We are debating, and this particular article by Michael Barnier really has some good “talking points” to establish some real good debate. Is Michael Public also Michael Barnier?

Anyway, to continue….





To Henrik:



RE: “…….”



1. I think your approach and comments are a good place to continue with these following comments, so that is where I am going to start from: I will use an initial quote from you, and then continue with a few words by me, so there is some continuity in my comments.



2. “Europe is the future….” Would it be helpful to actually refer to Europe as the European Union, rather than just Europe? Right now, a public debate about the EU may be the real command center for continuing DEMOCRATIC action worldwide. By establishing some groundwork for basic terminology, there could be some real effective opportunity for COMMENTS on PS to actually become more than further reactive/non-reactive source data for MS and certain other corporate and non-corporates worldwide.



a. I’m trying to be very realistic by my acknowledging that any word I, or anyone else, as a common citizen and member of the general public mass, write on any public platform is really just source data for _________.



b. Coming from that biased view, which I think is NOT bias but honest, practical, and realistic, I think there could be a good public debate that starts from this article by Barnier, but there needs to be some basic ground rules for further comments based on what Henrik, Mike and a few others have already started with the comments on this particular article.



c. Would you be willing to join me by starting with identifying ground rules for terminology for a possible “transparency debate” starting on the ground?



i. And that’s a “sort-of”, as we are all really up-in-the-air, really, when we are writing on this platform outlet, or any other one that is similar to PS.



The ideas and comments that have been noted by you all are great. I do think that there is a wide-range of word choice that possibly causes confusion for a real debate of ideas, and 4 key priorities.





I think that for a real “transparent debate on the ground” to continue, that certain words need to be defined. Then continue into a debate on the 4 key priorities from the article.



3. Examples of need for definition of certain words:



a. I think that Europe is a geographic location and quite different from the EU. I also don’t think of Asia as part of Europe. So, in reality, my most basic awareness and understanding of the word “Europe” and “EU” is not necessarily anywhere near the same as you, or compared to probably Michael Public. Do Europeans generalize Europe to be inclusive of Russia and China/Asian states etc.?



b. Even a most basic definition of that word could prove to be pretty interesting, if not challenging.



4. Any interest on this proposal, by anyone else that has posted any comments on this particular article?