I’ve come across a view that is alien to me: the best way to show your opposition to a proposal is to do so in public and aggressively.
I call it the Ian Paisley School of lobbying.
I presume a more forthright approach, like the New York Politician below, is expected.
This approach appears to be one preferred by many in Brussels.
I’ve never gone for this approach. It’s likely a DNA issue. I come from the North of Ireland.
There is an alternative approach.
First, you can be in direct confrontation and remain polite and civil.
Second, it’s a technique that I’ve never seen work. Every time I’ve seen aggressive confrontation tried, in public or in prviate, it has led to to political failure. The vote was lost, or the decision went the other way.
If you know of cases it has worked, please let me know.
Third, it is normal to have clear and direct meetings in private when you highlight the challenges of such an approach being considered.
I tend to use one of the following:
- Contradictions with reality,e.g. 1+1 does not = 5.
- Idea out of sync with Political Guidelines
- Procedural errors
- Action by-passing collegiate decision-making
- Not identified significant impacts
- Political sensitivities
These used clearly and early enough are often enough to get a stray proposal back on track. I’ve found the bedrock for promoting the right decisions.
Howling like a banshee in public will get you noticed. Just not the right sort.