EU's black box
23/2/13 17:30![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics[Error: unknown template video]
Who takes the most important decisions in EU? The answer should be: the states and the government leaders. But behind the scenes in Brussels, thousands of lobbyists are trying to influence politics - and often not in the healthiest of ways.
The EU does have a shady face too, a world of politics where decisions are formed outside the official conferences and parliament discussions. It's the shady world of lobbyism - the hordes of secretive "advisors" attaching themselves to the rulers - nameless people who in most cases remain anonymous, who are never elected by anyone, and yet exert enormous influence.
The following scene is very telling of the extent where their influence can spread. Imagine a posh Brussels restaurant. A man is proudly telling the story of his lobbyist heroics to the woman sitting in front of him: how he advocated for the interests of several clients and earned 100,000 euros annually from this. But this man is actually not a lobbyist - he's the leader of the political faction of the Austrian conservatives at the EU parliament, Ernst Strasser.
The conversation was videotaped with a hidden camera. The footage was included in the documentary on the trailer video, entitled The Brussels Business. It was first shown on the German-French TV channel Arte. For four years, the Austrian film director and producer Friedrich Moser and his Belgian associate Matthieu Lietaert had worked through all the evidence about "EU's black box". They wanted to dig to the very bottom of this story and find out where the ideas for all the elaborate European legislation are being born, who actually initiates them, and ultimately who pulls the strings. And whether the democratically elected governments and people's representatives are really forging the policies that affect millions of Europeans - or it's the managers, CEOs and strategists of the big corporations. In Strasser's case, things were clarified relatively quickly, and in March 2011 he was forced to resign - after which all EMPs were explicitly prohibited from getting involved in lobbyism.
The thing is, a large part of the lobbyist system in Brussels is completely legal and has been active for quite a while. I'm sure many of our American friends would find this story very familiar, but it's a fact that the influence of various lobbyist interests in the EU is really huge, as Moser has demonstrated in his documentary. The lobbyists are the ones who usually prepare the expert details on any given subject that's being put for discussion in the European parliament. |the problem is that the EU institutions, especially the European Commission, do not have enough staff to work through such detailed research, which is why they depend on external experts.
It is believed that there are between 10 and 20 thousand active lobbyists in Brussels. Their proximity to the politicians is remarkable. The HQs of the lobbyist organizations working for companies like British Petroleum, Philip Morris and the rest are located next to the buildings of the EC, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. According to data from the Corporate Europe Observatory, an expert monitoring group, over a billion euro is being spent annually for lobbyism in EU.
Many NGOs believe that the money is taking precedence in the lobbyist scramble for gaining attention and influence, and that's exactly the reason why lobbyism is turning from a necessary nuisance into a real threat to democracy. These NGOs have now prompted an investigation against the European Commission itself. The main reason for concern are the multiple cases of staff transferring between the EC and the lobbyist circles, and viceversa. In other words, quite obviously these two have become too intertwined, blurring ethical lines (wherever they existed) and raising concerns about massive conflict of interests.
Of course, the lobbyists vehemently deny all this, arguing that their tireless efforts are only meant to be bringing positive results. They argue that what's good for big business, is ultimately good for the citizens, and that "lobbyism" should not be a dirty word, because it's a system that allows for a better network of connections between entrepreneurs (job creators) and their shareholders (i.e. the people) on one side, and policy-makers (i.e. politicians, or people's represenatives) on the other.
No doubt, lobbyism does serve an important function, because it provides the legislators with condensed and expert information on particular economic and social issues. But it can become dangerous when it gets involved in corruption practices, when money starts dictating the rules of the game, and when the rules of transparency and fairness are overstepped - and that's the bottom-line of The Brussels Business.
Who takes the most important decisions in EU? The answer should be: the states and the government leaders. But behind the scenes in Brussels, thousands of lobbyists are trying to influence politics - and often not in the healthiest of ways.
The EU does have a shady face too, a world of politics where decisions are formed outside the official conferences and parliament discussions. It's the shady world of lobbyism - the hordes of secretive "advisors" attaching themselves to the rulers - nameless people who in most cases remain anonymous, who are never elected by anyone, and yet exert enormous influence.
The following scene is very telling of the extent where their influence can spread. Imagine a posh Brussels restaurant. A man is proudly telling the story of his lobbyist heroics to the woman sitting in front of him: how he advocated for the interests of several clients and earned 100,000 euros annually from this. But this man is actually not a lobbyist - he's the leader of the political faction of the Austrian conservatives at the EU parliament, Ernst Strasser.
The conversation was videotaped with a hidden camera. The footage was included in the documentary on the trailer video, entitled The Brussels Business. It was first shown on the German-French TV channel Arte. For four years, the Austrian film director and producer Friedrich Moser and his Belgian associate Matthieu Lietaert had worked through all the evidence about "EU's black box". They wanted to dig to the very bottom of this story and find out where the ideas for all the elaborate European legislation are being born, who actually initiates them, and ultimately who pulls the strings. And whether the democratically elected governments and people's representatives are really forging the policies that affect millions of Europeans - or it's the managers, CEOs and strategists of the big corporations. In Strasser's case, things were clarified relatively quickly, and in March 2011 he was forced to resign - after which all EMPs were explicitly prohibited from getting involved in lobbyism.
The thing is, a large part of the lobbyist system in Brussels is completely legal and has been active for quite a while. I'm sure many of our American friends would find this story very familiar, but it's a fact that the influence of various lobbyist interests in the EU is really huge, as Moser has demonstrated in his documentary. The lobbyists are the ones who usually prepare the expert details on any given subject that's being put for discussion in the European parliament. |the problem is that the EU institutions, especially the European Commission, do not have enough staff to work through such detailed research, which is why they depend on external experts.
It is believed that there are between 10 and 20 thousand active lobbyists in Brussels. Their proximity to the politicians is remarkable. The HQs of the lobbyist organizations working for companies like British Petroleum, Philip Morris and the rest are located next to the buildings of the EC, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. According to data from the Corporate Europe Observatory, an expert monitoring group, over a billion euro is being spent annually for lobbyism in EU.
Many NGOs believe that the money is taking precedence in the lobbyist scramble for gaining attention and influence, and that's exactly the reason why lobbyism is turning from a necessary nuisance into a real threat to democracy. These NGOs have now prompted an investigation against the European Commission itself. The main reason for concern are the multiple cases of staff transferring between the EC and the lobbyist circles, and viceversa. In other words, quite obviously these two have become too intertwined, blurring ethical lines (wherever they existed) and raising concerns about massive conflict of interests.
Of course, the lobbyists vehemently deny all this, arguing that their tireless efforts are only meant to be bringing positive results. They argue that what's good for big business, is ultimately good for the citizens, and that "lobbyism" should not be a dirty word, because it's a system that allows for a better network of connections between entrepreneurs (job creators) and their shareholders (i.e. the people) on one side, and policy-makers (i.e. politicians, or people's represenatives) on the other.
No doubt, lobbyism does serve an important function, because it provides the legislators with condensed and expert information on particular economic and social issues. But it can become dangerous when it gets involved in corruption practices, when money starts dictating the rules of the game, and when the rules of transparency and fairness are overstepped - and that's the bottom-line of The Brussels Business.
(no subject)
Date: 23/2/13 16:04 (UTC)It's kind of a nightmare. But like climate change, one cannot see a way out.
(no subject)
Date: 23/2/13 20:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/2/13 21:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/2/13 23:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 15:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 17:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:05 (UTC)East India Company, was the parralel that I was thinking of but the Germanies circa 1600 would wrk as well.
(no subject)
Date: 23/2/13 18:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 07:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 15:30 (UTC)It reminds me of a quote that i can't seem to find at the moment but the jist is...
When politicians are allowed to control what is bought or sold, politicians will be the first item bought or sold.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:03 (UTC)Once the purse strings are attached, the non-profitable lobbies cannot compete.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:45 (UTC)Wealth is power, and power is wealth.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 19:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 01:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/2/13 01:47 (UTC)I'm not questioning wealth/power concentrations of any degree; only the degree at which the concentration becomes metastatic. The current concentration should be a cause for concern; that it is increasing should be outright alarming.
(no subject)
Date: 26/2/13 18:45 (UTC)On this we agree *tips hat*
(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 17:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/2/13 03:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/2/13 16:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/2/13 18:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/2/13 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/2/13 19:12 (UTC)Zounds, but that argument pisses me off to no end. It is wrong, dead wrong, and getting wronger by the minute.
Of course, this is also the argument that says a strong stock market ticker is an indication of a healthy economy, or a high GDP means people are happy. It's like arguing that beauty mark on your cheek cannot possibly be malignant melanoma because it's pretty.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 07:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 15:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:01 (UTC)And we come full circle, from lobby to law to result that sucks for society, exactly what the OP discusses.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 19:14 (UTC)Over time, the lessons the crash taught are forgotten. Some quick brain in a bank suggests the bank takes advantage of the 1978 ('79?) Marquette Decision, which states that the interest applicable to any loan falls under the jurisdiction of the state in which the bank is incorporated. "Quick," says the quick brain, "lobby the governor to reduce the minimum interest rate to 0%!"
In North Dakota and Maryland, it is done. Credit cards, now offered at affordable rates, proliferate. The bank profits start to grow.
There are hiccups along the way, of course, like the Latin America crash in 1982, where banks lost as much money as they ever earned in the past. Commercial banks were making some money on credit cards, true; but they really wanted to reduce risk and improve profits (like those the investment banks enjoyed). So they started to lobby again, to slowly remove the separations installed with the 1934 Glass Steaggall Act. And they earned more money, which gave them even more lobby power.
They could even afford the lobby of Alan Greenspan, who was paid to lobby on behalf of Lincoln Savings to the Keating Five, John McCain among them. Alan, a devotee and personal fried of Ayn Rand, said that the market could regulate itself, and could the government get out of regulation? That brought the 1987 Lincoln Savings collapse. Still, the banks had enough money to lobby and avoid truly onerous regulation that had "held them back" from 1934 onward.
(From that we also got Joe the Plumber, son of the vice president of Lincoln Savings, who was "discovered" by the "news media" after harranging candidate Obama.)
In 1999, say, the banks get big enough to convince some neo-classical economists (the kind that don't include banking in their economic models, of course) to advise Pres. Clinton that Glass Steaggall was silly, and that he should sign the bill rescinding it. Since everyone surrounding the president came from banking or didn't believe "hurting" banks through regulation was good, he had no way to check the theory the presented.
Now that they could literally print money for speculative investment, the banks truly grew, and spread their wealth throughout the regulatory system, creating a perfect example of the prisoner dictating terms to the warden.
I could go on.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:05 (UTC)I would argue that banking was only partly to blame, being more the ultimate cause of the crash rather than the proximate. I agree, the outcome sucked, but others were more immediately involved in causing the crash.
(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 18:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 19:17 (UTC)I agree, thought, that what we've lost here is the necessary deliniation government provides to determine which practices are harmful and which are beneficial.
(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 17:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 11:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 11:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/2/13 13:41 (UTC)The full version is etwa 70-80 min. long.
(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 17:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 17:51 (UTC)* no I don't
(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 17:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 18:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 18:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 18:56 (UTC)And no, I'd just prefer you not to be one of those whose habit it is.
(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 19:34 (UTC)Whom do I report it to?
(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 20:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/2/13 20:51 (UTC)'I'll pass it over to Vladimir.'