In an American-style TV debate, representatives of eight leading political factions within the EU took to the stage to debate their suitability for the EU top job. Cynics might say this carefully calculated spectacle was designed to bolster the legitimacy of the Commission chief position, which is not directly elected by voters.
Issues ranging from the future of the moribund Green New Deal to whether it was time for a ceasefire in Ukraine played out for the cameras in the Dutch city of Maastricht on Monday. The debate was sponsored by the Politico, house journal of pro-Brussels insiders.
All parties are preparing for EU elections June 6th to 9th. The next European Parliament (EP) is required to approve a candidate for the key executive role, after it has been decided on by member states at the European Council. Incumbent Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen is under fire for her handling of the Ukrainian war and the COVID crisis, as well as for the recent febrile farming protests across Europe.
In attendance alongside von der Leyen were lead candidates from the liberals (Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann), socialists (Nicolas Schmit), communists (Walter Baier), and Greens (Bas Eickhout), as well as Anders Vistisen from the nationalist Identity and Democracy (ID) group.
One notable absence was that of a speaker from the conservative ECR group, which has opted against presenting a candidate for the Commission presidency. It was left to Vistisen to act as a light in the darkness, faced with an overarching federalist and pro-green consensus amongst all the other candidates.
Despite most candidates admitting that they had no real chance of becoming Commission president, the debate was divided into three, with segments on green issues, foreign policy, and ‘EU democracy’. Some 32% of audience attendees declared for the Greens before the debate, compared to less than 2% for the nationalists in a poll conducted by organisers beforehand.
All the major parties, like von der Leyen herself, broadly agreed on the green transition, only disagreeing in its intensity, In contrast, Vistisen stirred anger on stage for insisting that the EU establishment was a ‘swamp’ and that his group would commence a mass firing of 10,000 Eurocrats upon taking power, beginning with the Commission president herself.
Perhaps most worryingly for von der Leyen, the loudest cheer of the night from the largely student audience came from a demand from Austrian leftist Walter Baier to initiate EU sanctions against Israel. Von der Leyen has been criticised within some EU circles for taking a formally pro-Israel stance in the aftermath of the October 7th massacre.
Similarly, von der Leyen visibly struggled to simultaneously defend her farming policies and the flow of Ukrainian agricultural products into the common market. Speakers from the left accused the centrist incumbent of playing politics with the Green Deal and ceding ground to populists.
On foreign policy, when challenged on whether member states alone could defend the bloc, the ID’s Vistisen stated that military matters were “a job for NATO,” insisting that the rush to harmonise EU defence policy was part of a wider strategy to create a federalist state, including the abolition of national vetoes.
The Danish populist shrugged off claims his group was ‘in the pocket of the Kremlin’ from both the Green’s Bas Eickhout and even von der Leyen herself, as he reminded the Commission president that it was her party, the CDU in Germany, that copper-fastened Europe’s energy dependence on Russia when in power.
Vistisen was also eager to point out that the leftist S&D party had been embroiled in far more serious corruption scandals—involving Qatar and Morocco—in the past few years and that elites were “making equality between legitimately criticising a federalist European Union and misinformation.”
On the migration question, von der Leyen was similarly chastised from left and right as she defended the EU’s deal with Tunisia on regulating irregular migration. Vistisen responded with the Australian model of stopping migrants at the border as a nationalist alternative to the EU’s Migration Pact and went on to say that if the EU adopted Denmark’s own asylum policy, the number of refugee applicants would drop by 90% across the EU. According to Vistisen, European elites lacked ‘political will’ to enforce a proper border policy.
Regarding parliamentary alliances, von der Leyen gave a ‘definite no’ to the suggestion that her centrist EPP group would work with the nationalist ID faction, while being more nuanced on a deal with the conservative ECR, which includes Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni.
Prior to the debate, there had been much speculation of a potential alliance between the centrist EPP and the more populist-leaning ECR. Such a shift would break the traditional alliance of the left, centre and Greens (often called the ‘Ursula Coalition’) that dictates EU policy. Von der Leyen faced criticism on stage from leftist speakers, who accused her of placating so-called ‘toxic’ elements of the far right by contemplating such a move.
Unsurprisingly, when the topic of Hungary was brought up on stage, federalists of all stripes raised the possibility of EU institutions getting more power as a ‘counterweight’ to rebellious member states.
Hoping to flip the script, Vistisen accused von der Leyen of ‘gambling with the rule of law’ by fast-tracking the integration of prospective member states such as Ukraine, saying criticism on the matter had become a “holy cow” within EU circles.
Watched by a peak total of 2,000 viewers on YouTube—and populated by candidates unrecognised by most European voters—it is doubtful if Monday’s debate will have any meaningful impact on the looming elections (bar supplying soundbites for the various factions).
Despite the video debate, there is a growing possibility that the EU’s top official will be decided by backroom deals anyway, with substantial speculation that French President Macron wishes to replace von der Leyen with the less Atlanticist Mario Draghi for the executive role.
However perfunctory, Monday’s non-event illustrates the rhetorical battle lines being drawn across Europe in the weeks leading up to June. While the post of president of the European Commission embodies the destructive consensus that has long engulfed decision-making in Brussels, all the indications suggest that it now faces five tough years ahead.
