Radosław Sikorski is a hero to his party’s politicians for now, but he’s already been under the lamppost and it’s not the darkest of these.
There are many digressions about the money Radosław Sikorski earns “on the side” as a member of the European Parliament. However, there are no references to the most obvious, namely the “Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament” and the “Code of conduct for Members of the European Parliament with regard to financial interests and conflicts of interest”, which is an annex to the Rules of Procedure. Radosław Sikorski himself probably did not read the “Code” or with glasses that were too weak, so that some articles must be blurry for him.
Article 2 of the Rules states that ‘Members exercise their mandate freely and independently and are not bound by instructions or given a binding mandate’. Can a member who is paid for ‘advice’ be considered ‘bound by instructions’? It all depends on whether the advice is coarse lobbying, which cannot be solved without knowing the details of this “advice”. Radosław Sikorski could decide this for his own good.
Article 3 of the Code of Conduct (Conflicts of Interest) states that “a conflict of interest arises when a Member of the European Parliament has a personal interest which could improperly affect the fulfillment of his or her parliamentary mandate”.. And such an MEP admits a conflict of interest or asks the President of the EP “if he can not resolve the conflict of interest” by presenting the facts.
Article 11 of the Regulations (Standards of Conduct) provides (point 2):
“Members should adopt a systematic practice of meeting only interest representatives registered in the Transparency Register established in agreement with the European Parliament and the European Commission.”
This means that if you pay Sikorski 10,000 dollars a month Sir Bani Yas Forum is not on the register, grand as it may be said, it is not an entity you can work for without falling into a conflict of interest. And even when an entity is registered, there are restrictions. Point 3 of Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure further states that “Members must publish online all scheduled meetings with interest representatives falling within the scope of the Transparency Register”.
The “Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament with regard to Financial Interests and Conflicts of Interest” obliges Members of the European Parliament to apply principles and standards such as “selflessness, honesty, openness, diligence, integrity, accountability and respect for the reputation of Parliament” in the exercise of their mandate. This is because MEPs “act only in the public interest and do not receive or seek to obtain direct or indirect financial or other gifts”.
Article 2 of the “Code of Conduct” states that Members “shall not solicit, accept or receive any direct or indirect advantage, whether in money or kind, or in exchange for specific conduct in a Member’s parliamentary work”. In addition, members “conscientiously avoid any situation that could be perceived as bribery, corruption or undue influence.” Everything is as simple as a spade handle.
Of course, Radosław Sikorski does not act on the edge, so the recommendations of Article 4 of the “Code” (members’ deputies) are followed. And this obliges MEPs to demonstrate “any regular activity that the MEP carries out in parallel with the performance of the mandate and for which he receives remuneration, whether he performs it as a contractor or self-employed”. In addition, he must “discover any remunerated occasional outside activity (including writing, lecturing or expert activities) if in a given calendar year the total remuneration for all occasional activities of the member exceeds EUR 5 000”.
The problem is that in the case of Sikorski, it is impossible to determine whether his “participation in a company or partnership … may have potential effects on public policy or … the operation of that company or company”. Sikorski shows outside income, but this does not mean that he does not have “financial interests that may affect the performance of the deputy’s mandate”.
It is clear (this follows from Article 5 of the “Code” – Gifts or similar benefits) that “Members of the European Parliament, in the exercise of their mandate, shall refrain from accepting gifts or similar benefits, with the exception of gifts of an estimated value of less than EUR 150 and of a courtesy character or courtesy gifts given to Members officially representing Parliament’. A “gift” in the form of financing a stay in an expensive hotel or an airline ticket is certainly not “out of courtesy” or a small gift.
You may be surprised that the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, has not yet implemented Article 8 of the “Code” against Sikorski:
“When there are reasons to believe that a Member of the European Parliament has breached the Code of Conduct, the President shall, except in cases of apparent abuse, refer the matter to the Advisory Committee.”
Assuming there is no “clear abuse”, although the journalists of the Dutch daily newspaper “NRC” probably have a very different opinion, it would be appropriate to set up an “advisory committee”. And according to the “Code”, it is he who “investigates the circumstances of the alleged violation and may listen to the Member of Parliament concerned. Based on its findings, the committee makes a recommendation to the chairman for a possible decision.” And if (…) the chairman believes that the member concerned has violated the code of conduct, he will take a reasoned decision stating the sanction.’
The European Parliament’s “Rules” and “Code” can be treated like scraps of paper, but only they draw attention to what an MEP should not do, and if he does, he will bear the consequences . For now, Sikorski is a hero to his party’s politicians, but he’s already been under the lamppost, and it’s not the darkest of these. Especially after the major corruption scandal, or rather during it. The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind.
Source: wPolityce