• EU The accusation of "dictator" by Mario Draghi to Erdogan entangles the 'sofagate'

  • 'Sofagate' Erdogan's displacement of Ursula von der Leyen: leaves her without a seat at an official meeting

"I am the first woman to chair the European Commission,

I am the president, and this is how I expected to be treated when visiting Turkey. But I was

not

. I do

not find any justification in the Treaties, so I can only conclude that I was treated that way. for being a woman. What would have happened if I had worn a suit and tie? In the photos of previous encounters there is no lack of chairs, but there were no women either. I felt humiliated and alone, as a woman and a European. This is not a a question of chairs or of protocol, this goes to the heart of who we are, this is about who we defend and about

how far we are still for women to be treated with equality ".

Ursula von der Leyen, has not turned the page.

In Turkey, two weeks ago, she was humiliated and although the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, has repeatedly apologized (again today), the German does not want what happened to be forgotten or remain as an anecdote.

He does not want it to be repeated, neither at home nor outside, and that is why he asks for an in-depth reflection.

Von der Leyen attributes what happened to machismo.

The active, that of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his protocol and the passive, that of the president of the European Council, who did nothing.

He didn't react, he didn't get up, he didn't offer his chair, he

didn't move to the sofa with her.

He let Turkey strike a blow with his poor reflexes and produced a video that went viral and whose effects are still noticeable in Brussels.

This Monday, both presidents have appeared before the plenary session of the European Parliament. It has not been a specific debate about what was seen in Ankara, as the socialists wanted. Nor was it really an in-depth debate, in the framework of a larger discussion about the last European Council and the state of the continent. But it has served to verify several things. That in Parliament there is not a huge appetite to reopen the issue, as most groups did not see it necessary to dedicate a specific time. That the president of the Commission is not going to release the dam. And that the president of the Council is

desperate to put the controversy behind him,

because he is doing a lot of damage to his reputation.

The incident was a maneuver by Ankara, which, with the antecedent of what happened to Josep Borrell in Moscow a few months earlier, saw it clear that with a small set design it could do harm. And he succeeded: no one talks about the meeting itself, about the European demands, no one talks about the dismissal of the governor of the Turkish central bank, about the outlawing of a party, or just about the situation of women. Furthermore, Turkish diplomats have managed to get the message across, partly from the EU but also within NATO, that they are being

blamed for deep internal divisions.

Between the Commission and the Council there are constant clashes, misgivings and attacks. At all levels. Michel and Von der Leyen do not get along particularly well and their teams collaborate, but without enthusiasm. There is a question of power, of competences, of representation. It happened before and it will happen again.

They always aspire to be the first to speak

(Michel takes the first turn as a general rule), to answer questions. To be the 'voice of Europe'. And hence part of what happened in Turkey and, above all, what happened afterwards.

Within hours of the embarrassment, the Commission took advantage of drawing the narrative. The Council and Michel hid, waiting for it to clear immediately, but the images "speak for themselves," the German said on Monday. So then came the counterattack.

The German team points again and again to the Belgian and his lack of waist,

and is taking advantage to gain ground for the future, trying from the first days to develop a more concrete protocol that reduces part of Michel's representative advantage. There is some ambiguity in the treaties, and they want to take advantage of it. So they keep stoking the fire.

The opposite happens in Michel's team. After hesitating for the first few days, trying to counterattack by accusing Von der Leyen's team of lack of professionalism.

They suggest that there was abandonment of functions, that they prepared the trip badly,

that the protocol service was not what it had to be. Then they took advantage of the most recurrent criticism in Brussels, that Von der Leyen only trusts a very small group of advisers, most of them German. And they have managed to spread the idea that the problem was always there. They try, yes, with caution, because the first movements were too obvious and generated the visceral reaction of many women, tired of being accused and held responsible even when they have been the ones who suffered the lack of respect.

Michel was shaken before the plenary today despite his apologies and his attempt to explain himself, appealing to the need to avoid a political incident after many months of working with a neighbor as problematic as it is essential to manage the flow of asylum seekers.

The socialists, the popular and the left have stoked him.

This time he had to endure the downpour, but the internal war continues.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • Ursula von der Leyen

  • Turkey

  • Europe

  • Josep Borrell

  • European Comission

Leaders: this is how Europe became the laughing stock of the entire planet

The accusation of "dictator" by Mario Draghi to Erdogan entangles the 'sofagate'

The PortraitCharles Michel, the misstep of the great juggler of the EU

See links of interest

  • Work calendar

  • Home THE WORLD TODAY

  • Oscar 2021 Award Winners

  • Tenerife - Castellón

  • Atalanta - Bologna

  • Athletic Club - Atlético de Madrid, live

  • Torino - Napoli

  • Rayo Vallecano - Albacete