On Tuesday 16 April in Strasbourg, the leaders of the S&D, EUL/NGL, EPP and Greens/EFA political groups in the European Parliament highlighted the issue of future MEPs who will be elected in the United Kingdom in May in the absence of actual Brexit. Beyond the question of the reallocation of seats initially planned (see EUROPE 12040/5), it is the role of British MEPs within the institution that raises questions.
“Member State representatives [in the European Parliament], by definition, are on an equal footing”, S&D President Udo Bullmann (Germany) told the press, saying there was “only one class of MEPs”. “A British MEP represents British citizens. From a constitutional point of view, it is crucial, as long as the United Kingdom is a member of the EU, that it has a say in the matter”, he added.
While there can be no second-class MEPs, the president of the S&D, the president of EUL/NGL, Gaby Zimmer (Germany) and Philippe Lamberts (Belgium), co-president of the Greens/EFA group, believe that future British elected representatives should not be given positions of responsibility because they will leave the European Parliament once Brexit takes place.
“Formations, groups come into play and can decide whom to entrust this or that position, this or that report and who they elect as coordinators. This is the last thing that happens after the groups are formed”, Bullmann said. “If their presence is long-term, there is nothing to prevent them from being treated like others. If the period is brief, they should not be given long-term responsibility”, he added.
The same goes for Mr Lamberts. “Wisdom recommends that the European Parliament should not assign a position of responsibility until Brexit is clarified”, the Belgian said. However, if the British are still sitting in mid-term, then senior positions could be allocated to them.
Ms Zimmer put forward a plan B. “September will mark the beginning of the formation of committees and delegations. When all this is over, British colleagues will have to leave the European Parliament” on 31 October, she explained. According to her, “there must be a plan B”, that is to calculate the composition of committees and delegations, but also define the positions of chairs and vice-chairs, taking into account the fact that Parliament will have 751 members before Brexit and then 705 members after.
“We have to do both at the same time. On 1 November, we cannot start to rethink the composition of parliamentary committees”, she explained to EUROPE. For Ms Zimmer, the United Kingdom should have left before the May elections or during the mid-term review in order to avoid these disturbances.
The leader of the EPP Group, Manfred Weber (Germany), called for the European Parliament's interest to be safeguarded. "As MEPs, they have every right to participate in the work. We are not questioning that. But we need to know if a country which is leaving the EU can have an influence on future work”, he explained. He recalled that he was among those who were sceptical about a long-term extension of the deadlines provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty.
Mr Bullmann wanted to be reassuring. According to him, by the time the European Parliament's new Parliament comes into office in July, “we will know the future of the United Kingdom". "The elections will be the beginning of the end of the Brexit sag”, he said.
According to a survey conducted by Yougov.com on 10 and 11 April, the Labour Party would win 24 seats, ahead of the Conservatives (16), the Brexit Party (15) and UKIP (14). The Libdem parties and the environmentalists would each get 8 MEPs. In terms of seats, the election could be beneficial to the S&D and Eurosceptic groups. (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant)