The MEPs who actually matter

This article is part of the Brussels Survival Guide.

There’s plenty to pay attention to in the new cohort entering the European Parliament — including, of course, the people. See below our guide on key figures across the policy palette.

Céline Imart

AGRICULTURAL DISRUPTOR
European People’s Party, France

A cereal farmer from Occitania in France, she is a trade unionist and Sciences Po Paris graduate. Imart, who will most likely join the agriculture committee (AGRI) in the European Parliament, participated in blocking the A68 highway during farmers’ protests in France earlier this year, according to local media, and has close links with French farming unions. She recently supported an alliance with the far-right National Rally in France as she stood by her conservative party’s leader Eric Ciotti — who consequently got ousted for it. 

She believes the European Union’s plan to make agri-food more sustainable — the Farm to Fork strategy — is a “delusion” of French liberal lawmaker and former environment committee (ENVI) chair Pascal Canfin. Imart also told French media Libération that farmers are “exasperated by requirements” and angry at “the madness of degrowth.”

Paula Andrés

Johan Van Overtveldt

BANKING INFLUENCER
European Conservatives and Reformists, Belgium

Strictly speaking, the European Central Bank enjoys treaty-bound independence from politics. But if there’s anyone with a decent shot at influencing the future course of Frankfurt’s policy, look no further than Van Overtveldt, a former Belgian finance minister and journalist whose withering critiques of the ECB’s foray into “green central banking” may soon have added weight due to the rise of his generally climate change-skeptic political grouping, the European Conservatives and Reformists.

An outspoken and prolific member of the influential ECON Committee, Van Overtveldt has long complained about the ECB’s controversial green turn under Christine Lagarde. For all its independence, the institution is obliged to support EU economic policy, and it won’t be able to ignore any rightward shift away from net-zero targets led by politicians like Van Overveldt.

If he remains chair of the budget committee, the hawkish Van Overtveldt will also have a say in the enforcement of the EU’s fiscal rules — which carry considerable implications for monetary policy.

Ben Munster

Andreas Schwab

COMPETITION POWERBROKER
European People’s Party, Germany

He’s a veteran of the European Parliament and an influential powerbroker on all things antitrust and tech. Schwab played a starring role in shaping the bloc’s flagship Digital Markets Act. Now governments in the United Kingdom, Japan and South Korea are getting their own versions of the rule book to help tame Big Tech’s dominance. He’s also the rare member of European Parliament to make international headlines with his 2014 call for the European Commission to consider breaking up Google. 

Edith Hancock and Giovanna Faggionato

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann

HEAVY HITTER ON DEFENSE
Renew Europe, Germany

Among those entering the hemicycle for the first time, German liberal firebrand Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann has some name recognition baked in.

That’s because the former chair of the Bundestag’s defense committee has been plastered across massive billboards around Germany and beyond in the run-up to the EU election since she was placed top of the list for the Renew faction.

Despite a less-than-stellar performance in the campaign, Strack-Zimmermann is still poised to be one of the big beasts entering this legislature — with some appropriate experience, given the war in Ukraine.

The native of Düsseldorf is big on defense, having pored over every detail of Germany’s military policy and procurement over the last few years. She also hasn’t been afraid to break ranks with the government (of which her Free Democratic Party is a part) over its failure to dispatch Taurus long-distance cruise missiles to Ukraine.

Expect Strack-Zimmermann to play a major part in the debate over whether to forge a full-fledged defense committee within Parliament this time around.

Joshua Posaner

Pascal Canfin

GREEN STANCHION
Renew Europe, France

As chair of the European Parliament’s environment committee (ENVI) for the last five years, Canfin played a vital role erecting numerous pillars of the EU’s Green Deal. Canfin has told POLITICO he wants to remain in that role. But he’s facing stronger political headwinds this time around — the mood has soured both EU-wide and within France on green policies.

Canfin, a former Green lawmaker before joining French President Emmanuel Macron’s party in 2019, insists the EU election didn’t produce “a majority to dismantle the Green Deal.” Fair enough — but Europe’s right is certainly lining up at least a few green targets it wants to pick off. And don’t expect much new environmental legislation.

Nicolas Camut, Cory Bennett

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

FINANCIAL DEALMAKER
Renew Europe, France

Yon-Courtin made a name for herself as one of the economic and monetary affairs committee’s (ECON) most controversial MEPs last mandate for her unorthodox negotiating style and industry-friendly stance on EU retail investment rules

Hailing from French President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party, which was wiped out by the far right during the election, she was reelected by a hair’s breadth, as 13th on the party’s list for 13 seats won. 

Yon-Courtin, who also followed Big Tech files last time around and had a side job working for the French bank Crédit Agricole until her election in 2019, will likely retain leadership of the retail investment file, which is now heading for final negotiations with EU governments and the Commission. 

She is also positioning herself to take part in the EU’s economic security push, praising new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and saying “pragmatic Europe at the heart of the territories is the commitment of my mandate!”

Kathryn Carlson

Vytenis Andriukaitis

HEALTH ADVOCATE
Socialists and Democrats, Lithuania

Born in Siberia to parents living in exile, Vytenis Andriukaitis returned to Lithuania and became a trauma and heart surgeon. Despite his surgical duties, his career path led him to politics, where he adopted a leftist approach. He kept his health background alive, eventually becoming Lithuania’s health minister in 2012. 

Two years later, Andriukaitis left national politics to join the Commission as commissioner for health and food safety, where he ushered through medical devices regulations, which have so far caused all manner of headache for industry and patients. Will he seek to fix it as an MEP?

Since 2020, he has been a special envoy of the World Health Organization for universal health coverage in the European region. He advocates for expanding the EU’s role in health and is a critic of the “weak” Lisbon Treaty when it comes to health policy. 

Giedre Peseckyte

Adina Vălean

TRANSPORT SPECIALIST
European People’s Party, Romania

Current Transport Commissioner Adina-Ioana Vălean is expected to leave her seat in the College to take up her MEP job — which won’t be new to her, as she has been sitting in the Parliament for more than 10 years (holding relevant posts such as vice president, and chair of the ENVI and ITRE committees). 

While Romania could pick her again as a commissioner, the chances of a second mandate at the Berlaymont for Vălean seem slim. However, her experience in the transport sector is likely to play in her favor when political groups assign the top jobs and dossiers in the new legislature. And the TRAN Committee chair remains vacant after Karima Delli didn’t stand for reelection. 

In the last five years, Vălean had to negotiate delicate dossiers concerning the road, rail, maritime and aviation sectors. She also had to deal with border closures within the single market due to Covid and the war in Ukraine, including the establishment of solidarity lanes with the country invaded by Russia. Why not put all this wealth of experience to the service of the Parliament?

— Tommaso Lecca

Peter Liese

SOLDIER OF INDUSTRY
European People’s Party, Germany

Several Green Deal policies have targets on their backs right now — and Liese is the EPP’s chief archer. Immediately after his group claimed victory in the European election, the high-ranking politician declared that a 2035 ban on the sale of combustion engine cars “needs to go,” arguing the election results vindicate his party’s push for a less restrictive Green Deal.

He has also led the charge against the new EU law to restore nature — successfully weakened in Parliament and squeaking by in the Council — as well as a long-awaited and now long-delayed revision of EU chemicals legislation.

A proposed phaseout of ubiquitous, toxic “forever chemicals” is also in his crosshairs: He’s been lobbying hard for assurances of industry carve-outs from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. 

Brussels should “reduce all the legislation that stands in the way of the decarbonization,” he told POLITICO in an interview. Cue applause from business groups and moans from environmental nongovernmental organizations.

Leonie Cater

Aura Salla and Dóra Dávid

META MAGNETS
European People’s Party, Finland
European People’s Party, Hungary

Meta magnates

They are a package deal: Both are new to the European Parliament, and both have or had links to United States tech giant Meta.

Salla used to run around Brussels, presenting EU officials and lawmakers with Meta’s talking points, as the top lobbyist for Meta in town between 2020 and 2023. Last year, she moved on to become a lawmaker in Finland, her home country.

Dávid is the company’s product counsel but has now been elected in Hungary, for the party of Viktor Orbán rival Péter Magyar. Does this mean Meta has an easy way in? Not necessarily — but Salla has already said she wants to roll back “overregulation” in tech to help Finnish small and medium-sized enterprises. 

Pieter Haeck

Bernd Lange

TRADE DEAL MAVEN
Socialists and Democrats, Germany

Trade deal maven

A key figure for trade policy, returning EU lawmaker Bernd Lange has chaired the Parliament’s international trade committee (INTA) since 2014 — and it’s no secret he is eying yet another turn at the helm of the committee. 

The veteran lawmaker and fan of collectible cars was reelected despite heavy losses suffered by his Social Democratic Party in Germany, as he ranked fourth on his party’s national list. A strong proponent of new trade deals with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries, Australia and Indonesia — as well as more sustainability provisions in trade deals — the MEP is a member of the Parliament’s delegation for relations with the ASEAN bloc of Asian nations and an expert on transatlantic relations.

Antonia Zimmermann

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to clarify that Stéphanie Yon-Courtin stopped working for Crédit Agricole in 2019.



Source link

#MEPs #matter

The Dutch kick off EU election

The Netherlands is going to the polls, kicking off an EU election in 27 countries that lasts until Sunday and in which 373 million Europeans are eligible to vote.

Most polling stations opened at 7:30 a.m. (a handful opened at midnight) and will close at 9 p.m.

Although the Dutch vote officially kicks off the election, Estonians began voting on Monday.

The Dutch will fill 31 of the 720 seats in the next EU Parliament, with Geert Wilders’ far-right Freedom Party (PVV) and the GreenLeft and Labor alliance (GL-PvdA) on the left locked in a close race to finish on top, with pollsters predicting both to get eight seats. 

For the PVV, such an outcome would be a major change from the last EU election, in 2019, when it failed to win any seats.

Wilders has already cast his vote, calling on the Dutch to go to the polls “and make sure that not Frans Timmermans but the PVV becomes the biggest party today,” referring to his political rival, the former European commissioner who is now leader of the GL/PvdA.

Although the official results will only be announced after the polls close continent-wide late on Sunday, Dutch exit polls will come out late Thursday and provide a first glimpse of the political mood on the continent. 

The Netherlands traditionally has a low turnout in EU elections, with only 42 percent of eligible voters casting a ballot in 2019 election.

Turnout is seen as particularly crucial for Wilders’ PVV.

Uncertain about who to vote for, many Dutch have been making use of an online tool called Kieskompas, which asks potential voters questions and, based on the answers, tells you which party might be most appropriate.

According to Kieskompas data cited by public broadcaster NOS, almost half of 51,000 respondents said they supported reinstating some kind of border between EU states as a barrier to immigration. 

A majority of those respondents were aged 65 or over and, perhaps unsurprisingly, 90 percent said they would vote for a far-right party such as the PVV or Forum voor Democratie (FvD.)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS

circle.fill-EU-parliament-EPP,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-EPP,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-EPP,
text.fill-EU-parliament-EPP {
fill: #3399FF;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP {
stroke: #3399FF;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-SD,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-SD,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-SD,
text.fill-EU-parliament-SD {
fill: #FF0000;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-SD,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-SD,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-SD,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-SD {
stroke: #FF0000;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-ECR,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-ECR,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-ECR,
text.fill-EU-parliament-ECR {
fill: #0000FF;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR {
stroke: #0000FF;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-RE,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-RE,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-RE,
text.fill-EU-parliament-RE {
fill: #FFD700;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-RE,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-RE,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-RE,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-RE {
stroke: #FFD700;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-ID,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-ID,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-ID,
text.fill-EU-parliament-ID {
fill: #2B3856;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-ID,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-ID,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-ID,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-ID {
stroke: #2B3856;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-NEW,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-NEW,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-NEW,
text.fill-EU-parliament-NEW {
fill: #cca1c2;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW {
stroke: #cca1c2;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-NI,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-NI,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-NI,
text.fill-EU-parliament-NI {
fill: #848484;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-NI,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-NI,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-NI,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-NI {
stroke: #848484;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
text.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA {
fill: #009900;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA {
stroke: #009900;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
text.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL {
fill: #990000;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL {
stroke: #990000;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE {
fill: #a3a5a8;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE {
stroke: #a3a5a8;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL {
fill: #a3a5a8;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL {
stroke: #a3a5a8;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD {
fill: #bbbbbb;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD {
stroke: #bbbbbb;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR {
fill: #a3a5a8;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR {
stroke: #a3a5a8;
}

For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls.

Source link

#Dutch #kick #election

Von der Leyen faces Socialist revolt over her far-right flirtation with Meloni

Europe’s Socialists have warned Ursula von der Leyen they won’t back her for a second term as European Commission president if she continues to suggest she could work with hard-right MEPs aligned with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

Perhaps most crucially — just as French President Emmanuel Macron visits Germany to try to forge Franco-German consensus on Europe’s political landscape after the June 6 to 9 election — even Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his Social Democratic Party are signaling that they are willing to torpedo a second term for von der Leyen.

Some even have a replacement in mind: former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi. And that’s a choice that will go down well in Paris.

In multiple comments over recent days, high-ranking Socialists including Scholz and the SPD lead candidate for next month’s EU election Katarina Barley threatened to scuttle von der Leyen’s candidacy if she accepts the backing of the hard right to secure a majority in the European Parliament.

“We will not work with the far right,” Barley said on the Berlin Playbook podcast, reiterating the pledge made by the Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, the Greens and the Left to “never cooperate nor form a coalition with the far right and radical parties at any level.”

The comment was the latest sign of the left-leaning parties’ alarm at von der Leyen’s stance on Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, which belongs to the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament.

Von der Leyen, who hails from the center-right European People’s Party, has indicated that if she fails to secure a majority with the backing of center-left and liberal lawmakers after the EU election, she could work with the ECR

On Friday, Scholz warned von der Leyen against such a move, saying: “When the next Commission is formed, it must not be based on a majority that also needs the support of the far right.” He added that “the only way to establish a Commission presidency will be to base it on the traditional parties.”

Putting the boot in further, Nicolas Schmit, the Socialists’ lead candidate for the EU election, said in an interview published Sunday: “Von der Leyen wants us to believe that there are good right-wing extremists and bad ones.”

Meloni is “politically extremely right wing” and her vision is “certainly not a strong, integrated Europe,” Schmit said. “For Ms. von der Leyen, however, she is probably a conservative.”

The questions now are whether Scholz and his German Socialists would actually kibosh a second term for fellow German von der Leyen — and who they might have in mind to replace her.

One potential challenger to the incumbent is Draghi, the former European Central Bank chief.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS

circle.fill-EU-parliament-EPP,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-EPP,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-EPP,
text.fill-EU-parliament-EPP {
fill: #3399FF;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-EPP {
stroke: #3399FF;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-SD,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-SD,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-SD,
text.fill-EU-parliament-SD {
fill: #FF0000;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-SD,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-SD,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-SD,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-SD {
stroke: #FF0000;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-RE,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-RE,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-RE,
text.fill-EU-parliament-RE {
fill: #FFD700;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-RE,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-RE,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-RE,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-RE {
stroke: #FFD700;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-ECR,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-ECR,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-ECR,
text.fill-EU-parliament-ECR {
fill: #0000FF;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-ECR {
stroke: #0000FF;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-ID,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-ID,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-ID,
text.fill-EU-parliament-ID {
fill: #2B3856;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-ID,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-ID,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-ID,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-ID {
stroke: #2B3856;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-NI,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-NI,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-NI,
text.fill-EU-parliament-NI {
fill: #848484;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-NI,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-NI,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-NI,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-NI {
stroke: #848484;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-NEW,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-NEW,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-NEW,
text.fill-EU-parliament-NEW {
fill: #cca1c2;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-NEW {
stroke: #cca1c2;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
text.fill-EU-parliament-GreensEFA {
fill: #009900;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-GreensEFA {
stroke: #009900;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
text.fill-EU-parliament-GUENGL {
fill: #990000;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-GUENGL {
stroke: #990000;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE {
fill: #a3a5a8;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalSDRE {
stroke: #a3a5a8;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalGL {
fill: #a3a5a8;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalGL {
stroke: #a3a5a8;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD {
fill: #bbbbbb;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPSD {
stroke: #bbbbbb;
}
circle.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
rect.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
svg.colorize path.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
text.fill-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR {
fill: #a3a5a8;
}

circle.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
rect.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
svg.colorize path.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR,
text.stroke-EU-parliament-CoalEPPECR {
stroke: #a3a5a8;
}

For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls.

Just last week, Draghi received the backing of one of Emmanuel Macron’s closest allies, Pascal Canfin, an MEP from the French president’s liberal Renaissance party who is known to have a direct line to the Élysée.

Asked by POLITICO whether France supports von der Leyen’s reelection bid, Canfin said: “France and everyone in the presidential ecosystem would like Draghi to play a role.”

Macron has long been rumored to be maneuvering to put Draghi at the head of the EU executive — and now he appears to have allies in Berlin.

Markus Töns, a German MP from the Social Democrats, told POLITICO’s Brussels Decoded: “Draghi has experience at the European level and knows the current challenges. I would have no problem seeing him in this position — he might even be better than Ursula von der Leyen.”

Ralf Stegner, an influential SPD member of the Bundestag, on Friday said: “If Emmanuel Macron is critical of another term for Ursula von der Leyen, who lacks sufficient clarity regarding alliances with the right-wing bloc, I have every sympathy for him.”

With both Paris and Berlin expressing dissatisfaction with her stance on working with the ECR, von der Leyen’s bid for a second term as Commission chief faces a serious challenge.

While von der Leyen is the EPP’s lead candidate going into the EU election, in theory making her a shoo-in for the post, she will require support from European leaders like Scholz, Macron and Meloni to secure it.

The electoral arithmetic is difficult as she will need 361 votes in an approval vote in the European Parliament, and the EPP is on course only for some 176 seats. The Socialists and Democrats are expected to win 144 and von der Leyen’s prospects will be in severe trouble if the center-left MEPs do not support her.

If they do decide to forgo EPP lead candidate von der Leyen in favor of a curveball, it wouldn’t be the first time: That was precisely the way von der Leyen herself got the job after the 2019 EU election, installed after leaders shunned the EPP’s Manfred Weber.

Macron is currently in Germany for the first state visit with full ceremonial honors by a French president in 24 years. Macron will meet Scholz in Berlin on Tuesday.

It’s hard to believe there won’t be any mention of the electoral mathematics — and of Meloni and Draghi.

Source link

#Von #der #Leyen #faces #Socialist #revolt #farright #flirtation #Meloni

Analysis: In the age of AI, keep calm and vote on

This article is part of a series, Bots and ballots: How artificial intelligence is reshaping elections worldwide, presented by Luminate.

When I started this series on artificial intelligence, disinformation and global elections, I had a pretty clear picture in mind.

It came down to this: While AI had garnered people’s imagination — and the likes of deepfakes and other AI-generated falsehoods were starting to bubble to the surface — the technology did not yet represent a step change in how politically motivated lies, often spread via social media, would alter the mega-election cycle engulfing the world in 2024.

Now, after nine stories and reporting trips from Chișinău to Seattle, I haven’t seen anything that would alter that initial view. But things, as always, are more complicated — and more volatile — than I first believed.

What’s clear, based on more than 100  interviews with policymakers, government officials, tech executives and civil society groups, is that the technology — specifically, generative AI — is getting more advanced by the day.

During the course of my reporting, I was shown deepfake videos, purportedly portraying global leaders like U.S. President Joe Biden and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, that were indistinguishable from the real thing. They included politicians allegedly speaking in multiple languages and saying things that, if true, would have ended their careers.

They were so lifelike that it would take a lot to convince anyone without deep technical expertise that an algorithm had created them.

Despite being a tech reporter, I’m not a fanboy of technology. But the speed of AI advancements, and their ease of use by those with little, if any, computer science background, should give us all pause for concern.

The second key theme that surprised me from this series was how much oversight had been outsourced to companies — many of which were the same firms that created the AI systems that could be used for harm.

More than 25 tech giants have now signed up to the so-called AI Election Accords, voluntary commitments from companies including Microsoft, ByteDance and Alphabet to do what they can to protect global elections from the threat posed by AI.

Given the track record of many of these firms in protecting users from existing harms, including harassment and bullying on social media, it’s a massive leap of faith to rely on them to safeguard election integrity.

That’s despite the legitimate goodwill I perceived from multiple interviews with corporate executives within these firms to reduce politically motivated harm as much as possible.

The problem, as of mid-2024, is that governments, regulators and other branches of the state are just not prepared for the potential threat — and it does remain potential — tied to AI.

Much of the technical expertise resides deep within companies. Legislative efforts, including the European Union’s recently passed Artificial Intelligence Act, are, at best, works in progress. The near total lack of oversight of how social media platforms’ AI-powered algorithms operate makes it impossible to rely on anyone other than tech giants themselves to police how these systems determine what people see online.

With AI advancing faster than you can say “large language model” and governments struggling to keep up, why am I still cautious about heralding this as the year of AI-fueled disinformation, just as billions of people head to the polls in 2024?

For now, I have a potentially naive belief that people are smarter than many of us think they are.

As easy as it is to think that one well-placed AI deepfake on social media may change the minds of unsuspecting voters, that’s not how people make their political choices. Entrenched views on specific lawmakers or parties make it difficult to shift people’s opinions. The fact that AI-fueled forgeries must be viewed in a wider context — alongside other social media posts, discussions with family members and interactions with legacy media — also hamstring the ability for such lies to break through.

Where I believe we’re heading, though, is a “post-post-truth” era, where people will think everything, and I mean everything, is made up, especially online. Think “fake news,” but turned up to 11, where not even the most seemingly authentic content can be presumed to be 100 percent true.

We’re already seeing examples of politicians claiming that damaging social media posts are deepfakes when, in fact, they are legitimate. With the hysteria around AI often outpacing what the technology can currently do — despite daily advances — there’s now a widespread willingness to believe all content can be created via AI, even when it can’t. 

In such a world, it’s only rational to not have faith in anything.

The positive is that we’re not there yet. If the nine articles in this “Bots and Ballots” series show anything, it’s that, yes, AI-fueled disinformation is upon us. But no, it’s not an existential threat, and it must be viewed as part of a wider world of ‘old-school’ campaigning and, in some cases, foreign interference and cyberattacks. AI is an agnostic tool, to be wielded for good or ill.

Will that change in the years to come? Potentially. But for this year’s election cycle, your best bet is to remain vigilant, without getting caught up in the hype-train that artificial intelligence has become.

Mark Scott is POLITICO’s chief technology correspondent. He writes a weekly newsletter, Digital Bridge, about the global intersection of technology and politics. 

This article is part of a series, Bots and ballots: How artificial intelligence is reshaping elections worldwide, presented by Luminate. The article is produced with full editorial independence by POLITICO reporters and editors. Learn more about editorial content presented by outside advertisers.



Source link

#Analysis #age #calm #vote

Decline, fear and the AfD in Germany

Mathias Döpfner is chairman and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company.

In Germany today, the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) is maintaining a stable 20 percent in opinion polls — coming in two to four points ahead of the ruling center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) and running hard on the heels of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

In some federal states, the AfD is already the strongest party. In Thuringia, for example, it has reached 34 percent, meaning the party has three times as many supporters there as the SPD. And in some administrative districts, around half of those eligible to vote are leaning toward the AfD. According to one Forsa survey in June, the AfD is currently the strongest party in the east of Germany — a worrying trend with elections due this year in Bavaria and Hesse, and next year in Thuringia, Saxony and Brandenburg. And, of course, there are also the European Union elections in 2024.

However, this rapid rise should come as no surprise. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. And more than anything else, the party’s recent advances are a result of an increasing sense among broad swathes of the population that they aren’t being represented by traditional political and media elites.

This disconnect was first accelerated by the refugee crisis of 2015, then increased during the pandemic, and has since escalated in response to the increasing high-handedness of the “woke movement” and climate politics. Just a few weeks ago, a survey by the German Civil Service Association revealed trust in the government’s ability to do its job is at an all-time low, with 69 percent saying it is deeply out of its depth.

Meanwhile, opinion polls show the government fares particularly badly in Germany’s east. A rising number of people — including the otherwise stable but also staid middle classes — now feel enough is enough, and no other party is as good at exploiting this feeling as the AfD.

The problem, however, is the AfD isn’t a normal democratic party.

The regional offices of Germany’s domestic intelligence services in the federal states of Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Lower Saxony and Baden-Württemberg have all classified their local AfD associations as “organizations of interest.”

And the same applies at the federal level. The national office of the domestic intelligence service, the remit of which includes protecting the German constitution, has also classified the national party of the AfD as “of interest.”

These concerns about the party’s commitment to the constitution aren’t unjustified. In a 2018 speech at the national conference of the party’s youth section, Junge Alternative, former AfD chairman Alexander Gauland said that “Hitler and the Nazis are just a speck of bird shit in a thousand years of successful German history.”

When speaking about the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, Björn Höcke, group chairman of the AfD in Thuringia, said on 2017 that “We Germans — and I’m not talking about you patriots who have gathered here today. We Germans, our people, are the only people in the world to place a monument of shame in the heart of our capital city.”

And in a speech in the Bundestag in 2018, party boss Alice Weidel bandied about terms like “headscarf girls” and “knife-wielding men,” while her co-chairman Tino Chrupalla speaks of an “Umvolkung” — that is, an “ethnicity inversion” — which comes straight out of Nazi ideology.

This small sample of public statements leaves no doubt that such utterings aren’t slips of the tongue — they reflect these leaders’ core beliefs.

And while many vote for the AfD out of protest, more than anything else, the party feeds off resentment and fear, exploiting and fueling anger, hate and envy, pushing conspiracy theories to hit out at “those at the top,” as well as foreigners, Jews, the LGTBQ+ community or just about anyone who might be deemed different. And the party leaders’ blatant admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin exposes their reverence for autocracy.

Failure to prevent the AfD’s rise could potentially first corrode, then shatter democracy and rule of law in Germany.

But how can a party like this, which is getting stronger in the polls, be dealt with? Is a ban the right way to go? They are always difficult to deal with, and it isn’t even an option at this stage. What about joining the AfD to form a coalition and temper the party? That is even more difficult, as it is unreasonable to argue that the AfD should be treated like other parties. The Nazis and Adolf Hitler had also been democratically elected when they seized power in 1933.

So, what options remain? Many politicians and journalists say we need to confront the AfD with critical arguments. Sounds good on the face of it. But people have already been doing that for a decade — with scant success.

This is why the only remaining option is to attempt what neither the AfD nor many politicians from established parties have been able to do: Start taking voters’ most important concerns and issues seriously, and seek to find solutions.

The fears that have allowed the AfD to become as big as it is today are clearly identifiable. When a recent survey by Infratest Dimap asked “What topics most influence your decision to vote for the AfD at the moment?” 65 percent said immigration, 47 percent said energy policies and 43 percent named the economy.

And in their handling of all three of these key issues, the older parties have demonstrated moral cowardice and a lack of honesty.

This is especially apparent when it comes to immigration.

Why is it so hard for centrist politicians to just come out and say a few simple truths? Germany is a land of immigration, and it must remain so if it wants to be economically successful. And modern migration policy needs a healthy balance between altruism and self-interest.

According to economists’ most recent estimations, Germany needs to bring in 1 to 1.5 million skilled individuals per year from abroad. What we need is an immigration of excellence and qualified workers. People from war zones and crisis regions should obviously be taken in. But beyond that, we can only take the migrants we need, the ones who will benefit us.

This means the social welfare benefits for immigrants require critical rethinking, with the goal of creating a situation where every immigrant would be able to and would have to actually start working immediately. Then add to this factors that are a matter of course in countries with a successful history of integration: learning the local language and respecting the constitution and the laws. And anyone who doesn’t must leave — and fast.

Germany’s current immigration policy is dysfunctional. Most politicians and journalists are fully aware of this, but they just won’t say it out loud. And all this does is strengthen the AfD, as well as other groups on the left and right that have no true respect for democracy.

Not speaking out about the problem is the biggest problem. Indeed, when issues are taboo, it doesn’t make the issues any smaller, just the demagogues stronger.

We’re seeing the same with energy policy. Everyone knows that in the short term, our energy needs can’t be met by wind and solar power alone. Anyone interested in reality knows decarbonization without nuclear power isn’t going to be feasible any time soon. And they know heat pumps and cutting vacation flights won’t solve the global carbon challenge — it will, however, weaken the German economy.

We need only look at one example: While just over 2 percent of global carbon emissions come from aviation, almost a third are caused by China — an increasing amount of which comes from coal-fired power stations. Ordinary Germans are very much aware the sacrifices they’re being asked to make, and the costs being piled on them, make no sense in the broader scheme of things, and they’re understandably upset.

In some cases, this makes them more likely to vote for the AfD.

This brings us to the third and final reason why people are so agitated. The EU, and above all Germany, has broken its promise about advancing prosperity and growth. Fewer young people now see a future for themselves in Germany; more and more service providers and companies are leaving; and the increasing number of immigrants without means is reducing the average GNP per capita. Germans aren’t becoming more prosperous — they’re becoming poorer.

Traditional politicians and political parties unable to offer change are thus on very shaky ground. They have disconnected themselves from their voters, and they are paving the way for populists who use bogeyman tactics and offer simplistic solutions that solve nothing.



Source link

#Decline #fear #AfD #Germany

The EU’s reply to Qatargate: Nips, tucks and paperwork

Press play to listen to this article

Voiced by artificial intelligence.

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament’s response to Qatargate: Fight corruption with paperwork.

When Belgian police made sweeping arrests and recovered €1.5 million from Parliament members in a cash-for-influence probe last December, it sparked mass clamoring for a deep clean of the institution, which has long languished with lax ethics and transparency rules, and even weaker enforcement.

Seven months later, the Parliament and its president, Roberta Metsola, can certainly claim to have tightened some rules — but the results are not much to shout about. With accused MEPs Eva Kaili and Marc Tarabella back in the Parliament and even voting on ethics changes themselves, the reforms lack the political punch to take the sting out of a scandal that Euroskeptic forces have leaped on ahead of the EU election next year.

“Judge us on what we’ve done rather [than] on what we didn’t,” Metsola told journalists earlier this month, arguing that Parliament has acted swiftly where it could. 

While the Parliament can claim some limited improvements, calls for a more profound overhaul in the EU’s only directly elected institution — including more serious enforcement of existing rules — have been met with finger-pointing, blame-shifting and bureaucratic slow-walking. 

The Parliament dodged some headline-worthy proposals in the process. It declined to launch its own inquiry into what really happened, it decided not to force MEPs to declare their assets and it won’t be stripping any convicted MEPs of their gold-plated pensions.

Instead, the institution favored more minimal nips and tucks. The rule changes amount to much more bureaucracy and more potential alarm bells to spot malfeasance sooner — but little in the way of stronger enforcement of ethics rules for MEPs.

EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, who investigates complaints about EU administration lamented that the initial sense of urgency to adopt strict reforms had “dissipated.” After handing the EU a reputational blow, she argued, the scandal’s aftermath offered a pre-election chance, “to show that lessons have been learned and safeguards have been put in place.”

Former MEP Richard Corbett, who co-wrote the Socialists & Democrats group’s own inquiry into Qatargate and favors more aggressive reforms, admitted he isn’t sure whether Parliament will get there.  

“The Parliament is getting to grips with this gradually, muddling its way through the complex field, but it’s too early to say whether it will do what it should,” he said. 

Bags of cash

The sense of resignation that criminals will be criminals was only one of the starting points that shaped the Parliament’s response. 

“We will never be able to prevent people taking bags of cash. This is human nature. What we have to do is create a protection network,” said Raphaël Glucksmann, a French MEP who sketched out some longer-term recommendations he hopes the Parliament will take up. 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS

For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls.

Another is that the Belgian authorities’ painstaking judicial investigation is still ongoing, with three MEPs charged and a fourth facing imminent questioning. Much is unknown about how the alleged bribery ring really operated, or what the countries Qatar, Morocco and Mauritania really got for their bribes.

On top of that, Parliament was occasionally looking outward rather than inward for people to blame. 

Metsola’s message in the wake of the scandal was that EU democracy was “under attack” by foreign forces. The emphasis on “malign actors, linked to autocratic third countries” set the stage for the Parliament’s response to Qatargate: blame foreign interference, not an integrity deficit. 

Instead of creating a new panel to investigate how corruption might have steered Parliament’s work, Parliament repurposed an existing committee on foreign interference and misinformation to probe the matter. The result was a set of medium- and long-term recommendations that focus as much on blocking IT contractors from Russia and China as they do on holding MEPs accountable — and they remain merely recommendations. 

Metsola did also turn inward, presenting a 14-point plan in January she labeled as “first steps” of a promised ethics overhaul. The measures are a finely tailored lattice-work of technical measures that could make it harder for Qatargate to happen again, primarily by making it harder to lobby the Parliament undetected.

The central figure in Qatargate, an Italian ex-MEP called Pier Antonio Panzeri, enjoyed unfettered access to the Parliament, using it to give prominence to his human rights NGO Fight Impunity, which held events and even struck a collaboration deal with the institution. 

This 14-point package, which Metsola declared is now “done,” includes a new entry register, a six-month cooling-off period banning ex-MEPs from lobbying their colleagues, tighter rules for events, stricter scrutiny of human rights work — all tailored to ensure a future Panzeri hits a tripwire and can be spotted sooner.

Notably, however, an initial idea to ban former MEPs from lobbying for two years after leaving office — which would mirror the European Commission’s rules — instead turned into just a six-month “cooling off” period.

Internal divisions

Behind the scenes, the house remains sharply divided over just how much change is needed. Many MEPs resisted bigger changes to how they conduct their work, despite Metsola’s promise in December that there would be “no business as usual,” which she repeated in July.  

The limited ambition reflects an argument — pushed by a powerful subset of MEPs, primarily in Metsola’s large, center-right European People’s Party group — that changing that “business as usual” will only tie the hands of innocent politicians while doing little to stop the few with criminal intent. They’re bolstered by the fact that the Socialists & Democrats remain the only group touched by the scandal.

“There were voices in this house who said, ‘Do nothing, these things will always happen, things are fine as they are,’” Metsola said. Some of the changes, she said, had been “resisted for decades” before Qatargate momentum pushed them through. 

The Parliament already has some of the Continent’s highest standards for legislative bodies, said Rainer Wieland, a long-serving EPP member from Germany who sits on the several key rule-making committees: “I don’t think anyone can hold a candle to us.”

MEP Rainer Wieland holds lots of sway over the reforms | Patrick Seeger/EFE via EPA

Those who are still complaining, he added in a debate last week, “are living in wonderland.”

Wieland holds lots of sway over the reforms. He chairs an internal working group on the Parliament’s rules that feeds into the Parliament’s powerful Committee on Constitutional Affairs, where Metsola’s 14-point plan will be translated into cold, hard rules. 

Those rule changes are expected to be adopted by the full Parliament in September. 

The measures will boost existing transparency rules significantly. The lead MEP on a legislative file will soon have to declare (and deal with) potential conflicts of interest, including those coming from their “emotional life.” And more MEPs will have to publish their meetings related to parliamentary business, including those with representatives from outside the EU. 

Members will also have to disclose outside income over €5,000 — with additional details about the sector if they work in something like law or consulting. 

Negotiators also agreed to double potential penalties for breaches: MEPs can lose their daily allowance and be barred from most parliamentary work for up to 60 days. 

Yet the Parliament’s track record punishing MEPs who break the rules is virtually nonexistent.

As it stands, an internal advisory committee can recommend a punishment, but it’s up to the president to impose it. Of 26 breaches of transparency rules identified over the years, not one MEP has been punished. (Metsola has imposed penalties for things like harassment and hate speech.) 

And hopes for an outside integrity cop to help with enforcement were dashed when a long-delayed Commission proposal for an EU-wide independent ethics body was scaled back. 

Stymied by legal constraints and left-right divides within the Parliament, the Commission opted for suggesting a standards-setting panel that, at best, would pressure institutions into better policing their own rules.

“I really hate listening to some, especially members of the European Parliament, who say that ‘Without having the ethics body, we cannot behave ethical[ly],’” Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová lamented in June.

Metsola, for her part, has pledged to adhere to the advisory committee’s recommendations going forward. But MEPs from across the political spectrum flagged the president’s complete discretion to mete out punishments as unsustainable.

“The problem was not (and never really was) [so] much the details of the rules!!! But the enforcement,” French Green MEP Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield — who sits in the working group — wrote to POLITICO.

Wieland, the German EPP member on the rule-making committees, presented the situation more matter-of-factly: Parliament had done what it said it would do.

“We fully delivered” on Metsola’s plan, Wieland told POLITICO in an interview. “Not more than that.”



Source link

#EUs #reply #Qatargate #Nips #tucks #paperwork