10/7/2026
On 1 July, Ireland took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU and with it, the chair of two of the most consequential files in Brussels right now: the renegotiation of Europe’s digital rulebook and its corporate tax rules.
The problem is that Ireland has a glaring conflict of interest in both. So, the question becomes: can a country credibly chair negotiations on policy areas where it has such obvious institutional interests?
Open public consultation
Before taking over the Presidency, the Irish government did something few Member States have done: it launched an open public consultation, inviting citizens, businesses, academics and civil society to help shape its priorities. The process was accessible, transparent and unusually inclusive. Nearly 500 submissions were received. The government then published a detailed report explaining who participated, what priorities emerged and how different groups viewed the Presidency. Ireland instead closed the feedback loop by making the results publicly available (a praiseworthy approach that deserves to become standard practice across the EU). But transparency about what priorities to pursue cannot resolve questions about who should lead them.
What participation cannot solve
Yet the controversy surrounding Ireland’s Presidency is not about how priorities were selected. It concerns whether Ireland can credibly oversee negotiations on policy areas where it has long-standing institutional and economic interests. Ireland hosts the European headquarters of many of the world’s largest technology companies (Google, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, OpenAI, TikTok and X) and has repeatedly faced criticism over its laxed enforcement of EU digital rules. It has also been at the centre of Europe’s corporate tax debates for years. The principle of good governance is straightforward as institutions must not only act impartially, they must also be perceived to do so. A public consultation cannot solve that concern.
Openness and Impartiality
Future Council Presidencies should replicate Ireland’s consultation model: simple questions, broad participation and full transparency about the results. But they should also recognise that participatory processes do not replace institutional safeguards. If the European Union wants citizens to trust its decision-making, it must ensure not only that people have a voice in shaping priorities, but also that those leading negotiations are free (or at least visibly free) from conflicts of interest.
It is against this backdrop that our founder, Professor, Alberto Alemanno, joined Isabella Weber, Mariana Mazzucato, Shoshana Zuboff, Joanna Bryson, Jason Hickel, Filippo Lancieri, Johnny Ryan, Jayati Ghosh, Cédric Durand, Nick Srnicek, Sandra Wachter and other 50 scholars in an open letter calling on Ireland to recuse itself from the digital and fiscal files during its Presidency, proposing that Lithuania take over these negotiations.
Democracy is strengthened by participation, but its credibility depends on impartiality.
Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU 2026