The European Union’s watchdog, Emily O’Reilly, has asserted that the frequent practice of EU employees leaving their positions to secure lucrative lobbyist roles is a kind of ‘soft corruption’. She urged for more robust regulations to prevent some officials from pursuing certain roles post-departure. In her view, the recruitment of ex-officials for ‘intelligence’ by consultancy companies post-departure bears similarities to explicit corruption incidents that involved attempts by foreign entities to purchase influence in the European Parliament.
Several scandals have hit the European Parliament in recent years, with ‘Qatargate’ – which involved accusations that Qatar and Morocco paid for influence in the parliament – being a significant controversy. The scandal broke following a sequence of raids in late 2022 by Belgian authorities, during which they confiscated €1.5 million in cash, including hundreds of thousands of euros concealed in a suitcase.
Ms O’Reilly commented on ‘Qatargate’, stating that the blatant spectacle of actual money bags made people see it as corruption. An equivalent scenario, she contended, is when lobby and consultancy firms pay insiders to supply them with information.
She further explained that high-profile scenarios where former EU commissioners are recruited for advisory positions in large companies are often merely ‘window dressing’. They’re generally not expected to do much, Ms O’Reilly added.
The substantial victories for these firms are when they manage to recruit ex-European Commission officials who have experience with the ins and outs of policy creation or regulatory enforcement. Ms O’Reilly argued that bringing in enforcement officials is of great benefit to them because it provides them with crucial information.
The commission’s ignorance of potential “soft corruption” was pointed out by Ms. O’Reilly. She spoke of an instance where a notable EU representative shared a story of an extravagant cocktail event thrown by a well-known law firm in honour of employing a particular official.
In her capacity as ombudsman, Ms. O’Reilly recounted that her team had once inspected the records of 100 ex-commission officials, many of whom had transitioned into roles in the private industry. Despite guidelines that may limit them from advocating on previous work areas or laws for a specific duration, these folks could still provide guidance to their current colleagues about lobbying targets, she suggested.
Consequently, the commission cited strict regulations set on higher-ranked personnel against lobbying on topics tied to their previous job for a year after their departure as a defence. As the commission spokeswoman clarified, it was crucial for the commission to set a suitable equilibrium between respecting the workers’ rights and implementing these restrictions. Every transition to the private sector was thoroughly reviewed to ensure the institution’s interests were protected.
Another point of contention raised by Ms. O’Reilly was the failure to address the issue of Members of European Parliament having outside jobs in recent attempts to implement stricter standards. In her view, a legislator could also hold the posts of a consultant or lawyer, but this raises questions about their true commitment.
O’Reilly, originally from Tullamore, County Offaly, operates from an office on the fifth level in the French city of Strasbourg. She has consistently been an annoyance to EU bodies. Her career spans from her early days as a journalist and editor, to heading the Ombudsman’s office in Ireland since 2003, and eventually being elected the EU watchdog in 2013. She managed to secure a second term of five years in 2019, despite strong opposition from the powerful centre-right faction – the European People’s Party, who she feels harbours a particular disdain for her.
Now reaching the end of her second term, she is perceived by various observers as an effective ombudsman, unafraid to challenge the commission and more. “Despite our small team of 80, we’ve managed to keep an efficient eye on the complexities of the EU,” she explained.
The commission’s reluctance to disclose documents under the EU’s equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act has been a major point of conflict. She expressed frustration at the pushback against releasing politically sensitive information.
She acknowledged the EU’s commendable quick response to both the Covid-19 crisis and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “This demonstrates how outstanding the administration can perform in times of crisis, they might be surprised to hear me say this.”
They recently conducted an investigation into the Adriana catastrophe. Over 600 migrants tragically drowned when the ship they were travelling on, which was severely overcrowded, capsized in the Mediterranean Sea last June. The investigation found that Frontex, the agency responsible for EU border control, was legally unable to act without approval from the relevant member state. “Despite efforts to communicate with the Greek coast guard, they did not respond,” she mentioned.
EU’s migration policy has evolved to such a point that there’s currently no active sea search-and-rescue operation. This essentially advises migrants or asylum seekers that “if you decide to cross the Mediterranean, you’re on your own”. According to her, Europe’s reaction to the Adriana disaster was largely dismissive. She criticised: “It’s as though migrants exist in a separate universe”.