5 ms·

Interesting - will the EU apply this to themselves? 'Mr Watt claimed that corruption was "permitted to flourish to the benefit of all the institutions' elites"

Interesting - will the EU apply this to themselves? 'Mr Watt claimed that corruption was "permitted to flourish to the benefit of all the institutions' elites" and said that despite his action and that of other "whistle-blowers", the EU accountancy system was now "so degraded it cannot police itself".' 'According to Quatremer, severe pressure and even harassment is an ongoing problem in the European Commission, and several officials in the Commission’s legal service are reported to have committed suicide in the last years.' http://www.againstcorruption.org/BriefingsItem.asp/?id=12647 http://www.againstcorruption.org/BriefingsItem.asp/?id=12647 http://www.brusselstimes.com/eu-affairs/14535/senior-official-at-the-european-commission-commits-suicide-following-hiring-scandal http://www.brusselstimes.com/eu-affairs/14535/senior-officia...

ben_w 8y ago
If I were a head of state, I would want all the organisations which constitute a non-trivial part of my budget [1] to have good accounting practices and, by extension, whistle-blowing protections. Is there any reason why someone who is more interested than me in becoming a head of state may think otherwise? [1] which I define politically as “could I get a headline out of lowering income tax, national insurance, or non-UK equivalent term, by cancelling this line item?”, and I think the EU counts as such for the UK. 1% GDP, IIRC.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  To play devil's advocate: heads of state are usually ultimately in charge of these departments, and if some corruption were to be exposed by a whistleblower it might be bad for their re-election bid. They may see it as a potential way to self-incriminate, even if they personally had no involvement. To claim they had no idea is just as bad, it shows voters they are a weak leader who has no accountability in the departments they are ultimately responsible for.
  - mcv 8y ago
    Heads of state are rarely in charge of anything. Heads of government are. Heads of state are quite often figureheads with mostly ceremonial functions. Particularly among western democracies, France and the US are the exception rather than the rule.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - nocturnial 8y ago
    What voting system are you using? If it's winner takes all then you're right. The head of state is indeed in charge of all departments. If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. When it's not winner takes all, it doesn't matter if a percentage of the population thinks someone is a weak leader. The other percentage will still have a say in the executive branch of the government. It becomes trickier as a leader because you not only have to have support of your own party but also from your coalition partners. (EU multi-party politics in a nut shell) Before anyone responds, I'm not claiming this is better or worse than other systems!
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      > What voting system are you using? Good point. I'm in the US, so it's overwhelmingly 'winner takes all.'
    - ajdlinux 8y ago
      > If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. I think you're confusing "parliamentary system" with something else.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  > Is there any reason why someone who is more interested than me in becoming a head of state may think otherwise? Corruption is the obvious one. Keep in mind that running for elections has a cost, people that pay for it are more likely to expect to gain something in return. There is also the non-obvious but still existent problem of the Law simply getting in the way, so decision makers try to act outside of it.
  - PaulHoule 8y ago
    If you defeat corruption you have more legitimacy, which helps you ask people to make sacrifices. More legitimacy also means you don't have to "spend" as much to be elected, particularly in the sense of patronage.
    - frenchy 8y ago
      Perhaps, but the pessimist in me suspects that this natural legitimacy, which we all wish our politicians would have, is not near as effective as advertisements. Somehow, we have to come to terms with just how good advertisements are at affecting our decisions.
      - PaulHoule 8y ago
        China's concept of legitimacy is "output legitimacy", which actually works pretty well. (Look at the old Shakespeare plays where disaster follows after the king is usurped) "Advertising" can get you to the place where the U.S. is well where you can get 49% of the population who have 51% of the influence to think one party is legitimate (e.g. they take money from the koch brothers, kiss the ring of every republican donor, promise not to raise taxes; the left wing version is "green new deal", "tear up men accused of sexual harassment", ...) and not care what the other people think.
    - marcosdumay 8y ago
      As far as I know the entire establishment turns against anyone that tries to defeat corruption (with different strength depending on what place we are talking about). That usually leads to lower legitimacy, not higher.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Because 'good accounting' means transparency, which means the truth sets the agenda, not you. In political reality, you want to own the truth, and establish the narrative, and you never want facts to get in the way. Would be the cynical take.
- thanksDr 8y ago
  Yes. An aspiring head of state that desires personal access to the state's funds will prefer accounting practices that are irregular, and will outlaw whistleblowing on these practices. You may wish to be a noble ruler, setting just institutions and regulations for the smooth operation of society. A petty ruler would wish to enrich themselves and their friends and not worry about the consequences.
toyg 8y ago
The first piece is from 2002. A lot of things have changed since, including MEP salaries and the expense system (which has become more transparent). Laura Pignataro's story is a sad one indeed, and the Selmayr affair as a whole was probably instrumental in getting impetus behind this directive. Selmayr himself will probably be removed once Juncker goes at the end of this year.
- krona 8y ago
  Most MEPs claim the maximum office allowance, with only a handful reimbursing the parliament for unspent funds. There is no requirement to provide invoices, receipts or any details on how the funds are spent. The ECJ has even ruled that forcing MEPs to divulge how their allowance is spent would undermine their privacy.
  - toyg 8y ago
    Actually some receipts do require invoices, even if they are not divulged later on. See for example https://jeanlambertmep.org.uk/about-the-european-parliament/mep-pay-and-expenses/ https://jeanlambertmep.org.uk/about-the-european-parliament/... > Travel Allowance - This allowance is for travel to the Parliament [...] on presentation of receipts MEPs are refunded the actual cost of any travel tickets purchased by them plus time and distance allowances for attending official Parliamentary meetings
  - jorvi 8y ago
    It gets much funkier. A lot of the representatives from East European nations fly but have someone drive there and back again with the representatives' car because that way they can claim reimbursement for both travel expenses, and car travel isn't reimbursed based on cost-of-living but a flat (West Europe based) tariff.
narrator 8y ago
Normally the "who watches the watchers problem" is handled via a separation of powers. I don't know much about the EU government. Does anyone know if they do this?
- toyg 8y ago
  Yes. The European Court of Justice is independent from the political and executive structures (and gives them a fair number of bloody noses, too). But the ECJ cannot prosecute anyone if the rules are nebulous and still somewhat in flux - as they often are, because a lot of EU institutions are extremely new in historical terms. What is required, at the moment, is strong political oversight, particularly from the media. Light is the best disinfectant.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    There's next to no media oversight in the EU though. I probably see more news about the EU reading US news websites than I do reading European ones.
digitalengineer 8y ago
Nothing has changed, just ask Roelie Post, a Dutch whistleblower: “ne of the first to uncover corruption scandals was Roelie Post, an official at the European Commission in Brussels. In the late nineties she worked for the EC on the issue of children’s rights in Romania. They had to be resolved before Romania’s accession to the EU was possible. Post was faced with opposition and threats that are so serious that she is now living in hiding in a village in the north of the Netherlands and that she has a long-standing conflict with her employer, the EC. It does not recognize her as a whistleblower and threatens with punitive measures.“
- ovi256 8y ago
  Unfortunately, as she highlights in a recent tweet, the new EU law specifically excludes EU staff from whistleblower protection. https://twitter.com/roelie_post/status/1118129218087469058 https://twitter.com/roelie_post/status/1118129218087469058 I still like the EU, but this type of "one rule of me, one rule for thee" is awful and will destroy confidence in the institutions. Also, check out the government activity exclusion in the GDPR.
  - mcv 8y ago
    That is a very serious shortcoming. Government whistleblowers need protection too. Governments have shown time and time again that they are very capable of breaking the law too. They should not be above accountability.
  - growlist 8y ago
    I was actually kind of joking in my earlier post but never suspected the EU would specifically exempt themselves from it. Words fail me.

ben_w 8y ago

If I were a head of state, I would want all the organisations which constitute a non-trivial part of my budget [1] to have good accounting practices and, by extension, whistle-blowing protections. Is there any reason why someone who is more interested than me in becoming a head of state may think otherwise? [1] which I define politically as “could I get a headline out of lowering income tax, national insurance, or non-UK equivalent term, by cancelling this line item?”, and I think the EU counts as such for the UK. 1% GDP, IIRC.

craftyguy 8y ago
To play devil's advocate: heads of state are usually ultimately in charge of these departments, and if some corruption were to be exposed by a whistleblower it might be bad for their re-election bid. They may see it as a potential way to self-incriminate, even if they personally had no involvement. To claim they had no idea is just as bad, it shows voters they are a weak leader who has no accountability in the departments they are ultimately responsible for.
- mcv 8y ago
  Heads of state are rarely in charge of anything. Heads of government are. Heads of state are quite often figureheads with mostly ceremonial functions. Particularly among western democracies, France and the US are the exception rather than the rule.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nocturnial 8y ago
  What voting system are you using? If it's winner takes all then you're right. The head of state is indeed in charge of all departments. If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. When it's not winner takes all, it doesn't matter if a percentage of the population thinks someone is a weak leader. The other percentage will still have a say in the executive branch of the government. It becomes trickier as a leader because you not only have to have support of your own party but also from your coalition partners. (EU multi-party politics in a nut shell) Before anyone responds, I'm not claiming this is better or worse than other systems!
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > What voting system are you using? Good point. I'm in the US, so it's overwhelmingly 'winner takes all.'
  - ajdlinux 8y ago
    > If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. I think you're confusing "parliamentary system" with something else.
marcosdumay 8y ago
> Is there any reason why someone who is more interested than me in becoming a head of state may think otherwise? Corruption is the obvious one. Keep in mind that running for elections has a cost, people that pay for it are more likely to expect to gain something in return. There is also the non-obvious but still existent problem of the Law simply getting in the way, so decision makers try to act outside of it.
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  If you defeat corruption you have more legitimacy, which helps you ask people to make sacrifices. More legitimacy also means you don't have to "spend" as much to be elected, particularly in the sense of patronage.
  - frenchy 8y ago
    Perhaps, but the pessimist in me suspects that this natural legitimacy, which we all wish our politicians would have, is not near as effective as advertisements. Somehow, we have to come to terms with just how good advertisements are at affecting our decisions.
    - PaulHoule 8y ago
      China's concept of legitimacy is "output legitimacy", which actually works pretty well. (Look at the old Shakespeare plays where disaster follows after the king is usurped) "Advertising" can get you to the place where the U.S. is well where you can get 49% of the population who have 51% of the influence to think one party is legitimate (e.g. they take money from the koch brothers, kiss the ring of every republican donor, promise not to raise taxes; the left wing version is "green new deal", "tear up men accused of sexual harassment", ...) and not care what the other people think.
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    As far as I know the entire establishment turns against anyone that tries to defeat corruption (with different strength depending on what place we are talking about). That usually leads to lower legitimacy, not higher.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Because 'good accounting' means transparency, which means the truth sets the agenda, not you. In political reality, you want to own the truth, and establish the narrative, and you never want facts to get in the way. Would be the cynical take.
thanksDr 8y ago
Yes. An aspiring head of state that desires personal access to the state's funds will prefer accounting practices that are irregular, and will outlaw whistleblowing on these practices. You may wish to be a noble ruler, setting just institutions and regulations for the smooth operation of society. A petty ruler would wish to enrich themselves and their friends and not worry about the consequences.

toyg 8y ago

The first piece is from 2002. A lot of things have changed since, including MEP salaries and the expense system (which has become more transparent). Laura Pignataro's story is a sad one indeed, and the Selmayr affair as a whole was probably instrumental in getting impetus behind this directive. Selmayr himself will probably be removed once Juncker goes at the end of this year.

krona 8y ago
Most MEPs claim the maximum office allowance, with only a handful reimbursing the parliament for unspent funds. There is no requirement to provide invoices, receipts or any details on how the funds are spent. The ECJ has even ruled that forcing MEPs to divulge how their allowance is spent would undermine their privacy.
- toyg 8y ago
  Actually some receipts do require invoices, even if they are not divulged later on. See for example https://jeanlambertmep.org.uk/about-the-european-parliament/mep-pay-and-expenses/ https://jeanlambertmep.org.uk/about-the-european-parliament/... > Travel Allowance - This allowance is for travel to the Parliament [...] on presentation of receipts MEPs are refunded the actual cost of any travel tickets purchased by them plus time and distance allowances for attending official Parliamentary meetings
- jorvi 8y ago
  It gets much funkier. A lot of the representatives from East European nations fly but have someone drive there and back again with the representatives' car because that way they can claim reimbursement for both travel expenses, and car travel isn't reimbursed based on cost-of-living but a flat (West Europe based) tariff.

narrator 8y ago

Normally the "who watches the watchers problem" is handled via a separation of powers. I don't know much about the EU government. Does anyone know if they do this?

toyg 8y ago
Yes. The European Court of Justice is independent from the political and executive structures (and gives them a fair number of bloody noses, too). But the ECJ cannot prosecute anyone if the rules are nebulous and still somewhat in flux - as they often are, because a lot of EU institutions are extremely new in historical terms. What is required, at the moment, is strong political oversight, particularly from the media. Light is the best disinfectant.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  There's next to no media oversight in the EU though. I probably see more news about the EU reading US news websites than I do reading European ones.

digitalengineer 8y ago

Nothing has changed, just ask Roelie Post, a Dutch whistleblower: “ne of the first to uncover corruption scandals was Roelie Post, an official at the European Commission in Brussels. In the late nineties she worked for the EC on the issue of children’s rights in Romania. They had to be resolved before Romania’s accession to the EU was possible. Post was faced with opposition and threats that are so serious that she is now living in hiding in a village in the north of the Netherlands and that she has a long-standing conflict with her employer, the EC. It does not recognize her as a whistleblower and threatens with punitive measures.“

ovi256 8y ago
Unfortunately, as she highlights in a recent tweet, the new EU law specifically excludes EU staff from whistleblower protection. https://twitter.com/roelie_post/status/1118129218087469058 https://twitter.com/roelie_post/status/1118129218087469058 I still like the EU, but this type of "one rule of me, one rule for thee" is awful and will destroy confidence in the institutions. Also, check out the government activity exclusion in the GDPR.
- mcv 8y ago
  That is a very serious shortcoming. Government whistleblowers need protection too. Governments have shown time and time again that they are very capable of breaking the law too. They should not be above accountability.
- growlist 8y ago
  I was actually kind of joking in my earlier post but never suspected the EU would specifically exempt themselves from it. Words fail me.