Ethics over the shoulder of the Juncker Commission
(B2) If students read theopinion delivered in the Barroso case by the " ethics committee ad hoc from the European Commission, I'm not really sure that they will have really grasped what ethics — aka the science of morality — is.
What do our three savvy scholars (1) to whom the Commission asked to give an opinion on José-Manuel Barroso's express pantouflage at Goldman Sachs say? Yes, there is indeed a link between the experience of José-Manuel Barroso and his appointment.
Is there a link between Mr. Barroso's former responsibilities as President of the Commission and his activities at Goldman Sachs International? That will certainly be the case. As President of the Commission Mr. Barroso has been directly and closely involved with the financial crisis, the banking crisis, the euro crisis and their consequences for the Union, the EMU particularly. He has participated in developing crisis policies and the creation of new instruments combating the consequences of these crises, such as setting-up a Banking Union, and preventing the outbreak of new ones. His experience and knowledge on these matters will be precious for Goldman Sachs.
The fact of going to Goldmans Sachs is not really innocent with regard to its role, criticized, in the financial crisis of the subprimes in 2007-2008, recognizes the committee.
In much of the criticisms Goldman Sachs is seen as the exponent of aggressive investment banking, more particularly criticized because of its role in triggering the financial crisis (subprime mortgages) and for advising on financial constructs enabling to occult the reality of the debt position of Greece . The fact that a former President of the European Commission accepts to become the chairman of the board is seen as associating the Commission and the Union with the negative image of financial greed ascribed to the Bank.
But there is not really a problem because all the rules have been respected...
However, the Committee is requested to give an opinion not about the wise or blameworthy nature of the action in question but whether Mr. Barroso has violated his legal obligation to respect the duty of integrity and discretion imposed by Article 245 (2) TFEU as further substantiated by the Code of Conduct
Just a very small regret all the same, the damage to the image of the Commission. But a very small, small, small regret. Not really enough to make a cheese out of it...
Mr. Barroso has not shown the considerate judgment one may expect from someone having held the high office he occupied for so many years [But] the Committee has arrived at the conclusion that the first mentioned objection is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Barroso has violated his duty of integrity and discretion as imposed by the Treaty, justifying the possible imposition of financial sanctions.
Comment: Not really a serious answer. Was it necessary to convene an ethics committee to answer this. It's really misleading ethics. A simple opinion from the Commission's legal service was more than enough. And we already knew the answer. José-Manuel Barroso is anything but stupid. He took great care to respect to the letter the code that he himself had helped to put in place. Everything was well calculated. Including the request for early retirement of a few months at the announcement of his arrival at Goldman Sachs.
What was at stake was not the law but the morality, the ethics of politics. An ethics committee must answer the questions put to it by its principal. But if he is truly independent and ethical, he must also answer the questions that are not asked of him but are necessary.
Can a President of the European Commission who has not ceased during his ten years of mandate to proclaim his faith in European integration then go running - as soon as the period of probation is over - with the risk of associating the Commission with the negative image of financial greed attributed to the bank? Isn't there a confusion of roles that is harmful in the eyes of public opinion? Isn't there any other form of commitment possible for a young pensioner of the European Commission? After all, there is no shortage of noble causes everywhere in Europe: in NGOs, in universities, even in the middle of small businesses... or in the service of major European projects (such as Galileo, Airbus).
I have not been engaged to lobby on behalf of Goldman Sachs and I do not intend to do so
President Juncker has announced that he wants to reform the Commission's code of ethics. It was high time because this affair — the management of which was rather risky — has somewhat dented the Commission's "image" capital. This is the whole problem of this Juncker Commission. Good decisions on the political level which reflect a real evolution in the European system. But a disastrous management of 'small business' (2).
However, two lines are enough for Juncker to settle the Barroso case and turn it to his advantage: publicly order all the services of the Commission not to receive any letter from Barroso or from the Goldman Sachs Bank, as such. And that will put a stop to any subsequent poaching attempts. The company that hires a former member of the Commission will know that they risk being banned... This does not contravene any legal rule, it is within the power of the person in charge of the Commission. It's simple, easy, understandable and... ethical.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
(1) An ethics committee reduced to three members — a former Austrian Commission DG, a former German SPD MEP, a Dutchman — who in themselves represent only a rather limited vision of European sensitivities. No representative from the Latin sphere or the South, no representative from the East. An ethics committee should have at least 6-7 members to be somewhat representative.
(2) From the beginning, for rather incomprehensible reasons, Juncker has been bumping into all the little pebbles in his shoe: Luxembourg's tax dumping, the Barroso pantouflage, Oettinger's insults.
Read also:
