Thank you for the kind introduction and for inviting me to speak to you today. I commend all of you for your engagement with Together.EU and particularly at a time when the world is so troubled, when our politics is increasingly polarised, and when dark and divisive rhetoric increasingly replaces the rhetoric of hope, of tolerance and of love.

This magnificent city embodies the contradictions of European civilisation. It has been touched by the terror and nihilism of Nazism and of Stalinism, regimes soaked in darkness and in hatred, yet Budapest also been home to some of the greatest exponents of individual liberty.

Hope and hopelessness have lived here side by side and the life of Hungarian poet, Gyorgy Faludy was witness to both. Terrorised and exiled by both totalitarian regimes, he remained nonetheless a champion of hope and of love, denying darkness and division.

His philosophy was summed up in the words he quoted of the German philosopher Martin Luther, "If they say 'the world will end tomorrow', I will still plant an apple tree today."

So what all of you are doing now, as you engage with the work of creating an EU of hope, of tolerance, and of love, is planting an apple tree.

I have now been European Ombudsman for over ten years, a role in which I independently investigate complaints from EU citizens against the EU administration, and carry out deeper investigations into systemic problems.

The Office acts as a direct bridge between the EU citizen and the EU administration that executes laws and decisions that affect all of our lives.

The European Ombudsman was created by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The Ombudsman is elected by the European Parliament and neither the Commission nor the member states play any role in that process. Prior to my election in 2013 I had served as Irish Ombudsman and Freedom of Information Commissioner for ten years and before that I was a journalist and author.

I am not a politician, have never been a member of a political party and perform my duties completely independently and take my own decisions about opening investigations either as a result of complaints or as investigations conducted on my own initiative.

This means that, instead of waiting for a problem to be brought to my attention in the form of a complaint, I can proactively open an investigation - this is particularly useful for tackling systemic problems within the Union's institutions.

I have for example, recently looked at how the EU makes sure that citizens can see how the one trillion euro given to member states to help them recover from the COVID crisis is spent, a very important issue as reports of major corruption concerning that money begin to emerge.

Earlier this year I concluded an investigation into the deaths of over six hundred migrants when their boat capsized in the Mediterranean last June, that tragedy, like so many others, a reminder of how Europe has throughout history been a continent of refugees, either fleeing from it as so many did during the second world and other wars or attempting to reach it as all of those now dead men, women and children were trying to do.

In 2023, 35 complaints came from Hungary. Alongside standard complaints concerning failures to reply by the EU institutions and issues with EU recruitment procedures Hungarians also asked about how the European Commission exercises discretion in deciding to bring member states to court for failing to implement EU law, or so-called “infringement procedures”.

One inquiry looked into whether the Commission was right to refuse access to the official report into its investigation into whether the Hungarian government had broken EU law in the contracting process to expand and refurbish the Paks II nuclear plant.

We also dealt with a complaint from a Hungarian journalist who wanted access to documents related to the EU Council’s handling of the Article 7 procedure against Hungary, the article that allows a member state’s voting rights to be taken away in cases of systemic breaches of fundamental values.

But while my work necessarily deals with difficulties within the EU administration, that focus should not detract however from the superb work and dedication of EU public servants, a lot of which goes unnoticed. In recognition of this, since 2017 I have hosted a biennial awards ceremony for good administration celebrating the excellence and innovation that can be found in all corners of the EU administration.

This year, our major award went to the European Union agency for criminal justice cooperation, or Eurojust, for their collaboration with the International Criminal Court that resulted in a set of guidelines to help civil society to document war crimes and crimes against humanity in a way that will stand up to strong legal scrutiny, an acknowledgment of how difficult it has been in the past to prosecute certain of those crimes even when the evidence appeared to be well grounded.

The administration of public policy never seems quite as interesting or the making of policy itself and the frequent political arguments that surround EU decision making for example.  But we must never forget that our public administration, from the courts, to the regulatory bodies, to the watchdogs such as Ombudsmen and auditors, to the ordinary departments of state at national and regional level, is the scaffolding that holds our democracy together.  And if any part of that administration is corrupted, ignored, starved of resources or otherwise weakened, then so too is our democracy.

Good administration can mean lots of things, but one of the most important elements is the impartiality of in the decision-making process. It also means that special interests should not be allowed privileged access to the decision makers through well- funded lobbying and other methods, as under the EU treaties, we all have the same civic and political rights.

A civil society organisation with five people working for it, for example, cannot hope to compete with a company such as Google. Poorly funded environmental NGOs have little power compared to the industrial farming lobby.

What they can do however is make sure that the rules of the game are fair. If large corporations are able to hire former senior EU officials, the institutions must make sure that those companies do not access to the officials’ networks and inside information as a result.

There are rules in place to manage what is called the ‘revolving door’ the move from the public into the private sector but my investigations have repeatedly shown that institutions are reluctant fully to implement those rules.

Two years ago the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority was allowed to leave his post to take up a leadership role at a major financial services lobbying organisation. My office concluded that if any move should have been prohibited it was this one. The authority has agreed to improve its practices and to change its rules.

Such conflicts of interest, real and perceived, can damage trust in democratic decision-making and also fuels an EU sceptic and EU hostile narrative.

Another threat to the independence and integrity of an independent public administration – and therefore to the public interest is the threat comes from polarising brands politics.

The fall of the Berlin wall and its aftermath created a belief that liberal democracy was unstoppable. Certain truths seemed both obvious and widely accepted, including that an independent civil service, its members appointed on merit, is an important element of democracy, one of the ways of making sure that power is not abused.

Yet that ‘truth’ is now under attack from those who believe that the ‘will of the people’ as expressed at the ballot box is the only thing that matters when exercising political power and that government otherwise should be unconstrained.

The European Commission strongly promotes judicial independence in its defence of the rule of law but concerns around the recruitment of senior public servants also exist. In 2017 it was found that only twelve member states - less than half - had public administrations that were fully merit-based.

In some countries, it was common for general elections to be followed by the almost complete replacement of civil servants at all levels. Political loyalty rather than expertise or experience became the main qualification for these offices.

These practices are associated with higher risks of corruption, especially in the awarding of governments grants and contracts. They are also associated with poorer levels of service delivery and innovation at a time when public administrations will have a major role in ensuring that countries properly manage the digital and climate transitions that will shape our collective future.

In Western Europe, we have tended to see this as a feature confined to what are sometimes called ‘transition countries’ but it is not.

Ten years ago, the stability of the democratic institutions in the UK and the US was largely unquestioned, simply taken for granted. But recent events have challenged that complacency.

In the UK, Whitehall civil servants have consistently come under attack from the ruling Conservative party for undermining the Brexit process with senior civil servants, journalists and others deemed to be an obstacle to achieving a glorious post-Brexit future.

But it was the Trump administration in the US that refined this approach. To an unprecedented degree, he and his allies sought to delegitimize, incapacitate, and politicise an independent civil service.

Throughout his term, Trump pressured and fired senior officials in the Justice Department. During COVID his administration interfered with health reports provided by the Centres for Disease Control. And far from protecting the administration from lobbyists and vested interests - as he pledged in his election campaign - he appointed industry lobbyists to lead important government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

The ability of the administration to withstand inappropriate political pressure was described by Trump as evidence of a ‘deep state’ that is beyond government or popular control. 

To address this, before the 2020 election, Trump released an executive order, “Schedule F,” intended to give him the authority to fire as many as 50,000 career civil servants. That order was rescinded by President Biden, but the idea that civil servants are ideological opponents has become Republican Party orthodoxy. Even Nikki Haley, a relatively mainstream candidate, felt compelled to propose a 5-year term limit for all federal employees as part of her manifesto.

The obvious question these disturbing episodes should provoke is: “could it happen to the EU administration”?

It would be easy to be complacent. The EU institutions are fortunate to have a cadre of professional, highly qualified and independent-minded officials with an enviable job security that, in theory, insulates them from undue political pressure.

The institutions also have a very impressive set of rulebooks that set out the rights, obligations and duties of its officials and their relationship to their political bosses.

Likewise, the Code of Conduct for European Commissioners calls on them to “behave and perform their duties with complete independence” including independence from their national government or political party. The performance of their duties should concern only “the general interest of the Union”.

Nevertheless, there may be some causes for concern.

The first is that the European Commission is a peculiarly hybrid institution that is neither a totally technocratic entity nor a European government. The College of Commissioners is not a ministerial cabinet, but nor is it a mere expert body. Its effectiveness and legitimacy in part stems from the national and party -political links that its members retain.

Balancing this with the necessity to maintain a broadly European outlook or to keep ‘the general interest of the Union’ is more difficult than some would like to admit.

There has also been an overt political evolution in the outlook of that body in the last ten years. This began with Jean-Claude Juncker’s desire to create a “political commission” delivering a programme agreed with a majority of MEPs in the European Parliament.

That project was given a geopolitical spin by the current President of the Commission, but is essentially the same project. The hope is that this alignment, in combination with the ‘lead candidate’ system for the European Parliament elections, would give the Commission added democratic legitimacy.

However, the project depends on a reliably pro-European and broadly centrist majority. How much of this project can survive our increasingly fragmented and polarised political environment after the June elections remains to be seen.

The second concern is that this drift toward overt politicisation might extend deeper into the workings of the system. The normally polite exchanges between the institutions for example have been replaced by stronger political rhetoric in recent months, in particular over controversial environmental legislation.

Last year, the European Commission’s environmental DG – department - took the unusual step of publicly denying claims made by the centre right European People’s Party (or EPP) in their efforts to get rid of a draft nature restoration law, branding these claims as ‘disinformation’.

A senior EPP figure in turn, has referred to the ‘ideological driven’ nature of Green Deal legislation and last month reportedly accused the Commission’s climate and environment DGs of being staffed with partisan activists.

Some may see this as simple political theatre but intimidating rhetoric is often the first step towards an institutional culture where challenging the political consensus is discouraged and becomes unthinkable.

This is not a call for an untouchable and remote class of EU officials but we are best served by ethical and independent officials, who remember every single day that they are called ‘public’ servants for a reason, that they work within the rules and for the public and that they are not the political instrument of anyone or of any ideology.

The EU is far from perfect, any body that includes diverse cultures, diverse histories, diverse ambitions and diverse political and other influences will of course struggle at times.  But as we look around the world, as we look at how this Union emerged so powerfully and so positively from the literal ashes of those who died under totalitarian regimes that encouraged hatred towards those who in their eyes did not belong, we must support all that has made the Union what it has now become.  We must challenge those who would seek to undermine what can be and should be a powerful force for good throughout the entire world.

Strong and independent public administrations – staffed by people with the courage to speak truth to power – are one the strongest ways we have of doing so.

Thank you.