Von der Leyen leaves the door open to agreeing with Meloni and Vox’s group after the European elections

The first election debate of the European candidates with Ursula von der Leyen was the target of most of the attacks. The European People’s Party candidate has rejected one of the main questions her opponents asked her: would she compromise with the conservative and reformist grouping, of which Giorgia Meloni and Vox’s Fratelli d’Italia are part? “It depends on how the European Parliament is structured and who joins each group,” was the response of the current President of the European Commission, who thus leaves the door open to relying on the extreme right.

What has drawn the ire has been the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) by answering a resounding “no” to the question asked by that country’s liberal candidate, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann. It is not the first time that Von der Leyen has opened the door to the far right of Meloni or Santiago Abascal. When he officially presented his candidacy, he responded to journalists that his conditions were to work with “pro-European, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine groups that clearly support democratic values.”

On this occasion it was the Greens’ candidate, Bas Eeckhout, who pointedly mentioned to von der Leyen whether he would include Vox in his agreements, despite the fact that he had not condemned Franco’s dictatorship (Abskal even said that Pedro’s Sanchez It is the worst government in 80 years, including the years of dictatorship). Following German’s reaction, the Socialist candidate, Nicola Schmidt, rebuked him by reminding him that “values ​​and rights” cannot be set aside in order to reach agreements and telling him that the Community government – ​​of which he is a part, There are employment commissioners – fought for LGTBI rights or freedom of the press, while “in some countries” where the extreme right rules, “this is not respected.”

While von der Leyen opened the door to one of the far-right groups, which was not even present in the debate organized by Politico and which had no representation spitzenkandidat In the run-up to the June elections, he has harshly attacked the representative of another extreme right-wing group, Identity and Democracy (ID), using practically the same words as those used by the Green candidate, one of the most admired Is. “Clean your house before criticizing us,” he taunted his group’s MEPs in relation to the investigation into Russian payments to them and the arrest of an assistant to an AfD MEP accused of spying for China.

Danish far-right candidate Anders Vistisen, who started the debate by assuring that he was going to expel thousands of bureaucrats from Brussels, starting with von der Leyen, defended himself by attacking the rest of the parties for scandals such as Katargate or Is. The President of the European Commission to exchange messages with the head of Pfizer during the procurement of pandemic vaccines.

“It would be unacceptable if Israel entered Rafah.”

One of the most complicated moments for von der Leyen was when leftist candidate Walter Baer asked her if the EU was going to impose sanctions on Israel for the massacre in Gaza. “Israel has the right to defend itself within the framework of humanitarian law. I have been to Rafa and the death of so many innocent civilians is unacceptable. We now need a ceasefire and the release of hostages. And sit down and work on a two-state solution,” the European Commission president, who upset many capitals and leaders at the beginning of the war because of his unconditional support for Benjamin Netanyahu, has fled.

The Green candidate took advantage of this reaction to ask von der Leyen whether the Israeli attack on Rafah would be a “red line” for imposing these sanctions. He responded, “I never draw a red line, but it would be unacceptable if Israel entered Rafah,” and then dropped the ball, leaving the decision in the hands of member states, who have the power to set foreign policy. Are responsible for.

Von der Leyen has also tried to avoid one of the controversies of the European People’s Party’s election programme, which toughens its position with regard to immigration and is committed to the so-called ‘Rwanda model’ which the United Kingdom adopted in 2003 of deportation. Have been proposed and adopted. Asylum seekers in “safe third countries”. Von der Leyen has assured that the word Rwanda does not appear in her party’s electoral program and that the EU now has “nothing to do” with the United Kingdom since it has left the club. One thing he has defended is an immigration pact that tightens the conditions for granting asylum and also includes payments for rejecting refugees, as the Greens and the left have criticized him.

“Immigration has become a toxic issue for the extreme right,” the Socialist candidate said, blurring the lines for much of the debate. Luxembourger has appealed to “humanity”, “human rights” and the fight against smugglers, while defending the need to accelerate returns.

Big debate on green agenda

The longest section of the debate referred to the European Green Deal, which has become one of the main issues of the election campaign amid the farmers’ protests. The leftist candidate has called for higher taxes on the rich, reminding that it is the rich who pollute the most. “This is not the time to stop,” the Social Democrat said in reference to right-wing efforts to slow down the implementation of the green agenda: “Climate policy must be socially fair and equitable and that means funding it properly and The equitable way.”

The main scuffle has been between von der Leyen, who has defended the European Green Deal as a key element of European competitiveness, and the Green candidates, who have rebuked her for “watering down” the ambition. The President of the European Commission has defended the measures implemented so far to pacify the countryside, such as exemptions from controls for small farmers or reducing the environmental conditions of the CAP, and has referred to “balanced solutions” as some This has been proposed in a strategic dialogue started months ago. For taking these steps without waiting for the conclusions of that conversation, Ekhout has rightly rebuked them.