As Ireland takes over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, more than 280 Irish diplomats and officials have been instructed to avoid meetings with tobacco companies seeking to discuss EU policy, reigniting questions about who gets to influence decision-makers in Brussels.
The guidance, issued to staff at Ireland’s Permanent Representation to the EU, instructs officials to remain vigilant against “approaches” from tobacco industry representatives and to reject meetings intended to discuss the regulation of cigarettes, vaping products and other nicotine products.
Although the policy allows contact when it is “strictly necessary” to regulate the sector or enforce legislation, it highlights a wider contradiction in Brussels. The EU says it wants to hear from those affected by its laws, yet some legal industries face restrictions on meeting policymakers while other lobbying groups continue to enjoy regular access.
According to several sources, the circular was sent before Ireland assumed the six-month presidency, but it has taken on greater significance now that Irish officials chair working groups, broker compromises between member states and help steer negotiations on EU legislation.
Ireland says the guidance reflects Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires governments to protect public health policies from the commercial interests of the tobacco industry.
No one disputes that lobbying should be transparent or that governments should guard against undue influence. The question is why one legal industry is effectively shut out of policy discussions while other interest groups continue to enjoy routine access to the officials writing the rules. Climate campaigners, LGBT advocacy groups, animal-rights organisations, trade unions, business associations and pharmaceutical companies all continue to participate in consultations and meetings across the EU institutions.
Ireland says it drew up its presidency programme after consulting businesses, trade unions, civil society organisations, young people and experts. The European Commission also says hearing from interested groups is central to making better laws, and the EU’s Transparency Register exists so the public can see who is trying to influence policy, who they represent and how much they spend.
Excluding one sector from official meetings does not eliminate lobbying. It simply encourages influence to flow through less visible channels, including consultancies, industry associations, commissioned research and public campaigns that are often harder to scrutinise than formal meetings recorded on the public register.
The contrast becomes even sharper when considering organisations that receive public funding. In 2025, the European Court of Auditors warned that information on EU funding for NGOs remained incomplete and insufficiently transparent. That does not undermine the value of their work, but it does raise questions about treating some participants as inherently independent while assuming every commercial actor is inherently suspect.
Ensuring transparency in public decision-making is an essential democratic safeguard. Deciding in advance which lawful interests deserve a seat at the table is something different altogether. Today the target is tobacco. Tomorrow it could be food producers, energy companies, car manufacturers or any other industry that falls outside the prevailing political consensus. The more important question is not who is being excluded today, but who gets to decide whose voice is heard tomorrow.
