La corruzione nelle elezioni al parlamento UE

 

Why corruption matters in the EU elections

Over the next four days, citizens from 28 countries across the European Union (EU) will cast their vote in one of the largest democratic elections worldwide.

With 751 seats at stake in the European Parliament and each Member of Parliament (MEP) poised to serve a five-year term, there’s a lot riding on these elections.

Here's why your vote matters.

Tackle corruption, tackle everything

Corruption is a drain on so many issues that EU citizens care deeply about: strong democratic institutions, solid economic investment and jobs, sustainable development, improved security, environmental protection, and more.

While EU countries have a strong history of promoting good governance and anti-corruption reforms, they have a long way to go to earn a top spot as a leader and role model for integrity.

Need proof? Look no further than this week’s latest scandal from Austria surrounding former Vice Chancellor Strache, which is just one of many examples of how across the EU politicians can easily become involved in corrupt deals.

But citizens are starting to catch on.

According to a 2016 survey of EU citizens, more than a quarter thought that most or all their national MPs were involved in corruption. This is despite top scores that several EU countries receive on the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, which doesn’t measure corruption related to money laundering or financial secrecy.

If the EU could tackle corruption in all its many forms, it could significantly improve the lives of the majority of citizens in member states and advance the issues they care most about.

Democratic institutions and rule of law are under threat

The fact that so many people in the EU believe politicians are involved in corruption has a down side.

If recent headlines have made one thing clear, it’s that the democratic norms and institutions that we often take for granted across the EU are currently at risk as people feel disenchanted with traditional politics and traditional political parties.

This failure of politicians has resulted in the rise of authoritarian or populist leaders that are very effective in harnessing a growing cynicism among citizens with promises to end corruption.

Look no further than the Czech Republic and the populist government of Prime Minister Andrej Babiš. The current government rose to power partly on the back of people’s disenchantment over corruption, yet the Prime Minister is currently embroiled in a beneficial ownership scandal involving millions euros of EU agricultural subsidies.

The Czech Republic is not unique.

From a startling move to weaken independent courts in both Poland and Hungary, to state-sponsored intimidation of civil society in Hungary, to the murder of investigative journalists reporting on anti-corruption issues in Malta and Slovakia, the EU is at a critical tipping point.

Either the EU can work to restore the rule of law across the region with more robust monitoring, a greater ability to suspend EU funding when necessary, and stronger whistle blower protections, or it risks a backsliding of democratic institutions as seen in many other parts of the globe.

Dirty money will continue to flow if unchecked

Is $230 billion dollars a large enough price tag to convince EU politicians to crack down on money laundering and the banks that keep the launderers in business?

Lessons from the Danske Bank scandal, one of the largest money laundering schemes in the history of the world, continue to highlight an urgent need for more robust regulations.

But it’s not just banks that need regulating. Some EU governments create a thriving business by catering directly to individuals who launder money.

If you have enough cash, many EU countries are more than happy to sell citizenship or residence through “golden visas” in exchange for foreign investment. And it’s all perfectly legal.

We’re calling on the EU to do more to prevent corrupt individuals and their money from entering the EU. One way to do this is to ban human rights abusers and corrupt officials from entering the EU in the first place and allowing for greater authority to freeze their assets.

Here's how you can help.

Ask your MEP to take the pledge

No matter who you vote for in this week’s election, be sure to ask your candidates to sign the integrity pledge and commit to three simple actions:

  • Improve transparency. We’re calling on MPs to publish details on the use of their allowances, only meet with registered lobbyists and make those meetings available online.
  • Create an ethics body. We’re advocating for MPs to support an independent institution to oversee ethics issues and monitor conflicts of interest, lobbying transparency and “revolving door” issues.
  • Take a break from lobbying. We urge MPs to agree to a “cooling off” period after leaving office and before working for an organisation or company that lobbies Parliament.

So far, more than 500 candidates have signed the pledge, including 15 leading party candidates or “spitzenkandidaten”. For more details, read the full campaign story.

Here are the candidates who signed so far

Il Rapporto sull'integrita' delle istituzioni UE del 2018

 

European Council 2016

European Union Integrity Study 2.0

An update to our 2014 study on the transparency, integrity and accountability of the main EU institutions

Transparent and accountable institutions, with strong integrity policies to prevent conflicts of interest, are the very foundation of a political system that serves citizens. Transparency International has developed the national integrity system methodology to evaluate countries’ overall resilience to corruption risks.

In 2014, we adapted this methodology to the supranational institutions of the European Union, leading to the publication of the EU integrity system study covering the EU’s main institutions, as well as the EU’s bodies working in the areas of justice, investigation and prosecution of fraud, and good governance, namely: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the EU, European Council, Court of Justice of the EU, European Court of Auditors (CJEU), European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Europol, Eurojust, and the European Ombudsman. This was followed by further studies of the EU’s economic governance institutions.

On the occasion of a new European Parliament and Commission to be elected in 2019, we are preparing an update of the 2014 assessment – with three studies zooming in specifically on the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the EU.

Recent News

Publication

European Union Integrity System reports

In 2014, we published the Transparency International EU integrity system study, providing a baseline assessment of the accountability, transparency and integrity mechanisms at 10 EU institutions. We have seen many reforms since. One year into the...

Resources

The European Union Integrity System

In 2014, we adapted this methodology to the supranational institutions of the European Union, leading to the publication of the EU integrity system study covering the EU’s main institutions, as well as the EU’s bodies working in the areas of justice, investigation and prosecution of fraud, and good governance.

National Integrity Systems in the Western Balkans and Turkey: Priorities for Reform

The new report National Integrity Systems in the Western Balkans and Turkey: Priorities for Reform compares the findings of seven National Integrity System assessments implemented by Transparency International chapters and partners in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. It looks at how fit-for-purpose are the institutions in these countries for fighting corruption.

Supporters

adessium

osife

 

 

Dan Hannan spiega come funzione il sistema corrotto e corruttivo della UE

 

Acton Institute Powerblog

Daniel Hannan explains why the EU is a hive of corruption

Two paths confront someone faced with an unwanted reality: reform or denial. With a report set to expose persistently high levels of corruption among its member states, the EU chose the latter option, its critics say.

EU member states, programs, practices, institutions, and leaders stand accused of everything from bribery to larceny, from rigging the bidding process to influence peddling. Years ago, the EU committed to report on, and reform, such practices.

Instead, the EU chose to scupper the report.

“In 2014 the European Commission committed itself to take action against corruption by publishing the first EU Anti-Corruption report. However, only two years later the Commission scrapped the report,” the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International has noted.

The Commission began issuing its own recommendations member states; however, Transparency International warns their focus is “narrow” and their reforms “do not show any additional ambition on anti-corruption.”

“As the current draft recommendations for 2018 show, the European Commission has again not live up to its promises on making anti-corruption a high priority issue,” the group stated.

The hypocrisy was not lost on some within the supranational structure itself.

“The fact that the Commission discontinued its own anti-corruption report on itself shows how seriously they take this issue,” David Coburn, a UKIP MEP for Scotland, said in Strasbourg on Thursday. “However, even then the report did not include corruption in EU institutions.”

One principled critic exposed the political, structural, and spiritual root causes of the corruption before his fellow MEPs.

“Why do we have all of this fraud in EU institutions?” asked Daniel Hannan, MEP for South East England and founder of The Conservative, earlier this week. “Is it that Brussels attracts particularly bad people?”

In the video below, he gives the answer – which is linked to the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden – in a way that uniquely echoes Lord Acton himself.

(Photo credit: Public domain.)

Rev. Ben Johnson

Rev. Ben Johnson (@therightswriter) is an Eastern Orthodox priest and served as Executive Editor of the Acton Institute (2016-2021), editing Religion & Liberty, the Powerblog, and its transatlantic website. He has extensively researched the Alt-Right. Previously, he worked for LifeSiteNews and FrontPageMag.com, where he wrote three books including Party of Defeat (with David Horowitz, 2008). His work has appeared at DailyWire.com, National Review, The American Spectator, The Guardian, Daily Caller, National Catholic Register, Spectator USA, FEE Online, RealClear Policy, The Blaze, The Stream, American Greatness, Aleteia, Providence Magazine, Charisma, Jewish World Review, Human Events, Intellectual Takeout, CatholicVote.org, Issues & Insights, The Conservative, Rare.us, and The American Orthodox Institute. His personal websites are therightswriter.com and RevBenJohnson.com. His views are his own.

Show

Da non perdere: l'opinione degli italiani sulla corruzione nella UE (2014)

334
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
1
Altmetric

Articles

Corruption and EU Institutions: The Italians' Opinion

Pages 165-182 | Published online: 24 Feb 2014

Corruption is unanimously recognized as an endemic pathology of the Italian political system. Even after the ‘Tangentopoli’ scandals that broke down the Prima Repubblica and rapidly changed the partisan configuration, corruption remains one of the most relevant problems that affects the public sector. The different successive governments do not seem to have achieved significant results in constraining corruption. Italian citizens perceive institutions as corrupt and are increasingly disenchanted about politics. But what is the opinion of the Italians about the role of the European Union (EU) institutions in facing the problem of corruption? The purpose of this paper is to analyse the perceptions of Italian citizens about the spread of corruption within EU institutions and their potential role in preventing and fighting corruption in their country. In line with the scholarly literature on this topic, we expect that citizens' attitudes toward the EU in relation to the problem of corruption are mainly driven by their perceptions of the domestic national context. Taking advantage of data gathered from the Eurobarometer and comparing the Italian and the European contexts, the paper shows that citizens' opinions about corruption within EU institutions are drawn by their perceptions at the national level. However, at the same time, citizens who express more negative evaluations of the performance at the national level tend to be more confident about the role played by the EU in restraining corruption.

 

Lettori fissi