Brussels, 22/05/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 22 May, Vaïa Demertzis, a political scientist at the Centre for Socio-Political Research and Information (CRISP), spoke to EUROPE about the stakes and risks of the anticipated rise in Eurosceptic forces at the European Parliament. The specialist believes that there must be a distinction between the various forces at play and that their capacity to cause trouble must not be overestimated until they have played their first hands. One thing is for sure: although there is nothing new about rejecting European integration, the traditional European political families have not helped to fight it with their attitude (interview by Solenn Paulic).
Agence Europe - The opinion polls predict a wave of Eurosceptics in the European Parliament after 25 May. Is this an unprecedented movement and what should we fear from it?
Vaïa Demertzis - There is nothing new about the arrival of Eurosceptics at the EP. There are already Eurosceptics at the European Parliament with the Conservative groups ECR and EFD. The term “Eurosceptic” emerged as long ago as 1973, when the United Kingdom joined the EU. And at the moment, we tend to lump all kind of movements in with this concept, but there are Eurosceptics of the left wing, the right wing, the extreme right wing, of a populist nature, of a more sovereignist kind. We also have to treat opinion polls with caution. At the last European elections in 2009, there was talk of this danger of a rise in Euroscepticism at the Parliament. There are margins of error in all surveys.
Nor does this rise in Eurosceptics in the opinion polls mean any increase in their ability to agree amongst themselves. UKIP, led by Nigel Farage, and Germany's AFD (Alternative für Deutschland) have already declared that they will not join forces with Marine Le Pen (Front National, France), as UKIP regards the Front National as unacceptable because it is an extreme right-wing party. And then, over on the extreme right of the spectrum, several examples in the history of the EP have shown the problems these parties have in coming together. In 1999, Jean-Marie Le Pen tried to form a group with Emma Bonino but their alliance, which aimed, amongst other things, to obtain more logistical resources, was seen as purely technical in nature. In 2007, Mussolini's granddaughter, Alessandra, had a few problems with her Romanian counterparts and the Identity, Traditions and Sovereignty (ITS) group subsequently imploded.
As regards the extreme right MEPs, there is only France's Front National and the Belgian party Vlaams Belang which have permanently had an EP delegation since 1984. With the other parties, it is much more fluid. Forming a group at the Parliament is not the problem, it is making it last and within the extreme right, the component parts are highly disparate. The risks of implosion are always very high. We will have to see how the members of this group behave. I believe that Marine Le Pen will see this group solely as a way of scoring points nationally, not really as a way of influencing the course of European legislation.
But if they join together in a group, these extreme right-wing MEPs will have new rights…
Yes, they will have the right to draft reports, to sit on the Conference of Presidents, to vote on the agenda. They will gain in influence, but it will all depend their size as well. Who but the largest groups decides on the agenda of a Conference of the Presidents at the moment? The EPP and the S&D will continue to carry the most weight, followed by the ALDE.
As for the work of the parliament, it will be interesting to see how all of these representatives of euroscepticism work in practice. It is very likely that they will be most visible on issues of European integration and budgetary matters, although there is little chance that MEPs will do much in the next five years to work on a new treaty. As for directives, regulations, this is technical work: in order to work on these instruments, you have to know your subject and, above all, be present. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that a genuine Eurosceptic tends to work on an individual model, not necessarily within a European political family.
Was it the crisis of 2008 which gave a shot in the arm to the current Eurosceptics and populists?
The crisis, and the management of the crisis in particular, played an undeniable role, but we have to see it for what it is: the Eurosceptics had already taken root and they used the crisis as an argument. Admittedly, it led new parties to offer an alternative option to the voters, like the AFD in Germany. But nor did it lead solely to anti-European movements. In Belgium, there is a list called Stand Up for Europe, which is federalist in its inspiration. This list calls for more integration.
And what about the traditional European political parties? Do they have a responsibility?
The - unintentional - attitude of the other groups may have helped to reinforce a gulf between Europhiles and Eurosceptics. The campaign for the Presidency of the European Commission has, to an extent, given rise to a reductive debate, which may even make people more likely to want to vote against the EU. All candidates have done is say “the EU is good, the EU is necessary, vote for the EU”, giving the impression of a simple debate between nice pro-Europeans and nasty Eurosceptics, without any middle ground. This gives Europeans a highly biased image of the EU. In addition, the procedure for appointing the candidates has been explained very badly, as it has been presented as a direct election by the citizens. However, the Treaty of Lisbon by no means says this. There is nothing to oblige the heads of state and government to take account of the results of the elections and the candidates put forward by the European political parties.