I find putting pen to paper the best way to see if understand an issue. This means I take a lot of notes to help better refine my thinking. Some of these notes I refine further into posts.

Over the last year, I’ve returned to some familiar themes around EU lobbying. I only have a limited circle of competence: the EU and fisheries. I don’t stray outside that circle.

Some people have told me that they find these posts useful for their work. So, I’ve consolidated some of them around some of the themes I return to.

I tend to look at the skills needed and tactics that you can use to become more effective. I’ve listed some thoughts below.

A lot of time is spent in Brussels writing public consultation responses and position papers. I think the quality of both can be improved. I make some very practical suggestions on what to put in your public consultations responses and how to get this done. I see little reason to write position papers and public consultation responses that are inevitably going to have little to no influence.

My presumption, maybe a foolish one, is that many lobbyists and campaigners in Brussels are involved in the business of influencing EU policymaking. I presume we did not move here for the weather or taxes. I make some simple suggestions to positively influence policy making. Linked to this is a systems like approach to our work. Over time I realised that process for the adoption and passage for a European law or policy was, in the main, more or less the same. I use such a systems like approach for most of my work. I personally use a series of checklists and process charts (not listed here) for every piece of law and policy-making I work on. I have a corresponding set of actions that are necessary to influence each step for each process (not listed). You’ll see some below.

As I get older, I realise that having the right mindset to lobby and campaign is essential. It is not a line of work for the nihilist or those who reject political reality. People who prefer faith-based advocacy may want to turn to the cloth. Some useful attitudes are suggested.

Most of our work comes down to effective communication with real people, or the ancient skill of storytelling. It is not done well in Brussels. I make some suggestions on how it can be done be

The word strategy is over-used and I use it lightly. You’ll find some options for drafting better strategies and implementing them more effectively. I have added some posts on the difference between lobbying and campaigning. Few do both well.

Atul Gawande’s ‘Checklist Manifesto’ has influenced my thinking a lot. I list some checklists that I find useful.

Finally, a lot of what the EU does is secondary legislation. It is something I work on a lot. I have not listed the many process charts and case studies in this post. You can find them on this site. I wanted to provide a sober assessment of what you can do and your likelihood of success.

This post is not comprehensive but I hope it may be useful for some.

Of course, all errors are mine, and please let me know what they are.

Skills

Every profession has some skills that need to be mastered. There are some skills I think it is useful for a lobbyist to have. In ‘Don’t act a like a fan of My Little Pony when you lobby’, I make the case for being a good storyteller. It is a rare skill in Brussels.

If you need to hire a lobby firm to support you, you’ll find 6 useful questions to ask in ‘Don’t use the same game play in Brussels that you use in D.C, or any other political capital’.

Some of these soft and hard skills that provide a ‘useful formula for success’ are here.

I consider the skill of persuasion one of the most vital skills for any lobbyist. In ‘How a lobbyist can change anyone’s mind’, I look at some ways you do this.

Here are 15 tips on how a lobbyist can avoid self defeat. Apply them and avoid a lot of pain.

Prevention is better than cure, and avoiding being stupid when you lobby will save you a lot of pain.

Tactics

A lot of people think your job is about arguing. I disagree. In ‘Don’t Argue‘ I make that case.

If there is just one idea that I’d like any lobbyist to use as their starting point it would be ‘First, think about what your audience wants‘. This one action would increase success rates a thousand fold.

Why you need to bring a solution to the table may seem obvious but too few try this effective tactic.

In ‘What do you when your message is not being picked up‘ I make some suggestions on what you can when what you want is to being picked up.

If you use the 80/20 principle, you’ll find ‘How to make your lobbying 5X more successful‘ useful.

If you have ever used the phrase ‘windows of opportunity’ it is thanks to John W. Kingdon. In this post, ‘How do legislators make their decisions‘, I draw on his work, and how you can use it.

Public Consultations

If you are preparing a response for a public consultation for an impact assessment, The case for using real evidence in your public consultation responses, will help you.

If you are preparing a response to a public consultation this ‘Checklist for Responding to a Public Consultation’ is going to be useful.

Position Papers

A lot of time is spent preparing position papers.

In this post, ‘a checklist for position papers’, I detail what should be in the position paper, and in ‘ The internal mechanics of preparing a position paper‘ I give some techniques to help you produce better position papers faster.

A combined ‘checklist for position papers and public consultations‘ may be useful.

Influencing policymaking

How to get the policy you want is a useful 10 point checklist to use if you are serious about influencing a proposal or proposal going out the door.

A novel approach for dealing with Commission proposals outlines the steps you can take if you don’t agree with the policy direction of the Commission.

Why are you not influencing the Commission? is a helpful checklist to consult if you are not influencing the Commission or anyone else for that matter.

A systems approach

Over time I realised that process for the adoption and passage of a European law or policy was, in the main, more or less the same.

Sure, the politics, issues, and people around a file vary, but how ordinary or secondary legislation (delegated act, RPS Measure, Implementing act) follows a well-trodden path.

So, when you know the steps that need to be taken for a law or policy to be adopted and passed, it is easy to work out the steps you can take to influence their adoption and passage. And, again here, the steps you can effectively take, and more or less the same depending on the law/policy you are trying to influence.

I’ve looked to take out the excitement out of my work by systemising most of the processes I work on and the steps that can be taken to influence decisions.

There is a useful generic chart in ‘When to step in to influence a Commission Proposal’ for the steps taken in the adoption of a Commission Proposal.

I think the surest way to lose is not to have a written lobby/campaign plan. In this post, I give a talk on the approach, how I agree with Karl Rove, and provide the bare-bones template I use.

If you can answer the “99 Questions to Answer to Prepare your EU Legislative Campaign“, you’ll be in a better place to get what you want. Don’t do this if you know you can’t win, but don’t want to tell yourself the truth.

A lot of winning comes down to a simple equation “People + Ideas + Values + Voting Line/Mandate + Mirroring your views with theirs = Support” that I detail in ‘How to Win Support When You Campaign & Lobby in the EU’. In ‘an equations for lobbying for success‘ I look at this from a slightly different approach and note the ‘Politics + People + Process + Solution(s) + Research + Skills + System’ to reach a good outcome.

I look to answer the question “When to step in if you want to influence a Commission proposal” for ordinary and secondary legislation (in this case chemicals) in this post.

If the ideas in these two posts were applied, there would be a lot less work in Brussels. In “Are you working on the wrong problem?” I make the case for a root cause analysis before you start work on a ‘problem’. This follows on from a call to “Stop doing what does not work“.

Mindset

The mindset you adopt is key for your work.

Why a lobbyist needs to embrace political pain makes the case to move out of your comfort zone and embrace political pain as the best way to get the best outcome.

If you argue with reality you will hit a brick wall every time. In Don’t argue with reality I give two easy to use tools to avoid running into a political brick wall. Here are some pointers to help you ‘be rational, and don’t ignore political reality‘.

One of the more challenging things , especially at the start of your career, is to deal with the gap between how clients/supporters see things and where mainstream political reality is. . One way of dealing with these episodes is in ‘What to do when your encounter the denial of reality’.

Campaigning

If you want to work as part of broader coalition, rather than just yourself, this post on “t he case for working in unconventional coalitions” is useful.

Lobbying and campaigning are different. This piece explains some of the differences. They both are important. Few organisations do both well, those that do are powerful.

Communication

A lot of numbers are used in Brussels based communication, often very large numbers. There is a hitch, most people don’t understand what you are trying to tell them. This book review of Chip Heath’s ‘Making Numbers Count’ gives you some useful tips to communicate numbers so people understand them.

There are some phrases that are used that don’t work. This post, ‘If you want to persuade, don’t use this line’ explains why one of the more common lines does not work.

If you want to max your chances of winning, you’ll want to work with the media. In ‘Working with the media to make your case, there are some suggestions and many fish case studies.

Campaign Strategy

It is vital that you build in feedback loops’ to see whether what you are doing is landing. In ‘Watch out for the Feedback Loops‘, I consider how to do this.

If you are new to campaigning, this checklist in ‘Campaigning – a Simplified Approach‘ may be useful.

Public Affairs does not have to be complex, or why there is ‘a simple formula for public affairs‘

Some useful checklists

How to get the policy you want. A useful 10 point checklist to use if you are serious about influencing a proposal or proposal going out the door.
The internal mechanics of preparing a position paper. 25 steps to help you produce a position that influences decision-makers and influencers.
99 Questions to Answer to Prepare your EU Legislative Campaign. A useful set of questions to answer before you start lobbying.
A Checklist for Responding to a Public Consultation, a checklist for when you are preparing a response to public consultations.
What’s the question you don’t want to know the answer to when lobbying? is a useful set of questions you need the answers to.

Secondary legislation

Most EU legislation is secondary legislation.

This post, “How to turn around a defeat in comitology“, gives you some tips on what to do if things are not going your way.

If you want to get a sober assessment of how hard it is to beat the Commission when dealing with secondary legislation, read ‘Why the Commission has the votes in the bag for secondary legislation’.

I keep a track of “The Environment Committee’s scrutiny of secondary legislation under the 9th Legislature” here.

Skills

Lessons in Lobbying #10: Don’t act a like a fan of My Little Pony when you lobby

16th January 2022 by Aaron

There are adult men who like My Little Pony. I’ve never met them, but they are out there.

I get the sense more than a few lobbyists are closet Bronies.

Some lobbyists, and their clients, seek to persuade people of their obsessive level of interest in an issue. They act as if there are a lot more people interested in My Little Pony (read any other issue) than there is.

It is something that is unlikely going to persuade most people., let alone an official or politician.

If you come across as obsessed or unhinged in the promotion of your issue, you’ll face the same reaction that most My Little Pony fans get when they talk about it in public. The official or politician is unlikely going to understand a word you are saying. They are, at best, going to find the whole meeting or interaction as plain weird and unsettling. They are going to file you and your cause under the “green ink” folder.

You may well learn that the person does not like the colour pink and purple, and had a traumatic experience with a pony as a child. The plea to join your “My Little Pony Fan Club” falls flat.

And, sometimes you are going to come across an official or politician who has an in-depth knowledge of the political philosophy of My Little Pony. They are going to ask you probing questions. If you are not an expert’s expert, you are going to be asked to leave.

What should a good lobbyist do

A good lobbyist is a good storyteller. They tell their story in words – speaking them in meetings or by writing supporting briefings – so that the human being they are meeting co-opts the position. As a lobbyist, your job is to translate what you want communicate into words and images that speak to your audience.

To do this well, you need to understand the root cause(s) of what is driving action in your area. If you ignore this and get it wrong, you are going to go down a whole path of action, and near the end, realise you have gone down the wrong path. If your words don’t mean anything to your audience, and just speak to your client, you are wasting your time.

Your story needs to communicate to 3 audiences at once:

The politician making or influencing the decision
The adviser/official holding to the pen
The expert on the file

You’ll be in for a shock if you think the expert is making the decision.

As a lobbyist, your job is about persuading people, mainly officials and politicians, by translating ideas through the tools of writing, images and speaking.

Most decisions are taken on the basis of the written brief. If you can’t persuade through a 1 page written brief the reason why an official or politician should back you, your chances of getting them to back you are low. The idea that what you say in a meeting or a call is so memorable and persuasive that an official or politician will back you there and then, shows a misalignment between your perception that you are the reincarnation of Cicero and reality.

You need to engage with the right people, at the right time and in the right way. You need to know the rules of how decisions and laws are made. If not, you’ll go down the wrong path, and realise near the end of the journey, that you have gone down the wrong way.

It is key that you step in at the right time, not too early and not too late. You need to provide the right people, with the right information, at the right time. Act as a translator, and speak a language about an issue so your audience understands.

Don’t talk about your interest in My Little Pony.Just because you, hair friends, and all your colleagues, are fascinated in it, does not mean that real decision makers and influencers are.

Lessons in Lobbying 8 – Don’t use the same game play in Brussels that you use in D.C, or any other political capital.

31st December 2021 by Aaron

A friend phoned me up about an organisation they wanted to donate to. They wanted to support bringing about policy change in an area the EU were active in.

Below is a summary of my advice.

How political decisions are made, and how to influence those decisions, varies between political capitals.

How Washington D.C. and Brussels works are very different.How things work in Paris and Brussels are different.

I’d not use the same gameplay in two national capitals.

If you have read Edwin O’Connor‘s, “The Last Hurrah”, you’ll get that all politics is local.

Many organisations, for-profit and not for profit, use one standard gameplay that ignores how decisions are made, or how to influence those decisions outside their home base. Many, again both for and not for profit seem to think that Brussels works more or less like their organisation or D.C. Many of those organisations are based in the USA. They seem surprised that their model of influence does not work in Brussels, or many places outside DC.

A lot of organisations continue to work to influence decisions in Brussels with all but a very loose understanding of how decisions are really made. I was surprised when someone told me that they were donating to a not for profit to support work on changing a policy. I knew the area but had never heard about the NGO. I checked with the official in the Commission who had the power of the pen on the file, and unsurprisingly they had never heard of the organisation.

6 Questions to see if they have the right deep understanding?

I advised my friend to ask these questions to see if the organisation they wanted to back had the right deep understanding (in the Cal Newport sense) of what needs to be done to win.

Do they have relevant experience? Have they a track record of successfully influencing decision making in Brussels. Do they have a specific track record in the area you are dealing with?

Do they really understand, not just textbook knowledge, about the legislative or policy process you are dealing with.

Do they really understand the politics that is driving the issue and how to drive it in your favour?

Do they know the key people who will really make the decisions and who hold the pen. Are they trusted by them?

Do they have the skills and resources to deliver the policy change you want?

A nice to have: Do they have suitable issue expertise. It is not a must. Many think that issue expertise alone is what you need to change policy/political decisions. The same people believe in Unicorns and Santa Claus.

Before you invest in an organisation or get your own organisation to become more active, you can check the answers to the questions. I’ve been tasked with doing that checking before. I spoke to the Cabinet lead about whether they’d ever come across the organisation and whether they had the influence on the file that was being claimed. The Cabinet member was helpful. They knew the organisation, and they had never had any noticeable impact on the file. I checked this out with 3 more key decision-makers on the file. The same news – no influence. The news was not welcome by the person who asked me to check. It seemed they’d spent a lot of money on achieving very little.

How a lobbyist can change anyone’s mind.

29th December 2021 by Aaron

Book Review

Jonah Berger

The Catalyst, ‘How to Change Anyone’s Mind’.

Pages: 258

As a lobbyist, you are in the business of persuading people. It is a narrow group of people. Politicians, civil servants, policy wonks and journalists.

As a campaigner, you are looking to get the public to intervene to help bring about change.

If you are interested in how to more effectively change anyone’s mind, constructively, you’ll read this book. I’ve been in enough meetings when a lobbyist or a campaigner has, I can only hope inadvertently, moved an official or politician from support or minding to support, to simple opposition. If you don’t want to copy that outcome, this book is full of practical tips to get anyone to change their mind in your favour.

Some key Ideas I’ve Taken Away

I’ll mention only 12 insights. There are a lot more. Just buy the book, digest and apply it.

Idea 1: Identity what is blocking or preventing change. Then eliminate the causes of inaction.

99% of the time what you think is the reason for a situation is not the reason. If you don’t understand what’s really really driving a position, you are going to run down a rabbit warren, spend a lot of time and energy, and realise, when you come up for air, you have had no influence.

Idea 2: If you want to understand the root cause it is good to listen. The Appendix on ‘Active Listening’ gives 5 tactics to listen better. 1. Use Minimal Encouragers, 1. Ask Open needed questions; 3. Harness Effective Pauses. 4. Reflect on What You Heard. 5. Label Emotions.

Listening is the first thing you need to do. It’s the best way to understand root causes. There is too little listening in Brussels. I’ve found listening to the single most effective tactic to understand what is really driving an issue. It forces you to go and listen to people who you may think are on the opposite side of the divide than you. Doing the listening first saves you a small fortune and helps you get to where you want to be.

Idea 3: Pushing or encouraging people to do something often leads it to becoming less likely to happen. Asking, not telling is more effective.

Idea 4: Before people will change, they need to trust the person they are communicating with. Until that happens, no amount of persuasion will work.

If people don’t trust your client, your chances are at best limited. If your client is trusted, you’ll find things go a lot easier.

Idea 5: Try empathy to understand what the underlying issue really is. If you find out the root cause, you are far closer to a solution.

If you want to be blissfully unaware of what’s driving the issues, you are maybe happier for it, but you’ll be ineffective in persuading enough people in backing your interests.

After 25 years, I sense blissful ignorance is more common than not.

Idea 6: Step outside your isolated intellectual echo chamber. This is important for ideologues. Brussels is not an ideological town. For issue geeks, too many people think their issue of the moment is the same for everyone. They are usually wrong. Most people are not interested in your niche issue.

Idea 7: Understand that status-quo bias is everywhere. Change is hard because people overvalue what they already have.

If you want people to change the advantages have to be 2.6 times better than the status quo. So if proposing change, it needs to be a lot better than today.

Once change starts, it is hard to stop. When it happens, calling for the status quo is often lost in the wind.

Idea 8: Data and evidence do not always lead people to change their opinions in your favour.

Your data is likely going work with people who were already favourably disposed towards you. But, for people who were less favourably disposed towards you, your data and evidence are likely going to backfire.

Idea 9: If you want to get people to consider your view you can try:

Go to the movable middle. Find people who are already predisposed to you, even on a specific issue.

Ask for less. Dial down the size of the initial request if it is not in their person’s zone of acceptance. Realise that there is no silver bullet.
Find an unsticking point. Find one thing that you agree on. Spend time in a deep conversation, even if it is for 10 minutes, to really identify what is driving someone’s beliefs on an issue.

As Berger says: “ To catalyse change, then, we need to start by finding the moveable middle. People for whom change is not as large, and who can be used to help convince other. When trying to change those further away, we need to start by asking for less, as Dr Priest did. Take big change, and change it down into smaller, more manageable chunks or stepping stones. Ask for less before asking for more. And, finally, like David Fischer’s deep canvassers , we need to find an unsticking point. Start with a place of agreement and pivot from where to switch the field. Connecting to these parallel directions should move them enough to see the initial topic differently. And, maybe a little change” (p. 124)

These three tactics are very powerful. I’ve used them all. They move political mountains.

Idea 10: Taking a farther position in the hope that the final position will meet in the middle. This approach is used in house selling. It just does not work in persuading people to back your cause. This haggling approach is common in Brussels. It is nice to see the science agrees it does not work.

Idea 11. If you have a hard problem to shift, the best way to get movement is to deploy a fire hose to the problem, and bring concentrated action to bear over a short period of time.

As Berger states “Moving boulders is tough but not impossible. Like interventionists, we need to solve the translation problem, by finding corroborating evidence. The more proof that is needed, the more important multiple sources become. We need to fin similar but diverse others who provide consistent perspectives, and concentrate those sources in time so their benefit doesn’t evaporate. And when trying to achieve larger-scale change, we need to think about whether to concentrate or spread out scarce resources. The bigger the boulder, the more a fire hose is better than a sprinkler” (p206).

I’ve found this tactic to be the most effective tool I professionally use. It leads to some strange outcomes – all political groups backing you.

Idea 12: To truly change something, you need to understand it first.

As Berger writes “Too often, as potential change agents we focus on ourselves. We centre on the outcome we’re looking for or the change we’re hoping to see. We’re so blinded bye the belief that we’re right that we assume if we just provide more information, fact, or reasons, people will capitulate.

But more often than not, things don’t budge. And by focusing so much on ourselves and what we want, we forget the most important part of change:” understanding your audience.

Not just who they are, and how their needs might be different than ours – as we’ve talked about through the book – why they haven’t changed already. What barriers or roadblocks are stopping them? What parking brakes are getting in the way?” (pp. 221-222)

Conclusion

I enjoyed reading this book. It has a lot of tactics that any lobbyist or campaigning can use. I was happy to see I’ve inadvertently been using some. I now have some more useful models to deploy.

Lessons in Lobbying 2 – A formula for success

25th October 2021 by Aaron

Most organisations, both NGOs and corporate, think that issue expertise is key to success in campaigning and lobbying. They hire for it. It seems if you have a PhD in the matter, you’ll be a persuasive advocate

It helps explain why most campaign and lobby efforts fail. Few experts are good at teaching. Anyone who has gone to university will know that many of the best research academics are not the best at explaining the subject.

I’ve worked with 3 people over the last 25 years who have mastered lobbying. These 3 people had what few people had. They brought together a combination of skills and expertise that made them powerful and persuasive advocates for the causes they represented.

Formula

Process Expertise + Political Expertise + Hard Skills + Soft Skills + Experience + Relevant Issue Expertise = Mastery

A Deeper Dive

Process Expertise (PrE)

You need to know the law or policy-making process you are dealing with. You need to know the windows of opportunity where you can step in to advance your interests.

If you don’t, the chances are that you will walk past in broad daylight light the best chances you have to advance your interests.

2. Political Expertise (PE)

If you are working on the adoption of a new law, you are engaged in a political process. A lot of people find this unsavoury. Their hope is that they are working in a technical or scientific process. It is not. It is pure-play political. If you don’t like it, it is best not to get involved.

It helps to have worked in the world of politics for several years to understand it. It is not something you learn from a book or movie. It teaches you valuable skills. You can understand when someone is giving you a polite brush off. You can sense in a room who people will defer to when voting or deciding on.

If you don’t have a good political antenna, you are going in blindfolded.

3. Hard Skills (HS)

There are some key skills that will make your working life easier.

Learn- re-learn. You are going to spend a lot of your time learning new things. You’ve got to pick up the skill of teaching yourself. School and University did not deliberately do this. It is an important skill because are going to have to digest and u understand new information. If your knowledge base stands still from what you learned at University, your knowledge base will become irrelevant within 18 – 24 months.
Communicate clearly in writing and speaking. You need to be able to communicate crisply and clearly in the written and spoken word. If you can only communicate for a sell select group of experts, your knowledge will be of little to no use. You need to be able to switch the depth you take at a moments notice depending on the audience.
Analyse soberly. You need to take your emotions out of the game. You need to need to embrace political reality. If you can’t, you’ll be little more than a Party hack working in the propaganda department.
Tell a story. If you can’t use analogies and metaphors, you won’t be able to tell a story. And, humans learn from stories.

The list is longer.

4. Soft Skills (SS)

You need some valuable soft skills. These include:

Like people, especially politicians and civil servants
Show empathy
Hold effective meetings
Manage people

If you don’t like politicians and civil servants, and can’t empathise with the constraints they work under, you best not go out on the front line.

5. Experience (E)

Book learning gets you only so far, and it is not that far.

You learn the really important things only after doing them many times. It is best to learn by working for someone who has a track record of success in the area. There is not much point in learning from someone who has a track record of defeat. This used to be called an apprenticeship.

I’d be circumspect going under the scalpel of a surgeon who has never operated on a patient before. I’d want my advocate to have real-world experience, not just book learning from a graduate school.

It is easy to pick up useful experience. Canvassing an election for a political party is a great learning experience. There are always elections, so you have lots of time to practice.

Working as a volunteer for a politician or civil society will teach you how to hone a message, deliver a message, and organise a campaign. All valuable skills.

6. Relevant Issue Expertise (RIE)

The 3 people I know have worked on many issues. when you speak with them, they’ll sound like an expert on the issue at hand.

To hold an opinion requires a lot of work. It means you can argue against yourself better than others can. You have to speak to competent people and understand their arguments. You need to understand the positions that are against yours. You need to see the issue from many perspectives. You need to get rid of weak ideas.

This requires work. Writing down the case against you is a good way to start. Getting cross-examined in a dry run will help expose any weak thinking. Sure, you are unlikely going to like the extra work or getting your position ridiculed and torn apart, but it is better it happens in private than getting steamrolled in a public hearing.

A lot of people are brought on board to lead on the issue because of their PhD on the issue. This makes me nervous. It is a great experience for the post of Chief Scientific Adviser. But, as they are prone to send a letter to Commissioners with equations in, they’ll lose the audience. And, if you think the issue is a technical or scientific issue, and forget that the issue is a political one, you are likely going to land up a beautiful loser. Pure and untainted by the compromise of winning.

Can you teach this?

Recently I spoke with a very successful organisation with a track record of bringing about public policy change in the EU.

They have set up a programme that comes out of the pages of NLP.

They are modelling their best advocates and training trainers to teach their staff to become better advocates. It means that soon a very effective organisation is going to become a lot more successful. It is something the US military has been using for a long time to train snipers.

Success in a formula

PrE + PE + HS + SS + E + RIE = Success

Lessons in Lobbying – 1 – First, think about what your audience wants

17th October 2021 by Aaron

Lesson 1 – First, think about what your audience wants

If you want to be an effective lobbyist you need to start thinking about what your audience wants.

Your audiences are the officials and politicians who will influence or decide on your issue.

Your audiences are not the interests or the clients that you represent. Your client or interest is likely going to disagree with me on this. There is a common view that amounts to “tell them what I think, and they will agree with me”. If officials or politicians agreed with your client, it is unlikely that you would be needed to make your client’s case.

You need to speak to the official or politician in a way that speaks to them, that interests them, that pleases them.

You need to tell them a story that appeals to them.

Your real audience is unlikely going to care too much about your client’s interests. It’s not their job not to. They don’t care if your client’s pet project won’t get the okay, their sales targets are not met, or their new product does come to the market.

If you want to persuade an official or politician that doing something you want is worth their time, you need to think about what they want and have a story that speaks about what they want. 98% of the time this does not happen.

Telltale signs you have lost your audience

If you can’t tell that story and take the listener from where they are to where you want them to be, your real audience is not going to get it, and are going to shut down, often in front of you.

Telltale signs of shutting down include looking at their phone, examining the ceiling, and sighing with their arms crossed. If you see them shut down, you have lost them. End the meeting. They may remember you positively as someone who does not take up their time. They won’t remember anything else about the meeting.

Real-life examples

I’ve seen this basic rule ignore with spectacular effect.

Example 1

A progressive public health politician was persuaded to back a controversial amendment after an invite from a company and trade union to do a site visit. After a tour of the site in hazmat suits, and a discussion with the union and employer that showed that high health standards on the site were being maintained, the politician backed the company/trade union position.

Example 2

A company going to meet a senior official who drafted a proposal. They spent a short 15 minutes insulting the proposal from start to finish and offered no solution. This landed up with only the sure guarantee that no amendment put forward by that industry ever got taken up.

Example 3

Seeing a lobbyist ask for an influential NGO leader’s support because “it will treble my client’s profits.” Amazingly, they forgot the script which included many environmental benefits that aligned with the NGOs.

It is an easy rule to follow, but few do.

Why a lobbyist should not jump off Sears tower

3rd October 2021 by Aaron

I’ve met a lot of lobbyists who think they can base jump off the Sears Tower and live to tell the tale.

A few people in the world can take that jump and survive.

The people who can do it are exceptional performers.

If you want to understand how these peak performers got there and stay there alive, read Steven Kotler’s book. The flow is real.

In truth, if you try it, you are going to be one of the many base jumpers who take the jump and die. The list is not short.

That it is a political death is less grim. Nobody of standing will take your calls, listen to your case, and will put your letters and email in a pile marked ‘green ink’.

7 things you need to do

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be:

civil
trusted
a solution provider
in time
speak to the audience from their perspective
able to communicate clearly
provide a credible case

Only a few lobbyists manage this. Too many act like a base jumper, leaping without a chute.

How a lobbyist can avoid self-defeat

6th August 2021 by Aaron

Most defeats in campaigning and lobbying are self inflicted. The seeds of defeat are planted early on.

A lot of the time, you find it hard to move on beyond finding out that someone does not back your position. I’ve never found this a problem. I expect it. So, I simply adapt.

Just saying you are against an ideas, proposal or position – from the Commission, Member State, or MEP – does not mean much. You need to evolve.

After all, ideas, proposals and decisions change a lot.

Don’t do this

You can have two options. You can work to bring about change or accept events.

What most sides do – NGOs and industry – is a mix of complaining, moral indignation, denial, shouting in the wind (or today a response on Twitter), sometimes throwing in a bit of conspiracy theory.

You can complain as much as you want to, but it complaining won’t get you very far.

It may make you feel better, but that feeling will last only a short while, and it will have no impact on changing the direction of travel.

You can wail like a banshee in a padded cellbut no-one is going to hear you. If anyone heard you, the wailing wouldsound so incoherent and deranged, it is probably better that no-one heard you.

Anyway, it does not work. The tingly group think satisfaction it brings does not help decisions get changed.

So, you need to move on, from denial and indignation. As a rule of thumb, give yourself about 30 seconds to wallow in self-pity.

Some Tips to get what you want

I have found it is suprisinglyt easy to get a lot of what you want. If you want to change decision makers minds, you need to try something new, something that works.

Tip 1: Speak to them

It makes sense to work out why they are not listening to you. A lot of the time, they can’t hear you because you have never spoken with them.

If you can’t be bothered to communicate with someone in a constructive and pro-active way, the chance that they’ll learn what you want to communicate about is well slim.

If your attempt at communication is a mix of rudness and passive aggression, don’t be suprised that whatever you sayt is noted and disacreded.

Tip 2: Does it hit the mark

It makes sense to check back in with your audience and ask if what you said make sense to them.

If it does not, ask why, re-calibrate, and adapt.

It does not make sense to continue using a narrative that does not hit the mark.

Tip 3: Use real evidence

It really helps to come forward with evidence . By evidence, it helps if it is real evidence, not just pub facts, or research with the academic standing of Trump University.

You are often dealing with technocrats, and as a tribe, they like real evidence.

The evidence should follow the guidelines set down by any legislation or their own guidelines, like the Better Regulation rule book.

Tip 4: Make sure your case is clear

It helps that when you present your case and evidence, it is in words that don’t require a Post-Doc in the field to understand your position.

This is a surprisingly common mistake. Water boarding officials or politicians with dense text does not make your case stronger, it just makes it incomprehensible.

Tip 5: Bring a real solution to the table

You need to bring a viable solution to the problem to the table. It does not have to be a McKinsey study. Real life examples and ancedotes are fine.

If you can’t be bothered to provide a way out by showing a clear alternative solution, please don’t be surprised if you find your work ignored.

Tip 6: Turn up on time

You need to bring your case to the attention of the right people, in the right way, and the right time.

Waking up about an issue until after a decision has been made is pointless. It is surprisingly common.

The trick is that there is a lag between when decisions are made and when the decision is made public. For example, if you ignore inter-service consultation and contact Commissioners on the day of the College meeting when the decision on you issue is being adopted, you are too late.

You need to retro-engineer the decision making timelines. If you work backwards, you have a good idea of what you needto do, and by when.

Tip 7: Set aside 20%

These are two rules of thumb I learned in my late 20s when campaigning.

It’s a good rule of thumb to spend 20% of your budget on research.

It’s a good rule of thumb to have 20% of your budget on free spend.

If you don’t invest in research, you are going to find out that you are basing your advocacy on false grounds. Just because you think something to be true, and even if it seems plausible that it is true, does not mean it is true. And, if you run ahead without checking your case, you are going to be caught out, usually at worst time possible.

You may think that spending 20% of your project’s resources is too much. If you throw 100% of your resources into something that flops, you will find out how expensive failure is.

At the start of work, budgets are assigned with seeming pin-point accuracy. Some people are so smart that they know exactly how much money they will need for an action in 15 months time. They are kidding you and themselves.

Most of the time, opportunities will come out of seemingly of out the blue. If you don’t have the resources to deploy to harness serendipity, you will miss some of the best chances to win you have. So, set aside 20% for when luck knocks on your door.

Tip 8 – Have a plan

If you have don’t have a campaign or lobby plan, you are guaranteed to fall short. In my experience, this is most accurate indicator of success or failure from day one. Most campaigns don’t have one, so fail.

Tip 9: Base your planning on reasonable worst scenario

Base your planning on the reasinable worst case scenario. If you base your planning on the basis that everyone you deal with is going to support you, you are going to be in for a shock.

Don’t be a manic-depressive doomsayer.

Look at the opportunities and supporters with cold detachment.

Just because your political allies in the EP back you, does not mean you are going to get a majority. Have a look at Vote Watch EU to see how similar issues have been voted on.

Tip 10: Plan ahead

You can’t influence decisions already taken, but not made public. Too often effort is made trying to change things that won’t be changed.

If you want to change a decision, you need 2-3 months to move the needle.

Tip 11: Be civil

Go and speak to the people making the decisions, and be nice and constructive when you are doing it.

Decisions often go somebody’s way because they are civil, pleasant, and constructive. People give the benefit of the doubt to nice people.

If you want to wreck your chances, try a bit a bit of passive aggression, grand standing, and rudeness. I’ve found this the number one technique that people engineer their own self defeat.

Tip 12: Go to the Centre

Don’t embrace the political margins. Decisions are made in the centre. When the political margins embrace your cause, it is likely your case will be rejected by the majority mainstream.

Tip 13: Mimicry

Try this mental trick. Look at things from the perspective from the person you are trying to get their support.

Mirror the style of their memos. Don’t do font 10 for 5 pages. Font 12 and 1-2 pages, annexes allowed.

Read back their own guidelines, manifesto, and rule book and use it as the basis to back your position. It is harder for someone to reject their own rule book.

I’ve used Mises, Gramsci and the late Pope John Paul II to support backing the same amendment with 3 different political groups. They all backed the amendment.

Tip 14: If they don’t back you, find someone else to make your case

A lot of the time, someone whose support you need is not just going to back you. Don’t waste your time trying to change their mind,.

Find someone who can persuade them to change their mind instead.

I’ve found a call from Prime Minister or President can have a powerful way of changing the direction of votes or proposals. A gentle reminder to a MEP from a Minister or Shadow Minister from back home, can be a helpful reminder of a Party’s official line on a vote.

Sometimes, the caustic wit of a leading columnist, leading coverage from the FT or the Economist can help decision makers change their minds.

For reasons unknown to me, with a lag time of a few months, a major piece in the National Geographic, leads to Damascus like policy conversions.

Tip 15: “If you don’t know where you are going, then it does’not matter which road you take, does it.”The Chersire Cat, Alice in Wonderland

Follow the map of the policy or legislative journey but realise the map is not the territoiry. The territroy changes in small ways for each journey. But if you ignore the map you are going to get lost.

Whilst ancient navigation maps were often secret, guarded by mariners, today’s maps are public, if little read. If you want to consult the maps, a local guide will help you.

How Not to Be Stupid in Lobbying

3rd January 2021 by Aaron

Stupidity is the cause of most failures in lobbying. There is a lot of it. It includes the refusal to engage constructively at the start of the policymaking process, the self-righteous moral indignation expressed at any opportunity, the conspiracy theories, self-denial of the votes against your position, or the reliance on the political margins to promote your agenda.

So, if you want to win, it helps to know how not to be stupid.

I take stupidity to be overlooking or dismissing conspicuously crucial information. It is the information sitting right in front of you, but you refuse to see it there.

You need to make sure sure that your lobbyist is not pulling the wool over your eyes. If they are telling you everything is okay, or all the problems can go away if like by magic, they are hoping that you won’t see the obvious.

8 factors

There are eight factors that increase your chances of being stupid:

Being outside your normal environment, your circle of competence
Being in the presence of a group where social cohesion comes into play
Being in the presence of an expert
Doing any task that requires intense focus
Fixation on an outcome
Information overload.
Physical or emotional stress, fatigue.
Rushing or a sense of urgency

All these eight factors are present in many areas of life. They are the key factors behind accidents. In lobbying, they are ever-present.

How to Avoid

There are good ways to avoid stupidity.

First, checklists help reduce the chances of stupid actions, but they don’t stop them.

Secondly, you need to be conscious of the eight factors and act accordingly.

If you are working in an area requires intense focus, late in the day, with a group of people, on an issue you have only a passing familiarity with and are listening to an expert, the chances increase that mistakes will be made.

Other Red Flags

There are some other useful red flags

1. If no clear information is presented to show that the prefered option will work and get the votes you need

2. If you people in the room shout you down and badger you to back the group approach, despite any evidence being presented that it will get what you want

3. If people are fixated on an outcome and refuse to acknowledge that their prefered option is not on the table

4. If the people around the table have no real competence to be there. Just as you would not have a doctor act as your lawyer in a court trial, you’d not ask your lawyer to perform an intricate medical procedure on you. With the same logic, you’d not ask someone to help you on the legislation who has never worked on the passage of a piece of law in that area. You’d be frightened as hell to learn that the medical team about to perform surgery were doing their first operation. You’d walk out, if you could, if you realised before being put to sleep, that the medical team had no training and were a group of [add any profession with no medical experience] testing their hand at the surgery. More or less the same thing happens every day in lobbying and campaigning.

Tactics

Lessons in Lobbying 3 – Don’t Argue

1st November 2021 by Aaron

Don’t argue. It comes across badly.

I’ve seen that it is the easiest way to throw a good case. I’ve seen too many people thinking that arguing with a key decision-maker or influencer is going to persuade them to back the case. It seems to have the opposite effect.

It creates unnecessary enemies.

A lot of lobbyists think that if they argue aggressively enough, they will persuade decision-makers and influencers. They could not be further from the truth.

If you want people to listen, try calmness and humour (backed with evidence).

Argument looks ugly and defensive. It suggests you know you are guilty. Like fast cars, it looks like you are compensating for the inadequacy of your case.

If you try humour and calmness, you are more likely to see your audience smile and laugh. Once they do that, they are more receptive, they’ll listen to you.

If you face a meeting or event where someone shouts you down, don’t shout back. Be calm and use civil wit.

If you use (aggressive) argument, you’ll come as unhinged and deranged. Everything you stand for will be painted with the same brush.

And, just because you don’t agree with someone on an issue does not mean you need to argue with them. Anyone who is married knows this.

Many years ago, in my militant federalist days, I debated the anti-European politician, Graham Riddick MP. I found civility and light humour far more effective a tool than his forceful moral indignation.

In meetings with politicians and officials, it is likely that you are not going to totally agree. That does not matter. If you start to argue with them, it is all but guaranteed that whatever gains you have won will be lost.

If one of your colleagues in a meeting goes rogue and starts aggressively arguing, pull the meeting immediately. Drag them out of the room, forcefully if necessary. Explain their sudden outburst down to the misalignment of the stars. If you don’t stop the meeting, you’ll face political ostracism.

The best lobbyists I know, keep calm when under aggressive attack. It helps. You find those who were lukewarm supporters, firm allies, and fence-sitters backing you. Mainstream opponents switch over to abstentions.

Some interests seem to use (aggressive) argument as a default strategy. It perhaps explains their lack of influence, inability to influence public policy, and win votes.

If your lobbyist can only argue, best pull them back from the front line. They are not serving your interests, they are harming them.

Why you need to bring a solution to the table

18th July 2021 by Aaron

If you want to be taken seriously in lobbying in Brussels, you need to come to the table with a solution.

The solution should be:

Workable
Credible
Supported by real evidence
Written down on paper
Available /shared in advanced
Be backed by respected peers, and
Have accompanying legislative text

Why would you not do this

If you don’t, you are likely only doing it for three reasons.

First, you are just against the policy or proposal, but just can’t say so.

Second, you are playing to the home crowd of allies and supporters. You are not really interested in persuading the key decision makers and influencers. You prefer to play to your own fringe. You know you’ll never influence events, but are just happy standing on the side lines, shouting into the wind.

Third, you have no viable alternative to what’s on the table. You’ve know the issue in front of you was going to happen for some time, but preferred to delude yourself that it was never going to happen.

If you are against, what can you do

If you are against a proposal, spare the double speak, and say it. There is nothing wrong with that. If you are against a proposal, it helps if you have been on the record from the start that this is your position. You’ll have participated in all the public/targeted consultations. You’ll have put on the record what there was a better solution to deliver a public policy option. If you do this, you’ll be taken seriously.

If you are against a proposal that’s been tabled, you have your work cut against you. But, proposals from the Commission get blocked and sometime later, withdrawn.

If you face this, you have your work cut out. You are going to have to present a powerful case against the proposal. You are going to have to show that the intellectual foundations for the proposals are built on sand. It helps to have the expert to the experts on the issue do a demolition job review to warm up the debate.

Waking up late in the day

All too common, you come across cases of interests sitting things out, and when a proposal is about to agreed to by the Council and European Parliament, wake up, and act. This group need to bring in very respected independent experts to show that their late intervention is not due to recovery from amnesia but through more believable reasons. Waking up late in the day is more common that you’d think, and some of the reasons I have heard are about as credible as “my dog ate my homework”, from someone who does not have a dog.

What do you when your message is not being picked up

11th July 2021 by Aaron

You’re often going to have a client who has a message that key decision-makers in the commission, the Parliament, and the Member States, just don’t care about. When you run your case by them, your audience eyes glaze over, they look up into the air, and cross their arms, or turn their focus to their iPhone.

If you want to get your policy co-opted or win a vote, you need to persuade the people who are making the decision or preparing the voting list. If you choose to say “they are either with me for my reasons, or they are against me”, you are going to find out that most people are against you.

This is a shame, because you could try an alternative option, and get critical numbers backing you. You can do this and try alternative framing that the people who matter find interesting, powerful, and back you. If your client takes this approach, you will land up getting what you want. You’ll get support for reasons that don’t fully align with your worldview.

Personally, I’ve never really minded how you get the necessary support, just as long as you get it.I’ve never really cared if policy makers and politicians back the preferred legislative policy solution on a given issue for totally different reasons than the client wanted. If I can re-frame the issue to garner key support and votes, it is all for the good.

You are going to have clients who insist on running on a line of argumentation that leads to support evaporating. When this happens, you have a problem. These are the clients who want you try your hand at political conversion therapy. I’ve never seen conversion therapy work in lobbying. It amounts to getting someone to accept your world-view and interests in seconds. It’s like a form of hypnosis performed over Zoom calls.

If you want to win, and by that I mean getting the law in place that you want, and getting it implemented, it makes sense to roll with the opportunities. The alternative is running into a wall., usually at great speed.

It is useful to see how the message is landing early on. I find asking the people who you have met, or their colleagues, if the case landed with them and will they lend their to support you, an easy way to find out. If they say “it works for me/us”, that is great. If you hear them say ” No, it does not work for me/us”, it is time to change.

Often you are going to have to tell your client it is time to adapt or politically die. That’s not a nice message to take, especially if your client has been taking the case to the key decision makers and politicians. You need to do it because it gives the campaign time to amend the framing. If you don’t, you are dealing with a political dead man walking. You know you can’t win, but are going through the motions. And, if the client does not want to adjust the framing, you at least know that your chances of getting what you want are slim to nil.

I’ve found it best to talk to groups about the interests and values that resonate with them. If that involves talking about Mises to classical liberal MEPs on the vice of fisheries subsidies, or social democratic MEPs on the large scale industrial fleet benefiting from fishing subsidies, it matters not. Their support was won and they voted the right way when it mattered.

The options are clear. You can embrace the option of being a beautiful loser and pure, or engage in terms that resonate with your audience.

How to make your lobbying 5X more successful

25th February 2021 by Aaron

The 80/20 rule, or the Pareto Principle , says:

80% of what you get comes from 20% of what you do. Small Effort, Big Reward.
20% of what you get comes from the the other 80%: Bigg Effort, Small Reward.

It is a rule that is used in business . 80% of income comes from 20% of your customers. The rule narrows down, and 80% of the 80% comes from 20% of the top 20%. Or to put it another way, 4% of your customers create 64% of your income.

The 80/20 rule works elsewhere. I’ve seen it in fisheries subsidies. 80% of subsidies go to 20% of fishing boats. I’ve come across it recently for energy subsidies – most go to a few companies.

80/20 for lobbying

The same rule applies in lobbying.

Most key decisions are taken by a very people.

As a rule of thumb, on most EU legislative files I have worked on, there are around 250 people working on the passage of the law. This list includes the politicians, Ministers, advisers, officials working on he file, and the assorted influencers from think tanks, academics, media, industry and NGOs.

You’ll think that the list be longer than 250. I’ve removed the hanger ons , observers to events, and people who think they have a role or influence, but in reality don’t. They don’t merit a footnote.

At different times in the gestitation of EU law the list varies. At the start, it is smaller. The inter-service group, inter-service consultation and Commissioners who have skin in the game. That list can be smaller than 50.

Many key decisions are taken by around 25-50 people. And, in many cases, the real decisions are taken by just a handful of people.

The trick is that their names are not always the most obvious. You’ll need to indentify the people, the obvious and the hidden decision makers.

You’ll find the same rule popping up in votes in the EP. If you rely on outliers to win votes you can’t be suprised when you loose. Voting coalitions around issues coalsce quickly around established groups and voting pattens.

Added to this, many key decisions are taken early on by key people. They are fixed in stone. If you turn up late in the day, for the extra time 2 minutes of play, you can’t act surprised when few things changes.

What does 80/20 mean to you

This may lead you to change how you lobby.

Drinks receptions and adverts that avoid the key decision makers and influencers start to loose their sparkle., unless some of the key players are attending the event or reading the press.

Putting leaflets into the pigeon holes of MEPs to raise interest in an unknown issue is akin to using a shotgun for sniper practice.

It is a mindset that leads you to simplify and reduce the number of people. In a business that thrives on complexity and clutter this is alien. Pinning hopes on the contact of a contact 2 minutes after the decision or vote is taken want work with the 80/20 mindset.

If you are smart, you’ll take a page out of ‘What Makes People Tick‘ and adjust your argumentation to the values of each of the 25 or so people. You’ll individualise the message.

I’ve found it a helpful part of the toolbox of a lobbyist and campaigner. After all, if the 80/20 rule is a law of nature, it is going to be a rule that works for lobbying and campaigning. Every time I’ve used it, it’s worked.

How do legislators make their decisions

10th January 2021 by Aaron

A lobbyist’s job is to understand how legislators make their decisions. You want to know what makes them vote the way they do.

If you are serious about your craft, you’ll read John W Kingdon’s work. For decades he has been the pre-eminent academic who gets how policy making, agenda setting and votes happen.

In ‘Congressmen’s Voting Decisions’ he looks at congressmen make their decisions when voting on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. The study was prepared by interviews with congressmen and they are anonumity. Whilst the book is dated – 1973 – it asks a core question ‘how do legislators make their decisions’. It is rare in the literature. He is academic who spoke with the legislators.

The book made a lot of sense to me. I’ve worked for politicians and MEPs. It reminded me of my time working for MEPs passing legislation.

No politician is an expert on every issue they vote on. They don’t have the time to look into every matter they are being asked to vote on. So, they need to find out ways to make up their mind.

What’s influences how Congressmen Vote

Kingdon looked at the influence of:

Constituency
Fellow congressmen
Specialist knowledge of fellow congressmen
Party leadership
Committee leadership
Interest groups
Government administration
Congressional staff
Press
Media TV and Radio

What’s most influential

The study find that the most important are:

1st. Constituency

2nd. Fellow congressmen

3rd. Administration

4th Interest groups

5th. Staff

6th. Party leadership

7th. Reading

8th. Media

A deeper dive

This list more or less adds up to me.

I realise a lot of people will disagree. A lot of people have skin in the game to show that they can influence politicians to vote in the way they want them to.

1. Your constituency

I agree that “the constituency is the only actor in the political system to which the the congressman is ultimately accountable. They have the real negative sanction”.

For European Elections, your place on the party list is the key factor that will decide whether you are elected. That power sits in the hand of the Party machine back home. So, at various moments, a small group of political officials on a Party’s national selection panel are all important. In europe, the selection and order in the Party list is the key moment.

The constituent pressure is most powerful if it comes from elite interests. They know how to act to move an issue so politicians act. You are often looking to engineer perceived public constituency interest, than any real mass outburst of public interest.

2. Your colleagues

Fellow Congressmen are key. They give cues for voting and direct yes-no advice on how to vote. The main factors here:

You vote with those who you agree with
Your vote for those who are credible. Credibility is determined by those who are: well prepared, careful of the facts, and responsible.
The personal qualities of the key influencer legislator include: approachability, likability, political astuteness, and trust not to con you or pull a deal
If the legislator makes fellow legislators feel uncomfortable or ‘ they hang with the wrong crowd’, people will just oppose him.
Expertise. Members considered the experts in the lead Committee are valued. They’re the ones who give condensed and easily understandable information. The Committee system extolls the virtues of specialisation. Other congressman follow the committee because they feel assured of getting expert advice. To be fair, if the Committee does not back your amendment, you need to consider dropping it.
State Delegation. You’ll sometimes back the Member State line. The country’s interests can override a weak pan-European Party interest.
Seniority. The more experienced political is often looked to for the nod on how to vote.

This is helpful to realise. Some MEPs and countries support will only guarantee defeat for your amendment.

3. Interest Groups

Interest groups have a mixed influence. They appear to have a greater influence on Committee votes, than the vote of the full Parliament. Legislators consider them quote important, but do not follow their wishes when voting.

Their influence is greatest when interest groups work through the constituency.

4. Press

What was unsurprisingly is that the press rarely appeared to be of major importance in deciding voting decisions. The press do have a greater influence in framing the public policy agenda. But, deciding how legislators will vote is a weak link.

5. Social Media

The book does not look at social media. My gut feeling is that social media has far less direct influence on voting decisions than many consultants suggest . Social media is an excellent tool for constituency activation. It is a good as an ‘echo chamber’ for allies and serve as a means to mobilise interests, but little more.

Who will update this study?

Personally, I don’t think a lot of the Kingdon’s core findings would change if the study were repeated today in Brussels. But, tt is would be useful exercise for a PhD student.

Public Consultations

The case for using real evidence in your public consultation responses

2nd March 2022 by Aaron

From time to time I am asked about what type of information you need to bring to the table during public consultations for Impact Assessments.

Each time, I give more or less the same response.

The exercise is an information-gathering exercise to help the College of Commissioners have an objective picture of the evidence for action. If this is new to you, it’s been going on since after the Santer Commission.

The information that you should submit is evidence that influences decisions. It is not an exercise to make your feel good. That evidence comes down to:

objective data
relevant data
authoritative studies
anecdotal evidence

This evidence can show support for a policy option, show that there is no evidence for action, or show that an alternative policy approach is the better solution.

I’ve found hiring the expert’s expert to do this fact-finding for you is a good way to go. It helps get over any bias you may have because of any interests you may have in the matter (and it is likely that you will).

What to do

My personal approach is to list the questions you have something useful to the table. You don’t need to answer all questions.

My checklist

All you need to do is to put down on a piece of paper all your issues on a piece of paper. For each point you want to make all you need to do is:

State your position – in plain English.
Bring a solution to the table/ a preferred approach/policy option.
Bring real evidence to support your study. That can be a study, data, anecdotal evidence that is in the public domain that supports your position.

You are going to find that don’t have evidence to support some of your positions. Drop them.

At the start, it is going to look like a partially regurgitated meal vomited up by your dog. Your job is to sort out what is useful and has real evidence to support your position.

Don’t do

There are some simple things you should not do, including:

Avoid selective citation.
Submissions that amount to statements of belief or political diatribes. They are just ignored and anything useful mentioned in the splurge of emotional words is lost.
Masquerade as expert evidence when the study has been written by you and signed off by the expert without them having read it.
Avoid bringing any evidence to the table in the public response.
Not making the evidence public.
Misrepresent the views of others, in particular an expert. The official reviewing the feedback likely did their post-doc with the expert you are mentioning.

If you want to influence the policy decisions of the College, the path is an easy one to take. It’s not a well-trodden path.

A Checklist for Responding to a Public Consultation

10th January 2022 by Aaron

The European Commission runs many public consultations. They give you a good chance to make your case in writing and influence policymaking. Here is a checklist that will make preparing your response easier and more persuasive.

1. Prepare the evidence you need to support your case in advance.

2. Prepare your submission in advance. The questions that are asked are listed in the Better Regulation Handbook (link,p.75). Preparing the likely answers helps make sure you are not pushed for time.

3. The key issues to be considered include:

· The problem to be tackled

· The issue of subsidiarity and the EU dimension to the problem

· The available policy options

· When modifying existing interventions, the scope for efficiency improvement (regulatory cost reduction) and simplification measures not affecting the achievement of objectives

· The impacts of the policy options.

· Effectiveness of the intervention

· The efficiency of the intervention in relation to resources used (including the existence of unnecessary costs and legal complexities from the point of view of the achievement of the objectives);

· The relevance of the intervention in relation to the identified needs/problem it aims to address

· Coherence of the intervention with other interventions which share common objectives;

· The EU added value resulting from the intervention compared to what could be achieved by Member State action only.

4. Respond to the public consultation. Don’t sit it out. You need to put your concerns on the record.

5. Bring new insights, views and solutions to the table.

6. Support your case by bringing evidence to the table. The evidence can be real-life examples, anecdotes, studies, and data.

7. Avoid bland statements, posturing, and few/no concrete examples.

8. Highlight unintended and second-order consequences.

9. Use simple and precise language and avoid jargon.

10. If the public consultation does not raise a question you want to answer, you can. You are not bound to follow the questionnaire blindly.

11. Bring alternative solutions to the table. This is a fact-finding exercise.

12. Put your evidence on the public record. If you ask for the information to be treated confidentially, it is likely to be given less weight.

13. Avoid politics and partisanship from your submission.

14. Be polite in your input.

15. Be sure about your facts. There is no better way to discredit your case.

16. Note the limitations under which the Commission act. If the Commission is dealing with secondary legislation, the Commission’s margin for manoeuvre is limited.

Position Papers

The internal mechanics of preparing a position paper

30th January 2022 by Aaron

Recently, I wrote a checklist on what to put in a position paper.

I unexpectedly hit a raw nerve with some. There are quite a few who think the idea of reading through 27 pages, single spacing, in font 10 on Friday evening is all part of the course for any official.

Given so much time is devoted to preparing positions in many organisations, it may well be useful to share some ideas to make the whole process a lot less time and resource consuming. My own guestimate is that most organisations, both for and not for profit, spend a lot more time on preparing positions than any single item of work.

A checklist to draft a position paper

Have a clear position. If you don’t have a clear position, and your colleagues/members are not aligned, there is no amount of creative writing that’s going to get around that.
If you can’t get alignment, that’s easy, stop work until they come to a common agreement.
It is useful that the people working on the common position have a good idea of what the issue is, they have some expertise on the issue, and they have the necessary time to devote to working on the position. It can be painful to see debutantes working on a complex matter that they know little about.
If you are dealing with a situation like that, add at least 50% longer to your estimated delivery time.
Don’t ignore internal divisions. There is no point. Get them resolved before moving on.
When you come to a common agreement, get your colleagues to write out 8-10 points they want to make.
Anything more than 8-10 points means you are getting over 2 pages. So get them to put down their strongest 8-10 points on the issue.
Personally, I think it makes sense to have a position for each key issue.
For each of the 8-10 points, you need to get your colleagues to be clear on what point is, what the solution is, and what evidence exists to support this point of view.
And, yes, you need evidence. That can be anecdotal evidence, published studies, and data. Brussels position papers seem evidence light.
Get your colleagues, usually working in a small team, to agree on 8-10 points, plus the solutions and evidence, and hand you the draft.
If your colleagues can’t agree, just stop work until they come to a position.
If there is time pressure to come to a position, but your colleagues don’t want to come to an agreed position, that’s fine. It just means you don’t have a position and you can sit out the issue for the remainder of the policy/legislative debate.
Once your colleagues have their 8-10 points written out, sit down and draft it up into a position paper.
I find it useful to draft with a good example and template next to you for inspiration and reference.
First, have a political sanity check. Do the points amount to “Just Say No” to any initiative, without any credible evidence. Check the quality of the evidence.
If your colleagues are channelling the language of ‘No Surrender, and presenting no evidence, flag this to your colleagues, and check if you have one of the early drafts.
Go ahead and sit down for 4 hours and draft the position paper in two pages of crisp and persuasive plain English, text.
Then, leave it for a day, and 48 hours later, edit the text. Set aside 4 hours in your agenda to check the evidence sources.
Hand it back to your colleagues, and check if there are any errors of understanding. If there are, correct them.
Then hand the text back to them.
Don’t be surprised if about now, your colleagues reveal that they don’t actually agree with the text because it does not reflect their opinion. This is usually an indication that 1 – no clear common position existed in the first place.
It helps if you don’t spend too much time on positions that are never going to land. It makes sense to spend more time on those positions that are going to have some influence. I was recently told of a case where a lot of time is being spent working on an issue that everything working on the issue has no chance of landing. The decision has already been taken.
When you prepare a position paper, don’t draft a text that is just self-pleasing, and all that you are really doing is preparing some words to get warm around the warm glow of nothingness.
After 25 more years in Brussels, it is clear that there are very new issues that come up. That being the case, you can have a filing cabinet full of agreed positions ready to go, pre-prepared, for when the window of opportunity opened up.

Some of the upsides

If you follow this process, you don’t have to sit through endless hours of online calls/meetings. It will cut your investment steering a text through endless hours of internal dialogue, often taking up the equivalent of 3-4 weeks, to 48 hours.

Your role gets shifted to helping clarify any questions for colleagues, receiving an agreed position from them, tidying it up, and getting it a plain English text signed off.

With the weeks you have gained, you could spend it on actually advocating for your position.

A checklist for position papers

10th January 2022 by Aaron

A lot of position papers are drafted in Brussels. Done well, they are one seful tool to make your case.

Too often they serve the purpose of getting internal buy-in, more an acclamation of faith, than any sincere attempt to persuade decision-makers to back your case.

If you want to draft persuasive position papers that persuade and don’t land up in the bin, here are some suggestions:

1. No more than two pages.

2. A clear and concise document, in plain English.

3. Font 12. They need to read it, not to squint at the paper.

4. Reader: Accessible to a non-expert.

5. Put forward real solutions.

6. Provide a brief summary of the key messages, research findings

7. Outline key (1-5) policy implications/recommendations. Table real solutions.

8. Links to further information: studies, websites.

9. Provide contact details for more information.

10. 1-2 side boxes with supporting material: graphs, compelling facts & figures, illustrative example, case study.

11. Infographic. An infographic can often tell your story effectively

12. Use headings. Don’t use bold or colour the text. A point worth being taken up won’t stand out because of it.

13. Use short paragraphs.

14. Be sober, objective and apolitical.

15. Realise that real people may read this in the press.

16. Put any added technical information in an Annex.

17. Be timely. You want it to persuade people to take a decision in your favour, not leave a historical record that you turned up late in the game.

18. Have as many, and as few, position papers to address the issues at hand.

Influencing Public Policy

Lessons in Lobbying #14: A 10 point checklist to help get the policy you want

3rd March 2022 by Aaron

If you want to take down a proposal or get it adopted, there is a very effective measure you can take.

You need to bring real evidence and a solution to the perceived public policy issue to the table at the right time, in the right language to the right people.

I came across an interest who for years have been publishing studies and bringing data to the table on an issue. There was little to no support from the Member States or Commission. But, when they walked in with a ‘solution’, made easy to understand for non-experts, and legislative language to co-opt, governments started to back them.

A Checklist Approach

Broken down into a checklist it looks like this:

The evidence is seen as credible. You can’t bring out an expert who reminds people of Erhardt Von Grupten Mundt from Thank you for Smoking

2. It needs to be on point and respond to the public policy issue at hand. People will turn to the footnotes to check the sources and turn to the page and paragraph you refer to.

3. You need to step in at the right time. Stepping in a day before the College adopts the proposal is a way too late, as is after the deadline for amendments in the Committee or Plenary.

4. Speaking to your ‘allies’ in the Commission, EP or the Member States, knowing full well that they are in the minority and don’t have enough influence to change the decision is not a smart play.

5. It’s best to focus on the few people who are making and influencing the proposal. At most, across Europe, it’s around 200-250 people. At any one time, you are down to 10-20 people.

6. An easy way to persuade them is to put yourself in their shoes/head and adapt your position so that it speaks to them. Telling them your position, which is just about promoting your self-interest, is not going to work.

7. Try and speak to key decision-makers and influencers in a language that they understand. Policy wonks and experts often speak a language that has a limited relationship with plain English. Words that make sense in your community of policy wonks and experts are likely to mean something very different outside your cloisters. When you speak your audience won’t understand what you are saying or understand the wrong thing.

8. Polish your ask into a policy solution and put it down in policy and legislative language. It is going to make things easier for people to use. If you don’t walk in with a workable solution, your contribution is of limited use.

9. You can show that the perceived problem is not a problem or a small problem. The evidential burden to do this is huge. I’ve seen this work twice in 25 years. Once an issue comes to the policy table for adoption it is hard to remove. And, as most policy issues have been around for 10-20 years, and often longer, your audience will wonder why you have not been able to show there is no issue beforehand.

10. Finally, it helps to have someone who can pull off making your case. If you have a Nick Naylor character on staff use them. Most policy wonks and experts are dreadful policy advocates.

Why are you not influencing the Commission?

13th September 2021 by Aaron

A lot of time is spent trying to influence the Commission. A lot of that time lands up wasted. The Commission doesn’t take on board your ideas, policy recommendations and solutions. There are 11 reasons they don’t.

11 reasons your ideas are not taken up by the Commission

You don’t know the rules of the game.
You don’t know how to play the rules of the game.
You are not skilled at playing the game. You are an enthusiastic debutante.
You don’t have a compelling case and story.
Your case and story are not backed up by credible evidence.
You step into the game late in the day as the game is about to end, or more often than not after the game has ended.
You present your case in such a way that the audience has little to no idea what you are saying. They nod politely, thank you, and don’t return your calls.
You present deeply unpopular views, that are so out of sync with accepted wisdom, that only a Klingon would entertain them.
Your supporters and fans would lead any right-thinking official to support the other side.
You develop selective amnesia and don’t recognise that the other side is the governments you are up against. They own the ground you are playing on.
You forget that the game you are playing is not just a pure-play technocratic match. You are playing a political game, with political rules.

If you do a root cause analysis of any case when you failed to persuade the Commission, it is likely going to be for one of these reasons. Use this checklist and let me know if you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because of one of these avoidable reasons.

A Systems Approach

Lessons in Lobbying#13: When to step in to influence a Commission proposal

10th February 2022 by Aaron

The adoption of European laws and policy does not happen out of the blue.

After 25 years, I have not worked on a single file, that when looking at the surrounding or recent historical events, led me to be surprised that a proposal was being tabled.

There is a process to influencing Commission ordinary legislative proposals. The window of opportunity to bring your case to the right people, at the right, with the right information is narrow and known in advance.

I am one of a few people who think that process is primary. It’s not the issue, or the politics, that are primary. Very few people think your issue is important, or understand it, and they usually deal with it as part of many other issues on their desk. So, understanding how to influence the process is primary.

I like maps that show the steps of where you need to go.

Below is a map of the adoption of one of the hundreds of Green Deals proposals.

The Windows of Opportunity

When you look at it, you’ll see that the windows of opportunity are focused around a few times.

To influence proposals, you need to step in ahead of time. At the latest 4-6 weeks before any key meeting/decision point.
You can’t lobby the RSB. If you want to influence their thinking, you’ll bring high quality, objective, Better Regulation proof data and studies to the Commission’s attention during the public attention.
You need to bring any constructive regulatory, policy, and legislative solutions to the attention of the Commission Services working on the proposal before they sit down to draft. As a working rule, that’s just after the Commission submit to their draft Impact Assessment to the RSB.
Member State officials at the services level are key. The Commission secure feedback on elements of their upcoming proposal from the Member States via the Expert Groups. The Commission refine it in light of this feedback. Your best root is engaging constructively via the Member State officials attending the Expert Group. Again, you’ll engage with them 4-6 weeks before that Committee meets.
Again, you need to bring constructive, evidence based solutions to the table, that mirror the baseline considerations the Commission need to consider to prepare a proposal.
If you avoid the real issue(s), fail to provide real evidence, don’t table solutions, and go for broad brush melodrama, your solutions will land up in the waste paper bin.
You’ll need to engage with the officials in the Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) and Cabinet issue leads. Again, engage at the right time with the right information.
When the file is going into the final stages of adoption, some national capitals will engage with Cabinets. I know of a proposal that got changed in the final weeks after a few Prime minister’s offices raised their concerns.
Not in the chart is the regular meetings of the lead Council configuration on your issue. Their official and bi-lateral feedback to the Commission influence the Commission’s thinking.
The formal and informal meetings of European leaders provide an important direction to the EU and to the Commission.

Follow the Sign Posts

On any proposal there are openings to influence the content and direction. They are clearly indicated. If you choose to ignore those opportunities, you’ll have little to no influence. And, if you opt for sending a letter to the College on a Tuesday afternoon after the Heads of Cabinet have agreed it, you are wasting your time.

A short version of my talk on how to write a campaign plan

7th February 2022 by Aaron

For the last few years, I’ve given a talk on “How to Write A Lobby Plan” at the University of Maastricht’s MA in European Public Affairs.

This is a shorter talk (17 minutes) of what I think should go into your lobby plan.

You can find a link to an article (by Iskander & McLoughlin) on the same issue.

Apologies for the video quality.

99 Questions to Answer to Prepare your EU Legislative Campaign

12th January 2022 by Aaron

Atwul Gawande’s “The Checklist Manifesto” is one of the most useful books I have read and applied.

Over the last 10 years or so I’ve been building up a checklist of questions that help identify from the very beginning if you have a good chance of success when working to influence a piece of EU legislation.

The more questions you can answer yes to, I’ve found the more likely it is you will win. I’ve used this for both NGO and corporate clients.

Some people resist the idea of answering the questions. It is usually a good sign that defeat is hiding in plain sight around the corner.

Many think the list is too mechanical and lacks flair. I’ve found it is key to get the fundamentals in place – the answers to these questions – before your mind is freed up, and unleash your flair.

The list changes over time. It has been longer and shorter, and I am sure it will change.

Maybe it is of use to some.

99 Questions to Answer before you go live

Step1: Objectives

What is the issue you are campaigning on
What are your objectives
What are your KPIs
Do you have secondary objectives/fallback positions
What does success look like
How long do you think it will take to succeed

Step 2: Preparations

Where is the file/proposal at
Do you have reliable operational intelligence to keep you updated on where the proposal is at all times
Do you have a clear timeline for the file clearly showing all key moments
What is the legal form /type of proposal is it: legislative, secondary, non-legislative (See Annex for adoption)

Commission
Do you know who in the Commission is dealing with the issue?
Do you know who in the Commission is in ISG
Do you know who holds the pen on the proposal
Who is the Commission’s negotiating team for the proposal
Who is making the decision on the issue in the Commission
In the Commission, who are the Special Chefs
Do you know them/have a working relationship with them
Do you have a working relationship with the lead VP Commissioner special chef/head of cabinet
Do you have enough support to get the proposal through/objections in ISC
Do you know what the key decision-makers in the Commission need to know to back you
Do you have evidence at hand to get the key decision-makers in the Commission to back you
What is driving the Commission – DG to act
What is driving the President & VP to act

Council
Who is the current and next 3 Presidency’s team dealing with the proposal
Who are the Member State expert group (committees) members
Who are the Member State committee members
Who are the Council Working Group members
Who are the Council expert working members
Who are the Perm Reps officials
Who is making the decision on the issue in each member state
Who is influencing the decision in each Member State
Do you have a working relationship with national PM office leads
Will your PM leads intervene in the final stages of inter-service consultation
Did your national government allies intervene during the public consultation
Did your national government allies raise the issue bilaterally with Commissioners during planned and ad hoc meetings
Did your national allies raise the issue in Council Conclusions
Do you have a working relationship with the Minister and their teams in each country leading on the issue
Do you have a working relationship with the opposition spokesperson and their team in each country leading on the issue
Do you have a working relationship with the key ministers/officials who decide on your issue in each country
Do you know the inner-circle of each key minister

EP
Do you know the actual or likely rapporteurs/ shadows
Do you know someone with the points to become rapporteur
Do you know the key group advisers and committee secretariat on your issue
Do you know the key national/group co-ordinators in the EP
How have they voted on your issues in the recent past
Does your network have a connection with any of the key decision-makers in the EP

Other Influences
Do you know the key media outlets that influence the key decision-makers, that they watch, read and listen to
Do you have a good relationship with those journalists and think tanks
Are there any other key influencers on the file that you are aware of

Politics & Data
Do you know the reasonable worst-case outcome if a vote were to be held today in the EP and Council
What voting scenarios/ blocks are going to get you the vote you want in the EP and Council
Do you have allies you don’t usually work with who could bring on board the votes you need?
Do you have people who are persuasive to the target groups
What are the politics on the issue
Can you reframe the debate on the issue to favour you
What are the “values” of the key decision-makers? See Chris Rose’s “What Makes People Tick”.
Can you re-articulate your messages to their values
Do you know your opponents
What is driving them
Do you have information to hand that will address their points

Internal
Do you have the available funding to support the campaign over the next 3 years
Are you prepared to be public
What is the visual image that symbolizes your campaign
Do you have the evidence to support your position
Can you tell a powerful story to make your case
Do you have the right team in place: spokespeople, communicators, experts, scientists, legal drafters, story tellers, project manager
Do you have a campaign plan written down?
Have you done the necessary research before starting to campaign, enough to answer the first 67 questions
When is the best time for you to step in to influence decisions
If on time, can you retro-engineer what success looks like
Do you have enough flexibility to shift resources to where they need to be, even if it diverts from a plan
Do you have the mechanisms in place to generate the internal buy-in and support needed for sucess
Do you have real solutions as well as just messages
Do you have objective evidence to support your position
Do you have legislative language that can be tabled/incorporated
Do you have a draft directive/regulation in your filing cabinet that would, if adopted, deliver the changes you want
Do your solutions stand up in public and in the cold light of day
Would you look reasonable, civil and look human if your meetings with Commissioners, Politicians, etc were live screened publicly without you knowing about it
Do your advocates abide by the highest ethical standards in private and in public
How are you going to get your message out
Do you use an information management platform
Do you have the right campaign team with clear roles and responsibilities
Who is going to be the face of the campaign
Do they have the time available to front the campaign
Are they able to deal with difficult meetings with officials, Commissioners, opponents, and journalists
If they are not, can you train them in time
Do you rehearse for key meetings
Can you re-calibrate your campaign in light of developments/intelligence
What does success look like – be as specific as possible
Who decides when you throw in the towel
Do you have people who want to speak for you but you know will harm your case
What can you do to stop them
Is there any country or other interest who if they step into the debate will harm your interests
Have you asked “why are you in this place”
Why have you not solved the issue already, or why don’t enough key decision-makers trust you
Is there something that has happened in the past that taints the whole debate and nobody is telling you, but it is driving the debate
Why did you win or lose relevant votes before
Can you repeat the conditions that led to success or reverse the conditions that led to defeat before
Do you know what winning looks like? Put it down in no more than 200 words.

Further Reading

Atwul Gawande, “The Checklist Manifesto”

Ron Friedman, Decoding Greatness

Chris Rose, What Makes People Tick

Roger Haywood, All About PR

Lessons in Lobbing #6: How to Win Support When You Campaign & Lobby in the EU

12th December 2021 by Aaron

It may seem obvious, but lawmaking is a political process., driven by and decided by politicians.

It is not a technocratic, technical, process, even in the EU. The Commission is becoming far less technocratic. The desire to push forward with proposals, whatever the evidence says, in record drafting time, is something I regret.

It is not a rabidly partisan affair, at least in Brussels. The need to secure a consensus relegates the partisan machine to the margins.

It is not a science-driven journey. Scientific literacy amongst politicians is a limited commodity in any country.

Evidence has an important place. The right evidence, brought forward at the right time, in an understandable way by and to the right people, changes outcomes.

Who Decides and Influences Outcomes

In most legislative proposals in the EU, there are around 200-250 people who influence and decide the fate of a proposal. This is a mix of elected politicians, civil servants, political advisers, journalists, and academics.

Out of this list, some are going to back you, come wind, rain or shine, and others are not going to back you.

What makes lobbying campaigns more challenging, is that this list is not static. Governments change, politicians and officials move. Who one day decides may not be there tomorrow. If you need stability, you better leave lobbying alone.

Most don’t care about your issue

This leads you to focus on persuading those who are either undecided or more often, apathetic to the issue at hand.

What seems to surprise many lobbyists is that most people don’t care about the issue they are promoting. It is likely that they are at best apathetic about it, and sometimes unaware of it.

This is not a surprise. I have an unhealthy interest in EU fisheries policy. It was not strange to learn that every landlocked country in Europe found the whole annual charade of quota talks in midnight without much interest. And, added to this, was the convention that only countries whose fisheries/ seas were at stake had a say in the political compromise, you had a far smaller number of decision-makers and influencers to work with.

How to get a winning coalition – find a champion

The trick is often to get those who are sitting on the sidelines to throw their votes your way.

There are easy ways to do this.

I’ve found finding a widely respected and middle of the road Minister or MEP to champion your cause will bring the many undecided and apathetic over to your corner. These politicians are hard to find, but when you find them, their support is key to delivering victories. e

It is often best left to the middle of road influencers to do this, rather than you.

Many interests, and their lobbyists, live in a world of confirmation bias. They live in a world were they only know and speak to with interests and politicians in Brussels and the national capitals who already agree with them. This nearly always leads to certain defeat. The smart campaigners and lobbyists create unexpected broad coalitions, from NGOs, Trade Unions, and industry, who work together to help bring about a winning block of votes from the Member States and EP.

How to gain support

If you wanted to put this into an equation, it would look like this:

People + Ideas + Values + Voting Line/Mandate + Mirroring your views with theirs = Support

If you want to get the support you need, you need to go through some research before you start knocking on doors.

First, you need to know who the key decision-makers and influencers are in Brussels and in the national capitals. Put their names down on a sheet of paper, and list out the 200-250 people.

Second, you need to know for most, if not all, of the ideas that drive them. The ideas that will persuade a free-market classical liberal, are different from a social democrat from a trade union background. You need to know the ideas that drive them so that you can reframe your messages to speak to them.

Third, you need to know the voting line of the national political group back home on the issue. It is going to be hard, although not impossible, for an official or MEP to by slight or design to ignore their national political line. Once, the influential Struan Stevenson MEP, the UK Conservative MEP on the fishing committee was going to lend his support to the Spanish EPP MEP, Carmen Fraga. When the UK Conservative Shadow Minister on fisheries, Richard Benyon, was made aware of the UK MEPs divergence from the Conservative Party’s policy, and late-night call to Brussels cleared up an erroneous voting line.

Finally, the trick is to mirror your views with theirs. Most lobbyists can’t do this. They prefer to act as rabid evangelicals who can’t countenance that not everyone sees the world in the same way, and for the same reasons, as they do. This ideological purity is too common and blinds many from building up the winning coalitions they need to. I’ve never been inflicted with this purity of thought. Mirroring is something that works for sales and works in lobbying. If I have to cite Pope John Paul II and Mises in the same day to win over the backing I need, I’ll do it.

Is this not too much work?

A lot of people think the idea of speaking with 200-250 people on an issue is too much. If you have canvassed in a general election or sales calls, 200 + seems low. Until telepathy works more consistently, having a constructive dialogue by speaking with the key decision-makers and influencers is the only way to do.

You can divide up the conversations. Some who are never going to support you, you can drop. Your firm allies, you can check in less frequently. Meeting the people who decide and influence the outcome is more productive than having endless internal meetings and calls. One key lesson learned from a remarkable turnaround was that the summer vacation put on hold internal calls, to allow my colleague from another organisation and myself to lobby.

Every time I’ve used these ideas my clients win, although never for the reasons they believed in. I am always happy to take the victory, if not the conversion. Political campaigning is not fishing for souls, it is about winning votes.

An equation for lobbying success

23rd November 2021 by Aaron

If you want to win in lobbying, there are few things you need to right.

As an equation it would look like:

P+P+P+S+R+S+S

Politics + People + Process + Solution(s) + Research + Skills + System

An evergreen equation?

Politics

You’ve got to understand the politics driving the issue. You are dealing with law making and that’s political. If you think it is about science or philosophy, you are in for a shock.

You need to understand what is driving the debate on the issue and why political action is being taken. You need to respond to those concerns, not your concerns.

People

This can be divided into two parts.

First, you need to know the key decisions makers and influencers on your issue, and you need to persuade enough of them, at certain times, to back you. As a rule of thumb, for a directive, there are around 250 key decision makers and influencers working on the issue. The list is not static.

Second, you need to have people who can persuade the key decision makers and influencers. If your lobbyists come across as public dribbling misogynists, or Patchouli oil scented earth worshippers, best keep them locked up for your internal meetings. If you let them out into the political world, they’ll harm your interests.

Process

You need to know the rule making or law making process you are dealing with.

You need to know how the process really works, and the points in the process when you can best intervene to advance your interests, in the right way, with the right people.

If you have advanced to dealing with the public maps of the process, you need to know the map is not the journey, and some pitfalls and barriers, or shortcuts, may not be on the public map.

Many rule and law making processes are distinct and the window of opportunity to make a real difference often starts early.

Solution(s)

You need to bring real and workable solutions to the public policy or political problem on the table.

It needs to be a real and workable solution.

You need real evidence and legislative language to make co-opting of your solutions easier to swallow.

If you don’t bring a solution to the table, your chances of success are low.

Research

At the start, you don’t know the answers to most of the questions. Most of the time people think they do. They are usually wrong. After all, if you knew the real reasons and drivers for the challenges you were dealing with, you would have solved it.

You need to do the research at the very beginning before doing anything else.

The focus on early stage research is perhaps the greatest thing that separates NGOs from for profit lobbying. NGOs are brought up the campaign advice of Chris Rose’s ‘How to Win Campaigns’. This early stage research focus is in my view the biggest determiner of success.

Skills

You need to have some core skills to succeed.

You are going to have some in house, and some, like a talented graphic designer, political campaign manager, legislative drafter, data analyzer, market researcher, or proof reader, can be brought in from outside.

Few will have all the necessary skills in house. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that an issue expert is going to mysteriously going to be able to fill any other role than an issue expert or academic.

System

You need a system in place to deliver this work. It does not happen by chance.

The system will include a system, broken down into steps, stages and actions in a clear checklist to ensure you get out an persuade rather than get focused in internal meetings and calls.

As a general rule, if you want to persuade decision makers and influencers, you need to communicate with them. To date, internal meetings have never harnessed the power of telepathy, and until that time, internal meetings really do not persuade decision makers or influencers. I look forward to being disproved on this point or the power of telepathy. Please contact me when it does.

A good example of a good system is offered by AdvocacyStrategy.com

Gaps in the equation

I’ve missed out a lot here. I could have included a C for communicate, preferably in a language people understand and publicly, or PS for avoiding Political Suicide, or S for simplicity, not simplistically, at the expense of the ever popular complexity.

Ideally, you would add the the two Venn diagrams together, but my design skills are too limited, and it would be too intimidating.

When to step in if you want to influence a Commission proposal

19th September 2021 by Aaron

Recently, someone asked me about the positive influence of an interest on a policy issue I have long experience in. My initial response was that they had none. The person who asked the question seemed surprised. I double-checked. The people in charge of the file in the Commission and EP had no record of the interest having any positive influence on the dossier. Looking through the legislative record, I saw an event from a marginal political group with the interest, and an amendment that failed at the Committee stage. Sure, they were known, and active, but their ideas had not been taken up in EU policy and law in the last 10 years.

A Long Journey

If you want to influence EU public policy, you need to realise the journey is a long one.

It is so long that most people and organisations pass by the wayside early on.

The challenge is that even if the windows of opportunity to influence direction are well indicated in advance most don’t know about them, or ignore them and step in late.

I’ve written before about the 109 steps involved from taking an idea through the policy cycle to being adopted into law.

Windows of Opportunity

If you wanted to influence a Commission proposal, the windows of opportunity are clear.

European Council’s Road Map
Commission’s Political Priorities
Commission’s Work Programme
Road Maps drafted and published
Work on Impact Assessment and proposal
RSB
Inter-Service Consultation
College adoption

Most ignore 1, 2 and 3. A few look to persuade on 4.

The easiest way to influence the proposal is on 5. You need to bring forward a shadow impact assessment. That needs to follow the Commission’s own guidelines, and ideally, be prepared by the handful of experts the Commission rely on. You can’t change the results of the shadow impact assessment.

If you have woken up late in the day, and you want to influence 7 and 8, the most effective way is to get the Prime Minister’s offices to go into bat for you. If you can’t do that, you are going to have to start early and create a groundswell of public opinion in several member states so that Commissioners and their Heads of Cabinet take notice. It is not easy to do, but it can be done.

Timing Changes on Regulatory Issues

For regulatory decisions and measures, the journey is even longer. Each regulatory process has its own journey. It helps to identify those windows of opportunity so you can do something to influence events.

When I look at any issue, whether fisheries quotas or substance measures, I look to understand the real process and the windows of opportunity. If you ignore that, you have lost before you have started.

For chemical matters, the window of opportunity opens up years before the Commission consider the matter. For example, for classification,the window of opportunity comes about when:

When new credible science is published on the issue
When IARC opinion on the matter
When the substance appears in the mainstream media that leads people to dig deeper
When a Member State perform a substance evaluation
When a Member State submits a classification/re-classification
When the RAC provides their opinion

After the RAC has given their opinion, what happens next is more or less predetermined – for most cases.

If you don’t step in during those windows of opportunity, your chances to influence the final direction are at best limited.

Are you working on the wrong problem?

7th June 2021 by Aaron

Don’t Avoid the Root Problem

As a campaigner and lobbyist, I spent many years working on solutions to the wrong problems. By ignoring the root cause/problem, I helped bring about solutions, that did not prevent the real problem returning.

As I got older, I learned that if you avoid the root problem, you are going to introduce solutions that fail.

As a lobbyist, you are often asked to help solve a ‘problem’. The client tells you they have a problem and you jump in, and solve it.

What does not happen enough is that you ask yourself “are you dealing with the right problem”. Do you understand the root problem?

If you don’t deal with the root problem, you may find a solution for the symptons. Soon enough, the root problem will manifest itself again, and you’ll be called back to treat some more symptoms.

Personally, I’ve found it more satisfying to work on solving the root problem.

Setting up a system to avoid working on the wrong problem

In my experience, the problem you are asked to look at is not automaticlly the problem that needs to be solved.

You need to set up a system that breaks the impulse to look at the problem on the table and switch automatically to find ‘the solution’.

We like to jump to the ‘solution’ because that’s what we are paid to do. The problem is that you may work on the solutions to the wrong problem.

There are three ways to avoid working on the wrong problems:

Option 1: Think through the problem yourself. Don’t assume what others say, including experts, is true.

Option 2: Put up a firewall between the problem definition and the problem solution. Sepearate the problem definition and the problem solution into two parts. Let people sleep on the problem definition for a day or so before coming back to the problem solution.

This simple tactic slows people down, and stops them jumping from problem to solution in a few minutes. If you divide the consideration, you get a far better understanding of the ‘real problem’, and from that you can come up with real solutions.

Option 3: Speak with officials dealing with the file and see if your and their identificiation of the problem is the same. Most of the time, it is not.

Stop doing what does not work

6th June 2021 by Aaron

As a lobbyist I am interested in what works, and what does not work. I’ve come to the view that if it works use it, and if it does not work, refine it , or drop it.

You need to focus on doing what moves the needle forwards, and persuades decision makers to back your cause.

Strangely, most mental energy and resources is spent on actions that does not move the needle forwards.

What is hitting the mark

It makes sense to ask yourself whether what you are doing is hitting the mark. This needs to be done dispassionately. Here are some questions you can ask yourself:

1. Does your case not resonate with the people making the decision?

2. Do meetings with decision makers show your case to be full off of holes?

3. Are you spending a small fortune on media ads and social media that no one of consequence reads or watches?

At the start of your work, you’ll have identified proof points and follows ups. You need to check back in and see what is working and what is not. It helps at the end when you do your post-mortem of the campaign.

Don’t be an observer to events

Recently, a lobbyist told me about their pivotal role on getting the Commission to go down one path. The strange thing was that the person holding the pen had never heard of the lobbyist or their client. So, unless the lobbyist was a good telepath, they’d only moved the needle by powerful thoughts waves.

So if you don’t want to be an observer to events, and have no influence, there are some things you can to do:

1. You need to iterate, and not be beholden to sacred cows.

2. If your case doesn’t work improve it, or ditch it, and find a new a case

3. If you case does not add up, consider dropping your campaign. If you are just pouring money into something that is not going to move the needle, why continue?

4. If your spokespeople piss decision makers offs, so that your case is doomed, get rid of the spokespeople.

Do this review dispassionately. If you can’t, get someone else to do it for you. If you refuse, it is likely you are going fail to move the needle forwards.

Mindset

Lessons in Lobbying 14#: Why a lobbyist needs to embrace political pain

21st February 2022 by Aaron

Political adversity is the only way we can increase our strength. To develop a muscle, you need to subject the muscle to resistance in the form of a heavy weight. Political adversity is the way you can develop your strength. The best way forward is to embrace the pain.

Most lobbyists, and their clients, like to live in a “comfort zone”. It is nice to think that all is okay, there are no really tough issues, no skeletons in the closet, everybody likes you, and you are trusted and respected. Many people like to live here. This warm glow of well-meaning nothingness will harm you in the long term. It is a form of immediate gratification that makes you less resilient to the political winds that always flow.

Don’t Avoid the Pain

Most people like to avoid pain. It is easier to pretend all is fine. It appears in many ways:

An issue you deny is out there even when it is staring at you in the front page of the FT.
A refusal to accept that the laws of voting arithmetic are against you and that you are not going to win the vote next week from a standing start.
A report by an MEP, Committee, Commission, Member State, an international organisation against your position.
Key people on your issue don’t return your calls or put the phone down on you if you manage to get hold of them.
A new study by a leading expert against you.

Benefits of embracing the pain

If you embrace the pain, listen to the signals, your political resilience and capital will grow.

The good lobbyist will go through the small bursts of pain required for the personal discipline of keeping up relationships, maintaining and growing trust and respect, and following up.

You’ll commission an in-depth peer review study, ahead of time, to examine the findings of others. You’ll publish the findings and subject them to the rigours of peer review. If there is an issue, you’ll take steps to resolve it.

You’ll engage in a civil and informed way with those voices that seem to be against you. Only two things can come from this. You may find out that why someone seems to be against your interests is not what is driving them. This happens a lot. You then find out that you are barking up the wrong tree. The very worst that can happen is that they tell you why they are against your interests, and give the in-depth reasons for that. That’s not a bad thing. Maybe what is driving them can be cleared up in an instant, or you know the real reasons.

At the beginning of the Civil Rights movement in N.Ireland, representatives of the Unionist business community met with representatives of the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights representatives learned that these representatives of the Unionist community thought the campaign for equal rights in N.Ireland was a pretext to reclaim the land confiscated from Catholics during the Plantation of Ulster (1609- 1690). They were shocked to learn it was not.

A good rule of thumb is, if you dread it, do it. You are only going to find out two things. One, there is not an issue, or second, there is an issue, and now you have time to do something about it.

Don’t Avoid the Political Pain

Don’t drop a political Xanax. It will dull your political senses.

It is common to avoid political reality. I’ve been shouted at and accused of lying when informing people a proposal was about to be published, a vote would not be won, or a decision would not go their way. The pain of letting others know this was too much.

My own view is that when you deny reality, you are refusing to accept that’s already happened. The more you complain the more stuck you become. Acting the victim may be natural but it comes offs as looking like political insanity. There is nothing that can be achieved. It is like politicians who are found crying and yelling in their offices after their constituents vote them out at the general election.

You need political courage to face the fear. It is the only way you’ll get to where you need to be.

Lessons in Lobbying 12 #Don’t argue with reality

2nd February 2022 by Aaron

I think it is insane to oppose reality.

When I argue with reality, I lose – but only 100% of the time.

If you want reality to be different than what it is, you might as well try to teach a cat to bark.

I’ve seen people try and argue with reality.

When I was getting treatment for cancer, I saw some people second guess world class oncologists on the right treatment. When they checked out of hospital, they checked out.

After reading Vaclav Smil, I see that securing 100% renewable energy by 2050 for all sectors of the economy, without any serious impacts on our current standards of living is a denial of reality.

And, many deny political reality. By that I mean a denial of having enough votes firmly in the bag to secure the goal you want.

Lessons in Lobbying #4 – Be Rational, and don’t ignore political reality

7th November 2021 by Aaron

It seems common sense to act rationally, and to accept political reality.

Acting rationally means not terming anyone who disagrees with you as ‘irrational’.

What is clear is that many lobbyists let emotions infect their thinking. This leads us to see things in ways that only plays to our ego or worldview.

It helps to try and subtract your emotions /client’s interests from your thinking. If you don’t put a guard up, you’ll cloud your judgement.

Be Politically Realistic

Just because you, or your client, want something to be ‘true’, does not mean it is so.

If you constantly face 650 MEPs and 24 Member States voting against your preferred position, you need to realise the political game is up.

It is surprisingly easy to find out if what you want is politically realistic. VoteWatch Europe allows you to check similar votes.

If you don’t trust the data, why not speak to the people voting on your issue. Speak to the people in Brussels and in the national capitals. It will help explain how and why they are going to vote the way they are. It is good to speak to them for quite a while before they vote. It will give you a good sense of whether you have enough allies to carry the day or face political defeat.

A lot of people believe all that is needed is that they speak to the close circle of political groups and think tanks who already agree with them. It is a dangerous approach. And, if you do, check how often that political group is on the winning side of votes in general, and on your issue in particular. If they are the political fringe, ignore their proclamations that victory is just around the corner.

What to do if what you want is unrealistic.

If what you want is unrealistic, there are three things you can do.

First, you can continue, ignore that defeat is likely, and run very fast into a brick wall. If you do this, it is best to inform your colleagues/clients, that this is the case. If you don’t let them know, they are going to get an unpleasant shock when defeat comes knocking or crashing through, the door.

Second, you can better understand why what you want is unrealistic. From those learnings, you can re-adjust your strategy and often who and what you say. I’ve found this is a successful course of action. It is only after you understand why you keep losing, that you re-assess, and see if you can alter to secure a win.

Third, you may realise that what you want is not available in the current policy cycle or the window of opportunity is closed. If that’s the case, think about if you want to sit this cycle out, and come back better prepared next time around.

Tools to avoid the denial of political reality

There are two good ways to get a sound grasp of political reality.

The best is to go and listen to the people making and influencing the decision you are working on. If you listen carefully, don’t speak too much, you are likely going to hear if key decision makers are on side or not. If they are on side, that’s great, continue as you were. If not, re-calibrate your plans, and see what you can do differently to get enough support. If you choose to ignore the signals of political reality, and go ahead blindly as if you did not know, or care about reality, you’ve embraced political insanity. It may make you and others feel good, and give you a warm fuzzy feeling of well-being, but you’ve signed up for defeat if you go there.

I find a one on one conversation with a group of key players in the Commission, EP and the Member States gives you are good idea of where political support really is. This takes a few hours, but it is better doing this at the start, than avoiding political reality.

The second best option is to look at the recent past similar votes on the issue. I use the excellent Vote Watch EU. I find it gives you an accurate insight of where the political forces lay.

If you want to bark at the moon go ahead, but don’t do it in public, it comes across as insane.

What to do when your encounter the denial of reality

28th September 2021 by Aaron

Denial of political reality is common in Brussels. There must be something in the foul air or a large political distortion force field covering the city.

If you don’t deny political reality, you may be surprised by the protestations of others. They see the sky outside as blue, you see clouds and hail storm. Don’t be surprised at the distortion of reality. It is normal.

I know people who think Brexit is going jolly well. Fuel and food shortages are a myth. The sun filled uplands are full of plenty.

People may be going through the stages of grief. They may be stuck at the start.

The only thing you can do is note that the Commission, EP and 27 member states don’t see things the same way do.

When people’s world view is so out of sync with political reality you are likely to encounter some raised eye brows when they press their case. The chasm between their world view and political reality will be too far to bridge. The chances of a building a bridge between Scotland and Ulster through Beaufort’s Dyke seem small in comparison.

Unfortunately, they don’t have the power to vote, so just get ready to when the votes are made.

The only thing you can do is wait for the distortion of political reality to end, and get ready to act.

Campaigning

The case for working in unconventional coalitions

19th January 2022 by Aaron

Working with unconventional Coalitions

If you want to win in Brussels, it makes sense to work as part of a coalition.

I’d like to detail some cases of those coalitions – the unconventional – and some of the results they can deliver.

I am not talking about the conventional coalitions – the Green 10 or pan-industry groups – that are all too common.

I’m also going to consider some of the advantages and the pitfalls of doing so. It is not plain sailing.

You should only read further if you are interested in strategies that help you win. If you are just interested in protesting or having positions that amount to calling out in the darkness “no surrender”, you should stop reading.

Can people who don’t agree on everything work together

If you think interests that don’t see eye to eye can’t work together, please look at this picture.

When two sides, even those who have been to war with each other, can work together good things can happen.

Is this the only way

A common view of the relations between NGOs and industry is one of confrontation.

Peaceful direct action has its place. But, it is not the only way to bring about change.

Coalitions of the Willing

NGOs can work with governments and industry to bring about policy and political change. The partnership can be public or private.

There is an important caveat. Both sides need to agree on a common goal. If you don’t, there is no partnership.

The Smart Place

I learned a lot of my political campaigning craft at the foot of some of the best NGOs. I worked with IFAW and WWF running political campaigning on bushmeat and fisheries. I have a certain passion for our oceans.

Working with the Governments and with the Institutions

Below is an excellent piece from Tony Long, the former longstanding head of WWF’s EPO office, from whom I had the honour to learn so much from.

Here alliances with member states were key to delivering success.

Business Alliances

WWF works with Sky on Oceans and Coca-Cola on water resources.

Tetra Pak & WWF

I remember the alliance with Tetra Pak and WWF on forestry and combatting illegal forest.

This led to working together to secure EU wide illegal logging legislation.

IFAW and the European Zoo (EAZA)

IFAW and EAZA did not see eye to eye on many things. But, we saw eye to eye on the harm of bushmeat on Africa’s Ape population. Together we worked to address the issue in Brussels and Member States, at the political and public level, and bring about change in EU policies that contributed to this.

See link

Common Understanding between the Scottish fishing industry and WWF

WWF Scotland works closely with the Scottish fishing industry and government on fishing conservation.

Some of the benefits of sitting down in the spirit of constructive dialogue are that you get a better understanding of what is driving people and their real concerns. After a while, the posturing ends, and you often find out you have similar goals, just different ways of getting there.

When you understand each other, you are far closer to finding a solution to a common problem.

When you take the confusion and misunderstanding from the conversation good things can happen.

I enjoyed working with Mark Park from the Scottish White Fisheries. We did not agree on everything, but we agreed on the case about subsidies. So, when I received an invite, as then head of WWF’s marine programme, to speak at a European Commission policy retreat on fisheries subsidies, I was more than happy to ask Mike to join the event. The officials were surprised that I’d invited him, but who better to make the case, than one of Europe’s fishing industry leaders.

Some people insist you must have more or less identical views on all issues before you can share a common platform. That’s a tall order. It may work in a world of mass-cloning, and I doubt any marriage would survive based on such conditionality.

Chemical Industry and NGOs work together on Brexit

Brexit led the UK and European chemical industry and NGOs share a common agenda.

We worked together by letters and adverts in the FT, Politico, and the Brussels metro to raise our common position.

jointletteronbrexit-oct18

Unfortunately, the British government did not agree with us.

Veggie Sausages

A more recent case, October 2020, saw an alliance of vegans and multi-nationals, including Nestle, lobbying against the farming lobby’s attempt to ban the tern ‘veggie burgers’.

Link.

The alliance led to a mainstream and broad political alliance across all political parties against the move.

The case for coalitions

Many of these alliances led to gains that alone both sides could not have secured.. It was not the unexpected novelty factor. It was the combination of two interests, who may not always be on the same page most of the time, but for whom on that one issue, share a common goal and understanding of what needs to be done to secure the common good.

The main advantage is that these unexpected alliances broaden the political coalition you can bring to the table to get you the support/votes you need. Political victory is, at the end of the day, about getting the right proposal out the door of the Commission, and getting enough support from the European Parliament (often 353 votes or more ) and 15 (and sometimes more) Member States backing you.

It is unlikely that any single organisation, company or NGO, whether for profit or not profit, has a broad enough established geographical coverage and political influence in the EU 27.

A lot of the time, political success, winning votes, comes down to being trusted with decision-makers and influencers across many of the EU 27 and Brussels. Having a strong base in one country or with one political family won’t be enough to deliver all the votes you need.

That being the case, you are going to have to work with others, from usual allies to the unexpected, to get what you want.

For me, the real benefit of these unexpected coalitions is twofold. First, it is that it can lead to an open-minded listening to one another’s views. It can lead people to deal with each other as real people, rather than stereotype personalities. It can lead to a greater understanding between people regardless of the views they hold. And, a gradual and better understanding of views based can lead to a greater chance of finding better and workable solutions. Second, when you both call for the same thing, the Commission, MEPs, and Ministers, listen far more intently, and co-opt your position far more readily.

Challenges

These challenges go for whether you are working in any coalition, but are common.

Signing off a common position can make the agonies of Sisyphus seem mild.

There may be slackers on board who talk a great game and do very hard lift.

There may be deep-rooted animosities and tensions between fellow travellers which makes working together hard.

Conclusion

If you want to bring about dramatic political change against the odds, you are likely going to have to do something very different than you’ve been doing. What got you there, is unlikely going to get you out of there. So, maybe working with interests that you usually not may well be the best way to you get you what you all want. You can deal with any misgivings you have with the unexpected taste of victory.

Further Reading

Chris Rose, “How to Win Campaigns”

Simon Bryceson and Simon Levitt, “PA and Ecology”, Sage International Handbook of Corporate and Public Affairs

Lobbying v Campaigning

18th September 2021 by Aaron

Summer vacations are a good time to read and reflect. In preparation for an upcoming talk I am giving later this year, I re-read for the umpteenth Chris Rose’s campaign bible, ‘How to Win Campaigns.’

As I went through my personal dog eared copy full of annotations, I learned new things. and was reminded of how rare good practice is.

Many in Brussels claim to run political campaigns. Most don’t. There is a lot of lobbying, corporate PR, and communications work, but there is little campaigning.

The strange thing is because campaigns work. They are not easy to run, but a recent example that I’ll write about later this year shows, if you want to influence politicians, they really work.

And, in case you think only NGOs can do campaigns, you’d be wrong. Some NGOs have quietly switched out of the business of campaigns, and now resemble the management consultancies they brought into re-organise them. PR, marketing, and change management are their watchwords.

Lobbying compared to Campaigning

Lobbying Campaigning

A conversation with a few decision-makers & influencers	A conversation with society
A call for Status Quo	A call for Change
Little mainstream media use	Use the media to speak with the people
Text-heavy	Images
Klingon logic	Emotions
Presenting a Powerpoint	Telling a Story
Play Defense	Play Offence
Play Insider Game	Play Outside Game
Goliath	David
Main message: No problem here, nothing to look at, move on	Main message: There is a problem, here it is, here is the solution
Drab	Lively
Private	In Public eye
Time focused on internal meetings and inner dialogue	Time focused on getting the message out and persuading people to change their vote
Small elite circles engaged on the issue	Issue talked about by your friends, kids, and at parties
Focus on PR and Communications	A plan that is focused on bringing about change on a decision
Ad hoc finance concentrated on internal spend	Well resourced for the duration of the campaign; real resources set aside to bring about external change
Focus on telling their target audience what they need to hear from our own value perspective	Focus on the values of the target audience

And, when a well-organised campaign faces even a well-organised lobby, recent events show the campaign wins.

Communication

Book Review: ‘Making Numbers Count’, by Chip Heath and karla Starr

18th January 2022 by Aaron

Numbers are essential and are used a lot in public policymaking and lobbying.

There is just one problem. Nobody really understands numbers.

Numbers can cause confusion, annoyance, and often, the rejection of your position.

This book provides some principles that show you how you translate numbers into a language that people can understand and use.

Numbers are used a lot in Brussels

The Commission, industry and NGOs use numbers a lot.

Below are 3 random examples of press releases from the European Commission, ACEA and EEB.

European Commission

EU at forefront of global humanitarian response: €1.5 billion for 2022 (link)

ACEA (link)

EEB (link)

Most people find large numbers numbing. They shut down at any number greater than 5.

If I understand this correctly, the Commission is setting aside 469 million euros for the 262 million malnourished people of sub-Sahara Africa, or less than 2 euro a year per person.

The Curse of Knowledge

Most policy-making and lobbying is done by experts. Most experts are infected with the “Cure of Knowledge”. As Heath & Starr say “they wildly overestimate how much of their mental model of the world is shared by the audience” (p. xviii).

The trick they argue is: “If you can use it and make it clear, bringing what is obscure and distant into the range where others can see it and feel it – well, then you have a superpower. Supermen could see through walls; you can then make the walls invisible so everyone else can see through them”.

This superpower is within everyone’s grasp.

Principles

Heath & Starr provide 18 chapters full of useful principles that you can apply to make your numbers understandable. I’ve listed them, and some of the examples they give.

Translate Everything. If you don’t you’ve left it in a foreign language and neglected to translate.
Avoid Numbers: Perfect translations don’t need Numbers. e.g. Imagine a gallon jug filled with three ice cubs next to it. All of the water in the jug is salty water. The ice cubes are the only freshwater, and humans can only drink the drops that are melting off each. Or, Among Fortune 500 CEOS, there are more men named James than there are women.
Try focusing on 1 at a Time. e..g The US national debt is $27 trillion – $82,000 per citizen.
Favour User-Friendly Numbers. e.g. Instead of ‘40% of U.S. adults don’t always wash their hands after using the bathroom at home’ try this ‘2 out of every 5 people you shake hands with may not have washed their hands between using the toiler and touching your hands’
Find your fathom: Help people understand through simple, familiar comparison. If you want to help people understand quickly, define the new concept in terms of something your audience already knows. e.g. Avoid this “3.9 times bigger than your home state’, in favour of this: ‘About as big as New York’s population.
Convert abstract numbers into concrete objects. e.g. Instead of ‘CFL (carbon fluorescent light-bulbs” use a quarter of the electricity of standard bulbs and last 7 years in between replacements compared with the “replace every year” cycle for typical bulbs, to “Replace your lights with CFLs when your child is learning to walk. The next time you’d have to replace the bulb, your child would be in second grade, learning about oxygen. The next time, they’d be taking driver’s ed.”
Recast your number into different dimensions: try time, space, distance, money and Pringles. e.g. A single Pringle has 10 calories to in order to burn off the calories in a single Pringle, you’d have to walk 176 yards, or almost 2 football fields.
Human Scale: Use the Goldilocks Principle to make your numbers just right. e.g. The average American spends 2 hours a day on social media vs. Suppose you were willing to give up your 2 hours of Facebook on Fridays. Well, 5 months from today, you could say that you’ve made it all the way through War and Peace. And all you have to do is give up Facebook on Fridays.
Florence Nightingale avoids sry status by using transferred emotion. e.g We have 600 deaths per 1,000 troops vs We had, in the first seven months of the Crimean campaign …. from disease alone, a rate of mortality which exceeds that of the Great Plague of London.
Comparatives, Superlatives and Category Jumpers. e.g. In terms of economic prowess, California leads all the other 49 states in GDP vs. If California were a free-standing country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world.
Emptional amplitude. Select combos that hit the right notes together. e.g. A 12-ox serving of Ocean Spray Cran-Apple juice has 44 grams of sugar, or 11 teaspoons. vs. Drinking a 12 oz serving Ocean Spray Cran-Apple juice is the sugar equivalent of 3 glazed doughnuts from Krispy Kreme …. plus 4 sugar cubes.”
Make it personal. This is about you.
Bring your number into the room with a demonstration. e.g. The U.S. Congress is 73% male and frequently passes legislation that affects the lives of women vs. If you have a large group, select a subgroup of 3 women and 1 man. Have them vote on issues that only affect the men in the group.”
Avoid numbing by converting your numbers to a process that unfolds over time. e.g. There are more than 400 million firearms in the U.S. That’s enough for every man, woman, and child and own one, with 70 million remaining vs. There are more than 400 million firearms in the U.S. That’s enough for every man, woman, and child to own one, with enough left over that you could give one to ever y baby born in America for the next 20 years.”
Offer an encore. e.g. If everyone in the world ate as much meat as America,s, the amount of land required to raise livestock would equal 138% of the inhabitable land on Earth vs. If everyone in the world ate as much meat as the Americans, all inhabitable land on Earth would have to be used to raise livestock – and we’d still need more, an additional landmass as big as Africa and Australia combined.”
Make people pay attention by crystalising a pattern then breaking it. e..g 59% of Americans said that growing trade ties between countries are “very good” or “somewhat good” vs. Zakaria, citing a Pew Survey: “Thumping majorities everywhere said that growing trade between countries are ‘very good or somewhat good’ – 91% in China, 85% in Herman, 88% in Bulgaria, 87% in South Africa, 93 $% in Kenya and so on. Of the 47 countries surveyed, the one that came in dead last was …. America, at 59%. The only country within 10 points of us was Egypt”.
Map the landscape by finding the landmarks. e.g. A normal platelet count ranges from 150,000 to 450,000 platelets per microliter of blood. Your recent blood works showed that your platelet count is 40,000. That’s way too low” vs . “Normal scores of platelets counts are expressed in thousands, and they range between 150 to 450. At 50, we won’t let you travel. At 10, you’re at risk for spontaneous bleeding. You’re at 40. “
Build with a Scale model you can work with.

3 rules

In the Annex, Heath ^& Starr provide 3 rules to make your numbers user friendly.

Rule #1: Round With Enthusiasm. e.g. 2/49 vs. About 1 out of 25

Rule #2: Concrete is Better. e.g. Give me 50% of the cookies vs. Give me 3 cookies

Rule #3: Defer to expertise. Speak your audience’s language. e.g. For the general population: The shirt is cheaper vs for a shopping audience: 35% off.

Use the Book

Heath & Starr’s ideas are only useful if you want to communicate with your audience. The good translation of numbers can help build mutual understanding and from that good solutions.

The general lack of understanding of numbers applies to other areas, including science, policymaking and the EU.

If you want to keep people in the dark, carry on, and don’t buy, read, digest and apply the lessons from this book.

Lessons in lobbying 9: If you want to persuade, don’t use this line

6th January 2022 by Aaron

There is one phrase that seems to guarantee most officials and many politicians eyes rolling and shut down any fruitful exchange.

It is “if you do this, the economy will tank”, or a variation “we will close our operations and leave if you do this “.

I’ve witnessed this line being used working for MEPs and as a DG ENV official. I’ve never seen it work.

It is a line that tends to be used when it comes to environmental regulation.

I think it does not work is because intuitively most politicians and civil servants don’t believe it because of the diagram below.

Europe’s embrace of Environmental Legislation was a few years behind the USA. But, it seems the European Union’s growth has not been hit by a well-developed body of Environmental Law in the EU 27.

And, as this study by the UK’s Environment Department in 1995, makes clear that overall the benefits of environmental measures outweigh the costs by a factor of 3.

defra-regulation-assessment-2015

Over 25 years I have heard the clarion song of economic armageddon by industry if the law or measure was passed. I recently checked. Most are doing just fine. One sector that was particularly vocal on the impending economic collapse because of the new laws put in profitability levels to match Google.

I recall one industrial interest whose standard letter to MEPs was to oppose any environmental proposals because of the economic collapse it would usher in. I learned that most progressive MEPs and many centre-right MEPs dropped their letter straight into the bin. It was a shame because if you could read to the end of the long letter and past the forewarning of economic collapse, there were some very good public policy points hidden away in plain sight.

Now, the ‘economy is going to collapse line that’s going to work with those officials and politicians who are already on your side. It is just not a line that’s going to persuade those who are not already on your side. And, for that, you’ll need to do and say different things. If you want to persuade enough officials and politicians to win, you need to choose the lines that will influence and persuade them to back you, not just sound nice to you.

Lessons in Lobbying #7: Working with the media to make your case

30th December 2021 by Aaron

The reading and viewing of politicians and officials the world over is similar.

They’ll turn to newspapers and journals of record to inform them.

Many will flick through the FT, and a national paper of record like Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Their reading will be influenced by their political preferences.

Many will have trusted weekly reads like the Economist and often a national political weekly.

Popular generalist magazines like the New Scientist and National Geographic are often read.

The political class will watch/listen to similar TV and radio news programmes.

On any given issue there will be journals of record that people read. You’ve probably never heard of them, but if you work in the field, you’ll have a subscription. I’ve been an avid reader of ENDS, Fishing News, and Chemical Watch.

As a campaigner and lobbyist, one of the easiest things you need to do is to find out what decision-makers read, watch and listen to.

You can then focus your communications in those journals of record.

If you get the right story in front of someone in their morning read, the more likely it is that they are likely to take action.

I’ve noticed that getting a good story in the right newspapers or news item, at the right time, that’s read or seen by the politician, their advisers, or family, works wonders.

Some Old Case Studies

I’ve dug up some old work and provided a few lines on what the outcome was. The real work was done by some excellent investigators, campaigners, and media teams. Harnessing their work to bring about political change is the easy part.

Getting France to Back Blue Fin Tuna CITES Listing

Bluefin tuna has been fished to the brink of extinction | The Times, 19 January 2010

I discovered that all sensitive political decisions in France are taken by the President. We wanted to get President Sarkozy to overturn the decision of the French fisheries minister, Bruno Le Maire, and get France to back a CITES listing proposal by Monaco for Blue Fin Tuna.

It seemed that the French President read two newspapers every morning. One French and the second, the Times of London.

So, maybe, if we could get the French President to know the fate of a majestic species was in his hands, maybe he would change France’s position, and with it, Europes.

Soon after the French President read it, his office convened a meeting of the key ministers and officials, and informed the Commission they had changed their mind, and backed the CITES listing.

France backs delayed ban on bluefin tuna trade | Financial Times, 3 February 2010

In case there was any confusion about France’s position in the Commission, what better place for senior officials to learn about it than from the FT. An easier read than briefings from officials.

Getting the Commission to back CITES Listing

We needed to help get DG Environment’s proposal to support the CITES proposal backed by the Commission. The fisheries department were against it.

What better place to show the wider Commission what was happening than the FT.

EU considers bluefin tuna protection | Financial Times, 21 August 2009

This piece in the FT helped make the arcane matter of CITES proposals going through inter-service consultation a lot more interesting for the President’s Cabinet. The Commission backed the CITES listing proposal.

Reframing the Issue

I am a fishing policy wonk who realises that few people are interested in the textbook example of the tragedy of the commons.

What more people are interested in is corruption and links with dictators.

Libya’s former dictator, Colonel Ghaddafi and one of his sons, had a major interest in the Blue Fin industry.

If people got to learn about that, maybe they’d see things in a very different light.

Over time, those links got more coverage.

MaltaToday, 21 May 2008 | Azzopardi Fisheries caught up in net of EU investigations, 21 May 2008

EU fishing head wants crackdown on Libya tuna trade | Reuters, 11 May 2011

The late Colonel’s appearance helped pique the interest of the US government and other European countries, not interested in fisheries, became a lot more interested.

Fewer countries were prepared to step in to defend a system that was bankrolling the late dictator’s family.

The National Geographic, April 2007

For reasons I don’t fully understand, National Geographic has a tremendous influence on global policymakers. When they run with the story, especially a front-page cover, you find newfound allies in places you never knew.

When this April 2007 edition came out, with a piece on Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, the debate in Europe and globally sifted.

More recently, soon after this June 2018 front cover on plastics, the EU and elsewhere brought forward a flow of legislative and political action on plastics.

Daily Mail

The Dail Mail, 9 June 2009, ran this story before a debate on discards.

It piqued political interest amongst fishing ministers and officials.

Lessons learned

1. A great communications and media team is worth their weight in gold.

2. Work with your communications team to make complex issues clearer. Most policy issues are complex and need to be simplified. Few issue or policy experts can make issues clear enough for non-experts to understand what they are saying.

3. A key part of your job as a lobbyist is to help journalists. As a rule of thumb, you need to help someone at least 10 times before you can expect anything from them.

4. Many of these stories take a lot of work to land. The investment is not for the faint-hearted. It takes a long term approach to build relationships with key journalists and media outlets.

5. You can’t be sure when opportunity strikes. You don’t control the news cycle. You can just benefit from it. The upsides are too great to ignore The media influence politicians and decision-makers.

6. If you want to move the needle on your issue you are going to have to move outside your echo chamber. You need to grab public interest in the issue. The most effective way to do that is through the media, and to this day, to influence decision-makers, the mainstream media that they read and watch.

7. You need to read what the decision-makers in your field read. I read the FT, Guardian, The Economist, BBC News, National Geographic, New Scientist, ENDS, and Chemical Watch.

8. When a journalist calls with a background question, you help them out. One day, they may run your story.

Campaign Strategy

Lessons in Lobbying #5 – Watch out for the Feedback Loops

14th November 2021 by Aaron

If you want to succeed, you need to watch out for feedback loops. This is the information that is communicated in response to an action.

The feedback loop is important. It helps you iterate and improve. If you choose to ignore it, it will hasten your defeat.

For a lobbyist, there are obvious feedback loops. They include:

Did you win the vote in Committee or plenary?
Did your position get taken up by the Commission as their own?
Did an influential Member State champion your issue in the Council Working Group?
Did the meeting with the Commission lead to a fast and positive follow up?
Often it is an off-hand comment, usually delivered walking you to the lift, that sums up the true position of a key decision-maker or influencer.

Are you picking up the feedback signals?

It is common that you or your client are not picking up the feedback or are not interpreting it correctly.

I’ve sat in meetings when working for MEPs and in the Commission, when the meeting was a train wreck, that the lobbyists thought had gone well.

I’ve been in meetings when the Commission officials turned off in 5 minutes listening to the lobbyist’s protests.

I’ve watched in awe as a lobbyist snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

And, in all these cases the lobbyists thought the meeting had gone well.

Feedback to watch out for

The political world offers us all feedback, but do we listen and incorporate, or do we just keep wanting the political world to work differently than it does?

The obvious are listed above (1-5).

The more you learn to accept feedback and take it on board, the more you quicker you will get to where you want to be.

If you keep ignoring not being close to a winning majority in the EP or Council, Agency decisions constantly going against you, and the Heads of State going against you by 26-1, you are ignoring some valuable feedback. After 25 years in Brussels, I have stopped being surprised by how many people ignore very clear feedback.

Some practical steps to get better feedback

In the political system, feedback is often not immediate. You only learn if you have won or lost the vote later on. This delayed feedback on our actions makes it harder to work out had any casual relationship on the result. A good way to get accurate feedback is to look at past decisions. Ask the people involved in making those decisions why they did not go your way. A lot of people will never do this. They think it is too painful to do.

Before I start working on any issue, I ask the people who made the decisions why they made those decisions. Did the client influence the process constructively or did the client’s actions make them a bystander, with little to no influence? The decision-makers tend to be forthcoming, and the valuable feedback. It helps you improve.

Something that you need to bear in mind is that some short term positive feedback may have long term negative consequences. A short term win brought about by shortcuts will lead in the long term to political ostracism. You may well feel that you are being held to account for the sins of your father, and you are. All you can do is genuinely atone for those past actions, and hope that over time trust can be established.

I know of two firms that have listened to the feedback loops and changed their actions. They are now seen as trustworthy and listened to. The change took a long time.

The faster you can get accurate feedback, the quicker you can iterate, and improve. I like to speak to the people clients have met the day after. I ask the officials/advisers/politicians if they were positively persuaded by the client’s case and did the case hit the right spot? If it does, all well and good. I ask how a good case can be improved. If it did not hit the spot, listen carefully to why it did not persuade, and what can be improved. Was it unclear, did not come across as self-serving, were people rude? All these things can be corrected if you get the feedback quickly, and make the necessary changes quickly.

What to do with the feedback

The first time you try something it is hardly ever good. Every time you try something, the feedback you get. helps you improve. Making your case in lobbying is not static. You’ll use many iterations of a case before you get to something that persuades and makes a positive difference.

This can take months. It hardly works perfectly on the first test. Many campaigns and lobbying efforts fail because they refuse to adapt their case and strategy despite the feedback they are getting from meetings with politicians, advisers and officials, the debates in the Chambers, or the votes in the EP and Council.

If you listen to the feedback and adapt, you’ll win.

Campaigning – A Simplified Approach

A lot of people in Brussels run campaigns. Fewer win them.

There are models, strategies, and tactics that you can adopt that will increase your chances of winning. Here is a simple checklist to consider before you start off on your next campaign.

A Simple Checklist for A Successful Campaign

You have funding for the long term. Campaigns cost money. If you want to bring about system change, you are looking at a 10-year time horizon. That means you need to have the funds at hand, or committed to for the duration. If you come up short, your chances of getting what you want fall. Many good campaigns fail because they lack the funds or long term funding.
The best way around this is to find a good fundraiser, they are worth their weight in gold, or make sure your organisation/firm, signs off the budget for the duration.
A campaign is about changing things. It’s going to be disruptive. If your client does not want to change the status quo, it is going to be hard to campaign. There are plenty of organisations, for and not for profit, who want to bring about change.
Campaigns that want to “educate” people will fail. Campaigns that slogan seems to be “I want them to understand the/our science, and act on it”, will fail. Campaigns are not about education. They are political.
Make sure what you are asking for does not come as pure self-interest. Most officials and politicians won’t back you to help make you richer.
Make sure that your allies are not politically marginalised or cranks. You need the support of the mainstream to win.
Make sure you have a good campaign team. Amateurs and academics don’t make good political campaigners.
Work out the decision you want to change. You need to be very clear about this. Identify the problem and offer a ready-made solution. Put it down in legislative text.
Work out who makes that decision
Work out how to change that decision. In Brussels speak, is it an ordinary legislative proposal, secondary legislation, or another process. If you don’t know the processes, and where you are in the process, your chances of success are low.
Who do you need to convince to get the option you want?
Who is the best person to convince them? If you are not the best person to persuade the person(s) making that decision, and that is likely, who is the best person to influence? Will they work with you?
What is the best way to motivate your audience. What values resonate with them? What is the best angle to approach them with?
Have the right materials available to motivate that? If they are a fan of Vaclav Smil, has he written on point?
Are you prepared and able to genuinely communicate with and listen to people? If you are not, your chances are limited.
Are you prepared to communicate with humans? Will you use images and good visuals, or are you stuck using data and words?
Do you have people on your team who can convert your ideas into powerful images?
Do you have a strategy that you have tested before launching?
Do you have an accurate and honest market and political strategy? Would it stand up to scrutiny?
Have you written down your pathway to getting from where you are, to where you want to get to? Is this plan real and honest, or an act of self-deception?
Do you have the independent evidence to back your ask? Are the experts you are mentioning respected and trusted by the people making the decisions?
Do you have a ready-made solution that can be co-opted by decision-makers? Will it deliver what you want?
Does your written plan spell out your communication strategy, your political strategy, the activities and resources needed, and is it all signed off by whoever needs to sign it off.
Is the roll out-executed well, and progress monitored? Can you re-calibrate to take into developments?
Before you start, have you done your research, mapped the issues that interest you, and worked out when and where you will intervene to bring about change?
Do you know the key 500/200/and 20 people deciding and influencing the decision?
Do you know the people with the power of the pen writing and signing off decisions?
Do they trust you? Are you seen as credible and honest? If not, you will have a hard time.
Do you know what media they watch and read?
Do you meet and speak with them on a regular basis? Can you pick up the phone and speak with them.
Do you know their “values”?
You need to adapt your messages into packages for “settlers”, “prospectors”, and “Pioneers”. If you just want to talk to them in terms of your own values and interests, you’ll fail.
When you do your issue map at the very start, do you really know the real issues that count and how you can change it?
Is your objective feasible?
Is your judgement sound. A lot of people let hope get in the way and deceive themselves.
Is there any political coalition of interests that working together that will get you the proposal you want out the door, and backed by the Member States and European Parliament?
Does the evidence back up your judgement? Do the laws of political reality and voting outcomes support you?
Are you serious about delivering on your objectives? Do you have the resources and evidence to back your case?
Do you have a competent team in place to get what you want?
Do you have skilled and articulate messengers in Brussels and 27 national capitals to tell your story?
Do you have access to key decision-makers and influencers both Brussels in and in the 27 national capitals?
Are you able to harness opportunities when they come?
Do you have a network that makes good luck happen more often? Does a colleague’s Dad offer to introduce you to a leading country’s leader to discuss the issue? And, are you able to drop everything to take up that opportunity?
Do you have leadership who can persuade political leaders?
Are you able to work creatively and opportunistically with the media to make help promote your case?
Can you get a documentary series placed in key political markets within 3 months?
Do you have a trusted relationship with the media? Can you get your story covered from the trade press to the FT/Economist/National Geographic?
Do you have the machinery to execute this plan across the EU 27? Do you focus most of your time on external engagement and delivery and not on internal meetings.
Do you have the votes to get what you want? Don’t fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. If you can’t get what the votes you want, it does not matter.
If you get what you want, will it really bring about the change you want, or is it just the start of a long second stage journey to get the law implemented?

A simple formula for public affairs.

24th January 2021 by Aaron

A lot of the time, people hope they can change a law or policy position if they know the policy, process, and people. That’s a good start, but more is needed.

Process

You need to know the process you are dealing with. If you are dealing with ordinary or secondary legislation, an agency decision or Commission decision/guidance.

You need to know the rules and dynamics of how all the above are reached, not just on paper, but in practice.

I’ve found it helps to have a checklist, process chart, and case studies to guide you.

2. Issue

You need to know the issue at hand. You need to know the issue from the perspective of the people making and influencing the decision from their perspective better than they do.

This is a technique used by Charlie Munger.

“The ability to destroy your ideas rapidly instead of slowly whenthe occasion is right is one of the most valuable things.You have to work hard on it.Ask yourself what are the arguments on the other side.It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state thearguments for the other side better than your opponents.This is a great mental discipline.”— Charlie Munger

Many people find this too painful to do. It helps expose gaps in your own reasoning. You may just find your case does not add up.

You may as well do this before going live.

In every meeting as a regulator, advisor, or lobbyist, I’ve found that this one technique would have saved a lot of pain if done before the meeting. The one question you don’t want to be asked will be asked.

3. Skills

You need the skills to bring your case. If you are a living example of ‘how to lose friends and not influence people’, maybe you are not the person to present your case. If you don’t like civil servants and politicians and think misogyny is okay, find a colleague with the right skills to make the case.

4. Solutions

If ever there were a time you could go in and gripe and not bring a solution to the table, that time has long gone.

You need to walk into the room with a real solution, above saying ‘no’.

For me, you need to have the ideal legislative text and a short justification for the text. Behind that, you need a one to two-page summarised the case. You can refer to studies and evidence, and bring them in on a memory stick. But, if you don’t have the ‘legislative language text’, you don’t have anything, except an idea.

If you don’t, the meeting is going to be brief and not followed up on. You’d have made your case, you’d have been heard, and your ideas will be quietly filed away never to see the light of day.

5. Evidence

You need real evidence to support your position. Relying on the voices of animal spirits may work in some places, but innuendo and hints are not enough.

I have a weakness for independent, robust evidence prepared by real experts. It’s easy to spot if it is real. If it says everything without any blemishes for the interests putting it forward, it is too good to be true.

6. Delivery

Once you have decided to work on the issue, you need to be focused on delivery. Most changes to public policy fail because people are too busy with other stuff. They want the change to happen but have 1001 other things to do, and they don’t have the resources to make it happen.

An easy rule of thumb is first, ask for a copy of their plan to address the issue. Second, see how long the issue has been going on, and third, see when any key political or policy decision is being taken. Usually, if you get a few pieces of paper, you know your chances are low.

In those cases, people usually wake up two minutes to midnight, and sometimes after, and sink considerable resources into bringing about change. The chances of success are very low, around the 5-10% range.

7. Opportunity

You need a window of opportunity to get the decision you want. If your issue is not on the agenda, it’s hard work to get it onto the policy agenda.

When it comes onto the agenda, you need everything ready to go. If you hang around stuck in internal dialogue you are going to miss the window of opportunity to impact the proposal or final decision.

8. People

You need people to back your case. If you can’t get enough of the right people, at the right time, to step up and support you, all your work is for nothing.

Lobbying is about winning over people. If you can’t, or refuse to do that, your likely going to hit the wall.

If you don’t get enough of the votes in the EP and Council, you have lost. If you can’t get the right people in the Commission to back you at the right time, you’ll hit failure.

Many times, the real decision to back an approach is taken long before it becomes public. Voting lists in the Parliament are prepared weeks in advance. Positions of countries on an issue are well known. Less than a handful of people in the Commission have a role on any decision. If you miss the very narrow window of opportunity to influence them, your work will be in vain.

This can be simplified to ‘PISSED OP’.

Checklists

Lessons in Lobbying #14: A 10 point checklist to help get the policy you want

3rd March 2022 by Aaron

If you want to take down a proposal or get it adopted, there is a very effective measure you can take.

You need to bring real evidence and a solution to the perceived public policy issue to the table at the right time, in the right language to the right people.

A Checklist Approach

Broken down into a checklist it looks like this:

The evidence is seen as credible. You can’t bring out an expert who reminds people of Erhardt Von Grupten Mundt from Thank you for Smoking

2. It needs to be on point and respond to the public policy issue at hand. People will turn to the footnotes to check the sources and turn to the page and paragraph you refer to.

3. You need to step in at the right time. Stepping in a day before the College adopts the proposal is a way too late, as is after the deadline for amendments in the Committee or Plenary.

5. It’s best to focus on the few people who are making and influencing the proposal. At most, across Europe, it’s around 200-250 people. At any one time, you are down to 10-20 people.

10. Finally, it helps to have someone who can pull off making your case. If you have a Nick Naylor character on staff use them. Most policy wonks and experts are dreadful policy advocates.

Campaigning – A Simplified Approach

A lot of people in Brussels run campaigns. Fewer win them.

There are models, strategies, and tactics that you can adopt that will increase your chances of winning. Here is a simple checklist to consider before you start off on your next campaign.

A Simple Checklist for A Successful Campaign

You have funding for the long term. Campaigns cost money. If you want to bring about system change, you are looking at a 10-year time horizon. That means you need to have the funds at hand, or committed to for the duration. If you come up short, your chances of getting what you want fall. Many good campaigns fail because they lack the funds or long term funding.
The best way around this is to find a good fundraiser, they are worth their weight in gold, or make sure your organisation/firm, signs off the budget for the duration.
A campaign is about changing things. It’s going to be disruptive. If your client does not want to change the status quo, it is going to be hard to campaign. There are plenty of organisations, for and not for profit, who want to bring about change.
Campaigns that want to “educate” people will fail. Campaigns that slogan seems to be “I want them to understand the/our science, and act on it”, will fail. Campaigns are not about education. They are political.
Make sure what you are asking for does not come as pure self-interest. Most officials and politicians won’t back you to help make you richer.
Make sure that your allies are not politically marginalised or cranks. You need the support of the mainstream to win.
Make sure you have a good campaign team. Amateurs and academics don’t make good political campaigners.
Work out the decision you want to change. You need to be very clear about this. Identify the problem and offer a ready-made solution. Put it down in legislative text.
Work out who makes that decision
Work out how to change that decision. In Brussels speak, is it an ordinary legislative proposal, secondary legislation, or another process. If you don’t know the processes, and where you are in the process, your chances of success are low.
Who do you need to convince to get the option you want?
Who is the best person to convince them? If you are not the best person to persuade the person(s) making that decision, and that is likely, who is the best person to influence? Will they work with you?
What is the best way to motivate your audience. What values resonate with them? What is the best angle to approach them with?
Have the right materials available to motivate that? If they are a fan of Vaclav Smil, has he written on point?
Are you prepared and able to genuinely communicate with and listen to people? If you are not, your chances are limited.
Are you prepared to communicate with humans? Will you use images and good visuals, or are you stuck using data and words?
Do you have people on your team who can convert your ideas into powerful images?
Do you have a strategy that you have tested before launching?
Do you have an accurate and honest market and political strategy? Would it stand up to scrutiny?
Have you written down your pathway to getting from where you are, to where you want to get to? Is this plan real and honest, or an act of self-deception?
Do you have the independent evidence to back your ask? Are the experts you are mentioning respected and trusted by the people making the decisions?
Do you have a ready-made solution that can be co-opted by decision-makers? Will it deliver what you want?
Does your written plan spell out your communication strategy, your political strategy, the activities and resources needed, and is it all signed off by whoever needs to sign it off.
Is the roll out-executed well, and progress monitored? Can you re-calibrate to take into developments?
Before you start, have you done your research, mapped the issues that interest you, and worked out when and where you will intervene to bring about change?
Do you know the key 500/200/and 20 people deciding and influencing the decision?
Do you know the people with the power of the pen writing and signing off decisions?
Do they trust you? Are you seen as credible and honest? If not, you will have a hard time.
Do you know what media they watch and read?
Do you meet and speak with them on a regular basis? Can you pick up the phone and speak with them.
Do you know their “values”?
You need to adapt your messages into packages for “settlers”, “prospectors”, and “Pioneers”. If you just want to talk to them in terms of your own values and interests, you’ll fail.
When you do your issue map at the very start, do you really know the real issues that count and how you can change it?
Is your objective feasible?
Is your judgement sound. A lot of people let hope get in the way and deceive themselves.
Is there any political coalition of interests that working together that will get you the proposal you want out the door, and backed by the Member States and European Parliament?
Does the evidence back up your judgement? Do the laws of political reality and voting outcomes support you?
Are you serious about delivering on your objectives? Do you have the resources and evidence to back your case?
Do you have a competent team in place to get what you want?
Do you have skilled and articulate messengers in Brussels and 27 national capitals to tell your story?
Do you have access to key decision-makers and influencers both Brussels in and in the 27 national capitals?
Are you able to harness opportunities when they come?
Do you have a network that makes good luck happen more often? Does a colleague’s Dad offer to introduce you to a leading country’s leader to discuss the issue? And, are you able to drop everything to take up that opportunity?
Do you have leadership who can persuade political leaders?
Are you able to work creatively and opportunistically with the media to make help promote your case?
Can you get a documentary series placed in key political markets within 3 months?
Do you have a trusted relationship with the media? Can you get your story covered from the trade press to the FT/Economist/National Geographic?
Do you have the machinery to execute this plan across the EU 27? Do you focus most of your time on external engagement and delivery and not on internal meetings.
Do you have the votes to get what you want? Don’t fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. If you can’t get what the votes you want, it does not matter.
If you get what you want, will it really bring about the change you want, or is it just the start of a long second stage journey to get the law implemented?

A checklist for position papers and public consultations

26th September 2021 by Aaron

If you want to persuade people in Brussels, you need to persuade them in writing. A lot of time and energy in Brussels goes into preparing written submissions. Far less interest is given to whether all this work lands up persuading officials and politicians or changing policy.

There are some useful books on writing good public policy. Catherine F. Smith and Richard N. Haas are worth reading.

My own checklist will be heresy for many. Clear and concise writing is a lot harder to produce than complex and long writing. If you want to persuade officials or politicians, you’ll find clarity and brevity win. On this view, the evidence suggests I am in a small minority.

Position Paper Checklist

No more than two pages.
A clear and concise document, in plain English.
Font 12. They need to read it, not to squint at the paper.
Reader: Accessible to a non-expert.
Put forward real solutions.
Provide a brief summary of the key messages, research findings
Outline key (1-5) policy implications/recommendations. Table real solutions.
Links to further information: studies, websites.
Provide contact details for more information.
1-2 side boxes with supporting material: graphs, compelling facts & figures, illustrative example, case study.
Infographic. An infographic can often tell your story effectively
Use headings. Don’t use bold or colour the text. A point won’t stand out because of it.
Use short paragraphs.
Be sober, objective and apolitical.
Realise that real people may read this in the press.
Put any added technical information in an Annex.
Be timely. You want it to persuade people to take a decision in your favour, not leave a historical record that you turned up late in the game,

Responding to a Public Consultation – Checklist

The European Commission runs many public consultations. They give you a good chance to make your case in writing and influence policymaking.

Prepare the evidence you need to support your case in advance.
Prepare your submission in advance. The questions that are asked are listed in the Better Regulation Handbook (link,p.75). Preparing the likely answers helps make sure you are not pushed for time.
The key issues to be considered include:

The problem to be tackled
The issue of subsidiarity and the EU dimension to the problem
The available policy options
When modifying existing interventions, the scope for efficiency improvement (regulatory cost reduction) and simplification measures not affecting the achievement of objectives
The impacts of the policy options.
Effectiveness of the intervention
The efficiency of the intervention in relation to resources used (including the existence of unnecessary costs and legal complexities from the point of view of the achievement of the objectives);
The relevance of the intervention in relation to the identified needs/problem it aims to address
Coherence of the intervention with other interventions which share common objectives;
The EU added value resulting from the intervention compared to what could be achieved by Member State action only.

Respond to the public consultation. Don’t sit it out. You need to put your concerns on the record.
Bring new insights, views and solutions to the table.
Support your case by bringing evidence to the table. The evidence can be real-life examples, anecdotes, studies, and data.
Avoid bland statements, posturing, and few/no concrete examples.
Highlight unintended and second-order consequences.
Use simple and precise language and avoid jargon.
If the public consultation does not raise a question you want to answer, you can. You are not bound to follow the questionnaire blindly.
Bring alternative solutions to the table. This is a fact-finding exercise.
Put your evidence on the public record. If you ask for the information to be treated confidentially, it is likely to be given less weight.
Avoid politics and partisanship from your submission.
Be polite in your input.
Be sure about your facts. There is no better way to discredit your case.
Note the limitations under which the Commission act. If the Commission is dealing with secondary legislation, the Commission’s margin for manoeuvre is limited.

Why are you not influencing the Commission?

13th September 2021 by Aaron

11 reasons your ideas are not taken up by the Commission

You don’t know the rules of the game.
You don’t know how to play the rules of the game.
You are not skilled at playing the game. You are an enthusiastic debutante.
You don’t have a compelling case and story.
Your case and story are not backed up by credible evidence.
You step into the game late in the day as the game is about to end, or more often than not after the game has ended.
You present your case in such a way that the audience has little to no idea what you are saying. They nod politely, thank you, and don’t return your calls.
You present deeply unpopular views, that are so out of sync with accepted wisdom, that only a Klingon would entertain them.
Your supporters and fans would lead any right-thinking official to support the other side.
You develop selective amnesia and don’t recognise that the other side is the governments you are up against. They own the ground you are playing on.
You forget that the game you are playing is not just a pure-play technocratic match. You are playing a political game, with political rules.

What’s the question you don’t want to know the answer to when lobbying?

29th August 2021 by Aaron

I came up against this excellent question “What’s the question you don’t want to know the answer to?” It is a question I encountered when dealing with oncologists. Asking that question is not something you want to do, but the answer is a lifesaver.

I like the question so much, I think it is needed for lobbying and campaigning. It is the sort of tough question you need to ask yourself and work out the answer to.

Key Questions to ask in lobbying

In lobbying, these are the tough questions you need to ask:

Why are we losing?
Why do they not support us?
Why are we not trusted?
Why does no one take our case/evidence seriously?
Why do we not have enough votes to win?

What are the real answers?

The answers you arrive at will help you get what you want. But, unless you go through the deep thinking, you are going to continue making the same mistakes, and getting the same outcomes.

When lobbying efforts and campaigns fail, and it is common that they do so, I encounter many reasons for the loss. They often come down to a conspiracy or the loss of minds of the co-legislators.

Reality is more mundane. The real reasons failure knocks on the door are:

You turn up late in the day. This is the most common. Decisions are often made way in advance of the decision being publically announced.
You don’t bring the right, or any, information and evidence to the table early enough to influence decisions.
You have found the missing chapter of Dale Carnegie’s ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’. This is the one that says being rude, arrogant, and misogynistic in meetings and letters works.
You raise irrelevant matters.
You don’t answer straightforward questions.
You don’t have a plan.
You communicate in a way that the intended audience has no idea what you are talking/writing about.
Ignore the process for the adoption of a decision.
You don’t speak to the right people, at the right time, in the right way.
You are not considered trustworthy. This is tough. If you are not trusted, people are not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and likely vote against you as a default option.

Why you should ask the question

I’ve been struck by how rare it is to ask the “why did we not get what we want?”

It is a good question to ask.

It is not an easy question to ask. Some find the idea of defeat too much. It is better to deny defeat than admit it. Some don’t like to tell colleagues that they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The faster you ask the question, the quicker you are likely to win.

What does success look like

In lobbying and campaigning it is easy to measure success. I think the key endpoints are:

1. Did you get the final law on the books that you wanted?

2. Did you get the policy, Commission decision or Commission proposal you had worked for?

Getting an amendment tabled in Committee means little if it is not part of the final law.

Ask the same question if you win

Ask the same question when you win. It is useful to know why victory was obtained. Maybe there are lessons there to help you again.

Common reasons for success include:

You step in early with a solution
You bring strong independent evidence and studies to the table ahead of time
You use evidence and studies that mirror the Commission/Agency own guidelines
You have an established reputation of being trustworthy and solution-focused
You know the rules of procedure and provisions of the law and policy you are working on
You are seen as being constructive and helpful in meetings. You are not partisan.
You answer questions clearly and concisely and follow up quickly with supporting information.
You communicate clearly in writing and speaking, and use relevant props,images and video to present your case.
You provide relevant information way ahead of meetings (7-14 days) so that you focus on getting an outcome.
You speak to the right people, at the right time, in the right way.

I’ve worked on issues when many have claimed the responsibility for success. . It is interesting to hear from someone how their hard work brought about success. But, when speaking to the small hand full of people responsible for taking the law through, you find none of them has any idea who this person is. Being near a victory does not make you responsible for the victory.

If you find this root cause analysis too painful, you are likely going to repeat the same mistakes, and getting the same outcomes.

Ordinary Legislation

Secondary Legislation

How to turn around a defeat in comitology

13th October 2021 by Aaron

There are a few cases when a healthy majority vote in the Committee to veto a delegated act or RPS measure has not met the absolute majority threshold in the full Parliament.

Success leaves clues

It is useful to look at why these outcomes occurred. They are rare. They don’t happen by accident, and it has nothing to do with the alignment of the stars on the day of the vote.

Looking at a recent case, which I’ll write about more later, the following reasons can be derived. The list is in descending order of importance.

Time. A major factor is a time you have to get your campaign in action from the successful challenge in Committee to the vote in Plenary. it is hard to get running in two weeks. If the vote in the plenary is months later after the recess, your chances are higher.
How many national Governments whip their national delegations.
The amount of effort and political capital the Commission Services and Commissioner put into defending their proposal.
How many MEPs split from their Party line.
How well interests can campaign at the local constituency level to reach out directly and at scale to MEPs.
How well-resourced interests are to mount a genuine pan-European bipartisan campaign harnessing real constituents.
A broad coalition of unlikely interests has a greater influence.
The amount of news at the local level on the issue.
The amount of social media interest at the constituency level on the issue.
The degree to which interests want to spin and deviate from a purist view of reality.

Why the Commission has the votes in the bag for secondary legislation

13th June 2021 by Aaron

I’ve been crunching some numbers with Vote Watch Europe’s new comitology section.

From 1 January 2018 to 12 June 2021, the EU has adopted a lot of secondary legislation:

495 delegated acts (Source Register of delegated and implementing acts)
2861 Comitology votes (implementing acts and RPS measures) (source VoteWatch)

Chance to Block

The chance that any proposal the Commission puts forward gets blocked is low.

Out of the votes in Committee on comitology none got a qualified majority vote against them. 20 received no opinion. I guess they were all adopted.

For delegated acts, over the same period, 7 delegated act challenges were adopted. Another 6 were tabled but did not meet the necessary majorities. The Council brought 4 of the successful challenges and the EP 3.

The Environment Committee’s scrutiny of secondary legislation under the 9th Legislature

31st January 2021 by Aaron

The European Parliament’s Environment Committee is the most active Committee scrutinizing the Commission’s output of secondary legislation.

Since the 9th legislature sat for the first time on 10 July 2019, the Environment Committee has seen 59 challenges tabled.

Updated 14 January 2022

A review of the challenges of the Environment Committee

10 July 2019 –

Objection to the extension of the approval periods of the active substances –flumioxazine and others

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL)

Debate in Committee: 25 September 2019

Adopted: For 47; against: 22; abstention(s): 1. Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 October 2019

Vote: For 415, Against 252, Abstentions 2o

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up: SP(2019)669-2019:2825

Objection to the extension of the approval periods of active substances

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL)

Debate in Committee: 25 September 2019

Adopted: For 49; Against: 20; abstention(s): 1. Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 October 2019

Vote: For 402, Against 222, Abstentions 39

Votwwatch link

Commission’s follow up:

SP2019:2826

Issue: Objection to GMO Maize

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE) Günther Sidl (S&D) Nicolae Ştefănuță (Renew) Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL) Eleonora Evi (NI)

Debate in Committee: 25 September 2019

Vote: For 51, Against 15, Abstentions 5 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 October 2019

Vote: For 436, Against 208, Abstentions 16

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

2019:2830-3

Objection to GMO Soybean

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Nicolae Ştefănuță (Renew), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI)

Debate in Committee: 25 September 2019

Vote: For 50, Against 14, Abstentions 7 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 October 2019

Vote: For 426, Against 208, Abstentions 20

Votewatch link

See above debate

Commission’s follow up:

4-2019:2828

Objection to GMO Maize

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Nicolae Ştefănuță (Renew), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI)

Debate in Committee: 25 September 2019

Vote: For 50, Against 16 Abstentions 4 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 October 2019

Vote: For 435, Against 207, Abstentions 18

Votewatch link

See debate above

Commission’s follow up:

5.2019:2829

Objection on the assessment of the impact of plant protection products on honeybees

RPS

Co-Rapporteurs: Eric Andrieu (S&D), Martin Hojsík (Renew), Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL)

Debate in Committee: 21 October 2019

Vote: For 62, Against 4, Abstentions 7 Link

Vote in Plenary: 23 October 2019

Vote: For 533, Against 67, Abstentions 100

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

2019:2776

Objection to the authorization for a use of chromium trioxide – Cromomed

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Maria Arena (S&D), Martin Hojsík (Renew), Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE)

Debate in Committee: 21 October

Vote: For 43, Against 28, Abstentions 1 Link

Vote in Plenary: 24 October 2019

Vote: For 301, Against 295, Abstentions 45

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

7.2019:2844

Objection pursuant to authorization GMO cotton LLCotton25

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Günther Sidl (S&D), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 6 November 2019

Vote: For 46, Against 25, Abstentions: 0 Link

Vote in Plenary: 14 November 2018

Vote: For 448, Against 189, Abstentions 28

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

8.2019:2856

Objection to GMO soya 89788

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Günther Sidl (S&D), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 6 November 2019

Vote: For 47, Against 25, Abstention 0 Link

Vote in Plenary: 14 November 2019

Vote: For 448, Against 186, Abstentions 30

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

9.2019:2857

10.

Objection pursuant to the authorization of GMO maize MON 89034

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen, Günther Sidl (S&D),Nicolae Ştefănuță (Renew) Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI)

Debate in Committee: 6 November 2019

Vote: For 46, Against 24, Abstention 0 Link

Vote in Plenary: 14 November 2019

Vote: Vote: For 465, Against 169, Abstentions 30

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

10.2019:2859

11.

Objection to the authorization of GMO maize Bt11

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Günther Sidl (S&D), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 6 November 2019

Vote: For 51, Against 21, Abstention 0 Link

Vote in Plenary: 14 November

Vote: For 467, Against 171, Abstentions 27

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

11.2019:2860

12.

Objection to Delegated act on classification, labeling, and packaging of substances and mixtures – titanium dioxide

Delegated Act

Rapporteur: Anna Zalewska (ECR)

Debate in Committee: 2 December 2019

Vote: For 19, Against 47, Abstentions 4 Link

13.

Objection to Imports of Pet Food from Saudi-Arabia

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin (ID)

Debate in Committee: 2 December 2019

Vote: For 12, Against 58, Abstentions 1 Link

14.

Objection to the import of food from Japan

Implementing Act

Rapporteurs: Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE) Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 2 December 2019

Vote: For 30, Against 40, Abstentions 1 Link

15.

Objection to the extension of the active substances benfluralin and others

Implementing Act

Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI

Debate in Committee: 2 December 2019

Vote: For 44, Against 27, Abstentions 0 Link

Vote in Plenary: 18 December 2019

Vote: For 443, Against 216, Abstentions 33

Votewatch link

Commission’s follow up:

benfluralin

16.

Objection to REACH Restriction lead in PVC

RPS

Co- Rapporteurs: Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE) Maria Arena (S&D) Martin Hojsík (Renew)

Debate in Committee: 21 January 2020

Vote: For 42, Against 22, Abstentions 4 Link

Vote in Plenary: 12 February 2020

Vote: For 394, Against 241, Abstentions 13

Votewatch link (note not on the Resolution as a whole – not listed)

Commission’s follow up:

17.

Objection to the non-approval of propolis extract

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin (ID)

Debate in Committee: 3 February 2020

Vote: For 7, Against 59, Abstentions 5 Link

18.

Objection to authorizing GMO soybean 87708

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D)Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE),Eleonora Evi (NI)

Debate in Committee: 3 February 2020

Vote: For 48, Against 22, Abstentions 0 Link

Vote in Plenary: 13 May 2020

Vote: For 477, Against 181, Abstentions 23

Votewatch link

19.

Objection to maximum residue levels for cycloxydim and others

RPS

Rapporteur: Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA)

Debate in Committee: 21 April 2020

Vote: For 45 Against 32, Abstentions 4 Link

Vote in Plenary: 17 September 2020

Vote: For 372, Against 275, Abstentions 39

Vote watch link

MRLcycloxydim

20.

Objection to renewing the approval of the active substance pyriproxyfen

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin (ID)

Debate in Committee: 28 May 2020

Vote: For 12, Against 51, Abstentions 11 Link

21. Objection to authorisation to REACHLaw Ltd for certain uses of chromium trioxide

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE) Maria Arena (S&D) Martin Hojsík (Renew)

Debate in Committee: 8 June 2020

Vote: For 38, Against 35, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 July 2020

Vote: For: 325, Against 325, Abstentions 35

Votewatch link

22.

Objection to the extension of the approval periods of the active substances beflubutamid and others

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Maria Arena (S&D), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Eleonora Evi (NI)

Debate in Committee: 8 June 2020

Vote: For 43, Against 30, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 July 2020

Vote: For: 415, Against 252, Abstentions 20

Votewatch link

23.

Objection for food additives specifications for titanium dioxide (E 171)

RPS

Co-Rapporteurs: Michèle Rivasi, Eric Andrieu, Eleonora Evi, Joëlle Mélin, Ljudmila Novak, Mick Wallace

Debate in Committee: 7 September 2020

Vote: For 51, Against 11, Abstentions 16 Link

Vote in Plenary: 7 October 2020

Vote: For: 443, Against 118, Abstentions 135

Votewatch link

Objection to maximum levels of acrylamide in certain foodstuffs for infants and young children

RPS

Co-Rapporteurs: Jutta Paulus, Christel Schaldemose, Martin Hojsík, Eleonora Evi, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Mick Wallace

Debate in Committee: 28 September 2020

Vote: For 51, Against 11, Abstentions 16 Link

Vote in Plenary: 7 October 2020

Vote: For: 469, Against 137, Abstentions 90

Votewatch link

25.

Objection to Restriction on lead shot

RPS

Co-Rapporteurs: Alexander Bernhuber, Ondřej Knotek, Andrey Slabakov

Debate in Committee: 29 October 2020

Vote: For 33, Against 42, Abstentions 4 Link

Vote in Plenary: 24 November 2020

Vote: For: 292, Against 362, Abstentions 39

Votewatch link

26.

Objection to GMO soya SYHT0H2

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz, Günther Sidl, Anja Hazekamp, Eleonora Evi, Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 29 October 2020

Vote: For 51, Against 26, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 11 November 2020

Vote: For: 476, Against 178, Abstentions 25

Votewatch link

27.

Objection to GMO maize MON 87427

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz, Günther Sidl, Anja Hazekamp, Eleonora Evi, Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 29 October 2020

Vote: For 52, Against 25, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 11 November 2020

Vote: For: 483, Against 178, Abstentions 25

Votewatch link

See debate above

28.

Objection to GMO maize

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz, Günther Sidl, Anja Hazekamp, Eleonora Evi, Sirpa Pietikäinen

Debate in Committee: 29 October 2020

Vote: For 57, Against 21, Abstentions 2 Link

Vote in Plenary: 11 November 2020

Vote: For 526, Against 142, Abstentions 18

Votewatch link

See debate above

29.

Objection to approving carbendazim as an active substance in biocidal products

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Maria Arena, Michèle Rivasi, Anja Hazekamp, Eleonora Evi

Debate in Committee: 16 November 2020

Vote: For 48, Against 26, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 25 November 2020

Vote: For: 458, Against 219, Abstentions 19

Votewatch ink

30.

Objection to the extension of the active substances chlorotoluron,and others

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Anja Hazekamp, Maria Arena, Tilly Metz, Eleonora Evi

Debate in Committee: 16 November 2020

Vote: For 45, Against 28, Abstentions 4 Link

Vote in Plenary: 25 November 2020

Vote: For: 425, Against 231, Abstentions 40

Votewatch link

31.

Objection to GMO soy bean MON 87751

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Vote in Committee:30 November 2020

Vote: For 50, Against 27, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 17 December 2020

Vote: For: 472, Against 194, Abstentions 30

Votewatch link

32.

Objection to genetically modified maize 87427

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Debate in Committee:30 November 2020

Vote: For 53, Against 21, Abstentions 1 Link

Vote in Plenary: 17 December 2020

Vote: For: 488, Against 186, Abstentions 22

Votewatch link

33.

Objection to genetically modified maize MON 89034

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Debate in Committee: 30 November 2020

Vote: For 53, Against 26, Abstentions 1 Link

Vote in Plenary:17 December 2020

Vote: for 488, against 186, abstentions: 22

Votewatch link

34.

Objection to genetically modified maize MIR604 (renewal)

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Debate in Committee: 30 November 2020

Vote: For 53, Against 26, Abstentions 1 Link

Vote in Plenary: 17 December 2020

For: 489, Against 185, Abstensions: 22

Votewatch link

35.Genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Debate in Committee: 30 November 2020

Vote: For 50, Against 27, Abstentions 3

Vote in Plenary: 17 December 2020

Vote: 472, Against 194, Abstentions 30

Votewatch link

36.

Objection to GMO maize 89034

Implementing Act

Co-Rapporteurs: Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL), Eleonora Evi (NI), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Debate in Committee: 30 November 2020

Vote: For 50, Against 27, Abstentions 3 Link

Vote in Plenary: 17 December 2020

Vote: 472, Against 194, Abstentions 30

37.

30 November 2020 –

Early non-objection pursuant to Rule 112(4)(d) and Rule 111 (6): Postponement of the latest application date set for the substance group 4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated with regard to specific uses linked to COVID-19

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Pascal Canfin

Link Minutes

Vote: For 75, Against 1, Abstentions 4

38.

Objection to MRLs for aclonifen and others

RPS

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin

Debate in Committee: 10 December 2020

Vote: For 9, Against 57, Abstentions 13 Link

39.

Objection to MRLs for carbon tetrachloride

RPS

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin

Debate in Committee: 10 December 2020

Vote: For 10, Against 65, Abstentions 5 Link

See debate above

40.

Objection to MRLs for fluxapyroxad

RPS

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin

Debate in Committee: 10 December 2020

Vote: For 9, Against 70, Abstentions 0 Link

See debate above

Objection to Hydroxyanthracene derivatives

RPS

Rapporteur: Sergio Berlato (ECR)

Debate in Committee: 14 January

Adopted: For 17; against: 55; abstention(s): 7 Link

42.

Objection to non-approval of cayenne extract

Implementing Act

Rapporteur: Joëlle Mélin

Debate in Committee: 26 January 2021

Vote: For 9, Against 70, Abstentions 0 Link

Objection to the functioning of the Union Registry under Regulation (EU) 2018/841

Implementing Act (LULUCF Regulation)

Delegated Act

Rapporteur: Nils Torvalds (Renew

Debate in Committee: 26 January 2021

Vote: For 16; against: 60; abstention(s): 2 Link

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) on the extension of the approval periods of the active substances benfluralin, dimoxystrobin, fluazinam, flutolanil, mecoprop-P, mepiquat, metiram, oxamyl and pyraclostrobin

Implementing Act

Rapporteurs: Anja Hazekamp, Maria Arena, Tilly Metz

Vote in Committee: 24 February 2021

Vote: For 49, Against 29, Abstention 1 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 March 2021

Vote for 472, Against 214, Abstentions 9

Voewatch link

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) on the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119

Implementing Act

Rapporteurs: Martin Häusling, Günther Sidl, Anja Hazekamp, Sirpa Pietikäinen

Vote in Committee: 25 February 2021

Votes: For 53, Against 25, Abstention 1 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 March 2021

Votes: For 491, Against 184, Abstentions 20

Votewatch link

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) on the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZIR098 (SYN-ØØØ98-3)

Implementing Act

Rapporteurs:Martin Häusling, Günther Sidl, Anja Hazekamp, Sirpa Pietikäinen

Vote in Committee: 25 February 2021

Vote: For 54, Against 25, Abstention 1 Link

Vote in Plenary: 10 March 2021

Votes: For 495, Against 181, Abstentions 19

Votewatch link

Objection on the draft Commission regulation amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aclonifen, acrinathrin, Bacillus pumilus QST 2808, chlorantraniliprole, ethirimol, lufenuron, penthiopyrad, picloram and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 in or on certain products

RPS Measure

Rapporteurs: Jutta Paulus, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Christel Schaldemose, Mick Wallace

Vote in Committee: 15 April 2021

Note: Joelle Melin’s separate challenge to the same act (for a different substance chlorantraniliprole) fell when Paulus challenge was adopted.

Vote: For 48, Against 32

Voting Results link.

Vote in Plenary: 27 April 2021

Votes: For 441, Against 242, Abstentions 15

Objection European Parliament resolution on draft Commission regulation amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aclonifen, acrinathrin, Bacillus pumilus QST 2808, chlorantraniliprole, ethirimol, lufenuron, penthiopyrad, picloram and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 in or on certain products

RPS Measure

Rapporteurs: Michèle Rivasi

Vote in Committee: 15 April 2021

Vote: For 40 for, 37 against, and 3 abstentions.

Voting Results link.

Vote in Plenary: 27 April 2021

Votes: For 366, Against 305, Abstentions 27

49. Objection to draft Commission Implementing Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 37-2010 to classify the substance imidacloprid as regards its maximum residue limit in foodstuffs of animal origin

RPS Measure

Objectors: Grace O’Sullivan (Greens/EFA)

Vote in Committee: 27 May 2021

Vote: For 49, Against 27, Abstain 2

Plenary 9 June 2021

Vote: For 441, Against 232, Abstain 18

50.Objection to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) amending Implementing Regulation(EU) 540-2011as regards the extension of the approval periods ofseveral active substances, including flumioxazine

Implementing Act

Objectors: AnjaHazekamp (TheLeft),MariaArena(S&D), Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA)

Vote in Committee: 27 May 2021

Vote: For 49, Against 27, Abstain 2

Plenary 9 June 2021

Vote: 434, Against 230, Abstain 27

51. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS- 81419-2 pursuant to Regulation(EC) No 1829/2003ofthe European Parliament and of the Council –

Co-rapporteurs: Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE))

Implementing act

Vote: 21 June

Vote: For 48, Against 28, Abstentions 3

Vote in Plenary: 6 July 2021

Vote For 470, Against 199, Abstentions 23

52. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS- 81419-2 × DAS–44406–6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European

Co-rapporteurs: Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Implementing act

Vote: 21 June 2021

Vote: For 49, Against 27, Abstentions 3

Vote in Plenary: 6 July 2021

Vote For 470, Against 199, Abstentions 23

1234185EN

53. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council – 1234186ENv2

Co-rapporteurs: Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Implementing act

Vote: 21 June 2021

Vote: For 49, Against 27, Abstentions 3

Vote in Plenary: 6 July 2021

Vote For 470, Against 200, Abstentions 22

Votewatch link

54. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt 11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council –1234187Bt11

Co-rapporteurs: Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)

Implementing act

Vote: 21 June 2021

Vote: For 49, Against 28, Abstentions 2

Vote in Plenary: 6 July 2021

Vote For 470, Against 200, Abstentions 22

55. Commission Regulation amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the prohibition to feed non-ruminant farmed animals, other than fur animals, with protein derived from animals (RE_Objection_RPS_animals_proteins_EN)

Co- rapporteurs: Piernicola Pedicini (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (The Left))

Implementing act

Vote: 21 June 2021

Vote: For 35, Against 39, Abstentions 5

56. Objection on the Commission delegated regulation of 26 May 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the criteria for the designation of antimicrobials to be reserved for the treatment of certain infections in humans (link)

Rapporteurs: Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE)

Delegated act

Vote: 12 July 2021

Vote: For 38, Against 18, Abstentions 22

Vote in Plenary: 15 September July 2021

Vote For 204, Against 450, Abstentions 32

Votewatch Link

57. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances, including chlorotoluron and difenoconazole (link)

Rapporteurs: Anja Hazekamp, Maria Arena, Tilly Metz

Implementing act

Date: 27 September 2021

Vote: For 47, Against 30, Abstentions 0

Vote in Plenary:5 October 2021

Vote For 407, Against 256, Abstentions 24

Votewatch link

58. Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives- Joint ECON-ENVI (CJ36) (link)

Rapporteurs: Nicola Beer, Jessica Polfjärd, Andreas Glück, Emma Wiesner

Delegated act

Vote: 27 September 2021

Vote: For 34, Against 92, Abstentions 4

Vote in Plenary: 5 October 2021

Vote: For 227, Against 428, Abstentions 31

Votewatch link

59. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) and (4)(c) of the Rules of Procedure on the draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for flonicamid in or on certain products (link)

Rapporteurs: Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA

Implementing act

Vote: 6 December 2021

Vote: For 16, Against 53, Abstentions 5 (Link)

60. Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) : Authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean

Rapporteurs: Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE), Günther Sidl (S&D), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP)

Implementing act

Vote: 13 January 2022

Vote: For 45, Against 31, Abstentions 2 (link)

Arabic	Hebrew	Polish
Bulgarian	Hindi	Portuguese
Catalan	Hmong Daw	Romanian
Chinese Simplified	Hungarian	Russian
Chinese Traditional	Indonesian	Slovak
Czech	Italian	Slovenian
Danish	Japanese	Spanish
Dutch	Klingon	Swedish
English	Korean	Thai
Estonian	Latvian	Turkish
Finnish	Lithuanian	Ukrainian
French	Malay	Urdu
German	Maltese	Vietnamese
Greek	Norwegian	Welsh
Haitian Creole	Persian

How a lobbyist can change anyone’s mind.

Objection to the authorization for a use of chromium trioxide – Cromomed

21.

1 thought on “A consolidated note – good practice to lobbying in Brussels”