Stakeholders are the "key"

[SandyRham]

Ok Mathew.
If an EU directive succeeds, unintentionally, in causing misery but doesn't redress the problem it was intended to solve, what methods do those affected have to effect a change in the legislation.

I'm interested to hear how you define debate, and the French and Dutch populace might be interested too ;)

[mathew]

OK, I'll bite once more ;-)

You write:

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.

No, actually, it's not. You are free to argue for the non-existence of the EU - or the UK withdrawal - on blogactiv.eu. Where does it say otherwise? After all, the site is subtitled: "Europeans Challenge Europe", and Nigel Farage wasn't "censored" at the Parliament event you mentioned (did you see his video on Blogactiv?)

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.

See above comment. No assumptions (about the continued existence of the EU) are made. All debates (including why it should disappear) are welcome. Again, where do you get your assumptions from? The FAQ is quite clear on this point.

We don't actually take part in the debates anyway - we just support the platform.

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.

How can you know this? You seem to just assume this stuff, which says more about you than about anyone else. ;-)

Still, I can see that you're not going to change your minds. A shame for me, as I'd welcome some Eurosceptics on the site. Anyway, I wish you well.

Respectfully yours,

Mathew

PS BTW, you seem to have reacted badly to my dig about 'courage'. I meant to add a smiley! Sorry about that.

[Helen S]

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.

How can you know this? You seem to just assume this stuff, which says more about you than about anyone else. ;-)

So tell us. We don't need your smileys, thank you. You want to debate, then debate. Tell us what you think should be the future of Europe and why we are wrong in our arguments. At present, I am sorry to say, you sound like the dear and rather fluffy Commissar Wallstroem or our own government. They are endlessly calling for an intelligent debate but shriek for their smelling salts the moment anybody really does come up with arguments that step outside all those assumptions.

[RAENORTH]

After all, the site is subtitled: "Europeans Challenge Europe" ...

In the political sense that you present it, I am not a "European". Secondly, it does not make much sense to challenge a continent. If you mean the European Union, what is your problem with spelling that out?

[mathew]

Err, I don't think you actually read what I wrote:

We don't actually take part in the debates anyway - we just support the platform.

Actually, scrolling up, it's pretty clear that you don't actually read anything that carefully.

As I said at the outset, I wanted to set the record straight on Blogactiv policy, which you seemed to have misunderstood. If you want to debate Europe, it's a platform you're welcome to use - we won't censor you, and it might provide a wider platform for your ideas ("taking the fight to the enemy", if that's the way you want to look at it, although it's not mine).

If you don't want to, that's fine too. Just keep talking amongst yourselves...

Whatever. I won't bother repeating myself again.

Pass those smelling salts, Earnest, I'm feeling faint ... ;-)

Hardly.

yours respectfully,

Mathew

[Helen S]

All right, Mathew. You have nothing to say. Point taken. You are welcome to twitter.

[RAENORTH]

Err, I don't think you actually read what I wrote:

We don't actually take part in the debates anyway - we just support the platform.

Actually, scrolling up, it's pretty clear that you don't actually read anything that carefully.

As I said at the outset, I wanted to set the record straight on Blogactiv policy, which you seemed to have misunderstood. If you want to debate Europe, it's a platform you're welcome to use ...

Bit of "mote and beam" here Mathew. We don't want to debate "Europe".

We are, however, happy to debate the abolition of the European Union, or British withdrawal from it. To that effect, we have a very useable platform here in EU Referendum, which we have spent a great deal of time and effort building up.

You are welcome to join in the debate on this platform.

[mathew]

Nice kill, Helen! ;-)

Accurate though - I was just clarifying the neutrality of the platform. I leave the fun content to you.

But I did just spot the earlier post by SandyRham, and thought I'd answer it as best I can:

Ok Mathew.
If an EU directive succeeds, unintentionally, in causing misery but doesn't redress the problem it was intended to solve, what methods do those affected have to effect a change in the legislation.

I'm interested to hear how you define debate, and the French and Dutch populace might be interested too ;)

Two pretty different points here.

On the first, you still seem to be assuming that I'm some sort of paid-up, EC-financed spin doctor. I'm not, so I won't give you some song and dance about the European parliament or the ombudsman or the Council being composed of your ministers, or any of that. These systems are not good enough. The EU is not democratic enough, and everyone knows it.

This is why I got into this, actually. I'm not some sort of starry-eyed EU idealist, and I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer. I have been building websites for a while, and have become really interested in using ICTs to improve democracy, at all levels, from the local parish to the EU.

The thing is, the EU is a really, really big challenge in the field of edemocracy, precisely because of the above democractic deficit. So for me it's a professional thing, I guess. If we ever do get funding from the EC - and I'm not ruling it out - it'd probably be in this field.


As for the second point, your question is pretty broad. Defining debate? I could send you to wikipedia, but the interesting thing is that the nature of debates seems to vary by country. At the event which started this thread, for example, one of the speakers noted that the Dutch don't do referenda that much, and that this may have played a part in the result. Maybe. But it's interesting that they don't do referenda much. Neither do the British ;-) The Swiss do lots (and stay out of the EU).

Anyway, I don't personally think that debates about Europe will transcend national debates much for the foreseeable future, for practical as well as cultural and political reasons. It's entirely normal that most people in the Member States see the EU through their national lens.

So, to bring this longwinded reply to a close: the nature of the debate about the EU will be defined by the people having it, and that'll vary by country.

This is why blogactiv.eu is divided into language domains, incidentally (French people debating amongst themselves, Germans in another corner, etc). I'd like to explore how we can address multilingualism in a world of user-generated content to bridge these frontiers, as it's a neat technical challenge, but the demand may not actually be there.

[Nibor]

Mathew,

Please leave a place to contact, as there will be an event (some have called it participatory democracy, others an Agora ) to which Margot will be attending. I`m sure you will find it challenging.

[mathew]

Nibor: Thanks for the info, but I won't publish my contact details, if you don't mind. Based on some of the stuff I've read here, I suspect I might get some hate mail, which I frankly can get along fine without.

And now for one last clarification - RAENORTH wrote:

We are, however, happy to debate the abolition of the European Union, or British withdrawal from it. To that effect, we have a very useable platform here in EU Referendum, which we have spent a great deal of time and effort building up.

Just to clarify one thing - I wasn't advocating you abandon your site and migrate wholescale to blogactiv.eu. You built your site for your community - ergo it's bound to be pretty well suited to it.

But there are many ways of using blogs to engage people in an online conversation. For bloggers already on a platform such as this one, for example, we created a Guest Blog on blogactiv, where people can post summaries, with links, to posts and threads on their site, and invite comments both on the guest post and on their own site.

And of course many people simply post comments doing the same thing, but that requires there to be a relevant post to comment on.

But I'm sure you know all this. If I was being uncharitable, I would assume that you prefer to not engage - i.e., to stay in your bunker, reinforcing each others' views, without trying to reach anyone but the already-converted.

But I'll take on face value your argument that everyone out there is "outside your frame". It's a valid argument to make (I do understand framing, btw), but it seems to me that you assume everyone is outside your frame, without ever testing it.

Hence my attempts to clarify Blogactiv's approach. I've done what I can on that front, so I'll leave you to it.

Many thanks for the conversation, and goodbye.

Respectfully yours,

Mathew

[JO]

Mathew wrote

"If you don't want to, that's fine too. Just keep talking amongst yourselves..."

Thats pretty rich coming from someone who supports a political structure who's reputation for not listening to entire populations is legendary!
JO

[Nibor]

OK Mathew let me see what we can do here. How about you going over to Margots blog and engaging there and leaving your details with the Commisioner ?
That way you can be at the event and debate in person. Are you on ?

[ELF]

The thing is, the EU is a really, really big challenge in the field of edemocracy, precisely because of the above democractic deficit.

If you have read back through postings by many of us, you will be familiar with the argument that establishing democracy within the EU is not just ?challenging? but fundamentally impossible, due to the lack of a ?demos? with sufficient shared values. Can you understand the view that democracy is of overwhelming importance? And, rather than take a long shot at it being established within the EU - at some nebulous point in the future, by some undefined mechanism, and in the face of all the evidence that we have on how the EU operates - we should repatriate power into the hands of our democratically elected representatives.

[Watchet]

Mathew, a blogger friend of mine called Shang Hi! has just taken your advice & posted the following message on Blogactiv:

Britain's very new & very immature Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, recently spoke about "Europe", when presumably he meant the "EU". If that's so, that's a very poor level of accuracy for one of HM's ministers to achieve - even one so completely unsatisfactory for the post as himself!

But what was much worse, he spoke of the EU expanding in some indeterminate way in time to include N Africa, the Middle East, & Russia. That's CRAZY talk! Russia was the enemy until less than 18 years ago, & can not be relied on NOT to become one again. Yet we have two good friends who no EU government ever mentions as deserving a special relationship with the EU - ie the USA & Canada. They were our great friends in WWII, & great helpers in NATO ever since. The EU & its member governments are quite ridiculous the way they want to turn their backs on their best friends. Not just ridiculous, but IDIOTS!

Both Shang Hi! & I will be interested to see how Blogactiv responds to this type of posting!

Watchet

[mathew]

Watchet: Where did you post this?

While comments are the responsibility of individual bloggers (so it's up to them to approve, if they have set up pre-comment approval), I thought I had a site-wide overview, and I see no trace of it.

If you commented to someone's blog, then it's up to that blogger, but in my opinion this comment would be absolutely no problem. Anything much harsher than the word IDIOTS might fall foul of the blogging guidelines (re: offensive material), but calling a general class of people idiots (as opposed to an individual) would be fine in my book. Do it all the time!

Why did would think that this would be a problem?

Mathew