An aligned approach for endocrine disruptors soon?

What seems a long time ago, the European Commission tabled two proposals for Endocrine Disruptor Criteria. One for biocides and one for pesticides.  From the start, the Commission wanted a joined up approach. They just want the same regulatory  approach taken for pesticides, biocides, and indeed for anything else.

It has not been easy getting these rules agreed. Their hopes of an aligned approach appeared to be derailed in October. Then a text on biocides was accepted by the Member States and European Parliament,  but rejected for pesticides by the Parliament.

Today, the Commission came back to the drawing board and submitted a new proposal (see below).

It stands a good chance of being adopted. It removes an exemption for insect growth regulators. This was put forward by Germany. The European Parliament objected to it for rule of law concerns – it exceeded the strict limitations of delegated legislation. Without the offending provisions it should sail through.

Government officials look at on 12 or 13 December and may even vote on it. If they back it, the Parliament will let it through, and an aligned approach may well come true after several years.  Inevitably it will then start to work its way across other legislation.

Civil servants, who are often lawyers, like legal certainty and order. They may well secure it for Endocrine.

201712_ppp_draft_en

Smart Political Advertising hits Brussels

At nearly 47, I don’t get impressed easily.

This morning reading the Economist, in the Europe section, I saw an excellent advertisement. It was an advertisement by android.

Here it is.

 

 

 

 

It’s part of a series of stories android are telling.

https://www.android.com/everyone/stories/

The self same ad popped up in twitter (micro-targeting the Brussels Bubble) and Politico.

This campaign can’t be cheap. Two pagers in the Economist are not cheap.

 

Values Work

But, what is really is impressive about the campaign is the depth of thinking that android have put into it.

What’s really smart, and is hardly ever done by companies, is that each story hits a different “Value” Communities.

They speak to Pioneers like me, Prospectors and Settlers.

It shows a degree of political sophistication that companies public affairs departments usually just don’t grasp. Most political positioning in Brussels (and to be fair nearly everywhere else)  advances as far as “Back this, it is good for me, so vote for it”. That it is does not really work, does not seem to bother many people.

What’s interesting is that many companies marketing and advertising departments do know what sells to their target audiences. The advertisements they use work and they speak to the values of their customers.

 

PS:

Android is a Google product. Google is having some difficulties with the Commission. I am sure the campaign and antitrust cases have a link, but I may just be getting old. I prefer apple.

 

20 things my cancer taught me about lobbying

Ray Dalio writes in “Principles” about his diagnoses with cancer. In Chapter 3, ‘Be Radically Open-Minded’, he writes about after being told he had a few months  to live, he was finally given the all clear.

He writes about how he got through that experience, and how he deploys many of the models in the practices at Bridgewater Associates.

This struck a personal cord. I am one of the lucky ones to have survived leukaemia. Through the wonders of modern science, a world class Belgium medical system, and a very generous stem cell donor in Germany, I am alive today.

The experience also reminded me a lot about lobbying, my chosen trade, and how I learned a lot through my treatment.

I list 20 observations. The last 4 are from Ray Dalio.

 

20 things cancer taught me about lobbying

 

  1. Don’t ignore the symptoms
  2. Don’t kid yourself. When you are feeling exhausted for a reason. There is a reason for it.
  3. If you ignore the symptoms for too long, you increase the chances of starting the treatment too late.
  4. Late stage intervention and treatment is more painful and less successful than if you started treatment in the early stages.
  5. It is better to have your affairs in order. Ray Dalio’s firm would have operated without him.
  6. Ask for experts to diagnosis you.
  7. Ask for 3 sets of experts and not just the one to recommend the best treatment.
  8. The risks associated with treatment are large.
  9. The risks of not taking decisions and not being treated are often fatal.
  10. Ignore good news merchants. You simply need the truth and what you are going to hear you are unlikely going to like.
  11. Conserve your energy and focus on just surviving the treatment.
  12. The treatment is long, really unpleasant and painful. Just realise the alternative is far worse.
  13. If you are lucky and live there are side effects. Some are visible and others are not. Rejoice and deal with it. The alternative is worse.
  14. If you survive, take every step to avoid remission.
  15. Sometimes, there is nothing you did to get cancer, it just happens.
  16. Plan for the worst-case scenario to make it as good as possible.
  17. Be willing to look for other opinions – be open minded and not closed minded.
  18. Even experts make mistakes.
  19. Be radically open minded and triangulate with smart people.
  20. Push for the opinions of others.

20 ways to win negotiations in Brussels – John Gummer reveals the answers

John Gummer’s article in today in the Guardian shows a master negotiators hand.

Britain got its way in the EU when it mattered – I know, I was there

 

For ease of reference I have pasted it below.

I have known John Gummer since my school days in a Roman Catholic school in Suffolk, UK. John Gummer bravely converted to Catholicism in the 1980s. He came to my school to give a talk on the famous covert, Cardinal John Henry Newman. He also gave me the Politics Department Prize.

I have bumped into him when working in DG Environment and WWF. He is an honourable and decent man. I don’t hold the same party card as him, but I knew him as a most able British Minister, who won many victories in EU talks for the UK.

Negotiating is good

The simple truth is that negotiation is the best solution to getting a good deal. Some people tell me it is sign of weakness.  I think chest beating like a gorilla makes your position look deranged.

Now, I’ll admit as a Roman Catholic from N.Ireland I probably have some issues about alternatives to negotiation. But, as the Good Friday Agreement shows, it’s the best way for people to settle their differences.

In my experience of passing laws in Brussels, especially in the DG Environment and working for Labour politicians in the European Parliament, I came across the strange tactic of the US Government intervening, in Brussels or national capitals, to try and stop an EU environmental measure.

I say strange because every time I encountered it, it always led to a lot more votes switching over to my side than I could ever have hoped for. In fact, I landed up hoping the USTR would start lobbying against the law I was working on, as it meant getting it past was made a sure thing.

 

20 Rules for Negotiating in the EU

  1. Fight your corner fairly
  2. Have a reputation as an informed and committed negotiator
  3. Don’t lecture
  4. Have strong relationships with those your are negotiating with
  5. Develop friendships with those you are negotiating with
  6. Be honest about your political needs
  7. Be trusted
  8. Debate with proof and respond with proof
  9. Act consensually
  10. Act in your national interest when you need to
  11. Look for a solution
  12. Lead with solutions
  13. Bring the science
  14. Work the room
  15. Never pretend
  16. Always turn up
  17. Know everyones positions
  18. Work very hard
  19. Avoid easy silly political wins
  20. My favourite “Listening, arguing, explaining and showing we believed in the system and wanted to learn as well as teach – that made all the difference.”

 

 

 

Britain got its way in the EU when it mattered – I know, I was there

We are unravelling the greatest peacetime project of our lives because Brexiteers insist we’ve lost control. But it’s simply not true

John Gummer served as environment secretary in John Major’s Conservative government between 1993 and 1997

horses
‘In a single market, the UK’s refusal to allow the export of live horses for food was clearly illegal but politically essential.’ Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Acontinuing refrain of the Brexiteers is that Britain has always lost out to the rest of Europe in negotiations. This derives partly from the way successive governments have portrayed the EU as a battleground in which there is room only for victory or defeat. It is also explained by the tendency of politicians to blame “Europe” for everything – often to divert attention from their own shortcomings.

In fact, the UK has led Europe in a remarkable way, and has rarely failed to gain its major objectives. However the process is one of debate and argument, proof and counter-argument, rather than demanding that the rest of EU should immediately see the sense in our position and give way without question. It is this assumption of always being right that has bedevilled our relationships with our neighbours.

When I first went into the Department of the Environment (DoE) on a Monday in 1993 I looked at my diary. Fresh from four years as minister of agriculture, I knew that there was a two-day meeting of the European Council of Environment Ministers ahead, yet there seemed nothing in the diary. “Why,” I asked. “Oh,” said the civil servant, “the secretary of state doesn’t go to Brussels unless we have something to tell them to do.”

That changed there and then, and I sat at the council table the following Thursday. Facing the first controversial discussion, I asked my adviser what the Spanish position was. “Well,” came the reply, “we haven’t spoken to them since Christmas, so I’m not sure.” Similarly semi-detached attitudes were revealed throughout that first session.

It came as a real shock after my long period at Agriculture, where the UK had built a reputation for informed and committed negotiation. My predecessors there, Michael Jopling and John MacGregor, had built strong relationships with their fellow EU ministers. They trusted us and we trusted most of them. They knew that we would act consensually wherever possible, would try to understand their political drivers, and would be absolutely honest about our own political needs. As a result none of us lost a vote that really mattered – even when the logic was wholly against the British position.

Advertisement

One example suffices. In a single market, the UK’s refusal to allow the export of live horses for food was clearly illegal but politically essential. All the odds were stacked against us, Belgium was becoming increasingly insistent, and a vote was looming. We had one strong card: our relationships. We had helped others in parallel positions, helping to find ways for the EU to meet its common objectives while recognising national differences.

My very effective minister of state, David Curry, and I had formed friendships and we took trouble to maintain them. Many of our fellow ministers had come to Britain and stayed at our homes. Above all, we had never pretended. They all knew that if we said something was really important to the UK, we weren’t bluffing.

We were always communautaire – but in the national interest. When the relatively new French minister, a socialist, in a very restricted session, without his key advisers, had agreed to something that would have been very difficult for France, I slipped round the table and pointed the problem out. He was able to retrieve the situation, the council was saved interminable recriminations, and Britain had a firm friend. Working as a team, clearly putting our national interest first but ensuring we got the best out of the EU, meant that when it mattered we won. I don’t suggest that my counterparts ever really understood the peculiar British view that it’s all right to eat beef but not horse, but they accepted it was a political reality and knew the UK would help when they had to explain their own national singularities.

Mind you, you had to work at it. My first meeting of EU environment ministers was decidedly frosty, as I sought to defend the government’s support for Shell’s decision to dump the Brent Spar oil facility in the North Sea, to a council dominated by the leftwing Danish minister, Svend Auken. Lecturing them would have fitted the British stereotype but done us no favours. Listening, arguing, explaining and showing we believed in the system and wanted to learn as well as teach – that made all the difference.

Advertisement

I learned too that the Department of the Environment’s previous way of working in Europe was shared by other British government departments. Yet, once we got a more constructive attitude to prevail, we found we achieved a better result. And the success for Britain was manifest. The BSE crisis could have destroyed the British meat industry. In the event, solidarity won over the temptation for easy political wins from our continental competitors. They knew that they, too, could have problems that only solidarity and commitment to the science would solve. They knew, too, that in those circumstances we wouldn’t take advantage, although we’d fight our corner as toughly as any.

And active, supportive membership helped us win battles back at home. In 1993 we were still seen as the dirty man of Europe. We were fighting to keep universal landfill; we had sewage on our beaches; and our water quality left much to be desired. EU environment rules made us put all that right. We became leaders on environmental agriculture and on climate change, but we learned as well as led. We were not semi-detached but committed to the EU – the greatest peacetime project of our lives, which through arrogance and poisonous self-regard we now seek to undo.

John Gummer, Lord Deben, is a Conservative peer who served in John Major’s government as secretary of state for the environment between 1993 and 1997