request:

  1. The nit-picking dry assessment (your feedback on the post-adoption consultation)
  2. Your amendments with justification text
  3. Your position with workable solutions in plain English.

I’d be surprised if you got a meeting if you did not send these documents along with the request.