The newly elected European Parliament is beginning to get down to work, and straight away on important issues. The formation of the political groups is, for the most part, completed (with some big surprises). Now, setting the agenda for the inaugural plenary session, at first sight just a procedural matter, will have a decisive effect on the appointment of the president of the European Commission. The sometimes bitter debate on this agenda can be explained by the scale of what is at stake (the first political decision of the new Parliament) and by the debating excellence of some of the protagonists. A reasonable procedure is still possible, if some verbal excesses are disregarded. Let us begin with a few thoughts on the new Parliament as it is beginning to look after all the to-ing and fro-ing that surrounded the formation of the groups.
1. Eurosceptics and anti-democrats. I do not believe that the election of “a large number of Eurosceptics and even anti-democrats”, to use the words of Martin Schulz, leader of the Alliance of “Socialists and Democrats” (we will have to get used to this new name for the Socialist Group) needs to be anything dramatic. Given that Eurosceptics and anti-democrats exist, it is better that they be represented and so cannot play the victims denied the right to express their thoughts. There are not that many of them anyway, some of their movements saw their vote go down and the only movement that openly opposed European unity (the one financed by Declan Ganley) has completely gone after its very poor showing: with a target of one hundred MEPs, one was elected.
True, the group around the British Conservatives, which presents itself as Eurosceptic, forms about 12% of the Parliament. Its members, however, say that they are not against European unity as such, but that they want an inter-governmental EU. Experience shows that, when in power in the UK, the Conservative party actively works on areas of European integration, its radical Euroscepticism often being no more than an electoral ploy. British Conservatives form half of this group, it should be remembered.
2. National influences. Jean-Guy Giraud, close and perceptive observer that he is, has assessed the influence that the various nationalities have in the EP's political groups. He found that the 99 German MEPs, concentrated in the four main groups, form the largest national delegation in each: 42 in the EPP Group, 23 in the Socialist Group, 14 in the Greens and 12 in the Liberals. Two other factors contribute to the clout carried by German MEPs: a) the majority (some 60%) have been re-elected, some more than once - they, therefore, have considerable European experience and have occupied important positions; b) only very rarely do they occupy an elected position in their home country (as is often the case in other countries), and this means they can devote all their time to their work in the EP. It should also be noted that voting in the EP is not often decided by nationality: it is political affiliation that prevails in most instances.
British MEPs find themselves in just the opposite position. Their numbers in the main political groups are very restricted because 60% belong to two Eurosceptic groups, which they dominate. These two groups, however, will have only limited influence on Parliamentary decisions. It remains to be seen how this situation might develop after the next General Election in the United Kingdom.
3. Cross-over between institutions. This is growing, Mr Giraud found: MEPs become European commissioners or Council members, national ministers become commissioners or MEPs, commissioners become MEPs or ministers in national governments. This trend is likely to have a positive effect because it increases knowledge and mutual understanding among the three institutions.
4. Development of the political groups. Changes in the make up and even the names of the groups are relatively manifold. The EPP has lost the British Conservatives but has gained all the Italian Freedom Party MEPs, who previously were to be found in a number of different groups. The Socialist Group has changed its name (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) to take in the members of the Italian Democratic Party. The new name and the disappearance of the traditional Socialist Party symbol are not to the liking of the older members, and a period of reflection on this issue will follow. In a few instances, the final composition of the groups is not yet complete, and if Mr Verhofstadt is elected, the group's stance might change, even with regard to the timetable for the nomination of the Commission president. These points will be discussed in tomorrow's column.
(F.R./transl.rt)