European Parliament Election: May 23-26, 2019

[Zinneke]

As ignorant American^TM, all of this sounds bit over the top or am I missing something?
It seems to me that these kind of decisions in EU always involves backdoor dealing.

No you are entirely correct. This is not a big deal to anyone who isn't a combination of a European federalist and a political nerd. As a matter of fact, its just business as usual for the EU.

Everyone knew before the election that the member states would ignore the spitzenkandidat system. If anything it should have been obvious from the fact that the largest group in parliament choose a complete nobody as their leading candidate, considering that Weber hasn't held a single ministerial job in national government or another job in the commission. The only reason the council went along with the EPP's spitzenkandidat last time was that Juncker had been the PM for one of the member states for 18 years.

Despite what  some people like to act like, the European Union is not a federal state but a collection of several sovereign countries with their own independent governments and their own national interests and an overwhelming majority of voters in the EU want it to remain that way. They view their national governments as their legitimate democratic representatives (which should be obvious from the fact that voter turn-out for national elections are so much higher than turn-out for EP elections) and as such its also natural that they choose a Commission President that is broadly acceptable to most member states.  

There's clearly a deficit of accountability though, regardless if you think the entire policy process here in intergovernmental. Member-states sort of know they can vote cynically at the EU level with their electorates not knowing much about it. There's a dilution of power that makes it impossible for electorates to properly hold their national and European governments to account.

And honestly, the Lisbon Treaty with QMV was supposed to usher in an end to intergovernmental compromises at the EU level. You see how Belgium stays stuck in limbo with zero cutting edge policy by having to compromise 4 ways, and now imagine 27?! Bolkenstein was right, we had a choice between a deepening of integration or a widening on Enlargement. We tried both (and the main advocate of widening to water down the EU, that is the UK, is almost gone) and the result is an ungovernable mess. Time to shed the deadwood. Call the bluff of the Hungarians and the Poles. They want a Europe of authoritarian leaders, join Putin's sphere of influence, he's not as far as they think.

[Ethelberth]

I liked that a Hanoverian Lutheran was chosen after endless line of similar Catholics. It is easy to say that the Europe is union of independent states, if you have not to bother the reality. It is like saying that Sweden is federation of independent regions or the Reich was federation of independent princes. Obviously there are independence of states, but less than people like to think.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There's clearly a deficit of accountability though, regardless if you think the entire policy process here in intergovernmental. Member-states sort of know they can vote cynically at the EU level with their electorates not knowing much about it. There's a dilution of power that makes it impossible for electorates to properly hold their national and European governments to account.

True, the deficit of accountability is a genuine problem for the European Union and one of the reasons for Euro-skepticism but I don't think the problem is in the system itself but rather in a journalistic disinterest for EU-issues in many of the member states. I can obviously only speak for Sweden but the coverage here over EU-politics is laughably small compared to coverage and commentary about national politics. On paper both the council and the EP are accountable to voters since people can always vote out their national governments if they support EU policies that their electorate doesn't support, the trouble is that the electorate lack the essential information to actually hold either part accountable.

That isn't a problem that is solved by undermining national sovereignty though. At least voters sort of know what their own national governments stand for. When I vote for a party in the EP-election that belongs to the EPP will I get Merkel-style liberal pro-immigration euro-federalism or will I get extreamly conservative Orban-style authoritarianism? 

It is easy to say that the Europe is union of independent states, if you have not to bother the reality. It is like saying that Sweden is federation of independent regions or the Reich was federation of independent princes. Obviously there are independence of states, but less than people like to think.

No it's not like saying that at all, because the Swedish government has its own army, a police force, an independent judicial system and its own separate international relations with other states, which the regions of Sweden does not... (although to be fair the Skåne Region had a try at the last one when they supported Copenhagen's bid to be the new location of the EMA against the will of the national government). Sure, as long as Sweden is part of the European union, EU-law is applicable here, but we're technically free to leave whenever we want (although it's hard, as the UK has showed). A region of Sweden can't leave Sweden unless the national government consent to it.

Sure the EU could turn into a United States of Europe, but that is not the way it is today and as I pointed out it's not what the voters of Europe want. As a matter of fact judging from Catalonia and Scotland they actually seem to want more sovereign states and not fewer. 

[Former President tack50]

Regarding urutzizu's post, he has a point. I remember during the campaign (what little EU campaign there was that is), Zahradil continually mentioned Eastern Europe feels unrepresented in the EU, and he is probably right.

There needs to be some sort of compromise. However that does not mean that every compromise is good. The ECR should probably be accomodated to a large extent and the cordon sanitaire against them dropped (and same for GUE/NGL on the left, though they are quite irrelevant now). The ENF (now ID group) though? Not so much

The EU should accomodate governments like the Bulgarian one, the Czech or Slovakian governments or the Baltic states. But it should not cave to the far right of people like Salvini or Orban.

The solutions for a more democratic EU are actually extremely simple: either EU wide party lists (so you vote EPP or S&D and not say CDU or PSOE or whatever) or a US style "EU presidential election" (complete with its very own electoral college most likely).

However there doesn't seem to be the support for either of those options for some reason (not surprised about the latter, but EU party lists would be a simple and extremely effective improvement)

[Zinneke]

Regarding urutzizu's post, he has a point. I remember during the campaign (what little EU campaign there was that is), Zahradil continually mentioned Eastern Europe feels unrepresented in the EU, and he is probably right.

Then why don they blame their political class
 there are council meetings where some of these countries'governments litterally just cross their arms and say they are only here to not be under Russia. They have no desire to be part of a genuine alliance, just a desire to not be picked off by geopolitical heavyweights again.

There needs to be some sort of compromise. However that does not mean that every compromise is good. The ECR should probably be accomodated to a large extent and the cordon sanitaire against them dropped (and same for GUE/NGL on the left, though they are quite irrelevant now). The ENF (now ID group) though? Not so much

There is no cordon sanitaire. PiS voted for VdL in exchange for a strong Polish Commission portfolio. Salvini is also rumored to have done this (not ECR but the ring leader of ID no less). ECR often vote for right'wing economic stuff with EPP, ALDE and the right of the S+D.  They were allowed chairs. ECR were isolated only in so far as Cameron took the UK Conservative party out of the EPP and as such denied this specific party potentially big positions in the Juncker Commission. The rest of the (old ECR, at  least) parties were happy to strike deals.

But the new ECR group is pretty wierd now. VOX, FvD are not Zaradil or N-VA.

However there doesn't seem to be the support for either of those options for some reason (not surprised about the latter, but EU party lists would be a simple and extremely effective improvement)

The two main arguments I hear are that smaller countries would get screwed over for top positions and parties would form out of regional blocks anyway) so you have a "Visegrad" ECR-like party eventually emerging with token soft eurosceptics from the West).

[Andrea]

There needs to be some sort of compromise. However that does not mean that every compromise is good. The ECR should probably be accomodated to a large extent and the cordon sanitaire against them dropped (and same for GUE/NGL on the left, though they are quite irrelevant now). The ENF (now ID group) though? Not so much

ID MEPs have been blocked for all parliamentary positions so far.

ECR didn't get one of the Parliament's Vice Presidency with a candidate of PiS. However, the next day they were unopposed for one of the Quaestor slots with another PiS candidate.

Beata Szydlo has been opposed twice for the Employment committee chair.
But NVA candidate got the Budget committee chair unopposed.
Also they got some vice-chairs: PiS x3 (including the candidate who didn't get the Parliament Vice Presidency), Czech ODS, Netherlands' Forum for Democracy, Latvia's National Alliance, Brothers of Italy. All unopposed except one PiS.

GUE/NGL has got all positions they put a candidate forward for (therefore, those they were entitled based on De Hondt distribution): one Pariiament Vice President (Syrza), one committee chair (for a La France Insoumise MEP), some commitee vice chairs (Die Linke, Portugal's Bloco de Esquerda, Dutch Party for Animals, Podemos).

[Velasco]

This is not about dictatorship vs. democracy, as the Belgian suggests. These are democratically elected governments, very popular ones by the way, that represent the values of the majority, the vast majority of people in the eastern states. It is indeed not as much a clash between governments as it is between culture and values, about what it means to be "European". When i travel from Frankfurt to Leipzig; the people, the culture, the values, it already feels like two worlds. And we are one Nation! Imagine what the disconnect is like between Amsterdam and Kraków. Two diametrically opposed cultures are clashing across Europe: Secularity vs. Christianity, Liberalism vs. Traditionalism, Internationalism vs. Nationalism and Multiculturalism vs. Ethnic Majoritarianism. Neither of these two sides is more "European" then the other, all of these Ideas are of fundamentally European origin, just from from different times, different philosophies.

I don't question these governments are democratically elected. Sure, all the countries within the European Union have different languages, cultures and historical backgrounds. All these things are worthy of respect. But I'm afraid you are advocating some sort of cultural relativism when you talk about their "different philosophies". This is not even a question of being in favour or against federalism and more integration. Europe is a continent made of diverse nations and their populations have diverse opinions and worldviews. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is a problem when certain governments try to undermine basic principles. One of the few unifying factors of the EU's supranational structure is the existence of shared democratic values. Asking governments to comply democratic standards when fundamental rights are under attack is a role the EU must assume. The defence of democratic values requires to act with the necessary firmness, because the rights of the European peoples are sacred and cannot be trampled by their governments. I'd never argue authoritarianism is in the essence of Eastern Europe, but some governments of the so-called Visegrad group have authoritarian tendencies incompatible with the EU foundational values. Neither culture nor identity issues are put under question, but the actions of said governments.

[Zinneke]

Come on Urutzizu, you seem well read enough to realise that just because you have an electoral exercise that seems fair and thus a "popular" government, doesn't mean you meet the conditions for democracy, especially in the modern context of disinformation, importance of who controls networks and press, etc.. Some of Fidesz's and PiS's strategies are straight out of the Putin playbook with things like controlled opposition and media, gerrymandering, clientelism on mass scale. Orban isn't stupid enough to get rid of the Momentum types the same way Putin would but I don't think he's that far off it.

And I don't think this is an East vs West thing. I find the Catalan crisis and its handling to be a good litmus test of Spanish democracy, and its institutions. And quite frankly it has failed miserably, with the only consolation being that swathes of Spanish people, including some of the centre-right responded by voting for the Left to try and calm the situation. And I found Timmermans' hypocrisy in glossing over the Spanish response to Catalonia while waving the rule book to the East really wanting.

If we're going to have a European democracy we should at least have the ability to criticise other Member-states and their sh**tty politics. Belgium was called the most successful failed state in the world by a German (I'm not sure if that's a compliment or a criticism), but I don't take it as a personal attack. Nor do I take the Commission's criticising of our cartels in the telecom industry as an attack on my country. Some countries still think the Commission and other MSs is "out to get them" by trying to apply the Treaties they signed up to. Its unsustainable, and its most likely just a ploy to play electoral "No True Scotsman" back home. If you sign up to Commitments on an international level, respect them or get out and assume the consequences.

[Velasco]

.

And I don't think this is an East vs West thing. I find the Catalan crisis and its handling to be a good litmus test of Spanish democracy, and its institutions. And quite frankly it has failed miserably, with the only consolation being that swathes of Spanish people, including some of the centre-right responded by voting for the Left to try and calm the situation. And I found Timmermans' hypocrisy in glossing over the Spanish response to Catalonia while waving the rule book to the East really wanting.

I disagree partially. In my opinion, the police response on the date of the sham consultation called by separatists was awkward and disproportionate. Certainly the images of the policemen repressing the peaceful crowd going to the polls damaged the reputation of Spain. Many people  condemned and felt ashamed by the unjustifiable police brutality. However, I think that shameful brutality was the result of political incompetence rather than a proof of the authoritarian character of the Spanish State. Separatists and people supporting them try to portray Spain as an authoritarian democracy comparable to Erdogan's Turkey, but this claim cannot be taken seriously. Similarly I think the preventive detention and the criminal charges against the separatist leaders are very disproportionate, but it cannot be argued the defendants are lacking procedural guarantees. In any case I don't take offence for criticism, because it's legitimate and understandable. I have a lot of criticism myself towards the Spanish institutions, but I'd challenge anyone who dares to compare the Spanish democracy to the Turkish. Currently Spain scores as a "full democracy" in that index made by 'The Economist', but it's true that clasification could be revised due to the handling of the Catalan crisis.

[Andrea]

Parliamentary Committee Chairs elected this afternoon




Employment and Social Affairs: post-poned  Beata Szydlo (Poland, Law and Justice) is rejected 27 to 21 votes.

Third time lucky...after two rejections of Szydlo, ECR proposed Lucia Nicholsonová (Slovakia, Freedom and Solidarity) this time. She won the vote 38 to 14 with 3 abstention.

1st Vice Chair: Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (Social Democrats, Lithuania)
2nd Vice Chair: Sandra Pereira (Communist Party, Portugal)
3rd Vice Chair: Tomáš Zdechovský (Czech Republic, Christian and Democratic Union)
4th Vice Chair: Katrin Langensiepen (Greens, Germany)

[Diouf]

Proposed new Commission named Tuesday

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1169551486289887233

[Diouf]

The nominations for the new Commission. The three executive vice-presidents keep a DG in addition to their leadership position to ensure they have the necessary influence. Greece gets the migration portfolio again. Hungary gets enlargement, but I guess he's one of those candidates the EP will go after hard. Unfortunately, a Luxembourg socialist as employment commissioner, which probably means that Thyssen's aggressive line will be continued, which will be in unpopular in Northern European welfare states.