The debate comes to an end with closing statements. The thing is, no one on this stage can do much to help his or her prospects at becoming the next European Commission president. That’s basically a decision of the next European Parliament and will almost surely go to the group that gets the most votes. Von der Leyen’s center-right EPP is on track to stay on top, albeit in slightly diminished form. That said, there is plenty of opposition to her among her own conservatives.
Some notable points in the democracy section of the debate:
A lot of questions, in particular from the liberal’s Strack-Zimmermann, Socialist’s Schmit, and Green’s Eickhout, regarding von der Leyen and her center-right EPP will work with the far-right in the next European Parliament. Far from settling the issue, von der Leyen opened herself up to more raised eyebrows when she said it will “depend” on the makeup of the next parliament.
Some notable points in the foreign/security policy section of the debate:
The Left’s Baier pressed von der Leyen on sanctions against Israel. Von der Leyen sidestepped the question, falling back on “ceasefire now” and a two-state solution. The Green’s Eickhout asked if invading Rafah would be a “red line."
The ID’s Vistisen thinks anything to do with military force and deterrence is a matter for NATO, not the EU. It might not have been the worst argument if he didn’t then confuse Eickhout as a Belgian (he’s Dutch). Eickhout was criticizing Vistisen of hypocrisy, citing the growing number of allegations of, and outright investigations into ID parties, like Germany’s AfD, for espionage and support for Russia and China.
Von der Leyen must not have been listening because she repeated Eickhout’s call for Vistisen to “clean up your house.” Vistisen hit back on the hypocrisy claim, given the number of scandals the von der Leyen commission is facing. He also made a fairly valid point that Germany spent years convincing the rest of the EU that buying Russian oil and gas was totes ok. But who needs bothsideism? There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
Some notable points in the climate change section of the debate:
The Green’s Eickhout said the amount of money the EU has put aside for the Green Deal isn’t nearly enough to combat climate change. Von der Leyen acknowledged that, saying the EU needs to do more to get private financing in the game. Eickhout also accused von der Leyen of “scapegoating” climate policies as responsible for farmers’ woes, and throwing the former under the bus to appease the latter.
Ghilețchi wants a “balanced” approach between environment and economy, staking his support for climate change on his Christian values.
Roßberg wasn’t happy with her compatriot Vistisen’s use of Denmark as a shining example of how to achieve high standard of living without regulations like minimum wage. What might work in Denmark has no bearing on what might work elsewhere. (Roßberg belongs to Germany’s Danish-speaking minority.)
Anders Vistisen of the far-right Identity and Democracy Party makes the most of his opening remarks with Trumpian flair. He calls the EU a “swamp” and wants to fire 10,000 bureaucrats. Starting with Ursula.
As the debate kicks off in American primary style, it’s notable that seven of the eight candidates on stage here are western and specifically northern European. (Valeriu Ghilețchi of the European Christian Political Movement is from Moldova.)
Starting things off on a pretty intense note, with a little documentary interviewing older Europeans telling younger ones about their harrowing experiences with death and destruction. The message is pretty on the nose — and an awkward one in a year when far-right and nationalist parties are expected to make a serious play for European power.
The candidates did a brief red carpet before entering the theater that is serving as tonight’s debate venue. Right on cue, a protester from behind the rope line called Ursula von der Leyen a war criminal and accused the European Union of supporting genocide in Gaza.
She then faced questions from journalists about her involvement in “Pfizergate,” a developing scandal centered on text messages between the European Commission president and the CEO of Pfizer while the Commission was negotiating a vaccine deal during the pandemic. European prosecutors have taken over the investigation.
With European elections coming up in early June, it’s time for the “Spitzenkandidaten” to face off. Where better to do that than in the Dutch city of Maastricht, home of the European Union’s foundational treaty from 1992. Eight of the EU’s 10 registered European Political Parties are represented tonight (all were invited), including incumbent European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Topics, which were picked by young voters, include climate change, security and foreign policy, and EU democracy. The debate kicks off shortly and should run about 90 minutes. If anything interesting happens, we’ll post about it here.
Share this post
Follow live updates: European election debate
Share this post
The debate comes to an end with closing statements. The thing is, no one on this stage can do much to help his or her prospects at becoming the next European Commission president. That’s basically a decision of the next European Parliament and will almost surely go to the group that gets the most votes. Von der Leyen’s center-right EPP is on track to stay on top, albeit in slightly diminished form. That said, there is plenty of opposition to her among her own conservatives.
Some notable points in the democracy section of the debate:
A lot of questions, in particular from the liberal’s Strack-Zimmermann, Socialist’s Schmit, and Green’s Eickhout, regarding von der Leyen and her center-right EPP will work with the far-right in the next European Parliament. Far from settling the issue, von der Leyen opened herself up to more raised eyebrows when she said it will “depend” on the makeup of the next parliament.
Some notable points in the foreign/security policy section of the debate:
The Left’s Baier pressed von der Leyen on sanctions against Israel. Von der Leyen sidestepped the question, falling back on “ceasefire now” and a two-state solution. The Green’s Eickhout asked if invading Rafah would be a “red line."
The ID’s Vistisen thinks anything to do with military force and deterrence is a matter for NATO, not the EU. It might not have been the worst argument if he didn’t then confuse Eickhout as a Belgian (he’s Dutch). Eickhout was criticizing Vistisen of hypocrisy, citing the growing number of allegations of, and outright investigations into ID parties, like Germany’s AfD, for espionage and support for Russia and China.
Von der Leyen must not have been listening because she repeated Eickhout’s call for Vistisen to “clean up your house.” Vistisen hit back on the hypocrisy claim, given the number of scandals the von der Leyen commission is facing. He also made a fairly valid point that Germany spent years convincing the rest of the EU that buying Russian oil and gas was totes ok. But who needs bothsideism? There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
Some notable points in the climate change section of the debate:
The Green’s Eickhout said the amount of money the EU has put aside for the Green Deal isn’t nearly enough to combat climate change. Von der Leyen acknowledged that, saying the EU needs to do more to get private financing in the game. Eickhout also accused von der Leyen of “scapegoating” climate policies as responsible for farmers’ woes, and throwing the former under the bus to appease the latter.
Ghilețchi wants a “balanced” approach between environment and economy, staking his support for climate change on his Christian values.
Roßberg wasn’t happy with her compatriot Vistisen’s use of Denmark as a shining example of how to achieve high standard of living without regulations like minimum wage. What might work in Denmark has no bearing on what might work elsewhere. (Roßberg belongs to Germany’s Danish-speaking minority.)
Anders Vistisen of the far-right Identity and Democracy Party makes the most of his opening remarks with Trumpian flair. He calls the EU a “swamp” and wants to fire 10,000 bureaucrats. Starting with Ursula.
As the debate kicks off in American primary style, it’s notable that seven of the eight candidates on stage here are western and specifically northern European. (Valeriu Ghilețchi of the European Christian Political Movement is from Moldova.)
Starting things off on a pretty intense note, with a little documentary interviewing older Europeans telling younger ones about their harrowing experiences with death and destruction. The message is pretty on the nose — and an awkward one in a year when far-right and nationalist parties are expected to make a serious play for European power.
The candidates did a brief red carpet before entering the theater that is serving as tonight’s debate venue. Right on cue, a protester from behind the rope line called Ursula von der Leyen a war criminal and accused the European Union of supporting genocide in Gaza.
She then faced questions from journalists about her involvement in “Pfizergate,” a developing scandal centered on text messages between the European Commission president and the CEO of Pfizer while the Commission was negotiating a vaccine deal during the pandemic. European prosecutors have taken over the investigation.
We had a recent episode on the story.
With European elections coming up in early June, it’s time for the “Spitzenkandidaten” to face off. Where better to do that than in the Dutch city of Maastricht, home of the European Union’s foundational treaty from 1992. Eight of the EU’s 10 registered European Political Parties are represented tonight (all were invited), including incumbent European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Topics, which were picked by young voters, include climate change, security and foreign policy, and EU democracy. The debate kicks off shortly and should run about 90 minutes. If anything interesting happens, we’ll post about it here.