EU Transparency: Lobbyists Aren't The Problem

The AP reports that the European Parliament Thursday will debate a new code of conduct for lobbyists, designed to increase the transparency of Brussels' decision-making (view live debate).

The parliament means well, but it seems to be wasting its time. The real power in the EU rests with the European Commission, the EU's executive and regulatory branch. Until that shadowy body's decisions are opened up to public scrutiny, any other reforms are worthless.

Even if the parliament does manage to push its code onto Berlaymont lobbyists, the commission's main obstacle to transparency is the opacity not of its external influences, but of its internal ones. How the commission makes its decisions is an utter mystery.

I once asked a commission spokesman exactly how the 27-member college makes its "unanimous" decisions. The answer was a smile, a laugh, and the affirmation that this is "Confidential, of course - at the commissioners' discretion."

The commission itself admits that it "has a long tradition of consulting interested parties from outside when formulating its policies," and it's no secret that these "interested parties," "expert groups" or "stakeholders" play a key role. EU Parliamentarian Alexander Stubb, who drafted the call for the code of conduct, affirms the commission has done "nothing so far" to regulate or expose lobbyists' involvement in its affairs. He might succeed in changing that.

But lobbyists are pretty transparent by nature - they may not readily disclose how much they spend on dinners, gifts, or vacations to ply policymakers, but for the most part their agendas are clear.

Not always so for the European Commission. Ironically, lobbyists in Brussels are often the only source of public information from the hub of EU power - they're the ones who leak documents revealing the details of months-long private wrangling that effects the lives of nearly 500 million Europeans. As far as the commission's official line goes, there is no debate.

If the EU were serious about transparency, it would rewrite its governing treaties so they can at least be understood by the average PhD, if not the average European. It would require that national governments grant their citizens a vote on the Treaty of Lisbon. It would seek democratic legitimacy through the election of its executive branch, or at least grant a little more power to the elected parliament.

A new code of conduct for lobbyists, however far it goes, will do little to counter criticisms that Europe is governed by an ever-more-inscrutable, and increasingly powerful, ruling elite.