In the final hours of the European Economic and Social Committee’s (EESC)* session on the Tobacco Excise Directive (TED), a manoeuvre emerged that has left observers stunned. Andris Gobiņš, a Latvian member of the EESC, chose the very end of a long process to drop 24 amendments that would strip the draft of any economic and harm reduction realism.

The timing raises a critical question: Is this a genuine late-stage epiphany, or a coordinated strategy to bypass meaningful debate?

Challenging 80% of a Draft While “Knowing Nothing”

The most striking aspect of Gobiņš’s intervention is the contradiction in his own standing. Gobiņš reportedly claimed to have little specialised knowledge of complex fiscal issues and harm reduction. Yet, despite this self-professed lack of expertise, he proposed amending 80% of the draft.

These amendments would systematically remove concerns regarding the proportionality and economic sustainability of tax reform (concerns that have already been raised by multiple Member States and, in many cases, already rejected by the Council). Instead, they would usher in higher prices for all products, ignoring warnings about the skyrocketing illicit trade in regions like Latvia by simply deferring to “clear guidelines” from the European Commission. It is a bureaucratic manoeuvre that ignores a growing fire because the manual says everything is fine.

A Strategy to Derail?

Why wait until the final session to bring such fundamental changes? In EU policy, this “last-minute drop” is a classic tactic to prevent stakeholders from having the time to analyse or object. By the time these 24 proposals were tabled, the window for balanced discussion had effectively slammed shut (the vote will take place today, 18 February).

This manoeuvre looks suspiciously like a “Plan B”. For months, the European Commission and its allied NGOs attempted to derail the democratic process by attacking the public’s voice. An investigation by Clearing the Air recently exposed how a Bloomberg-funded NGO called Impact Unfiltered worked to smear 18,000 consultation submissions as “fake” or “tobacco-controlled”.

That attempt failed when data analysis proved the submissions were from real people, European vapers, pouch users, and citizens, rather than industry bots. Having failed to discredit the public from the outside, it appears the Commission’s ideological allies are now trying to radicalise the draft from within other EU institutions through members like Gobiņš.

Conclusion

While the current draft is already deeply flawed, the Gobiņš amendments would make it significantly worse by reintroducing measures that have already failed to gain support in the Council. After the smear campaign against ordinary citizens was debunked, this new attempt to derail the process shows how far some will go to block less harmful alternatives to smoking.

* The EESC is a consultative body where working groups made up of NGOs and social partners develop formal opinions to ensure civil society’s voice is heard on laws like the Tobacco Excise Directive. While these recommendations provide essential expertise to EU decision-makers, they are purely advisory and are not legally binding on the final legislative outcome.