|
|
The 9th legislature of the European Parliament that began on 2nd July is marked by some evident contradictions. On the one hand 751 MEPs were elected in a better manner than any of their predecessors, with a turnout rate of 50.62%, the highest since 1994 - but the traditional balance of Parliament has been overturned, notably with the end of duopoly EPP/PES. On the other hand, the significant rise of the nationalists, populists and Eurosceptics in most Member States is not reflected by an increase in their weight in Parliament. Finally, three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum and the UK’s decision to withdraw from the Union and two months after the 29th March, the initial date set for Brexit, 73 British MEPs have been elected for a mandate that might only last 4 months – if the new date of withdrawal, presently set for 31st October is respected. With the election of Ursula von der Leyen as the President of the European Commission on 16th July the new Parliament has completed the cycle that began with the European elections of 23rd-26th May. [...]
B/ AN OPEN AND UNCERTAIN LEGISLATURE
[...] Several observations can be made after the opening of the 9th legislature of Parliament:
The absence of a stable majority, accentuated by the failure to establish a coalition agreement between the four main groups, makes it difficult to see the dynamic that will define parliamentary activity over the next five years. This uncertainty is aggravated by the anticipation of the consequences of Brexit in terms of the composition of the groups.
The relative weakening of the EPP in the Parliament and the Council, as well as the rise of climate, environmental and social issues, mainly carried forward by the S&D, Renew Europe and the Greens/ EFA groups may make it difficult to find compromises. The attitude of the Greens, which represent fewer than 10% of the MEPs, but who are claiming a major role – including 4 European Commissioners – heralds tough discussions, after which groups like the ECR, ID and the GUE/NGL will try to play the role of arbiter in order to hold more sway.
The round of negotiations regarding the appointments illustrates greater links between the political forces at play in the Parliament and their representatives in the European Council. This is notably the case with the Renew Europe group, within which the representatives of the République en Marche are greater in number (21). To a lesser degree, this is also the case with the S&D group, whose new leader, Iratxe Garcia Perez, is close to the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez. It remains to be seen whether the convergence of interests throughout the legislature, particularly for the RE, all of whose members do not necessarily fall in line with the positions adopted by Emmanuel Macron.
The fragmentation of Parliament is reflected in the groups, several of which are divided regarding political issues or values. The suspension of the FIDESZ from the EPP, but not from the group, has not settled the discord regarding the issues of the rule of law and the respect of European values. The S&D group has to address the questions raised by varying trends, which are more or less liberal economically, supportive or against a firmer migratory policy and a more assertive defence policy. In the ID group there are strategic differences between the Lega, a dominant force in the Italian government, and the National Rally (Rassemblement National), which is still in the opposition in France. The plurality within the groups that was already visible in the previous legislature, might become even more acute, in an evolving European political landscape.
Finally, the Parliament and the Commission, presided over by Ursula von der Leyen, will have to find a way to work together, as was the case with Jean-Claude Juncker, who encouraged European parliamentarianism, establishing a privileged partnership with Parliament. To do this MEPs will have to overcome their disappointment regarding the Spitzenkandidaten.
Opportunities to be assessed
[...] The legislature that is now beginning however provides the Parliament with an opportunity to play the role to which it aspires. In her speech to MEPs before her election [8], Ursula von der Leyen promised that the Commission would put forward European laws when the Parliament requests it via a resolution adopted by the majority of its members. Even though the Commission retains the unique right to take legislative initiative in line with the treaties, the Parliament will have a kind of right to political initiative that it will then have to try and turn into a reality in its negotiations with the Commission and the Council when the texts are put forward.
Ursula von der Leyen also promised to provide Parliament with more information regarding the progress of international negotiations and to “ensure a permanent dialogue” between the Commissioners and MEPs.
Moreover, she adopted the proposal made by the Renew Europe group to organise “a conference on the future of Europe” and she declared that she supported fully the idea» that a MEP might chair this conference. Beyond the political tension and the institutional rivalry caused by the appointment process of key positions in the Union, the European Parliament is therefore being called to invest more in the drafting of the Union’s projects and its future reforms. It might be able to do this in an even better way, if the various main groups were to succeed in establishing general lines of cooperation, if there is no real coalition agreement per se.
The claim made by the MEPs will also imply thought about the Spitzenkandidat process and the way they are themselves elected. Despite the increase in turnout recorded this year, the national voting method has shown its limits, and the method used to select the leading candidates on the European lists has proven itself too opaque and not rigorous enough for it to be effective. According to a survey published by the Parliament, only 8% of voters did so with the main aim of influencing the choice of the President of the Commission.
Whilst the Parliament has entered a period of political change and uncertainty about the way it functions, the challenge for the MEPs will be to make their voice heard at the Commission, which will be established with the support of the Member States, and at the same time, they will have to ensure that their institution is even more efficient, that is has more influence and that it gains more recognition on the part of the citizens of Europe.
Full policy paper on Fondation Robert Schuman website