{"id":573188,"date":"2025-11-16T02:08:18","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T02:08:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/573188\/"},"modified":"2025-11-16T02:08:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T02:08:18","slug":"two-meps-critical-analysis-of-global-uncertainty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/573188\/","title":{"rendered":"two MEPs’ critical analysis of global uncertainty"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe European Parliament again opened its doors to Agenda P\u00fablica<\/strong>, prompting me to travel to Brussels to speak with Antonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz<\/a> of the European People\u2019s Party (EPP) and Jon\u00e1s Fern\u00e1ndez<\/a> of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). Under the auspices of Agenda P\u00fablica EU, these MEPs and I had a very interesting conversation about Ursula von der Leyen\u2019s Commission, the current role of the European Parliament, and the political balance dominating that legislative body.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In assessing the current Commission, I found very sincere a reflection by Antonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz: “Von der Leyen and the Commission are now faced with a Parliament where extremes are growing.” For his part, Jon\u00e1s Fern\u00e1ndez voiced his disappointment with how the Commission has handled the issue of the European budget<\/a>. “It inspires little ambition and underscores my sense of a disappointing year.”<\/p>\n

Needless to say, these two MEPS share common ground that is perhaps less observable between their parties in Spain<\/strong>. For example, both Tono and Jon\u00e1s lamented the influence of radical parties in Parliament, and both admitted to certain concerns about Donald Trump \u2013 with nuanced language, of course. What follows is this engaging conversation with two great parliamentarians.<\/p>\n

\n\u00a0
\n<\/p>\n

‘Agenda P\u00fablica’ se desplaza hasta el coraz\u00f3n de Bruselas. Photo: Agenda P\u00fablica \/ BR&U<\/p>\n

\nI\u2019d like to ask you to offer an initial political assessment of this past year, specifically since the start of the second Commission under Ursula von der Leyen.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jon\u00e1s Fern\u00e1ndez (J.F.):<\/strong> This legislature began with a very ambitious promise linked to the Draghi and Letta reports<\/a>, which in some way laid out a clear government agenda \u2013 the need to reinitiate European productivity and to put the Single Market at the center of that promise. In those reports, almost all pro-European political groups found something with which to identify \u2013 albeit with different accents on the need to move this agenda forward to revive growth, improve integration, and strengthen social policies.
However, although both reports identified areas where the European Union should accelerate integration \u2013 economic and defense integration, industrial policy, and others \u2013 we\u2019ve seen very little progress and, in some cases, clear setbacks linked to an agenda of deregulation that\u2019s unlikely to have much impact on improving the competitiveness of the European economy.<\/p>\n

Antonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz (A.L.I.):<\/strong> Von der Leyen and the Commission are faced with a Parliament where the extremes are growing, and that influences the debate.<\/p>\n

“Now we want to catch up, pay for our defense, and build our own defense industry within a few years. But this takes time”Ant\u00f3nio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz – MEP for European People’s Party Partido Popular Europeo<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jon\u00e1s mentioned that the advances in defense have been disappointing. We should recall that, in the previous legislature, a \u2018defense commission\u2019 as such didn\u2019t even exist. Talking about defense was, shall we say, \u2018unfashionable\u2019. Now we want to catch up, pay for our defense, and build our own defense industry within a few years. But this takes time. The strategic plans set out by the Commission are beginning to be implemented. It has taken five years to change from a prior model based on climate policies to something called \u2018competitiveness\u2019. <\/p>\n

Without renouncing our previous objectives, we need to adapt our industry and create jobs.<\/p>\n

<\/strong>Seen from Spain, the PSOE and PP each form a central part of their respective European parliamentary groups. What can these two major Spanish parties do to ensure that, despite the growth of extremism<\/a>, a majority such as the one we\u2019ve had can continue at the European level?<\/strong>
J.F.:<\/strong> I\u2019d like to comment on competitiveness, which this mandate has made a key objective. Probably, the need to accelerate the growth of the European Union isn\u2019t fully perceived in Spain, because our economic data are positive<\/a>. But Germany, France, and Italy are showing that Europe needs to grow more.
For that to happen, we need to identify the bottlenecks that impede growth. Community-wide legislation is seen as an obstacle. We\u2019ve received and will continue to receive omnibus proposals from the Commission that seek to rationalize, simplify, and deregulate Community legislation.<\/p>\n

In autumn of 2024, the IMF estimated that, within the EU itself, there were implicit tariffs of 40% for goods and 110% for services, due to the fact of not having completed the Single Market. These are so high that I\u2019m surprised they don\u2019t spark general dissatisfaction that then would push the Commission to eliminate them. On the other hand, we\u2019re focused on the political effort to simplify regulations \u2013 which is reasonable \u2013 but we ignore the real problem: these implicit tariffs represent the administrative costs that slow European growth. That\u2019s why this year has been a disappointment.
A.L.I.:<\/strong> One clarification: Spain\u2019s economic situation isn\u2019t as good as it seems<\/a>.
J.F.:<\/strong> As for extremists in the European Parliament, they\u2019re an obstacle to integrating markets and to speeding integration. The most conservative right and extreme right members together represent around 26 to 28% of Parliament. Radical groups to our left have a much smaller weight. The problem is that 30% of institutional power is in the hands of non-pro-European forces, which makes it difficult to build majorities that can resolve our fundamental problems.<\/p>\n

A.L.I.:<\/strong> The rise of extremes isn\u2019t only to the right but to the left as well. Both are systematically opposed to everything. The strategy isn\u2019t to rope them off and isolate them but to force them to work toward consensus. When they\u2019re forced, they get diluted. That\u2019s a titanic effort that the traditional parties have to make.
The Covid-19 crisis and other circumstances have favored the emergence of parties that promise magical solutions. We must respect the voters, analyze them, and offer attractive policies without falling into extremes.\n<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Jonas Fernandez (S&D) sees extremes in the European Parliament as a problem of majorities. Photo: Agenda P\u00fablica \/ BR&U<\/p>\n

\n<\/strong>Let\u2019s talk about Trump<\/a>. How his arrival been felt in the areas of economy and defense?<\/strong>
\n\u00a0
\nJ.F.: <\/strong>The transformation of the defense subcommittee into a committee isn\u2019t primarily due to Trump but to Putin\u2019s invasion of Ukraine. That threat to European security prompted reflection on policies for both defense and industrial defense. But it\u2019s true that Trump went a step further, since his commitment to NATO is shaky, and his statements about Greenland created uncertainty.
We\u2019re seeing increases in defense budgets that, although necessary, won\u2019t improve security if they\u2019re not undertaken jointly. The Europeanization of defense is advancing in terms of debate, but not so much in terms of joint action.<\/p>\n

A.L.I.: <\/strong>In international politics, the best thing to do is to put yourself in the other\u2019s place. If we think only as Europeans, we\u2019ll be wrong about the United States. Trump is Anglo-Saxon in his style of negotiation: he comes to the table, asks for a lot, then takes half of what was proposed. You may like it or not, but it\u2019s effective. Europe with Ursula von der Leyen has managed tariffs well in the medium to long term and gained stability.
Trump has also reached historic agreements, such as the recognition of Israel by Arab countries. You have to study his character closely: he\u2019s more effective than he seems.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There are complaints from Parliament that the Commission doesn\u2019t give them sufficient consideration and is tending toward a national rather than a European model. Where are we in that negotiation, and how might it evolve?\u00a0<\/strong>
J.F.:<\/strong> I see a de-Europeanization of the Community budget. The Commission has given in to pressure from the Member States and handed out national cheques instead of maintaining clear Community-wide criteria. It inspires little ambition and underscores my sense of a disappointing year.<\/p>\n

A.L.I.:<\/strong> The seven-year financial framework provides stability, but the Commission has given up a lot to the States. The discussion around who has more power \u2013 Brussels or the countries \u2013 will always persist.
\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Antonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz opts for putting himself in the other\u2019s shoes when talking about international politics. Photo: Agenda P\u00fablica \/ BR&U<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\nIn this look at the past year, we can\u2019t forget Ukraine. How do you see that situation?
\u00a0<\/strong>
\nJ.F.: <\/strong>Trump promised to fix Ukraine in 72 hours but failed to do so. Europe has to increase its support for Ukraine, and not only for its territorial integrity. The freedom of the European Union is also at stake. The threat of Putin demands that European support be maintained, although do I miss the presence of Borrell in foreign affairs.<\/p>\n

I began the conversation by asking for an assessment of the Commission under \u2018von der Leyen 2.0\u2019. To conclude, I\u2019ll ask a similar question: Do you think the power and influence of Ursula von der Leyen has diminished?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.L.I.: <\/strong>The system was destroyed by a procedure called \u2018spitzenkandidaten\u2019, a mechanism introduced by the political parties \u2013 moderates, Socialists, and the People\u2019s Party. It was an attempt to bring the presidency of the European Commission closer to the citizens, with the aspiration that a direct vote would someday be practiced. This meant that, at the very least, the party that won elections would decide who occupies the presidency of the Commission. Among diplomats, civil servants, and others \u2013 those who don\u2019t stand for elections \u2013 it was decided that this system had to be ended, because it gave too much independence and prominence to the president of the Commission. That\u2019s partly what happened with Jean-Claude Juncker, and after him they got scared and changed the system. So this isn\u2019t exclusively a question of Ursula von der Leyen.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Antonio, don\u2019t you see this as less \u2018visible\u2019, politically speaking?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.L.I.:<\/strong> No, I see it as very visible. Ask people on the street, everyone knows who they are, for better or worse. The problem is one of effectiveness \u2013 powers that have been given to the president, which aren\u2019t the same powers given to Juncker in his day. That was a battle that I\u2019ve always criticized publicly, where the system is so poorly valued by the European population: \u2018men in black\u2019, hidden officials making decisions in the corridors of the European Council at six in the morning, with fatigued politicians deciding on that change.
J.F.:<\/strong> Antonio is largely right. Another problem that contributes to a certain disfigurement of the president is the electoral results \u2013 at both the European and national levels \u2013 where we\u2019ve seen in recent years how forces that don\u2019t believe in the process of European construction represent 20, 25, 30% of the votes.
\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

“Radical parties constitute a wedge significant enough to hinder a more ambitious agenda by the Commission”Jon\u00e1s Fern\u00e1ndez – \u00a0MEP of the Progressive Coalition of Socialists and Democrats<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Therefore, although they\u2019re obviously not a majority, and far from it, they constitute a wedge significant enough to hinder a more ambitious agenda by the Commission. At the same time, they distract us with issues which I believe \u2013 as I said at the outset \u2013 do nothing to resolve our problems in the economic field. Far from it. A budget proposal of little ambition, and the promotion of a de-Europeanization of policies. I hope that next year I\u2019ll have a different opinion.
A.L.I.:<\/strong> We\u2019re still at the beginning of this legislature. Undoubtedly, the presentation of projects will now commence, and we\u2019ll see which ones get fulfilled. This is Europe, ladies and gentlemen. There are 27 members and the opinions of both Malta and Germany must be respected. It\u2019s a slow, tedious process \u2013 which exasperates even the major players \u2013 but what we want is security for everyone, 500 million non-identical citizens of Europe. We\u2019re very different in terms of our cultures, our languages, and our politics. In short, we must take all these things into account. If we want the Finns to listen to the Spaniards, we\u2019d better be listening to them, too. Let\u2019s put behind us the sellers of miraculous elixirs and prophets of the Apocalypse, who always appear in times of great anxiety.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ll weather the situation. We have to weather it, because on other occasions we\u2019ve ended up in a world war. Let\u2019s hope that, this time, logic and reason and historical memory will prevail and we\u2019ll solve our issues with negotiations, and with the rational desire of European society for effective governments. The system needs to be changed, undoubtedly. After an economic crisis, we all agree that it\u2019s necessary to review the entire political system \u2013 European, Spanish, and all countries. But not at the price of creating one-person regimes. That I say to those who would align with China.
Thank you both very much.<\/strong>
\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Marc L\u00f3pez Plana conducted a review of the main items on the European agenda. Photo: Agenda P\u00fablica \/ BR&U<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The European Parliament again opened its doors to Agenda P\u00fablica, prompting me to travel to Brussels to speak…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":573189,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5174],"tags":[112234,171130,112230,84770,6487,2000,299,5187,1699,181789,181790,181791,26943,1220],"class_list":{"0":"post-573188","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-eu","8":"tag-agenda-publica","9":"tag-agenda-publica-in-english","10":"tag-comision-europea","11":"tag-defensa","12":"tag-espana","13":"tag-eu","14":"tag-europe","15":"tag-european","16":"tag-european-union","17":"tag-parlamento-europeo","18":"tag-polarizacion","19":"tag-presupuestos","20":"tag-union-europea","21":"tag-ursula-von-der-leyen"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115556943091191209","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/573188","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=573188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/573188\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/573189"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=573188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=573188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=573188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}