With Britain leaving (any time now…) the seat distribution between the countries may change. But as long as Britain is still part of the european union, the composition stays the same. So it might happen, that the parliament is in session with some people, then Britain leaves some countries (especially France and Spain) gain seats and new representatives enter.
Is that how they actually dealt with seat apportioning? I mean, UK leaving or not itself doesn't per se necessitate apportionment changes, AFAIK. It seems the simplest and least disruptive approach is just having less MEPs if/when UK does leave. I'm not even sure how additional seats would be handled for some countries, that use systems like single-transferable-vote rather than real proportionality. I believe the "potential vacancy" of UK MEP seats was actually a feature, in that it allows for potential new members (Yugoslav & Balkans) to receive their seat allotment without going over treaty limit for total. That UK MEPs might potentially actually occupy these seats for short period of time doesn't seem problematic, the entire idea was that those seats could be filled or empty, it doesn't matter because the EP total size isn't fixed by law it just has max limit and rules on each country's seats that are flexible within treaty guidelines.
In Austria we have the Ibiza video coming into the public shortly before the election.
That story or "media event" is so sketchy, few seem interested to ask deeper question. I mean, it happened 2 years ago yet only "leaked" now, nobody thinks who how or why sting was conducted is important. The story is framed as if "Russia collusion" actually happened, yet that part of "story" was 100% fabricated: the plot chosen by those who set up the "sting". Probably most people do think the fascist party implicated in it is the main story, but of course it also perpetuates meta-narratives which influence opinion as much or more than particular factual details.
EDIT: The media promulgating it conceal it's provenance in name of "protecting source" which is absurd, as "protecting source" applies to leaker acting against organizational obligations, who would personally get in trouble, be fired etc. If the staging and publicization of "sting" was all part of consistent agenda, there is no reason to protect source because identity and agenda of that source can be just as relevant. Which was exact premise of "Russia hacking" allegation when Clinton/DNC corruption leaks were published, the agenda/identity of those who (allegedly) facilitated revealing the info was considered equal or more of a story than the content.
I remember "leaked surveillance recordings" showing criminality in "North Macedonian" government, with similar dynamic (albeit less entrapment angle). In that case involving telephone conversation recordings, and of course we know the US and UK have extensive sureveillance capabilties in those areas, including hacking Belgian Telcom etc. Again similar to case with Austrian fascists, those surveillance tapes showing corruption weren't published for many years, somebody was just holding on to them i.e. maintaining silence about criminality, until they decided it was useful to publicize them... via media who doesn't care about those questions. How many other corrupt politicians have damning recordings on them that aren't being released? That's alot of power that isn't being questioned, and these are not legal investigations overseen by judiciary.
Context for this is things like UK Integrity Init with evidence showing mass-scale political-media influence operations. How is governments, media and NGOs infiltrated by US/UK intelligence assets not as important as these corruption scandals, how is UK intelligence assets mobilizing to change Spanish FM nomination not a scandal? Ofc, it just runs a little to hot to handle for MSM, when that sort of thing runs deep in history especially during Cold War, if they start going after NATO intelligence assets that involves alot of people in high places.
Last edited by mutantsushi - on 24 May 2019