EU & Brexit Bunker

[Psamathe]

As I said, I think that view is naive.

I don't consider my view "naive" and don't accept you telling me I am on the basis of virtually no information!

In reality such differing views probably stem from what legislation and regulation any individual regards as important. Maybe we have different priorities regarding protections.

Ian

 

[icowden]

Unfortunately lobbying is pervasive in politics everywhere.

As I i've said before. Ban lobbying, introduce a ban on MPs accepting board roles in companies for 10 years after they leave office and double MPs salary. At the same time, MPs get only basic expenses and meal / bar subsidies are removed.

You pay MPs well, make it a desirable, well paid occupation, but only for being MPs. No more gifting, no more grifting.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I don't consider myself "naive" and don't accept you telling me I am on the basis of virtually no information!

In reality such differing views probably stem from what legislation and regulation any individual regards as important. Maybe we have different priorities regarding protections.

Ian

I provided you with a wikipedia link which explained why EU lobbying is very different (and in this context worse) than lobbying at a national level.

 

[Psamathe]

Unfortunately lobbying is pervasive in politics everywhere. I don't know if there are any vaguely neutral bodies that track/index the relative influence and transparency internationally, but my hunch would be that it's worst in the US, where Senators seem to be virtually owned by the businesses/sectors that pay them, e.g. Manchin and the coal industry (not to mention that it's still legal for HoR representatives to deal in shares in sectors in which they have influence).

EU is regulating it whereas eg UK is giving free tickets/clothes/etc. giving unknown influence.

And as I said, it's not about the amount of lobbying it's about how much influence that has on legislation and on the issues that most concern me resulting EU legislation was still more directed at protecting the interests of people compared to what we are seeing in the UK these days. You may have different priorities where outcomes are different.

Ian

 

[PurplePenguin]

Here's some more data. This is the category of the lobby organisation for the EU commission.

https://integritywatch.eu/ecmeetings.php?commission=vonderleyen2

 

[First Aspect]

It's a graph. I am pleased that the X axis starts at zero.

 

[First Aspect]

As I i've said before. Ban lobbying, introduce a ban on MPs accepting board roles in companies for 10 years after they leave office and double MPs salary. At the same time, MPs get only basic expenses and meal / bar subsidies are removed.

You pay MPs well, make it a desirable, well paid occupation, but only for being MPs. No more gifting, no more grifting.

This is a bit too leftie tub thumping for me. How are you going to "ban lobbying"? Lobbying will exist one way or the other because businesses and other interest groups will always seek to influence... unless you are proposing body cameras for MPs, or the WADA whereabouts scheme? That would be entertaining at least, in a Max Mosely sort of a way.

 

[briantrumpet]

This is a bit too leftie tub thumping for me. How are you going to "ban lobbying"? Lobbying will exist one way or the other because businesses and other interest groups will always seek to influence... unless you are proposing body cameras for MPs, or the WADA whereabouts scheme? That would be entertaining at least, in a Max Mosely sort of a way.

There's also the issue that politicians should be consulting with industry specialists to understand how legislation could hinder/help... I've no idea how you police the boundary between proper consultation and undue business influence watering down restrictive regulations (on, say, workers rights or environmental protections).

 

[Psamathe]

As I i've said before. Ban lobbying, introduce a ban on MPs accepting board roles in companies for 10 years after they leave office and double MPs salary.

Happy to ban MPs accepting board roles in companies, it's the sort of agreement I've been subject to before and many senior staff in companies are subject to where you can't go work for a competitor for a specified time after leaving the company.

Trouble with "lobbying" is that whilst no doubt it can be defined and controlled maybe the crucial aspect is not so much the mechanism but more about "undue influence" from vested interests and that might include eg free tickets to events eg free football match tickets when football organisations are also campaigning for legislative changes.

Technically I've undertaken lobbying when I've written to my MP arguing that something should or shouldn't be done

Lobbying Parliament
What is lobbying?
Lobbying is when an individual or a group tries to persuade someone in Parliament to support a particular policy or campaign. Lobbying can be done in person, by sending letters and emails or via social media.

Maybe a sliding scale and maybe the balance needs moving? Can't say I have an answer.

Ian

 

[Pross]

I don't have an issue with lobbying as long as the links between politicians and those lobbying are open and transparent e.g. you would expect Labour politicians to be open to lobbying by Unions, if a constituency is highly reliant on a particular business sector then you would expect that sector to be lobbying their MP and for that MP to be fighting their case. That's pretty much the point in the system. Where it breaks down is when someone is getting personal gain to push the agenda of a business sector etc. that they don't have a genuine political need to support.

 

[PurplePenguin]

There's also the issue that politicians should be consulting with industry specialists to understand how legislation could hinder/help... I've no idea how you police the boundary between proper consultation and undue business influence watering down restrictive regulations (on, say, workers rights or environmental protections).

Politicians are directly elected by their voters, so should have a decent understanding of their interests. If they top up their knowledge by meeting some lobbyists that seems reasonable to me not least because they will want to be re-elected. In contrast, the EU commission is not directly elected and spends most of its time talking to lobbyists which, as shown in the graph above, tend to be the business sort. After this, they then propose legislation that the MEPs rubber stamp get to vote on.

Most of the time, not needing to consider what people actually want, might result in better legislation, but it does strongly reflect the views of lobbyists.

 

[briantrumpet]

Politicians are directly elected by their voters, so should have a decent understanding of their interests. If they top up their knowledge by meeting some lobbyists that seems reasonable to me not least because they will want to be re-elected. In contrast, the EU commission is not directly elected and spends most of its time talking to lobbyists which, as shown in the graph above, tend to be the business sort. After this, they then propose legislation that the MEPs rubber stamp get to vote on.

Most of the time, not needing to consider what people actually want, might result in better legislation, but it does strongly reflect the views of lobbyists.

An en passant reminder that the House of Lords is unelected and is also the target of lobbyists.

I suspect that the EU Commission was lobbied hard by Apple about USB C, but they still legislated to Apple's detriment.

 

[PurplePenguin]

An en passant reminder that the House of Lords is unelected and is also the target of lobbyists.

I suspect that the EU Commission was lobbied hard by Apple about USB C, but they still legislated to Apple's detriment.

Your first point is whataboutism. I agree there should be reform of the house of lords, but it is not really relevant to Brexit. They also only really have the power to delay things and can't propose legislation.

I would imagine the EU commission was lobbied by other companies to make Apple accept USB-C. For example, in 2024, Samsung had 9 lobbyists who spent €2m in 45 high level commission meetings. Whilst you may find it convenient, it's really not a great bit of legislation and not something governments should be getting involved with.

 

[briantrumpet]

Your first point is whataboutism. I agree there should be reform of the house of lords, but it is not really relevant to Brexit. They also only really have the power to delay things and can't propose legislation.

I would imagine the EU commission was lobbied by other companies to make Apple accept USB-C. For example, in 2024, Samsung had 9 lobbyists who spent €2m in 45 high level commission meetings. Whilst you may find it convenient, it's really not a great bit of legislation and not something governments should be getting involved with.

OK re HoL, but I don't see why the EU shouldn't be legislating on things that reduce wastage and simplify consumers' (electronic) lives community-wide, having heard representations from industry.

 

[CXRAndy]

It was more than proposed. We gave Rwanda £290 million for something that we never actually used because it would never have worked.

It really never got off the ground with constant legal challenges to delay. What it did do temporarily, cause a drop in number coming acrossas a deterrent. Soon as Starmer got in the number shot up again