Kroes failed the lobby test and that cannot remain without consequences

Neelie Kroes.Image ANP

Staying under the radar is usually an inseparable part of the professional code of lobbyists. The subtle game of influencing politicians should take place out of sight of the cameras, if only because your interlocutors prefer not to boast about their sensitivity to the first lobbyist.

Neelie Kroes can determine that she has failed that lobby test, albeit with a delay. Thanks to the Uber giggles, it is now publicly known how the former European Commissioner secretly lobbied for the taxi company in 2015 and 2016, while she should not have done so according to European guidelines: she was still in the ‘cooling off period’ after her term in office, a rule that must be imposed. prevent conflicts of interest.

But she also failed the moral lobby test. It cannot be said often enough: there is nothing wrong with lobbying, provided it is done transparently. And provided that the chances of a successful lobby do not depend on whose wallet is thick enough to hire a few influential former politicians and their network for it.

That is exactly what has happened here. In those years, Uber lobbied very aggressively all over the world for unimpeded admission to the taxi markets and saw in Kroes a very influential woman within the most influential party in the Netherlands. Uber had a good one in Kroes. She would have preferred to work there, but that was repeatedly banned by the European Commission. Then she went underground. The European Commission wants text and explanation. If she cannot convincingly explain that in reality things have turned out quite differently, consequences are inevitable.

But in the meantime there is also work to be done for the VVD, the party that has been plagued in recent years by a series of integrity issues caused by politicians who were unable to avoid the impression of unwanted influence from outside. Kroes wasn’t the only one who fell for Uber. Member of parliament Bart de Liefde did it openly by going to work there after he had first made an effort in the House for that company.

Fortunately, the VVD has ‘rules of thumb’ for these kinds of situations. VVD politicians must be impartial and avoid ‘any semblance of mixing of improper interests’. ‘Your actions are transparent, so that optimal accountability is possible.’

This is a great opportunity to show that this is not a dead letter.

The position of the newspaper is expressed in the Volkskrant Commentaar. It is created after a discussion between the commentators and the editor-in-chief.

ttn-23