Tag Archives: european

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge‘.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This morning the Stop TTIP coalition, consisting of over 300 civil society groups from across Europe, have filed a lawsuit against the European Commission at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The lawsuit challenges a decision made by the Commission to block a ‘European Citizen’s Initiative’ (ECI) on the controversial EU-USA trade deal known as TTIP, and a similar deal with Canada (CETA).

In September 2014 the European Commission was accused of “stifling citizens’ voices” last September after it rejected a proposal to hold a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’ against the trade deals – on legally dubious grounds that betrayed a profound anti-democratic bias in the organisation.

The Initiative, which had been launched by trade unions, social justice campaigns, human rights groups and consumer watchdogs, if successful would have forced the Commission to review its policy on the deals and to hold a hearing in the European parliament.

People are being told – don’t interfere, until it’s too late

Nick Dearden, the director of the World Development Movement, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit said: “It’s disgraceful that the Commission is prepared to use such dirty tricks to attempt to stifle the million people across Europe who have voiced urgent concerns about TTIP and the way it is being negotiated.

“These people are rightly worried about the impact this far-reaching trade deal would have on vital public services, and hard-fought for legislation protecting labour rights and the environment.”

Michael Efler, a representative of the ECI’s citizens’ committee said: “We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens.

“While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements.”

Second initiative gains 850,000 signatures in a month

Despite the rejection of the ECI, campaign groups and trade unions launched a second self-organised, unofficial petition in early October, which has already gathered more than 864,000 signatures in just over a month. It reads:

“We call on the institutions of the European Union and its member states to stop the negotiations with the USA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and not to ratify the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada.”

So far the Commission has continued to deny those voices a hearing, in favour of continuing to negotiate in secret. Around 50 people held a demonstration today at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg against both the trade deals and the Commission’s rejection of the ECI.

Blanche Weber, a member of the ECI’s citizens committee who took part in the protest said: “The gap between European politics and people is to be overcome – according to the rhetoric of politicians. However, the discrepancy between this spin and actual politics is a disgrace.

“Brussels’ arrogance towards Europe’s citizens is unacceptable! We will continue to defend ourselves against TTIP and CETA – also for the sake of European democracy.”

 

 

More information: Stop TTIP.

Sign the Citizens Initiative: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence‘ by Mary Fitzgerald & Michael Efler.

 

 




386605

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682