few checks, many conflicts of interest, slight sanctions – Corriere.it

Make the Transparency Register mandatory for the European Parliament and the European Council as is already the case for the European Commission; being able to monitor the agenda of the working meetings of the Strasbourg parliamentarians; authorize independent audits of all three key EU institutions; regulate the phenomenon of revolving doors that allow former MEPs to access the offices of the institutions; stop the short circuit caused by that 30% and more of parliamentarians who, once elected, do not leave their professional activity. These are the suggestions of Federico Anghel, director of The good lobby (NGO committed to defending the participatory culture of citizens), to avoid further setbacks for the EU institutions in the light of the Belgian investigation into alleged bribes by Qatar and Morocco in favor of parliamentarians willing to speak well of those governments. Millions of euros in exchange for image favors.

At what stage the investigation into Qatargate

Double check

Swarms of lobbyists bet on the EU institutions every day since it is often vital for them to get their attention. All physiological and permitted, provided you act in compliance with the law and be transparent. However, in Brussels and Strasbourg the rules in this sense apply only to some. The EU, with over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels (capital of pressure groups second only to Washington, ed), considered a beacon of transparency, says Anghel, but in reality there are large gaps, especially in Parliament. The Transparency Register, in which more than 13,000 subjects are registered today (companies, lobbying companies, NGOs, trade associations, trade unions, law firms, religious denominations) and whose inclusion allows you to work with the institutions, is considered ineffective. In fact, on the one hand, the data of the subjects (turnovers, personnel, history, etc.) are not homogeneous, making them unreliable. On the other hand, only the European Commission (commissioners and senior officials), i.e. the executive body, has the obligation to declare the activities and meetings held with the lobbies. Here the so-called double check: what is recorded by the lobbyist and what is by the Commission must coincide.

Group choices

It doesn’t work like this for the 705 parliamentarians who legislate and vote on resolutions. No obligation: meetings remain discretionary, autonomous and private. The lack of obligations (except for the notification of gifts received, ed) claimed by MEPs on the basis of the principle of freedom of action for those elected, explains the director of The good lobby, an unavailability that is still unshakeable. Even if it must be said that there are obligations in Parliament for the rapporteurs of the dossiers followed, for the chairmen of the commissions and for the so-called shadow rapporteurs, i.e. political minorities. Furthermore, although individual MEPs are released from accountability for what they do, the parliamentary groups to which they belong can decide otherwise by setting autonomous rules. As Transparency international EU points out, the Greens are the first to collaborate, less with the S&D and the EPP, much less with the right.

Revolving doors

Between June 2019 and July 2022, there were around 28,000 meetings of lobbyists with Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg, but only half were made public according to the rules of the register. The most virtuous countries are Luxembourg (100%), Sweden (95%) and Denmark (93%), while at the bottom of the ranking are Latvia (25%), Cyprus (17%) and Greece (10%) . Ex ante authorizations and declarations are one thing, ex post verifications are another. The point, Anghel confirms, is that in the face of a large amount of preventive bureaucracy, often exaggerated, subsequent controls are scarce, are loose. There are no independent bodies that verify compliance with the rules by the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The only sanction in the event of a violation by the lobbyist (who from 2022 may incur administrative checks) is the withdrawal of the registration card. In addition, while a cooling-off period of one to three years is envisaged for the Commission during which commissioners and senior officials who leave the institution cannot operate on what they were dealing with – turning into lobbyists – this is not foreseen for parliamentarians . Thus the phenomenon of revolving ports took place, as would have happened with Antonio Panzeri, a former MEP and later founder of the NGO Fight impunity (which allowed him to have easy access to the institutions). Today, anyone who ends up with a seat in Parliament is entitled to an allowance, to relocate, recalls the director of The good lobby, but I believe that a cooling off period of at least a year is necessary for them too.