Mediaboss Marketing

EU voters will hit the polls in June in a different world than the last European Parliament elections in 2019 a world marred by Covid, war, economic turmoil and climate change-induced drought.

(CN) Millions of young Europeans will be eligible to vote for members to the European Parliament for the first time in June, according to data published by Eurostat on Thursday.

Elections, according to the EUs voting website, "[are] a unique moment when we can all collectively decide on the future of the European Union. Voting is always important, be it at local, national or European level. It is an excellent opportunity to have your say on topics you care about."

Germany has the largest number of eligible voters in the EU at 64.9 million, followed by France, 49.7 million, and Italy, 47 million. These three countries also have the largest number of first-time voters, with Germany topping 5.1 million people who have come of voting age since the 2019 election. This adds up to nearly 8% of Germany's voting pool.

Along with having the most voters, Germany, France and Italy will also send the most members to Parliament: Germany will have 96 representatives, France 81 and Italy 76.

With just 400,000 eligible voters, Malta has the lowest number in the EU, followed by Luxembourg and Cyprus which are both below 700,000 people. With the smallest populations in the EU, these nations only send six representatives each to Parliament.

Malta and Cyprus also have the lowest numbers of eligible first-time voters in the EU 20,000 and 37,000, respectively.

Every five years, voters across the EU choose more than 700 members to sit in the European Parliament, representing 450 million Europeans in the worlds only directly elected transnational assembly. Elections will be held June 6-9.

In addition to selecting individual candidates, many Europeans vote for political parties that represent their views. Once elected, many political parties group together into transnational groups with common interests.

Seven transnational political groups and 10 parties are currently represented in Parliament, including the Party of European Socialists, the European Green Party, the European Conservatives and Reformists Party and the European Christian Political Movement.

In addition to approving the EUs budget, members of the European Parliament shape the European Commission, a body similar to the U.S.s executive branch, by electing the president and appointing commissioners.

With the last elections held in 2019, this is EU voters' first opportunity to reshape Parliament following the Covid-19 pandemic, Russias invasion of Ukraine, as well as droughts and economic turmoil.

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

The rest is here:
Millions of Europeans eligible to vote in upcoming Parliament elections - Courthouse News Service

"We are fighting for our survival but were also fighting to be equal members of Europe."

On 1 March 2022, less than a week after the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed via videoconference an extraordinary meeting of the plenary of the European Parliament gathered in Brussels. Then, he appealed for a fast-tracked process to admit Ukraine into the 27-strong member bloc.

Zelensky spoke hours after having submitted an application for his country to join the European Union as a full member. Often described as a homecoming moment, the move has been seen as a complement to the political, financial and military support the EU has provided the country since the start of the war.

Although the political push is key, EU officials portray accession as a technical, merit-based process that normally takes several years to finalise. Its one, officials stress, that requires in-depth talks to reform the governmental and bureaucratic structures of a candidate country and align its standards and laws with the body of EU rules the Community acquis and is an operation normally structured around 35 thematic chapters.

From the EUs perspective, walking down the path of Ukrainian accession means revamping the blocs enlargement agenda.

New reality

Today, there are nine countries queueing at different stages in the process to become EU members, the majority of which are in the Western Balkans. The last country to join was Croatia more than a decade ago. Following Zagrebs entry in 2013, the European Commission, the EUs executive arm, promised no further expansion would take place in the short term, giving the bloc time to adapt to the new reality that had seen 13 countries become members in the previous decade.

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom, following the 2016 Brexit referendum, further sidelined any ambition to continue expanding EU borders and gave new impetus to the idea of enlargement fatigue an increasing scepticism about the blocs capacity to welcome new countries.

Those times are now long gone, Michael Leigh, a former director general of the Commission department responsible for accession negotiations between 2006 and 2011 and now a visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund, tells The Parliament. He believes that since the outbreak of war, enlargement is being used as a geopolitical tool by an EU striving to become more autonomous in a rapidly evolving and contested international arena.

After Zelensky filed the application, it took EU authorities just a few months to find the necessary consensus to move forward with the procedure, without the detailed impact assessment that would normally have been produced under different circumstances, Leigh says. On 17 June 2022, the Commission recommended EU leaders grant Ukraine the status of candidate country. The first step in the accession process, it was endorsed at the highest political level at a summit of heads of state and government a few days later with some strings attached.

The clock for timely advancements with Kyiv is ticking.

These include seven conditions Kyiv is required to implement, including judicial, anti-corruption and anti-oligarch reforms, while improving domestic legislation vis--vis national minorities. In November 2023, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen estimated that Ukraine had completed well over 90 per cent of the necessary steps set out the previous year.

Despite the war and its impact on all levels of society including an inability to hold elections amid the ongoing implementation of martial law a Commission report published in 2023 noted that the Ukrainian government and Parliament showed determination to carry out the necessary reforms. These reforms pertain to areas such as democratic fundamentals, participation in the internal market, willingness to embrace the objectives of the green agenda, and the ability to assume the obligations of membership and ensure a competitive economic environment.

However, there is an unspoken pre-condition to fulfil. In a recent policy brief on Kyivs path to EU membership, the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel argued that the countrys entry to the bloc will ultimately depend greatly on how and when the war with Russia ends and post-war reconstruction starts.

Constructive abstention

Nonetheless, the Commissions positive assessment paved the way for EU governments to surprisingly move forward at a summit in December 2023, during which leaders greenlit the opening of membership negotiations with Ukraine, as well as Moldova. They overcame Hungarys veto, a pro-Russian pariah in the EU and the main hurdle for Kyiv in the bloc, by suggesting Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn leave the room at the time of the vote.

He did so in a pre-agreed and constructive manner, according to high-level officials familiar with the talks. The constructive abstention trick worked once, but Orbn almost immediately then called out the completely illogical, irrational and improper decision by his 26 peers. He has repeatedly cited allegations that the government in Kyiv is infringing upon the rights of Hungarian minorities in Ukraine as a key reason to obstruct the countrys accession bid.

We calculated that there will be roughly 140 veto points all throughout the process, Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at Bruegel, explains to The Parliament: The renewed momentum for enlargement does not mean it will be easier for Ukraine to join there is no way that existing criteria are going to be eased.

Welcoming Ukraine could have enormous consequences for the EU as a whole and likely accelerate the case for internal reform of the blocs common institutions, including moving away from unanimous decision making on decisive matters like foreign and tax policy.

Economic disparities

Ukraine is a big country. Before the Russian invasion, its population was estimated at around 45 million people. While many have fled over the past two years, if admitted to the EU Ukraine would still be the fifth biggest member state, just behind Spain and ahead of Poland.

It would also be the poorest, meaning it would be among the major beneficiaries of structural funds aimed at levelling economic disparities in the bloc. According to a calculation by Bruegel, using the current EU seven-year budget figures as a reference value, Kyiv would receive 85bn in agriculture subsidies and 32bn in cohesion policy payments after joining the EU. In exchange, Darvas argues, the countrys entry would benefit the blocs economy via trade and investment opportunities for EU companies, as well as by boosting employment, production and tax revenues.

Following an oral update given by the Commission in a closed-door meeting with EU governments in mid-March, the next step would be the unanimous adoption of a negotiating framework, which sets out the guidelines and basic principles for accession talks.

Once the framework is approved and the intergovernmental conference established, negotiations can begin, with unanimity required to progress on every chapter up until the moment when an accession treaty is signed and ratified by all members which in some countries could even imply holding a referendum.

Importing insecurity

A new methodology adopted by the Commission in early 2020 groups the various negotiating chapters in six clusters. The rule of law cluster which includes the chapters on an independent judiciary, fundamental rights and public procurement is the first to be opened and the last to be closed. This would ensure continued monitoring of an issue that has proven highly controversial for some of the current EU member states themselves.

Andrii Borovyk, executive director of Transparency International Ukraine, believes the new wave of attention devoted to these subjects has been a good push for the country to advance in the sense of anti-corruption, even during the war. In a phone call from Kyiv, he explains to The Parliament that there is a lot we still need to do, but stresses the progress made by Ukraine in the negotiation process.

This is seen as a good opportunity for Ukraine to get a roadmap and some homework assignments on how to build up its institutions and advance on the judicial reforms, Borovyk says. In 2023, Ukraine advanced three points year-over-year on Transparency Internationals Corruption Perceptions Index one of the most significant improvements worldwide to score 36 out 100, putting it on par with Brazil. The index scale denotes zero as highly corrupt and 100 as very clean.

Having a date can be a powerful motivating factor for difficult domestic reasons.

Even if there is some progress on corruption, there are still areas of concern that could block Ukraines accession path in the medium-to-long term. From the EU perspective, Leigh calls this the risk of importing insecurity rather than exporting stability, which has been hardly discussed by EU institutions. If Ukraine was to be admitted without regaining control of its full territory, this will become a problem for the EU, he says.

When Cyprus joined in 2004, days after a failed UN-backed referendum on reunifying the island that has been split into two since the 1974 Turkish occupation of the north, the EU said never again to admitting nations with breakaway regions and frozen conflicts. This has led to endless problems with Turkey, Leigh adds. We have not drawn a lesson from the Cyprus experience. Now, the EU is faced with a much more serious situation, in Leighs eyes, with a country that at least for the time being does not control 20 per cent or more of its territory [and] which is occupied by a hostile foreign power.

Reality check

In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden managed to join the EU in just under two years. By contrast, it took Croatia around eight years. While it is not possible to anticipate how long negotiations with Ukraine will last, some authoritative voices, including president of the European Council Charles Michel, have recently called for an accelerated timeframe, expanding the unions border by 2030. French President Emmanuel Macron, an enlargement sceptic, was the first to do a reality check on this appeal, hinting that the process may take several decades.

Talks are conducted during intergovernmental conferences where all EU countries have an equal voice so successive veto points cannot be circumvented. Historically, bilateral regional issues have held back enlargement progress, Darvas says. He recalls the case of Slovenia blocking Croatia because of a border dispute in the Adriatic Sea, and Greece and Bulgaria stalling the start of talks with North Macedonia over issues pertaining to the countrys former name, Macedonia, as well as laws targeting ethnic Bulgarian minorities.

It will be more difficult for Orbn to be disruptive when he is chair than when he is not.

Betraying the aspirations and frustrating the expectations of Ukrainians by pushing talks into a deadlock, especially if 2030 is set as a likely target, is a major risk. Political divergence and reciprocal dissatisfaction has caused similar obstructions to Turkeys accession application over the course of the past two decades. If the process in practice turns out to be slower and more difficult than foreseen at the beginning, we might find ourselves in a similar situation, Leigh warns. Darvas agrees: Having a date can be a powerful motivating factor for difficult domestic reasons, he says, but can also lead to great disappointment.

A gradual, alternative form of association to the current all-or-nothing approach was outlined by a Commission strategic document published in March: countries could participate in selected policies without being offered full EU membership. This is the staged accession model proposed by the policy community over the years, Leigh says one that has the merit of giving the country in question a stake in the internal market and could even become the blueprint of a renewed neighbourhood policy for the EU, for instance with the UK.

A 2025 turning point?

The clock for timely advancements with Kyiv is ticking. Delaying the adoption of the negotiating framework is causing major headaches. The Belgians are in a hurry to make concrete progress while they are at the helm of the Council of the European Union until 30 June despite Von der Leyen having signalled in February that the next step might need to wait until after the European Parliament elections in June.

Some fear that when Hungary takes over the Council baton on 1 July, the dossier may be stalled for a semester, as it is up to the presidency-in-office to draft the agenda and steer the process.

A high-level EU diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity, is feeling more optimistic and believes Budapest might be an unexpectedly honest broker: It will be more difficult for Orbn to be disruptive when he is chair than when he is not, the person says. Other senior European diplomats disagree, instead betting on early 2025, when Poland will be in the drivers seat, as a likely turning point for Ukraines EU ambitions.

More here:
Growing pains: What would it take for Ukraine to join the EU? - The Parliament Magazine

This article was originally published inPortuguese

To improve the reputation of European institutions, an inter-institutional ethics body has been set up and Parliament's Rules of Procedure have been amended. However, experts claim this is not enough.

Over the last two years, the European Union has been involved in episodes that call into question democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.

In 2022, several current and former members of the European Parliament were accused of involvement in a corruption scandal over money influence, which allegedly involved Qatar, Morocco and Mauritania.

The Belgian Federal Prosecutors Office mentioned "large sums of money" and "substantial gifts" paid by a Persian Gulf country with the aim of influencing European Union policies.

Belgian police seized about 1.5 million in cash in dozens of house and office searches and confiscated computers to prevent the loss of evidence.

The European Commission, meanwhile, is the subject of a European Parliament lawsuitover the thawing of funds for Hungary.

According to the European Parliament, Hungary does not meet the standard of judicial independence laid down in the Treaties of the European Union but the Commission argues thatthe unblocking of funds was justified because the Budapest government had approved in May last year a reform to strengthen judicial independence and mitigate political interference in the courts, in accordance with four "super objectives" that the executive had imposed.

MEPs also complained that the money was greenlighted a day before a crucial summit of EU leaders, at which Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn threatened to veto support agreements for Ukraine.

How do these problems undermine the confidence of European voters in European institutions?

With the European elections coming up, the credibility of the European institutions is subject to stricter control.

According to the latest Eurobarometer poll, the second biggest threat to democracy for people across the bloc is growing distrust and skepticism of democratic institutions.

However, when asked about the institutions in which they have the most confidence to defend democracy in their country, 54% of respondents selected European institutions, including the European Court of Justice.

Experts who look closely at "the biggest scandal" of EU corruption and the Commission's legal trouble are concerned about the deterioration of the EU reputation "in the eyes of voters".

The director of the non-governmental organisation Transparency International EU, Nicholas Aiossa, also recalls that these incidents will be used to feed a "populist, anti-European and Eurosceptic narrative".

Alberto Alemanno, professor of European law at HEC Paris, argues that these problems suggest Europeans believe there is "a culture of impunity" within the EU.

In an attempt to improve the reputation of the European institutions, the European Commission has adopted an interinstitutional ethics body.

The new body will be composed of representatives of the institutions and five independent experts, who will have to agree on standards to be applied before the European elections in June 2024.

At the same time, amendments to Parliaments Rules of Procedure were also adopted.

In a 14-point reform plan, some of the changes include a ban on MEPs from engaging with former MEPs who have left Parliament in the previous six months, a wider scope of mandatory declarations of MEPs' about meetings with third parties and mandatory declarations of assets at the beginning and end of every term of office.

However, these measures were deemed "unsatisfactory" by experts and MEPs.

Alberto Alemanno says that "the lesson has not been learned", since only "small adjustments" have been made and that MEPs in the European Parliament can continue to have other jobs.

The Professor at HEC Paris says: "When you are an MEP, the salary you receive is more than enough to have a dignified life and perform your political function. If, instead, one can also engage in other activities that may conflict, then we also create a perception of tension between these two functions."

Nicholas Aiossa goes further and points to concrete measures for a "robust structural reform".

More here:
Is the credibility of European institutions at stake? - Euronews

This commentary was published in commemoration of International Fact-Checking Day 2024, held April 2 each year to recognize the work of fact-checkers worldwide. Angie Drobnic Holan is director of the International Fact-Checking Network. From 2013 to 2023 she was editor-in-chief of the U.S.-based fact-checking website PolitiFact.

A recent Supreme Court case put a spotlight on how social media companies like Meta moderate content on their platforms. It also put a spotlight on critics who say that content moderation and the fact-checking that goes with it is a form of censorship.

The Supreme Court case is primarily about the governments actions in dealing with tech platforms: Did the Biden administration go too far in asking for takedowns of vaccine-related misinformation? For years, similar attacks have been aimed at fact-checkers. As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, Ive watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a censorship industrial complex, claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information.

Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate.

The misinformers have long known that the old saying knowledge equals power can be perverted by following a simple rule of might makes right. In other words, by shouting loudly enough and often enough in the public square, motivated messengers can sway public opinion even when the message is factually inaccurate.

One of the top examples that critics of fact-checking mention is the COVID-19 lab leak theory a compelling example, because the ultimate origin of COVID is still unknown and uncertain. But its a very poor example of actual censorship.

Fact-checkers looked at the lab leak theory when internet memes claimed that COVID was man-made that it came from biological laboratories where scientists study and sometimes manipulate disease-causing viruses. The theory had dramatic variations: Some said COVID was the creation of irresponsible scientists playing with virus variants, while others said that COVID was a bioweapon created by the Chinese government and released upon the world purposefully. Less dramatically, people wondered if it was a naturally occurring virus that escaped a laboratory due to carelessness.

Each of those ideas had wildly different ramifications. Fact-checkers were initially skeptical of all the theories, but they revised their work to express more uncertainty when confronted with new evidence. Because they were fact-checkers, they credited the new evidence, rather than trying to push it away for ideological or political reasons. The theory has remained widely debated and much discussed.

And to be clear, many of the social media posts about COVID that were taken down during the pandemic were not because they were fact-checked, but because they ran afoul of other social media policies on community standards and public harm. Social media companies do not typically remove false information because of factual correction alone. Takedowns typically happen for illegal content; content that could cause public harm; or content that runs afoul of rules on hate speech or other community standards.

Critics of fact-checkers have tried to muddy this distinction, and as a fact-checker, I worry they are succeeding. But the truth is that no fact-checker has been given authority by any tech platform to take down content. The fact-checkers I work with would rather see inaccurate content contextualized and labeled, so it can remain part of the public record and the public debate.

Fact-checkers strong desire to keep information available and accessible is yet another irony of the fact-checkers-as-censors argument. The reality is that fact-checking is an activity deeply embedded in the ideals of free speech and free expression. Fact-checkers require the right and ability to freely investigate ideas, find sources, read widely and interview experts who can speak candidly, all as part of their methodology and process. This intellectual freedom is the bedrock on which all fact-checking is built. Countries with strong traditions of free expression and freedom of the press tend to have a lot of fact-checkers, while countries with press restrictions tend to have few. The roster of fact-checkers who participate in the International Fact-Checking Network shows this trend clearly.

When fact-checkers arent dealing with accusations of censorship, we face another crisis of confidence among those who might otherwise support us. Theres a trend among both the right and the left to say that fact-checking doesnt work, or that its been proven ineffective. Nothing could be further from the truth though it does depend a lot on what people mean by fact-checking working or being effective.

Often, by working, skeptics of fact-checking mean that it doesnt change peoples political views or sway their outlooks. Thats true; fact-checking doesnt do that. But its not supposed to. Politics experts have long known that peoples political views tend to be changed by discussions and persuasion from their friends and family, not by reading fact checks.

Another complaint is that fact-checking is not a solution to the problem of misinformation on the internet. But misinformation isnt a problem that can be solved with a single approach. Saying fact-checking doesnt work is a bit like saying we should get rid of firefighters because buildings are still catching fire.

Fact-checkings actual aim is to continuously improve the quality of information that people use to make decisions about their own lives. Research has shown that fact checks are highly effective in correcting misperceptions around false claims, and this is vitally important in an online world where everyday photos are taken out of context; where manipulated audio is passed off as real; and where video game footage is presented as video from actual military conflict.

In these contexts, fact-checking journalism is a crucial safety mechanism that helps weed out factually false information. Fact-checkers have debunked demonstrably false claims about the efficacy of vaccines; about the location and dates of elections; about the falsity of war propaganda, and about beloved celebrities who are still alive. During elections, they provide critical context to public policy issues from health care to economics to foreign policy, and they correct the excesses of political messaging that distorts and deceives average voters trying to make common-sense decisions.

Are fact-checkers perfect? We are not. We are human beings subject to human error. But thats why fact-checkers have corrections policies. The value of fact-checking is that it seeks conclusions based on evidence and logical processes, and fact-checkers correct their reports when confronted with new evidence. Rather than having a predetermined political agenda, fact-checkers try to compile the best of what is known for the benefit of all stakeholders.

In recent years, critics of fact-checking have been emboldened to make false claims about fact-checking itself, in order to promote a survival-of-the-fittest, anything-goes atmosphere on the internet and in the world when it comes to public debate. They want the loudest voices to win the fight, regardless of logic, evidence or coherence.

Fact-checking stands as a check on that noise, ever reminding us that evidence can be complicated and uncertain, that volume isnt the same thing as verity, and that the truth is something that must be worked out continuously, again and again, but never once and for all.

Read more here:
Lets say it plainly: Fact-checking is not censorship - Poynter

I recently read Gender Queer, Maia Kobabes best-selling memoir about coming of age as a nonbinary person. Its an honest and forthright portrayal of the challenges facing sexual minorities in our society. Im outraged that so many schools and libraries have banned or restricted it.

But Im also outraged that some libraries and bookstores have banned Abigail Shriers book, Irreversible Damage, which attributes the rise of gender surgeries among young women to social contagion that is, to the messages these women are receiving rather than to their inherent identities.

Thats how I differ from some of my fellow liberals, who scream bloody murder about restrictions on books they love but seem perfectly happy to remove ones that they loathe. I understand and, in many ways, share their distaste for Irreversible Damage. But you cant fight censorship with one hand if youre furthering it with the other.

Consider the kerfuffle earlier this year in Blue Hill, Maine, an affluent, left-leaning community with a well-endowed public library. When the library accepted a donation of Irreversible Damage and placed it on display, residents posted angry messages on Facebook and accosted the librarys staff at the local post office and grocery store.

They would say, I cant believe the library is allowing this, the library board president recounted. My feeling was, I cant believe the library would not allow it, based on its position on free access to information.

I cant believe it, either, but its happening. When it comes to free expression, even liberals have become illiberal.

That includes the American Booksellers Association, which proudly touts its anti-censorship bona fides. A sponsor of Banned Books Week, an annual event that proclaims the value of free and open access to information, the association issued an abject apology after it sent Irreversible Damage to 750 bookstores in 2021.

An anti-trans book was included in our July mailing to members, the American Booksellers Association declared, noting the pain and harm it had caused to the trans community. This is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABAs policies, values, and everything we believe and support. It is inexcusable.

Heres whats inexcusable: An organization ostensibly devoted to the freedom to read closed the book on it. According to illiberal liberals, you should be free to read what they like. Everything else is off the table.

So in the wake of the George Floyd police murder in 2020, the resolutely leftist school district in Burbank, Calif., barred teachers from assigning To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, on the grounds that these books (which both use the N-word) cause harm and trauma to Black students.

Never mind that many leading Black authors from Langston Hughes to Toni Morrison have praised Huck Finn, which indicted American slavery and racism. These books threaten young readers, the argument goes. We cant allow that.

And never mind that conservatives have invoked the same argument to ban Gender Queer and other LGBTQ-themed books. In Cumberland, Maine just a few hours down the coast from Blue Hill a parent read several passages from Gender Queer to his school board and demanded that it be removed from the school library. Thats what our kids are seeing, and youre OK with that? he asked, calling the passages pornographic.

Thankfully, the Cumberland school board retained Gender Queer for its high school library. And Im also grateful to report that the town library in Blue Hill stuck to its guns and held on to Irreversible Damage.

But it got no help from the American Library Association, another sponsor of Banned Books Week. When the librarys director reached out to the ALA for a letter of support, he said, it ghosted him.

To her credit, the director of the ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom privately apologized to him. She also told reporters that she opposed using the tools of the censors against Irreversible Damage. But there would be no official statement of support from the ALA, where the book had sparked considerable internal debate.

Either you believe in intellectual freedom, or you dont. If you do, youll defend books that you find harmful or offensive.

That speaks volumes, in its own right. Whats to debate, really? Either you believe in intellectual freedom, or you dont. If you do, youll defend books you find harmful or offensive. And if you dont, youll try to eliminate them.

Next Monday is Right to Read Day, when the ALA asks citizens to stand up to censorship from organized pressure groups that want to ban books. And lets be clear: The vast majority of the attacks on books have come from the political right, not from the left.

But if my fellow liberals dont stand up for freedom for everyone we wont have a leg to stand on as conservatives try to tear it down. When we adopt the tools of the censor, everybody loses.

The rest is here:
The danger of liberal censorship | Opinion - The Philadelphia Inquirer