ECON MEPs are frustrated that all the expert opinion it receives stems from the banking sector itself, which constitutes asymmetry and a danger to democracy. Unlike in other areas, such as environmental policies, there is not sufficient expertise to counterbalance the lobbying power of banks.
Among the MEPs who signed the petition, Jean Paul Gauzés, rapporteur for the controversial AIFMD, once claimed to be over-lobbied by the financial services industry. ECON committee MEPs are frustrated that all the expert opinion it receives stems from the banking sector itself.
There is nothing extraordinary if these companies make their point of view known and have discussions on a regular basis with legislators. But it seems to MEPs that the asymmetry between the power of this lobbying activity and the lack of counter-expertise poses a danger to democracy. Indeed, this lobbying activity should be balanced by that of others. When it comes to the environment or to public health, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have developed a counter-expertise which reports a different point of view compared to the one of corporations. The same happens when it comes to social policies and industrial relations, where the voice of employers is balanced by the one of trade unions. These disputes allow the elected officials to hear opposite points of reasoning. But when it comes to finance, this is not the case. Neither trade unions nor NGOs have developed a significant expertise capable of countering the banks’ expertise.
The MEPs declare that ‘there is currently no sufficient counter-power in civil society. This absence does not prevent us from developing our own expertise, independent from industry, and to do our work, but this asymmetry constitutes in our eyes a danger to democracy.’
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article