A common line in Brussels in public consultation responses is to just to say “no”.
When to just say “no”
It is an interesting approach that should be used in three circumstances.
First, if you want to sit out the policy preparation and drafting, feel free to say ‘no’. It will bar you from having any influence on the preparation and the drafting of the proposal.
It may well be a sensible approach. It helps you to preserve resources and get ready for the day the proposal comes out of the door of the Commission.
It brings with it the benefit of being able to preserve your political purity and ensure your principles are kept intact.
It contains a political health warning. You’ll bypass the stage when you likely have the greatest influence in the final contents of the law. After all, what the Commission puts out the door, is often only amended around the margins, say 10%.
The second time you should “no” is when you bring a considerable body of objective evidence (studies, real world evidence, anecdotal examples) to the table to show that the options being considered by the Commission don’t deserve to be considered.
If you do this, in addition to bringing forward this rigorous, plausible and objective evidence, you’ll bring forward a solution. The solution will be realistic and actionable.
Third, if you have no plausible objective evidence to slow down change, except for reasons you’d never want aired in public, saying no is as good as you can get. If that’s the reason, silence is going to be a better approach.
Do you revel in having little to no influence?
If you don’t want to have any real influence, there are some easy things you can do.
You’ll do some, or all, of the following:
- Step in late, when the key decisions are taken.
- Not bring forward solutions or evidence to the table.
- Model a passive aggressive attitude in any public statements and meetings.
- Focus your engagement on the political interests in the Commission, EP and Council who have little political influence.
- Submit 10 + page positions, in font 10, that ignore these recommendations (link).
- Not bring objective evidence (studies, real world evidence, anecdotal examples) to the table to support your points. Putting them in an Annex is fine.
Status Quo is hard to maintain
Once the machinery for political change starts moving, it is hard to slow down or stop. It is not impossible to do so. Just saying no has never worked in my 25 + years in Brussels.
The only solutions I’ve seen work are:
1 Providing a better solution to be co-opted.
2. Showing, usually by independent god like authorities, that the problem is not an issue.
3. I have rare cases when higher political interests came into play and removed the issue from the table.