Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

MEP: lobbyism main reason for bad policy

Swedish MEP Carl Schlyter (Green) has told Corporate Europe Observatory that lobbyism is the main reason why the EU makes bad policies. Interviewed about his role as rapporteur for the European Parliament on the future of EU member states' bilateral investment treaties, he said he had never seen such an extreme example of MEPs focusing solely on big business interests.

Bilateral investment treaties give sweeping powers to foreign investors, including the right to challenge governments in international tribunals if they believe that new laws designed to protect the environment, public health or social well-being have adversely affected their profits. Schlyter said there was widespread agreement among MEPs and member state governments that it was right to protect the interests of investors – regardless of the consequences.

"The whole idea about just protecting industry is rooted in this colonial mindset that we are the ones doing business abroad and other countries are being developed by our investment. But it's no longer only Europeans doing business abroad. It's as if no one has realised that, for example, state-owned companies from China could come here and invest and we would have no democratic tools to intervene in what they are doing."

Asked about the recent cash-for-laws scandal, which saw three MEPs accused of accepting cash to table amendments, he said the practice was "disgusting" but questioned whether it was any worse than tabling amendments for lobbyists for free.

"I don't know what is more tragic because the result for policies is the same," he said. "Some of the amendments to my report are too technical to have been done by people who haven't followed the dossier at all. It is quite clear that many of these amendments originate from outside people's offices, most of them coming from industry or from governments."

"Lobbyism is for me the main reason why we are not making good policies. And it is hardly ever discussed in public. That has to change".

Schlyter believes one way to make the change would be to have a register of every email sent to an MEP with the intention of changing a policy or a law, allowing the public to see where amendments originate.

He also said he would like to see a fairer distribution of lobby badges for the Parliament, with a third given to economic interests, one third to NGOs and one third to social interests such as trade unions and universities.

And he said the EU's lobby transparency register should be made compulsory, with heavy fines for anyone found failing to comply.

Read the full interview here:

Bilateral investment treaties give sweeping powers to foreign investors, including the right to challenge governments in international tribunals if they believe that new laws designed to protect the environment, public health or social well-being have adversely affected their profits. Schlyter said there was widespread agreement among MEPs and member state governments that it was right to protect the interests of investors – regardless of the consequences."The whole idea about just protecting industry is rooted in this colonial mindset that we are the ones doing business abroad and other countries are being developed by our investment. But it's no longer only Europeans doing business abroad. It's as if no one has realised that, for example, state-owned companies from China could come here and invest and we would have no democratic tools to intervene in what they are doing."Asked about the recent cash-for-laws scandal, which saw three MEPs accused of accepting cash to table amendments, he said the practice was "disgusting" but questioned whether it was any worse than tabling amendments for lobbyists for free."I don't know what is more tragic because the result for policies is the same," he said. "Some of the amendments to my report are too technical to have been done by people who haven't followed the dossier at all. It is quite clear that many of these amendments originate from outside people's offices, most of them coming from industry or from governments.""Lobbyism is for me the main reason why we are not making good policies. And it is hardly ever discussed in public. That has to change".Schlyter believes one way to make the change would be to have a register of every email sent to an MEP with the intention of changing a policy or a law, allowing the public to see where amendments originate.He also said he would like to see a fairer distribution of lobby badges for the Parliament, with a third given to economic interests, one third to NGOs and one third to social interests such as trade unions and universities.And he said the EU's lobby transparency register should be made compulsory, with heavy fines for anyone found failing to comply.Read the full interview here:
 

A deregulation agenda is sweeping through the Commission & member states, particularly pushed by the UK.

The recent leak of many parts of TTIP, allowing us for the first time to read the negotiating position of the US, confirms our most serious concerns.

Dangerous attacks against regulations protecting public interest wouldn't be prevented by 'new' proposals.

Despite growing concerns among the European public, the new EU proposal on regulatory cooperation in TTIP does nothing to address the upcoming democratic threats.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

While CEO is not taking a position on the UK referendum, many of our publications are relevant to those who will have a vote, or those who are following the debate.

Biodiversity collapse, the future of agriculture, politics versus science, EU States and the European Commission shifting blame on each other, industry's capture of the regulatory process through data secrecy, a Commissioner caught between Juncker, EU States, lobby groups, and his own services... The glyphosate saga, coming to the end of its first phase tomorrow, has been an entry point into many broader problems. Overview.

The European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.

The corporate lobby tour