A lot was said about the European Parliament last week, not just in the specialised press, but also in the media in general. As its outgoing President, Josep Borrell, said, “The EP is now better known and recognised than before”. People are beginning to realise and understand that the Parliament plays an increasingly decisive role in the implementation and administration of Community legislation, and so has a greater and greater effect on the daily lives of ordinary people. The impact of this gradual realisation should be seen in an increased turn-out at the next elections, in 2009, which would make European democracy more mature, more real and more effective.
The events that caught the attention of the media and the public were many: the arrival of the MEPs from the new Member States, the change of President, the birth of a new far right Parliamentary group (with all the attendant controversy), the issue of where Parliament should sit, and the presentation of Angela Merkel's work programme. Each of these merits some thought.
Arrival of Romanian and Bulgarian MEPs: impact and prospects. Having acceded to the status of Member States, Romania and Bulgaria automatically have to have representation in the Parliament. The effect, obviously, is to increase the number of MEPs, but this swelling of the ranks is not in itself a good thing. It carries with it the risk that the EP could slide into a situation where it becomes a place for chatter and stance-taking, to the detriment of its ability to legislate on the same level as the Council, but with, in addition, the clash of ideas and transparency. The Treaty set a maximum number of 736 MEPs, the draft Constitutional Treaty would have taken this number to 750 (with a ceiling of 96 per Member State). In fact, these figures have been exceeded (something that is legally permissible on a provisional basis) because the number of MEPs has reached 785.
Is this too many? During the Giscard d'Estaing Convention, some commentators warned of the dangers of an excessive swelling of numbers. It must be recognised, however, that the Parliament managed its previous enlargement effectively (ten additional national delegations at the same time!), in terms both of its operation and what it achieved. Much is made, perfectly correctly, of the definition and approval of two texts as complex as the services directive and the REACH regulation (applying standards to chemical products). There is no reason to believe that the arrival of 53 Romanian and Bulgarian MEPs will not be managed just as effectively. It is clear that the future accession of Turkey (which would qualify for a far larger national representation) and other highly populated countries would pose other problems, such as, for example, the minimum level of representation for very small countries.
The arrival of the new MEPs has not upset the political balance within the Parliament. The EPP-ED group is still the largest (277 members), the Socialist group remains second biggest, and the Liberal group third, but it is strengthened, since it now has 106 MEPs. There has been, however, a change: the “Union for a Europe of Nations” group has slightly overtaken the Greens, with the arrival of six Polish and four Italian MEPs, who were previously part of the Independence and Democracy group or non-attached (see our bulletin No 9328). The Greens have been disadvantaged by the fact that, in the countries of the last two enlargements, “environmentalists”, while being very much part of the political landscape, are seldom organised into parties and, therefore, do not feature among MEPs as Greens per se. There is only one eastern European MEP, Ms Zdanoka (Estonia), in the Greens group.
Overall, the centre-right has been strengthened by the arrival of Romanian and Bulgarian MEPs. But, in reality, there has been only one visible effect, and it has created quite a few ripples.
The creation of a new far-right group has caused quite a stir. The very visible effect is that the extreme right has, thanks to the accession of five Romanian MEPs and one Bulgarian, reached 20 members, which allows a group to be set up, under the name “Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty” (for the MEPs who make up this group, see our bulletin No 9341). The status of being a group brings certain advantages on the organisational, financial and political levels, with, in principle, two deputy chairmanships of Parliamentary committees and increased rights to speak in plenary sessions. Other groups have reacted, rejecting all cooperation, and the Socialist group even proposing a “cordon sanitaire” to isolate the new group and prevent it from being given the deputy chairmanships of Parliamentary committees. Several MEPs personally regretted the fact that a new group advocating racism and nationalism has been formed within the EP. These different stances have in turn prompted other reactions.
It is obvious that there is nothing to say about the political declarations arising from this episode. Any criticism and all opinions are naturally legitimate, whatever their tone or content, and it is natural that we should all define the attitude we shall be adopting when it comes to collaboration and contacts. It is, however, far more difficult and even dangerous to formally question the legitimacy of the new group. Parliamentarians in the new group were duly elected according to the rules. Only their remarks can be legally challenged, or even banned, if they are in breach of the law. The new president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, has simply expressed the hope that the new group will assume its rights in accordance with the rules in force. I believe that a number of considerations, conveyed especially by the Greens Group and the Liberal Group, may be shared. These are:
a) Far right MEPs are not an invention of the European Parliament. They are, as Monica Frassoni puts it, a “sad reflection of the reality of today's Europe”. Most of these parliamentarians have held a seat at the EP for years now and “the fact that they are now organised into a political group will not give them greater influence - they will remain marginal”.
b) For those who believe the ideas spelled out by this group are unacceptable, indeed “vile”, the real combat will not consist in preventing its members from speaking out but in combating their ideas with the democratic method (Graham Watson) so that “there will be no such group after the 2009 European elections” (the Greens), through free voter choice.
One must not forget that direct European elections have not yet taken place in Romania and Bulgaria, and MEPs in Strasbourg were appointed by their national parliaments to reflect the composition of the latter. Within the next few months, new political elections will unfold in both these countries, and on this occasion the representations of the two new Member States in Strasbourg will be elected and may prove to be considerably modified.
Euroscepticism is part of parliamentary debate. It must be quite clear that reservation toward, as well as the suggested “cordon sanitaire” around, the new group in no way refers to the fact that MEPs making up the group are eurosceptics, if not sometimes opposed to European construction itself. The “Europe of Nations” Group has existed for a long time and, as its name indicates, it is opposed to integration and to supra-nationality, but no one has ever doubted its legitimacy or its right to speak out within Community institutions. What are being denounced as unacceptable are the racist positions taken (against immigrants or the Roma) or denial of the Holocaust or events of a similar kind.
This, in my opinion, is a point on which one should remain vigilant in order not to give the impression that forces within the European Parliament would like to prevent a number of public opinions from speaking freely, whatever opinions they wish to express. The principles included in the new group's political declaration place emphasis on ideas which are not in themselves only legitimate but which, as they are presented, are also shared by other groups: - recognition of national identities and differences, support for the heritage, culture and traditions of European civilisation (including “Christian vales”), a commitment in favour of freedom and human rights for all, respect of rule of law, opposition to a European super-State with, in addition, certain principles of governance concerning the good management of public funds and support of the “traditional family”. Who could say the new group is alone in professing such values and principles? All the more as its president, Bruno Gollnisch, has rejected the description of “far right” when describing his group. He states his group is “not against immigrants” but rather against “a mass immigration policy” and that it “recognises the rights of minorities, on condition that these respect the rights of the majority” (see our bulletin No 9341). Those who do not wish to give the impression that the far right is the only group to hold such positions, and that the majority of the European Parliament combats such positions, should not hesitate to bring this to the public's notice and understanding.
I shall complete this reflection on the European Parliament tomorrow, with two other aspects: - the new president as he takes up his new office, and the possibility that the Parliament will hold a formal debate on the matter of its seat.
(F.R.)