tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post5086383145570426926..comments2023-12-02T00:59:10.380+01:00Comments on England Expects: Right back at you Ronny... :-)Gawain Towlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583658895528269901noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-18183726939741455212011-08-01T12:57:14.580+02:002011-08-01T12:57:14.580+02:00Ron,
I think there is a great difference between ...Ron,<br /><br />I think there is a great difference between NGOs and what I call Para Governmental Organisations.<br /><br />NGOs provide a sterling service and cannot exist without the support of private individuals. Organisations like ASH exist on public subsidy, thus cannot be equated with normal traditional NGO's. As they exist on public subsidy it is in their interest to support what they think legislators want.<br /><br />There is a fascinating example of this in a similar consultation carried out in the UK, vis-a-vis this EU consultation,<br /><br />http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/31/ec-cries-foul-as-citizens-have-their-say.html<br /><br />Of course this is just one small corner of the lobbying/consultation/policy formulation world, but the results here highlight a general problem. <br /><br />There is a divide between PGO's and the public.Gawain Towlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08583658895528269901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-32216360913501627712011-07-29T22:13:58.397+02:002011-07-29T22:13:58.397+02:00I kind of expected these arguments but they miss m...I kind of expected these arguments but they miss my point.<br /><br />What you tried to construct with your previous post is an opposition between NGOs and citizens. What I wanted to show is that the situation is more complex, that in quantitative terms it looks more like NGOs against NGOs: When the report quotes "a large majority" when it comes to citizens while this large majority is copy-paste lobby-based contributions then constructing "citizens vs NGOs" on these grounds is a little easy.<br /><br />This doesn't say that it isn't nice that people care about influencing EU decision-making, but this remains a public consultation, not an election. As one could see for example in the regional referendum in Bavaria last year that a majority voted in favour of banning smoking from public places. That doesn't tell either that a majority is in favour or against all banning measures, but that constructing an opinion divide citizens vs NGOs based on a public consultation (or on participation figures to this consultation) is also a little too easy.<br /><br />And what you also ignore is that NGOs apart from some that may be proxy organisation can actually represent quite important amounts of citizens through membership or supporters who may not write directly to the Commission but may rely on these intermediate organisations to represent their interests. And this will be the case on both sides of the political spectrum (in this case: pro vs contra bans), so counting up which side is more important in quantitative figures both when it comes to citizens or to NGOs<br /><br />What is important to know is that I'm not a big fan of all these bans and I also didn't make this part of my argument. But the way you presented your case was way too simple and you did so because you agree with one of the sides and you wanted to make their arguments or strength seem stronger than it actually can be measured through the consultation.<br /><br />Hence: A nice try, but not too convincing, even for someone who may not be that far away from your point of view in this case. ;)Ronhttp://polscieu.ideasoneurope.eunoreply@blogger.com