person:rainer wieland

  • Rainer Wieland : Après le référendum : fini de nous regarder du nombril
    http://www.uef.fr/rainer-wieland-apres-le-referendum-fini-de-nous-regarder-du-nombril

    « Il faut définitivement mettre fin au nombrilisme » a déclaré le président de UEF-Allemagne, Rainer Wieland le matin après le référendum britannique sur la sortie du pays de l’Union européenne. « L’Europe a passé des mois en lapin à observer le serpent. La conséquence fut l’immobilisme. Il faut désormais de nouveau travailler sur des solutions européennes au lieu de se contenter de la régulations de détails. » La prise de position de Rainer Wieland aborde les points suivants : la responsabilité repose (...)

    #Europe

    « http://www.europa-union.de/eud/news/rainer-wieland-nach-dem-referendum-schluss-mit-der-nabelschau »

  • Notre grande tâche
    http://www.uef.fr/notre-grande-tache

    Contribution de Rainer Wieland et Christian Moos, respectivement président et secrétaire général de #UEF-Allemagne (Europa-Union Deutschland e.V.) dans la perspective du congrès du mouvement qui se déroulera en avril 2016 à Dresde. La crise actuelle que traverse l’Union européenne est peut-être sa plus grave. L’Union n’est pas dans un bon état. Les crises européennes de la dette et des migrations restent sans réponses suffisantes et ont renforcé la perte de confiance entre les États membres et parmi la (...)

    #Tribunes

    / UEF-Allemagne

  • Secret lobbying by law firms shows the need for a mandatory transparency register | Corporate Europe Observatory
    http://corporateeurope.org/blog/secret-lobbying-law-firms-shows-need-mandatory-transparency-registe
    http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/2013-10-31_11.34.37_0.jpg?itok=ssM1nlLZ

    The review of the EU’s Transparency Register for lobbyists is entering its crucial final phase. The working group on the register review - consisting of Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and MEPs led by German Christian Democrat Rainer Wieland – is expected to make important decisions in a meeting on November 13th. The current register has several serious shortcomings that need fixing (as documented in an in-depth report by the ALTER-EU coalition in June), which is why ALTER-EU is running an urgent action to demand that the register is overhauled. But perhaps the most important is the continued boycott of the register by law firms that lobby. The credibility of the EU’s lobby register is at stake unless the law firms are forced to register.

    In mid-October, the New York Times published one of the most important investigations this year into EU lobbying, exposing important facts about a little-known aspect of corporate lobbying in Brussels: the lobbying by a dozen or more international law firms, many of which are US companies. Eric Lipton and Danny Hakim, award-winning journalists, dug deep into the issues and managed to get law firm lobbyists to talk about their lobby successes. The article highlights lobbying by Hogan Lovells that led to a US semiconductor company being given an exemption to EU environmental law enabling it to continue using a potentially hazardous chemical substance. Lipton and Hakim show how Covington & Burling’s lobbying on behalf of pension funds prevented the introduction of restrictions on pension funds to invest in private equity. The law firm is now lobbying for oil companies like Chevron and Statoil to avoid restrictions on fracking. The article also describes how Baker Botts is gearing up to lobby to help companies weaken EU rules as part of EU-US trade negotiations (TTIP). These are just a few examples.

    The article – a must-read for everyone with an interest in how the EU’s decisions are made – shows that large US law firms are active in Brussels lobbying in very much the same way as lobby consultancy firms, but with one significant difference. Whereas the majority of consultancies are registered, law firms continue to boycott the EU’s voluntary lobby transparency register and therefore do not disclose their clients or any other information about their lobbying. Five years after the Commission established the lobby register, virtually none of the law firms with Brussels lobby activities are registered. Law firms continue to claim that they are obliged to provide client confidentiality (something that is true when it comes to defending clients in court cases, but obviously not when it concerns a completely unrelated lucrative side-business that these firms have developed: lobbying).

    The boycott by law firms reveals the weakness of the voluntary approach of the EU’s Transparency Register. In the US, where lobby disclosure is a legal obligation, law firms are registered and in fact they dominate the list of biggest spenders in lobbying. Hogan Lovells and Covington & Burling are both in the top-20, with a lobbying turnover of US$9.2 and US$8.7 million respectively in the first three quarters of 2013, as fresh data from the US register shows. In the US, the lobby register was voluntary until 1995, when lawmakers opted for a mandatory register, precisely because law firms continued to refuse to sign up under the voluntary model. The lesson for EU decision-makers should be easy to draw, but unfortunately there is little appetite for making registration mandatory....

    #Transparency-Register
    #lobbying
    #law
    #firms
    #économy

  • EU lobby register review : Parliament vice-president for transparency opposed to improved transparency ? | Corporate Europe Observatory
    http://corporateeurope.org/blog/eu-lobby-register-review-parliament-vice-president-transparency-opp

    At Corporate Europe Observatory, we’ve been receiving a lot of questions recently about the current review of the EU’s lobby transparency register, from NGOs, students and journalists: do we know how it is going, what are our expectations? It’s hardly surprising that there are questions: the review process so far has happened with virtually no transparency. There is no webpage to refer to for basic information such as who are the MEPs that are negotiating with the Commission about the review, which key issues are they discussing and what is their deadline, let alone any of the documents discussed in the working group. The ALTER-EU coalition and Transparency International have repeatedly argued that a process which is aimed at boosting transparency should be transparent itself, but so far with no result.
    http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/maxresdefault.jpg?itok=pcySPW8P
    What we’ve heard through the grapevine about the working group meetings is that there’s not a lot of appetite for ambitious transparency reforms, such as replacing the voluntary register with mandatory registration or introducing far more comprehensive disclosure by lobbyists. This is at least partly due to the composition of the group. Parliament President Schulz is said to have insisted that the group should consist only of members of the Bureau (which consists of the Parliament’s 14 Vice-Presidents), which has meant that a range of MEPs who most actively promote transparency reforms have not been allowed in. The chair of the working group is Rainer Wieland MEP who is also the European Parliament’s vice-president responsible for transparency but who is in fact developing a worrying reputation as a transparency-skeptic.

    During a public debate on International Right to Know Day (27 September), Wieland - to the bemusement of much of the audience - used most of his speech to warn against further transparency reforms. Wieland failed to comment on the deep structural problems with the current transparency register, which had been outlined by a previous speaker from the ALTER-EU coalition. He argued that the review of the transparency register needed to happen ’without MEPs publishing a press release every day’. It’s hard to see what Wieland is so concerned about: so far not a single press release has been published by any of the MEP members of the working group. What is so dangerous and wrong about public debate about how best to improve EU lobby transparency? One can only guess. When asked by the event moderator what his ambitions for the review of the register were, Wieland mentioned only two points: increasing the number of registrants and getting the EU Council involved. Now these are both not unimportant, but the single quickest way to increase the number of registrants would be to make the register mandatory and to force those who lobby in the shadows out into the clarifying light of transparency. And this is not a particularly radical position; in fact it is the European Parliament’s agreed position, as expressed in a plenary vote in May 2011. ...

    #lobby
    #transparency
    #MEP