MEPs are expected to vote on a resolution on Thursday 25 October in Strasbourg on the rise of neo-fascist violence in Europe, already discussed at the first plenary session in October (see EUROPE 12109) at the request of the GUE/NGL Group.
On Monday 22 October, negotiations between political groups were well under way. Indeed, so far, five different draft resolutions have been put on the table (see EUROPE 12121). The political groups have until Tuesday at 3 p.m. to try to agree on a ‘common language’ and a text that could be supported by a majority, failing which each group will support its own text.
S&D, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL. The only joint text that has been tabled is that of the S&D, GUE/NGL and Greens/ALE groups. The main difference is that it lists all the concrete acts of recent years in order to "show the extent of the phenomenon", we were told.
The text, which is about ten pages long, contains just under 40 recitals mentioning specific cases of attacks perpetrated by neo-Nazi, fascist or far-right movements throughout the EU.
Nor does it fail to echo the polemical statements of some heads of state, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who described Nazi collaborator Miklós Horthy as an "exceptional statesman".
More generally, the draft text condemns and alerts the normalisation of these ideologies and other forms of intolerance within the European Union. It denounces impunity and calls for justice in several cases.
It also lists a range of recommendations, including: consolidated EU anti-discrimination legislation, national action plans and the establishment of ‘exit programmes’ to help people leave violent neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups.
The S&D, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups hoped to obtain the support of ALDE, which has also tabled its own draft text. But the Liberals believe that the proposal touches on many issues without ultimately addressing the main ones and, by late Monday afternoon, were not in a position to support it.
Like the ALDE draft text, the EPP version contains very few references to specific facts, but the message and spirit of the text remain broadly the same.
ECR. The ECR group shares the vision of a more general text and its draft text is even more succinct. One of the points that the group absolutely wants to see in the final resolution is a definition of neo-fascism and proposes to recognize that the term commonly refers to extreme right-wing views that include extreme nationalism, racist views and “views similar to those espoused by the National Fascist Party of Italy between the 1920s and 1940s".
It should be noted that the text warns against equating patriotism with extreme nationalism: “one conveying pride in a nation, the other hatred against all others".
ENF. As for the ENF group's version, it is barely three pages long. In particular, the text warns that “the term 'fascism' is too often used to discredit a democratic political opposition and to justify unacceptable violence".
It also stresses that criticism of political institutions, ideologies or religions is not in itself a manifestation of fascism, xenophobia or hate speech. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)