My latest analyis is available on the c4EP website. It covers the delicate issue of the results to be expected at the upcoming elections of the European Parliament.
I am not a big fan of predictions: however, some trends are clearly visible and may be well worth to take an early look on them. What can go wrong? In the worst case, my not-too-optimistic thoughts will prove to be wrong. The more, the better, if You want my opinion… 😉
Even though we had a rocky start with our first C4EP event this fall – I managed to catch a bad cold, while I was assigned to be the moderator of the event, one of our speakers indicated that he might be late because of work, and another one cancelling just before the event because of urgent obligations related to the upcoming EU Summit – we are pleased with how our „European Elections through Young Eyes” event turned out.
We have addressed many topics from the participation of youth in the elections through the Spitzenkandidaten process, even to the „F” word, dreaded all around the EU bubble of Brussels (in this case: the federalisation of the European Union).
It was great to cooperate with our invited speakers, Krisztina and Ivan from the European Parliament, but also our audience for being with us yesterday and staying with us after the event for a cool chat with some wine. We hope that You will join us in our next events, too! Additionally, we are grateful to Press Club Brussels to make sure that everything was working without an itch. We will be back!
A detailed report on the event will follow on the C4EP website, until then You can find some more photos on its Instagram and Facebook profiles!
Today the Brussels-based Euronews has asked my opinion about some of the legal questions related to the ongoing corruption scandle in the European Parliament. Their report can be found here, but You can be sure that the story is far from being closed.
The legal situation is not that simple, as neither the European Parliament nor the European Union in general has any kind of set of legal rules applicable to situations like these. Therefore, the local Belgian authorities have conducted investigations related to a crime that allegedly was targeted against the EU or one of its institutions, based on classical territorial jurisdiction, as the crime was committed in Belgium. As the European Parliament was quick to offer its full cooperation, including lifting the immunity of the MEPs involved, seemingly more serious legal-political complications will be avoided.
But the situation may not always be that simple. The famous – at least for Hungarians – case of “KGBéla” (a former MEP from the extreme-right wing party Jobbik, who was allegedly cooperating with the Russian intelligence) has opened up a question, for which I still have not found the proper answer – even if I may be the only person interested in that. This question is, if a member state is allowed to create a crime in its own legal system (see the crime of “Espionage against the institutions of the European Union” added into section 261/A of the Hungarian Criminal Code at that time) without any Union-level legal provision and any demand or request for that from the EU or its institutions. Can a member state “protect” EU institutions with its own domestic penal legislative measures? I will definitely come back to this at a later point.
Anyway, I think that to avoid these kind of problems in the future, the European Union shall turn its attention to try to settle this question.
Lattmann Tamás honlapja 