Ursula Von Der Leyen and Accelerated Euroscepticism

There is a protruding trend of Euroscepticism that has engulfed Europe. We saw this with Brexit, we saw his with the challenges that emerged from countries like Hungary and Poland, with respect to the Ukraine Grain Deal that was harming the sales of farmers who were actually part of the EU; ad we recently also saw this with the increased popularity of the AfD (or Alternative for Germany) party, in the recent election in Germany. Now, there is also a leadership crisis in Europe that occurs parallel to a new Trump administration in the US that has inspired calls for Europe to also be made great again. Caught in the cross hairs of these developments appears to be Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission herself – and we ought to address this further.
THE PROTRUDING TREND OF EUROSCEPTICISM ACROSS EUROPE
Ursula Von Der Leyen and accelerated Euroscepticism, and we ought to begin with contextualising the protruding trend of Euroscepticism. So, Euroscepticism is a term used to describe the opposition and criticism of the European Union (also known as the EU). The EU is generally an economic, political, and social union of 27 member countries that chose to collaborate towards what was supposed to be the promotion of peace, security, democracy, equality, justice, and solidarity among its members.
Now, many have attributed the recent rise of Euroscepticism to three primary factors: (1) The first is the increasing power wielded by the European Union in relation to national governments — This particular factor has led many citizens to feel that their national government is no longer in control of major policy decisions and that power has shifted largely to the EU. (2) The second factor relates to economic concerns related to various austerity measures — The factor has caused citizens to be concerned that future and current austerity measures adopted by the EU will cause extreme economic hardship resulting in potential job losses, service cuts, and shrinking economies. (3) Then the third factor is a rapid increase in immigration into EU countries — This third factor has sparked debate among Eurosceptic groups who believe that immigration leads to a dilution of national identity and a threat to their culture (this is also largely tied to the genuine concerns that are expressed through those who criticise the great replacement agenda). Furthermore, some eurosceptics are also concerned that high levels of immigration will lead to an influx of foreign workers competing for limited local jobs (which is a claim that is also echoed in many immigration discussions, including in places such as the US, and South Africa and more). Ultimately, Eurosceptisim has long been on the rise.
EUROSCEPTICISM IS BEING COMPOUNDED BY THE LEADERSHIP CRISIS IN EUROPE
So, having this understanding of Euroscepticism, it is critical to further note that this issue is being compounded by a leadership crisis in Europe, taking place in the status quo. This is especially evident when looking at the leadership of the European Commission. For clarity, the European Commission is the EU’s main executive body. It proposes legislation, upholds EU treaties and ensures that Member States apply EU law and policies. The Commission also manages the EU’s budget and negotiates international agreements on behalf of the EU. As we’ve established earlier in our discussion, the European Commission’s president is Ursula von der Leyen.
Well, the popular sentiment or verdict is that Ursula von der Leyen is destroying Europe. This is tied to the fact that she has been culpable in the great replacement agenda through mass migration. This is also tied to the fact that many are saying she is ruining the European  economy with climate insanity and spending billions of tax euros on foreign wars and hostile regimes. And yet, in all of these issues that certainly have a direct impact on the quality of life in European nations, European citizens never voted her into power to begin with; and because they never voted for her in the first place, they cannot vote her out, as an indictment of her leadership.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN IS CENTRAL TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP CRISIS
As alluded to in the excerpt we just saw, Von der Leyen is embroiled in a number of scandals concerning corruption and diabolical policy consideration – and this has fueled the leadership crisis that has been central to the growth in Euroscepticism. First, after she was appointed president of the European Commission, VDL again became embroiled in controversy, this time involving the procurement of the Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer. The scandal, which the media dubbed Pfizergate, related to the purchase of 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer vaccine for use across the EU. It transpired that: a) the number of doses was far greater than was required, resulting in a significant number having to be either destroyed or donated; b) the excess doses cost the EU €4 billion; c) the total value of the contract, which was reported as being approximately €20 billion, was inflated; and d) the most damaging charge, the contract for the vaccines was negotiated directly between VDL and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. The negotiations were conducted using sms messages, which VDL later claimed to have deleted.
The New York Times, which initially carried out the investigation into Pfizergate, brought a lawsuit against the European Commission for failing to provide access to the sms conversations between VDL and Bourla. In Belgium, a lobbyist, Frederic Baldan, filed a criminal complaint citing corruption and the destruction of documents. The Belgian lawsuit was eventually taken over by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which opened a criminal investigation. The outcome of these legal proceedings/investigations is still pending! Kindly have a listen as German MEP Christine Anderson had her microphone cut off in the EU Parliament for calling out the corruption surrounding Ursula von der Leyen’s multi billion euro Pfizer vaccine contract. And MEP Mislav Kolakusic called out this corruption.
But ultimately, the fact that VDL has evaded accountability does not only speak to her corruption, it also speaks to the corruption in the European Commission in general – and therefore, a broader discussion and change in leadership si requisite – and may in part also be the reason for the growth of the right wing in Europe. But, here is Romanian MEP Cristian Terhes warning that “We Are Witnessing The Biggest Corruption Coverup In EU History.”
We also see how Von der Leyen scandals on corruption and diabolical policy considerations (that have fueled the leadership crisis central to the growth in Euroscepticism) with the green scam that VDL has been championing in Europe. This even led to a notable remark from Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, where she exclaimed that the Europe that VDL is creating is a continent of hypocrisy and torment, enormous energy prices, bans on cars entering cities, women and children being victims of brutal murders and sexual crimes, among other concerns.
What is also notable is that Ursula VDL is trying to export these detrimental green ideas, and doing so at a cost to Europeans. For instance, at the concluded 8th South Africa-EU Summit, in Cape Town on the 13th of March, Ursula von der Leyen announced a £4.7 billion pounds investment package, allegedly aiming to deepen trade ties.
Let’s directly respond to this. First, the reason many European companies are interested in South Africa and many African countries is because Europe is spent, they do not have many natural resources to offer – that is why colonisation was a big financial strategy for most European countries to begin with. Secondly, the so-called green policies are not about providing incentives for European companies (those companies already use foreign direct investment as a tool for eroding the sovereign policies of nations and disenfranchising their citizens). Rather, these so-called green policies are a neo-colonial tactic that coddles a dependent relationship – they are literally an extension of the problems with foreign direct investment. And the South African government needs to cease from prioritising such relations with all nations, because it hinges the development of the nation on the dictates of other nations and their multinational corporations.
Thirdly, this is further exemplified by the cooperation that Ursula VDL refers to, with respect to science and research, and the work opportunities that come with this. A significant benefit she highlights is that over 1000 South Africans study and teach in European universities. [PAUSE] Now, while I will not discourage people from making choices to work in Europe; I think it is telling that what South Africa offers Europe is the primary benefit that was highlighted. And of course, this is intrinsic to all investors, but, the cost that comes with such a relationship with Europe is among the incommensurably great ones. The importation of the green agenda is neither a commensurate cost for economic ties with Europe, nor is it a significant benefit or gain. The same can be said with the loss of more South African labour to European economies. And so, there is a categorical imperative to pray against foolish and detrimental global associations and alliances, especially with respect to the G20 and the leaders’ summit in November.
IS EUROSCEPTICISM A THREAT TO THE EUROPEAN UNION?
Now, that was a minor (and yet necessary) digression, although tied to the discussion on euroscepticism, as we just highlighted that VDL is certainly trying to export the same policies that have been detrimental to Europe.
Let’s then proceed to address whether Euroscepticism is a threat to the EU, and whether that is a bad thing. The answer here is simply that: yes, Euroscepticism is a threat to the EU, and no that is not a bad thing. In particular, it is not a bad thing because euroscepticism and the actions it inspires has clearly become the means through which European citizens can directly hold the EU accountable – seeing that they do not even directly vote for the European Commission’s president. Therefore, euroscepticism and its increasing propensity to lead to measures such as Brexit, are thus the ultimate and consequential ways that European citizens express their discontent with the EU.
We see this idea championed with the popularity of the AfD in Germany (as alluded to earlier on). Teh AfD does (in fact) have eurosceptic views; but, those views represent a fundamental truth, which is that there is a consensus among many Germans that the EU does not serve the best interests of their country, and wish to see their alliance to it changed or even ended.
Secondly, as far as the substantive reasons for euroscepticism in Germany or from the AfD is concerned, the obligation of a government is to its people first, or – in this case – the obligation of a multi-state entity should be to its member states first. However, the EU has a constant challenge where it undermines unilateral government decisions and preferences because of its modus operandi of blanket policies. Again you would recall that among the arguments from the ‘leave’ campaign in the Brexit debate was that EU immigration laws undermined Britain’s sovereignty to regulate immigration to an intolerable extent, and the EU refused to budge on issues such as immigration, citing its commitment to freedom of movement. Therefore, the EU is the reason for euroscepticism, and entities like the AfD party are merely bodies that echo remarks that already exist, and have existed for a long time.
In fact, in addition to Britain and Germany, we also witnessed in 2023 how the Black Sea Grain Deal was causing growing Euroscepticism. The concern, especially from European farmers, was that grain coming from Ukraine was being sold below market price. This was a result of tariffs being removed on all Ukraine grain across Europe. And this was a valid concern because these conditions gave Ukraine grain a significant decrease in price that makes it comparatively preferable to locally grown grain for consumers.