Talk:EU policy/Strategy/FoP/Argumentation

Looks great! I've made a couple of very small amends but I think this is a good job :) Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

comments

Small comments; overall looks like a great starting place that we should do more of.

• " should be harmonised" - does harmonization imply mandatory implementation? I think yes, but just wanted to double-check.
• "results in ineffective legislation" - an argument that is used here in the US is that it is not just ineffective, but actively harmful to have widely-ignored laws on the book, because it decreases respect for the rule of law. Not sure if that is (1) an effective argument in the EU or (2) a good use of limited words/space here.
• responses to common counter-arguments: maybe it makes sense to say what the common counter-argument is? Sort of obvious in this case, but not a bad practice overall.
• "This does not change privacy and personality rights." - more accurate to say "should not" or "does not need to"?
• " Many EU countries" - how many?
• "her/his" - may want to use "their"? Though see Singular They.
• Maybe link to the EU/Strasbourg story if it is documented anywhere?

—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)