Discuto

Transparency International agrees with the suggestion to "Change of Direction". In case there is a reference to the number of countries with or without effective whistleblower legislation there should be a source.

We prefer wording as: "However, recent evaluations of the status of whistleblower protection in the EU member states – including the OECD and NGOs such as Transparency International and Blueprint for Free Speech – reveal a situation that leaves much to be desired. Where protection exists, provisions tend to be scattered across different laws, with some member states having regulated some level of protection in anti-corruption laws, others in public service laws, and again others in labour, criminal and sector-specific laws, leaving significant legal loopholes and gaps and causing potential conflicts between different laws. As a consequence, whistleblowers across EU Member States enjoy uneven levels of protection, or in six countries, no protection at all." Note: Is there a study or paper that we can cite when discussing “recent evaluations”? In addition, please add reference in footnote to the six countries without protection, there might be fewer countries now.

With more and more mega size trade deals, political corruption becomes even more a threat than before. Until know, the EU Commission has not included any effective or enforceable provisions against corruption in the trade agreements. Thus, whistleblower protection gains enormous additional weight if EU really wants to adhere to the values it claims to represent.

Fully agree - I hear the USA is proposing an additional anti-corruption chapter in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU.

Following ‘legal loopholes and gaps…’ add ‘and the potential conflict of laws’. (The views expressed here are those of the Legal Policy & Research Unit of the International Bar Association (IBA) and are not endorsed by the IBA).