The Loophole in the European Parliament’s Regulations and the Response of Direct Democracy
Last month, MEP and leader of the Direct Democracy party, Fidias Panagiotou, posted on his personal Instagram account a video of his and his wife’s experience on a “first class” flight with Emirates, with tickets costing 10,000 euros each. He revealed the ticket price himself, as well as the fact that it was a wedding gift from a friend. The video alone was enough to spark reactions for a number of reasons. It was a display of extravagance by someone who, during the European election campaign, had made the corrupt political system—which must be changed—his rallying cry. It was also due to the timing of the trip, as it caused him to be absent from the National Council and, on his own initiative, to send the non-partisan Mike Spanos in his place, sparking a new round of discussions about protocols that do not exist regarding classified national matters and the complete discrediting of institutions. However, it also sparked reactions regarding the ethical aspect of the trip. The main question raised is who this generous friend was, but above all, what his intentions were behind this generous act. And we speak of intentions because, given that Fidias Panagiotou is now a public figure, any gifts he receives undoubtedly have implications. That is, to what extent are there quid pro quos involved—or the hope of such exchanges—due to his political influence?
As a party leader
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
For this very reason, “Alpha on Sunday” sent an email to Direct Democracy requesting a written response to the question of who the donor is, so that there would be transparency surrounding the issue and any doubts could be dispelled. After all, this is the party that has placed particular emphasis on transparency and on its commitment to fully inform citizens about every action and decision it takes. There was no response, and as it turned out, the video was taken down from the Instagram account shortly thereafter. For the sake of transparency and public trust in the political system itself, the President of Direct Democracy should have issued a clear statement on this matter. This is especially true given that, as a politician, Pheidias has raised suspicions in the past with various positions he has expressed, particularly regarding Russia. At the same time, he was one of the figures promoted by Elon Musk, which raised questions.
After all, it is no coincidence that former President of the Republic Nicos Anastasiades also faced a barrage of criticism when it was revealed that in 2015 and 2018 he had traveled with his family to theusing a private jet owned by a Saudi investor. The issue had taken on such significance because, at the same time, it had come to light that Cypriot passports had been issued to relatives of the businessman in question, leading to a debate in theParliament and ultimately led Nicos Anastasiades to characterize the trip as a misstep. So if a single trip caused such a stir for the former President of the Republic, why should Fidias Panayiotou remain above scrutiny? Obviously, Mr. Panayiotou is not a head of state, but one would still expect some scrutiny. Not only because he is a party leader, but also because he represents Cyprus in the European Parliament, where major economic and political interests are at stake.
The European Parliament’s Code of Conduct
Clarifications were sought from “Alpha on Sunday” and from the European Parliament. After all, the wounds from “Qatargate” are still fresh in the European Parliament due to the alleged corruption involving members of the European Parliament and officials of the EU institutions.on behalf of government officials from Qatar. In this context, one would expect the European Parliament to have more safeguards in place regarding transparency, conflicts of interest, and potential collusion.
“Alpha on Sunday” sent a query to the European Parliament’s press office, where an official clarified that they do not comment on specific MEPs. The spokesperson did, however, refer to the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament, according to which, MEPs are required to disclose gifts they receive while traveling in their capacity as MEPs when those gifts exceed 150 euros. So if you look at the European Parliament’s website, you’ll find a list of registered gifts, such as tea sets, ceramics, books, transistor radios, and even smartphones. However, there is a massive loophole regarding what can be given to officials in exchange for services outside the context of official travel. Therefore, since Fidias Panagiotou did not travel in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, he has not violated the rules of ethics regarding the acceptance of gifts. However, even though there is no explicit legal obligation requiring him to disclose the source of the gift, Fidias Panagiotou is duty-bound to do so for the following reasons:
- As a new party, it promised full transparency and citizen involvement in all major decisions. Not only has it failed to involve citizens as it pledged before the election, but it also failed to provide answers on this specific issue and deleted its post.
- The very high value of the gift. This, combined with the fact that he is now a Member of the European Parliament and party leader, requires transparency to ensure that this is not an attempt at corruption
- Any possibility of influence must be ruled out, given the European Parliament’s troubled past with the Qatargate scandal, but also to dispel the suspicions that have long dogged him—namely, that through his policies and positions, he favors Russian politics and promotes Russian propaganda within Brussels
Fidias Panagiotou’s trip and its ramifications are not the exception, but rather the pattern followed by the leader of Direct Democracy. A politics of contradictions and reversals. While, for example, he was elected as a response to the collusion and corruption of the political system and as a reaction to the impoverishment of the people, his own lifestyle—both his wedding and the recent trip he publicized—undermine his political narrative. His commitment to full transparency regarding political decisions and citizen participation in them has already been undermined, both in the process of electing the Speaker of Parliament and, more recently, with his initiative to send Mike Spanos to the National Council. The controversy surrounding the funding of his trip to Brazil, however, is not a national issue, but a European one. This is not only about verifying the source of the gift, ensuring transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest. But also to ensure the equal application of the law, prevent corruption, promote accountability, and protect the integrity of the institution.
