McCreevy To Step Down From Bank Board After Ethics Watchdog Ruling

OhNoYouDidn't

McCreevey, who is EU Commissoner for Financial Regulation needed an Ethics Committee to tell him that its a conflict of interest to be on the board of a bank he is responsible for regulating. Dear oh dear.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1007/breaking36.html

ARTHUR BEESLEY, European Correspondent

Former European commissioner Charlie McCreevy has resigned from the board of a new British banking firm after an EU ethics committee found a conflict of interest with his work as commissioner in charge of financial regulation.

Mr McCreevy stepped down from the board NBNK Investments last night on foot of a negative opinion from the committee, which was established by the Commission to assess his employment by the firm.

This is first time that a former member of the EU executive has had to resign a directorship since the current system for overseeing the work of retired commissioners was introduced in 2003.

NBNK Investments was set up during the summer by former Lloyds chairman Lord Levine to pursue acquisition opportunities in the British banking sector. As institutions seek to recover from the financial crash, some large players are selling assets to comply with EU competition rulings.

Scofflaw

It's the end part of quite an interesting chain:

Ineffectual rubber-stamp Parliament threatens fat-cat unaccountable Commissioners...

Members of the European Parliament are threatening to freeze part of the budget for European commissioners' salaries and allowances unless changes are made to the commissioners' code of conduct.

The Parliament's budgets committee on Tuesday (28 September) approved an amendment to the Commission's administrative budget for 2011, putting €460,000 in a reserve “until the Commission honours its...self-imposed commitment” to improve the code of conduct. The budget that the Commission proposed for 2011 allocated just over €4.6 million for commissioners' salaries and “other management expenditure”, so the threat is limited to one-tenth of the total.

Unaccountable Commissioners investigate Charlie McCreevy's new job as a result:

The EU Commission is investigating the appointment of former Commissioner Charlie McCreevy to London-based NBNK Investments, which is buying up distressed banking assets.

Commission spokesman Michael Mann has confirmed that his latest Directorship is under investigation for possible conflicts of interest and the Commission's internal oversight body is assessing whether it in line with their Code of Conduct.

Last week's vote by the European Parliament's powerful Budget Committee to freeze the salaries and allowances of European Commissioners, unless urgent changes are made to this Code of Conduct, has now resulted in this new investigation by the Commission.

And now McCreevy has stepped down. Total time taken to do something we didn't manage in a decade of tribunals - approximately 10 days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Einhard

What sanctions could the Commission have taken had he refused to step down? After all, he's an ex-Commissioner. Could they really alter his pension retrospectively for breaching a commitment that does not seem to have been legally binding?

Sand

@Scofflaw

And now McCreevy has stepped down. Total time taken to do something we didn't manage in a decade of tribunals - approximately 10 days.

Makes you dream of what it would be like to live in a country run for the benefit of its citizens as opposed to a cosy elite.

Einhard

Scofflaw wrote: »

And now McCreevy has stepped down. Total time taken to do something we didn't manage in a decade of tribunals - approximately 10 days.

I don't think the two situations can really be compared.

View

Einhard wrote: »

What sanctions could the Commission have taken had he refused to step down? After all, he's an ex-Commissioner. Could they really alter his pension retrospectively for breaching a commitment that does not seem to have been legally binding?

The Commission could not take any action. The Court of Justice on the other hand could. From the TFEU:

Article 245
(ex Article 213 TEC)

The Members of the Commission shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Member States shall respect their independence and shall not seek to influence them in the performance of their tasks.

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council acting by a simple majority or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 247 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

The phrase "culture shock" springs to mind for some reason...

yahoo_moe

Einhard wrote: »

After all, he's an ex-Commissioner.

Maybe he's just pining for the fjords?

View

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think the two situations can really be compared.

Very true. Short of been found in the act of murdering someone, the issue of resignation wouldn't arise at domestic level.

(Or a worse crime - endangering a government majority).

yahoo_moe

@View - it's a pity more laws aren't similarly framed. It might stop the proverbial 'revolving door' between big business/lobbying and public service that's muddied the water in so many places. Any given issue of Private Eye will have numerous examples of it in the UK and there's plenty of it in the US as well, although Obama's tried to clamp down a bit.

It's understandable that old laws weren't set up to take these kinds of situations into account but they should really be brought up to speed.

Scofflaw

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think the two situations can really be compared.

Indeed not! They found something far less serious than corruption - merely a conflict of interest that might lead in that direction - and required that he step down according to the laws governing it.

We on the hand found quite a lot of evidence of corruption, but nobody was required to step down because it turned out there weren't any laws against it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Einhard

View wrote: »

The Commission could not take any action. The Court of Justice on the other hand could. From the TFEU:


...


The phrase "culture shock" springs to mind for some reason...

Wow.

Please, someone tell me that there was some hitherto overlooked clause in Lisbon that would allow us to trigger direct rule from Brussels. Please...

Einhard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed not! They found something far less serious than corruption - merely a conflict of interest that might lead in that direction - and required that he step down according to the laws governing it.

We on the hand found quite a lot of evidence of corruption, but nobody was required to step down because it turned out there weren't any laws against it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well exactly. There were no laws broken. Whereas in the above case, McCreevy clearly transgressed what was actually a legally binding provision.

Scofflaw

Einhard wrote: »

Well exactly. There were no laws broken. Whereas in the above case, McCreevy clearly transgressed what was actually a legally binding provision.

And if you do an enquiry into child labour in a country with poor child labour laws, you'll also probably find that no laws have been broken, no matter how many children you find working in factories.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Einhard

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if you do an enquiry into child labour in a country with poor child labour laws, you'll also probably find that no laws have been broken, no matter how many children you find working in factories.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well of course. Doesn't change my point that it's unreasonable to compare the process that pertained to McCreevy where he actually violated legally binding commitments, with that which has pertained in the tribunals, where few if any laws appear to have been broken.

We should really take a leaf out of the Commission's book though. Far too many people get away with things in this country because of lax or non-existence laws and regulations.

Callan57

View wrote: »

The Commission could not take any action. The Court of Justice on the other hand could. From the TFEU:



The phrase "culture shock" springs to mind for some reason...

My Goodness if this kind of thing were to catch on .... the appalling vista????

AlekSmart

My Goodness if this kind of thing were to catch on .... the appalling vista????

Not a chance,Callan57....I`m sure Peter Sutherland will be along in a minute to reasure us all....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Einhard wrote: »

Well of course. Doesn't change my point that it's unreasonable to compare the process that pertained to McCreevy where he actually violated legally binding commitments, with that which has pertained in the tribunals, where few if any laws appear to have been broken.

We should really take a leaf out of the Commission's book though. Far too many people get away with things in this country because of lax or non-existence laws and regulations.

Which in turn doesn't change my point that having a corruption tribunal without adequate corruption laws was a silly waste of time. Had we had adequate corruption laws, we could have done something similar to what the Commission has just done.

Apologies - it was obviously completely unclear that that was the point of comparison.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which in turn doesn't change my point that having a corruption tribunal without adequate corruption laws was a silly waste of time. Had we had adequate corruption laws, we could have done something similar to what the Commission has just done.

Apologies - it was obviously completely unclear that that was the point of comparison.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But who will vote them in? Or indeed even run on that ticket?

Scofflaw

Papa Smut wrote: »

But who will vote them in? Or indeed even run on that ticket?

Whoever feels that such a ticket is likely to get them the most votes...which is where, alas, we hit a small snag.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Einhard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which in turn doesn't change my point that having a corruption tribunal without adequate corruption laws was a silly waste of time. Had we had adequate corruption laws, we could have done something similar to what the Commission has just done.

Well, I can't disagree with any of that. Damn, it's no fun being in agreement with people here! :mad:

Nodin

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's the end part of quite an interesting chain:

Ineffectual rubber-stamp Parliament threatens fat-cat unaccountable Commissioners...



Unaccountable Commissioners investigate Charlie McCreevy's new job as a result:



And now McCreevy has stepped down. Total time taken to do something we didn't manage in a decade of tribunals - approximately 10 days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It would seem that there was some attempt to brazen it out....

It said the former Finance Minister had resigned from the board with immediate effect in order to comply fully with his obligations.
However, Mr McCreevy was informed as far back as 24 August that an EU ethical committee had concluded that his position on the board of NBNK constituted a conflict of interest.
Despite the ruling, Mr McCreevy took 51 days to step down from the board of the bank, apparently under pressure from the European Commission, which was due to take a formal decision against him.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1007/mccreevyc.html

...a bare faced cheek considering that the size of the redundancy package is linked to not being able to take up such posts (or so I understand it).

Sir Oxman

We can but dream...notice not one piece of legislation has been even mooted in this country to do something similar - even since the National Disaster officialy began on 30/09/2008.
That's two years ago.