Euro-opacity and Euroscepticism
The European Commission’s lack of transparency in purchasing 4.2 billion doses of Covid vaccines has caused outrage among several MEPs. They demanded clarification. In vain.
Opaque negotiations
The lack of transparency in the European Commission’s procedure for purchasing Covid vaccines has drawn much criticism. The text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla fuelled suspicions. The Commission refused to disclose them, claiming that they were not professional in nature. Nevertheless, the European Ombudsman disowned the Commission, stating that the messages were part of the ongoing negotiation and were therefore not covered by the right to privacy, thus denouncing a case of "maladministration"[1]. The Commission then changed its position and stated that the messages had not been recorded…
It should be noted that Ursula von der Leyen had already come under suspicion when she was defence minister in the German government. The questions concerned the vagueness surrounding the conditions for awarding contracts in calls for tender and the real need to use external companies. When the committee of inquiry asked for access, all the messages on her work mobile phone were deleted…[2]
Failure to follow procedures
According to the report of the Court of Auditors[3], opacity surrounded the signing of the contract for the purchase of Covid-19 vaccine doses, raising concerns about compliance with the rules. The authors of the report deplore the lack of information provided on the preliminary negotiations for the March 2021 contract with Pfizer-BioNTech, which was the European Union’s largest contract. They also point out that, contrary to the Commission’s decision on the acquisition of Covid-19 vaccines, the joint negotiating team did not take part in this stage of the negotiations. The Court of Auditors asked the Commission to provide information on the preliminary negotiations. However, the request went unanswered.
Redacted contracts
For several months, the Commission refused to publish the contracts. Under pressure, it finally gave in and published them in dribs and drabs. What is found in them will not allay suspicions. They are systematically redacted. Much important information is therefore illegible, including:
- the price of the doses,
- the advances paid by the European Commission,
- intellectual property,
- liability in the event of side effects,
- the compensation of the laboratory by the States,
- the clauses on delivery and penalties.
Liability of the States
A particular clause stipulates that the Member States must indemnify the producers for all costs incurred in any litigation, including damages, legal costs and lawyers’ fees. This clause has been confirmed by the European Commission, but its precise wording has been blacked out in the official documents.
It therefore becomes difficult for States to ensure transparency of vaccine data while bearing the consequences. States could be tempted to downplay adverse effects in order to avoid liability for them.
Pfizer keeps its access to the European Parliament
Twice asked to come and explain himself to the European Parliament, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla systematically declined the invitation. Weary of Mr Bourla’s lack of cooperation, on 11 January the COVI committee approved the Greens group’s proposal to ban Pfizer representatives from the European Parliament, as had been done with Monsanto in 2017[4].
The decision of the Conference of Presidents of the political groups (CoP) was awaited. It finally delivered its verdict: Pfizer representatives will be able to continue to enter the European Parliament’s premises.
Even though the sanction proposed by the COVI committee was symbolic, since it did not prevent Pfizer lobbyists from meeting MEPs outside Parliament, the CoP’s decision looks very much like a desire to spare Pfizer and the Commission by undermining Parliament’s authority.
Ursula von der Leyen excused from the COVI committee
In a second snub, the MEPs on the COVI committee had also wanted to invite Ms von der Leyen to speak before them about the text messages exchanged with Mr Bourla. The CoP finally decided to invite the President of the European Commission to speak behind closed doors before the group presidents, thus depriving the COVI committee of its investigative role.
Let us recall that of the 4.2 billion doses purchased via the Commission, only 750 million have been used[5]. Europeans are therefore left with a surplus of 3.45 billion expired doses. Besides, one may wonder how the pharmaceutical laboratories managed to sell more than nine doses per inhabitant of a vaccine supposed to be 97% effective...[6]
A very different turn of events across the Atlantic
While impunity and opacity reign in the bodies of the old continent, the United States shows more rigour and authority.
When Bill Gates[7] or Mark Zuckerberg[8] are summoned before the Senate or Congress, refusing is out of the question. They are required to answer under oath the uncompromising questions of the elected representatives.
More recently, at the hearing of Vijaya Gadde in connection with the Twitter Files, Congresswoman Nancy Mace did not hesitate to ask the former head of legal at Twitter, ironically, where she had studied medicine to claim the right to censor the statements of Dr. Bhattacharya[9], professor of medicine at Stanford University, or the official figures of the CDC…
At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Rand Paul bluntly questioned US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.
It should also be noted that after revealing the affair of the text messages between the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO in April 2021, the New York Times filed a request with the Court of Justice of the European Communities[10]. With the exception of the German newspaper Bild, no European newspaper has had the audacity to demand the content of the messages.
A Parliament incapable of fulfilling its role
In a State governed by the rule of law, the executive must, among other things, be scrutinised by a parliament representing the citizens. The executive must therefore submit to the rules of the institutions and to Parliament’s investigative missions.
But as Valéry Giscard d’Estaing remarked: “The EP is not very important (…) its role is simply to check that the texts proposed by the Commission comply with the treaties, that’s all. There is no political power (…).”
The former French president probably confused the constitution he had co-written as President of the European Convention with the European treaties finally ratified, since it is not Parliament that ensures the proper application of the treaties but the Commission.
In 2007, the European Parliament became co-legislator in 85 areas of competence. In these areas, for a text to be adopted, Parliament and the Council of the EU must agree. Several competences, such as competition or foreign affairs, lie outside Parliament’s remit. Finally, by amending the texts proposed by the Commission, Parliament secures the political support needed to adopt a directive, a regulation and above all the European budget.
Be that as it may, Giscard may not be so far from reality. Caught between an omnipotent Council and Commission, Parliament clearly has the greatest difficulty in establishing an authority that is nonetheless essential to the balance of powers within the institutions.
That the CEO of Pfizer defends his company’s interests is not surprising; that is his role. But that the EU is incapable of defending the public interest in full transparency raises questions. It seems to me that one of the EU’s purposes was precisely to carry more weight against multinationals.
Playing into the hands of the far right?
It is no secret to anyone: Euroscepticism is on the rise. Of the 705 seats in the European Parliament, Eurosceptic parties now hold 172, compared with 155 in 2014[11]. European energy policy, which has cost many Europeans dearly, is unlikely to improve the situation.
In this context, one can understand that, in order to protect the institutions, some are tempted to cover up the Commission’s dysfunctions, while others believe that only transparency will restore trust. And it is not unusual to hear that the advocates of transparency are playing into the hands of the far right…
But make no mistake: those truly responsible for the growing disaffection with the European institutions are to be found within them. It is not the “populist” rhetoric of the Eurosceptic parties but the impunity of unacceptable behaviour that will end up proving them right.
Marcan for BAM!
[1] La Médiatrice critique la manière dont la demande d’accès aux textos de la présidente de la Commission européenne a été traitée | Communiqué de presse
[2] Ursula von der Leyen au coeur des soupçons dans l’affaire des consultants du ministère de la Défense | Euronews
[3] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR22_19/SR_EU_COVID_vaccine_procurement_FR.pdf page 33
[4] Monsanto banni du Parlement européen | Euronews
[5] L’Europe a‑t‑elle acheté 4 milliards de doses de vaccin pour faire face aux nouvelles vagues ? – Libération
[6] Coronavirus : le vaccin Pfizer efficace à 97% contre les cas symptomatiques - rtbf.be
[7] USA: MICROSOFT BOSS QUESTIONED AT SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING (2)
[8] Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress - watch live
[9] Jayanta Bhattacharya
[10] Covid-19 : le New York Times poursuit Ursula von der Leyen pour des échanges SMS avec le patron de Pfizer - La Libre
[11] Elections européennes 2019 : la progression des partis eurosceptiques en carte
Photo source: BAM!
