Start from where the audience is

Most advocacy seems to be based on the idea that if I just tell them [add in politician, decision maker, some random stranger in the street] loudly and often enough, they’ll agree with my position.

I’ve never known this to work. It tends to have the opposite impact. It is the mainstream approach.

You soon learn that the issue you and your client are interested/manically obsessed/passionate about (choose one), is not something that the vast majority of people making the decision share the same position, let alone a manic obsession/passion.

When you address decision-makers from where you are, rather than from where they are, you are likely to lose.

And, if you come across as a swivel-eyed manic loon, speaking in tongues – or whatever strange technical language many experts and cults use – decision-makers are going to straight out ignore you.

It is easy to find out if your case is not landing. If 27 Member States and 500 MEPs vote against you, you know you are speaking to your belly button/fellow believers.

I go for an alternative approach. I start from where the audience of decision-makers is.

First, I identify the audience making the decision. In an ordinary piece of legislation, it is around 220-250 people. For regulatory decision-making, it is less.

Second, I research where the decision-makers stand on the position.

Third, I chunk them down into a list: support, undecided, swingers, opponents. There are some people who are not going to support you. Check your research to see if your list is accurate. Speak with a sample of people you identified.

Fourth, if you are a ‘believer’, you may want to bring along someone who can read the room. Believers tend to believe that anyone they speak with is supporting them. Even when decision-makers use coded phrases like “I hear what you say”, “That’s an interesting position”, the believer will think this is support. It is not.

A lot of lobbying seems to be based on the off-chance that the person you are meeting agrees with you. That tends to be a small group.

You can do two things.

You can stick with your message and stay with your small group of allies.

If you look at the chart below, this tends to lead to you losing.

In this table, you can switch out the term ‘Catechism’ for whatever ‘belief’ you have (e.g. MSY, sound-science, etc.).

There is an alternative approach.

For group 2-5, work out what interests and values they have. Work out how you can adapt your case into something that resonates with them. Research what interests them, and use analogies and metaphors that speak to them.

There may be people in group 6 who dislike your traditional allies (Group 1) on principle. I’ve seen whole blocks to vote against something for just that reason.

You are not there to win an argument.

Your job is to mirror as many points of common alignment as possible so that they will support and vote for you.

If you make it an argument –   that is often emotional –  you are likely to alienate more people than you will win over. The swivelled-eyed loon look is not a good one.

If you spend your time on regulatory (technical-scientific) decision-making, you’ll need to adapt things. The enabling law and guidelines state what can and cannot be considered when making a decision.

I go through the following steps:

Identify what criteria  the officials making the decision can consider

Identify what criteria the officials making the decision can not consider

How have previous regulatory decisions/votes in committee gone

What points have landed

What points are ignored

What evidence can you bring to the table?

What evidence (data, reports, studies) can you not bring to the table

How does the evidence (data, reports, studies) need to be presented

When does it need to be presented

Who has a successful track record of getting a good outcome (are they available to support)

What has not succeeded (useful so as not to repeat an approach that is likely to fail)

So, by way of hypothetical example, if you are dealing with a CLH classification, this process is simply on ‘hazard identification’. This means that the only evidence you should bring to the table is about the intrinsic properties of the substance. Only evidence (data, testing, studies, etc.) that addresses the hazard can be considered.

Questions about risk assessment or socio-economic impact are not relevant for the classification.

So, you’d likely be wasting your time and money if you delivered information about the socio-economic impact to the regulatory decision-making public consultation, instead of evidence on hazard identification.

And, in case you don’t believe me, see the recent judgment (21 January 2026), Case T-174/24:

“Furthermore, it should be noted that Regulation No 1272/2008 concerns the assessment of hazards of substances and that that assessment must be distinguished from the risk

assessment provided for in Regulation No 1907/2006. The assessment of hazards constitutes the first stage of the process of risk assessment, which is a more specific concept. Thus, an

assessment of the hazards linked to the substances’ intrinsic properties must not be limited in light of specific circumstances of use, as in the case of a risk assessment, and may be

properly carried out regardless of the place where the substance is used (in a laboratory or elsewhere), or the possible levels of exposure to the substance (see, to that effect, judgment of

21 July 2011, Nickel Institute, C-14/10, EU:C:2011:503, paragraphs 81 and 82).” (Para 23).

Some political support will cost you the support of others. If some Member States/political groups champion your cause, the political mainstream may walk away.

By way of example, if you are seen in the Mickey Mouse bar in a jovial conversation with the AfD delegation, who then are vocal supporters of your cause, and are speakers at your events, you are likely to see progressive politicians walk away from you.

Likewise, the support of some Member States to your cause will lead many more to walk away from you.

And, as Brussels is such a small city, your newfound political friendships are likely to be well-known very fast.