In other words, the obvious failure to act politically responsible in line with the lessons of history and the clear unwillingness to take responsibility for this came in this instance clearly from the progressive side - as many of them acknowledged themselves. Why can't you see that?

This is another point: the CS3D is not a "minimal attempt at sustainability", as you claim. It is the most ambitious law of its kind - and it is likely to remain so, even in its simplified form. Indeed, in some areas, the EP position is still more aspirational than the Council position.

This is also shown by the fact that the Omnibus text did not reflect far-right views: they wanted to abolish the laws entirely. The EPP instead proposed a reform that, even if one may not like it, is entirely in line with classic conservative principles. There was no "sell-out" on the substance.

Likewise, during the same plenary session, the centrist groups voted for an ambitious 2040 climate target - underlining yet again that this was not a permanent shift away from these coalitions but a specific policy disagreement that the social democrats were squarely responsible for scuppering.

There are always shifting majorities in the EP: in the past mandate, the S&D Group often relied on the far-left to push through amendments against the EPP. Where was the outcry then? Why was there no red line to work with Mélenchon and Iglesias? No risk of being "cannibalised" by the far-left?

There are several flaws to this argument: first, there is no formal alliance between the EPP and the far right. The EPP simply opted for a free vote rather than a voting deal with S&D/Renew on a specific policy issue where the centre-left had proved unreliable. This is not unprecedented.

The denial of reality comes, if anything, from progressives who insist on pushing through their policy platform and brand of politics despite elections showing time and again that there is no democratic majority for them - thereby directly playing into the hands of and empowering populists.

Democracy is based upon good faith compromise in the spirit of the majority will. The S&D rebels spurned both principles: they rejected compromise in the hopes of forcing through a minority view. That is not about ethical principles, but selfishness - and should be called out as such.

For this reason, the EPP declined to renegotiate and instead opted for a free vote on amendments. As seen, there was no majority for the demands of the rebel S&D MEPs. It is also worth noting that 10% of S&D MEPs and 25% of liberal MEPs supported the final text. This brings us to the crux of it all.

The reality is: the EPP won the 2024 election. The leftwing coalition lost its majority. This has to be reflected in the policymaking of the EU. Yet the S&D rebel MEPs believed that they could force the EPP to keep making policy in the spirit of the old majorities. This is corrosive for democracy.

Had these S&D MEPs voted with the centrist majority, we would not have had this situation. Even many social democrats and greens accepted that this rejection was a mistake because it meant that the EPP could no longer rely on the reliability of S&D as a voting partner.

The Omnibus Package was first put to a vote to the plenary in October under a compromise supported by the centrist coalition of EPP, S&D, and Renew. All group leaders had signed up for the proposal. In the end, a group of rebel S&D MEPs decided to scupper that deal to force a renegotiation.

This is simply not true, be it empirically or philosophically. It is not centrism that is at fault - if anything, this episode shows that it is the best bulwark we have against democratic backsliding and that the greatest risk is posed by those who put ideological purity over balanced compromise.

I'm sorry but the only reason why we ended up in this scenario was because a handful of social democrat MEPs rejected a centrist compromise because they hoped they could blackmail the EPP back to the negotiating table that way. It's the S&D rebels that acted out of pure selfishness and caused this.

Only Frost could manage the sublime feat of trying to stylise himself as a "philosopher-king" politician and ending up inadvertently making himself sound as the exact clueless political dilettante that he is.

Speak for yourself, there is certainly a common European trend to observe here that I'll happily explain (at a very reasonable rate)...