Lukas Mandl on the re-election of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen

Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected as Commission President today with 401 votes out of 707 cast.

With my vote, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I didn't make the decision easy. And I didn't make it easy for her to gain my trust, knowing that I'm just one of 720 MEPs.

Before and after the European elections, I said again and again that "from today's perspective" (roughly in the autumn of the previous year) I couldn't give her my vote. It was the beginning of the end of a phase of extreme overregulation by the old EU Commission. Before and after the election, I said several times, both publicly and in internal meetings, that I would base my voting behavior not primarily on the person, but on the program, and that, in my view, the Commission Presidents of the previous term could only become the Commission Presidents of the new term if the program changed dramatically.

I also conveyed this to Ursula von der Leyen in long meetings over the past few weeks, as well as in a personal conversation just the day before yesterday. I was not the only one among the candidates and the subsequently elected MEPs across Europe who clearly gave Ursula von der Leyen the proverbial "stick in the window." The messages were clear. And they worked.

Here, I first explain what I demanded of Ursula von der Leyen, and then why I gave her the vote of confidence.

Parliamentary Position vis-à-vis Ursula von der Leyen:

A) External Strength: I made it clear to her word for word what I have earned the trust of Austrian citizens three times to do parliamentary work for our country in the European Parliament: that we need a Europe with greater external strength (and more internal freedom, see below). This must be reflected in the prioritization of our security, both in terms of content and structure.

B) Freedom within: "If it is not necessary to make a law, then it is necessary not to make a law." This fundamentally liberal principle, based on Montesquieu, must finally be incorporated into the European Commission's regulatory philosophy. The goal is to defend the freedoms that define our civilization against attacks from within and without, rather than further restricting them.

C) A clear no to new reporting obligations and additional regulations: EU citizens finally need – literally – some breathing room. There must be an end to burdens and reporting obligations that distract companies from their core business, and to some ludicrous regulations that only cause people to shake their heads and distance themselves from the EU's civilizing achievements.

D) Preserving nature instead of harassing citizens and businesses: Nature must be protected, which also means preserving our human habitat. This can best be achieved by supporting local and regional levels rather than imposing centralised directives. So far, things have been going in the wrong direction: I literally told Ursula von der Leyen that the Green Deal was neither green nor a deal. A deal creates a win-win scenario for everyone involved. And green would mean that Europe had helped humanity combat climate change. But that has not been the case so far. For this, too, “external strength” (see above) will be of key importance.

E) Scientific rigor and a culture of dialogue instead of "cancel culture": I told Ursula von der Leyen that the vast majority of EU citizens expect their political leadership to protect them from "cancel culture" rather than appearing to be part of it themselves. This requires political leadership (see below) and requires genuine support for a decentralized culture of dialogue, cross-border exchange, and respect for science and research.

F) Visionary leadership instead of centralized administration: My most important message to Ursula von der Leyen in our meetings was that visionary leadership is necessary. This means interpreting the leadership role not as "rule," but as "service." This means, first and foremost, listening, then developing a vision, being able and willing to communicate that vision, and then doing so, and then listening again—and constantly—in order to develop the vision and pave the way for its implementation. In this regard, the new EU Commission must act very differently than the old one.

Based on my intensive engagement with Ursula von der Leyen's program, I have given her my vote of confidence in today's election. I explain the reasons for this below.

Good reasons for the vote of confidence in Ursula von der Leyen:

I) COMMON SENSE

The election of the Commission's leadership works in such a way that the member state governments (the European Council) first propose a candidate, and then the European Parliament votes on that candidate. Unlike five years ago, this time there was no other candidate than Ursula von der Leyen. Back then, too, the European Council had proposed only her – i.e., only one person. But neither before the European elections by the European People's Party nor after the European elections by other European party families put forward any other candidates. This time, no one was nominated (except for a Social Democratic candidate before the European elections, who had no chance, and several other nominally nominated candidates before the European elections, who also had no chance), nor did anyone – apart from Ursula von der Leyen – express interest. Our Austrian Federal Government supported Ursula von der Leyen's nomination in the European Council. If the signs are so clear, then it would be a waste of time for a simple parliamentarian to concern himself with alternatives. Instead, one must engage constructively with the candidate proposed by the member state governments and help to avoid bad policies as much as possible and to help good policies to achieve a breakthrough.

II) NEGOTIATION POWER

If you take a mandate in the European Parliament seriously, your working day consists primarily of negotiating, negotiating, negotiating. A good foundation of trust is a prerequisite for successful negotiations. To achieve something for my fellow Austrians, I have to understand their concerns and work constructively. The months since last autumn, and even more so the weeks since the European elections, have nurtured my hope that Ursula von der Leyen has understood that the new EU Commission must act differently than the old one – in the sense mentioned above (and below). And I can now demand the implementation of this program, which I support with my vote of confidence in today's election, without making any lazy compromises. The same applies to hundreds of other colleagues from across Europe, whose votes for Ursula von der Leyen I also consider a vote of confidence. It is said that the language of the European Parliament is that of compromise. And that is right. It is an achievement of generations before us that we engage with one another through negotiations; not through force, as has been the case historically. Even better than a compromise is a win-win scenario. And among compromises there are good ones, which I will always be prepared to accept; but there are also bad, “rotten compromises” – there must be no more of those. After today’s election, the “political leverage” for demanding that the EU Commission implement the program of strength abroad and freedom at home is greater than ever.

III) PEOPLE'S PARTY PROGRAM

The European People's Party emerged stronger from the European elections. In numerous meetings – beginning with a retreat lasting several days in Portugal – we, as colleagues of the European People's Party in the European Parliament, clearly communicated to candidate Ursula von der Leyen the priorities we demand of her as Commission President, who also has her roots in the European People's Party. Ursula von der Leyen has honestly addressed these issues and integrated almost everything, almost completely; and she has not crossed any red lines in doing so. In my view, these red lines should be drawn against new approaches to overregulation on the one hand, and against a half-hearted EU foreign policy on the other. Rather, after several meetings, Ursula von der Leyen has presented a program that must be agreed upon if one wants a good future for Europe – and for Austria. The decisive factor will be whether the program is implemented. At the heart of her program were – and hopefully will continue to be – competitiveness and security, as well as the defense of democracy. These pillars are crucial for the preservation of our civilization, for the hope of Europe, and for the recovery that our societies need and must strive for.

IV) RESPONSIBILITY

This brings us full circle: While common sense recommends engaging constructively with the one existing candidate and her platform, responsibility demands that we protect Europe from internal instability and a further weakening of its geopolitical clout. While I certainly respect the voting behavior of every colleague today, I would consider it irresponsible to encourage months of political chaos in Europe in these challenging times. Especially in light of the expected consequences of the US presidential election, it is essential that Europe finds itself on an equal footing with the US, can help itself, literally "interfere in its own affairs," and ensures its own security and competitiveness. What this requires is the ability to act! In November, it will be clear who the new US President will be. The new administration will take office in the White House in January. This means that the new EU Commission must be fully operational by November at the latest. While this is the clearest example of the urgency of the situation, it is by no means the only one. Today's election of Ursula von der Leyen marked the beginning of this capacity for action. Now it's time to assemble the new Commission—in terms of personnel, structure, and content—in the spirit of a Europe with greater external strength and greater internal freedom.