High-ranking individuals create the regulations.
In his book "Seeing and Dying in Brussels", satirist and cabaret artist Nico Semsrott shares his experiences as an EU parliamentarian. It's a lively account of power abuse, lack of transparency, and feelings of powerlessness. At times, it borders on populism. Semsrott even admits self-criticism during an interview.
Ntv.de: You claim in your book that you were naive before joining the European Parliament. Was it pure disappointment that you encountered there?
Semsrott: I wouldn't call it pure disappointment. There was a lot of disappointment involved. The ironic part is that I've experienced this same disappointment with my visitor groups. I've condensed the five years of disappointment into a 45-minute presentation. It wasn't easy for many audience members to swallow. The shocking revelation was to discover how different the rules are for those in power. You quickly realize: Wow! This society is extremely unjust. I'm being controlled. I'm forced to follow the rules. They create their own rules and often circumvent controls. That's the root of the disappointment.
Your stint in the parliament has helped cure your depression. You describe the feeling of powerlessness as an MP. How are you now?
I'm doing well. It's not just a matter of light at the end of the tunnel, but I'm just about to step out of the tunnel. I have the feeling that I can do what I'm good at again. Before, I was in the wrong place. Now, I can talk, criticize things, and make a point. This means more to me than participating in ten-hour negotiations to say something that ultimately doesn't matter.
You initially joined the "The Party" as a candidate but left when your party colleague Martin Sonneborn told a joke you considered racist. How do you view the party now?
I'd sum it up like this: Should a joke that's been told for ten years continue to be told for another five years?
Both you and Sonneborn criticize the EU as satirists, but you do so in different ways. Don't you harm the EU more than you help it?
Politicians and politicians pursue certain ideologies. They represent the people who've elected them. We've both done a good job of that in our own way. 900,000 people have voted for The Party. They wanted to draw attention to a parliament that's poorly observed by the public. There are issues such as transparency and corruption. We address these matters in our unique ways. As an artist, I've learned that I create ideas and let others use them as they please. So, as a politician, I see it when I read comments on YouTube and social media.
The allegation that satire politicians in the EU Parliament are undermining democracy is not true, right?
The AfD wants to dismantle the entire system. The PARTY or satire politicians, on the other hand, certainly don't. I don't believe the debate is as relaxed as it was five years ago. Back then, it was still a more laid-back discussion compared to today. You could still joke seriously. But with far-right and right-wing parties gaining 20 or 30 percent across Europe, no one is seriously questioning whether satire politicians are the problem anymore.
In your book, you say that you believe in the EU as a good idea. However, it seems you make some broad generalizations. Where do you draw the line between EU criticism and anti-European resentment?
I'd express some self-criticism and say: In some parts of the book, I wasn't able to fully depict the complex picture. This was because I gave up on finishing the book. If I'd had another year, it would've been better. The book reflects a dark period in my life, full of anger, grief, and disappointment. At times, I wish I'd done a better job describing the situation. I'm improving in interviews and my YouTube stage program.
During your term, you felt that the parliament's administration deliberately restricted your work. Can you provide specific instances?
I can't summarize the twelve pages describing the conflict in three sentences. I believe the publishing house's editorial department has examined this chapter particularly carefully. So, I won't try to make myself more vulnerable now. It is, however, clear that the administration of the European Parliament is dominated by political parties. In the last 25 years, the CDU, CSU, and their European sister parties, along with the SPD and their European sister parties, have governed the entire administration. Consequently, all top officials are either conservatives or social democrats. They oppose transparency.
What specific actions did the administration take to limit your work?
There have been instances where I've submitted something, and the administration has initially said: Yes, that works. But months later, they've told me: No, it doesn't. This illogical behavior strikes me as odd. A bureaucracy can't operate like that. It must adhere to rules; it can't simply say: No, now, a year later, we've changed our minds. It's a completely ad hoc system. I'm forced to rely on the other side to review my proposals. Otherwise, I'd ask myself: What am I doing there? That's probably the best example of how political the administration is: They interpret the same case differently depending on the situation.
You bring up concerns regarding a lack of transparency and corruption in the EU Parliament: The absence of oversight over MPs can lead to fraud. You mention certain politicians whom you deem corrupt. Have you received any responses to your book from these individuals?
I point out the overall corrupt tendency, as the loopholes are big enough for any MP to pass through. There are no effective safeguards. Without penalties, there are no deterrents. I don't claim that anyone is actually corrupt. I merely observe that there seem to be many peculiar side jobs and employment relationships. My assertion isn't that someone is corrupt, but rather, why does the Conservative Party remain okay with the potential for corruption? It's odd, in my view. I conclude that the person at the center of the darkness must be influential.
Could you provide more details about what it means to be a member of parliament? Throughout our meetings with lobbyists, there's no guarantee that they're being monitored. You must report these gatherings, but who's in charge of ensuring this compliance? In reality, it's voluntary for you to disclose these encounters. If a rule is broken, the transgression is typically handled in secret. Curiously, there isn't much outrage over this. This system invites abuse, even when it comes to travel reimbursement. If you're caught exploiting this perk, the worst punishment you'll face is having to pay the money back. Some question, "Why would MPs abuse this privilege?" I'm more curious as to why this opportunity for wrongdoing is allowed.
You've devoted your time as an MP to advancing more transparency. Have you overextended yourself?
Indeed, in a small way, I've managed to achieve this goal. I've come to realize how powerful a system can be, how strong the administration is, and how my personal influence as a backbencher in a less significant parliament is limited.
Why are you not running for re-election in the upcoming European election?
Because I've exhausted all that I can accomplish with my personality and talents in this role. I felt powerless in this position. I believe I can make a greater impact on society as an art figure outside of the parliament.
