Previous posts in this discussion:
PostEU Parliamentary Elections of May 2019: Some Predictions (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy, 12/21/18 4:01 am)
John E asked for my predictions on the May '19 EU Parliamentary Elections.
The present EU Parliament has 751 members elected by the people of 28 nations, including the 75 representatives of the UK on its way out. The parliament is dominated by the centrist parties PPE (Popular/Christian Democrats, 219) , S&D (Socialists, 189) and ALDE (European Liberals, 68). At the margins are the various right, left, and populist parties.
The MEPs receive salaries of more than 8000 euros monthly, plus indemnities for various expenses of the office, a residential and travel allowance, etc. At the end the cost for each parliamentarian is almost €2.4 million per year, really an insult to the average European citizen. The Parliament meets alternatively in Strasbourg and Brussels, while the secretariat is in Luxembourg--very, very ridiculous.
For the next elections, due to their importance we will probably see a higher rate of participation (the last time in 2014 it was only 42.6%). Following the fall of the dominant parties (generally lackeys of the Empire) in the various national elections, it is possible the PPE, S&D and ALDE will lose their majority, which will make it necessary to form new coalitions. A complete victory of the nationalists/sovereignists/populists it is not likely, but this could finally change the present lousy policy of the EU Commission.
The emerging new parties should have a very good outcome in Italy, as at present they have the support of
about 60% of the people. and this support is increasing in spite of the desperate political sabotage of the old guards Juncker and Moscovici, who menaced Italy about its proposed 2.4% deficit but not a word against Macron for France's 3.5%.
In a final item. I agree in theory with José Ignacio Soler, 20 December. However I am happy that Trump has decided to withdraw the US troops from Syria. It is a wise decision as the Empire is overextended and its people are sick and tired of always being at war. In spite of its power, the Empire cannot fight two enemies at the same time. In reality Russia should be an ally or if you prefer a partner as Putin wanted to be in 2001-2003, because the real serious danger is China. The contrasts are too serious, with no possibilities of easing up. China is even remembering the betrayal by Wilson in the case of Shandong in 1919, and the new Chinese aircraft carrier will be named Shandong. As lately explained by the great Chinese historian and expert in geopolitics Zhang Wenmy, in the near future (if the Empire keeps following the present path), the Empire will be doomed due to its overextension and the choice of too many enemies.
By the way, Russian soldiers in Venezuela are a provocation, but what the heck are US soldiers doing on the Russian borders in East Europe or with military instructors in Ukraine or joint military exercises in Georgia?
JE comments: Russia's justification for missiles in Cuba in 1962 was precisely this game of tit-for-tat. The US had placed missiles in Turkey.
Returning to the EU, has there ever been a discussion in Parliament about the PR benefits of belt-tightening? And here's an easy question: will the European Parliament simply lower its head count by 75 after Brexit?