Barroso
administration: Golden medal in serving interests
A
research by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
“Through
the course of the crisis, attempts by corporations and corporate
lobby groups to influence EU policies have probably been more
successful than ever, in part due to a close relationship with the
Commission.”
“Corporate
Europe Observatory has gathered a lot of evidence over time and
covering many different areas that shows how the Commission is easily
captured by corporate interests. This report is an attempt to produce
a condensed version of how the Commission has come to act on behalf
of corporations over the past five years, focusing on climate
policies, agriculture and food, finance, economic, and fiscal
policies.”
9
- Fighting progress tooth and nail
Key
findings
“Undoubtedly
the biggest ethics scandal in recent years in the Commission was
Dalligate, a complex cash for influence scandal involving EU Health
Commissioner John Dalli and the tobacco lobby. The scandal broke in
October 2012. [...] a commissioner forced to resign; allegations of
demands for €60 million bribes; leaked secret reports; dodgy
middle-men; revolving door lobbyists; allegations of institutional
cover-ups; vital public health legislation disrupted... And how did
the Commission respond? Business as usual. At the time, the Dalligate
scandal rocked the Commission but 18 months on, President Barroso and
Commissioner Šefčovič have done their best to brush it under the
carpet.”
“...
Dalligate showed the Commission withholding key documents from public
scrutiny, which the European Ombudsman has now said should be
released, following a complaint by CEO. Dalligate also revealed
commissioners holding meetings with unregistered lobbyists; that the
code of conduct for lobbyists is not effectively enforced; and that
the revolving door rules for EU staff are inadequate to prevent staff
from lobbying the EU institutions whilst on sabbatical.”
“A
study by CEO in April 2014 found that 450 out of 700 of lobby
groups, banks and financial industry companies that are lobbying to
influence the EU in the area of finance and banking reform are not in
the EU’s lobby transparency register. This includes major players
like Goldman Sachs, HSBC, UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Banco
Santander, and many more.”
“...
disclosure requirements are very limited, so even if lobbies are
registered they are not required to give a comprehensive picture of
their lobbying. [...] there is only very limited oversight of the
information reported in the register, which is therefore often
unreliable and outdated. Many industry lobbies are found to
under-report on their lobby expenses (preferring to appear small) and
the register is also riddled with errors. This hardly gives the
impression that the Commission is very serious about lobby
transparency.”
“During
three months of negotiations with MEPs, the Commission’s line was
consistently to challenge and block proposals from MEPs for larger
and smaller improvements of the register. The result is that
improvements will be limited, mainly due to the Commission lacking
the political will needed to move to a high-quality lobby
transparency register.”
“Contributions
to online consultations and attendees of the civil society dialogue,
a 2013 report by the Alternative Trade Mandate (ATM) observes, 'are
dominated by lobby groups, mainly from the corporate sector and with
an office in Brussels.' The questions asked in the online
consultations 'are often leading and selective in terms of what is or
is not asked.' This suggests, the ATM concludes, that the Commission
seeks to fulfil its consultation obligations 'in a way that allows
for consultation outcomes to be easily spun in support of
predetermined policy initiatives.'”
“... in
2010, the online consultation on the EU’s Concessions Directive
used highly leading questions. The questions made it almost
impossible to participate for citizens or organisations with a
different opinion than the Commission’s. The Commission wanted a
directive covering every sector, to bring these under Single Market
rules and thereby promote further liberalisation and privatisation of
public services. The questions focused almost exclusively on
technical aspects of how to do this, not whether these were the right
objectives for EU policy.”
“Research
by ALTER-EU one year after the budget freeze was lifted shows the
Commission has gone back on its promise: many groups created since
continue to be dominated by industry, while lobbyists continue to sit
in groups in a personal capacity. The worst offender was DG
Taxation and Customs, with almost 80 per cent of new members
representing industry, compared to three per cent from small
businesses.”
“In
recent years, a significant number of commissioners and EU officials
have walked through the ‘revolving door’ meaning that they have
left their positions and started working for big business or lobby
consultancies; and conversely, some lobbyists have passed through the
revolving door from representing private interests to working for EU
institutions. When this happens, big business gains huge
opportunities to access inside-knowledge, vital contacts, and above
all, powerful influence over the EU’s policy-making process. CEO’s
RevolvingDoorWatch aims to keep track of these moves – and EU
institutions’ failure to effectively regulate them.”
“For EU
officials, the rule book which includes revolving door regulations
was revised in 2012-13 with Commissioner Šefčovič spearheading the
changes. Yet he neglected to make proposals to tighten up the rules
although MEPs did introduce some amendments which were a slight
improvement. Yet major loopholes remain within these rules too. In
particular, these must be tightened to include a major category of
officials (those on temporary contracts), who are largely excluded at
the moment, and who, as a result, are able to move back and forth
between the EU institutions and the private sector with little
official oversight.”
Related:
Comments
Post a Comment