In your opening line you refer to the “supposed leak”. I am not fully aware of your security clearance but I suspect that you do have the jurisdiction to ascertain, rather swiftly, whether the documents are authentic or not. What we, (once again, “we” meaning the public) understand is that in reality you acknowledge the legitimacy of the leaks, otherwise why would you try to explain that they represent “nothing other” than the positions of the two negotiating sides?

In an effort to explain yourself, you mention previous posts of yours regarding points of agreement or disagreement in the course of the negotiations. In reality, to us (yup, that's “we” again) as long as the negotiations are being held behind closed doors, all your assurances that “the alarmist headlines are a storm in a teacup” are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Besides, who can forget your infamous repartee to the Independent “I do not take my mandate from the European people” (could this be we? Cecilia?). last August?

Regrettably, for you this time, the TTIPLeaks do not only show where each side stands on the negotiation; they also include a progress report on the tactics at play. And yes, the disagreements between and positions of the negotiating parties are also there to see. And thus, for the first time, 243 pages of “your” secret agreement have been made available to us, giving us the opportunity to confirm our fears over the future of privatizations, state-owned enterprises and the Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Oh, and the environmental issues don't look particularly rosy either.

Additionally, your claim that the EU has “opened the negotiations to its citizens” is somewhat wanting precisely because you were unlucky enough to publicize a heavily edited progress report right after the 12th round of negotiations. That report is impressively different from what we read in the leaked documents. It might be worth wondering whether there is any legal provision for the fact that you, from the delicate position you hold, deliberately lied to us, the citizens of the European Union.

The low point of your rather panicky attempt to downplay the importance of the leak is where you mention the powerful lobbies that are trying to influence the negotiations. Like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar, you decided to cover up your first lie with even bigger, even more blatant lies. You claim that parties with big financial and trade interests enjoy no more access to the negotiations than do the citizens. You mention that “we take into account the suggestions of the companies but the same happens with the unions of tradesmen, consumers as well as the health and environment organizations”. Unfortunately, again for you, the evidence from the leaked schedule of the negotiating committee demonstrate that only 3% of its membership meetings were held with unions or organizations, while the remaining 97% involved powerful lobbyists, multinational corporations and other commercial organizations. So your phrase “…exactly the same applies…” might be eligible for the Understatement of the Year award.

No doubt the leak caught you unaware; perhaps it was even a tad tactless to put you into such a position. We cannot but point out however that your acknowledgement that you are holding talks with the lobbyists representing the most powerful interests, a fact which you just admitted to for the first time publicly, creates a serious problem of mixed message. Until now, you have been claiming that the talks are kept secret precisely in order to ensure that the various interested parties will not be able to exert any pressure on the negotiations. The question begs to be answered: What is the truth? are the citizens kept in the dark while only the corporations enjoy the blessed sunlight?

After all those lies found in your statements, “we” have every reason to be very worried indeed when you reassure us that the TTIP will not lessen the level of protection of the consumers, the safety of their food, or the environment. The actual content of the leaked documents show that you have been negotiating with the exact opposite in mind.

Dear Cecilia, if I were you, and in view of the fact that the leak has demonstrated your efforts to manipulate the public opinion via false information, I might have thought of resigning. If I were any European leader, had I just read your blog post, where you are using even more doctored evidence in order to cover up the previous lies, I might have thought of asking for your resignation. As it is, being what I am, a simple European citizen, I cannot but be very worried about the future.

I do however wish that the negotiating committee will soon change its tactics. For you personally, I wish a career change, sooner rather than later.

Costas Efimeros