Manon Aubry, the youngest MEP at the head of a political group in the history of the European Parliament, has a profile that is striking in the European Parliament, as she begins her first term as an MEP and comes straight from civil society.
With a fresh perspective, she shared her impressions of the institution, its functioning and shortcomings, and came back to the rejection of the candidacy of the French Commissioner-designate, Sylvie Goulard, by opening the debate on transparency and suggesting ways to fill the current gaps. (Interview by Pascal Hansens)
Agence Europe – You are new to the European Parliament. What are your first impressions?
Manon Aubry– I already knew the European Parliament from the outside, when I was an “advocate”. But I was surprised. It's an ivory tower, a large machine, some kind of washing machine. There is a risk of being disconnected from real life, of losing the sense of politics to pursue “politician” politics. You can quickly forget why you are here.
There is also the role and weight of the administration. We are literally crushed by administrative decisions. Before a Conference of Presidents, we sometimes receive 1000 pages of briefing the day before at 8 p.m., for a meeting the next day at 10 a.m.! Obviously, we don't have time to read everything. So we rely on the administration. Sometimes, what is an administrative act turns out to be a highly political act and vice versa, a major political feat becomes a simple administrative decision, such as the refusal to grant accreditation to the three Catalan separatist representatives elected.
Honestly, I am quite surprised by the strength of the European Parliament to depoliticise. There are people who have been there for a very long time, among the elected representatives, including in the administrative teams, who have also been there for a very long time, who go back and forth between the political groups and the administration of Parliament and parliamentary committees. It gives rise to a kind of ‘revolving door’ effect. It is difficult to have an innovative political vision in this context.
AE – You are a coordinator in the Committee on Legal Affairs and followed the rejection of Commissioner Candidate Sylvie Goulard. In your opinion, how is the conflict of interest review process failing at this time?
MA – The procedure lacks the time, financial and human resources to verify the information given and to investigate in order to find something else. Finally, it lacks independence: it is difficult to ask Members of a political group to take a position on a Commissioner candidate from their own political group.
There is therefore a need for an independent authority, with time, resources and independence. In short, everything that is missing from the current procedure. It's not revolutionary. Many countries have this type of authority. France, which is by no means a model of transparency and probity, has the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life (HATVP). And I can tell you that as a French MEP, I have given more information to the HATVP than Sylvie Goulard did as European Commissioner. While the stakes and powers are really not the same!
AE – The case of Ms Goulard highlighted the issue of external remuneration during the mandate. You want to provide a strong framework for them, as does the Greens/EFA group. What do you propose?
MA – The issue of external remuneration is central. First, there is a moral problem. Receiving €12,000 a month in addition to your allowances as an elected official is obscene vis-à-vis the citizens you are supposed to represent.
Then there is the question of independence. Does it meet the citizens’ expectations or the private interests that pay it? That is the heart of the matter. 1/6 of the Members of the European Parliament receive external remuneration of more than €1,000 per month. But, please note, being paid by a private institute or to teach is not the same thing. We can discuss a remuneration threshold, as the Greens want. I am therefore in favour of a financial limitation on certain activities and to prohibit certain activities, as the American Congress does.
There is also a third problem: that of time. Having outside activities means that you are not a full-time member of Parliament.
It will be necessary to anticipate the potential misuses of the system. Having tracked down fraudsters for years, I can already see some abuses. Some MEPs are very creative in this area, more so than in doing their legislative work.
In any case, I hope that the wind of probity that suddenly blew in the European Parliament on the Goulard case will continue to blow when it comes to establishing rules.
AE – There is also another long-standing debate, that of the European Transparency Register. In your opinion, how can this register be made fully operational?
On the Transparency Register, the Commission was right to throw it right back ‘in our face’. We impose rules on it that we do not impose on ourselves. We need a compulsory register for all Members, and not just rapporteurs, for all lobbies, in which they specify all the meetings and topics discussed.
AE – What needs to be done to make opaque legislative negotiations transparent?
MA – The transparency of decisions in the EU Council, having experienced it as an NGO, is terrible! Clear, accurate and publicly available reports are needed. At the time of the trilogue (interinstitutional negotiations between the European Parliament and the EU Council) and at the time of decisions in the EU Council, the position of each Member State must be known. Because each Member State takes decisions on behalf of its citizens. If States take decisions without transparency and, consequently, without being accountable to their citizens, the very idea of European democracy is killed.
Then there is the Commission. They come out of nowhere, they are not elected, no one knows them and they are the only ones who have the legislative initiative. Certainly, the President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, has committed herself to establishing the power of initiative of parliamentarians. I'm waiting to see. In the meantime, it is enormous influence given to people who have no legitimacy.
Today, in the trilogues, of the three institutions, we are the only ones directly elected to make European law. And yet, we have the least power.
AE – The GUE/NGL, which you co-chair alongside Germany's Martin Schirdewan, is Parliament’s smallest political group. How will you establish a balance of power within the institution?
MA – Of course, we are the smallest group, but the European Parliament has never been so divided and fragmented. The traditional socialist and Christian Democratic duopoly is no longer dominant. To make progressive majorities, for example to reject free trade agreements, the 41 votes of the GUE/NGL will be useful.
If we want progressive improvements, then it is up to the socialists to choose. This majority is possible, it goes from GUE/NGL to Renew Europe, with some non-attached members, for example members of the 5-star Movement.
Then, it is necessary to gain external visibility to hold other political groups accountable.
AE – Does the confederal structure of the political group not hinder its political effectiveness?
MA – For me, confederalism is about respecting the political identity of each delegation we have. In this case, we have 17, more than the Greens, who are more numerous than us. This diversity of the group must be respected. Nevertheless, we are working both on the political unity of the group and on internal procedural rules that will, I hope, allow for greater external political strength while respecting this diversity.
For example, we are discussing a potential name change. And we are close to an agreement. This is a proposal that has been blocked for several terms. I wasn't there, but I know that. Between the discussions I saw during the transition from the end of the mandate, at the beginning of the mandate, and what I see now, I think everyone is willing to compromise a little. We are a group with a unique voice, unique in Parliament, and one that deserves to be heard.