Many lobbyists think entropy is good. I disagree.

A lot has changed in the 20 more years I have lived and worked here.

Some things have remained the same. The weather is still dreadful.

A lot has changed. The choice of vegetarian food is now good. The paving stones are less treacherous. The taxes have, I am assured, gone done.

Road congestion got worse.

What’s has changed in 20 years

EU 15. I moved when the new countries were Austria, Finland and Sweden. They brought their demands for greater environmental protection. The then Swedish Environmental Commissioner Wallstrom spoke earnestly about hugging trees.  We had to wait for until 1 1 May 2004 for 10 new states to join.

Pro-European. The members of the EU were overwhelmingly pro-European in 1997.  The voices in the European Parliament against the EU were at best a clique, and more or less unknown of in the Council.

French still ruled. French dominated as the working language. Many Commission departments were proudly  ‘English Free’.

I enjoyed a bizarre tirade from a Director in DG Fisheries in French.  Whilst working for WWF on the madness of Europe subsidizing a distant water fleet, I got lectured on the evils of the  ’Anglo-Saxon agenda’. I let him vent his anger. At the end, I pulled out the Irish passport.  He apologized. The rest of the meeting went happily on in English.

Now, euro-English, that strange off shot from the American and British branch of the lower-German language tree dominates.

Mainstream parties consensus. The Parliament and Council were dominated by the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. Whilst there were differences of opinion, the differences were not vast. There was a pro-European consensus. I had the honour of  working  in the same group with  MEPs who had fought to bring their countries out of dictatorship to democracy.

I had the feeling that MEPs, in the main, supported the very idea of the EU. Many had lived through the horrors of Europe at war.  Today, there is a sizeable block in the Parliament are against the EU.

Pre-Lisbon Treaty. The first two pieces of legislation I worked on were done under the consultation process. Back then, the EP was a second level player next to the Member States and Commission.  The Co-decision/ ordinary process took time to come along and dominate. Now, many seriously think the EP is an equal player with the Member States. I don’t agree.

Pre  Euro – 1 January 1999. I came to a city where the messianic obsession for the Euro had not yet possessed all.  This religious belief only took hold after the Euro’s introduction on 1 January 1999. To this day, many countries have not adopted the faith.

I am agnostic. I found then President Prodi’s speaking up the Euro only led to the currencies drop against the US Dollar. As I was living in  California at the time of Euro-based savings,  I lost a lot of money.

Pro-environmental agenda. In the late 1990s, Europe led the global environmental agenda.  Great strides were taken on reducing air pollution and the impact of acid rain.

Whilst securing these changes were not easily won there was broad support in the 15 Member States. Today, there is less action at the EU level, and new proposals are harder to adopt.

Climate change did not dominate. Whilst it is hard to imagine now, Europe’s environmental policy was not focused on climate policy. Indeed, the idea of carbon markets was just an idea being discussed in academic settings and closed policy communities.

Today, it dominates.

Easier to get legislation tabled. Better Regulation did not exist. The internal curbs on efficient and driven officials to get legislation tabled were less effective.

Whole bodies of legislation, like EU Waste law, were cultivated in these fertile soils.

Dominated by large industry and NGOs representatives. Big was the preferred choice for both industry and NGO representatives. Pan European representation from UNICE , Cefic , EEB and WWF dominated.

Today, many business and NGOs have set up their own missions in Brussels.

What has changed in 10 years

Better Regulation. European lawmaking today is very open. You have lots of opportunities to feed in your views.

The Juncker Commission made Better Regulation a matter of faith. This does not mean that all in the Commission are believers, but it does mean that, most of the time, the procedures are followed. Certain departments deny having seen the rules.

There are two excellent texts to guide the unbelievers. There should be no confusion how the Commission adopts a proposal.

The reality is that few lobbyists track the output of new initiatives, draw on the guidance, or put forward submissions that mirror Better Regulation sentiments. Many lobbyists thought they were a passing and many still do.

 

Parliament oversight of delegated legislation.  At long last MEPs scrutinize and occasionally vetoing delegated legislation.

As I have written elsewhere (post), most of the challenging is done by the Environment Committee. This Committee has an interest in blocking  GMOs, pesticides and anything they think weakens health protections for infants.

It makes sense that the Environment Committee is one of most active as it gets a lot of proposals to scrutinize.

The success rate for challenges vetoing a proposal is still very low. I guesstimate at less than 1%.

A greater role for the Secretary-General. First, under Catherine Day (2005-2015)  (President Barroso) and then under President Juncker the role of the Secretary-General department is enhanced.

This Department of the Commission took on a greater policing role, and then took over the drafting of many key files. The evolution of the Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) in the development of legislation and drafting, chaired by the secretary-general, has led to this department becoming first amongst equals.

 

1^st Reading Agreement is Normal. Most legislation is now settled at the first reading.

This Commission has issued the least amount of proposals since 1999. In the last few  years, 97% are agreed at first reading, or very early in the second reading.

These trends are not unnoticed. The European Parliament report  advances in first reading agreements:

I worked through conciliation talks. Few people now know what this procedure is.

This means that if you don’t have your case taken up very early, the chances of it ever seeing it in the Parliament or Council’s text, let alone in the final law, are very low.

Directives are the same as Regulations. There used to be a lot of difference between a Directive and a Regulation. Directives gave a great deal of flexibility to the Member States on delivery. Directives now are just as prescriptive and detailed as a Regulation.

Now, flexibility for the Member States has been curtailed. I think this is because no-one trusts the other countries to follow the spirit of the law, so they make it very detailed.

When I worked in the Parliament on the adoption of the 1^st Daughter Directive on ambient air pollution in 1997, we had a fight trying to make sure governments put their air quality monitoring machines in useful places. We found out that Madrid had an air quality monitors measuring in the centre of a large city park.  Most countries found it outrageous that the MEPs wanted to set some loose guidelines. All we could really secure from them was that countries had to inform the public when the air was not safe to breathe!

NGOs outspend industry. Over the last 10 years, NGOs and their supporters, have invested heavily in Brussels.

My own guesstimate is that NGOs outspend industry in relative terms and in some cases in absolute terms.  As NGOs costs are lower,  for every Euro they spend on a campaign industry has to spend 10 Euro to just keep up.

As some NGOs DNA is to bring about political change through campaigning this makes things harder for industry. In particular, this levels the playing field when Political Action Committees are barred.

Greater transparency. Disgraced politicians taking cash for questions is now a relic of the past.  Freedom of Information helps keep people honest and it’s widely enforced.

What is more interesting is financial reporting firms that survey companies and trade associations lines on key public policy issues. Denying climate change will now land you up with a small group of political friends and lead to your investors raising questions or divesting.

What’s not changed

ISC not lobbied. A constant is that very few interests intervene during inter-service consultation.  I don’t know why, and have given up trying to understand. I find it the best time to be active (see post).

What the Commission adopts, does not get changed much. In 1997 I asked a Director in DG Environment who spent a lot of his time negotiating new directives how much of his proposals got changed by the European Parliament and Council.

The answer he gave me was 5-10%. I think he was being generous on the 10%. Others whose opinion I value have agreed.

Whilst a few pieces of legislation get substantially changed, and some blocked, most go through more or less un-amended.

Too few people know the core rules. In 1997 Ken Collins MEP, then Chair of the Environment Committee, told me to go and check the procedural rules of the European Parliament with the Socialist Group staffer, Richard Corbett. He explained the applicable rule to me. Ken Collins and my boss got the advice they needed to pass the directive.

I learned very early on that only a few people really knew the rules for getting laws passed. ,If you want to get laws passed, you’d better learn those rules, or at least know where to look up the rules.

Today, not much has changed.

Media influences decisions. Well placed stories in the FT, the Economist and the European Voice – now Politico – influence the people you want.

This has been a constant throughout the ages.

A piece in the Sunday Times on gorilla meat for sale in London led to a flurry of calls from MEPs and officials who had previously ignored requests to meet.

Caildini notes the importance of pre-suasion as part of the persuasion of persuasion process. The press is still the best way.

Free Trade is not a trump card. Every time I have seen a proposal threatened with a WTO challenge it led to more people supporting the measure. It is like the Streisand effect. Using WTO arguments seems to be the sure thing for getting the proposal passed. And, when the isolated case gets to the  WTO – like for Seal Furs- the WTO have agreed with the EU.

Clear communication wins. The ability to communicate clearly and concisely wins. Too few lobbyists believe this. Instead, they, or their clients, opt for the 10-page summaries to latch onto the 200-page report.

This infects too many in Brussels. When I took over a programme at WWF, the head of Cabinet phoned me up after we had a letter on fishing quotas.  He called to say thank you for the letter.  It was the first one we had sent without algorisms.

National capitals are key. All key political decisions are made back home. If you want to win a campaign you have to work through the national capitals.

Often, national party delegation set their MEP voting lists. Voting lines are set by the Minister or shadow Minister. The then shadow Conservative Fishery Minister, Richard Benyon MP, corrected Struan Stevenson MEP’s attempts to support the Spanish on Blue Fin Tuna.

If you are serious about winning, you will meet with the Minister, their political adviser, and key officials. You’ll do the same for the Opposition. Then, you go back to Brussels.

Attaches follow the national instructions to the letter.  Freelancing on national positions is rare and hardly ever lasts long.

Most people stop at trying to influence one or two political groups. This is not enough.

Ideas win – in the long run. I think too few lobbyists give thought to the power of ideas influencing long-term policy and legislation.

Once an idea takes hold it will land up being in legislation. If you can’t take down the idea at a very early stage, you may be able to slow the uptake, but it will inevitably land upon the statute book.

It does not matter if the idea is a good or not. Once it becomes mainstream for the public policy elite, let alone a few years later for the public, it is gospel.

A good lobbyist should be clear to their client. Some things can only be slowed and not stopped.

What’s going to change

Data makes vote prediction more accessible. For a long time, I have relied on VoteWatch.EU to help me anticipate voting coalitions in the Council and European Parliament.

Whilst history does not repeat itself, I found that it leaves lots of clues as to future voting intention.

I expect that offerings of FiscalNote and other new entrants will enhance the ability to guesstimate with unnerving accuracy voting coalitions in both the EP and Council.

The voting habits of the Council are less easy to discern because their preferred default is a consensus. Any serious lobbyist and campaigner are still wedded to the Council Voting Calculator.

UK Leaving. If you read the voting records from ‘VoteWatch.EU’, you will see the importance of the UK vote.

The UK in the Council and European Parliament has a moderating influence.

When this moderating influence is removed on 29 March 2019, I expect that the Council and European Parliament will shift support to:

• Protectionism
• Adoption of hazard based rather than risk-based regulation
• Less support for  the Atlantic alliance

I don’t think any of these trends are positive.

Smaller NGOs securing greater influence. I expect that the growth of single issue and smaller NGOs will grow. They will grow for three main reasons.

Technology allows you to operate a seemingly large-scale political campaign with very little upfront investment. Once established, a small group of dedicated men and women can operate across many countries.

Donors want to invest in public policy and legislative change. Small and agile NGOs will help them deliver that change more quickly and efficiently.

NGOs will continue to outspend in absolute and relative terms. On the many issues I have worked on, whether as a lobbyist/ campaigner for an NGO or for an industry,  industry is simply outspent.   NGOs are able to focus most of their ‘disposable’ spend on the campaigning and generating news. For me, this is the most important trend that is simply denied. It is denied because it does not sit well with any sides narrative.

Greater Unpredictability. I suspect that if election patterns continue, the next European Parliament will become less predictable.

This is not new, just a trend that will continue.

On the environment policy front, I expect this leads to the continued trend of vetos of substance authorizations for GMOs and pesticides. On sensitive issues, like public health or endocrine, leading to more cautionary votes.

The EU adherence to the ‘Washington Consensus’ will further weaken.

Of course, all predictions are guesstimates and just hunches.

I am sure change will continue and it will be resisted by many.