# taz.de -- +++ Live-Review TV-Debate +++: #telleurope | |
> 30 broadcasters, 90 minutes, 5 candidates: The first television debate in | |
> the European Parliamentary Elections for the top candidates. | |
Bild: The candidates: Alexis Tsipras (Left, left above), Jean-Claude Juncker (C… | |
## 10.50: Conclusion | |
Taz experts offer their own impressions of the debate, none of which seem | |
to ring with positive remarks. | |
Barbara Oertel, the Eastern Europe expert at taz, says that the Ukraine | |
issue wasn’t even touched upon. „All of them showed pure helplessness.” | |
Jan Feddersen, a taz editor, tries to put a hopeful spin to the | |
conversation. „At least there was a lot more content in their speeches than | |
with most of your run-of-the-mill daily talk shows. The translations | |
however, proved quite confusing. We’ll have to get used to that, of course. | |
That was a splendid performance.” | |
## 10.41: Wavering interests | |
Tsipras is the only one to attack the „Troika”. In general, a good | |
appearance on his side. A shame, that he avoided past debates. Or was the | |
his appearance for the Communist Party of Bohemia more important than him | |
participating in the first debate with the top candidates on April 28th? | |
Ralf Sotschek from Dublin gives his closing remarks: I got the strong urge | |
to switch to another channel, to a local football game. Which proved to be | |
just as uninteresting (the teams were tied 0:0). So back to the European | |
debate, just in time to hear the moderator say „Your time has run out.” | |
Does this apply to all of the candidates? But now in all honesty: the time | |
limit and the Joker, which reminded one of a game of Canasta, was tiring. | |
The viewer is forced to painfully push the keywords down his throat, and | |
wait for the other candidate. I need to go to a pub now. | |
## 10.40: Now what? | |
One must notice that this media and speech experiment proved to be quite a | |
good reflection of the way the European democracy is run. Maximum | |
communicative effort, and minimal level of enlightenment. | |
The bigger the effort of the politicians to well-meaningly phrase their | |
political intentions, the greater the confusion is that ensues. What | |
exactly do they want to tell us? | |
The arguments themselves don‘t resonate with clarity, and they‘re even less | |
convincing. They‘re broken down to keywords, to mere impressions. At the | |
same, the country-specific problems persist, and each and every member | |
state knows what they are. Much wasn‘t said to make sense of them. | |
Rudolf Balmer, our man in Paris, chimes in: The short statements do not | |
allow for the candidates to develop a clear program, much less to go into | |
detail and explain it. Was this the intention? What remains are soundbites | |
that will be repeated, no rhetorical insights. When Tsipras says that the | |
true deficit in Europe is the lack of democracy, or when Verhofstadt reads | |
out a letter sent in by Kasparow about the power struggle in Uraine, there | |
is little that one can grasp from it. The candidates seem to have | |
participated in something that was more of a quiz show rather than true | |
political debate. Keller, as the only one to break a smile, leaves more of | |
an optimistic trace. Juncker on the other hand seems as if he was forced to | |
deliver a eulogy, as he seems sad and tormented. Next to him, Verhofstadt | |
seems clown-like, moving around a lot and gesticulating with his hands. For | |
the French viewers among us, the entire thing receives an even larger level | |
of monotony, as the dreary and disinterested voice of the translator drones | |
on. Most of them changed the channel after a couple of minutes. | |
## 10.20: Strength and a Zinger | |
Schulz shows strength. If any of the others is proposed as the European | |
Commission president, then the EU parliament will definitely vote against | |
it. He shows confidence. He can now look himself in the mirror, and know | |
that he is the next European Commission president. However, the ruling | |
coalition in Germany could fall apart. That does excite us a little. | |
Juncker could have made a stronger appearance, breaking the choice down | |
between him and Schulz. He hinted towards the Lisbon Accords, and that the | |
governments should listen to the parliament. Which in itself makes clear | |
that they should look for a completely different candidate. | |
Athens: Verhofstadt couldn‘t care less. He‘s going to head the EU | |
Parliament anyway. | |
Vienna: Will one of the fivesome become head of the European Commission? We | |
all agree on that. The parliament would go bankrupt if Mrs. Merkel and Mr. | |
Hollande need to come up with another candidate. | |
Now Juncker brings out the true statesman. He even becomes a bit | |
sentimental. „We have to fall in love with Europe,“ he says. Jacques | |
Delores warned us about this: You cannot fall in love in an internal | |
market. | |
Tsipras switches to participatory dialogue. Interesting. Schulz takes over. | |
Verhofstadt plays around with the limited seconds he has at his disposal. | |
But what else would one expect from a Liberal? Other than shouting out: | |
jobs, jobs, jobs! | |
## 10:19: Missed Opportunities | |
Is the Green Ska Keller the only one to use her Jokers? Quite smart from | |
the youngest one in the fivesome. She leave her Green content long behind. | |
That politicians could spend some time in a kiddie pool before switching to | |
commerce and industry, could definitely have fit into a minute. | |
Tsipras misses the point two, but once again brings up the fight against | |
tax evasion and the mafia. | |
Verhofstadt as the liberal, has of course, never heard of lobbyists. The | |
attack on the national capitals? Ping. Spot on. | |
## 10.15: Participation and Apathy | |
Now it‘s really becoming interesting: Why do the European citizens lack | |
interest, and why is participation in the elections so low? | |
Ska Keller arguments, that this isn‘t disinterest at play. Rather this | |
could be interpreted as mistrust, one directed towards the EU institutions. | |
Populism Alarm! | |
Verhofstadt tries to pull out for more pro-European arguments. He finds | |
them in the economy, as is expected. He brings up the protection of | |
individual privacy (HAH! NSA has finally been brought up. Was about time). | |
A stronger Europe, that‘s his main argument. | |
Schulz speaks of previous elections, saying that they were relatively | |
uneventful. He believes however, that this round would be different. | |
Tsipras hits the nail on the head! The 28 EU states are doing exactly what | |
Mrs Merkel asks of them. This itself, is the problem. Tsipras falls back on | |
his expected game. | |
A point for the Liberals. Verhofstadt is good, he criticizes the EU‘s | |
dependency on Berlin and Paris, showing similarities with Tsipras. Other | |
than that, he brings up proper Liberal topics for the first time: Data and | |
Privacy Protection. | |
## 10.05: Against the rollback | |
Religious symbols lead to a spike in the debate. Ska Keller promotes a | |
relativist approach, taking an easy way out. | |
Tsipras stays against it. He will fight against the conservative rollback, | |
and try to halt the tidal wave of anti-abortionist that have swept Europe. | |
Verhofstadt‘s attacks on, well, basically everyone liken him to a living | |
pinball machine (probably rings a bell only amongst the older ones amongst | |
us). Sometimes he hits the target, and sometimes his ball falls down the | |
gutter. The seconds spent on this speech should have been given to someone | |
else. | |
## 10.00: Separatists and time limits | |
The biggest problem with this debate is that due to the time crunch, and | |
running simultaneous translation, the debate has become frustrating rather | |
than challenging. One is actually judging the translators, and not the | |
politicians themselves. As true Europeans, however, this is something we | |
need to get used to. | |
Onto the debate topics themselves: Even if Verhofstadt were more concrete, | |
we wouldn’t understand him. What exactly did Barroso do wrong in Catalonia? | |
How dearly the viewers would wish to know that. | |
Verhofstadt gets his first sympathy point. He request higher protective | |
measures for Syrian war refugees in Europe. | |
How can it be that all candidates are for the legal immigration and that | |
nothing has happened? All candidates have proved this point. | |
So either none of the European politicians have anything to say, or they’re | |
carelessly flip-flopping on the debate podium. Yes, you guessed right: | |
Juncker. | |
Athens: When he’s right, he’s right. Tsipras says that Dublin II needs to | |
be reformed. | |
## 9.50: Messages on financial policies | |
Tsipras reminds us that the Left doesn‘t want to dissolve Europe, but | |
rather, save it. One prejudice goes down the drain. | |
Schulz, once again, is the most concrete of them all. As if he had some | |
form of argument-condenser, an argument shrinker! | |
Verhofstadt defends the Euro, because it diminishes the competition between | |
the currencies. How original for a Liberal. | |
But it is quite unlikely that any European citizen could find himself in | |
this debate, or find themselves amongst these party representatives. | |
## 9.45: Blue eyes and banks | |
Whoa, Juncker is finally riled up: His defense of the bank bailout flows | |
easily. No one wanted to risk the currency system with that. His anger, | |
geared towards the criticism of the management of the 2008-2010 crisis is | |
convincing. | |
„We didn‘t bail out the banks because the bankers had pretty blue eyes,“ … | |
says. Redundancies are apparent in the speeches of the candidates. | |
Verhofstadt‘s body language is quite tense, possibly aggressive. He holds | |
up his index finger threateningly. | |
Tsipras does not speak in English, but rather in Greek. A smart decision on | |
his side. He dodges a question from Verhofstadt, relating to his party‘s | |
management of the bank crisis in Greece. | |
Our correspondent from Greece chimes in: „When are they going to start | |
singing? The European fight-singing last weekend was much more exciting.“ | |
## 9.30: Points for Green | |
All right, of course all of us want to invest in new, young and future | |
markets. We get that. We also know that the money needs to come from | |
somewhere, and that new loans are definitely not good. | |
Finally! Ska Keller makes her first good point. The banks are mainly to | |
blame for Spain‘s debt. One cannot force the citizens to pay that. | |
## 9.25: The tension is rising | |
Berlin. taz-café: The conditions: hardcore! Each candidate has a minute for | |
the opening statements. The first point goes to Social Democrat Martin | |
Schulz. He sympathetically points to the differences between men and women. | |
Guy Verhofstadt, the Liberal, is quite boring with „Europe at the | |
Crossroads“ (Although this might be a translation problem). Alexis Tsipras | |
is the box of surprises for this evening, because he has been a relative TV | |
newbie at this point. Especially the Left in Europe is excited for his | |
appearance. | |
The way the debate is set up draws the public in. Tense, harsh conditions | |
and a clear structure. Will definitely become much more interesting than | |
the Eurovision Song Contest. Annoying however, is the camera movement. | |
Nobody needs that. | |
## 09:21: Youth Unemployment and Radicalism | |
Ulrike Winkelmann: „This minute time limit is quite frustrating,“ she says. | |
Candidates fall apart as their answers are strictly limited. | |
Otherwise? Ska Keller once again forgets the Green content of her speeches, | |
Tsipras remains quite general and Schulz spends an overwhelmingly large | |
portion of his this speaking from a middle ground, for a Social Democrat. | |
Even the middle-grounders must be annoyed. | |
Athens: General rambling seems to be the theme, coupled with parallel | |
monologues. Sadly so. Ska Keller seems to be making a dramatic impression. | |
## 9.15: Opening statements | |
Verhofstadt: „This time it‘s true,“ he says. These elections are crucial, | |
because we can only properly battle climate change and unemployment | |
together. With all good will, one can see the liberal elements in | |
Verhofstadt‘s speech. | |
Juncker: He makes clear that he wants to see a strong Europe, joined | |
against Russia. After China, already the second opponent. | |
Tsipras: The Greek candidate speaks of the tragedy of his country, that | |
stands as an example for the consequences of austerity politics. A clear | |
left profile. The translator, however, has stumbled starting with the first | |
sentence. Not good. | |
Schulz: He was able to, successfully, unveil a maximally socialdemocratic | |
stance within his minute. | |
Keller: Surprisingly enough, the top Green candidate finishes her opening | |
statement without any expected Green elements out. | |
This is the first Europe-wide televised debate for the top candidates in | |
the European Parliamentary Elections. Jean-Claude Juncker (Conservative), | |
Martin Schulz (Social Democrats), Ska Keller (Greens), Guy Verhofstadt | |
(Liberals) and Alexis Tsipras (Left) delve into the discussion starting at | |
9 pm. | |
## 20.30: The Background | |
The European Broadcasting Union [1][is organizing the 90-minute debate], | |
which will be moderated by journalist Monica Maggioni from the Italian TV | |
channel RAI. More than 30 channels from all over Europe are going to offer | |
a live broadcast of the debate. In Germany, this will be offered by the | |
ARD/ZDF specialty channel Phoenix. | |
In the lead-up to the debate, [2][people were against the decision] by ARD | |
and ZDF to show the debate in their smaller specialty channel, instead of | |
showing it in prime time. This because ZDF organizes its own debate | |
focusing specifically on Juncker and Schulz. [3][A petition] was drawn up | |
against this, emphasizing the importance of such a debate reaching a wider | |
audience. | |
Viewers are encouraged to take an active role by tuning into the debate and | |
sharing their opinions via social media. You can share your thoughts and | |
comments, and even direct questions to the candidates. Just make sure to | |
include the following hashtag: [4][#telleurope.] | |
15 May 2014 | |
## LINKS | |
[1] http://www.eurovisiondebate.tv/ | |
[2] /!137568/ | |
[3] http://www.change.org/de/Petitionen/ard-zdf-das-wichtigste-tv-duell-aller-s… | |
[4] http://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23telleurope&src=typd | |
## TAGS | |
TV-Duell | |
Wahlkampf | |
Europawahl 2014 | |
Großbritannien | |
Schwerpunkt Eurovision Song Contest 2019 | |
Türkische Gemeinde in Deutschland | |
## ARTIKEL ZUM THEMA | |
Chef der britischen Liberalen: Ein gläubiger Christ | |
Tim Farron tritt als Chef der Liberal Democrats zurück. Seine | |
Parteigenossen werfen ihm vor, dass er die Chancen der Partei in den | |
Städten ruiniert hat. | |
Kolumne #Waterloo in Stockholm 1: Der Regenbogen ist erlaubt | |
Flaggenpolitik beim Eurovision Song Contest: Alles darf wehen, nur die | |
Fahnen Palästinas, Kataloniens, Schottlands und Nordzyperns nicht. | |
Europawahlkampf im Kleinen: Kekse statt Kontroverse | |
Während die EU-Spitzenkandidaten im TV diskutieren, treffen sich Berliner | |
Politiker in der türkischen Gemeinde. Hier wie dort ist das Interesse | |
gering. |