.JPG)
_____________________________________
- The first-ever live EU presidential debate was organized on 28 April, at the University of Maastricht with the participation of four candidates for the post of European Commission President.
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Ska Keller, Martin Schulz and Guy Verhofstadt were debating for 90 minutes about three major topics: European economy, Euroscepticism and foreign policy.
- Although the participants were mainly responding to specific questions from the moderators and the audience, some interesting conclusions can be drawn about their views on the desirable level of European integration and the future of the European Union.
The EU has written history by deciding that the Commission President candidates of the major parties of the European Parliament will face each other in form of a debate, which format has so far been used mainly in the course of national elections. The series of debates started on April 28 at Maastricht University with the participation of Jean-Claude Juncker representing the centre-right, Ska Keller from the Greens, Martin Schulz from the centre-left and Guy Verhofstadt representing the liberals. Alexis Tsipras, Greek leftist leader declined the invitation, while the conservative and reformist group did not select a candidate for the elections.
The debate was divided into three parts: European economy, Euroscepticism and European foreign policy which were all consecrated half an hour to discuss. The two moderators of the debate and some members of the audience were allowed to ask questions on each topic. Moreover, the debate was closely followed by the social media, and questions arriving on Twitter and Facebook were also posed to the candidates. The intention of this short post is to summarize how the participants imagine the future of Europe in terms of European integration. In this regard we could discover a clear division line between the right and the left. It was only Jean-Claude Juncker who spoke about preserving the status quo of Europe and trying to get the best out of the existing political constellations, at least in relation to the political and institutional situation of Europe. The other three candidates, although slightly differently, but all stood against him in wanting to bring serious reforms and changes into the current functioning of the European Union. Not surprisingly all four candidates agreed that achieving economic growth and creating more jobs should be the primary goals of the next European Commission President.
Jean-Claude Juncker stated that he wants to unite and re-unite Europe. He is against the creation of new division lines in Europe because the already existing division lines (for example between the north and the south) only create tensions within the Union. As President of the Commission he would focus on policy-making and concrete achievements, such as fiscal consolidation, and his policies would aim at further developing the social dimension of the internal market and the monetary union. Moreover, he emphasized the importance of completing the single market and creating a legal minimum wage in all 28 Member States. He said that he wants a serious Europe ‘that does not dream, but gets things done.’ When asked about the power-distribution among the different institutions of the EU he avoided the question by stating that ‘real power within the EU is with the people,’ this is why they should participate in the elections if they want to be taken into account. Opposed to him stood the other three candidates, who all agreed that the European Council started to accumulate too much power, so the position of the European Parliament and the European Commission has to be re-enforced.
Guy Verhofstadt imagines a strong European Commission with a strong President who does not only take initiative when France or Germany agrees to do so. Referring to President Barroso he repeatedly claimed that the current Commission failed to handle the crisis. He mentioned Jacques Delors as his example for a strong European politician, but he also would offer a new leadership in Europe instead of old recipes. He denounced the status quo defending practice of the conservatives and the debt-accumulating policies of the socialists saying that we need now more than ever ‘a Europe that is integrating more.’ He was the one who spoke most about a need for ‘another Europe’ and a very high level of European integration. Although he stated that he doesn’t like the term ‘federalism’ because it suggests the creation of a superstate, he would like to see a banking union, a unified capital market, an energy community and even a defence community. He claimed that Europe does not need more bureaucracy and regulations, but more common policies. It was clear that Verhofstadt is dreaming big, which was also represented by his plans to reinvent European sovereignty and to solve most of the arising problems (such as Euroscepticism or foreign conflicts) on a European level.
Martin Schulz said that he wants to be the President of a Commission appointed as a result of a democratic vote of European citizens and ‘not the secret negotiations of politicians behind closed doors.’ He wants to give justice, fairness and democracy back to citizens, and does not want a Europe of banks and interests. He claimed that he is in favour of introducing Eurobonds (like Verhofstadt) and that on paper he is a supporter of federalism. But he also considers himself a realist, so he warned that neither federalism nor Eurobonds can be achieved now because of the lack of support from citizens. He also denounced the ‘self-empowerment’ of the European Council and he openly criticised the Member States for their opportunist practice in which they claim all the successes for themselves and blame the EU for all the failures. This statement was received with agreeing nods from the other leftist debaters.
Ska Keller from the Greens proposed a Europe which cares about the people, not a Europe of only a single market or big businesses. As Commission President she would give voices to the young, the old, and the marginalized people as well. She imagines a different Europe where everyone has a space. Obviously, she often emphasized the importance of sustainable development and investing in green economy, education and health services which would bring long-term development in the EU. She refused the term ’being for or against Europe’ because instead of asking such general questions we should focus on specific issues that need to be tackled.
The debate was a lively conversation in which the politicians also tried to react to one another’s propositions and statements, when the time restrictions let them do so. Moreover, the candidates were not afraid to propose specific ideas when they were asked about how to handle the crisis, the rise of Euroscepticism or foreign issues such as the situation in Ukraine. In general we can conclude that the left has ambitious, reformist ideas while the right would take smaller but more easily achievable steps. There are more debates to come, and perhaps the one held in the European University Institute, Florence, 9 May will be even more interesting from the point of view of European integration in general, because the candidates will be challenged over the ’State of the Union’.
The views expressed above belong to the author and do not in any way represent the views of the HAS Centre for Social Sciences.