Taking positions: EU, you’re doing it wrong
- What is the recently adopted European Media Freedom Act about?
- This month, Poland has voted to form a new government, with unexpected results
- The Council talked about the effect of precarious work conditions on mental health
- EU institutions’ position on migration gets tougher
- What the war in Palestine shows us about EU foreign policy
About media freedom in Europe
On 3 October Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) adopted their position on the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). The act aims at preserving editorial independence of European media outlets, improving media regulation through transparency measures and safeguarding public service media. The European Parliament (EP) also wants to introduce a new body, the European Board for Media Services, legally and functionally independent from the Commission, to act as a ‘European watchdog for media freedom’. While many of the new iterations were praised by both reporters and the European Commission, there are still some major shortcomings.
While the EP’s Committee on Culture and Education added some safeguards against the use of spyware on journalists, the text voted on in plenary still presents some exceptions, allowing spyware as a last resort measure. These exceptions include human trafficking and terrorism threats. However, terrorism against the State is a very vague definition, open to interpretation by each government. Also, who is to say when it’s time to use ‘the last’ resort? In case this exception is applied, journalists will have the right to seek judicial protection from an independent court in the respective Member State. However, can we rely on these courts to make a truly unprejudiced decision in every single Member State? Greece is just an example, with the latest Rule of Law Report showing that there is still work to do to improve the quality of its national justice system – a report which, as we already stated, is even too optimistic.
Another questionable decision made on 3 October was to hinder news media moderation on very large online platforms (VLOPs), such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn. According to the EMFA, the platform will have to notify the media about the intention to delete their content and give them a 24-hour window to respond. Only after that ‘the news’, no matter how far from the truth, can be deleted. This of course introduces an obvious loophole for those wanting to spread misinformation.
Why are these months’ elections around Europe so fundamental?
The latest elections in Poland, held on 15 October, have had the largest turnout in Polish democratic history, with over 74% participation. The far-right governing party “Law and Justice” (PiS) came first with the most votes, but it will be unable to form a government. Instead, the opposition parties, guided by the former Prime Minister and President of the European Council Donald Tusk with his “Civic Coalition”, might be able to form a coalition and, therefore, a new government.
What do these election results mean? The loss of power by PiS shows a shift in one of the EU’s biggest countries, being the first one to revert a trend of autocratic, nationalist, anti-EU and populist governments. Tusk’s electoral programme focused, in fact, on bringing Poland close to the EU again, which found the support of young voters.
Let’s take a step back: PiS has governed Poland for eight years, bringing the country to constant fights with EU institutions over the country’s violation of civil rights, politicisation of judicial power and the media, implementation of policies aimed at the corrosion of rule of law, up to the point that the EU froze its 35 billion euro coronavirus recovery funds for Poland. These elections therefore allowed Brussels to sigh in relief and prepare to start dealing with Poland not as an illiberal democracy, but as a “standardised” country. This unexpected normalisation of relations between the EU and Poland will have an impact on the balances inside the Council: Orban’s Hungary will be more isolated in imposing its anti-EU positions, losing its veto leverage power.
But not all that glitters is gold: Donald Tusk still rules a centre-right party, which has asked to “stop uncontrolled” immigration from Muslim countries; on migration, he does not distinguish himself from PiS ministers, and many concerns exist on his proposals for economic policies.
The Polish elections also come at a time when far right movements are spreading in Europe, with the latest win by the populist, right-wing Robert Fico in Slovakia’s parliamentary elections, as well as with the advancement of ultraconservative, far-right parties in Germany and Luxembourg. The change of direction given by Poland is important since it allows us to foresee what the EU elections results in 2024 will look like, which coalitions will be formed and whether the far right will eventually take over EU institutions. Until now, the main prediction is that the European People’s Party (a centre-right European party) will gain a majority in the EP and that, instead of forming a coalition with the second biggest group, the Socialists and Democrats, as happened in the last legislatures, it will team up with the European Conservatives and Reformists party, which may in the next turn become the second biggest party within the EP.
The risk is that having populist parties running the EP and gaining strength in EU institutions will make these latter even more fragile than they are now, slowing down their work and making them inadequate to respond to current challenges. Even though these parties don’t have the actual political power to carry out their plans and maintain their anti-European promises, they manage to attract votes and engage people. The result is an ever more fragile EU that does not have the instruments to protect itself from populist, anti-European movements, acting in a crisis mode instead of preventing crises, and therefore losing credibility.
EU addressing workers’ mental health
EU Ministers for Employment and Social Affairs met on 9 October to discuss the impact of precarious working conditions, such as poorly paid, insecure or unprotected jobs, on the mental health of workers. The Council then adopted conclusions calling on Member States, social partners and the European Commission to take action in order to protect mental health and prevent psychosocial risks in the workplace.
Already in July, when the draft of these Conclusions was made available, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) published its concerns and recommendations. In a few points:
- Flexible and changing labour market: the text by the Council falls short in recognising that the labour market is constantly changing. Instead of focusing on precarious employment, it should examine broader precarious work conditions. The lack of an employment contract and the spreading of non-standard forms of employment have in fact huge repercussions on mental health.
- Young workers: the text does not focus enough on precarious working conditions for young people, who are the most exposed, together with women, to low-quality and non-standard forms of employment.
- National legal instruments: Ministers call on the effective application of existing legislation at national level to guarantee decent work and safeguard health at work. However, there is no recognition that the existing legislation is actually the problem, as it is often the cause of precarious work.
- Empty commitment: even though the Council invites the Commission to reflect on possible policies, it does not propose binding legislation on the prevention of psychosocial risks.
News on migration from the EP plenary
MEPs reunited in plenary twice this month and migration was top on the agenda, to speed up the approval of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum before EU elections in June 2024.
Images of thousands of new arrivals in Lampedusa, Italy, are just adding to those in Evros, at the Belarusian borders, in the Canary Islands. The EU is putting all its efforts into “tackling” migration, by increasing coastguard controls at sea, or signing agreements with third countries to prevent arrivals. And yet, these solutions are shaking the EU’s inter-institutional relations.
MEPs attacked the European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, for having signed a failed 60 million euro agreement with Tunisia’s president Kais Saied to contain people departing from the country, money that has been sent back to the European Commission. Also, both MEPs and EU leaders claim that Von der Leyen does not have any legitimacy to conduct the EU’s foreign policy, which actually lies in the hands of Member States. At the same time, every institution follows the line that states that shifting the responsibility to deal with people on the move to third countries is the way to go.
This was underlined during the last meeting of EU ministers for Migration and Asylum, where the Spanish Presidency called for the establishment of a “preventive model”: increasing funding for the external dimension of migration, and effectively implementing measures to reinforce readmission (meaning deportation) of migrants to their countries of origin.
