Nicola Procaccini, co-president of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) in the European Parliament, told Agence Europe on Wednesday 10 April that the ECR party may soon be appointing a ‘Spitzenkandidat’ for the European elections. He also shared his vision of the European Union and his views on the current mandate which is coming to a close. (Interview by Anne Damiani)
Agence Europe – Ms Meloni said last week during a television show that the ECR could present a candidate for the presidency of the Commission, a ‘Spitzenkandidat’ (see EUROPE 13386/25). Does this mean that the ECR will not support Ursula von der Leyen’s candidacy?
Nicola Procaccini – Next Wednesday, the ECR Party Council will meet in Brussels. We will be discussing and approving our campaign programme. We’ll decide whether to nominate a ‘Spitzenkandidat’, and if so, we’ll choose one.
Honestly, I wasn't in favour of a ‘Spitzenkandidat’, but I’ve changed my mind about that. In the Treaties, it is very clear that competence lies with the national States; it is the European Council that decides on the President of the Commission, and the European Parliament only has to approve him or her. This is not a competence of the EU parties.
However, I realised that if we don’t have one, everyone, all the journalists, would say “you’re in favour of Ursula von der Leyen or another ‘Spitzenkandidat’”. We are obliged to have a ‘Spitzenkandidat’ because it is the only way to underline our political identity and our political programme. It’s harder to explain our position, whereas with the ‘Spitzenkandidat’ it’s very clear. We are the Conservative family, with our values (see EUROPE 13377/21).
In the debate, it’s very difficult to explain EU politics, because everyone thinks it’s more or less the same as national politics, but it’s completely different! In the European Parliament, we have a different majority for each vote, in Brussels, each vote is a different story.
What is your opinion of Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission, in particular the Green Deal and the Pact on Migration and Asylum (see EUROPE 13388/11)?
We have a critical approach to the Commission’s work over the last five years, especially about the Green Deal. I think it’s more Frans Timmermans’ fault than Ursula von der Leyen’s, but the result is really bad. Everyone shares the aim of protecting the planet and the environment. The problem is how to do it, and they’ve taken a radical approach to achieving a good target. The path proposed by Timmermans was really bad for many reasons.
We share the protests of farmers, seed growers and fishermen, because they feel there is an overflow. Those who only go out into the countryside on holiday want to give lessons to those who have lived and worked there for generations, like farmers. The farmers are the real environmentalists. Their products need a quality standard, because that’s the only way they can sell their product and feed their families. For the Left, this approach is in some ways a surrogacy of socialism, the aim of which is to force on people a particular way of how to get around, how to eat, to dress, to work, etc.
Regarding immigration, we are critical, because we think this approach is bad for both migrants and our cities and societies. The idea to open the door to everyone is very dangerous for migrants, because this approach puts their lives in the hands of smugglers. It is also very bad for the cities which have to welcome these people. We think that the Commission has made a lot of mistakes, which is why we want to change this approach, remove these mistakes and to give back to nations their competences.
In reality, the main problem has been this: taking competences from the Member States and giving them to the EU, and thus forcing the Treaties, which are very clear about what falls within the competence of nations, what falls within the competence of the EU and what falls within the competence of both.
I think the main issue at stake in the European elections is the distinction between those who believe in a United States of Europe, in some kind of federalist superstate, and those who, like us, believe in the original idea of the EU, a confederal system, an alliance of free nations working together on a few but very important things.
Our mantra is 'doing less, doing better'.
Is your ambition now to change course and undo what was done during the previous mandate?
Absolutely, yes. We want to change a lot of things. We need to focus on the protection of our borders, of the internal market and having a more integrated defence. The EU should stay out of the citizens’ lives on other issues.
Personally, I’d like to reproduce the Italian model in the European Parliament, i.e. have a centre-right majority. I’m optimistic because not many people understand that we already know that the new Commission will be centre-right. It does not depend on the June elections because the Commissioners are appointed by the national governments. And in the past five years, more or less everywhere there were elections, the centre-right won. Around 20 of the 27 Member States are governed by a centre-right party, so this is why we already know that the new Commission will be very different from the last one. In 2019, it was the complete opposite, with a centre-left majority.
Now the Council of the EU is centre-right, the Commission is centre-right, and only the third leg remains, and obviously we hope that it goes in the same direction.
In January, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, said that his party was ready to join the ECR (see EUROPE 13386/25). What would it take for Fidesz to be compatible with the ECR? Would it be a success to convince them to join the ECR rather than ID?
Fidesz has never made the request to apply. When and if they will make the request, we will have to decide with all the other delegations. On a personal note, I have got to know the Fidesz MEPs over the course of this legislature, and everyone in the delegation is a very competent man or woman. I have a very special relationship with them.