Talk:Martin Selmayr

European treaties

Martin Selmayr was the subject of the Radio Four programme Profile this weekend (October 21 - 22), and it was mentioned on this programme that it was said that he had learnt the European treaties off by heart. Could this go in this article? Vorbee (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography

It's been mentioned in the press a lot that this person himself has edited this page. Therefore, I propose a template is added, and that experienced editors can go through it. --DeeM28 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It was tagged a while back, and the tag subsequently removed. There is still a connected contributor tag on this page. It's not clear what you really want done, but if you think there are remaining problems you should identify them and fix them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversial appointment

Given that his appointment to his current position has been controversial and widely covered my mainstream media, I find it odd that there are no mentions of this or the EU parliament report over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.252 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It is covered in considerable detail already: "Selmayr was appointed Deputy Secretary-General of the European Commission in February 2018. Minutes after this appointment, Juncker informed the European Commissioners that the then Secretary-General, Alexander Italianer, intended to retire; they had not been previously notified of this.[11] On 1 March 2018, following the formal retirement of Italianer, Selmayr was approved by the College of Commissioners to replace him as Secretary-General.[12] Some media sources claimed that support for Selmayr had been "bought", and with others claiming that Selmayr had "forced" his way into the position.[13] The President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker has threatened to resign if the controversy leads to Selmayr’s dismissal.[14] On 25 March 2018 the Commission issued a formal statement claiming that Selmayr's promotion was in accordance with legal procedures.[15]" Changing this is certainly possible but we don't need a whole new section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not find the coverage still to be quite "in detail". For one part, trusting the factual description in the ombudsman's decision explanations, the resolution of the EU-parliament in December 2018 asking Selmayr to resign is not mentioned. The order of the statements about what the European ombudsman wrote and the commission answered also gives a strange impression. The ombudsman issued some recommendations and (preliminary) findings about maladministration; the commission rejected the conclusions and decided not to follow the recommendations; and the ombudsman came with a final decision, in her turn rejecting the arguments of the commission, deploring the fact that the commission did not follow her recommendations, and explicitly put her hopes to the new commission to be elected a couple of months after her decision. That decision was issued the 12 February 2019, as cited by our article. The answer from the commission on her earlier findings and recommendations came a couple of months earlier, but is cited as if it were later.

@Jonathan A Jones: I think your description of the article from October 2018 was fairly adequate, except for the fact that the earlier ombudsman statements then were available, but seemingly not noted by the active editors. @Clemens Schmillen: As I explain supra, I think that the order of the statements and their references in this edit was strange. However, as the commission final statement is not dated (except by the 12/2018/ url string items), this was an easy enough error to make (especially if one does not read both documents in close succession). JoergenB (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

All: Perhaps the best solution would be to make a separate article about this 'affaire Selmaer' (and with a better title than that), where both the questions and statements about manipulation, and the more principal questions about transparency and whether the Secretary-General should be considered as a civil service office or as a politically appointed position. In that article, due weight should be given to arguments from the commission, the parliament, and the ombudsman. I think this has a sufficiently great general interest; and the discussion seems to follow similar lines as some I've seen in national contexts. This biographic article then could contain just a reference and a short summary of the facts and main opinions. JoergenB (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Grandfathers

The implication that his grandfathers were Nazis is certainly inappropriate without very clear sourcing, but there's no doubt that they both served in the Wehrmacht, one as a general and one as a colonel. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

To be even more clear, it was possible to serve in the Reich's armed forces without being a Party member. DS (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

German soldiers (in the regular military) were prohibited by law from being members of political parties until 1944, a ban on political activity in the military dating back at least to the Weimar Republic which the military took very seriously (so seriously that it included the ruling NSDAP party until its final year in power), that was since 1935 set forth in the Defence Act (Wehrgesetz) of 1935, § 26[1]. According to the 1935 Defence Act, if the soldier was already a member of the NSDAP party before joining the military, the party membership was suspended for the duration of the military service (before 1933 the military strenuously prevented national socialists, and communists, from joining the military in the first place). However, both his grandfathers had joined the military as professional soldiers during the Weimar Republic in the mid 1920s, and had merely continued serving the different regimes that followed (much like American soldiers today serve a far-right President Trump, without necessarily supporting Trumpism), ending their careers in NATO West Germany. Due to having joined the military in the mid 1920s and served continuously, it would have been both illegal and impossible for both his grandfathers to join the NSDAP party until 1944, and especially during their formative years as soldiers in the Weimar Republic the military would have kicked them out at the slightest hint of Nazi affiliation or activity. During the period 1944-45 it was possible, in theory, for a soldier to join the NSDAP party, but most didn't (especially not professional soldiers who had served since the Weimar Republic; those who did were more likely to be young soldiers of lower rank who grew up during the Nazi era), and I've not seen any evidence that any of his grandfathers did, or that any of his family members were national socialists. --DJV Santos (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

German-Belgian?

Why is Martin Selmayr described as 'German-Belgian'? For sure, he has lived in Belgium since 2000. However, I have lived in Belgium since 1983 but that does not make me Irish-Belgian! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.234.172 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I'll change it until we get an explanation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please, note, that the German language is officially recognised in Belgium (and their speakers as a third and minor group, besides the Flemish and the Wallonians); but neither Gaelic nor English is. Thus, there indeed is some formal difference between these two persons. However, I strongly suspect, that in this case no connection between Selmayer and the German-speaking Community of Belgium was inferred. Besides, even if it were, "Belgian German" would have been a better term, I think. JoergenB (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Most influencial"?

Not a chance. Whoever added that doesn't know Europe. The European public vote in MEPs on every year ending 4 and 9. The last EU elections took place in 2019, a parliament was elected, and although the UK are for the time being out of this parliamentary lobby, the rest of the MEPs were voted in by the public, and they represent the views of the people. They then elect a Commission, but remember that the Commissioners themselves are MEPs and therefore they TOO were voted in by the people. The Commission then goes forth with the policies of the Parliament which in turn reflect European values as a whole. The European Civil Service takes orders from the Commission and NOBODY from this public sector "influences" policy. They just CANNOT. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe dumb question coming from a non-European, but why is it an issue if he's influential? The Die Welt article says he's Europe's "most powerful official", and that he is "admired and feared." So what? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No it's not a dumb question at all. Always best to ask if not sure and I respect that. There is no "issue", except it just isn't "true" if you get my point :)))))) . This is the argument presented by Eurosceptics who bend over backwards to undermine the EU when claiming that there even IS non-MEP influence, let alone the most influential person himself being a non-elected MEP. Die Welt must be what Nigel Farage reads before he presents his LBC show and slates the EU. "WE" the Europeans, are Europe's biggest influence. The EU has ascended to a higher level of civilisation than US Trump politics and Russian meddling. There IS NO power politics with EU, it just mirrors the will of the majority. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The (cited) Die Welt article says otherwise though. There's nothing inherently bad about being influential, even if you aren't directly elected. This may not be the best analogy, but if I said that the Chairperson of the Federal Reserve was powerful and influential, and had some reliable sources to back that up, that would be factual. Same for the Secretary of State, or the Chairs of House and Senate committees (some of whom are very powerful, like House Ways and Means Committee.) Stating that these people have influence and some level of power is factual; that they are non-directly elected is also factual (note that members of the House and Senate are elected, but not to specific committee positions.) If the article has weasel words saying this is good/bad, yes, that would be a problem, but I don't see that in the text that was removed. This goes back to my original question: "So what?" --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And all this is besides the point anyway. There are references that say Mr. Selmayr is powerful. Wikipedia works off of references, not personal beliefs of editors. Provide references otherwise and add them to the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

May be true of the USA even if for the good, but not true of the EU, like I said, the EU is head and shoulders above power politics. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (see WP:SOURCES) that indicate that Mr. Selmayr is not powerful, then provide them as a counter to the reliable sources that say otherwise. Editors are not reliable sources. Otherwise your statement is just original research (see WP:ORIGINAL). --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't, but I have got sources to say that people vote Parliament, and Parliament appoints Commissioners, and Commissioners enact policy! So that makes Selmayr's input an "may he or may he not be?" scenario for the time in question. Otherwise the two claims contradict one another! --Tomb Blaster (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict the reliable source that says the subject of the article is powerful. All your sources state is that he's not an elected official. You can add that to the article, though I think it is already there. If you have a reliable source that says non-elected government officials in the EU are not powerful, or do not have influence, or this particular person is not powerful or influential, then add it with a link to the source. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright how about this: Die Welt has claimed that Selmayr was the most influential person in the EU, however, all policy is enacted by the Commission(source), who are appointed by Parliament(source}, who are in turn elected by European voters(source). Good solution? --Tomb Blaster (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your assertion? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That Die Welt claims this to be the case, but the facts as known to 500 million people who vote in the Parliament every five years are different. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how your assertion follows given reliable sources. Are you saying that he cannot have power and influence because 500 million people don't think he does? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that I'm exactly what I'm saying. However, let's leave it as it is. No way I'll be able to make it look encyclopedic and there are bound to be other objections. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)