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.”
3 - Single market trumps stability
Key
findings
“In
November 2009, the ALTER-EU coalition released a report that showed a
marked dominance of people with links to financial corporations in
all the advisory bodies that had helped guide the Commission on
financial regulation in the years preceding the crisis.”
“Former
Commissioner McCreecy put it like this: 'What we do not need is to
become captive of those with the biggest lobby budgets or the most
persuasive lobbyists: we need to remember that it was many of those
same lobbyists who in the past managed to convince legislators to
insert clauses and provisions that contributed so much to the lax
standards and mass excesses that have created the systemic risks. The
taxpayer is now forced to pick up the bill.'”
“In a
final count by Corporate Europe Observatory, the advisory groups in
place during the time when the European Union was going through the
banking reform process, were more or less as dominated by the
financial lobby as before. Three fourths of the non-governmental
advisors expert groups had links to financial corporations.”
“When
new legislation proposals pass the desks of financial corporations,
it is always very likely that this will impact the final proposal.
And this close interaction between the Commission (and DG MARKT) and
the financial lobby has affected the final result of the reform
agenda deeply. Considerations for the profitability of banks, and the
drive for a deeper single market on financial services seem to have
been at the forefront of the agenda, far more than reforming finance
to avoid a repetition of the collapse of the financial bubble.”
“At the
time, the Commission was under some fire to rebalance the composition
of its advisory groups, aka expert groups, and in response the
Commission set up a Group of Experts on Banking Issues (GEBI).
However, this group too was severely imbalanced to the advantage of
financial corporations. Of the 42 members of the advisory group,
34 came from banks and investment firms. After enduring some public
criticism, ironically the Commission decided to close the group
instead of reforming it, leaving more space for financial
corporations to conduct their lobbying effort via bilateral meetings
with the civil servants in charge of the dossier. In the end, the
Commission tabled a proposal which by most accounts was in line with
the demands of the biggest banks.”
“Among
the topics debated between in-coming Commissioner Michel Barnier and
the European Parliament during the hearing of the new Commission in
early 2010, was food speculation. [...] In the years that followed,
the Commissioner and his civil servants discussed the matter on an
endless number of occasions with the financial industry, including
via two expert groups – the derivatives expert group and the Expert
Group on Market Infrastructures – both dominated by financial
corporations, most members of the key lobby group on derivatives, the
International Swaps and Derivatives Association. Both expert
groups would be closed well before the Commission tabled its proposal
– as if to waive criticism for a one-sided preparatory process.
However, instead of formally setting up a balanced expert group –
with all that would require in terms of transparency, such as listing
it in the official register of expert groups with names of the
participants – the Commissioner instead decided to organise a
series of so-called 'workshops'. These workshops had all the
characteristics of expert groups, but were never listed in the
register. Their existence became publicly known only when the
Commission tabled its proposal.”
“When
preparing its proposal for a directive on 'recovery and resolution'
of banks, the Commission ignored flat out all standards and
guidelines on use of external expertise and simply collaborated with
a special working group of the European Banking Federation, the most
important lobby group for banks, to design the proposal, according to
its own 'impact assessment'.”
Related:
Totally
dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 4)
Totally
dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 5)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 6)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 7)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 8)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 9)
Juncker-Verhofstadt: Lobbies and groups of interests in the EU are unavoidable!
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 6)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 7)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 8)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 9)
Juncker-Verhofstadt: Lobbies and groups of interests in the EU are unavoidable!
Comments
Post a Comment