For a time,  (Fokus; formerly CSV) embodied the difficulties of a party in opposition. After being elected as CSV party president over  (CSV), he became entangled in internal quarrels and was forced to resign in March 2021 after being cleared of accusations of misuse of social assets. Then, in February, 2022, he .

Engel is on the list for the upcoming European elections and is no stranger to the European Parliament. In 1999, he joined Jacques Santer’s cabinet in that governing body and was re-elected in 2009 and again in 2014. He didn’t stand again in 2019 as he took over the presidency of the CSV instead.

In addition to Engel, the Fokus list includes ; party president Marc Ruppert; national secretary Anne Winter; and national committee members Anne Lecuit and Rick Oberweis.

Paperjam: What are the issues at stake in the forthcoming European elections?

Frank Engel: For us, these elections are unlike any other. They come at a time when Europe is caught by the throat and in a context of social unrest across the continent, a social malaise that can be seen in many areas, such as housing and, above all, in areas where Europe has little or no competence. It is not Europe that is going to build housing. It is not Europe that is going to ensure that the guaranteed minimum income--if it is introduced, which is one of our concerns--is sufficient to live decently.

But what it can and must do is take urgent foreign policy measures. If we let Russia get away with it, and if we continue not to defend our positions in international trade and geopolitical relations, we will soon be irrelevant. And we are on the wrong track. We will only be respected if we are respectable! That’s what’s at stake in these elections.

And we believe that the next European elections--if they take place--should also be held in Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia, Kosovo, Northern Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina. We need to negotiate to welcome these countries into the Union, or else there will be wars in the Balkans.

So you’re excluding Russia from this enlargement process?

Yes, I am excluding Russia formally, definitively, genuinely and irrevocably.

Your concerns relate to matters of sovereignty. Is the European Union, which was built on trade and free trade, equipped to meet these challenges?

Mistakes happen. Just because we failed to create a European Defence Community in 1954 doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put the subject back on the agenda and make it a reality. There is a consensus on the subject. In our programme, we are not arguing for a European army, but for giving European armies the means to do the job when needed. And virtually none of them are capable of doing that today, with the possible exception of France and the UK, which has left the EU. The only army capable of fighting in Europe is in the process of doing so…

On 9 June, will Luxembourg voters vote for these European issues, or will national political questions take precedence?

I don’t know. I think that the half of the population that can vote is well aware that the issues at stake this time are very different from those at previous elections. At the same time, though, I can’t rule out the possibility that national political considerations will play a role and interfere with these essential, vital European issues. With our modest means, we are going to raise these issues. I’m not neglecting issues such as investment in research, electric mobility or educational skills. But that’s not the issue. The issue is Europe’s survival!

If you’re elected, which alliances will you join? And are you in favour of Ursula von der Leyen serving a second term?

We see ourselves as a liberal party and we would join the liberal family in the European Parliament. That doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t be compatible with other groups in the Parliament. In another life, I was a member of the EPP group and I could take part in a majority with the social democrats. I think would make a good president of the commission.

As for Ursula von der Leyen--and Nicolas Schmit was part of her team--she did an excellent job. She has been much more incisive in many key areas than her predecessor and I would have nothing against her serving a second term. In any case, faced with the rise of nationalist and extremist forces, there will be a need for a broad alliance anchored in the centre which will necessarily include the same three components as at present, the EPP, the PES and Renew. And with the possibility, this time, of the support of certain Greens and certain formations, such as that of Ms [Giorgia] Meloni. Although I wouldn’t normally enter into an alliance with Fratelli d’Italia, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. In my opinion, given her European policy, there is no reason not to try to include her party in the European Parliament in a reasonable policy.

Since we’re on the subject of the next commission presidency, do you think it should be compulsory to be elected as a member of the European Parliament in order to become a member?

No. What bothers me is that the current system does not follow its logic to the end. It lacks political courage. In our programme, we envisage direct popular election of the president of the commission on the same day as the elections for MEPs. They would then become the president of the EU and would also chair the European Council--given their particular legitimacy--on the same day as the elections for MEPs. This would be tantamount to a presidentialisation of the system, which I am in favour of, just as I am in favour of an “executivisation” of democracy through direct election, for the simple reason that parliamentarianism is not always suited to dealing with certain crises. And this would not weaken parliamentarianism. On the contrary, it would establish a separation of powers, as in the United States.

For the elections to the European Parliament, shouldn’t 27 editions of national elections be added together to form a real European election?

Yes, that would be a good idea, but the question would be how. Establishing transnational lists, as proposed by Guy Verhofstadt? As a good European federalist, I’m against that. This would affect a few MEPs, who would become super MEPs thanks to their continental legitimacy, while the others would remain representatives of their villages. But I am prepared to consider any proposal.

On the evening of 9 June, what result would be synonymous with success for you?

A mandate would be a huge success. But that’s not a realistic expectation. We got 2.5% in the national elections. Exceeding that score would already be a success. Seats are expensive.

How did you put together your list and why did you take Monica Semedo with you?

First of all, there are the usual constraints linked to parity, age and territorial balance. I was the youngest on a list and I’m now the oldest. We wanted to involve the young people in our party, and including the party’s president and secretary general seemed a natural way of showing that we’re taking these elections seriously.

As for Monica Semedo, I’ve been in contact with her for a year and a half. Contrary to what some people have claimed, there was never any question of her standing as a candidate in the national elections. That would have made no sense. On the other hand, putting an outgoing MEP with a very solid record on our list makes sense. She has been involved in many issues, including the minimum wage alongside Nicolas Schmit. She worked hard, but it went unnoticed because of the attacks against her. Because of European Parliament procedures, she has never been able to defend herself publicly against the insinuations made against her. With her record, nothing should prevent her from standing as a candidate. I protest against this attempt to kill her politically.

When you put her on your list, did you expect to stir up controversy?

We were aware of it. But we underestimated the violence of the attacks on her, some of which border on harassment, by the way. But we considered that she was capable, with all the candidates, of running a serious campaign. Between her and myself, we are offering voters 15 years of experience in the European Parliament. This is not a candidacy for show.

Would you prefer to sit in Brussels or Luxembourg?

If I’d been elected last October, I certainly wouldn’t be running in June this year. I find it appalling to be a candidate in October for the Luxembourg Parliament and then to be a candidate again six months later for the European Parliament. It makes no sense at all! It’s electoral fraud.

That said, I’ve always believed that as a parliamentarian you can take an interest in anything, anywhere. I enjoyed being an MEP. I could have continued, but I made a commitment to the members of the CSV that I wouldn’t if I got another position within the party. But I would sit down again to a seat in the European Parliament with the same pleasure as last time.

Are there differences in the way MEPs and national MPs work?

Yes, very much so. MEPs work harder. At least, if they do their job seriously. It’s a completely different job. There’s a different pace, a different density. The environment is also more international. But the job has also lost some of its appeal because of the weight of the rules that have been gradually introduced. I still go there regularly, but I can see that the atmosphere is no longer the same.

You mentioned the transparency rules. Do you think that the level of these obligations has gone too far, to the detriment of parliamentary work?

People trying to influence political decisions is nothing new. But we have gone to a level of obligation that is completely ridiculous.

Why would a state or a big company need to buy one vote out of the 751 in the European Parliament? If I were, say, a logistics company, rather than bribing a politically exposed figure, I would go and see the alderman of the port of Rotterdam or, better still, the director of the port, who is not a politician. Corruption is where the decision-making power lies. This affair with Qatar is unfortunate and there are always people with a strong affinity for money…

But if you add new rules on transparency to the already strict code of conduct, it becomes impossible to do your job properly. The fact that I can no longer send a message to my assistant on a Saturday morning or at 11pm is ridiculous. If there’s a three-way conversation, it’s at night, after Parliament, Commission and Council have finished their day’s work. Then you get down to work and it goes on for as long as it goes on… it’s killing the normality of working in the European Parliament. When I became Jacques Santer’s assistant, I was happy to be one. And when he asked me to do something, I never questioned whether it was my duty or not. I wanted the job, I did it and I accepted the constraints.

This article in Paperjam. It has been translated and edited for Delano.