Open Europe – further thoughts

With the recent debunking of Open Europe – and Mats Persson in particular – on the false assertion that Norway and Switzerland have no voice in the formation of EU legislation, there is also another worrying aspect about the fact that the political class appear to lend so much weight to the opinions of Open Europe.

With the proven fact that much of the technical detail encapsulated in EU law has been previously decided by the UNECE, one can but wonder if ministers, when being asked by their civil servants to sign paperwork implementing EU legislation within the UK, have the faintest idea of the origins of said legislation – or indeed even MPs debating such measures in the chamber. Bearing that point in mind, it should also be remembered that Parliamentary Select Committees hold ‘hearings’ in which they call ‘experts’ in given fields with a view to assisting those committees to understand the ‘detail’ behind the subject(s) in question.

Recently, on 6th December 2012 to be exact, the EU Sub-Committee for External Affairs held the third evidence session of its inquiry into the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Committee Room 2A, at which session one of the witnesses called was Mats Persson of Open Europe.

In view of Persson’s lack of knowledge, deliberate or not, on ‘matters EU’, why is it that when considering that hearing on 6th December, the phrase: “the blind leading the blind” springs to mind?

Just asking……….

7 Responses

  1. cosmic says:

    I have a sneaking feeling that most of the Parliamentary Conservative party know very little about the EU and this renegotiation crap is what they believe and want to believe. Open Europe is really His Master’s Voice. They don’t get paid for saying things their backers don’t want to hear, but they give the illusion of being independent researchers.

    I’m sure there are a few in the PCP who have a clear understanding of how the EU works and are totally cynical, such as Hague, but I doubt Cameron knows or wants to know much about it. It’s just trouble to be managed; trouble to say they are in favour and trouble to say they want to get out, and a huge amount of trouble to actually make moves to get out, hence the balancing act.

    Persson’s probably got a good knowledge of the details and tittle-tattle of the EU which counts as knowledge to those with EU tunnel vision.

    Anyway, think of consultants in industry. They seem largely there to tell management what it wants to hear.

  2. A K Haart says:

    “the blind leading the blind”

    It is – in so many areas too. They just can’t cope with people who might in their terms, be off-message. Yet so often they are found out and made to look silly.

  3. The only thing Open Europe has in their favour is that they’ve always stated they are pro-EU but open to other opinions. Their colours have always hoist up to the mast.

    • david says:

      So why allow themselves to be called a eurosceptic think tank by the media?

      • cosmic says:

        If they encouraged themselves to be called a europhile think tank, they wouldn’t be much of an asset and their funds would dry up toot sweet, which brings up the question of their nature and purpose.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012