Finland, Sweden slam new EU "transparency" rules

[Al.]

Turns out that they may not be so transparent after all. Is opaque the new transparent?

EUobserver

[SIZE=3]Finland and Sweden denounce new EU transparency rules[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]VALENTINA POP[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]Today @ 08:30 CET[/SIZE][/SIZE]

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Finnish and Swedish ministers on Thursday (11 December) have jointly criticised a proposal by the European commission to modify the current legislation granting public access to EU documents, saying that certain types of documents would be excluded...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"We are worried about the latest proposal by the commission and the effects it could have on public access to documents," Finnish minister for EU affairs, Astrid Thors, said during a panel discussion at the country's mission to the EU in Brussels.

"Our interpretation is that the commission proposes to exclude certain documents, such as documents related to the commission's own inspections," she added...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Quoting from an EU Council refusal to a request for information, Finnish MEP Anneli Jaatteenmaki revealed what she considered a "very arrogant view of decision makers."

The Council refused to disclose its legal opinions drafted by the legal services arguing that they deserved special protection so as not to create "uncertainty regarding the legality of the measure adopted further to that opinion." The case was brought to the European Court of Justice by Sweden, who won.

It was precisely openness and transparency that guaranteed legitimacy of EU institutions in the eyes of the people, said Ms Jaatteemaki, who was a Justice minister in Finland and currently a co-rapporteur on the commission proposal on behalf of the constitutional affairs committee.

Citing further from the same Council document, she said she was appalled that the Council referred to ordinary EU citizens as "outsiders" and concluded that there was still a long way to go to convince EU institutions that they are accountable to citizens...

[jpc]

It crystallises the unease that is frequently expresses on this site.
The Euro project is for the convnience of its administrators rather the the needs of the population of Europe.
The Finns and Swedes have enough integrity and respect for their populance to acknowledge this.

[Al.]

Administrators? The EU isn't a business, though.

Looks like Bukovsky was right...

[Fergalino]

The EU rules on transparency are far far more open than Irish rules (or UK rules). Regulation 1049/2001 (see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/PDF/r1049_en.pdf) gives huge access to documents, which would never be allowed by the Irish state. For example, under Irish law, there is a rule of cabinet secrecy: all documents presented before the cabinet are covered. This is far far less open than under Regulation 1049, where disclosure is the RULE unless it can be shown that disclosure will cause harm (for example if the document contains personal data of a person).

Some MEMBER STATES want to tighten up the EU rules (the UK, for example) because they do not want the documents they give to the Commission and Council to be disclosed. But this proposal will not get past the European Parliament (which must approve any change to Regulation 1049 through co-decision (co decision is a great thing you know ... pity its extension is being blocked by those that oppose Lisbon)).

[constitutionus]

hang on does the last paragraph in those quotes basically mean that the reason they didnt release the documents refering to legal opinion is the legality of what they went ahead and did anyway is DODGY and they want to cover it up?

christ you need some neck to use THAT as a defence.

comparing this to ireland though is a bit of a joke. we are WELL known as a country of dodgy practice at the top levels. thats why ahern rewrote the freedom of info act to cover his arse for an additional 10yrs.

our gov is about as transparent as a blizzard.

and "OUTSIDERS" , says it all doesnt it. theses are the institutions they want us to give more power to?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Disgraceful and underlines that EU promises that are not legally-binding can and will be broken, which is obviously relevant to our debate on Lisbon 2.

[lowtaxireland]

This is not surprising. If they can ignore the votes of citizens, why would one expect the EU to care about transparency?

[Fergalino]

hang on does the last paragraph in those quotes basically mean that the reason they didnt release the documents refering to legal opinion is the legality of what they went ahead and did anyway is DODGY and they want to cover it up?

christ you need some neck to use THAT as a defence.

comparing this to ireland though is a bit of a joke. we are WELL known as a country of dodgy practice at the top levels. thats why ahern rewrote the freedom of info act to cover his arse for an additional 10yrs.

our gov is about as transparent as a blizzard.

and "OUTSIDERS" , says it all doesnt it. theses are the institutions they want us to give more power to?

If you expect people to read your views please write them in intelligible English.

[Al.]

The EU rules on transparency are far far more open than Irish rules (or UK rules). Regulation 1049/2001 (see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/PDF/r1049_en.pdf) gives huge access to documents, which would never be allowed by the Irish state. For example, under Irish law, there is a rule of cabinet secrecy: all documents presented before the cabinet are covered. This is far far less open than under Regulation 1049, where disclosure is the RULE unless it can be shown that disclosure will cause harm (for example if the document contains personal data of a person).

Some MEMBER STATES want to tighten up the EU rules (the UK, for example) because they do not want the documents they give to the Commission and Council to be disclosed. But this proposal will not get past the European Parliament (which must approve any change to Regulation 1049 through co-decision (co decision is a great thing you know ... pity its extension is being blocked by those that oppose Lisbon)).

What are you saying? That the unelected Brussels government is better than the elected Irish one, based on some ephemeral definition of comparative "transparency" between the two? So it's a good thing that the Brussels government, via this "transparency" law, may want to expose state secrets?—were you aware that only has the goal of undermining sovereignty? but at the same time, the EU Commission gets to keep whatever secrets they see fit to keep?

Did you read the article? There's a huge difference between national governments and this big federal government.

BTW, codecision is a joke. The EP gets to vote on legislation proposed by but one source. And that source is never the people of the member states. And if the EP ignores it, it becomes law by default. Not to mention, the Lisbon Treaty does not enforce codecision as the sole method of legislation, which would actually give the EP a bit of power—not that it matters, since the EP has been voting "yes" to banning Eurosceptic groups or scrapping the writ of habeas corpus, the latter a long-standing pillar of Western freedom. (So the question of just whose agenda is being pushed at the federal level is once again begged. Because it is but one agenda, and it belongs to but one country. The European Council doesn't use language like "outsiders" for no reason.)

[constitutionus]

If you expect people to read your views please write them in intelligible English.

not everything is about you.

i was refering to the OP and the bits in bold at the end.