tray, all painting and tie it, neighborhoods purple, the deck roundtree is said to be the bearer of good news. when it's flowers appear, it announces that somebody is finally coming. and it's the official start of the season, which is just over a week away. i'm gonna leave you now with the view from lisbon i money keeps making and thanks so much for watching the. 7 because you daniels and jane, you belong to the 77 percent comfortable. i just got on 65 last last those top 5. and here's one thing we are here to help you make up your mind. we are here on please find your mind. so we got all of the topics, i'm much up to you from campbell talk, fixed a new culture, and in 15 minutes, let's say together, parts of our community life on the research is

now on the piece that i wish i could've done more to say you just click away, find the best document on you to really see the world. never seen it before. the dr. know to dw dokey entry. mars around the block and then just to see a quote. yeah, i'm a sure sure go you will use his sisters have been in a coma that was caused by persecution and flight the family have sort of signed them and suite as well. so again,

dreams of another lout. the dogs june dw, the, the chief prosecutor at the international criminal court says, said he seeking arrest warrants for his really need is including parameters for the method. yahoo! so that comes out of the war in gaza, is rarely politicians across the spectrum of condemns. a move to prosecute is also applied to warrants for key leaders of how much widely designated a terrorist organizations. i guess this week from kind of leave is dennis ross form a special assistant to president baraka bama. and for more than 12 years, a key player in shaping us policy in the middle east. he's not optimistic about what he sees now. i can tell you this is worse between israelis and palestinians,

and at any point on which i worked on this issue, including during the 2nd intifada, b i. c, c's announcement comes with a time. what is wells? human rights record is on the minute scrutiny with investigations by major media outlets. it's a violence by jewish settlers kind of a palestinian state ever a much from so much conflict on page. dennis ross, welcome to complex on basically with you, let's start with the announcement from the chief prosecutor at the international criminal court. arrest warrants have never been sold before for his reading. any doesn't as a storm of protest, not only from those names, but from across all political factions in israel. what if i do think that this will have on israel's conduct of the more if the warrants are approved by pre trial judges, or i don't think it will have

a positive effect. i think it creates in the minds of most as rarely is across the political spectrum. that a moral equivalence is being established between those who came in with the express purpose of deliberately or killing get a sense of kids having people as young as 9 months old. a rating uh, just engaging in the unspeakable violence brutality. and made a very deliberate determined way, uh and your greeting, in a sense you're saying you're treating them and the same as your effectively treating leaders of a state who are responding to this kind of a saw a, there certainly are issues that i think the prosecution is raising about the way these relays have inducted the war, but most of the writers will see this as a, as creating a moral equivalence where there is no, it's not. and i,

the absence of that, i think, with, in terms of us as rarely, it will be, that they need to, they need to prosecute the war and, and try to ensure that they defeated a mazda in a way. because in the sense they're going to fear that under no circumstances, will they ever be seen as being justified in terms of defending themselves against these kinds of attacks. whether that's a correct perception should exist or not. that is a perception i'm afraid, will exist year to be fair to the prosecutor here. he didn't suggest there was any moral equivalence on the country. the, the way that it's being explained by him and by as officials is that if evidence is brought to him, problem of facia evidence is brought to him of crimes committed on both sides of a conflict. he has a duty to act and to pursue that evidence. and this is one way in which he's doing it by seeking arrest warrants for those who have been named. what other choice does he actually have?

but i think there is an excellent question here in terms of timing goes, there was an expectation he was going to visit israel and have discussions prior to coming out with this. and obviously he did not do that. it does strike me that it might have been again, just from a practical pragmatic standpoint. it might have made more sense to be here in advance before he issued me. but obviously you chose not to do that. there's the penalty as it is, i have to say is this serious panel? i think the problem, however, is i'm suggesting is by not having come here before releasing this. i think it contributed to the kind of very broad reaction. you have people who are extremely critical of prime minister netanyahu. we're also quite critical of this. so a little bit more could have been done with the set the stage, i suspect, but we are, we are. if these very serious jobs use,

i'm not to be tested by the i c. c. where else would they be hud? uh, again, it's not. it's not clear, but i think there's a, there's a larger issue here that auto be kept in mind. and that is when you fight an enemy that deliberately uses its civilian population, not just as a shield that really is a hostage, or you're putting a position where, what are the choices you have not to go after them given what is going to be this way and consequence, and therefore it faces again or go after them. and unfortunately there is it going to be as and be and consequences out. i will grab one of the things that these really should have done. i've made an argument with this with the very beginning of the war. they should have been much more forthcoming with humanitarian assistance. they should have gone out of their way to demonstrate this was a,

an effort to and then imperative to, to see from us and not to punish the pals to angel live in god. and israel did not act in that way, and it made it easier for those to portray what they're doing in a way that is us outside of what, outside the bounds of acceptability. what is, again, the reality is israel was faced with a very cruel dilemma. you have an enemy, the care is not one, wait for the wellbeing of its own public is quite ready to expose them. doesn't mind visual goes a lot of allison in fact seems to reller said prospect. but this is what you, what do you seem to be outlined is that this is a water shed moment for international justice? isn't that i really do think there's a question here about how we, we may have to redefine international humanitarian law. i mean, the other one add, you still have an obligation to try to minimize the casualties of 2 civilians,

noncombatants, that's an obligation that shouldn't change. but how the tactics you can use, how you go about doing that. how do you agree? and a clear distinction between those who are using your windshield as a deliberate, tactful, and those who have to contend with that. i do think this, this is an issue that we're long overdue, trying to come to grips with how we can better decide unit assets that you read it during law given these guides of non state actors and given their, the tactics that they employed, whatever system. but uh, you want to walk towards or you think that the international community should work towards um, to provide some kind of justice in situations like this. we're not going to be able to live in a world where accountability is, was for enemies, not friends, isn't that the question? does that is forcing everyone to consider it as well? i think it is, it least in part,

but i don't think it's coming to grips with the question i've been posing, which is, what is a legitimate strategy? but we're trying to root out the enemy a non state act, or is it seems you're gonna have to have international out during law. it can't simply be one which says ok, you, you're entitled to strike back, but you have to minimize civilian casualties. what if it turns out that the choices for, for minimizing civilian casualties is quite limited. i mean, there is something else that could have been done. something else it could have been done is a, a situation like this. maybe international humanitarian law. should say there needs to be a period uh there needs to be areas where people can be evacuated, so they're not as they're not as shields. i mean what separates, for example, as the united states approach, the lose. yeah. i is that the, the people who lived in felicia were actually allowed to live here near rock in

iraq, in iraq. yes. they were allowed to leave. they could, they could leave the city. the problem here and guys are good, so small. they're not allowed to leave that one finds in every war zone. is it people leave it look at syria or about 5 and a half 1000000 people. less fled syria. it was a simple thing to do with 5 and a half 1000000 people. let's. let's serious in gaza the people are not allowed to leave. so one of the, i think one of the challenges for and it actually match or a lot is to be able to come up with if you're trying to predict it, the wellbeing of civilians, which is a, it's not just a moral imperative. of course, it's a moral imperative. it should be a political imperative as well. but they, what do you think you have to come up with? it is strategies for evacuation that the international community can facilitate. as a way of ensuring that if it was bank fight against those who are using human

chills, it leasing and asking community is doing everything. it can us just in terms of providing care manager and assistance. but in terms of getting them out of harm's way. and it tells me being help the situation that has it by the fact that some of the reporting about is rails behavior by the administration in the states has been contradictory on may the 10th the state, the bottom and wrote to congress with its most detailed assessment of as well as conduct and it concluded that as well had most likely violated international standards in failing to protect civilians in gaza. but setting up the same time, it is not found specific instances that would justify coughing, military aid. the department was immediately accused of a fudge democratic senator chris ron holland, told reporters if this conduct complies with international standards, then god help us. oh, he hasn't point, doesn't a well he does, but i guess i keep coming back to the issue that rational standards. international

standards have not adjusted to a reality where you have an enemy to use as human shields. so we end up judging the actor who has been attack as a then try to root out those who are using human shoes. but how do you explain the apparent contradictions in the state department report? on the one hand, it includes the contents of both action and in action by israel have slowed the flow of age into gaza. but on the other, it says we don't currently assess these ran the government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of us, you monetary and the systems into the in other words, slowing the flow is not restricting it. of course it is. you guys think what you will, you have is that you have really, i think you're raising 2 different kinds of issues. one issue has to do with the use of weapons. that's where you were 1st rate. and now the 2nd thing you're raising is the issue of the permission of humanitarian assistance to go in,

in the quantities that it should have been remitted on the farm. or i think with the state department was finding was that they were looking at the totality of the, of the people, the numbers of people killed and said, almost by definition we dropped inclusion that this must have been done. and force must have been done in a way inconsistent with interaction manage a lot on the other and we don't have specific instances of what that was done. i can understand that too. well, the other issue ranging about avery permission to the provision of international humanitarian assistance. i share that view. the fact that it is not popular here with these really body auditor who have separate greatly from october 7th and who every day see what a mouse is doing by folding hostage is increasing numbers of them no longer being alive and there the body politic here is not feeling very sympathetic to the god

and population who they see somehow being and leave with. i'm us. my own view is the god in the population is a victim of us not only with a moss and the israel's approach to the war needed to separate um, us from the population of guys. and let's talk about the state of us as well. relations of a now as bad as you've known it during the course of your career. i think it's it, we're certainly at a low point, but i wonder how much it's us israel and it's just the leadership. i do think that there is a norm as restoration with prime minister netanyahu. i don't think that extends necessarily to all as rarely and not necessarily even to everyone in the crowd government. but i do think there is growing frustration with him present biden's always had a,

a good relationship with him. i think it's become very frustrated for a variety of reasons. one is that a number of occasions by minister and that's and you always made promises to him and not to fill those promises. and i think that is contributed greatly to the frustration that, that he feels, you know, do i think this is something that can be overcome, at least between us and intro. yes, because i don't see this necessarily is ecstatic of the 2 countries. right now. i think there's a problem between the 2 leaderships. we'll have to see how that plays out on the limiting of weapons supplies. to israel, you quoted a mistake. what the administration of done saying it took all the pressure off the how mosley the yeah, hoss and why i'm pressure on him was the key to a hostage deal. but president biden is someone who's old, but accused is riley's of war crimes by saying they've been bombing indiscriminately if he goes on giving them those same american bombs to continue

that indiscriminate bombing. it makes him look weak, both met and complicit. well i think yeah, you can, i think you can kind of present this over you choose to present at the. the fact is, issac, he's trying to strike a balance. he wants an outcome where i'm us, who not only committed terrible atrocities on october 7th, but continues to do it with the way it, it brutalizes the hostages. in an old. there's a almost seems to be kind of international and difference do what a mouse is doing to the hostage. because obviously there's not the difference here and is, are over for all the families their life was growing on october 7th. and the case of a president binding the he wants to be sure the outcome is an outcome where i'm also no longer in control of does it. we're guys, it can no longer be a platform where jack's against israel. and he's trying to strike a balance between how do you achieve that objective and at the same time,

conduct of the war in a way that tries to minimize the level of damage and destruction done to, to your house and you live in god. it's a very hard water, very hard balance, and stripe one can, one can try to be pure in one direction or the other, but then you're not going to achieve what is the most important object. and i don't think they, it's very important to find a way to end this war with this war also needs to end in a way where a mouse is not in a position, whereas any possibility of, of grouping. another reason surely for withholding weapons is to as well is that american tax pass of funding that is really offensive, but the majority of them now appear to be again, some of the latest polls show 55 percent of americans against 36 percent who support israel conduct of the war. don't you think that the prospect is pretty worrying for the bible ministration and 6 months away from the presidential election? is that one of their calculations?

i, i'm sure all of the things being a little, you're the president united states, you're in an election year. this is an issue that almost by definition is not how whole. so you would undoubtedly liked to see this over as soon as possible. and while and yet at the same time while the present watched is over as soon as possible. he doesn't want out where somehow my boss is able to recruit and wrist out. so it is, this is not the last time we'll see. it is a mouse. has shown not the slightest bit of interest in developing gaza, not the slightest bit of interest in do and providing well the for the well being. that was on top of the bill for miles of tiles under ground. all the materials that didn't used and then building those tunnels, all the materials that used in building a military industrial base underground. all of that could been used on the service

uh to the advanced guys and the wellbeing of the people there. you did not have that, and if it had a chance, it'll do this all over again. so you understand, of course, the president watson's over. it will be much better for the present, especially in election year if this was no longer an issue. but he doesn't want, you know, we're in a way where i'm us can do this again or can reconstitute itself and subject everybody, palestinians that is really light to another round like this. this is also a time when israel is human rights record has been under some of the most intense scrutiny, not least because of multiple cases of set, the violence against palestinians in the west bank. how concerned are you again, that despite repeated international warnings about that very little is being done to cub it a well, i love, i think one of the challenge me is again you with this is rarely government and you have a couple, a very extreme minister is why i'm who as a minister of national security spending of the or

a and he often times looks like you're terms of line, di, what extreme is settlers do? uh, israel presents itself as a rule of law and it has to act that way. and with many of the extreme is settlers, including those right now are trying to apply deliveries of assistance to bows that the law needs to be enforced on them. there needs to be more demonstration of that . and if there isn't, the administration is right to single out and sanction some of those individuals year long investigation by the new york times published in recent days. crimes to reveal how fall and factions inside the sapling movement have been protected. and sometimes abetted by the israeli government and now pose of grace trip to palestinians in the occupied territories. we found the time set a government shaken by an internal war, burying reports, commissioned neutering investigations at aside, and silencing whistle blow as some of the senior officials. did you know about this?

i didn't. uh, does any of it surprise you over the years i've always had a sense that there was some protection. one of the things that always was troubling is that it was very hard to ever find the exact expenditures. also an enterprise is if the is where the government knew if it was exposed, it would actually produce a reaction with it is. so i'm not surprised at one level at the scope of it. i have to say is surprising. mr. ross on the ground and gaza, a heavy fighting around the southern city of rough uh, despite the strongest possible warnings from the us. um, houses ro stop listening to the white house, the by the administration said multiple times, it wanted to see a credible plan for safe guarding civilians. if the rafa offensive went ahead, um, by may the 15th, at least it was still saying it hasn't seemed such

a plan. is there any way a red line which in the which of the no circumstances israel would be allowed to cross by the administration? i think that the president has made it clear that if they go into rough, a city that is a red line that's been cross without the a credible evacuation plan, which colorado is that would be consequences. that's right. well, there is real, is operating all around or off of and not with a drop of city now and with right now, but 800000 people actually have this is still the probably the other 5 and 6 areas that were there. so there's still not in the city, i think for the administration, if they were to go into the city, there wouldn't be consequences. i think the president present vine or someone who what he says something he dentist a minute. so i suspect. yeah. and that's why the reason i suspect is really is having a gun in is because that is something that they understand is going to trigger

a response and, and with a price that they probably don't want to pay. these rarely prime minister has made it clear that the prize of a palestinian state is not on offer to the products that is particularly off to what, how much is done. is that any way but a palestinian state come in your view in much from all this conflict? well, not in the near term. first of all, the policies are divided between the west bank and gaza. you're gonna have to deliberately re unified them. look, i my own view is the policy and people have a right to self determination. and whether that's a state they choose that's in the state, or there's some kind of confederation that should be their choice. but by the same token, right, with rights come responsibilities. when we talked about of housing state, we cannot have housing states, it's going to be led by, i'm us. that's certainly not

a 2 state solution that some guarantees were continually war. it can be a policy and state that becomes a member of the actions of resistance, what i call the access measure, it being aligned with iran. that's also a garrett, that's the, that's a guarantee against and state. i can't be of housing state that doesn't have institution, so it'd be a failed state. so you need, you need to great rights and responsibilities. i would like to see some benchmarks created. some milestones created. all with the all under the rubric that allison and have a state in the making. and they have to fulfill their responsibilities to be able to achieve their rights. now obviously the same time that you're creating that at a set of standards or a milestone or obligations under the housing side, you have to impose some responsibilities on the very side, including among other things they cannot after on the ground in the west bank, in a way that makes it impossible to have of housing state,

but everything i've just said, this is not something you can produce overnight. we have to start by having both sides even begin to cooperate in the functional way. again, we're at a very low ever you asked me about was this is difficult the time i've ever seen in terms of us and really relations. i can tell you this is worse between israelis and palestinians. and at any point on which i worked on this issue, including during the 2nd intifada, so we have to get back some kind of a baseline. so we can move from there and move in a direction of a piece becoming possible. right now, we're not dealing with a conflict that is seen in, in the literal time we're saying we're public, that's almost see in the next a special germs that we're going to have to get back to creating a sense of possibility. and then we're quite a ways from that god just raised with you briefly, the desk and the helicopter accidents of the radium president, right? you see any sign of an opportunity or

a danger emerging from this accident? i don't think it changes things very much. i mean, it creates and certainly within a rad, but the supreme, later i'm an a, as an decision maker. right? usually was not the decision maker. he might be the decision implementer, but it wasn't good decision makers like yes is and i scream later will emphasize the importance of people participating in the election because he likes to portray that as being an indication of legitimacy. the fact it turn out to him. so small right now is an indication about uranium public really feels about is why my rebuttal again the re jane. i think in the near term, their focus will be much more on trying to work out the selection, trying to maximize the numbers of people vote and much less adventures on the outside as well. since been good to have your own comfort zone. thank you very much . indeed for your time, thank you. a bit of a, with the,

the, the funds stood for a robot vacuum. one giant leap for exploiting the ocean floor. cutting edge technology is unlocking the potential of data mining. but this time, the research team will study the possible risk funds in order to minimize the we have an opportunity to get it right before we start environmental activists of

skeptical is this true nature conservation? well, i mean the green washing rule bill billions to be made out to pub documentary, deep sea greed stats, june 7th on t w. let's see, chris live, you discover new adventures in 360 degrees and explore fascinating. both heritage, sorry, dw world heritage 360. now the,

[000:00:00;00] the,

[000:00:00;00] the, this is dw news live from berlin, counting down to the european elections as millions prepared ahead of the polls next month. candidates for the top job. it's european commission president, go head to head and a final debate and you can watch the whole thing live right here. our coverage starts right now. the

library golf is good to have you with us and we want to welcome you to a dw new special as the lead candidates ahead of next month. european elections face off in this final debate is taking place inside the european parliament and brussels. and you can follow the entire thing right here on dw live, no, aside from national balance, the upcoming european elections rank among the most important simply because they impact so many people, almost half a 1000000000. and today the attention is on the big 5. and what they have to say, a debate of the 5 leading candidates, also known as the spits and candy dot, the conservatives, the social democrats, the greens, the europe, and left, and the renew europe group. almost the entire political spectrum is represented with one exception. the far right parties of europe are not involved in today's debate. and despite polls suggesting that the far right could win as much as 25

percent of the vote next month, a quarter of the electorate with no voice in this debate. we're going to discuss that in just a moment. but 1st a look at the candidate who definitely has the greatest name recognition. european commission president ursula funder lie and she's hoping to lead her european people's party to victory once again the cell. and well, i'll go straight to the campaign, made up a photo of smiles and the promotion of a track record. this is how or is the left on the line is hoping to secure a 2nd term as the had of the use executive fund, a lie and says she wants to continue working for a stronger and more prosperous europe that protects democracy. we something i don't forget about the basic principles of democracy and the basis the freedoms that you have to defend the n. a s aspect. and also strong situations

of trust and strong institutions. but the question of who she's willing to work with to when we election has become a contentious issue during a recent debates without a candidates funded lying, a centrist with ask whether she would co operate with fluoride parties in the new europe in parliament. they, it depends very much on how the composition of the poly meant is and who is in what group, what i was a bit astonished by your response because values and rights cannot be divided according to some political arrangements. i the you can deal with the extreme rights because you need them or you say clearly there is no data possible because they do not respect the fund. that meant the right amount of groups, county represented in the you are p and parliament. there are 2 containing fluoride parties funded lying will want to pack with the most extreme camp,

which includes marine the pan spot in friends and the alternative for germany. but she seemed open to corporate team with the other group. the c r. a mondor members are many critics of the you and the party, are we talking prime minister maloney? this group is expected to make gains in the european elections. was it a funded? i am likes to portray herself as a unifying, candid date, and a safe pair of hands capable of leading the you into our beloved times, but to open us to co operating with fluoride parties. is there a risky strategy that could break apart the alliance and the european parliament that's been supporting her during her 1st term in office? the social democrats, the liberals, the last and the greens, are now calling on fund a lion to firmly reject and incorporation with the far right and radical parties. but that is rather unlikely says research is sophia rose that she expects from the alliance political family to use such

a corporation to have more say in the parliament, they might be tempted on some decisions. 222 to robert looked, looked to the right then to the left to uh, find partners for, you know, typical conservative agenda points. so, and i don't think we have to, you know, worry about, you know, the file rights making decisions. but what will happen is that the agenda most likely, i mean, is all speculators still. but that the agenda, if you will indeed be tilted a bit more conservative. a funded lion supporters pushed back against any criticism, saying they have clear criteria for who they're willing to call parade with. we wanted to corporate the we are you to be on the for need to for a west, they're not far teaser. we do have a problem, we do have problem awards of climate change. so we should cooperate altogether to find the most important solution with the far right, expected to grow stronger the question of how to deal with them and how to keep

your up together will remain a significant one off to the election in june. and the just a few minutes we will bring you the debates of the leading candidates for the presidency of the european commission live right here on the w news. and we have team coverage today. our e correspondence. let's see a show that she is in brussels. we're, that debate is about to kick off and here in the studio with me is all up and he's the berlin director and senior advisor at las vegas in global that is an international political consultancy. it's good to have both of you here. going to have you here in the studio off. let's see, let's start with you. tell us. um, what can we expect in the next 2 hours and i understand it's, it's going to be a packed house they are were you are yeah, maybe you can already see it a bit behind me there. really, a lot of people here in the european parliament coming to take part in this debate

. it's about to kick off in around 10 minutes and then it'll be 5 so called lead candidates from the far left to the center. right. i'm sure we'll discuss the fact that the far right is not present here in a little bit and be expected. he bates, him of these 5 need candidates. i'm about a range of issues. so that has been made popular. we expect to be based on climate and volume and migration, but also the defense and security policies of to your the union economy. so it's really a full range of you politics that will be debated here. and um, what is also interesting to mention, there are no journalists that are allowed to ask questions in this debate, either journalist that motivating it. but the question is, would come from the audience? and i understand that there are also questions that has been develop that has been collected by european voters that will be put forward to these meet candidates that are competing to become the next head of the you commission. but it's good that you,

we don't have journalist inside, it's good that we've got you there. and i have to say you were reading my mind, lucy, because i have to ask you about the far right the far right groups in the european union parliament. they have not been invited to this debate. why is that? so i have to come back to this lead can needed process because this is really important to understand. so the lead can do that process. as i said, the, the lead candidates are competing to become the next head of the you commission. this is a process which has been a 1st use in 2019. the idea is that the person, the lead candidate of the party that is strongest in the european elections would then be allowed to also get the seat of the commission president. this booked one time if you want and trained to 19 and the 2nd time. now in, in 20. um, excuse me, this rep the 1st time in 2014. at the 2nd time in 2019. but it was the funder line came into power. it did not work,

so it was an f one day line prospect then not can do that, but she was nominated by the european counts of which are the heads of states. so these lead candidates. so this is a, as i said, this is the role of them and the far right to have both been saying, we do not believe in this. we can do the process and they didn't want to bring forward or lead candidates. and then the organizer 50 bait said, well, you know, we only the page with the lead candidates. these are the rules. if you're not bringing forward in the candidate, then you cannot take part here. and we have heard this or they're not eligible to send somebody. so be afraid to not to you today that these are the routes and the physical, the reason why they're not to you today. yeah, the rules of the rules allow for that doesn't change the fact that the polls are showing that these far right parties, they, you know, they're growing in popularity, but with the voters why use that? i would say, cries of times is always the times of populace that specifically on the right sides

. or if you go back, so we have to call the attendance. i mean, we have the high inflation economies down. we have the war and ukraine. now we have the war in the middle east, so these are all factors actually, which are frightening people and fall, right? a very good actually in this kind of field mongering southern people. ok, this is the time where we need to show to protect you from the rest of the wide world. and we promise you a little bit of the good old days actually where you feel comfortable. this is the message. it's not really plausible. if you look into the solutions they offer because they are hardly have any, then just shutting everything down and closing it down. and of course it makes sense as we'll see, a said actually that they don't come up with a lead canada. but because actually if they would be in power in consequence, they would need to resolve the issue because they all want to go national are not actually on the left. but the fact that they're not in this debate, for example, i mean that, that, that is a story in itself. is that going to help or hurt them at the ballot box? they, they love to go with the argument. we're the real position. this is the mainstream,

so if you want to have something different and vote for us, actually, we're kind of the under dogs and people loved the under dog. specifically, if you have the feeling that all the, what they call the mainstream parties are kind of similar in the political positions. and so therefore, simplicity is their message and their risk actually to vote to which a wind voters confidence the main stream of the parties. these big tent parties, they're, they're losing traction, particularly the greens, the greens are, are predicted to lose a maybe big time in this election. why is that? i think of the same sort of the times of crisis is not the time when you come up with visions and the greens are maybe the party with the greatest vision. so we need climate change solutions. we need actually big energy solutions, which would be a big transformation from what we are familiar with, tour, an uncertain future or an energy supply in, in, in a how we live actually. so the greens on the national level as well as in the

european level go that have to argue against that argument that they are what they wants to change our life habits. so yes is not true. it's not because they think they have the better recipes but more actually because they believe if we continue the way we are living right now, actually this will be a recent fee for these asterisk. and this is actually what makes them so unpopular for many people and, you know, climate change that, that is a big topic, elections all across the world. it seems right now. let's see, let me just ask you, what are the, the issues that are going to be in this debate and what i mean, you cover no european politics. what are the issues that are going to make or break the candidates into parties in the election in june? yes, so what is important to understand this as a really big election and 27 member states? so it's very hard to say, what are the topics and every single member states, but there are some topics and i traditionally migration is huge topics i wrote as

in the european union care about. and that has been and now there's a new topic that has been rising. and this has something to do that, did you political situation? and this is defense and security. so that has been a euro bear with me to paul in april and a lot of europeans have been saying that this is a really important topic to them. um, but also the topics of social into some or held a big topics for europeans as well. is this an existential election for the european union? you know, as old off was saying if the, if the far right word to actually be in power, they would begin dismantling the youth. at least that's what they promised to be in . do you get a sense there in brussels that this is almost life or death for the you there's always depends a bit on who you talk to. so what we are seeing right now. now also this a far right is said there, there are