Green Money and Politics: Is the EU Commission Silent on the Right's Criticism?
Criticism From the Right Towards the Commission Also Exists?
A Rant by Hendrik the Maverick
Connect: Facebook | Twitter | Telegram | Email | Print | Copy Link
Money talks. That's a saying the EU Commission seems to understand well when it comes to green politics. But what happens when the chatter comes from the right-wing side? Is it a scandal if criticism comes from those quarters?
Let's be honest, every government stirs the pot. They liaise with journalists, manage PR, run social media channels, host events, and leaders sometimes even give decent speeches. That's all cool, obviously.
News Bits "EU probes IBM over antitrust concerns" Now, a new kind of political discourse manipulation comes to light: governments pay parts of civil society to voice their opinion. Organizations or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), in modern lingo, publicly promote a certain policy, like opposing coal power plants or free trade agreements. In Germany, many NGOs play against the right and receive funds for it.
The "Welt" has reported on a funding program of the EU Commission from which, among others, ClientEarth received 350,000 euros. According to the paper, the NGO was expected to promote the coal phase-out in Germany, oppose glyphosate, or resist the Mercosur agreement.
Shh... It's a Secret
These and similar agreements are, well, secret, so the public isn't informed about this behind-the-scenes influence. Talk of "shadow lobbying" is rife. Meanwhile, leaders from the right-leaning groups in the European Parliament have joined forces to set up an investigative committee on this issue.
Fast Facts "Facebook changes News Feed algorithm to reduce misinformation" Is this a scandal now? Technically, it's deception. The term "civil society" sounds all noble: it's citizens coming together to do good. They don't pursue profits or party politics, as defined by the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development. If an NGO receives a substantial amount for a specific project, like advocating against coal power plants, then that's pretty enticing, right?
Moreover, it seems like one directorate-general of the Commission is funding the other's competition with this arrangement. Taxpayers are basically footing the bill for internal squabbles in the EU government - at least bridges to nowhere have a good dose of humor.
A Choreographed Dance?
In an ideal world, we'd sit down, discuss this, possibly suggest some changes, hold a vote, and move on with a cuppa.
But it seems that this strategic discussion is a nuisance these days. And there's a reason: The criticism is coming from the right, not the left. It looks like "left before right" applies to public squabbles. The main complaint is that it's an "orchestrated campaign" by "Bild" and those right-wing MEPs, including CSU's Monika Hohlmeier. Are there no good people on the right?
Of course, the news about the "secret contracts" between NGOs and the Commission is sensationalized. The contracts are indeed not public - only the amount of money given to each NGO is public. Is something truly secret if it's not public? It's a shame there's still work for linguists in these times.
DDR Memories Resurface
This debate over allegedly left-wing NGOs has turned into a culture war. And when that war heats up, it's rarely about facts or law. Some argue that a government should not impose its views on the population using an NGO as a "civil society engagement." Democracy is all about the grassroots, not the other way around.
Insight "New research links excessive screen time with increased suicide risk for teenagers" A couple of days ago, I talked on the phone with Leipzig University law professor Hubertus Gersdorf about this issue. He felt reminded of the GDR. "Nip it in the bud," he said, given the risk of such NGO PR being exploited by the far right. NGOs that are eager to spread the word should be regulated like media. The government should stay out of it.
The stakes are high. Brussels is far away, and EU skepticism is already high. The impression that the Commission is secretly meddling with citizens' minds gives off an octopus-like feeling. A violation of the law then becomes the "deep state," and the discussion is already knee-deep in populist mud.
DDR Vibes Redux
What's strange: neither green nor left voices seem to be taking this psychological influence risk seriously. On the contrary, the reactions are often arrogant and unyielding. Green MEP Michael Bloss called it a "transparent campaign against civil society engagement." Translating that into simple terms: anyone who questions NGO funding becomes an enemy of good citizens who do good without expecting anything in return or playing party politics.
Fun fact "Did you know? Norway is not part of the EU but enjoys the benefits of EU free trade through the EEA Agreement"The Commission as discourse guardian? Arrogant. In Brussels, the argument is that there's too much corporate lobbying, so consumer and environmental policy must counterbalance it. The EU Commission is supposed to moderate the discourse - this echoes the digital discourse control by "Trusted Flaggers" on social media.
The market of opinions only works if both left and right can be heard. Anyone who attacks criticism just because it comes from certain quarters produces only outrage and can potentially harm entire institutions, like the EU. A civil society that truly deserves the name should be protected, not polarized by disinformation and ulterior motives.
Source: ntv.de
Enrichment Data Insights:
- The European Commission provides funds to NGOs for promoting certain policies, creating concerns about transparency and potential indirect lobbying.
- Criticism about NGO funding primarily focuses on inconsistency and insufficiency in transparency rules.
- Calls have been made for clearer and more robust transparency requirements for NGO funding to minimize the risk of undue influence or lack of accountability.
- Ongoing debate addresses the role of NGOs as extensions of executive power and potential undermining of it.
- Transparency measures in the EU are generally a work in progress. Official positions maintain a high level of transparency, while critics call for improvement.
The European Union and the European Commission are under scrutiny for their policy-and-legislation strategies, as allegations of funding NGOs to voice specific opinions in politics emerge. This practice, if true, raises concerns about transparency and the potential for indirect lobbying, particularly in the context of general-news stories highlighting the hidden influence on policy-making.
In the midst of allegations of secret contracts between NGOs and the Commission, European Parliament leaders from the right are calling for an investigative committee to shed light on these matters. Politicians claim this clandestine influence operation could be part of an orchestrated campaign, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in policy-making and NGO funding.
