I admit that for more than a week I have not been able to assimilate how European leaders nominated Ursula von der Leyen for a second term as President of the European Commission. But since neither they nor the majority of analysts see this as a serious problem, some clarifications are clearly necessary.
The European elections ended a month ago and the "chickens" are already counted in the form of seats in the European Parliament. True, the picture of political families is still incomplete - new groups are being created, and existing ones are threatened with disintegration due to the ongoing "migration" of parties from one supranational faction to another. But we can at least draw some basic conclusions - both about trends and sentiments.
The European People's Party is not only once again the largest political group in the EP, but also succeeded in expanding its representation. It is logical that the future president of the European Commission will be selected from its ranks. But...
The current President of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen, was elected thanks to a consensus between the EPP, the Socialists and the liberals of "Renew Europe". A coalition in which two of the three elements suffered losses in the June 6-9 elections. And while for "Socialists and Democrats" the losses are tolerable, the liberals registered a significant outflow, the electoral defeat of the French President Emmanuel Macron and the political force led by him being particularly indicative.
If we rely only on the previous support (EPP-Socialist-Liberals), the calculations show that the majority is achievable (the three groups have a total of 400 MPs out of a total of 720), but Von der Leyen's legitimacy will be lower in compared to the previous term. And "achievable" does not mean "guaranteed". The French Republicans, for example, although part of the EPP, have already announced that they will not support Ursula von der Leyen in the plenary vote on 18 July. Other surprises are possible, but even if they weren't, a wider majority behind the European Commission president is a far better prospect, especially given the current geopolitical realities.
And where can this expansion come from? The limited resources of the far left and the shrinking of the Greens do not make them particularly attractive partners if the idea is to seek wider legitimacy.
On the other hand, the so-called extreme right (understand, everything to the right of the EPP) achieved some (although far from spectacular) electoral success and with a total of about 200 deputies, constitutes a serious reservoir for additional support. This space is currently in a semi-bulky state, but some of its elements (it is unrealistic to expect en bloc) could be drawn to the "European consensus" under certain conditions.
For starters, let's see who's who in this space:
- "European Conservatives and Reformists" have expanded their influence and are now the third parliamentary power. The group shares the dominant European line of support for Ukraine against Russian aggression, but has significant disagreements with the European mainstream on migration, Green Deal, gender policies. The powerful figures there are the leader of the "Italian Brothers" and Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni, as well as the Polish conservatives from ":Law and Justice";
- "Identity and Democracy" share largely the views of the ECR, with the main difference that they are "more reserved" in relation to the support for Ukraine and, respectively, more insistent on starting peace negotiations. After the departure of the "Alternative for Germany", the established power there remains the French "National Assembly" of Marine Le Pen (this is also the party that got the most deputies in the European Parliament - 30 people);
- Along with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the "Patriots for Europe" faction is forming, which as of the afternoon of July 7 already meets the minimum requirements for a parliamentary group. On July 8th (this article was written on the evening of July 7th), Le Pen's party is also expected to decide whether to join - which would lead to the "Identity and Democracy" to decay. For his part, Orbán's decision to form a new group instead of joining his FIDES party to the EKR was dictated by the presence there of the Romanian party "Union for the Unification of Romanians", which is anti-Hungarian;
- The already mentioned "Alternative for Germany" also has the ambition to form a parliamentary group - some "sovereignist" and highly Eurosceptic parties such as the Bulgarian "Vazrazhdane".
In general, the nationalist sector is the least amenable to supranational unification (which is quite natural), so it is normal that the extreme right is more fragmented than other political currents. What unites them, however, is the dislike for the current European course.
And Ursula von der Leyen symbolizes exactly what the formations "to the right of the EPP" are against. Well, in this situation, how to seek support - from Meloni, Le Pen, Orban, from the Polish conservatives?
Not to mention that Meloni herself was isolated from the negotiation process that led to the nominations of Ursula von der Leyen (for President of the EC), of Antonio Costa (for President of the European Council) and of Kaia Callas (for diplomatic number one of the EU). Which is even more inexplicable than the persistence to impose Von der Leyen - it was with the Italian prime minister that it was easiest to find a common language, given her pro-Ukrainian positions.
The EPP also has other strong figures. For example, Manfred Weber would probably be a much more acceptable option, at least for EKR representatives. Let's not forget that the two factions also have a common past - the "European People's Party - European Democrats" group, with the second constituent part being the forerunner of today's EKR.
But that's not all. The US presidential election is coming up in November and the future European Commission will have to work with the future administration in the White House for the next four years. And if Donald Trump returns to the head of the United States (for now, the prospects are more like that), who would find a common language with him more easily - the so far "European consensus" between the EPP, socialists and liberals or some more right-wing configuration? Obviously, the second.
"The Right Turn" in Europe is not really what many people think. It's not that European voters have moved further to the right - it's just that the current "far right" is the "normal right" from 20-30 years ago. For the "extreme right" and "moderately right" are already voting voters. And the "moderate right" has compensated for this loss by attracting votes from the "center". But this is clearly not realized by the ruling circles in Brussels.
Of course, the nomination of Ursula von der Leyen can go without these accounts - it is even more likely to happen. But why does European leadership continue to turn a blind eye to obvious trends? Why doesn't he read the signals that European citizens give him?