In the space of a year, the ‘von der Leyen’ majority in the European Parliament has repeatedly been challenged by the Christian Democratic group (EPP) going it alone, with its positions carried thanks to support from conservatives and Eurosceptics (see EUROPE 13697/1). This was evident in Parliament’s position on Venezuela, the implementation of the regulation on combating imported deforestation, and the launch of the work of the European Ethics Body.
How much longer will the Social Democrat (S&D) and centre-right (Renew Europe) groups be prepared to suffer the humiliation of being outvoted by the political family with which they are supposed to be finding compromises to consolidate European integration?
“Confidence between pro-European and democratic forces is being damaged more than ever”, warned the Chair of the S&D Group, Spain’s Iratxe García Pérez, during the debate on the motion of censure on the von der Leyen II Commission in Strasbourg at the beginning of July.
The Social Democrat and centre-right MEPs expect the State of the Union address to be given by Ms von der Leyen on Wednesday 10 September in Strasbourg to be a moment of clarification. “The President of the Commission must understand that we will not turn a blind eye to the EPP group’s double dealing”, said Ms García Pérez, calling for “clear signs of commitment” in line with her political family’s priorities, which include “social justice and ecological transition”. On Friday 29 August, she called for a new “platform” for cooperation between pro-European forces.
For the environmentalists, Germany’s Terry Reintke called for “serious and credible signs” that the Commission is “ready to change course”. The President of the Renew Europe group, France’s Valérie Hayer, struck a similar tone, saying that the State of the Union address would be “a decisive moment” that should “mark a change in leadership style - from unilateralism to partnership - and reaffirm the strength of the pro-European centre”.
It is difficult to know to what extent Ms von der Leyen approves of the assertive political stance of the EPP group chairman, Germany’s Manfred Weber. During the debate on the no-confidence motion, focusing her speech on repudiating Eurosceptics and conspiracy theorists, she was able to see that the majority that elected her was at crisis point.
In her State of the Union address, she will have to convince MEPs of the benefits of the trade agreement reached at the end of July with the United States on Donald Trump’s Scottish golf course (see EUROPE 13694/15). Its arguments will have to go beyond the fact that an agreement, even if unbalanced, would be better for European businesses in terms of predictability than the uncertainty linked to persistent trade tensions. A narrative is emerging that the EU’s failure to counter American coercive tactics risks damaging its credibility in subsequent trade negotiations with other global partners. It also remains to be seen what US promises are worth, with Donald Trump once again threatening to punish jurisdictions that regulate digital services.
Judging by the initial reactions from MEPs, Ms von der Leyen’s attempt to win them over will be no easy feat. German Social Democrat Bernd Lange, who chairs Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, deplored the “asymmetry set in stone” in future transatlantic trade relations. The attitude of MEPs to the European Commission’s proposal to reduce EU tariffs on US industrial and agricultural products, as a condition for reducing US tariffs on European car exports, will be indicative of Parliament’s perception of how the Commission has negotiated the trade agreement with Washington (see EUROPE 13697/4).
If she is to hold her ground over the long term, the President of the Commission would also be well advised to give pledges to the progressive wing of the House on maintaining the EU’s climate ambitions, social progress, tax justice and the fight against the housing crisis. By taking on the former co-president of the Greens/EFA group, Belgium’s Philippe Lamberts, as her adviser, didn’t the EPP’s ‘Spitzenkandidat’ praise the role of the ecologists in forming a pro-European majority? Or was it just a manoeuvre to secure her re-election?
In July 2024, Ms von der Leyen called for an end to the “bloodbath” in Gaza. One year on, it is clear that the killing and destruction of civilian infrastructure is continuing in the Palestinian enclave. Denounced by many European diplomats, the EU’s reluctance to take action in response to Israel’s repeated violations of international law is appalling. Over the summer, Parliament’s The Left, S&D and Greens/EFA groups urged the Commission to take action, going well beyond the timid proposal to partially suspend Israel’s participation in the Horizon Europe programme. It is time for the Commission, as guarantor of compliance with the European Treaties, to make the Member States face up to their responsibilities.
The new political year for the European institutions will be an eventful one. The radical left, which did not support the establishment of the ‘von der Leyen II’ Commission, has already announced that it will table a new no-confidence motion in September. Its co-president, France’s Manon Aubry, accuses Ms von der Leyen of having accepted a trade agreement that has “subjugated” the EU to Donald Trump’s America.
Nevertheless, it seems difficult to make ousting the European Commission via a no-confidence vote into a political project, except for the purpose of paralysing the EU institutions’ actions and adding more uncertainty to a geopolitical environment in which the EU is struggling to stay afloat. If the Commission falls to an unholy alliance between the left and the far right, it would certainly be a humiliating defeat for Ms von der Leyen.
But to put what in its place? A new process for appointing new European Commissioners by the Member States would then be introduced. Essentially, the political colour of the designated College would remain unchanged and its political agenda, supported by the same national governments, would remain unchanged. It would therefore be a question of pursuing almost the same policy with new faces. The EU would once again be bogged down in its internal squabbles for another six months, far removed from the day-to-day concerns of Europe’s citizens.
(Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)