Comments and thoughts regarding EPP
Recently, I watched the video “Defense, Migration, EU Reform—What Are The EPP's Plans For Europe?” on the EU Made Simple YouTube channel. Here are my comments and thoughts about the video's content.
The EPP are promoting setting up a new commissioner post. The general problem with the EU Commission is too many commissioners since every member state elects one. Instead of 27 commissioners as of today, it would be better to reduce the number to 12-14 and have them democratically elected based on their political party affiliation.
Regarding the proposal for a "European Security Council," similar institutions and structures already have intergovernmental meetings and EU-NATO coordination. Also, a problem with contemporary security councils is that they are limited to ideas and behaviors that security is essential for "us" and not for "them" since there is a lack of real global/world-level security agencies. The UN Security Council is international and not global and thereby directly responsible for the security of all humans and others.
Regarding "defense tech," a fundamental problem in the EU today is a growing military-industrial complex being developed without enough democratic insights and discussions across the union. Also, there are already cases of corruption and mismanagement regarding military production and the absence of global regulations to, for example, prevent weapons made in the EU countries from being used for wars of aggression and invasions, as well as by authoritarian regimes.
Promising peace by arguing for more military spending is often counterproductive, false, and absurd. In Weber's case, he is arguing for the simplification of weapon systems in the EU compared to the USA while promoting the creation of a European Defense Union as "complementary" to NATO. This means creating extra administration and spending, double spending, and unnecessary institutional competition.
"Supercharging Frontex" sounds similar to the development in the USA, which has been described as "the tough border" paradox. In practice, they spend more on border guards, fences, and surveillance equipment = more humans trying to cross in irregular or illegal ways. Such governmental behaviors lead to a false sense of security, human rights abuses, and corruption among public officials. "Strong borders" or "tough borders" are, in practice, dangerous, unsafe, and inhumane.
When there is free movement and open borders, humans will migrate for a shorter or longer period to work, study, and do other things. This is often called circular migration. When borders are closed and militarized, it leads to humans trying to enter and stay as long as possible, knowing that they only have one chance to work in another country until they get arrested and deported.
The statement by Ursula VDL is an excellent example of how and why politicians are making simplistic, false, and contradictory comments about migration. In this case, there are several examples:
Mainly, national governments regulate immigration in the EU and not the EU Commission.
Regardless of what Europeans think or feel about migration, international laws, rules, norms, coordination, and other factors influence migration.
"The people" cannot decide everything in detail, especially in the framework of liberal democratic constitutionalism that the EU is operating on. Because humans (and migrants as well) have rights and protection regardless of whether one is considered legal or illegal.
The main problem is not the smugglers, despite the horrible and inhumane things the organized smugglers do. Because human smugglers operate in a similar way to drug smugglers, as long as there are illegal narcotics, there will be drug smugglers, and as long as there are illegal humans, there will be human smugglers.
There is no need for humans to be smuggled and expose themselves to danger where there is a free movement based on individual rights and freedoms. Human smugglers are a threat to human security, just as governments are misbehaving.
"Outsourcing" asylum seekers is also a slippery slope, false hope, and already disproven measure. One of the main reasons is that it is impossible to "outsource" everyone to a single or several countries. It would be like saying that in Italy, all asylum seekers should be transferred to the city of Parma and nowhere else. Therefore, what, for example, the UK is doing regarding Rwanda has already been exposed as a political rather than a possible measure. If it was so easy to "outsource," why is it being discussed for the last two years and not done before, for example, in 2015?
Also, the overall development regarding humanitarian migration and the EU is worse than before 2020 since the focus on rights and security for refugees and others is being shifted towards the language of "security for us" as Europeans but not for "them" as others. Also, there is no need for "outsourcing" human rights and security since there is a need for globalizing to create a global-local system for migration, including for refugees and asylum-seekers.
When it comes to climate change, environment, and sustainability, center-right and moderate right-wing politicians can have valid criticisms and arguments against bans on nuclear power. For example, even the UN-based International Panel on Climate Change has been promoting further improvement of nuclear power as a vital part of energy transition and reduction of CO2 emissions. At the same time, center-rights parties have an appeal and communication to voters who either do not believe in climate change, do not understand the need for climate transformation, or who, for different reasons, are uncomfortable with adopting a climate-friendly and sustainable general lifestyle.
Regarding "Made in Europe," it is an excellent example of that center-right parties are mainly not pro-market but more pro-business. The difference is that being pro-market means that the size and interventions of public institutions are as small as possible, which is why le regulations should lead to market actors as consumers, cooperatives, and companies having as much freedom, space, and opportunities for interactions, innovations, competition, etc and being pro-business means, in practice, using public institutions to give taxpayer's money and subsidies to certain companies and industries, making it harder to global or regional compete, and providing exceptional treatment and privileges. Being pro-business is the opposite of reducing regulations and "cutting the red tape."
Regarding the European Social Model. One important thing to understand is that the term is not about a single system or a system based on the EU level. In general, there are four types of labor and social models in the EU: Nordic (Sweden, Denmark), Continental (Germany, Poland), Mediterranean (Italy, Greece), and Anglo-Saxon (Ireland, the UK before the exit). Thereby, it is not true that "everyone" has access to social security and health care, even if one only counts official EU citizens. The question is how honest the EPP is with their statements because center-right parties, due to their pro-business agenda, have a history of being very against labor unions and collective bargaining, favoring more income inequality or different levels of payments.
Thanks for reading. Please share and subscribe.