The “Qatargate” corruption scandal rages on here in Brussels, and it’s sparking some downright bizarre reactions.
As we discussed in an earlier edition of this newsletter, the affair centers around the alleged bribery of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) by foreign governments, including Morocco and Qatar. These governments allegedly sought to shield themselves from the European Parliament’s criticism and secure favorable votes.
In responding to the mess, European Parliament political leaders have decided to enforce a strict 500-word limit on certain Parliamentary resolutions related to human rights abuses around the world, referred to in the EU bubble as “urgency resolutions.”
For comparison, that’s less space than the Daily Brief, which runs to about 700 words most days.
Yes, MEPs saw that some of their fellow legislators were accused of serious corruption involving other governments, so they’re going to limit their criticism of other governments’ crimes from now on…
I can hear the reader thinking, “Wait, what? That makes no sense.”
I’m with you. It’s about the most ridiculous response imaginable.
As my colleague and EU expert Claudio Francavilla says, it’s like going to the doctor with a headache and the doctor bandaging your knee.
And it gets weirder…
Parliament’s decision applies only to its “urgency” resolutions. Yet a November resolution on human rights in Qatar, with a few sections some may deem suspicious in light of the “Qatargate” scandal, was not an “urgency” resolution at all. So, the 500-word limitation wouldn’t have applied – and prevented any suspicious content – anyway. (It was over 3000 words in the end.)
But let’s get back to the main point: what does wordcount have to do with corruption in any case? A legislator can be bribed on a 500-word resolution just as easily as on a 5000-word resolution.
So, what problem is the new word limit supposed to solve exactly? Do leaders in the European Parliament simply want to be seen to be doing something to address the Qatargate scandal? Even if that something makes no sense?
The European Parliament needs to limit corruption, not its voice on human rights abuses.