Wednesday

29th Mar 2023

Opinion

Who to blame when you can't blame Brussels?

  • The Council of the EU, representing member states, prefers to work outside public scrutiny (Photo: consilium.europa.eu)

Blaming Brussels is one of the easiest techniques for any politician to make an excuse to their national electorate.

Don’t want to spend additional money on social housing? Blame it on strict deficit rules set in Brussels. A company is complaining about a specific regulation? Not their fault, it was "imposed" by Brussels.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

But who do you blame when you cannot blame Brussels because you ‘are’ Brussels? The current negotiations for a mandatory EU lobbying register provide an interesting answer to that question.

Let’s have a quick look at what these negotiations entail.

For years, citizens have asked for more transparency and better rules around lobbying in Brussels. Millions of citizens have protested, petitioned or otherwise voiced their concerns over the lack of transparency and the hidden influence of corporate lobbyists in Brussels.

Rightly or wrongly, it has played an important role in almost any major debate, be it on TTIP, Brexit or ongoing attacks by eurosceptics. Lobbyists themselves strongly support stricter rules and more transparency.

In this context, the European Commission proposed a "mandatory lobbying register" almost one year ago.

A quick fix

Fearing that a legislative proposal would not find the necessary majorities, the EU commission suggested a quick fix based on an agreement between the three decision-making institutions: the European Parliament, Council of the EU, where member states sit, and the commission.

The mechanism to make the register mandatory was that the institutions would agree to refuse access to lobbyists that are not willing to register.

Indeed, the EU commission of current president Jean-Claude Juncker made an important step in that direction in 2014 by introducing rules for the commissioners and their closest advisers.

The basic idea now was to extend this rule of “no registration, no meeting” and the publication of those meetings by the commission to the council and parliament. The council has so far abstained even from the voluntary register.

Parliament has traditionally been the strongest supporter of a mandatory register. But both institutions, the council and parliament, have been discussing their position on the proposal and things are not looking too promising.

The council knows that some progress is necessary and that it needs to be more transparent. When it comes to the details, however, its reservations persist.

The main lobby targets in the council are the representations of member states, governments back in the capitals across Europe, and the 6-month rotating presidency, in particular.

The new rules covering anything beyond the council secretariat, which is probably the least lobbied part of the EU institutions, does not seem to find support. Many point to the fact that everything beyond the secretariat falls under national competence and would have to be done by member states.

The EU parliament is ambitious in asking for more transparency of the other institutions.

Applying the “no registration, no meeting” rule to MEPs, however, seems to pose problems as the chief negotiators outlined in an op-ed for EUobserver.

In December last year a majority of MEPs voted to introduce the mandatory publication of lobby meetings for all MEPs.

Unfortunately, however, the majority was not strong enough to change the parliament’s internal rules. Now its legal service has issued an opinion which indicates that both preventing meetings with unregistered lobbyists, or making publication of meetings mandatory, would be in violation of the MEPs' so-called "free mandate".

Bring in the lawyers

So, when citizens strongly support lobbying transparency, when Brussels lobbyists are all in favour of a better register, but your EU institution does not seem to want to create the dearly-needed mandatory EU lobby register, who do you blame? The lawyers.

The legal services of the EU parliament and council have come up with "national competence" and "free mandate" excuses, which prevent any meaningful progress.

Parliament’s legal analysis conveniently finds that such transparency rules should indeed apply to assistants, political advisers and civil servants, but not the main target of lobbying: the MEPs themselves.

In their view, it might somehow hinder them from exercising their mandate freely.

But doubts have already been cast on the legal reasoning of the institutions. If these assessments are maintained, and both MEPs and most of the council exclude themselves from any lobby transparency rules, the commission’s plan for a ‘quick fix’ will have failed.

In both cases – national politicians blaming Brussels and Brussels politicians blaming legal challenges – what is really is at hand is a lack of political will and leadership.

We have seen many examples over the last years where even contradicting treaty rules did not prevent or slow down decisions that had full political backing, be it the “no bailout clause” or the setting up of an entire crisis-response institutional structure outside the EU treaties.

The mandatory lobbying register was the main proposal of the Juncker commission to make the EU more democratic, more accountable and more transparent. This important project must not fail.

Rather than deploying lawyers to find obstacles, we need politicians to lead the way to more lobbying transparency. Under their guidance, lawyers will find a way to word the new regime in a way that will not contradict existing rules.

Daniel Freund is the Head of Advocacy for EU Integrity at Transparency International EU.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Lobbying transparency enhances MEPs' freedom

At a time when citizens expect an unprecedented level of accountability from their elected representatives, senior MEPs use their ‘free mandate’ to justify opposing new lobbying transparency rules.

MEPs agree crackdown on lobbying

Starting next year, MEPs will no longer be able to work as paid lobbyists trying to influence the European Parliament.

EU commission presents 'realistic' lobbying rules

The EU executive called for more stringent regulation of interest representatives trying to influence EU decision making. Critics say the 'transparency revolution' is being blocked by the European Parliament and EU member states.

The overlooked 'crimes against children' ICC arrest warrant

An unprecedented component of this announcement has received less attention: the ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Putin's commissioner for children's rights. Lvova-Belova is accused of deporting and unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia.

Column

What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking

Perhaps even more surprising to the West was the fact that the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal was not brokered by the United States, or the European Union, but by the People's Republic of China. Since when was China mediating peace agreements?

Column

What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking

Perhaps even more surprising to the West was the fact that the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal was not brokered by the United States, or the European Union, but by the People's Republic of China. Since when was China mediating peace agreements?

Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity

From the perspective of international relations, the EU is a rare bird indeed. Theoretically speaking it cannot even exist. The charter of the United Nations, which underlies the current system of global governance, distinguishes between states and organisations of states.

Latest News

  1. The overlooked 'crimes against children' ICC arrest warrant
  2. EU approves 2035 phaseout of polluting cars and vans
  3. New measures to shield the EU against money laundering
  4. What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking
  5. Dear EU, the science is clear: burning wood for energy is bad
  6. Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity
  7. Finnish elections and Hungary's Nato vote in focus This WEEK
  8. EU's new critical raw materials act could be a recipe for conflict

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. InformaConnecting Expert Industry-Leaders, Top Suppliers, and Inquiring Buyers all in one space - visit Battery Show Europe.
  2. EFBWWEFBWW and FIEC do not agree to any exemptions to mandatory prior notifications in construction
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ways to prevent gender-based violence
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Economic gender equality now! Nordic ways to close the pension gap
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Pushing back the push-back - Nordic solutions to online gender-based violence
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: The Nordics are ready to push for gender equality

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Azerbaijan Embassy9th Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting and 1st Green Energy Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting
  2. EFBWWEU Social Dialogue review – publication of the European Commission package and joint statement of ETUFs
  3. Oxfam InternationalPan Africa Program Progress Report 2022 - Post Covid and Beyond
  4. WWFWWF Living Planet Report
  5. Europan Patent OfficeHydrogen patents for a clean energy future: A global trend analysis of innovation along hydrogen value chains

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us