Dear Pirates,
I’m @farlistener / Cédric and I’m the coordinator for this working group around the Civil Society
If you’re interested in this topic, you can retrieve the previous version at this address :
So, how do we want to live our citizenship in a democratic Europe ?
Maybe should we meet? A call in our Mattermost would help to gather people.
Hello, it seems that this is the suitable place for a brainstorm on possible ways to reform the EU. I notice that we in the last (present existing) program call for a convention to provide a democratic reform of the Union. Let us list all kinds of possibilities here.
Let me first list what I see in the present program and comment a bit:
“Balance between institutions” What could it mean? (“executive and legislative branch” is to me a strange distinction, and I don’t find a clear definition on the Net for it. All of the “three big” are participating in legislation, and the executive entities I suppose are the nation states, controlled by the Commission who also has some minor things to decide on its own… I suppose we think that the Parliament should have more power, which can be implemented in many ways?
Direct democracy in the form of citizen initiated legislative referendums both on treaty reform and ordinary legislation And citizens repealing existing legislations. What could it mean? Sounds very far reaching but nice as a vision. We have the Citizens initiative that in a reformed way can be changed into such a thing maybe. Stopping a directive for example. And how would its rules be in detail? Or maybe we can come up with another big vision, restructuring the system as a whole. Or just let the national parliaments repeal, which would be easier, if we can get good representative people there.
More citizens influence. Nr 2 is definitely a version, but what else can we imagine?
Then we present three concrete “minor” examples:
a/ E-participation tool – What could it mean concretely? Certain possibilities to discuss and propose amendments to Commission proposals already exist, but they are only “consultative”. We are talking about the Parliament, I suppose, that is only affecting the Parliament’s view? And can the online votings stop a proposal?
b/ Reformed Citizens initiative – this is a modest adjustment of the current possibilities - but who will decide what proposals are " interesting"?
c/ An interesting super meeting for parliamentarians and commissioners (no national ministers?) onto which citizens can put proposals. Will there be some votings on them? In that case, what is going to happen with the approved proposals? Sent to the commission for integrating in the ordinary process of today? Or something else, maybe referring to 1/ and 2/ above?
4 Open Government - looked a bit into it, looks ambitious and well meant, doesn’t seem to have any nations as such involved (am I wrong?) , but why not…
The following chapters on anti corruption and containing lobbyism, and transparency and whistle-blower protection are containing good ideas that
can be implemented in any type of political organisation, but some of them are more vulnerable to corruption, so we should look for the more transparent and democratically grounded ones.
There are also some statements on democratic status in the old preamble, that preferably should rhyme with these ideas, which I think it reasonably does. I summarize that:
Critics in the present preamble: It seems mainly to be about the imperfect democracy , and also the need for protecting of diversity. The need for informed citizens with influence on the decisions in an EU-wide debate is stressed.
Concrete subjects I see are the freedom of the Internet ( for political development, overcoming top-down, one-way communication ) and protection of Human Rights, specially against discrimination.
Shouldn’t a chapter on civil society contain the visions and the trends towards the idea of rather self-sufficient local communities in cooperation, even European and global cooperation, but ultimately based locally, where people can develop self empowerment, a multitude of competences and a broad perspective from local to global? Aided by an internet that is what is started out to aim for, exchange of knowledge and creativity? And a necessary tool for the integration of the various levels of perspectives.
And maybe institutions such as the EU and the UN can be put at service to these perspectives? Helping an integration without forcing it on the locals?
Focus on the social and cultural, putting the commercial perspectives where they belong - at at service of social, cultural and individual growth?
True
So let’s go for some time slots proposal for meetings week from April 3rd until April 9th:
Jitsi link: https://jitsi.pirati.cz/ceep24-civilsociety
Hi, on the anti-corruption chapter, note that we are currently developing in the EP Pirates Delegation specific calls for action (see below). Some parts of this could be added to the current CEEP text.
Transparency and Integrity in the European Parliament
The EP is undergoing one of the most prominent and shocking corruption scandals in Europe. Former and current Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) allegedly engaged in corruption, money laundering and organised crime, grouped together under the name “Qatargate”. Qatar and other countries have allegedly provided cash to MEPs in exchange of their vote and for milder statements from the EP on the scandals related to the Qatar World Cup notably.
This scandal has spotlighted issues we, the Pirates, have been pointing out since our arrival in the European Parliament (EP) in 2013. We have been committed to enhance transparency and accountability of elected members and institutions from day one of our mandate. But our demands have been unsuccessful in reaching the consideration of the decision making bodies.
Reactions to the scandal have been quick. In mid-December the EP adopted a resolution calling for reforms following the revelations. Some key aspects such as introducing an EU ethics body, a cooling off period or an assets declaration made us support the proposals. Subsequently, the President of the EP presented a concrete 14 points plan to strengthen the anti-corruption efforts. Even if they prove to be good first steps in the battle against corruption, it is already foreseeable that they will prove to be insufficient with regards to the needed levels of transparency and accountability. These steps will be outlined in a special report expected to be published on 30th March 2023. We will provide as much state-of-the-art transparency and accountability elements as possible in line with our commitments.
We believe that we need to be bolder than the small steps approach and envisage a greater overhaul of the rules to reach the high and legitimate expectations.
Transparency & Integrity plan
Accountability
- Assets declaration
MEPs, Commissioners and high-ranking officials (head of cabinets, president of EU institutions and agencies, secretary-generals) should submit an asset declaration at the beginning and at the end of their mandate. This useful transparency provision is only applying in certain Member States and should be mainstreamed.
It should contain information on their properties, amount of money detained (savings, bank account), debts, life insurance and other relevant elements. It would help in identifying suspicious increase in wealth.
These declarations should be made public in the case of Commissioners and MEPs, with some redacted parts in order to protect basic privacy. In the case of officials, these declarations should only be transmitted to the ethics body (next sections) for a veracity check.
- Side jobs
Qatargate has shed the light on potentially unethical practices as some MEPs were under the spotlight for declaring paid activities for foreign countries companies or conferences. MEPs already have to hand in declarations of interest laying out these side activities.
They nonetheless shall be more precise, especially in the case of side jobs. MEPs are only declaring wide range of revenues1, with highly imprecise information on their position. MEPs should disclose more precise revenue, their employer, a short job description and the amount of time spent working in this position. This should apply to all remunerated activities.
In parallel, stricter control on potential conflict of interest should be established by the ethics body. We are also demanding to prevent MEPs from being employed in any organisation registered in the Transparency Register.
- Broadening the access of OLAF to MEPs offices
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) provides coordination and support for investigations, especially when it comes to internal investigations on the EU financial interest. It is in charge of administrative offences. In the Qatargate, it is the Belgian authorities dealing with the case as it happened in Belgium. Nonetheless, OLAF could prove to be useful.
The OLAF struggles in accessing MEPs offices and related investigation material during their investigation. They even sometimes are denied access to assistants’ computers, belongings or offices as MEPs have worked with them. OLAF’s president and the Pirates have asked for easier access to MEPs offices when facing serious allegations
- Extending the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) to the whole EU
The EPPO is a reinforced cooperation created in order to prosecute crimes related to the EU financial interest. Being a reinforced cooperation hinders its work in every Member States. The EPPO becoming a binding body to the whole EU could facilitate its cooperation with other institutions and ensure better prosecution of cases in currently non-member countries. We are also requesting the broadening of the EPPO mandate to different areas, for instance large-scale environmental damage and enforcement of sanctions.
- Harmonising accountability elements in criminal law
As the EU has little competence in national criminal law, MEPs could not be prosecuted if they furnish false assets declaration or declaration of interest as it is the case in France. Currently, the directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF directive) relies on a legal basis which allows to establish minimum rules on criminal offences. Including accountability elements such as declaration of interest and declaration of assets in this directive would allow MEPs to be prosecuted at national level. Prosecution could be conducted by the EPPO. It would be based on the French model where French justice is able to prosecute false assets declaration with a sentence up to 3 years of prison and a 45 000€ fine.
Transparency
- Transparency of MEPs meetings in the framework of their work
Currently, MEPs “should publish online all scheduled meetings with interest representatives falling under the scope of the Transparency register”. Therefore, no obligation applies apart for rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and committee chairs for reports they are working on.
Pirates think that MEPs shall disclose all their meeting publicly with the possibility to make it available on their personal EP webpage with basic information regarding: the person or the organisation it represents, the date and the topic. Assistants shall declare meetings in relation to the work of the MEP as a shadow or a rapporteur. MEPs should also publish their agenda. Commissioners shall also follow the same recommendation, including with country representatives.
Exception must remain however for individuals where MEPs should not be forced to release the identity or elements that could allow re-identification of the person met where it could jeopardize the person’s security. The EP declaration system must be revamped in order to allow staff to draft these declarations on behalf of the MEPs.
- Mandatory legislative footprint
Legislative footprint is a list that can demonstrate the range of outside expertise and opinions a rapporteur has received. It is then published with the report after its adoption in committee and enables people to see whom the rapporteur has heard from ahead of the final vote by the whole Parliament.
It is only a voluntary mechanism under the current framework. It shall be made mandatory for shadow rapporteurs and rapporteurs to foster transparency and make it interoperable with the declaration of meetings.
- User friendly transparency page for MEPs
There should be a publicly and easily accessible webpage on all transparency and integrity aspects for MEPs (budget, meetings, votes, declarations of assets, interest, gifts, etc). On the other side, the EP should set up an easier process for MEPs and assistants regarding these declarations, notably by enabling assistants to draft these declarations.
All data and information should be electronically readable, so that the data can be analyzed by citizens, journalists and watchdog organizations.
- MEPs budget
MEPs are granted a budget for their mandate. On one side, Members of the European Parliament are free to choose their own assistants within a roughly 25 000 € monthly budget set by Parliament. On the other side, MEPs benefit from a General expenditure allowance (GEA) of 4 778 € per month. This allowance is intended to cover expenditure in the Member State of election, such as Members’ office management costs, telephone and postal charges, and the purchase, operation and maintenance of computer and telematics equipment.
MEPs are responsible in front of the Bureau and then the President when not abiding by rules laid down in Bureau decisions regarding the use of their budget. Nevertheless, none of the individual expenditure is public. MEPs can still make their expenditures audited with the possibility to publish the outcome of the audit.
However, voluntary auditing is insufficient and we, as Pirates, are having fully transparent account on the use of our allowance. We therefore want to mainstream this practice and make full transparency mandatory for all MEPs. In parallel, the allowance shall be stopped as soon as the MEP is leaving his office.
- The regulation on transparency of documents shall be revamped
The Treaties, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and internal institutions practices guarantee that public has access to documents related to the legislative procedure. Nonetheless, exceptions remain when security, international relations, military matters, privacy, commercial interest, copyright, etc. could be undermined. In addition, the regulation is outdated and flawed on several grounds.
Pirates are asking for an overhaul of this regulation and internal practices in order to take into account new technologies such as text messages, promote proactive publication of documents and better frame exceptions. For instance, preparatory documents of trialogues are still not published despite repeated calls from the Ombudsman and our delegation to do so. In any case, exceptions shall not hamper legitimate right for the public to access the information and proactive publication of decision-making documents is the cornerstone of enhanced transparency in order to restore trust in our institutions.
- Mainstreaming RCV in the plenary
In the plenary, not all votes’ outcomes are publicly disclosed as they are done by show of hand. It undermines accountability of MEPs, sometimes on sensitive topics. It is the case for the controversial resolution on the world cup in Qatar where the final vote was not a roll-call-vote and therefore detailed results on MEPs voting behaviour is not available.
As Pirates, we want to make all votes roll-call-votes in order to foster accountability and transparency in both committees and the plenary.
- Transparency register tweaks
While the transparency register is a useful tool to provide transparency on lobbying, it is not fully functional. In accordance with our call to enhance transparency of the meetings, these should be published on the webpage of the organisation on the transparency register.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the transparency register is under-staffed to verify information declared by organisations as more than 12 000 organisations are providing their financial information on a regular basis. In this regard, information to be provided by the organisations – regardless of their statute – should be harmonized in order to ensure greater transparency over their finances and the interest they advocate for.
The transparency register limits access to badges for interest representatives and this should be stepped up by making sure that every organisation co-hosting an event in the Parliament is on the transparency register.
- Transparent process for the adoption of these reforms
Changing these rules will be made only through several different procedures. Some of them are relying on the Bureau of the EP, others on the AFCO (Constitutional Affairs) committee and the plenary, while new norms would have to be proposed by the Commission. In the case of the Bureau, enhanced transparency is required to ensure accountability. On a similar basis, Roberta Metsola has tried to make her case via the conference of president, which is a complete black box and thus circumventing any scrutiny. We must ensure that measures do not die in one of these bodies.
Ethics
- Establishing an ethics body
As the rules stand, each institution has its internal functioning to deal with ethics. We have a code of conduct for the MEPs, a different one for the Commissioners, while the EP President is responsible for sanctioning any infringement in the Parliament and the President of the college of Commissioners has similar powers in the Commission. Each institution is also relying on a different definition of a conflict of interest in their code of conduct, apart from criminal matters related to corruption. The European Parliament code of conduct provides that MEPs shall not enter into any agreement restricting their freedom of vote or accept financial benefit in that regards. In addition, the conflict of interest is defined as followed: “where a MEP has a personal interest that could improperly influence the performance of his or her duties as a Member”. MEPs shall disclose to the EP any potential conflict of interest before taking legislative action (being a rapporteur for instance), report to the President and seek advice from the advisory committee. Nevertheless, low enforcement renders the mechanism not very effective.
Thus, a greater harmonisation and independence is required to enhance scrutiny, transparency and accountability of elected members, Commissioners and their staff. The EU shall establish an ethics body based on an inter-institutional agreement applicable to all EU institutions. The agreement should clearly establish basic principles, such as a common definition of conflict of interest to all EU institutions. The regulation must also lay out ethics elements applicable to staff, Commissioners and MEPs on corruption, cooling off periods, gifts and remunerated interventions (see next sections).
This authority should be responsible for checking: conflict of interest, assets declarations, cooling off period, declaration of interest, gifts, MEPs budget, corruption and the transparency register. Nonetheless, in order to avoid any overlap on certain matters, in case the EU financial interest is at stake, the authority shall rely on OLAF and EPPO investigative powers, depending on the nature of the offence. The implication of both sides is crucial as EPPO and OLAF to some extent will allow criminal prosecution, while the ethics body will enable disciplinary sanctions at the EU level. The ethics body shall be appropriately staffed in that regard together with a sincere cooperation from national and European authorities to provide necessary documents, especially on tax declarations.
The ethics body should be composed of nine members ensuring full independence: three selected by the Commission, three elected by Parliament, and three assigned de jure from among the former judges of the CJEU, the Court of Auditors and former EU Ombudsman.
Its work must be as transparent as possible, with transparency of decisions and supportive documents by default. It should also be open to anonymized inputs from internal and external sources, including civil society organisations. Based on its observations and inputs it can start its own investigations, together with other institutions when relevant. If the ethics body must be as transparent as possible, it should still be subject to the Ombudsman oversight as any other institution.
The ethics body shall replace all internal bodies also when it comes to sanctions. It should be able to produce recommendations, warnings but also sanctions to MEPs, Commissioners and the staff. These sanctions shall be challengeable in front of the Court.
- Ban of friendship groups with third countries
Friendship groups are informal groups formed by MEPs in order to put forward certain issues and topics. They are ruled by EP rules of procedures which clearly state: they shall not create confusion with official EP voices. Currently, these friendship groups shall declare any support, whether in cash or in kind, which they do to the Bureau of the EP.
Friendship groups with third countries are blurring the lines as official delegations already exist for that purpose. They should therefore be forbidden in that context. Nevertheless, these informal groups should remain legal for communities, regions or specific topics.
Declarations on financial and other support are not publicly available contrary to the intergroups. Regarding these declarations they should also be more precise on who is providing the secretariat assistance, exact amounts and assistance provided by third parties and include MEPs individual related to these friendship groups.
- Trips paid by third parties
As the Qatargate has revealed, several MEPs have been attending fully paid first class events in gulf countries and have then worked on files related to these countries. In that case, MEPs have to publicly disclose whenever they attend a meeting on the invitation of a third party. In the declaration, they have to state: the inviter, whether the inviter has covered expenses (travel, accommodation, and subsistence expenses), the reasons and the agenda of the event. However, they do not have to disclose the amounts and compliance has been low as the number of (late) declaration peaked following the Qatargate.
MEPs should be free to participate in events organised by third parties but they must cover all costs (or the EP in certain cases). Accepting paid trips jeopardize the full independence of the participants.
- Mandatory cooling off period
MEPs, Commissioners and high-ranking officials (head of cabinets, president of EU institutions and agencies, secretary-generals) should not be able to take up a job in the private sector which could lead to a conflict of interest right after they leave their office. Commissioners already undergo a 24 months cooling-off period. MEPs don’t, even though they get a transitional allowance of 1 month per year in office (6 months for one term), together with a continuation of the GEA for transitional purposes.
As we have repeatedly asked, we think that the cooling-off period should match the transitional allowance duration (one month per year in office and 6 months for a full term). MEPs should notify the ethics body when taking up their new duties. The body should be responsible for greenlighting the new activity.
- Gifts
Members receive gifts on a regular basis. Most of them are postal cards or goodies. Nevertheless, some countries and lobbies give greater gifts of sometimes high value. Members only have to fulfil the obligation of handing in the gifts to the President when they are representing the EP on an official trip (representing a committee or a delegation, on behalf of the President, or as a VP or a Quaestor). Other than that, they should refrain from accepting more than 150€ gifts without any obligations.
We believe that MEPs - regardless of their statute - shall surrender all gifts above 150€ to the Parliament, or refuse them whenever they obviously exceed the threshold. Additionally, MEPs shall declare gifts of more than 50€.
- Increase whistle-blowers protection to the adequate level
Whistleblowers play a key role to increase transparency and integrity. Edward Snowden being the epitome. We have never shy away from defending whistleblowers. In that case, there is a clear need to adapt the rules applying to the EP staff, and especially assistants, to provide a similar level of protection as provided in the whistle-blower directive.
1 Currently MEPs shall declare if they get between 500€ or 1 000€, 1 001€ to 5 000€, 5 001€ to 10 000€ or more than 10 000€.
Hi all, I’m Cindy, policy assistant of Mikulas in the Parliament. I think that the chapter on civil society should also include the respect of EU fundamental values (article 2 TEU) such as the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the the rights of persons belonging to minorities like LGBT for example. Especially the respect for rule of law by Members States, which includes the integrity of the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism, and institutional checks and balances, is crucial to maintain a free and equal society. We have been quite vocal about providing public funds only to countries that respect these basic principles. Lately Hungary and Poland had quite poor track records in this regard. Let me know if you need more info on that.
I remind you that our timeslot for online discussion will be on sunday the 9th at 19:00CEST on jitsi at https://jitsi.pirati.cz/ceep
For the moment :
Civil society is a crucial component of any democratic society, as it plays a vital role in ensuring that the voices of individuals and communities are heard and represented in the political process. As the European Pirate Party, we recognize the importance of civil society in the European Union and its member states, and we are committed to strengthening the values that underpin it.
At the heart of our mission is a commitment to the fundamental values of the European Union, as outlined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. We believe that the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities like LGBT, are non-negotiable principles that must be upheld and defended at all times.
To achieve this goal, we call on the EU to work closely with civil society organizations across Europe and beyond, to ensure that these fundamental values are respected and promoted in all aspects of EU policymaking and decision-making. We believe that civil society should have a meaningful say in shaping EU policies, and that the EU should actively seek out and listen to the voices of individuals and communities that are traditionally underrepresented in the political process.
Furthermore, we believe that the EU has a responsibility to promote these values not only within its own institutions and member states, but also in its interactions with other countries and international organizations. We believe that the EU should lead by example, demonstrating its commitment to these values in its external policies and working to promote them in countries and regions where they are under threat.
Pirates advocate a directly elected citizens’ convention tasked with drafting a new EU treaty to clarify and replace current treaties and address the need for democratic reform within the Union, provided it is accepted by the citizens of the Union through a referendum.
The present EU legislative process is dominated by the executive branch (the European Commission) at the expense of the legislative branch (the European Parliament). Pirates seek an adjustment to the balance of power in European Institutions to favour the legislative branch.
Direct democracy at EU level, i.e. pan-EU referendums on constitutional revisions and citizen-initiated legislative referendums, should be part of the new constitution. Citizens shall have the right both to repeal existing legislation and to initiate new legislation.
We, european Pirates, consider ourselves as european citizens. But, at this point the european citizenship is only an idea. Pirates want to promote this idea to reality. With this European Citizenship, we will be able to be more than French, German, Swedish but citizens with a bundle of common rights on every country of the union. We will be able to emit european passports, permetting to any european citizen to be recognize as a part of a bigger thing than their own countries, in the ideal of a without border world.
Pirates want that discussions and workshop might be open to fullfill these goals.
Alternative
The European Pirate Party believes that all people living in the European Union should have the right to a real EU citizenship. This citizenship should come with an EU passport, as well as physical and digital documents that are recognized all over the EU as European citizenship.
We believe that a real EU citizenship is essential for ensuring that all people in the EU have equal rights and opportunities, regardless of their country of origin. It is also a vital step towards creating a more united and cohesive Europe, where everyone feels like they belong and are valued members of the community.
Pirates want citizens to be able to have a more direct and larger impact in the policy debate and decision making process, both individually and collectively.
The European Parliament should set up an e-participation tool. Citizens should be able to publicly discuss legislative proposals, to propose amendments and to support (or vote against) proposed amendments online.
We wish to reform the EU citizens’ initiative. Data requirements shall be reduced. The European Commission should deal even with unsuccessful but interesting initiatives.
Petitioners with a significant number of supporters shall have the right to be heard in person. The European Parliament should open its doors to citizens on a regular basis in order to provide them with the opportunity to directly submit their proposals and concerns to a joint plenary session with Members of the European Parliament and Members of the European Commission. These sessions should also be open to citizens participating remotely via the internet or through social media.
The european citizens need to able to search, use and exchange the available information given by the different processes in the Europe governance. They, by this way, be able to understand and participate to the life of our european democracy. The social cost to participate need to be minimized.
The European Union shall join the Open Government Partnership, a multilateral initiative that aims to promote open government, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.
We believe that civil society participation is crucial for a healthy and vibrant democracy. Therefore, we are committed to promoting and supporting the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the EU. To achieve this, we propose increasing public awareness of the importance of civil society participation and encouraging greater participation through education and outreach programs.
We propose advocating for clear and fair regulations for NGOs operating in the EU, focusing on transparency and accountability. We also suggest making it easier for NGOs to establish and finance themselves within the EU.
To encourage more organizations to engage in social and environmental causes, we believe that donations towards NGOs working for the common good should receive a special tax status throughout all EU member states.
NGOs need access to information about upcoming legislation to effectively interact with European institutions. We propose that NGOs registered in the EU get access to the actual text and prepared information to put the legislation into context. This will ensure that all stakeholders have a place at the table and access to the latest developments.
We will work to promote and showcase the important work that NGOs are already doing across the EU. By highlighting their successes, we aim to encourage more people to get involved and support their efforts. We recognize the critical role that NGOs play in areas such as environmental protection, social justice, and human rights. Therefore, we are committed to supporting their efforts and working together to build a more just and sustainable society.
The influence of money on politics is one of the key corruption risks in the EU and a threat to its democratic foundation. Political decisions will not be made in the best interests of all citizens when corporate interests are allowed to dominate.
To protect the democratic process and to make the basis of decisions transparent, Pirates call for the disclosure of the influence of interest groups and lobbyists on political decisions. Lobbying activities shall be as transparent as possible. That can be helped by making the existing lobby register mandatory, linked to a transparent calendar on the Internet. Every EU citizen should have a chance to look up with whom the elected representative met, what was the purpose of the meeting and what happened there. The whole process brings demanded multi-level controlling system needed for a reliable democracy. In addition, a legislative footprint shall be published: everyone involved in policy making shall publish their meetings with lobbyists and written input they receive. All draft bills and amendments shall be traceable to their original author.
Enforceable ethics rules and an oversight mechanism for lobbyists shall be introduced. They should prevent lobbyists from exercising undue influence.
Public officials (including Commission Special Advisers) and elected representatives (including Rapporteurs) shall not be unduly influenced by private interests in the performance of their public duties. Conflicts of interest can occur with outside activities and previous jobs, but also through revolving door cases of members of parliament, Commissioners or civil servants taking up new jobs in the private sector.
Proper rules must be put in place to ensure that relevant office holders do not have any conflicts of interest, that interests are being declared and that misbehavior is sanctioned. The European Parliament as well as the European Commission Codes of Conduct need to be reformed. Effective transparency and ethics rules are needed for Intergroups and other cross-party groups involving MEPs and lobbyists. An independent body should oversee compliance and impose sanctions where necessary. Comprehensive rules limiting the revolving-doors phenomenon shall be adopted.
Business interests shall no longer dominate policy expertise. The Commission shall introduce effective safeguards against corporate capture of expert and advisory groups, technology platforms and EU agencies. Because a vastly disproportionate number of meetings with EU officials is dedicated to big business, these meetings should be reduced and more time should be devoted to actively seeking input from citizens, SMEs and other currently under-represented interest groups.
All European political parties shall provide public insight into their bank accounts for campaign funds. The Authority overseeing European political parties shall be given effective auditing and sanctioning tools.
Transparency gives the powerless the power to monitor the powerful. Pirates believe that transparency is needed to allow the public to make democratic decisions.
Pirates advocate for general and comprehensive whistleblower legislation to protect any person who exposes issues that are in the public interest, including abuse of law, unlawful activities as well as wrongdoings. We strongly believe whistleblowers must be able to equally report internally, to a competent authority or to the media in order to guarantee the freedom of expression as well as the citizens’ right to information.
The public sector, including private entities carrying out work on behalf of a public body, must be transparent and publish information as open data by default, without applying restrictions on their re-use. Better legislative transparency is needed, particularly in the Council and in trilogues. Public authorities should have a duty to document information concerning decision-making processes. Public authorities and representatives should be obliged to keep records and proactively publish information such as their agendas, minutes of meetings, third-party documents such as lobbyist input and information justifying decisions taken.
The principle of transparency should apply to all public bodies, including the Court of Justice, the permanent representations of member states and the rotating national presidencies of the Council.
Pirates believe that it is a fundamental right of citizens to inspect, without the need for any specific justification, all contracts or financial benefits related to the delivery of public sector or government projects and services.
Remarks on a new part
It seems that we need to speak about “world” citizenship and how we want to include other parteners in the democratic and economic growth, to share the benefits of our society to anyone who embrace our point of view on equality, justice and so on … again according the preamble principles.
Remarks on the next part
Sunday 9th April : thank you for this big part, but we need to have an abstract or a (very) shorter version because we right now the chapter us unbalanced and may provoke some fear of the present European Parliament. One of the suggestion made tonight is that we, as Pirate candidates, wants to comply to this kind of working processes, and if people want to fight on this point they “have to” vote for us.
The EP is undergoing one of the most prominent and shocking corruption scandals in Europe. Former and current Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) allegedly engaged in corruption, money laundering and organised crime, grouped together under the name “Qatargate”. Qatar and other countries have allegedly provided cash to MEPs in exchange of their vote and for milder statements from the EP on the scandals related to the Qatar World Cup notably.
This scandal has spotlighted issues we, the Pirates, have been pointing out since our arrival in the European Parliament (EP) in 2013. We have been committed to enhance transparency and accountability of elected members and institutions from day one of our mandate. But our demands have been unsuccessful in reaching the consideration of the decision making bodies.
Reactions to the scandal have been quick. In mid-December the EP adopted a resolution calling for reforms following the revelations. Some key aspects such as introducing an EU ethics body, a cooling off period or an assets declaration made us support the proposals. Subsequently, the President of the EP presented a concrete 14 points plan to strengthen the anti-corruption efforts. Even if they prove to be good first steps in the battle against corruption, it is already foreseeable that they will prove to be insufficient with regards to the needed levels of transparency and accountability. These steps will be outlined in a special report expected to be published on 30th March 2023. We will provide as much state-of-the-art transparency and accountability elements as possible in line with our commitments.
We believe that we need to be bolder than the small steps approach and envisage a greater overhaul of the rules to reach the high and legitimate expectations.
MEPs, Commissioners and high-ranking officials (head of cabinets, president of EU institutions and agencies, secretary-generals) should submit an asset declaration at the beginning and at the end of their mandate. This useful transparency provision is only applying in certain Member States and should be mainstreamed.
It should contain information on their properties, amount of money detained (savings, bank account), debts, life insurance and other relevant elements. It would help in identifying suspicious increase in wealth.
These declarations should be made public in the case of Commissioners and MEPs, with some redacted parts in order to protect basic privacy. In the case of officials, these declarations should only be transmitted to the ethics body (next sections) for a veracity check.
Qatargate has shed the light on potentially unethical practices as some MEPs were under the spotlight for declaring paid activities for foreign countries companies or conferences. MEPs already have to hand in declarations of interest laying out these side activities.
They nonetheless shall be more precise, especially in the case of side jobs. MEPs are only declaring wide range of revenues1, with highly imprecise information on their position. MEPs should disclose more precise revenue, their employer, a short job description and the amount of time spent working in this position. This should apply to all remunerated activities.
In parallel, stricter control on potential conflict of interest should be established by the ethics body. We are also demanding to prevent MEPs from being employed in any organisation registered in the Transparency Register.
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) provides coordination and support for investigations, especially when it comes to internal investigations on the EU financial interest. It is in charge of administrative offences. In the Qatargate, it is the Belgian authorities dealing with the case as it happened in Belgium. Nonetheless, OLAF could prove to be useful.
The OLAF struggles in accessing MEPs offices and related investigation material during their investigation. They even sometimes are denied access to assistants’ computers, belongings or offices as MEPs have worked with them. OLAF’s president and the Pirates have asked for easier access to MEPs offices when facing serious allegations.
The EPPO is a reinforced cooperation created in order to prosecute crimes related to the EU financial interest. Being a reinforced cooperation hinders its work in every Member States. The EPPO becoming a binding body to the whole EU could facilitate its cooperation with other institutions and ensure better prosecution of cases in currently non-member countries. We are also requesting the broadening of the EPPO mandate to different areas, for instance large-scale environmental damage and enforcement of sanctions.
As the EU has little competence in national criminal law, MEPs could not be prosecuted if they furnish false assets declaration or declaration of interest as it is the case in France. Currently, the directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF directive) relies on a legal basis which allows to establish minimum rules on criminal offences. Including accountability elements such as declaration of interest and declaration of assets in this directive would allow MEPs to be prosecuted at national level. Prosecution could be conducted by the EPPO. It would be based on the French model where French justice is able to prosecute false assets declaration with a sentence up to 3 years of prison and a 45 000€ fine.
Currently, MEPs “should publish online all scheduled meetings with interest representatives falling under the scope of the Transparency register”. Therefore, no obligation applies apart for rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and committee chairs for reports they are working on.
Pirates think that MEPs shall disclose all their meeting publicly with the possibility to make it available on their personal EP webpage with basic information regarding: the person or the organisation it represents, the date and the topic. Assistants shall declare meetings in relation to the work of the MEP as a shadow or a rapporteur. MEPs should also publish their agenda. Commissioners shall also follow the same recommendation, including with country representatives.
Exception must remain however for individuals where MEPs should not be forced to release the identity or elements that could allow re-identification of the person met where it could jeopardize the person’s security. The EP declaration system must be revamped in order to allow staff to draft these declarations on behalf of the MEPs.
Legislative footprint is a list that can demonstrate the range of outside expertise and opinions a rapporteur has received. It is then published with the report after its adoption in committee and enables people to see whom the rapporteur has heard from ahead of the final vote by the whole Parliament.
It is only a voluntary mechanism under the current framework. It shall be made mandatory for shadow rapporteurs and rapporteurs to foster transparency and make it interoperable with the declaration of meetings.
There should be a publicly and easily accessible webpage on all transparency and integrity aspects for MEPs (budget, meetings, votes, declarations of assets, interest, gifts, etc). On the other side, the EP should set up an easier process for MEPs and assistants regarding these declarations, notably by enabling assistants to draft these declarations.
All data and information should be electronically readable, so that the data can be analyzed by citizens, journalists and watchdog organizations.
MEPs are granted a budget for their mandate. On one side, Members of the European Parliament are free to choose their own assistants within a roughly 25 000 € monthly budget set by Parliament. On the other side, MEPs benefit from a General expenditure allowance (GEA) of 4 778 € per month. This allowance is intended to cover expenditure in the Member State of election, such as Members’ office management costs, telephone and postal charges, and the purchase, operation and maintenance of computer and telematics equipment.
MEPs are responsible in front of the Bureau and then the President when not abiding by rules laid down in Bureau decisions regarding the use of their budget. Nevertheless, none of the individual expenditure is public. MEPs can still make their expenditures audited with the possibility to publish the outcome of the audit.
However, voluntary auditing is insufficient and we, as Pirates, are having fully transparent account on the use of our allowance. We therefore want to mainstream this practice and make full transparency mandatory for all MEPs. In parallel, the allowance shall be stopped as soon as the MEP is leaving his office.
The Treaties, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and internal institutions practices guarantee that public has access to documents related to the legislative procedure. Nonetheless, exceptions remain when security, international relations, military matters, privacy, commercial interest, copyright, etc. could be undermined. In addition, the regulation is outdated and flawed on several grounds.
Pirates are asking for an overhaul of this regulation and internal practices in order to take into account new technologies such as text messages, promote proactive publication of documents and better frame exceptions. For instance, preparatory documents of trialogues are still not published despite repeated calls from the Ombudsman and our delegation to do so. In any case, exceptions shall not hamper legitimate right for the public to access the information and proactive publication of decision-making documents is the cornerstone of enhanced transparency in order to restore trust in our institutions.
In the plenary, not all votes’ outcomes are publicly disclosed as they are done by show of hand. It undermines accountability of MEPs, sometimes on sensitive topics. It is the case for the controversial resolution on the world cup in Qatar where the final vote was not a roll-call-vote and therefore detailed results on MEPs voting behaviour is not available.
As Pirates, we want to make all votes roll-call-votes in order to foster accountability and transparency in both committees and the plenary.
While the transparency register is a useful tool to provide transparency on lobbying, it is not fully functional. In accordance with our call to enhance transparency of the meetings, these should be published on the webpage of the organisation on the transparency register.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the transparency register is under-staffed to verify information declared by organisations as more than 12 000 organisations are providing their financial information on a regular basis. In this regard, information to be provided by the organisations – regardless of their statute – should be harmonized in order to ensure greater transparency over their finances and the interest they advocate for.
The transparency register limits access to badges for interest representatives and this should be stepped up by making sure that every organisation co-hosting an event in the Parliament is on the transparency register.
Changing these rules will be made only through several different procedures. Some of them are relying on the Bureau of the EP, others on the AFCO (Constitutional Affairs) committee and the plenary, while new norms would have to be proposed by the Commission. In the case of the Bureau, enhanced transparency is required to ensure accountability. On a similar basis, Roberta Metsola has tried to make her case via the conference of president, which is a complete black box and thus circumventing any scrutiny. We must ensure that measures do not die in one of these bodies.
As the rules stand, each institution has its internal functioning to deal with ethics. We have a code of conduct for the MEPs, a different one for the Commissioners, while the EP President is responsible for sanctioning any infringement in the Parliament and the President of the college of Commissioners has similar powers in the Commission. Each institution is also relying on a different definition of a conflict of interest in their code of conduct, apart from criminal matters related to corruption. The European Parliament code of conduct provides that MEPs shall not enter into any agreement restricting their freedom of vote or accept financial benefit in that regards. In addition, the conflict of interest is defined as followed: “where a MEP has a personal interest that could improperly influence the performance of his or her duties as a Member”. MEPs shall disclose to the EP any potential conflict of interest before taking legislative action (being a rapporteur for instance), report to the President and seek advice from the advisory committee. Nevertheless, low enforcement renders the mechanism not very effective.
Thus, a greater harmonisation and independence is required to enhance scrutiny, transparency and accountability of elected members, Commissioners and their staff. The EU shall establish an ethics body based on an inter-institutional agreement applicable to all EU institutions. The agreement should clearly establish basic principles, such as a common definition of conflict of interest to all EU institutions. The regulation must also lay out ethics elements applicable to staff, Commissioners and MEPs on corruption, cooling off periods, gifts and remunerated interventions (see next sections).
This authority should be responsible for checking: conflict of interest, assets declarations, cooling off period, declaration of interest, gifts, MEPs budget, corruption and the transparency register. Nonetheless, in order to avoid any overlap on certain matters, in case the EU financial interest is at stake, the authority shall rely on OLAF and EPPO investigative powers, depending on the nature of the offence. The implication of both sides is crucial as EPPO and OLAF to some extent will allow criminal prosecution, while the ethics body will enable disciplinary sanctions at the EU level. The ethics body shall be appropriately staffed in that regard together with a sincere cooperation from national and European authorities to provide necessary documents, especially on tax declarations.
The ethics body should be composed of nine members ensuring full independence: three selected by the Commission, three elected by Parliament, and three assigned de jure from among the former judges of the CJEU, the Court of Auditors and former EU Ombudsman.
Its work must be as transparent as possible, with transparency of decisions and supportive documents by default. It should also be open to anonymized inputs from internal and external sources, including civil society organisations. Based on its observations and inputs it can start its own investigations, together with other institutions when relevant. If the ethics body must be as transparent as possible, it should still be subject to the Ombudsman oversight as any other institution.
The ethics body shall replace all internal bodies also when it comes to sanctions. It should be able to produce recommendations, warnings but also sanctions to MEPs, Commissioners and the staff. These sanctions shall be challengeable in front of the Court.
Friendship groups are informal groups formed by MEPs in order to put forward certain issues and topics. They are ruled by EP rules of procedures which clearly state: they shall not create confusion with official EP voices. Currently, these friendship groups shall declare any support, whether in cash or in kind, which they do to the Bureau of the EP.
Friendship groups with third countries are blurring the lines as official delegations already exist for that purpose. They should therefore be forbidden in that context. Nevertheless, these informal groups should remain legal for communities, regions or specific topics.
Declarations on financial and other support are not publicly available contrary to the intergroups. Regarding these declarations they should also be more precise on who is providing the secretariat assistance, exact amounts and assistance provided by third parties and include MEPs individual related to these friendship groups.
As the Qatargate has revealed, several MEPs have been attending fully paid first class events in gulf countries and have then worked on files related to these countries. In that case, MEPs have to publicly disclose whenever they attend a meeting on the invitation of a third party. In the declaration, they have to state: the inviter, whether the inviter has covered expenses (travel, accommodation, and subsistence expenses), the reasons and the agenda of the event. However, they do not have to disclose the amounts and compliance has been low as the number of (late) declaration peaked following the Qatargate.
MEPs should be free to participate in events organised by third parties but they must cover all costs (or the EP in certain cases). Accepting paid trips jeopardize the full independence of the participants.
MEPs, Commissioners and high-ranking officials (head of cabinets, president of EU institutions and agencies, secretary-generals) should not be able to take up a job in the private sector which could lead to a conflict of interest right after they leave their office. Commissioners already undergo a 24 months cooling-off period. MEPs don’t, even though they get a transitional allowance of 1 month per year in office (6 months for one term), together with a continuation of the GEA for transitional purposes.
As we have repeatedly asked, we think that the cooling-off period should match the transitional allowance duration (one month per year in office and 6 months for a full term). MEPs should notify the ethics body when taking up their new duties. The body should be responsible for greenlighting the new activity.
Members receive gifts on a regular basis. Most of them are postal cards or goodies. Nevertheless, some countries and lobbies give greater gifts of sometimes high value. Members only have to fulfil the obligation of handing in the gifts to the President when they are representing the EP on an official trip (representing a committee or a delegation, on behalf of the President, or as a VP or a Quaestor). Other than that, they should refrain from accepting more than 150€ gifts without any obligations.
We believe that MEPs - regardless of their statute - shall surrender all gifts above 150€ to the Parliament, or refuse them whenever they obviously exceed the threshold. Additionally, MEPs shall declare gifts of more than 50€.
Whistleblowers play a key role to increase transparency and integrity. Edward Snowden being the epitome. We have never shy away from defending whistleblowers. In that case, there is a clear need to adapt the rules applying to the EP staff, and especially assistants, to provide a similar level of protection as provided in the whistle-blower directive.
1 Currently MEPs shall declare if they get between 500€ or 1 000€, 1 001€ to 5 000€, 5 001€ to 10 000€ or more than 10 000€.
Hi Cédrik,
just to clarify: The text I posted was meant as input/inspiration on anti-corruption, not as draft text for the CEEP. The CEEP should definitely be more concise.
Best regards
Patrick