Stakeholders are the "key"

[RAENORTH]

In <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/opinion/stakeholders-key-bringing-eu-policy-debates-national-level/article-168226" target="_blank">a conference</a> in the EU parliament yesterday, hosted by the Brussels-based online publisher EurActiv.com, delegates "explored ways of reaching out to EU citizens via national stakeholders".

View full article here

[renminbi]

I'm waiting for them to try and find a suitably subtle way to bribe you.

[Helen S]

Hey, it doesn't have to be subtle.

[nottoobrite]

For the attention of Dr. R. North.

Dear Dr. North,
I would, on behalf of my colleagues, like to invite you to a symposium on the future of communication within the European Great Union, if you would like to attend the itinerary is as follows;
Private flight on a new 380 to the Maldives
5 star accommodation, ( 5 star bed warmers provided by us)
documents to the 380 in your name
documents to the hotel in your name ( including the underwater restaurant )
sufficient funds provided to cover ALL costs of the above for 100 years
keys to a "grace and favor" residence in all the capitals of Europe ( not just in London )
If you agree pleas contact ******************* before Xmas.
PS.
Please leave your computer at the check-in.

[FU (Fed Up)]

Seems fitting that they should be worried about not getting the right message across, on the same day that Marta Anreason loses her appeal for unfair dismissal.

Us dolts might just get the impression, that something ain't right.

As for being a Stakeholder...yes please, I d love to hold the stake, that is driven through their black heart.

[archduke]

compare and constrast with the United States.

does Congress and the White House have to justify themselves to such as extent as the EU does? no it doesn't. Why? because pretty much every american has bought into the U.S. constitution and the idea of "America".

this constant seeking for "justification" from the EU tells me that they have a foundation of sand, they know that, and are worried about it.

[archduke]

"EU Referendum is, of course, open to offers."

ha! that made me laugh.

100 grand a year should do it. after all , they seem to have a lot of slush funds swimming around funding dubious NGO "causes".

[Cranmer]

They have, of course, already enlisted the churches - all denominations - and the pulpits speak eloquently of the 'Soul for Europe' project and, by way of recompense, the EU pours millions of euros into the ecumenical endeavour.

One has to wonder why the Pope and the CofE continue to support this utterly godless and amoral 'project'.

[mathew]

Just to set the record straight:

1) Blogactiv.eu is not Commission-sponsored.

2) the website?s FAQ says clearly that:

?This blog platform is designed to promote discussion on the EU ? We?ll only ban a blogger if they break the terms of agreement, which forbid people to preach hatred, racism, or violence towards others ? Eurosceptics and Europhiles are equally welcome.?

http://support.blogactiv.eu/faq/#can_anyone

Let's face it - you'd have to be pretty stupid to try anything else!

[RAENORTH]

Just to set the record straight:

1) Blogactiv.eu is not Commission-sponsored.

2) the website?s FAQ says clearly that:

?This blog platform is designed to promote discussion on the EU ? We?ll only ban a blogger if they break the terms of agreement, which forbid people to preach hatred, racism, or violence towards others ? Eurosceptics and Europhiles are equally welcome.?

http://support.blogactiv.eu/faq/#can_anyone

Let's face it - you'd have to be pretty stupid to try anything else!

Blogactiv may not be Commission sponsored ... but Euractiv is, which amounts to the same thing.

The claim, therefore, is about as accurate and honest as the assertion that the platform is designed to "promote" discussion. It is there to control the discussion, which it can do simply by setting the framing.

The pity of it is that you probably believe that you are offering a neutral platform. The even greater pity is that you probably believe that you are engaging in debate, when the framing precludes any honest, much less balanced discussion.

[mathew]

Thanks to the link to the article. But there's a world of difference between claiming - without evidence - that the site is about framing and 'controlling' thought (a whiff of the Manchurian Candidate here), and demonstrating it.

So why don't you test the site out? Create a blog, or apply to the guest blog. See what happens. And we'll see who is neutral, and who is not.

[SandyRham]

You mean copy this blog to a blogacity account and see whether it promotes rational discussion, or the "You don't understand and I can't explain, so you're wrong!" logic that europhiles so love.
Seems a fair test.

[mathew]

err, no, I suggested that you try blogactiv out to see whether we are the neutral platform we claim to be. Write something about EU policy, and see whether we 'censor it', as you immediately assumed we would.

Frankly I'm not surprised that you wouldn't want to disturb you worldview with an actual test of it.

I won't bother replying here until you actually take your courage into both hands and test your assumptions.

FYI, I'm not a europhile. I'm not even European. All I want is a rational debate.

[RAENORTH]

err, no, I suggested that you try blogactiv out to see whether we are the neutral platform we claim to be. Write something about EU policy, and see whether we 'censor it', as you immediately assumed we would.

Frankly I'm not surprised that you wouldn't want to disturb you worldview with an actual test of it.

I won't bother replying here until you actually take your courage into both hands and test your assumptions.

FYI, I'm not a europhile. I'm not even European. All I want is a rational debate.

I do not think you even begin to understand the concept of "framing", which is what you are trying to achieve. By attempting to juxtapose opposing views within the context of your own platform, you are seeking to create an equivalence which does not exist.

The essential stance we take here is that the European Union is a malign organisation that should not exist and, if it does, that the UK should not be a part of it. Given that it is not within our power to bring down the EU, as far as we are concerned, the only debate in which we are interested is how, and under what circumstances we can engineer our withdrawal from the EU.

Discussing EU policy, therefore - the merits or otherwise - within the framework that you suggest is therefore to accept the premises that the EU should exist, or that we should be part of it. In other words, to take part in your "debate" is to abandon our own premise.

Therefore, this is not a matter of "courage". Your debate assumes the continued existence of the EU. We want to debate about how to get rid of it, or how to extract ourselves from it.

That is a debate you are not prepared to entertain, in which case there is not sufficient common ground on which to conduct a debate. We hold diametrically opposing, and irreconcilable views that cannot be resolved through debate. You are not amenable to our view any more than we are amenable to yours.

[Helen S]

FYI, I'm not a europhile. I'm not even European. All I want is a rational debate.

You do not have to be a European in order to be a Europhiliac (our preferred term but you can stick to Europhile if you want to). As for rational debate, as my colleague has pointed out, it can happen only if the particular framework of the EU-blogosphere is ignored. Why are you running away from this forum if you want a genuine debate that is not enclosed in various assumptions that cannot be argued about?