Since the results of the European elections started to trickle through, the continent’s elites have been scrambling to minimise their impact. Faced with a predictable surge in support for Right-populist parties, their strategy has been relatively simple: to fast-track the usually lengthy process for the selection of the bloc’s three top jobs — that of president of the European Commission, currently held by Ursula von der Leyen; of president of the European Council, held by Charles Michel; and of foreign policy chief, which is currently in the hands of Josep Borrell. Within hours, Operation Save Brussels had gone into overdrive, in an attempt to “lock in” the EU’s institutional set-up for the next five years before the Right-populists make any more advances.
It was in honour of this mission that EU leaders held an “informal” dinner in Brussels last night. Amid frenzied briefings and counter-briefings, the discussions largely centred on the presidency of the Commission — the most powerful and coveted post in the EU. And even if they failed to reach an agreement for all three posts, von der Leyen’s reconfirmation seems all but certain.
As far as the European Council is concerned, von der Leyen can count on the backing of the 11 heads of state or government who are affiliated with the EPP bloc, as well as the four belonging to the centre-left S&D, including Germany, and the five belonging to the liberal Renew Europe, including France. These three groups are, after all, part of the “super grand coalition” that has supported von der Leyen in the European Parliament for the past five years.
For now, Germany and France haven’t formally endorsed her, but everything indicates Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron — faced with record-low domestic support and massive gains by the AfD and the National Rally — are betting on a second von der Leyen term as a way of securing an “anti-populist” ally in Brussels. “We will build a bastion together with others against the extremes of the Left and Right,” von der Leyen stated after the elections — something which Scholz and Macron are desperately in need of.
This is arguably why Scholz has said that “there is every indication that Ursula von der Leyen will be able to serve a second term”, and why even Macron, who had previously flirted with replacing her with the former Italian prime minister and president of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi, would appear to have fallen in line. “I think that things can move quite quickly,” he coyly remarked before last night’s summit.
It was, if we needed it, a reminder that the EU shouldn’t simply be viewed as a supranational authority that infringes upon the autonomy of nation-states (though it is also that, of course), but also as an institution which pro-establishment national authorities can, if needed, deploy against their own “populist” adversaries — and against their own electorates. France is a case in point. As soon as Macron called a snap election in response to Le Pen’s crushing victory last week, the “spread” between French and German government borrowing costs immediately rose to the highest level in years. Now, this could be seen as a “natural” reaction of financial markets to the prospect of a “populist” majority coming to power in France — and this is certainly how much of the media is framing it. But this ignores the fact that, ultimately, the spread is determined by the central bank — in the EU’s case, the ECB — which always has the power to bring down interest rates by intervening in sovereign bond markets. Markets only have power over states insofar as the central bank refuses to act.
Regrettably, the ECB has a long history of selectively refusing to intervene in support of sovereign bond markets, and engineering financial and fiscal panics. It did this, for example, with Italy’s Giorgia Meloni — allowing interest rates to rise as soon as her government came to power, and only intervening to bring them down once the new government pledged to submit to the EU’s economic agenda. It would now appear to be pre-emptively applying the same strategy against Le Pen in France.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWouldn’t firing Von der Leyen be a slap at the majority who voted for the mainstream/establishment parties that won a very clear majority together. I voted for a candidate that that I wasn’t sure I liked, but who belonged to a party that is part of EPP. Beside the necessity of more military aid to Ukraine, support for the excellent leadership of Von der Leyen was one of the determining factors for my vote.
Unherd’s down-voters seem to have missed your subtle sarcasm, Micael. You almost had me too until ‘excellent leadership’.
Sorry, I really was serious. And I really like on der Leyen. Whether her leadership is viewed as excellent or not probably depend on what views one has about everything from Ukraine to the EU itself. Which president of the European Comission do you think have been better and why?
She was bad, because underc her the EC engaged in serious mission creep, way outside the confines of the Treaties.
Such as?
Setup of judiciary in members countries is outside EU treaties.
Are you aware of Polands treatment by EU in this regard?
What about forcing countries like Poland to accept immigrants because EU countries can not be bother to control their borders?
What about withholding of EU funds till “correct” government was elected in Poland?
The government were corrupting the justice system by destroying the independence of the courts. I am only sad that EU couldn’t act stronger and faster regarding that.
Article 2 of TEU (Treaty of the European Union) defines rule of law as a fundamental value of the EU. When countries like Poland try to do away with independent courts and corrupt the justice system, they are acting against the treaty. You may not like it, it I fail to see how it is acting against or outside of the EU treaties.
I am not exactly clear on what you mean by the second example. Are you referring to the free movements of people within the Union, or to quotas for refugees in the member countries of the Union?
What about her dealings with Pfizer and the missing messages? And her punishment of EU countries that refuse to march in goose-step to her cultural imperatives? When the EU project started, we were all told that individual national sovereignty would be respected. This seems to have been a big lie.
The case about Pfizer is not closed yet, so we will see. I think, even if she is shown to have acted illegally, that it was good to have a leader who could act decisively in a situation of crisis. Actually it shows how she is better than for examples Junker, who probably would have done nothing.
I don’t know what you refer to with “when the EU project started”, but when my country joined in the mid 90s it was obvious that practical sovereignty was partial (except that you can kick up you ball and leave). It would hardly have been a Union if every member state had absolute sovereignty.
Your believe in democratic nature of EU is quite hilarious.
So called EU parliament is nothing of the sort.
It is well paid sinecure for failed European politicians.
This mickey mouse “parliament” has no ability to initiate legislation or really hold executive to account.
The sooner EU reverts to being trade organisations, the better.
I know the EU parliament is weaker than it should be. But it can reject the candidate for president proposed by the council of ministers. If there was a majority of “right wing populists”, they could block Von der Leyen. But they can’t, not even if they join up with the far left, because they didn’t win a majority. I thought Thomas Fazi’s reasoning was strange, because he was arguing as if there was a majority of European voters who supported them. If they win a majority they can say no to every candidate the council of ministers proposes until the council proposes a candidate they like.
The EEC was always intended to become the EU…it was never just a trading bloc…and the UK should never have joined.
It now wants to become a military power. The UK would be best advised to stay well clear…but won’t.
You have a slave mentality or work in government — or is it both?
I don’t work in government, so I guess it is slave mentality then
It’s like living in Vienna in 1913, only this time all of Europe gets to join in the fun.
May you live in interesting times.
Vienna in 1848 ( It took 2 years to quell the uprising in Hungary) and in 1862 Vienna had to accept Hungary as an equal partner anyway
Suppression happened with the help of Russian troops.
However moves towards recognising Hungarians as partners in Empire were under way already.
Similar to 1956 uprising.
So attitudes of Hungarian towards Ukraine are puzzling.
Yes, I know about Hungarian minority problems in Ukraine (my family is from Galicia), but supporting Russia aggression is a disgrace.
Behind the veneer of civilized socialistic policies there is a structure of a fully undemocratic shadow government with unopposed powers. “We, the Anointed …” to conjure up the spirit of Thomas Sowell
Whoever said ‘government is blackmail’ certainly got it right where the EU is concerned.
Say what you like about Von Der Leyen – she is better than Juncker.
At least Juncker occasionally told the truth (usually when drunk) cf: his July 2018 speech where he basically admitted that the EU is a dictatorship.
Looks like choice between cancer and stroke…
What about diabetes? They live pretty high on the hog in Brussels.
Doesn’t get loaded in public, so that’s a plus.
Ok I’ll say what I like – she’s not bettter than Juncker.
Ha,I’ll give you that.! Made me chuckle.
YOU get a Technocracy! And YOU get a Technocracy! And YOU get a Technocracy!
We can’t vote our way out of this.
The Irish tried twice and then returned the vote the EU wanted.
The Brits managed to vote their way out of it quite well.
When you “can’t vote your way out,” democracy has failed. The essence of democracy is that the people get to decide the destination of the voyage. The duty of government is to steer the ship around the rocks on the way, not take over and go where the bureaucracy directs.
It never ceases to amaze me how, when faced with some danger to the EU – real or perceived – the EU elites (I don’t like that label but it’s the best I can think of now to describe the mix of top Brussels and national politicians I mean) manage to do the exact thing which will exacerbate the problem.
VdL is a case in point. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone with a positive opinion of her. Even staunch EU fans say “urgh, no”. And yet we will be “treated” to a second term.
And then there is this: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-union-france-budget-fines-far-right/ If this actually happens and France gets fined for the first time precisely when the RN is on the up/in power, what message does that send out?
Enforcement of the rules isn’t contingent on a failure to comply with them – it’s contingent on whether the current government is liked in Brussels or not. We saw the exact same thing with Poland: more or less the minute Tusk was elected, the rule of law proceedings were dropped, even though it was and is uncertain whether he will be able to make the changes that Brussels demanded. Blatant favouritism, and absolutely arbitrary.
Wouldn’t this kind of treatment be the best way possible to make the RN start talking about Frexit again?
It’s the EU version of the Two Tiered Justice System:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/xi-van-fleet-here-s-what-two-tier-justice-really-means-and-how-it-will-affect-all-of-us/ar-AA1gzv0e
Quite so. But if you view the EU Commission and hangers on as sharing and defending a common ideology – and their patronage – then so much becomes clearer.
Wikipedia:
I guess the Soviet Union and the European Union are not so far apart, except that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed.
As will the EU eventually, but they’ll have destroyed Europe in the meantime.
The EUSSR…
Ha! It depends on who you talk to. When discussing how to vote before the elections, both my wife and my 19year old son came up (independently of each other) that reelecting Von der Leyen was an important goal when choosing how to vote. They voted a different party to me, but both their party and mine is part of the EPP.
EU elites. How about “the EU Woking Class”?
Can anyone name any EU President of consequence other than Jacques Delors? VdL has been an assured president—she works had and is across the issues—and I for one wish her well in her second term.
YEAR ZERO is becoming more appealing with every passing day!
As for Le Pen? Jean-Marie would still be my choice. Can’t be many left now from this unit. 1er Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes.
The EU institutions are comical in their utter disdain for the basic principles of democracy.
Sinister is more like it.
“Enrico Letta, as mediocre a politician as they come, whose main claim to fame is to have failed miserably in every position he has ever held. ”
Perfect fit for Useless von der Leyen in that case.
The Peter Principle tells us that failure in a bureaucracy leads to promotion to one’s level of incompetence. Ursula von der Leyen flopped as the defense minister in the government of Russian asset Angela Merkle and so therefore was transmitted to Brussels stardom.
Exactly! Before she could face German parliamentarian committee digging into her lucrative Defense contracts awarded to outside consultants, she was transferred by Merkel to become the President of the EU Commission. Now she is also facing corruption allegation in connection with Pfizer’s COVID Vaccines and gets awarded a second term.
This shenanigans is mainly why I voted to leave the EU. Utterly disgusting and lacking in democracy.
What shenanigans?
Awarding people high positions in the EU’s bureaucracy despite corruption, a total lack of competence or any democratic vote.
Thanks for your answer.
But I wonder what Charlie Dibsdale meant.
Why? Surely the article articulates the EU’s basic lack of even a semblance of democracy.
As I said somewhere else in the comments, Fazi’s arguments are weird, since he writes as if “right wing populists” had won the elections, and the EU bureaucracy ignored the fact. They did not win.
While there certainly are bureaucracy and corruption (just as in national governments) the fact remains that the European Parliament can block any proposed candidate for comission president (not so different from how it theoretically works in the U.K, where the King appoints Prime Ministers, but Parliament can block them). And the organ that proposes the candidate is the council of ministers, which represents the (hopefully) democratic national governments.
If the so called “populists” had won the elections they would have been able to bock any candidate they didn’t like.
Nothing changes if nothing changes.
I think Thomas needs to re-wrirte this in the light of what actually happened. I gather the stitch-up failed and Meloni was furious at being shut out from the decision making. Macron now saying “we’ll have to leave it to stew…”
(Source: Bruno Waterfield in the Times)
Thomas Fazi’s usual petulant attack on the EU ignores that the populists did not gain as much as expected in the European Parliament elections and are way short of a majority. Likewise, in the member states their mandate is patchy. In what way is Meloni’s Government any different from its Christian Democratic predecessors? And the Left in France may secure more support than Le Pen in the forthcoming elections.
But then Fazi fails to understand that the quasi-federal structure of the EU, built up incrementally over decades of democratic endorsement by the member states, has its own constitutional and popular legitimatcy. The European elections are now accepted as a Continent-wide exercise in democracy. And the democratically elected heads of Government complement the suprantional apparatus in Brussels. Not a single member state is advocating withdrawal from the EU.
Thomas Fazi depicts the ECB as overtly political. Any more political than the Fed? Its purpose is to protect the euro, the binding glue of the entire Union. And it has succeeded in making it unthinkable for the euro to collapse, as the savings and living standards of pampered European voters would collapse with it. And they know it. The EU for all its flaws keeps the Continent from falling apart.
Cloud cuckoo land.
Where are the manifestos?
The European Parliament can neither propose or amend legislation.
They simply rubber-stamp.
Democracy my @#£%.
According to the Peter Principle people in a hierarchy tend to rise to ‘a level of respective incompetence.’ Ursula von der Leyen has never been good at any of her jobs but keeps rising in one hierarchy after another.
Backroom deals in a foreign city. That’s the way to run Britain. Anyone for Remain?
The description of the ECB could, unfortunately, be ascribed to the Bank of England with its action before the Truss budget, continued action in the bond market and delay in lowering the interest rate.
After the forthcoming election, interest rates will immediately drop and bond sales will stop providing an immediate impact on the economic outlook.
The Bank of England is clearing the decks before their mates take command of the ship of state.
Seems like most of my comments have vanished. Nice to know that it happens regardless of your political views.
IF PERHAPS IF Bardella (Le Pen’s party) gets an absolute majority in the French parliament as a result of the second round of the election on July 7th and so becomes prime minister, and then PERHAPS IF the ECB tries to screw France as a consequence, then MAYBE JUST MAYBE, the electorate that got him into power will stick with him and, at long last, understand the need to exit the European Union. And then MAYBE WHY NOT WHO KNOWS #Frexit #FoolsGold #CastlesInTheAir