A conservative wind is blowing across Europe. But the European Commission is sailing against the tide, without taking into account the gusts that are shaking the continent. Attacked on immigration, pushed on Islamism, condemned for her regulatory inclinations, Ursula von der Leyen burying her head in the sand, even if it means further weakening a Europe stunned by the war in Ukraine and the bullying of Donald Trump.
Poland, Italy, Denmark and Sweden, the last European elections gave rise to a recomposition of Parliament, with the rise in power of Eurogroups committed to the right such as the Patriots for Europe or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Two parties which, between them, represent almost 30% of Parliament. A shift to the right which has not spared the EPP either, the centrist coalition which dominates the European political landscape. At the beginning of December, these supporters of a moderate policy combined their voices with those of nationalists and sovereignists to toughen European legislation on migration policy.
“Parliament is marginalized. The Commission still has the upper hand”
Throughout Europe, voices are being raised to call for a change of course on immigration. The latest, Johan Forssell, Swedish Minister for Migration, urged the EU to put in place a common expulsion policy for Afghan nationals whose right to asylum has been rejected. But in Brussels, the time has come for blinders. “Ursula and her commissioners know they are contested but their political and ideological agenda does not care about the protests issued by the member states. At best, the Commission concedes a few technical adjustments, without ever changing direction”slips a diplomatic source well inserted into the Brussels apparatus. Of the “technical adjustments” who sometimes taste victory. Recently, under pressure from Giorgia Meloni’s Italy, the European Commission gave the green light for the establishment of return centers located in third countries, intended to accommodate migrants prohibited from accessing the Schengen area.
In the crosshairs, censorship
But the subject of migration is not the only catalyst for European divisions. For four years, Ursula von der Leyen has been working to implement a policy of regulation and taxation of large social media, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA). A regulatory zeal now fuels a growing concern: that of digital control that could slide towards political censorship and an assumed diplomatic standoff with the United States. By giving the European Commission unprecedented power of injunction over the content, algorithms and commercial practices of large platforms, these texts establish a lasting suspicion of the neutrality of the arbitrator.
The fine imposed on “The real divide that opposes us to Brussels is that of the Commission’s desire for censorship, much more than the Ukrainian issues or the Greenland »says an executive from the American embassy in France. A diplomatic quarrel which fuels the concern of several member states, such as Karol Nawrocki’s Poland, which refused, last week, to transpose the DSA on a national scale, castigating the “one-way freedom of expression” promoted by the Commission.
Increasingly contested, is the Brussels institution nevertheless shaken by criticism? “The Commission is designed to resist. On an institutional level, the Commission swallows up everything. The Council is recruited outside national logic, the Parliament is marginalized. In trilogues, it is always the Commission which has the upper hand. Parliamentary rapporteurs are often simple relays. The game is locked »we deplore behind the scenes of the National Rally group. Same observation for Céline Imart, EPP MEP. “Ursula von der Leyen feels that her agenda and the way she implements it may be weakened. So she chooses to force her way through…” And escapes any attempt at censorship – four since the start of his mandate – thanks to his political skill. The head of the European executive benefits from a solid institutional lock. The motions tabled by conservative or sovereignist groups systematically come up against the alliance of circumstance between the EPP – divided within it –, the social democrats, the liberals and part of the Greens, anxious to preserve the stability of the European Commission. In Brussels, criticism thrives, but political sanction remains out of reach
