EU elections: what's at stake?

Latvijas Avīze takes a closer look at how Latvians vote in EU elections:

“For a Latvian politician it's really very advantageous to get into the European Parliament - it guarantees a quieter and much better paid life than in the Saeima [Latvia's parliament] or the government building. ... However, voters also know about the good salaries and take this into account when making their choice. Instead of focusing on the question of what a politician can contribute, their main criterion could be who deserves these benefits more. ... A seat in Brussels thus becomes a kind of award, for example for public commitment, previous political achievements or striking the right note.”

Postimees is organising election debates throughout Estonia. It explains:

“In the European election campaign, domestic issues that do not fall under the competence of the EU should be avoided, even if it's clear that the elections will also be a vote of confidence in individual governments. We must keep the big goals in mind: Estonia's security and economic interests. The Postimees debates will show whether the candidates have the necessary expertise on pan-European issues, and the charisma to present their views well and effectively. If they are not able to argue brilliantly here, there is little hope that they will be able to do so in Brussels or Strasbourg. Europe needs big players, especially from small countries.”

Jutarnji list comments:

“At the initiative of the EU Commission, the European political parties have signed a code of conduct on behaviour during election campaigns in Brussels. ... It's an ambitious idea that makes sense. But it will hardly ensure that the election campaign is fair across the EU, especially since this code only applies for the umbrella organisations without regulating the behaviour of the member parties at the national level. ... The problem is that campaigning at the EU level will be the least decisive factor in deciding the outcome of the election. Although they are called European elections, they are in fact national elections in 27 member states.”

Orbán's election dreams are unlikely to come true, writes Magyar Hang:

“Two months before the European elections, Orbán's master plan to 'conquer' Brussels appears to be faltering. ... According to the latest forecast by the NGO Europe Elect, the expected results of the ruling Fidesz party have gone down for the second month in a row. Now they can only count on securing 11 rather than 13 MEPs. ... When the poll was conducted, Péter Magyar and his party were not yet on the horizon - but if they were to run, this could reshuffle the cards on both the government and opposition sides. What is certain, however, is that neither version will boost Orbán's plans in Brussels.”

Xavier Desmaison, CEO of communication strategy consulting firm Antidox, explains in Les Echos how democracies can arm themselves against the increase in AI-created fake news:

“While we can expect an increase in disinformation, democracies should be capable of preparing themselves to deal with this excess. This means defending an ethical press, developing monitoring capacities, rebutting and weakening disinformation content, and encouraging social networks to regulate their own platforms so that they can continue to disseminate knowledge and quality information. Technology must not be used as an excuse: with a little more care and determination, 2024 will not be the Orwellian 1984 that some are predicting.”

The West is facing an identity crisis, warns Italy's Permanent Representative to the EU, Pietro Benassi, in La Repubblica:

“Before the West defines its role vis-à-vis others, it must face up to the conflicting signals within itself. In Europe, the elections in June will be the first thermometer. The initial indicator will be the abstention rate, followed by the nature of the political question posed by voters, i.e. whether a message of 'isolation' or readiness for confrontation prevails. ... To anticipate the ongoing changes in the international order, we must therefore first define ourselves and then the keys to our relations with others. Only in this way can we help shape them and not suffer as a result.”

Contributors looks back at the five years since the last elections:

“The pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine with its direct and indirect consequences, from millions of refugees to inflation, rising energy prices and new diplomatic and security challenges. Urgent decisions had to be made that will change the nature of the EU political project for the future. ... The EU has launched a new economic model based on a revolutionary digital and green transition. These are key among Europe's efforts to capitalise on its strengths in the competition with the US and China, in order to remain relevant and strong.”

Under no circumstances should the European elections become a stage for internal power struggles, warns Corriere della Sera:

“This time the political scenario is dominated by dramatic decisions that can no longer be postponed. And they are all European in nature. No party, not even in Italy, can ignore them. ... Today, citizens are demanding clear-cut answers from leading politicians on war and peace. They want to know what the future holds for Ukraine. Who is in favour of sending more weapons and who is not. This moment is crucial for Kyiv. But it is no less so for the European Union.”

There are two fundamentally different ideas of Europe to choose from, observes Le Figaro:

“The first is that of the extreme centre and the convinced pro-European elites: they dream of a great federal leap. ... They no longer pretend to respect national sovereignty; they treat it as if it were reactionary. The extreme centre uses every crisis as a pretext to justify the march towards European sovereignty, whether it's Covid or the war in Ukraine. ... On the other side is the 'sovereigntist' camp, which has also evolved. It still believes in a Europe of nations, but now seems to associate it with a civilised Europe that is considered to have a legitimate political existence.”

Göteborgs-Posten predicts a moderate shift to the right:

“You can point to the major differences of opinion within the far right. You can emphasise that politics is actually shaped by national interests, national banks, companies and lobbyists. You can pretend that nothing that has been decided can ever be reversed. But even if Ursula von der Leyen were elected for a second term, this time she would face a slightly more right-wing populist parliament and chair a slightly more nationally conservative commission. She has never presented herself as a politician with particularly strong principles. She will probably be like those she works with.”

The success of far-right parties is no coincidence, Público surmises:

“Polls suggest that their presence in the EP will be large enough to influence its decisions. ... The traditional democratic parties are contributing to this by radicalising the political debate with increasingly crude and simplistic language. ... We see the democratic right, also in Portugal, increasingly tempted to make eyes at the far right in the belief that this is the best way to win or win back voters. This experiment has already been conducted in several of our European partner countries and has failed: the extremist parties have continued to grow.”

The impact that the European elections will have on Greek politics is being overestimated, writes editor-in-chief Alexis Papachelas in Kathimerini:

“A debate has already begun about the next parliamentary election, and specifically about what it will mean if the ruling conservatives drop below the 30% threshold and whether a double election would be in store. The fact, however, is that there are no clouds in the political sky. The government has a strong and still fresh mandate, and even if it is trampled slightly in the upcoming European elections, this will mean little more than an unfavorable public opinion poll. Voters may express frustration, anger and a desire for a more effective opposition, but that’s about it.”